The Big Picture - Have the Academy Awards Changed for Good? A Post-'Parasite' Oscars Mailbag | The Big Picture

Episode Date: February 12, 2020

Still awash in the 'Parasite' afterglow, we drill down on some of the lingering questions from the 92nd Oscars submitted by you, the listeners (1:17). Has 'Parasite' undone the wrongs that the Academy inflicted on Alfonso Cuarón’s ‘Roma’? What happened to ‘Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood’ and what are Quentin Tarantino’s future Oscar prospects? Which films are emerging as early contenders to be discussed for next year’s Oscars? Then, writer-director Céline Sciamma joins to discuss her wonderful film ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire,’ which goes wide in the United States on Valentine’s Day (56:38). Hosts: Sean Fennessey and Amanda Dobbins Guest: Céline Sciamma Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I'm Sean Fennessey. I'm Amanda Dobbins. And this is The Big Picture, a conversation show about the wreckage left behind in the wake of the 92nd Academy Awards. Amanda, we are diving deep into the mailbag today. How are you feeling? Good. Yeah? Yeah.

Are you excited to talk about life post-Oscars? Yes. As long as... Yes, I am. Okay. Such buoyancy. I appreciate that. After our chat about mailbag questions,

I'll have a conversation with the brilliant Celine Sciamma, who you may have seen in some of the after parties of the big Parasite win on Sunday night. She is the writer-director behind Portrait of a Lady on Fire, a film that is without question one of the very best movies that's been released so far this year. It comes out on February 14th, wide in theaters, released by the same company that released Parasite. It also premiered at Cannes and was

acquired by Neon there as well. This makes an interesting duo. Talking to Celine was a very meaningful experience. She is a very, very talented and smart person. So I hope you'll stick around for that. And speaking of Neon, perhaps Amanda, we should go right to the mailbag. Bobby Bobby would you like to read us the first question? I'd love to really quickly I want to say thanks

to everyone who reached out after the Oscars thank you people and sent in questions people are very nice okay the first question is from Jareen will Neon overtake A24

as the cool indie distributor in the 2020s? what do you think about this question? overtake is an interesting word I think it's nice to have another person at the table and they are absolutely at the table in addition to obviously having

distributed Parasite and Portrait of a Lady on Fire, which I saw for the second time last night and just like knocked my socks off. I should have seen it earlier. It would have been on my list for last year. Like that movie is the real deal. They also yesterday acquired Shirley, which was one of the favorite movies that I saw at Sundance. So they're in it to win it. And in fact, they did win it. And I think it's, this is a good question for you. Do you think it's a good thing to have A24 and Neon? Can they share that lane? Or is it, you know, only two men enter one leaf or two distributors enter one leaf? Yeah, I don't see it as that way.

I don't see it as two enter and one leave. I see it as it's actually fantastic that there are two companies that not only are they both sort of have the imprimatur of cool and hip. And when they put their name on a movie, it sort of means something to the film literati. It's also that they're fighting for a certain aspect of the business that I think we care about. And, you know, seeing Portrait of a Lady on Fire on a big screen is a big, meaningful experience. And Tom Quinn, who is one of the co-founders of that company of Neon, has been interviewed a lot in the aftermath and the run up to the Parasite win. And he had some interesting things to say about what his company lot in the aftermath and the run-up to the Parasite win. And he had some interesting things to say about what his company means in the face of the oncoming Netflix onslaught into

our lives, which you and I have talked about endlessly on this show. And I don't want to misquote him, but he essentially said that movies like Portrait and Parasite and, you know, The Lighthouse and any of the other A24 films, they just sit on the shelf differently. They find audiences differently, and you get to have a different kind of experience with those movies. And he talked a lot about seeing the Irishman in theaters, and what a big deal that was for him, and how engaged he was. And he sounded just like us, talking on this show. And I think that when those companies, like me on A24, you know, Sony Pictures Classics, there's still a lot of stalwart groups that are still trying to do this.

