The Big Picture - Breaking Down ‘I’m Thinking of Ending Things,’ With Charlie Kaufman

Episode Date: September 10, 2020

The acclaimed writer-director Charlie Kaufman has returned with a new film, the disorienting, fascinating adaptation of the 2016 novel 'I'm Thinking of Ending Things.' Sean and Amanda are joined by film critic and Kaufman expert Amy Nicholson to talk about his work and break down the new film (1:14). Then, Sean is joined by Kaufman himself and the author of the book, Iain Reid, for a discussion of bringing this unusual story to the screen (59:53). Hosts: Sean Fennessey and Amanda Dobbins Guests: Amy Nicholson, Charlie Kaufman and Iain Reid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today's episode of The Big Picture is brought to you by the AFI Conservatory. As the number one film school in America, the AFI Conservatory is where artists become master filmmakers. Join the ranks of such groundbreaking alumni as David Lynch, Patty Jenkins, Carl Franklin, Rachel Morrison, and so many more. Apply now at afi.edu. That's afi.edu. Today's episode is also brought to you by Heineken.

Heineken Original Lager is made with pure malt and their famous A-Yeast, which makes Heineken an all-season, all-the-time kind of beer. Hopefully it's starting to cool down here in Los Angeles. Nevertheless, it's always a great time to drink a cool, crisp Heineken, pick up a pack, or have it delivered today and drink responsibly. I'm Sean Fennessey. I'm Amanda Dobbins. And this is The Big Picture,

a conversation show about, I'm thinking of ending things. That of course is the name of the new movie from Charlie Kaufman. And here to talk about that movie and the career of Kaufman, we've got a major friend of The Ringer. And the first time you've joined us for a conversation like this, it's Amy Nicholson. Hi, Amy. Hi. Hello. Great to be here. I guess if I'm going to be here, I should be here for the headiest, nerdiest, most beloved filmmaker that I adore. Yes, that is exactly why I wanted you to be here because you, as I understand it, you are the A number one Kaufman fan. Now, I'm a huge fan. I don't know

if Amanda and I have ever even had a conversation about Kaufman and what he does. Obviously, best known as a screenwriter, though he's a director in his own right. Amy, maybe you can just explain to us why you respond so much to Kaufman's work. Yeah, I mean, Kaufman is my religion. You know, what I love about him so much is I feel like he does two things in both of his films. One is that he just narrows in, I think, on all of the most horrible tiny parts of a human's personality. The things that feel so specific to you and yet are really universal. Everybody has these insecurities and moments of, am I a snob? Am I settling? Who am I? He figures out every little bit of what makes us weak and stay up at night. And then to bring those to life, he doesn't do it in this realistic, credible way of like,

oh, I'm going to be riding on a bus and staring out the window. And it's going to be very naturalistic and indie movie. He figures out how to tell these stories in a way that breaks movie format. That's always pushing the boundaries of what a screenplay and what a film can do. And so he's at once incredibly honest and then incredibly fantastical. And it's that mix of ambition just absolutely breaks my heart. I adore him. Yeah. I'm thinking of Ending Things as an interesting evolution or signal point for him. Later in this episode, I should say, I had a conversation with Charlie and Ian Reid, who's the author of the novel that I'm thinking of Ending Things is sort of based on, which we'll get into a little bit when we talk about the movie. But Amanda, what about you? I had some suspicions about your Charlie Kaufman interest, just given the conversations we've had over the years. Yes, that is true. I'm going to be revealing a lot about myself and my relationship to art and, you know, also my existence in this show, as we all will, because you can't talk about a Charlie Kaufman movie without getting into ideas of self and philosophy and how we relate to each

other and to movies. Sean, we have talked about Charlie Kaufman before. If we're going to put Chris Ryan on the spot, then I'm going to put you on the spot because Adaptation was one of my top five movies about making movies. And I love Adaptation. And I think I saw Adaptation at the right point in my movie watching life and also probably just like my cerebral life, which was in college, which was when I was learning about things like postmodernism and deconstructing the text and kind of pushing formats and everything that Amy was talking about. And when you're 19 and being like, whoa, you can do that. And I guess also like taking the requisite philosophy classes that every young undergraduate should take. And so I think of Charlie Kaufman as the person who really taught me how much you can push, not just a movie though,

obviously that's what he makes best, but like a piece of writing and the definition of being an artist and the relationship between an artist and a text. And I think that he explores those issues brilliantly. And pretty much anyone who tries to imitate what he does fails miserably. And that, to me, is the mark of a great artist in a way that so many people are like, oh, you can do that. I can do that too. And then fall flat on their face. That if your influence is almost negative in a way because it's created these ripoffs that are insufferable, then in a lot of ways that really holds up the art even more. And that to me is a very Charlie Kaufman quality. Yeah. The arc of his career is fascinating in that respect too, because he starts off in his early thirties as a writer on television after not working in

Hollywood for basically the first part of his adult life. And so he gets kind of a slow start into the space. I guess the TV project he's best known for working on is probably Get a Life, the Chris Elliott Fox sitcom. And he wrote a handful of episodes there and worked on the writing staff. And then he also spent some time working on the Dana Carvey show, the famously deranged sketch show that had a very short life on ABC, I think. And then I think he really comes to the public consciousness with being John Malkovich, which remains one of my favorite movies of the last 50 years. And I think in many ways introduced a kind of thinking before I was thinking about Derrida and semioticians and deconstructing the text like Amanda is talking

about. And even it's well before I had any sense of kind of postmodern cinema. It's if you see that movie at a young age, it can be very influential on someone like me. Obviously, it's a collaboration with Spike Jonze. He made a couple of collaborations with Spike Jonze. He made, you know, his collaboration with Michel Gondry, Eternal Sunshine. It's very well known. It's an interesting thing because one of the criticisms that I have heard of his last couple of films, which I generally don't agree with, but I'm kind of curious about your point of view on this, Amy, is that Kaufman is best interpreted by others and not himself. And Malkovich and Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine, I think, are widely considered his sort of masterpieces, whereas Synecdoche, New York, his directorial debut, Anomalisa, and I'm Thinking of Ending Things, there's a lot of admiration for, and people certainly

understand what he's going after now, but that he isn't quite doing the thing that, you know, other artists were able to provide for us when they interpreted his work. What do you think about that general thought? And which Kaufman do you prefer? Oh, yeah. I can say it up at the top of this that I'm biased because Synecdoche, New York is not just my favorite Kaufman film. It is one of my top two favorite films of all time, period. Wow. What's the other? Pennies from Heaven. It's a musical from the early 80s with Steve Martin. They're very similar. If you like Synecdoche, you actually might like Pennies from Heaven. It's a musical from the early 80s with Steve Martin. They're very similar. If you like Synecdoche, you actually might like Pennies from Heaven. I think they're basically

the same movie. One just has musical numbers. But yeah, no, I think that he does work well in collaboration with something like Anomalisa, where he's working with puppet designers who help him figure out how to realize his world. But I think for Kaufman, if you want the full experience, sometimes you have to just let him go down his crazy rabbit holes. I think there are some partnerships where who he is works really well, like Eternal Sunshine, where I think in Eternal Sunshine, you feel this fight happening in the soul of the movie, you know, that Kaufman is kind of cynical and kind of heartbroken about the ability to even be in love in the first place, whereas Gondry is just the biggest romantic on the planet. You know, Gondry is a perpetual

15-year-old who's in love for the first time. And those dueling impulses, I think, make that film really work. You know, but that won't work for everything that Kaufman wants to do. You can't put a Gondry spin on something like Synecdoche. I think you have to just let the man go where he needs to go. Amanda, what about you? Which do you prefer? The solo Kaufman, the auteur, or the man behind the curtain? Well, I think there's a difference between personal preference and also, you know, what is most representative. It will surprise no one to learn that I like the pop Spike Jonze interpretations the best because that's just who I am. I'm just like trying to go to the movies and like have some fun along with my philosophy and my questions of my own worth

and the worth of other people and relationships. And am I real? And are other people real? And is it all just like one big performance, which by the way it is, and that's fine. Maybe I'm also just like more at peace with that than Charlie Kaufman is. I'm just like, yeah, everyone's faking it all the time.

I'm not too worried about it. But I, I think that that is again, just kind of the best, the vessel that most speaks to like my particular needs and interests. And, you know, as Amy was saying, he is taking something that is so idiosyncratic and specific and making it available to a very broad group of people. But even within that, the way you translate those emotions and that very personal experience will vary and people will respond differently. I'm also a little biased

because I saw Synecdoche, New York, I believe it was on Thanksgiving and it was with my entire family. It was a spectacular, yes, Amy, I saw that look on your face. Thank you. Correct. It was a spectacular run of my father picking just like the most inappropriate, like really dour Thanksgiving and Christmas night movies to see with like me and my dad and my aunt and uncle. I believe also another Philip Seymour Hoffman film, The Savages, was in that run as well, which was also not a great holiday experience. So again, it's a little bit about where you are and what you're trying to

receive from these films. You know what occurs to me as I think about the totality of his work, and I'm thinking of Ending Things as well, is I'm thinking of Ending Things as really the first of his films that is not about an artist or a performer. Every other movie that he's written is about... Is it? Well, and that's maybe an interesting way to kind of talk about the point of view of the movie as well. But, you know, being John Malkovich, of course, is about a puppeteer. I think that there is a kind of performative life aspect to Patricia Arquette's character in Human Nature and the way that she is trying to kind of convert herself publicly. Adaptation, obviously, is about a screenwriter. Eternal Sunshine, Joel, is a kind of an artist. And Synexky New York, obviously, a playwright played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, Anomalisa, there is a kind of public performance aspect to that lead character who is, you know,

comes to, is it Cincinnati? I think to give a speech of some kind. That's right. And I'm thinking of anything that's about maybe, maybe not a much more solitary figure, someone who doesn't really have an audience, even though there are audiences in this movie. And it's interesting. I think I have seen some negative reaction in the second wave of reaction to I'm thinking of ending things. And the word that I've seen used the most often is self-indulgent, which I think is extremely stupid as a criticism for most art, but especially what Charlie Kaufman is after, obviously, because the interrogation of the self is the whole, that's the whole shebang. That's everything he's doing. So I think to hold that specifically against it certainly misses the point. I do think

that you could make the case that there are times in which he is overly aggressive in focusing on sort of the frailty of human life. He's not about the overcoming spirit. That's not something that he believes in. And I think you're right, Amy, that he's cynical. And that I do think that sometimes he can be buoyed by artists who are not as cynical. But the idea of adapting something is kind of what was most fascinating to me about this. I've read this novel. I like this novel. I think the novel is significantly different from the film, even if it's kind of structurally not that different. Have either of you guys read this book? I haven't. I mean, this is where I should confess my approach to Kaufman, which is, you know, I call it my religion, but I really do treat him like church in that

when I'm about to see a new Kaufman film, I don't know anything about it. Like, I didn't know anomalies to start puppets until it started. Like, I'm somehow able to go into a tunnel where I know literally nothing because I just want his interpretation to be the first thing I see. So, yeah. So, yeah, I haven't read a thing about it. I'm curious about it. So, Amanda, I specifically asked you not to read it. Yes, and I followed your instructions for once. Thank you. You're welcome.

The reason I did that is because I really wanted to get a sense of the interpretation of someone who just doesn't know the text. So I'm grateful that both of you don't know the text. I'll say that having seen the movie, even though there is a difference, I don't know. I think it would be hard to make hide or hair of a lot of the film without having read the book. And so I do understand when people watch this and say, I hated it, or I was confounded by it. And I think the idea that the fact that the movie is on Netflix means that so many people are going to see this movie, or at least going to start it. An uncommonly large number of people will watch a very peculiar Charlie Kaufman film.

And with the expectation that, hey, maybe, you know, the evil kid from Breaking Bad and, you know, the gal from Chernobyl are going to have a romance at some point. And that's obviously not what this movie is about. Amy, can you try to explain to me what you think this movie is about? Is there a way to do a plot summary from thinking of ending things? Oh, I can try. I can try.

I can try. So on the surface, this is about a girl going on a trip with her boyfriend to visit his parents. They haven't been together very long. She says six or seven weeks. And I say it's about a girl going because from the beginning of the film, you're in her head and her thoughts, you think, you know, and they go to his house. His parents are played by

Tony Collette and David Thewlis. And slowly, you know, thinking of the whole Netflix of the thing of people putting a movie on for five or 10 minutes and giving it a shot, which is what Netflix does. The first five or ten minutes I feel like are almost ordinary saving and maybe a little boring. And then once you're in the house, you realize all rules are bending in shape. You know, there's a dog that's always shaking its head and it's in motion. Time just starts to skip forward and skip back with his parents. Nothing that you think you know about the film winds up being tangible. You know, not even like the character's costumes will stay in place. And it just starts becoming this creeping thing where you're trying to figure out

the story. And is the story that, oh, now, see, now you got me. Now I'm like not even talking about the plot anymore. I stopped. Basically, the trip doesn't go well and she just wants to go home. Amanda, I know that you knew that this was not going to be an ordinary kind of narrative film, but at what point did you start to think, did you get confused at any point, I guess, is a useful way to think about it? Was there any point where you felt like you were purposefully being unnerved or you just lost track of where things were going? Yes, 100%. Though I just want to say, and I'm going to say this with no spoilers.

I watched this movie after seeing Tenet. And I just have to say, I was in a really interesting headspace. And I maybe picked up on some things a bit faster than I would have because I was just like, oh, what if it's like this? Anyway, yeah, I was super confused. And I think watching it at home on Netflix is in one ways, the ideal space to watch this movie, because you can go back. And to the extent that it's a puzzle. And as Amy said, things were changing all of the time. And there's like, you know, I definitely had the moments of being like, wait, her coat is a different color. Or like I'm at one point I'm like, wait, was Tony Collette just a lot older?

Or did I make that up? Because this is a little bit the downside of watching, you know, my attention span. And I was trying so hard. I just want to say, I knew that we would be doing this podcast and I tried so hard, but your mind wanders a little bit at home. So I'm like, I looked away for a second and then I'm just like, wait, did I make this up or are they different or are they old and you know to some extent I think that that is like like the intent and the joy of or the frustration of watching the movie and like I'll be honest I was frustrated a lot of time watching

this movie which I think is the point because you don't know what's going on and it also cultivates a sense of of horror and and dread and dread. I mean, just the premise is Amy described it, which is like going to meet your boyfriend's parents after six weeks. I mean, that is a horror movie in any context, but then like it, there is even within the first 10 minutes of them in the car, like things are not quite right. You know, the word maggots is said in a very upsetting way within 20 minutes. And I was like, oh, no, if this is turning like full maggots horror, I'm going to be really mad.

And I think the movie is trying to provoke you and make you feel uncomfortable and be like, what the hell is going on? That is kind of the point. And it's very effective in that way. Yeah. And there's something specifically different from how the film plays out than from the book. The book is a very short book. It's about 250 pages, and it's incredibly propulsive. And it's written sort of like a mystery page turn's thinking of ending things with her boyfriend, Jake. And that sort of leads her down the path of recounting some of the experiences that they've had together and, you know, interrogating the past. And subtly in between those things happening, you get a sense that there's been a suicide.

There's almost like an interstitial at the beginning of every chapter that indicates that someone has committed suicide. It's unclear who. And then also that someone keeps calling this narrator figure, this lead character on the phone. And so we do get the phone call from an old man in the movie. And this is a spoiler. So if you haven't seen this movie, I don't think you should listen to this podcast at all. And I'm just going to say that right now. And if you have seen the movie, keep listening. You know, the book ends with the revelation that in fact, this woman that we've been spending all this time with is actually just an old man who is a janitor at a high school. And the way that the author, Ian Reid, kind of conveys that information, I think is in one sense, kind of fascinating and very delicate.

And then the other sense kind of unsatisfying because it feels like you've arrived at the end of the conclusion of this mystery about what the hell is going on. Like this very curious trip to this farmhouse and then this very curious trip to a dairy queen. And then this sort of disorientation that is happening at all times. And you realize, oh, this is actually the story of someone who is, you know, maybe schizophrenic or struggling with a sort of mental health issue and that they're at their end of a long life and they're very lonely and they're reflecting on what is or what could have been or all of these different ideas. And it's like a big aha. And then you put the book down and you're like, is it an aha? And do I feel good about where this book took me and I've had a lot of debates with people that I've asked to read this book about over the over

the last couple of years the movie does something very different which is that the movie shows us the old man in the first 25 30 minutes of the movie and I thought that that was such a fascinating choice and I haven't heard people talk about it too much so I was curious when you guys when you're watching the film when you saw that character did did you immediately say, oh, I see this is his manifestation. This is something that he is imagining. Amanda is shaking her head. Yes. Amy, did you? I didn't. I mean, I think we see him even in the first minute, you know, she runs downstairs and you see a guy getting ready to go to work and you have these kind of parallel tracks happening right at the first time.

I mean, I've seen the movie twice. It definitely opens up a lot more on the second watch. Because on the first watch, I think because of the title, I was going in really thinking it was a movie about suicide. You know, that all of the time we think she's talking about the relationship, but she's really thinking about talking about ending her own life. That was the movie I thought was going to happen from just the first setup of it which is not the case i think um but but yeah to what amanda was saying in a way i feel like this

is the worst and yet ultimate netflix movie like he figured out how to hack the netflix code and that this is a movie you are not able to text during like you cannot be looking at your phone at all he figured out how to make in a completely riveting relationship ish sort of drama where there's not even a second you can tune out which is what i've always really liked about him as a filmmaker is that you know in the beginning minutes of synecdoche the way you just start to notice some fast forwarding time and like the calendar and the clock and the thing he has so much faith in the audience. And so to have that faith in the audience that he knows that you're watching and he trusts that you're going to catch up. And now on Netflix, you can rewind if you want to, which I definitely did on the second watch.

It's an interesting new medium almost, I feel like he's creating. Because there's not a lot of films I think are almost accidentally on purpose designed for rewinding like this. Yeah. So I wanted to ask you both about this because the thing that the movie does and can do that the book can't do is what some of what some of what you were alluding to earlier, both of you guys, the idea that Jesse Buckley's sweater seems to change at some point or her hairstyle seems to change at some point or the way that even just the way that the character is framed in a shot looks like it's at one angle. And we think that this is going to be the perspective that we're seeing them from. And then it shifts again.