You know, you see Bleeker Street is still out there trying to do this. These sort of either standalone companies or intentionally boutique companies, I think to a lesser extent Searchlight is also like this, which put out Jojo Rabbit and A Hidden Life. These companies really care about movies. They really care about filmmakers. They're not just bottom line companies. They want to do good business, but they are looking to let people tell stories that maybe wouldn't be able to just simply by going

through the IP machine at the studios. So I don't think we have to choose between Neon and A24. I think we can have them both wonderfully. I think it's also just going to be really interesting to see how they develop their own identities. You know, A24 is relatively young, but Neon is really young. I believe it was founded in 2017. And so I think you and I have a sense of a type of A24 movie at this point a bit, which is not a bad thing, but it will be interesting to see that develop, how it responds to Neon, how Neon starts to develop the types of movies that are out in the world. I mean, it's exciting Neon starts to develop the types of movies that are out in the world. I mean, it's exciting.

There are advocates for the types of things that we want to see. A24 is much more in the game of developing the films in-house and locating the filmmakers. Not always the case.

They acquired Boys State at Sundance this year. Neon has mostly been in the acquisition game. You know, in addition to Parasite and Portrait, they acquired Apollo 11, they acquired Portrait, they acquired Apollo 11. They acquired Honeyland.

They acquired a lot of films over the last few years. And they have produced and backed a few films too. But they have yet to back a really, really noisy movie from start to finish. And I would guess that this will... That's coming soon. Yes, exactly. I think that's the next phase. What's the next question? Josh asked, as well as a lot of people, they want to know the

horse race, who will win an Oscar first, Saoirse Ronan or Adam Driver? What do you think here? I think in a numbers game, this is probably Saoirse Ronan, just because there still aren't as many great roles for women. And the best actress category does tend to have a lot of repeats. I mean, Saoirse Ronan's already been nominated four times and you can see people are paying attention to her. So I think best actor is filled with a lot of people who go 20 years and don't win. And I don't want that for Adam Driver. That would be a bummer. But you can just see in terms of historically how those categories go that I would guess Saoirse gets there first. Let me ask you a question about this. I think what you said is completely right.

Do you think it's a bad thing to accumulate too many nominations? Like we talked about Glenn Close a lot a year ago and how. And she's a total exception to what I just said. Right. She more closely reflects someone like Joaquin Phoenix, who it took five or six nominations to finally get over the line. But do you think there's a downside to just kind of always being there and people forgetting whether or not you've actually won or not?

We talked about this with Renee Zellweger, too. A lot of people just forgot that she won for Cold Mountain. Right. So they thought of Judy as a kind of a coronation for her. Is it possible that people, because they've seen Saoirse Ronan almost every year since she was 16 at the Oscars? I guess so. I mean, you know, we talked a lot about trying to understand the psychology specifically of best actor and acting categories. And I think it eludes both of us at this point, especially after Renee Zellweger and

Joaquin Phoenix. So there does seem to be an awful lot of people just stuck in their ways and making one decision early and not giving a lot of extra thought. And so if they're not willing to give someone extra thought, then perhaps they do have that like too familiar. I think Saoirse Ronan will probably be nominated like 45 times because from that same laziness of being like, oh yeah, her, sure. But I don't know. I think it's also about taste. You know, both the thing that she and Adam Driver share in addition to being young nominees is that they've made vanishingly few bad films. And that in and of itself is a skill and it's respected by the Academy. So we'll have to wait

and see. I agree with you. I think Saoirse, she's already got four, I think, to drivers too, and she's not stopping anytime soon. What's next? Which actor and director or director that missed out on Oscar this year will be most likely to get a makeup Oscar in the next five years? I think most people will think Quentin Tarantino, who says he only has one film left. Who sprung to mind when you heard this? Greta Gerwig as well. In what form do you think her makeup Oscar will come? It's a great question. I could, I almost certainly don't think it will be director,

but I could see screenplay and I could honestly see a weird thing happening where it's actress. Yeah, I had this thought. Yeah. I wonder how and if she will get back on screen. Because there's a universe now where kind of regardless of all the awkwardness and difficulty around the best director and why aren't women recognized in this category conversation, she's a thing. Like, a little woman made a lot of money. Yeah. And she's now, she's a brand.