Or the dog that is constantly wagging that unnerves us in a way. The book doesn't have as much of a handle on surrealism in that way. And the movie is like the ultimately rewatchable movie in so many ways. And I started thinking of this, we talked about it when The Ballad of Buster Scruggs came out. And I was like, the greatest thing about this is there's a new Coen Brothers movie out on Netflix

and I can watch it as many times in a row as I want. And it's also an anthology. So if I only want to watch one of the chapters, I can do that. And this movie is the exact same way where there are, if you care to interrogate it, examine it, you can kind of rewatch or re-explore different phases of it or different readings. There's so much source material inside of the movie. There's so many things that he is trying to comment on or

show us to use to either explode the premise of the movie or dig deeper into the character that Jesse Buckley is playing. Amanda, did you like the idea of kind of like being overloaded in the movie experience? Not in the moment. This like, I will be honest. I found it at times. I was like, what is going on? And or like, why are you reciting Pauline Kael to me? Which is like definitely a thing that happens. And they have like, you know, it is both a great Netflix movie

and it's puzzle quality. And also there are extended scenes where it's just two actors who are like very much sitting in a car, like talking at each other. And that's intentional. And I think like they rehashed the baby it's cold outside argument

from like 2012 for a reason, you know? But I also having been on the internet in 2012 was like, oh, I don't want to hear this again. Okay. I know that it's problematic. So I found, it was one of those things where in the moment I was a little provoked, which to me is always the sign of excellent filmmaking, because if you like, you want to get a reaction, even if it's not always like the fun reaction, I know that all things can't be fun in life even if I wish it were so um but then after the fact once I kind of more fully understood how they came together and I think like the the climax or one of the climaxes of the movies anyway does pull it together for for me a bit I was like

oh interesting and I understood at least a lot of the references and kind of what this movie has to say about our relationship to art, which is always a Charlie Kaufman theme and something I'm interested in. That clicked for me a lot more. And I was like, oh, interesting. And I think I've probably thought about it since finishing watching it a lot more, which is rewarding in its own way I think there's something slightly confusing but you're kind of along for the ride for in most of Kaufman's movies you know even though being John Malkovich and the seventh and a half floor is absurd or eternal sunshine and the technology that they've developed to erase a certain part of your memory is absurd. You never feel like you don't know specifically what is going on in the

story, even if there's time shifting or it's confusing. Synecdoche, New York is probably the closest where there are times in the film when something happens and it feels like he skipped a scene or he decided not to explain something to us. This is a little bit different in that I think being uncomfortable, being provoked is the point in a lot of ways. Do you agree with that, Amy? I mean, especially as a scholar of Kaufman. Well, I think with Kaufman, there's like right at the beginning, it's almost like you're going to Vegas. Like there's a level of buy-in that you have to do in a Kaufman film which to me involves trust like I give him my trust I trust that he's not going to just fuck with me for no reason you know which is trust I

don't give as easily to a Christopher Nolan you know I feel like I can I have not seen Tenet I don't know when I'm going to see Tenet but to compare you know a Christopher Nolan film a little lesser ones like Interstellar to this I to this, I feel like a Nolan film is like, here's a crazy cuckoo clock and all these pieces are going and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And at the end, when everything rings and dings, you have no idea what's happening. He is like, oh, the point was love is good. You're like, really? You know, like that was all of this was for that. Whereas with Kaufman, Amanda was kind of touching on this. I think in every scene, he has 50 different questions he's asking you. What do you think about this?

What about this? Over this? Have you ever felt this way? And you can almost pick and choose your own movie from this. You know, what are the questions that really speak out to you? You know, what are the questions that hurt you or the scenes? I mean, even that Pauline Kael scene. When I saw that scene, I had to text my boyfriend. I'm so sorry. Thank you for the scenes. I mean, even that Pauline Kael scene, when I saw that scene,

I had to text my boyfriend, I'm so sorry. Thank you for dating me. And here's why. Because the very first day we met, it was at a bar. I was watching the Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton second debate with a group of my friends. And he sat at our table. And he had just come from seeing Birth of a Nation, the new one. And he sat down next to me he had just come from seeing um birth of a nation the new one and he like sat down next to me and we didn't really know each other he's like i just saw this movie it was so great and i hate that movie and so instead of speaking to my the guy who would become my boyfriend i pulled up my review my negative review of birth of a nation and handed it to him on my phone and went back to the television to watch amazing i support you and

it felt like that scene was just kaufman looking through the camera at me and saying, hey, Amy, I see you. I know how you hide behind your written thoughts that you don't have to talk to people. I'm like, oh, God. Amy, do you define yourself as a Paulette? You know, sometimes I wonder if she would have liked me. And I feel like unless I knew that she would have liked me, I can't. But I really do adore her. My very first day I got to LA and I was an intern at the LA Weekly. The editor at the time, who I really adore, he told me he was not a Paulette and he did not like the Paulette types. I was like, well, here I am. I'm in your building now.

He made me feel on the defensive. But yes, very much. I think she's one of the greatest writers there is. I never agree with her. She's so observant. I feel like we're losing out on not getting to see her review of Kaufman film, all the things she would pick up on first watch. I never noticed a fly crew, like went into Belloc's mouth in Raiders of the Lost Ark until she pointed it out of the movie 90 times. What would she, what would she make of this? I don't know. She didn't really like weak men did she i think she might have struggled a little bit with kaufman but that doesn't necessarily mean

the reviews wouldn't have been fascinating i mean i was just reading about um what kaufman had to say about her and why he included so essentially in you know in the film at some at one point jesse buckley is exploring what we think is jake her boyfriend's childhood bedroom and in the bedroom she sees a copy of four keeps which is a collection of some of Pauline Kael's film criticism. And then on the return trip after they've completed this incredibly bizarre dinner and birthday cake, Jessie Buckley just starts reciting the review of A Woman Under the the influence, the John Cassavetes film, in what sounds like a Pauline Kael imitation. It sounds like she is affecting her style of speaking. And I don't know why, and maybe this is like why I'm doing what I'm doing for a living,

but I knew exactly what she was talking about right away. I knew the movie right away. I knew the review. I just picked up on it. And it's fascinating that Kaufman really admires Pauline Kael. I think he admires her based on what he said, Amy, for very similar reasons, which is that her intelligence is so radiant in her writing. You don't really always agree with her. In fact, you might disagree with her actively all the time, but she is so provocative. And in the same way that Kaufman is, I think that there is something like sad trombone about the depressed man writing about the struggles of the existential despair in life. On the other hand, when you are this talented, when you're as talented as Kaufman is, I think you can kind of transcend the sad trombone of that reality. And so even though this feels

like him leaning into that as much as possible, it seems like what he has done throughout the movie is dot the movie with different representations of those feelings. And ultimately what the movie becomes and what I think Lucy, Lucia, Louisa, you know, and to some extent, Jake, the things that they are saying and the things that they seem interested in feel like this agglomeration of influence, you know, film reviews, poems, movies they've seen, you know, musicals they've seen, ballet. There's all these cultural touchstones dotted throughout the movie, almost to the point of like, I thought of myself, obviously, because I too am self-indulgent, but I have a bad habit of just kind of listing all the things that make a thing.

There's a reason we do a lot of list episodes on this show because I want to be able to say, here are all the movies that are like that or here are all the movies that have that. It's a very bad habit for someone who is kind of insecure and wants to show that they know they, they have the information and they're aware. And this felt kind of like Kaufman to me, supersizing that idea of saying like, you think that the toxic man will lecture you about why you should read David Foster Wallace's essay in this great book. You're right. I'm actually going to put it in my movie and show you. And I think the same is true, uh, Amanda, for what you're talking about with the baby, it's cold outside bit. I mean, I think that that's a completely knowing act to say, this is what this dipshit would do. And I know that you know that we've all had this debate in the past. And so let's all recognize it together, which is a little 5D chess, I think, but it never,

it doesn't personally bother me. Yeah. The thing is, is that by the end of the movie, I understood why the baby is cold outside. And you're right that as the references pile up, like that, for me, the Pauline Kael recitation is when that theme of like examining influences and, and are we, what we consume and like, and do we exist other than the things that we like, you know, watch and invest our time in kind of clicked in because it's, it's not like she, Jesse Buckley is like, now I will recite this review from Pauline Kael. She just like starts talking. And then you realize, because you've seen the book already that, and, and because she

has previously like recited a poem that is presented as her own work, but then it turns out not to be. I can't remember who the poet is. Please forgive me. It's a woman named Ava HD who Kaufman spent some time with when they were in a scholarly camp of some kind, some sort of grant that they both had, and they met there. And so he just put this relatively unknown poem in this movie. Right. And Jesse Buckley recites the poem poem and then you see in the childhood bedroom, like the book with the poem itself, I guess that's when it clicks in.

Right. But so she starts doing the Pauline kale and you're like, oh, you're doing Pauline kale. I get it. Um, and then, and then comes the baby.

It's cold outside, which, and, and, and, and then I think comes the David Foster Wallace and a supposedly fun thing I'll never do again and it clicks in that it is once again self-aware which to Amy's point should have trusted from the beginning that it is self-aware like there is nothing accidental in a Charlie

Kaufman movie every reference every joke every shot he is like cramming as much in because he's got a specific idea. But I did find that the exploration of that idea of are we just like a, you know, agglomeration of influences was easier to appreciate after the fact. And I was still just like a little annoyed through some of these arguments again, which is part and parcel of the idea as well. Because as you said, Sean, he knows that this is what this type of person would do. And he's exploring like the limitations and the drawbacks of this as well as like the existential issues. Yeah. And I think it extends to this idea of, are any of our thoughts and opinions that we hold to us, do they belong to us ever at all? And he even, I think, goes into it on a micro level with just this idea of platitudes.

The second time I watched the film, the platitudes really jumped off. The way that the Lucy character uses platitudes to end conversations with Jake that she doesn't want to have to put cappers on things. And then you see his mom, Toni Collette, is like the queen of using platitudes all nervously and awkwardly. And it's almost just like he's making fun of plug and play ideas, plug and play conversation, and this inability to be present. Yeah. And I can tell you just even from having spoken to him, and he was a very nice man, I could sense his general exasperation with me.

And hopefully not because I'm a complete dolt, though I might be, but because I think having to explain yourself is kind of like an anxiety of someone that is frequently this intelligent and who puts a lot of their ideas into their work. And I certainly thought a few times of Antkind, which is Charlie's new novel. Amy, have you had a chance to read that yet? No, I'm terrified. I have to get ready to do it. I haven't read a review. I don't know anything about it. Oh God, I feel like I should take my earphones off at this point. Should I not tell you anything? I mean, there's a very relevant aspect of it that is not a spoiler, but would be meaningful to you. Okay. I don't want to

hurt you in any way here. Amy just honestly closed her eyes, bracing for impact. I just want everyone to understand there was a physical... I'm really sympathetic, Amy. I'm just going to tell you, okay? Just go with it. The protagonist of Ankind is a film critic. Okay, wait. I have heard this. It has slipped into my consciousness against my will. Yes. And I won't say anything else. I loved the book. I think it's hilarious. And I think if you receive it in that way, fantastic. I don't know that every film critic, it certainly feels modeled on a couple of contemporary film critics right now. That was my reading of it. And I wonder how film critics are generally receiving it. A few of them have reviewed it, but the book is very much just- They're touchy people. Film critics are so touchy.

They certainly are. Just like screenwriters, they share that. And so again, with the self-referentiality and the kind of circular logic that he's using, it feels like all of this stuff is kind of commenting on itself in real time. But he does one really funny thing that is almost inexplicable, which is there is a fake movie that is in the film. And we see the old man in the film watching this fake movie, which appears to be a kind of hacky romantic drama, romantic comedy. And it plays out, there's a diner sequence. It's very poorly written. There's a big crescendo moment, emotional climax with a big score. And at the end of the movie, which the old man finishes watching, it says a Robert Zemeckis

picture, which is just either a stray shot at Robert Zemeckis or not. And we can talk about that joke. And he has told a story a few times about that joke and why it's there. And he didn't originally have a director's name in the script, he said, but an assistant editor just took the title card from, I want to say, Contact and put it at the end of, and then they just left it in and he got Zemeckis' permission to do so. I'm not sure if that's true, who knows with a Charlie Kaufman story. But the thing that had me thinking about, and the thing that I thought about a bit when I read the book was, is the old man Jake? And is he reflecting on his past or a lost past or an imagined past? Or is Jake separate from the old man? Because in the book, you don't necessarily completely get that sense. But then in the film, he does some things,

particularly at the conclusion of the movie. He makes a big choice to have Jesse Plemons' character perform a song from Oklahoma that feels, you know, it's like a true denouement. It's an aged Jesse Plemons who does not look like the old man, but probably is representing him. Do you guys think that that character is one and the same? Or do you think that this is sort of more of a mass delusion? Amy, I'll let you go first oh gosh you know right answers only if he's not him i think they are tethered just by a shared insecurity you know i i think on second watch i watched this trying to figure that out. And then right at the beginning, that was my intention. I was going to watch it again to

figure this out. Like, is Jake the old man? And then right at the beginning, I got hit by a line, just opening minutes, where I think it's Jesse Buckley's character says, sometimes a thought is closer to reality than an action. And it suddenly felt like Kaufman was just kind of blessing me at the beginning and saying, it's actually not about, you don't have to worry about any of the puzzle logic here. It's all about seeing to seeing the emotion that you're feeling. And on second watch, like instead of trying to solve the movie, what happened is I thought about that line. I thought about the scene where Jesse Buckley is trying to explain her quote unquote paintings that you find out she didn't actually paint to the dad. And the dad is like, how can art have a point of view if there's no person in it?

How can a sad painting be sad if there's no sad person in it? You know, he made this big, this big, there's this big argument about what abstract art can be like, can you just think of yourself looking out at the world? And suddenly I decided, what if Kaufman has not made it all a movie, but he has made, I think like a moving representation of, of, of a painting. And by that, I mean, you know, for me, I think like you, you go to a museum and you stare at a painting and you think about your own feelings of it. You know, it stirs something in you and it feels very individual and it feels private. And that's how this film works to me. And I think he's explaining it the way through, like, don't, don't try to logic your way out of this one. Let it just hit you and put your, you know,

just put yourself here and see what you feel. Amanda, are you comfortable with a movie experience like that? Um, no, to the point that i like i think everything that amy said was like very smart and insightful and i would have answered the question completely differently which is part of the genius of charlie kaufman and my answer would have been far more literal and overconfident in amanda fashion um because i want to hear that because i think it's also true well you know it's a little but but the way that Sean asked his question is, I guess, knowing of me, but also smart of just, I'm not comfortable with that. So I have to assign my own meaning and provide a little more structure to the experience because that's the way I like to watch movies. Although a little bit, I think that's also what this movie is about

I think my literal answer to the question would have been that I think that like the Jake character is basically like a daydream memory combo of the janitor and it's like it's part memory especially with the parents and that's why like the parents are at different ages and different childhood experiences because you're bringing you know you think about the way that you remember things from your childhood or your or your parents and it's probably not consistent in terms of memory and memory is obviously another thing that Kaufman likes to explore in his in his work but and then I think they're the the character of the Jesse Buckley character and all of the things that she is going to achieve or that the Jake character is meant to achieve are probably like, you know, dreams or some regrets or things that didn't really happen for the character. And I think part of the reason that I believe that or the text-based justification for that is the janitor is shown watching various productions and movies throughout

the film, including at one point he watches a production of Oklahoma. And then at the end, you get the Dream Ballet, which is obviously as a reference to Oklahoma. And then at the end, you get the dream ballet, which is obviously like as a reference to Oklahoma. And then at the very end, Jesse Plemons sings the Oklahoma song. So it's a little bit about how you see yourself in the, in the world in general. And I guess kind of like how we think of ourselves and how we think of what we have achieved and what we didn't achieve. And then also like how we, how we watch a piece of art or look at a painting, Amy, to get back to your point and what we do see in ourselves in it

and what we don't and what we can project on and what we can't. But I don't know whether that rings true or whether that's just Amanda's experience of things, which either could be possible. I think the multiple interpretations is, the movie basically demands that. I think the multiple interpretations is the movie basically demands that. And I think that's a good thing. I think to have a more literal or more philosophical or esoteric definition or expectation of the movie is a good thing.

It's one of the reasons why, even though I think it's immensely frustrating, especially for most people who don't necessarily know what they're getting themselves into the first time, if you do give it a chance the second time, you will get more out of it. But one thing that's very interesting as far as distinctions between the book and the film is something that Kaufman has made a big point about, which is empowering, essentially, the Jesse Buckley character to be something closer to a human being and not just a kind of refraction of what could have been the kind of person that when quote unquote, Jake was a young man, he might've seen once in a

restaurant and then created this meta fiction in his life about what could have been. And, you know, in a book that works just fine because we see the, the, the, the world entirely from this nameless woman's point of view until the very end. In the movie, Kaufman wanted to imbue her with more humanity, with more character, with more realism, I guess, for lack of a better word. Do you think that she is a good character, a powerful or believable woman, I guess, is really my question. Because that seems to be what Kaufman at least explicitly is saying, is that he wanted to create a woman who felt real. You know, it's funny. When you first see that very first shot of her standing on the snowy street waiting to be picked up, she actually seems a bit unreal in her

outfit. She's dressed so colorfully, right? She looks like, you know, the fantasy kind of the color palette that you, you know, see in Kate Winslet in Eternal Sunshine. Like, I'm the dream 90s color girl. And then within the car, very soon, her colors start to fade and she becomes more realistic to me. At first, I thought she was just like, ah, it's me, quirky indie girl. It's tough because Jessie Buckley herself is an actress that I think has so much integrity. She can take that movie that she did a couple of years ago, Wild Rose, where she's like, I'm a Scottish girl who wants to be a country singer. Another ridiculous kind of character creation. And you're like, yes, I believe that because you are so good.

That sounds like a fake movie in a Charlie Kaufman movie by the way it does right and she's amazing and she should have gotten an Oscar nom I mean because that's just fantastic I love her so I don't know I mean that I can't when you ask the question I keep thinking about the warring moment really early on the car which I think to me was like the first sign that this movie was not to be completely trusted um besides the obvious that it's made by Charlie Kaufman whether where that she's trying to have her deep dwelling negative monologue that he keeps interrupting, that Jesse Plemons' character just keeps cutting her off.

And her determination to be sour and to hide her negative parts from him made her feel really real. You know, her determination to sulk. You know, I think that's such a human quality. To be like, I'd rather be alone in my misery than communicate with you. I mean, my knee-jerk reaction is no, she's not a real character. And it like rubs me a little bit the wrong way.

Frankly, the way a lot of the female characters in Charlie Kaufman movies do. And, you know, as Amy referenced, the Kate Winslet eternal sunshine of this. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind yeah got it um i mean that's classic man i pixie dream girl right there so and and and i think there is a kind of a literal again i'm sorry to just like to be the really like boring text-based killjoy in this conversation. I mean, I guess be true to thine self, but in this movie. That's what Kaufman would want from you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Amy, for your support in me being really boring. But the character herself is ultimately revealed to just be repeating text and ideas of other people.