Yes. And that's exciting. And that's fun for us because we like her stuff. But that also means that she has a lot of power that actors actually weirdly don't have. Like there's a very small now layer of actor who can get a project made. You know, it's like Ryan Reynolds and Will Smith. It's just a very small number of people. She's not in that stratosphere as an actor, but she is starting to become one as a filmmaker.

Would that shift her attention away from pursuing on-screen opportunity? I have no evidence for this, but my takeaway was that she was shifting herself in that direction. And I think she has always identified, you know, as a writer and an aspiring filmmaker as much as an actor. So now that she actually can do it, you know, I don't know. Why would you give the power up? If you had a choice to be a writer, director, or an actor, what would you choose? Writer, director. Absolutely.

Put me, like, let me be in control of everything at all times. We all know this. Amanda, you have come to be on brand this week. What's the next question? Wow, I'm sorry for putting this one on here. Do you think that in the same way Eminem got a makeup performance 17 years

after winning an Oscar, Thanos will be honored at the Oscars in 2037? I am inevitable. I don't have a joke. I have an honest reflection on this question.

Wow. I think that there is going to be in 20 or 25 years a very sincere tribute to Marvel. And I think the anxiety and resentment that a lot of Academy members have towards these movies now, when we get to whatever popcorn movies are 25 years from now, the Marvel movies will seem like deeply sophisticated works of great art told

across a long period of time. An incredibly difficult thing to have accomplished. That doesn't make the movies better. That doesn't make you like them more. Doesn't make you like the bit more. But I think as time goes by, they'll be more respected the same way that all kind of like B-movie entertainment over time gets more respected, not less. We don't look down on Bud Bedeker Westerns from the 50s now. We think that they're actually, it's amazing how good they are considering the constraints.

I think that they will certainly be recognized at the Oscars in 10 or 15 years and some sort of self-flagellating but also aggrandizing capacity. It will be interesting, and I think they will also be remembered in 15 or 20 years. And I think your idea of

we didn't understand what we had is probably true. I think it would be interesting in how they're remembered. And even if they're remembered as like individual movies or if there are scenes or characters, it's just a different entity. And they are so interconnected and kind of, you know, in a blob of big screen IP at this point. I'm curious what will separate out and how. I think the one thing to consider that is interesting, especially the way that they have chosen filmmakers

and projects over the years, is when Ryan Coogler is no longer a 32-year-old filmmaker, but when he's a 55-year-old filmmaker with a Best Picture Oscar to his name and he's entrenched in the business and he's a significant voter, he'll be ambassadorial in the Academy and he'll be a person who has made at least two Marvel movies. So that in and of itself is going to change the perception of it. Likewise,

the perception of things like Netflix will change over time when more and more people have been given opportunity to go to the next level because of these films. They won't be as regarded quite so grumpily, I think. But maybe not. Maybe not. I think Josh Brolin also should be given just a standalone prize for his work. Okay. Maybe he will. It's not over, is it? Do you think that Thanos is gone forever? In the words of Thanos, the work is done and it always will be. Okay. I think that you have not taken any lessons from anything that you've seen on screen, but okay. Well, if you're telling me Thanos is coming back, that's great for the bit.