She is like a dream girl of references and ideas and created. And that's intentional and thought out itself. So I don't want to imply that there's not interest in the female character or intentionality or thought. But I think like every other character, she's ultimately like a projection. And this is ultimately told from the perspective of like the the male sad male who is really into David Foster Wallace and like keep seeing like the three mean girls from the the fake Dairy Queen. And, you know, and you had you have to think about the way the rest of the women are used in, in this movie? It's ultimately centered on him. That doesn't mean that it's not an interesting performance or that there's not an interesting element to the, I don't want to say character because that's the thing. I don't think it's a character. I unpack. Obviously, consciousness and the unconscious is everything that Kaufman is about. I mean, that's being John Malkovich is about entering someone else's consciousness and

then what that means and the fusion of those two things. Adaptation is about dual consciousness and splitting yourself. And this movie is very much the same way. And his relationship to female characters is interesting to me because in so many movies, they seem like representations of something that he just can't relate to, that he desperately wants to be appealing for, but doesn't quite know how to lock in on that. There's a sadness. Now, Kaufman is married now and is an adult man, is very successful. So it's not necessarily a personal reflection of his relationship to women, but you can't watch Adaptation and even Synecdoche, New York and look at the relationship that the primary figures in those films have and not worry about his I and I think a lot of men who would at least deem themselves to be somewhat sensitive and kind of blown away by his vulnerability and his willingness to show that he feels completely adrift and does not know how to relate to most people but on the other hand

that's not necessarily like an excuse for bad action is that kind of vulnerability and sometimes he puts his characters in positions where they do things that are just terrible. I mean, the lead figure in Anomalisa is like such a flawed man who makes so many mistakes and is like borderline abusive to the other people in that film, all of whom look and sound like David Thewlis, which is a whole other conversation we can have another time. And so I'm kind of at war with myself about whether I think he's like a really radical and progressive person when it comes to the idea of the relationship between men and women, or if he is basically like a baby boomer who doesn't totally understand. I mean, he's 60 years old, you know, who doesn't necessarily totally understand how to relate to

the opposite sex. So I don't know. I'm sure you both have different interpretations of it. I could keep throwing questions at you guys and be like, what do you think? And then Amy can say her thing. And then Amanda can say her thing that is a complete opposite, which makes for an interesting conversation. But what do you think? I mean, my interpretation is, I think you could take like say Anomaliza, for example, and switch it around and have it be from the perspective of a woman. But I think he doesn't trust himself enough to write a woman with justice. And so I think he does write what he knows, but I relate to that movie so deeply and the same thought in it.

Like, I think he doesn't, he doesn't, he's not going to be writing like Wonder Woman 2, you know? Like, he is going to be writing his own weaknesses. And I find them to be universal, even though they're coming through the perspective of a man, you know? And what you never see in any of his movies is him trying to connect with a football jock you know or like a like a tough dude like characters male characters he can't relate to don't even exist but he's compelled to try to have love in his life and that is represented through women

i think that's very well put yeah i could i agree with with Amy that there is like such a specificity to it and you know to some extent a lot of his movies are about not being able to relate to anyone and also himself and he is he happens to be a man and so to the extent that he is interested in love and has like he's

very cynical but also has a sentimental streak then these characters that he doesn't quite understand who in this case are women just because of how sexual and preference and gender preference shook out in this particular arena. To me, it's okay. And so I can understand that he's exploring things that he doesn't quite understand or can't connect with and find real insight in that. While also holding in my head that, you know, that's maybe not like a full-fleshed woman. But that's just because he doesn't totally, he can't fully understand someone else. That's okay. No one cannot fully understand anyone else.

That's the thing. When you open Pandora's box of consciousness, you get held to this higher standard. This is an Academy Award winning screenwriter. He might be the best screenwriter alive. But as soon as you start asking these questions, you get held to a different standard because you make us aware of the fact

that you're aware of the questions. In fact, you might even let us know that you can ask such questions in a movie, which is, that's really the thing I think that I respond to over and over again is not unlike what you were saying at the top of the conversation, Amanda, the, oh, you can do that. You can actually say out loud that awful thing that is in the back of my mind that is scraping the back of my brain and making me feel like someone who is incomplete or who doesn't have a handle on things or has anxiety or frustration

or confusion in my life on a day-to-day basis. And that's intoxicating for somebody who feels like they have a lot of problems, but also a bit terrifying to know that like your art also can be representative of those fears and concerns that you have. Let's try to wrap up this conversation. So one thing that Charlie said to me was, I guess he doesn't count Anomalisa as one of his films. He co-directed it and it was based on a radio play originally,

but he said he hadn't been able to get a movie made in 12 years. And he sees this as his swan song. And, you know, there's been some news that he's maybe adapting a couple of things

for television that could come out in the future, but this would be an interesting way to go out as a filmmaker. Amy, how do you feel about the potential end of the Charlie Kaufman run? Oh, I think he's a bluffer. I think he wants to be begged to come back.

I think with every movie, I mean, in a way, I appreciate that with every movie he makes, he tries to say everything he needs to feel. I feel like Synecdoche, New York, he almost could have ended after that movie because he said literally everything about the human condition. And then he dropped the mic and walked away for 12 years. It was sort of like, I did it. What else? If you have, it's like the Talmud. Any question you have, it's in that movie somewhere.

Yeah. The last word in the script is die. It says it all. There's your whole life. You're done. I. It says it all. There's your whole life. You're done. I would like more of him. And yet he's a filmmaker that I feel I'm nervous about the day when he makes something I don't like. You know, I'm very scared.

Like, I think that's what makes me so scared to approach everything. Like, someday he will disappoint me. He'd probably look me in the eye right now and say, I'm Kaufman. I will someday disappoint you. All I do is disappoint myself. And so that scares me. It scares me a lot. You got to text me after you've read Antkind. I need to know what you think in the event that it potentially disappoints you. Amanda, what about you? In general, what do you think about what Kaufman has done? And if this

feels like a useful swan song, I guess. I mean, use is... We don't need to bring use into anything. That's unfair. I'm not going to put that on anyone. I want to say for the record, I super agree with Amy about the bluffing. And just in general, people are always just like,

I'm quitting. I'm never doing it again until they do it again. This is my last pod. This is it. All right. It's like, especially people in the arts, you feel depleted you're like i'm done and then then lo and behold six years later for whatever reason but i i do

think depleted is not an accidental choice of words there that this this movie does feel like um another mic drop another um sense of i like i have given everything and I have explored the limits of what it means to to remember and to make art and to try to see myself in a piece of art and you can understand like the leaving it on the floor quality of like I don't I don't really know else how to do this specific thing again and give of myself in this way especially especially given the end of this movie and what this movie says about creation and sharing yourself with others. So I can see it, but also we'll see. One last question. How do you guys feel about the animated pig? Amy, you go first. Oh God. In that line, someone has to be a pig infested with maggots.

Oh, aren't we all, aren't we all? And the maggots are all this cultural influence that we've taken on over the years. What a beautiful metaphor. Wait, I have to give the last line too. When Anomalisa came out,

I did a couple of those, you know, here in LA when there's award seasons, you like talk about the film with the filmmaker afterwards for audiences as they're trying to get publicity. And so I had to do one for Anomalisa. And because of that, I was on a text chain with Charlie Kaufman. And he sent a bitmoji. And it is just a treasured thing in my life.

He sent everybody the bitmoji agreeing on what time we'd meet. And it was just himself saying namaste. That's great. That's exactly, especially because meeting someone of that level, you know, you meeting your heroes. I don't know about you, Amy. It makes me extraordinarily nervous. As soon as you said I did it, I was on a text chain with Charlie Kaufman. I was like, oh no, protect Amy, like protect your love. But that's great that it turned out the way you want it with a bitmoji. Amanda, I'm not going to let you duck the animated pig question. I just, why do we have to bring maggots into it? I don't even care. The animation, I was like,

all right, we're exploring like, you know, forms and what everyone can be. Sure. Why not? But like, I just didn't need maggots in this. That's where I'm going. In terms of things that I'm not interested in, maggots up there on top. Can't believe I've said it this many times on a podcast. I'm not going to say it again. What an amazing way to end this segment of the show. Amy, I'm so glad you were here. Thank you so much. There was probably 50% less maggots content because you were a part of this. I appreciate you. I'm always glad to be responsible for fewer maggots. Yes, Amy, thank you. What shows are you doing? Do you want to tell the world where they can hear more of you? Oh, sure.

Unspilled Season 2 just started. You know, Unspilled Season 1, the show that I do with Paul Scheer, we went through the entire AFI Top 100 list. We finally finished it. We finally finished the entire AFI 100 list. And now we are very seriously just rebuilding a better 100 list by going on mini side quests you know this month we're still in the middle of doing a thing on school movies and so we're doing cooley high stand and deliver we're doing um fast times at regiment high a

bunch of classics and yeah we're just like going to try to watch everything and build the most one perfect perfect 100 list and then we are going to blast it off into space because this planet is dying. And once we have the perfect films, we will, I am not kidding about this, figure out how to blast them into space so they will outlive us. An unspooled satellite. Unbelievable. I love unspooled. Congrats

on season one. Season two is cool. Amanda, where can the world hear you? On the big picture? Where else? Yeah, the big picture. Jam session with Juliette Lipman. I don't know. Where else can people hear me? I don't know. In their nightmares, probably.