So either way, I win. Okay. What's next? There was a lot of Roma walked so Parasite could run questions. So Bruno and Nicholas asked, did Green Books win over Roma last year influence Parasite's victory and Nicholas asked do you think Parasite would have still triumphed if Roma had won these are good questions

I think this the second one for me is easier to answer than the first what do you think which is I don't think that Parasite would have won if Roma had won just because I think there would have been a reaction for every, there is a

equal or probably an equal and opposite reaction. And I think that there are a lot of people who would have refused to sit through subtitles twice or just wouldn't have taken, wouldn't have invested in the significance of Parasite's win in the same way. And I don't know if that was the deciding force. And my instinct, again, with no evidence, is that Parasite kind of won in spite of those hurdles rather than because of them. But it takes a lot of votes. And I think there are all kinds of voters. And I think Roma taking up that narrative space wouldn't have left a lane for Parasite in the same way. I agree. This is a complex thing, and obviously we'll never really know the answer to it. But I generally agree that the conversation that we had

in the immediate aftermath of this is extraordinary foreign language films don't get this kind of respect historically at the Academy. If we could have had it last year, it would have obviated some of this extraordinary wave that we felt over the last few weeks. That being said, I think the Bong Joon-ho thing transcends a lot. And I agree.

Cuaron was still a Hollywood filmmaker. This is a guy who had made a Harry Potter movie. And even though it was an immensely personal story, it was distributed by Netflix and it was a, it was different than Parasite. Parasite was very much an underdog. And Roma, even though a film like that, it would have been surprising for it to have won. I don't think it was an underdog per se.

I think Green Book was actually the underdog, which is a bit grotesque to think about. But that was the film that, for all intents and purposes, shouldn't have won and also shouldn't have won. So it's hard to say like if Roma had won, Parasite definitively would not have gone forward as a winner. But I think the points you made are right on as well. The other thing is the Academy is just way more international. Yeah. You know, I mean, 40% of the new members that have joined since the big push in 15 and 16 are international members. So while I don't think, and we talked about this on Sunday night, I don't think a Parasite

kind of moment is going to happen again. And I thought Adam Naiman's piece on The Ringer was very, very incisive about this point, about how unusual and accessible Parasite is. Yes. And how difficult it would be for a movie like this to come along and sweep again. I do think you can expect more foreign language films nominated for Best Picture because of this. And I do think a consciousness about world cinema and even the way that we pay attention to Cannes, like what will you and I do on this podcast about Cannes this year? We're not going, but will we be significantly more attuned to the breakout films there than we were, say,

this time last year? I think we probably will. This was the film festival that gave us Portrait of a Lady on Fire and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Parasite. Are those our three favorite movies from last year? They might be. So anyhow, I do think that there's no way to know the answer to that question, but it is just an interesting now what on the international international cinema front what's next uh sean you called parasite a quote landmark best picture jeremy wants to know what other best pictures would you consider landmarks kind of a vague word um i apologize for my my inaccuracy my ineffectiveness um i thought of a couple i don't know't know how many you have identified. I think Midnight Cowboy a lot different than the film that won the previous year,

which was Oliver. Right. Which is a very poor adaptation of the musical Oliver. I think we talked a week ago about every win in the 70s, just year after year feeling like a wallop and how impressive that was. And I guess by the time the Deer Hunter won, it probably had just been normalized. What jumps out to you as a kind of landmark win over the years?

They're kind of some memorable ones. Shakespeare in Love really stands out to me as kind of when for better and really often for worse, you become aware of the campaign and how these can be manipulated and it being a political event as much as it is a movie-making event, which I think was the case for a very long time before. I don't mean to say that the Oscars in 1984 were a pure expression of the heights of cinema, but that's really when it came to the public view, I think, because obviously Harvey Weinstein was so involved in the Shakespeare in Love win over Saving Private Ryan. So that one is maybe a landmark in a more negative sense of

the word. I think Crash is another landmark in terms of... I think we have a way to address that Crash conversation in a later question. So I don't want to spoil too much of that. But I absolutely agree with you about Shakespeare in Love. That would have been probably my second pick behind Midnight Cowboy. And, you know, I think that essentially in the 90s, the Oscars, what an Oscar movie was kind of calcified. And then in the 2000s, it kind of gets turned on his head. You get a different kind of movie winning every year in the 2000s, which is part of what makes it exciting. But to go from