All life's a performance for Amanda Dobbins. Amy, thank you again. If you want to hear more of Amanda and I, we'll be back next week talking about a little movie called Tenet. Until then, thanks, guys. Before we go to my conversation with Ian Reid and Charlie Kaufman,

let's hear a quick word from our sponsor. Today's episode of The Big Picture is brought to you by Quibi. Missing a little thrill in your life right now? Look no further. Wireless is coming and it's available only on Quibi, a new streaming platform that offers fresh original shows. Created and produced by Steven Soderbergh, a big picture favorite of Haywire and Ocean's 13, comes a survival thriller like no other set in the Colorado mountains. Follow Ty Sheridan as he plays Andy Braddock, a college student stranded in a blizzard

after crashing his car on a snowbank with nothing but his phone to keep him alive. Experience this heart-pounding race against the clock from dual perspectives as you simultaneously watch what's happening to Andy in the real world and the events transpiring on Andy's phone. Catch Wireless on September 14th only on Quibi.

That's Quibi spelled Q-U-I-B-I. Download the Quibi app now and get a two-week free trial. Today's episode of The Big Picture is also brought to you by Heineken. Heineken would like to remind you that it's time for seasonal beers again. That's right, if you thought a cold, crisp summer Heineken was something, just wait until you taste the Heineken fall lineup. Is it a new product? No. Just the same great tasting lager that's perfect for any season.

Me, I like to sit down in front of my TV, crack open Heineken and watch as many movies as I can in one night. Heineken original lager is made with pure malt and our famous A yeast, which makes Heineken an all season, all the time kind of beer. So pick up a pack or get it delivered, whatever your style, and drink responsibly. I am delighted to be joined by two guests right now, Charlie Kaufman and Ian Reid. Guys, thank you for joining the show. Thank you.

Hello. So, Ian, you know I'm an admirer of your book. Charlie, I'm a huge admirer of your work. Frankly, I was very excited to hear that, Charlie, you were adapting this novel. And I'd love to just know why you decided to adapt a novel, because obviously you were aware of your relationship to the idea of adaptation, but not specifically covering something in this way. So maybe you could talk about when you discovered the book and what you responded to. Well, I was actively looking for something to adapt because I thought I might have a better chance of getting a movie made if I had something that was pre-existing to show to a studio because that seems to be the way it works these days. And this particular book was really intriguing to me and I love the dreaminess of it. And I also love the fact that it was small because I appreciated that about it.

By small, I mean it was few locations and few characters, but also because I thought I might have a better chance of getting financing for something that was small. So I think it was recommended to me by Amazon based on my purchase authority. So that's when I think it was recommended to me by Amazon based on my purchase authority. So that's when I found it. Ian, how did you feel when you heard that Charlie would be taking this on? Well, I mean, I was just thrilled and excited when my agent had sent an email saying,

would you have an opportunity next week to speak to Charlie Kaufman? And I told this to Charlie already, but I remember it well because I read the email and then I looked down at my desk to my little desk calendar. And the week, the next week was literally blank. I didn't have one thing. And I thought, yeah, I can probably talk to Charlie Kaufman next week. I think that's probably manageable. And so I obviously replied right away and said, yes, I would love that.

And she arranged a phone call and that was the first time we had any kind of interaction. Uh, it was just a phone call between the two of us. Um, and we talked briefly, you know, about the book, I would say only for about 10, 50 minutes. And then we talked for another, you know, 45, 50 minutes, just about a variety of things, books and movies and music. And I just left that call feeling, um, like I, I really like Charlie, I obviously had been aware of his movies and loved his movies and I'm sure they had, you know, influenced me somehow. But, um, after that first call, I felt like I, I, you know,

I appreciated him as a, as a person too, after having talked to him. And I then just became really hopeful at the prospect of this happening. Do you remember what you guys bonded over? What movies, what books, what you discussed? Yeah. I mean, Charlie, I actually, I don't specifically remember. I mean, I think the conversation sort of bounced around, i think more even than the specific um titles or or albums um it was just i think chart for in my for me anyway charlie's manner on the phone i had i had talked to i think three or four um producers you know before who are who are maybe potentially interested and they felt much more formal to me. They felt, uh, I was kind of nervous going into those calls because I'd never, uh, you know, I was just coming from the literary world

in Canada. I'd never had no ambition in the film side of things. So I didn't think anybody would have interest in this. So I was kind of just trying to navigate that. And it felt different when I, when Charlie and I talked, it felt much more just like two people having a phone conversation and, and just Charlie was really kind and nice to me. And so I remember that. I remember just the tone of the conversation and how Charlie came across to me made the idea of maybe working with him one that seemed to me really exciting. Charlie, because of adaptation, I think we have this idea of what your writing process is like, especially when you're adapting something. It's so unusual that we can almost

picture you doing your work, even if that's an exaggerated or fictionalized version. Was it agonizing to adapt this book in that way, or was it easier than what we've seen in the Nicolas Cage version? I think that that was a long time ago, very early in my career. And also, that was a book that wasn't a novel and didn't have a through line or a plot. It was about flowers. I mean, there was a little bit of a kind of story about this Guy LaRoche, but it wasn't the bulk of the book and um and I really wanted to do justice to it uh at the time I mean I think the conversation I had with the producer in the movie is pretty close to what the conversation was I was like why can't I do a movie where there's no story where nothing happens where it's about the history of orchids and and

you know all the sort of um just sort of moves around and, and, you know, all of the sort of, um, just sort of moves around and into these different worlds of the collectors and the, you know, and the criminals and the court cases. And, um, and I didn't know, I mean, I didn't know how I was going to do it. And ultimately I, I failed at it and I struggled with it and I couldn't, I couldn't move on it. And so that's when I started thinking about incorporating myself into it. But I mean, I have adapted other things before. Most of them have not gotten made, but I've done it over the years, mostly as assignments, not for something for me to direct. So, you know, it was the same issues. There was a story here. You know, I knew where it was going.

There were characters. There were issues for me that I had to sort of address for to make it into my thing, which is did this work and it's in my charge and I have to kind of, you know, do it. And but I've come to decide over the years that in order for me to do something, I have to kind of bring myself to it. Otherwise, it's boring. Otherwise, it's not. It's going to be like a cardboard copy of what this thing was, as opposed to a living thing. Which is, I think, something I learned in doing the movie Adaptation, which is a very extreme example of that. But it is an example of how do I bring something to life? And how do I translate it into this other form? You know, Ian, when I read the book, I certainly thought it was unfilmable, so to speak. That's something you hear about a lot of novels, especially novels that are

headier or that operate inside someone's mind, or there's a sort of a narrator figure like this in your book. Did you think after it was published that it would be adapted at any point? No, no, I really didn't. So, I mean, when I started writing the book, I remember I had to have a conversation with my agent just to let her know that I sort of stumbled across this idea and I wanted to follow through with it. And it was unusual and it was unsettling and it felt personal to me. And, um, and I wasn't sure where it was going to go. Um, and she encouraged me to keep, keep writing it. She said, it seems like this is something you have to do. And it seemed to me as I was writing it, it seemed, I think the farther along I got,

the more interested in it I got. But also, it seemed sort of more unlikely that even I would find a publisher because it was getting very strange. And there were aspects of it that were a little bit experimental and philosophical. And I didn't think many publishers would find that appealing. And also, again, coming from Canada, I didn't have an publishers would find that appealing. And also, again, coming from Canada, I didn't have an American publisher at that point. And so I definitely had no thought or ambition on the cinematic side. I'm a big fan of film and movies. I used to help out at the Little Cinema in Kingston, Ontario, where I live.

And it's a little three cinema theater, and I love it there. And so I love movies, but no, I never had that in my mind. I think the novel, by the end, because I don't write with an outline or anything, by the end of it, it was very internal and very philosophical and definitely unsettling. And I think there are moments of suspense but yeah i think any any interest from the film side was surprising but then especially when you know when when charlie reached out and it was someone who i who i really admired i was i was completely surprised and even that felt surreal i mean just the fact that then i was you know sitting at my little desk talking talking to Charlie on the phone about my book felt, um, I never could have imagined that. Charlie, you're very faithful to the spirit

of the novel and quote from it at times, but you really kind of explode or supersize the premise. So I'm curious when you finished reading it, what were the challenges that you mentioned? And what were the things that you decided you wanted to add to make it personal? I'm always looking when I'm dealing with kind of surreal or dreamy or just odd story lines to find something that I can anchor it to in the real world and I felt like because there's so much time that's in the car in this story and there's so much going on between these two people that I needed a certain specificity to the young woman and to their relationship and I needed to understand what I could tell the actors they were doing in the real world, even though there's this other element to it that is not the real world.

It's like, what is this relationship? And I wanted her, I wanted to give her some agency and some autonomy. And I wanted her to resist and ultimately resist completely what he was insisting she do and so there is that progression towards the ultimate resistance um and uh so then it became for me a great deal about romantic projection and like the idea that you're in a relationship and it's new and you've got these ideas about what the other person is um and it and they feel because it's new, and you've got these ideas about what the other person is, and they feel, because it's new for them too, kind of flattered that you're interested in them, and they want to be this thing you want them to be.

But in the end, you cannot be this thing, and there has to be a resistance to it. And I wanted that to be the dynamic between the two characters and the two people in the car. So I feel like that was something that I maybe elaborated on. That I saw in the, I mean, I saw it in the book, but I elaborated on it. I gave them more of that. And in so doing, I kind of was,

it left me free to change the ending a bit and give her the ultimate agency that I feel like she deserved as a human being. And it is, as a practical thing, a good thing to do for actors because it gives them something to play. And in a concrete story, that's being where people are cast as characters in a book. It's a different thing. It's a different thing for the audience to witness that than it is for them to read it in a book. So that was, I think, a big part of what I was trying to do. Ian, you mentioned, you know, the novel has elements of suspense and you're kind of ratcheting tension as the story goes along, but also ratcheting, you know, a little bit of confusion in the narrative and it's propulsive. Charlie, I feel like the movie is disorienting and sort of unmooring you all the time and showing us things that may or may not be there.

And we're trying to kind of wrap our arms around things. Is that something that you guys discussed? Like how to kind of differentiate some of those ideas visually? The idea of that, and maybe not all of the specifics, but I think that's in the book. That's something that I responded to. There's a kind of a shift. Am I correct about that, Ian? It's been a long time since I read the book.

But I feel like there's a shifting reality in the book as well. Yes. Yeah. And also, I think, Charlie, too, like what we talked about, you know, the book really, I think, for me, more than anything is about questions. And to me, some of these questions are philosophical by nature, but they're also, I think, as one question leads into another as opposed to an answer, suspense builds. And I think that, to me, is why the story in the novel ended up being suspenseful and unsettling is because some of these questions lend themselves to that um and it was kind of again interesting for me then to see how that how that got when charlie when you took that and wrote the scripts how that kind of um how some of those questions came out in the movie as well but because you said the same about the film right that you feel like it's it's really about questions more than answers yeah and i think it's really i i think it's also about interpretation and you know like there i think it's open to interpretation and i and i feel like that's important to me um which yes which which also again is is like the book yeah it's really there is no wrong way to interpret it that you

just you know if you spend time with it you have as much authority as either you or i do to interpret it in your way exactly can i fling one of my theories at you guys then about the movie? Yes, please. So, Charlie, you include all of these references to art. There's Wordsworth and Christina's World and the Anna Kavan novel and Pauline Kael's review of A Woman Under the Influence. All of these ideas, and they all seem to be kind of about female oppression and isolation.

And is that the right track? And Ian, do you even recognize those ideas from your book when you see this stuff kind of expanding into the movie? Yeah, I do in a way. I mean, I think I can remember someone, an early reader of the book, an editor actually who had read it a friend of mine who said that she thought almost more than anything the book was about the writing process and i i was surprised she had that was in my head a little bit you know there's there's always a variety of different things when you're

working on something that different uh threads of of threads of reality and focus that you have as you're working on something. And that was in my head, struggling with certain things as someone who spends their time writing. So I think, again, for me, that was certainly part of the novel. And then to see how that came through in Charlie's version was interesting for me. And Charlie, what about for you? I mean, can you just talk a little bit about the decision to include all of those flashpoints, those references? Yeah, I mean, I think what you're saying is correct. And I also think that it does come back to the idea, oppression comes back to the idea of projection. You can be oppressed by someone's projection. In fact, you will be oppressed by someone's projection in fact you will be

oppressed by someone's projection so yeah there is a great deal of of oppression um in in in this movie that is being um that is being progressively resisted um by that character um and also that whatever oppression is present also turns itself back on the person who oppresses. And I think that that's where Jake as a character is. It's isolating. There's no real connection in his life to anything because it's all about these ideas that he's formulated about other human beings, about himself and his relation to other people.

Charlie, did you think about things that you wanted to do to make it purposefully more cinematic as a story? Because obviously you incorporate musical theater and dance and a couple of other things into the film the film that you know would not are not in the in the book necessarily i mean you know uh wukash sol and i and he's the dp uh talked a lot about how to how to translate this into a movie and we're both concerned because it's because the um environment is so contained that we not be dull um and we had some ideas uh about how to conceptualize the notion of something that's in somebody's head which um which we utilized and uh and there and those are specifically cinematic they're not things that could work as in a book um a certain thing about how the camera's moving

and anticipating um different things which is something that might happen in, if you were imagining a scene, you're also, you're also ahead of yourself in imagining what the next thing in the scene is going to be. And the camera plays that role. So that's one of the things we did. I wanted to ask you guys both about creating expectation and the idea of

readers or viewers of a film trying to solve the thing that they're watching or reading. Ian, I think a big part of the novel that is so effective is people trying to figure out what is really going on here. Like, why do things feel so wrong? And is there kind of a solution to this lack of clarity that we have? And Charlie, I found like you took a slightly different approach to this and did not necessarily seem to me as interested specifically in the solving of the thing. It's a little bit easier to unpack, but I read the book for us on the movie. And so I have more information than some people who are just coming to the film. Ian, can you maybe talk about setting expectation for a reader and kind of withholding? And then Charlie, maybe the decisions you made that are, if I'm right about this,

that they're slightly against that. Yeah, I mean, I think I try not to have too many expectations for a reader when I'm writing. And I want to think as much as possible about the story and what is working for the story. And again, what kind of feels right for me and kind of, you know, go from there. And, uh, I do think that, you know, a book like this, it's interesting for me to see how different people, um, after they read it, some people refer to it only as sort of a thriller, um, or a psychological thriller, which for me never really was the case in my mind when I was writing it. Um, I, you know, I think some people call it a horror novel. Again, for me, that's not really what I had in my mind.

It was, for me, sort of just a short literary novel. And I remember telling, again, talking with my editors when it was done, and we were talking about different parts of it. And I made reference to that, something about literary suspense or philosophical suspense. And I think both of them were a little bit, um, not pleased with that. Cause they didn't feel like you could sort of market that at all. I think,

you know, they want to know, is this a thriller? Is this, and I understand that impulse from a publisher because, um, but I, I didn't have that expectation.

I didn't even necessarily think of it as having any kind of twist ending. you know, again, I think a lot of people maybe have talked about that. And some people even have said oh i you know i read this and i figured out the twist ending halfway through and to me it's not about that it's it's it's it's really just about a story about these people and and kind of the journey that they go on and presenting questions that for me at the time i wrote that were kind of

important personal questions stuff that i was thinking about and so i wanted to write about it and charlie did you think the the sort of the quote-unquote twist ending and the revelations that some people took from the book it feels like you dispatch with that in some respects yeah i mean i was i i didn't want i feel like it's a i feel like it's a different animal a movie uh from a book and i felt like i didn't want the I didn't want the road to lead to that, you know, with this thing, which is perhaps a reveal or a twist. I didn't want it. I mean, it was, it was the, it was the construct that I was dealing with, but I wanted there to be, I wanted dispatch with it to sort of like say, I think that you can, you know, understand early on if you want, or if you, you know, if you're, if you're sensitive to it, that this is what's happening. And then, therefore, what else? And that's why I wanted to root it in this stuff that interested, all of which is in Ian's book. You know, it's all there.

It's all part of the book. But I wanted this to come first so that you weren't looking in the way that I think people have been with Ian's book. Not always, but, you know, considering what he's saying, that there seems to be this, like, search to find out what's going on in some cases. And I didn't think that was going to be effective in a movie. So the aspect of it being very interior, the aspect of it being an interior monologue, but not really the interior monologue you think you're listening to, is fascinating to me. And that's in Ian's book.

And I wanted to pursue that aspect of it and kind of put that forward in the movie. Charlie, I've gotten the sense that in revisiting your films, you're getting increasingly impatient with standard narrative devices in movies. And even in this movie, you're capturing some things that Ian is doing, the sort of finishing each other's sentences or correcting each other's sentences and this idea of the collision of identity at times. And then there are these long stretches of dialogue you know there there must have been pages and pages of scenes single scenes of dialogue i mean do you feel like the movie is kind of a manifestation of how you feel at this point about just making a movie like what it's like to make a movie yeah i mean i'm always i'm always ever since i wrote being john malikovic i think you know it's always in my head oh i can't do this therefore i must do, you know, it's always in my head, oh, I can't do this. Therefore, I must do this.

You know what I mean? This is not acceptable in a movie, so I'll do it. And I'm constantly in my mind pushing that. And so, yeah, I mean, like I wanted this poem in the movie. The poem is long, you know, written by Eva H.D. A friend of mine wrote this poem and um and i and i think that and the poem was not written for the movie but it so pertains to the movie coincidentally perhaps um that i wanted it i want i wanted a poem and i wanted this poem and i didn't want to truncate it

i didn't want to like you know just like cut away from it. And I wanted the whole poem in there. And it felt like you can't do that. So I did it. And I feel like that is Yeah, it's constantly like, yeah, it's in a car. There's lots of talking. I'll do that. I don't know if it's an impatience. But maybe it is maybe it's like, I'm tired of movies. And so, you know, I really felt like this was my swan song, maybe more than anything else I've done. Like this is my last chance to do a movie, and I don't really care if it leads to another movie. So I'm going to do exactly what I want with it. And it's a fun way to do it.

That's so dramatic. Do you really see this as your swan song? I haven't gotten a movie made since 2008. So, you know, and like all of us, I'm getting older. So it's not unrealistic to think this,

that this would have been my last movie, you know, and it still might be. And I'm fine with that now. And it's not like a, I think I had a kind of like a sort of an anger and bitterness about it in the past that I couldn't get things made but I don't feel that way anymore I mean I'm I just I hope people don't associate Ian Reid then with like Charlie Kaufman's last movie or like him stepping away from movies that would be

kill Charlie's career Ian exactly because I was a fan before, so that would be troubling. Ian, on the flip side, can you just talk about the experience of seeing something that you helped to create become actualized on a screen? Yeah. I mean, it's been a wonderful experience. And I think one that's heightened because of that lack of anticipation or that lack of expectation beforehand, it was all completely out of the blue and a surprise. And so I just kind of went along with it. One, I think because, as I said, from that first call, Charlie and I seemed to hit it off. And, you know, I appreciated the way he has approached to work and to film and art. And I enjoy talking to him. And so that I think, and the fact that he was very nice and kind to me and generous with his time. I think anything that we do in,

in life, any kind of work is, is heightened by working with people who are like that, who are generous and kind. And so I think just that in and of itself made the process for me worthwhile. But then from the perspective of just learning about film and how a movie is made and how to write a screenplay, and I'd never seen anything I'd written before adapted.