Gladiator to A Beautiful Mind to Chicago to The Lord of the Rings to Million Dollar Baby, those movies don't have a lot to do with each other aside from the first two, both starring Russell Crowe. And I liked that about the Oscars during that time. I think we're actually in an interesting place where even though it seems like Moonlight and Parasite have a lot in common and The Shape of Water and Green Book have a lot in common, the truth is that the last five or so Oscar winners all have a lot in common in terms of the size of the film, the auteur nature of its creation, who distributed the films. They're all kind of modest. It's not the same as looking at Million Dollar Baby and The Lord of the films. They're all kind of modest. You know, it's not the same as looking at Million Dollar Baby

and The Lord of the Rings. I mean, those are two totally different kinds of productions and stories and their politics are different and they're different in so many ways. So it's possible that Best Picture winners are just getting more samey

and less landmarky with the obvious exception that Parasite is from South Korea and that just sets everything on its head. Anything else you want to point out about landmarks over the years? Wings, that was the first Best Picture winner. That's a meaningful one. Okay.

It's a landmark unto itself. Oh, boy. Okay. I think we can move on. Okay, next question. Scott asks, Since the Oscars seem to be bouncing back and forth between Inspired, Fairly Surprising, Validating, Big Picture wins, he lists Parasite and Moonlight. And boring, uninspired selections.

He lists Green Book and Shape of Water. What's your irresponsibly early prediction for the boring, uninspired frontrunner of 2020? I made a short list. This feels unkind to these movies. I think all of the films I'm about to list could turn out to be the five best movies of the year. Yeah. But I would say that if you look at the slate of things that we know are coming, these are as close as I can get to throat clearing this movie is important Oscar stuff. Right.

The first is Steven Spielberg's West Side Story. Mm-hmm. Which, I don't, what else can you say other than it's going to be one of the biggest productions of the year and is adapting something that is a big time meaningful piece of Hollywood history? I am looking forward to this. So please don't, you know, attach any aspersions to what I'm about to say. This really does feel like the 1917 slot at the end of the year. Oscar-y movie, big production. You know, there's war movie and there's musical, which have more

overlap than you might think. It's true. And it just kind of weighed in there. So, and that was a front runner. I think it's going to be a front runner again. It's possible it's a complete disaster. It's not like Steven Spielberg. I don't think musical when I think Steven Spielberg, but I also don't underestimate Steven Spielberg. You pointed out on our most anticipated movies of the year, this next choice, which is The Trial of the Chicago 7.

This could go a lot of ways. It really could. And I have an open heart until it's no longer open. It's a September 25th release. This is written and directed by Aaron Sorkin. And this movie,

I think, is going to find its way into the festival circuit. I think if you hear about it at Venice Telluride or Toronto, do not be surprised. And the way that it is received will probably indicate what kind of chances it has in this kind of a race. But it's a real-life story about a big, meaningful, political, social change in this country. And those things tend to work well.

And it's got a big, noisy cast full of overactors, all of whom will be no doubt great, chewing on Aaron's dialogue aggressively. So we can expect to see that. Can I just do a quick side note? Yes. One of the true red carpet highlights from the Oscars on Sunday night was Billie Eilish was being interviewed with her brother and collaborator, Phineas. And they were asked about their favorite movies. And Billie Eilish gives her stock answers now, which is like, we need to talk about Kevin and the Babadook. Shout out Billie Eilish. Keep shining. And then Phineas shares his answers, which are The Social Network and Moneyball,

Really Anything by Aaron Sorkin. Shout out my man Phineas. So in case you want to know how Billie Eilish became so extraordinarily successful, all you need to do is listen to their inspirations as films, which are incredibly weird, fraught, emotional made a movie called The Climb with his partner Kyle Marvin. He's one of the stars of this movie called News of the World, which is a Tom Hanks movie directed by Paul Greengrass. The last time they got together, they made Captain Phillips. This is a period piece set during wartime. It's coming out on Christmas. Draw your own conclusions.

Yes. Not unlike the 1917 West Side Story comparison you're making. This one has even maybe arguably more of a one-to-one comparison point there. We don't know anything else about the movie other than it's based on a novel that I haven't read. Have you read this novel? I haven't. So this feels at least in the sort of like, is it an uninspired frontrunner? Probably not uninspired.

I mean, I'm stoked for another Paul Greengrass movie. I really like his movies and we're on the record about Hank's. We are. Hank's rules. Yeah. So hopefully that will be something that we see. You mentioned on Sunday night, the French dispatch. We got to look at some posters and some stills today. Cue the New Yorker. This is making the most of their connection. Good for them. Yes. Well, this appears to be a film based on the New Yorker. So I can't say that that has me, has the hair on the back of my neck standing up but I also trust

Wes Anderson and I'm so excited just to talk about and revisit his work and consider him this is a movie that's coming out soon and July movies

as we just saw by soon you mean July assuming we're still alive in July you know that didn't serve Once Upon a Time in Hollywood well so I don't know what

that means for this movie as well. I wrote down PTA movie. You did. You wrote it in all caps. What?

I think it's just rude for that to be in the boring, uninspired frontrunner category. Well, it collides a little bit with the it's time thing. And at some point,

the Academy will decide it's time on PTA at some point, the Academy will decide it's time on PTA. And I thought that the surprising and big support for Phantom Thread, despite its absolute oddity, it was a good sign that we're rowing in the direction of the PTA year.

And when there was the PTA year, if you thought I was yelling on Sunday night, wait until that Oscars. Yeah, no, I know. I will be lighting myself on fire. Okay. Running nude through the streets.

Unsubscribe. Okay. Is that going to be eligible? Is it supposed to come out in 2021? Unclear. Okay. It sounds like production is starting shortly. The casting has been happening.

I don't know how quickly he's going to turn the movie around. This is apparently a high school movie, a coming of age movie. That's pretty much all we know about it. I don't know when it'll come, but I'm putting it on the list because I'd like to will it into existence. I thought you were breaking news there for a second. No, I don't know anything. Nobody tells me anything. I'm sure Paul Thomas Anderson finds me absolutely embarrassing, but what can I do about it, you know?

Love is love. Okay. I also put down Manc, which I mentioned on Sunday. Did I forget anything else? I think those are the major ones. Again, the question was boring, uninspired frontrunner. So that's rude. I guess we forgot Dune.

Yeah. Which is rude to say for Denis Villeneuve, who I think is a tremendous filmmaker. You know, I'm working through my attitude towards this upcoming thing. I guess I have most of the year to do it. Big sci-fi rarely does well. I guess Avatar is probably the only real example of big time science fiction getting acknowledged in James. I would say Denis Villeneuve is not quite at the James Cameron level yet,

but it's possible that he gets there. You know, I saw a movie at Sundance called The Father, which was written and directed by the playwright Florian Zeller at Sony Pictures Classics putting out starring Anthony Hopkins. It's about a father coping with dementia. And it's told in a very creative fashion. And it feels very stagey. It's very much a play converted to a film.

But that is probably specifically more along the lines of what the question is asking which is like what's an uninspired like very obvious showcase for an actor telling a story about a sensitive issue if anthony hopkins is a nominated i'll be shocked um he's very very good in the film the film is okay it's pretty good um i'm sure we'll talk more about it soon and if you have a parent who is experiencing something like this or a grandparent i think you will immediately identify with it and it will be meaningful to a wide swath of people. That's closer than News of the World, which just sounds like a good movie that I want to see. Right. And I'm sure that more films that seem a little bit more green book-y will come along soon and we'll talk about them when they come. What's next? Drew asks,

which Tarantino movie do you think he was deserving of Best Director the most, taking into account the field for those years as well? Well, what do you think about this one? Did you have, because he's been nominated

three times, 94, 09, and 2019, which means there are six other movies that he's not been nominated for. Should we talk through what the nominees were? Yeah, I think that would be useful. I have a pretty clear answer,

but it would help to have the information. So in 1994, he was nominated alongside Robert Zemeckis for Forrest Gump, Woody Allen for Bullets Over Broadway, Robert Redford for Quiz Show, and Krzysztof Kieslowski for Red. Pretty hallowed collection of nominees there. Yes.