I had only probably read about a handful of screenplays in my life. So to read this screenplay that was sort of adapted from my own work was fascinating. And I loved reading the script. And, you know, I loved talking to Charlie about the movie. Early on, we were sending, you know, when we first started talking about the possibility of making this a movie, we would just send actors back and forth and music back and forth over the course of months,

you know, different possibilities of, you know, obscure European actors who might play. And I think we both found that fun. And so just to see it through the whole process and then to be able to go down to the filming and see what that was like and see if I'd never seen a film shot before. So I got to see all the different. And for me, that was, you know, the stark comparison between being alone at your desk in basketball shorts, writing a novel for two years, compared to 100 people moving around a film set and all

the different jobs. And it was eye-opening for me. And I just learned so much in the process. And I think because I get along so well with Charlie, I like him and I appreciate his approach. It just made the whole thing enjoyable and pleasant. Charlie, I've been reading your novel, And Kind, which is hilarious and really just wonderful.

And I was wondering how you would feel about someone else adapting your novel. I'm actually doing that. We wanted to announce it today. I'm joking. Ian's directing. I'm writing and directing Ancon. It's an announcement here on the podcast now.

I want to point out, unlike Ian, no one has approached me to make it into a movie. Seems like it would be a challenge based on the 400 pages I've read. I would not allow it, I don't think. I don't know how to make it into a movie or even a limited series. So I feel it's unlikely somebody else is going to come to me with a plan,

if anyone comes to me, that I would find acceptable. So originally I had designed this as something that could not be made into a movie. That was actually my intention. So, and I've softened on that since, you know, I mean, it's possible it could be made into something, but I think I would have to do it if it were to happen. I would like to see it,

though I struggle to imagine it in some ways, but that's kind of what I feel like most of your things are like that. Something I said earlier about taking, um, a book, which is words on a page and making it concrete. And there's some ambiguity that you, that can exist in a book that makes,

that's very difficult for, to exist in a, in a, in a movie. Um, and there are things that will have to be answered in the course of the movie that I don't know if I want them answered. And I'm being vague about this, but there are ways you can think about this story that if you had to commit to something visually, you couldn't go back and forth on. Charlie, this is kind of maybe being oversimplified, but is there a novel to screenplay adaptation that you think really heightens the screenplay version or that you think that you particularly look to and think they really nailed this or they brought something special to this?

I mean, I don't read a lot of screenplays. So I'm trying to, I would have to look at a movie, um, and think, does that, does that, is that more interesting than the book? And I, I, nothing is coming to mind. I I'm, I'm sure there are. Um, I feel like I, I feel like I addressed that in Antkind, but I can't remember what examples I used. Um, and of course they weren't my example, they were B's. So I don't know if I would agree with him, but he does talk about the few exceptions where the movie is better than the book. And they might be conspicuously wrong

because that was often the way I, I decided what he would think. I can't think of anything offhand. I'm sorry. One thing I wanted to ask you both before we wrap is, you know, the film and the book are both subject to the kind of Reddit board analysis. And because this is a Netflix film, I,

I suspect Charlie, this may end up being the most seen thing that you make. I think if it's not, that's really, really sad. Well, you never know with the DVD market. But I think that there's going to be a lot of internet analysis of the story, of the novel, which you've seen over the years, Ian, and now of this movie, there's going to be a lot of screenshots. There's going to be a lot of gifts. How do you, how does it feel to know that it's going to be picked over in this way? Um, well, I mean, we don't know we're guessing it might be, but if it is, I don't, I don't know. I

mean, I, I like stuff like that. I don't have any don't know. I mean, I like stuff like that. I don't have any problem with it. I mean, it's interesting to me. People's theories are interesting. So, yeah, I mean, there are going to be comparisons, I think, between the book and the movie, too. I think that's going to be a big topic of conversation. So, you know, yeah. What do you think, Ian?

I mean, I think i like it i think that's you you spend time working on something and again particularly with writing it's so solitary and i in my mind again for me it's always like you never i'm never thinking too much about is anybody actually going to read this i i often don't really think that because it seems like such a long shot that people are going to come across your work and so the idea that people will come to the movie and come to the book and want to talk about it is sort of, to me, exactly why you do it. You want people to react and you want people to have strong reactions, even if that's like they hate it or if they love it. Reacting and thinking about it and talking about it, discussing it, coming up with questions and theories. I mean, that's why we do it do it i think in a certain way and to me that's that that's almost more satisfying than

anything yeah and i and i and to add to that for me it's like one of the reasons i don't want to talk about what i'm trying to do when i do things but i feel like i've talked about too much with this movie so hopefully um there's still stuff for people to argue about. I've already rewatched it and it's, you know, it demands many watches and even just going back through the book again, it's the same experience where it's on the one hand, it feels like you're hunting for clues, but on the other hand, you're just kind of letting the decisions that both of you guys made wash over you in a way that I think is really, it's unusual. It's one of the reasons why I love both things so much. Um, guys, we end every episode of this show with a question.

What is the last great thing you've seen? Have either of you seen anything special, maybe during quarantine? Well, I would say, and it's actually maybe relevant because it's connected a little bit to the question you asked Charlie, but it's something that I think about because it's both an amazing

novel brilliant novel and it's and it's an equally brilliant film in in my mind which is under the skin and so that's one that also I think uh demands multiple readings and viewings and they're so different you know the novel and the and the film they're they're very very different and I really appreciate them both. Do you have a preference between the two? Well, I read the novel first, and what I love about the novel is it's unclassifiable. It's a little bit science fiction. It's literary. It's a little bit of horror. There's elements. I don't think I have a favorite. I think I would probably skew towards the novel just because I like novels. But for me, it's one of the most memorable films of the last decade or 20 years and one that I just have returned to recently. So it's in my what he was thinking when he, when he adapted it, because it is so different.

And there's so different. There's so much that's not explored in the movie. I mean, consciously not explored in the movie that the book is about. And, and I, I think the movie is gorgeous. I mean,

it's gorgeous and stuff. His stuff always is, but I, I prefer like the novel. gorgeous. I mean, it's gorgeous and stuff. His stuff always is, but I, I prefer like the novel. Yeah. So you, I feel like the novel is so much, it's really interesting.

Um, it is. Yeah. And the ideas in it are really interesting and, and much more for me, much more terrifying. Um, and,

and I don't know, I would have made a completely different movie than he made uh right and i and i'm curious because he obviously had an idea and he was pursuing it and and i like i said i think it's beautiful um it's scary as well but it's it's like the whole the whole point of the book is missing in my mind uh. Yeah, it seems almost like a different point, I think. Yeah, yes, right, exactly. And I think what I... But I'm curious to know what the backer of those decisions is.

It's a neat, I think it's an interesting example, because to me it's one that they're both their own thing, and for me they're both very successful, they're both memorable and entities that you want to return to and think about so i yeah it's it's it's definitely in the top of my list yeah i'm happy to report that i i did in fact profile jonathan glazer during the release of this and asked him the questions that you guys are asking and i would not say i got a satisfactory answer to the questions that i was asking that's interesting because he because he refused or because he was incapable?

I mean, that's your interpretation. What do you think? I mean, I don't really know. I think some of it was elusive to him and some of it was just withholding. I mean, you just said that you don't want to say too much even about what you've done, Charlie. And I think that there was some of it was about that as well. But I had the same experience. I read the book and I was like, this was one of my favorite films as well but it's just not they're they almost they're they're there's something

missing between the two which do you prefer the book but it's you know it's okay yeah it's it's really it's pretty neck and neck honestly yeah yeah yeah um but charlie what about you have you have you seen anything recently that that impressed you or moved you? You know, I mean, I've, I've, I've seen this series before, but I watched it again recently. Um, it's this little thing called pen 15. Do you know this thing?

Yeah. I'm, I'm like astounded by those women, like how they are able to transform into that. Uh, I think it's really good. Um, and I'm just like really impressed with their performances and how they embody this younger version of themselves so seamlessly and coexist with these actual children that age and don't seem out of place at all.

So, yeah, I mean, it's probably an odd choice for me, but I just finished watching the first 10 episodes again. So, Ian, have you seen this thing? I have not, but this sounds compelling. These two women, who are probably in their 30s, I guess, play 13-year-olds in junior high school among actual kids that age, and they're best friends in this in this story and it's about you know the trials of being that age of being a girl that age and um right and but but it's like they're so good at it and uh and it's not overplayed it's just this is very um subtle beautiful transformation so is it is it a comedy or yeah i would. Is it a comedy? Yeah, I would say it's a comedy, but it's got some heart and sadness.

It's got the sadness of being a kid in it. You know, being picked on or being ignored or being in love with someone who doesn't like you or your parents are having problems. You know, that sort of thing. All right. Okay, I'm going to look for that. It's on Hulu. Okay. It's interesting that both of your picks have something to do with identity and consciousness and who we are and what bodies we occupy.

I feel like there's something in common ultimately with, I'm thinking of ending things. Charlie and Ian, thank you guys very much for doing this. I really love the book and the film. It was fun. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Thank you again to Charlie Kaufman, Ian Reed, Amy Nicholson, and of course, Amanda Dobbins.

Please stay tuned to The Big Picture next week when Amanda and I will dive deep into the world of Christopher Nolan's Tenet. See you then.