That year. He had no chance of winning because Forrest Gump was considered such a extravagant triumph. And he did win Best Original Screenplay with Roger Avery that year.

You know, Pulp continues to be my favorite and like the pinnacle in a lot of ways alongside the other film that he was nominated for in Glorious Bastards. So it's possible it could

have been 94. I think it's not. It's who we think he should have won. And given these nominees, I mean, my answer is for Pulp Fiction. For 94. Yeah. In 2009, he was nominated for Inglourious Bastards alongside Catherine Bigelow for The Hurt Locker, James Cameron for Avatar, Lee Daniels for Precious, and Jason Reitman for Up in the Air. I'm not going to complain about Catherine Bigelow's win. I think that that was deserving. I think James Cameron also would have been deserving. I was going to say, Inglorious Basterds is my favorite Tarantino, and I still think that either Catherine Bigelow or James Cameron, it's hard to argue against either of those. I agree. That's tough. I mean, Inglorious is probably my number two movie. I think it was my number two when we did our list.

Maybe it was my number three behind Jackie Brown over the summer. You know, that's not a bad third place when you're running up against the Herlocker and Avatar, which invented a new way of making movies. Yes. You know, 2019, what are you going to do? Like, sometimes you just get screwed. Like, you ran into Catherine Bigelow one year and you ran into Bong Joon-ho one year. What are you going to do?

I thought that the slate of 2004 nominees were interesting. I rewatched Kill Bill, volume one, last week when I was ill. You know when you get sick and you're like, I just need a blanket? A comfort, yeah. I need a big bowl of soup. I do, but I watch romantic comedies and you watch Kill Bill. I watched Kill Bill. And let me tell you something about Kill Bill, volume one. Yeah. 100 out of 100. Yeah. Absolutely kick

ass movie. That is inspiring to me. That year, the nominees for best director were Peter Jackson for The Lord of the Rings, The Return of the King, Fernando Morelos for City of God, Your Girl, Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation, Peter Weir, Master and Commander of the Far Side of the World, and Clint Eastwood for Mystic River. Also a good collection of nominees. You can't really make the case to me that Fernando Morelos or Peter Weir should have been here over Quentin. Like, I just don't. I buy that. I just can't get on board with it.

And Jackson and Tarantino would have been an interesting showdown because it was both of them kind of at the height of their thing. Right. It's like the most fantasy peter jackson movie and the most quentin tarantino movie um so i thought that it would be useful to at least cite that one but i think you're right i think 94 is he just should have won then and they we couldn't have known that he was going to get screwed in 09 and screwed in 2019 not screwed but just kind of like run into an unfortunate circumstance yeah um and i don don't, you know, what does that mean for, well, let's go to the next question.

Caleb, what are the odds of Quentin's 10th and final movie hitting big at the Oscars now that Once Upon a Time didn't win? What are the odds? I hope so. He's described the 10th movie as an epilogue. So does that mean it will be more genteel? Does it mean it will be crazier? Will it be consonant or connected to his previous stories the way that there's a lot of interconnectivity in his movies?

I don't know what to expect. I know he's competitive. I think the Oscars do like the swan song. They do like being a part of that narrative. And I think even the Oscars would know that to not reward Tarantino would be a mistake, would be something that reflects poorly on them. But I mean, it really does depend on the quality of the thing. If it's a more open, accessible version of Tarantino with that slightly softer once upon a time side, I think he has a great chance. if it's like guns blazing,

literally and figuratively, then we'll see. Yeah, I mean, there's no guarantee. I mean, if you look at 1980, the Academy looked at Raging Bull and Scorsese and they said, you know what? I don't think so.

And then 10 years later, they looked at Goodfellas and Martin Scorsese and they said, I don't think so. And then 10 years later, they looked at Gangs of New York martin scorsese and they said i don't think so and then 10 years later they looked at gangs of new york and martin scorsese and they said i don't think so and that's a lot i mean that's and tarantino is even though they're different filmmakers is in a lineage of a kind of abrasiveness and and and masculinity in his filmmaking that the academy is not really

usually on board with. So just because he decided on 10 doesn't mean the Academy will decide now is the time. Which of course is just a complete crock of shit to me in general. Like I think it's absurd

that he doesn't have a Best Director Oscar. But there's no guarantee that even if he tells the most beautiful perfect QT movie ever that they're going to respect that.

Because we don't know what we're dealing with. And also as we just said he could just hit a bad year. That's right. You can get unlucky. I think the Oscars are irresponsible or make mistakes all the time, but you can just wind up in a year with Parasite.

Yes. And we all like a wave, you know? Quentin Tarantino is now part of the old guard. He's not new and exciting. Bong was new and exciting for people this year. It was more fun to do that. So we'll see. What's next? Alex asks, if Leo hadn't won for The Revenant a few years ago and was still Oscar-less,

how would the best actor race have played out this year? What do you think about this? I think this is interesting, but also wishful thinking. It obviously would have been different for everything we just said about the Oscars liking to write wrongs way too late. But again, the acting categories are so weirdly solidified now. And actors loved Joker. And I just, there's still, there was still such a uniformity to how Joaquin Phoenix's performance was received that I think he still would have had a hard time. Do you think Leo competing would have affected Brad's ability to win? That's a good question. But they've done actor and supporting actor before.

To the same film. To the same film. Yeah. Well, I just wonder if everybody felt comfortable with Brad, not just because he was Brad, but because it was a way To the same film. To the same film. Yeah. Well, I just wonder if like, if everybody felt comfortable with Brad, not just because he was Brad, but because it was a way to acknowledge the film.

It was a way to reward that movie. But if people thought seriously about rewarding Leo, and it doesn't, you know, I talked about this on the Rewatchables. We talked about it

since we've been talking about that movie. I just think it's Leo at his best. I thought it was the most lived in and funny and strange performance he's really ever given. I agree with was the most lived in and funny and strange performance he's really ever given. I agree with you. That's an interesting question. Do you think that people are rewarding

films with the acting wins? To me, it seems really separate, you know, and I know that Brad Pitt won for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I know that Laura Dern won for Marriage Story, two movies we loved that were otherwise kind of overlooked at the Oscars. But I don't get the sense that the voting bodies are thinking of it that way. I think they're voting for Brad Pitt and Laura Dern. You might be right. I think there's, you know, it's a counterfactual we'll never know the answer to. I think Leo is the kind of actor who has the kind of track record that should be in a conversation for two Oscars. If Nicholson was and Streep was, and now people like Renee Zellweger and Daniel Day-Lewis, and that's a very exclusive club of actors. He strikes me as worthy of that conversation.

And I don't expect him. The next movie he's making sure sounds like an Oscar movie, Killers of the Flower Moon, the David Grant adaptation with Martin Scorsese, which it sounds like will go into production this spring. I mean, period piece about an injustice that has a kind of like thriller feel to it. Feels very Oscar-y to me. Maybe we'll see him again soon. What's next?

Tim suggests that we should do our own preferential ballot at the Ringer. He wants to set the Ringer ablaze and we should release the votes. What do you guys think about that? Meaning every single person on staff would vote and we would unveil the preferential ballot for each, like the combined preferential

ballot scores? I guess. He says, have the whole Ringer staff rank the noms and show the whole process. If the leader has less than 50%, chop last place, reallocate, etc, etc. This is not what Amanda wants. What do you think would win? Tim, I appreciate your enthusiasm

for the ringer, but as someone who has actually seen the results of the ringer voting for things, I have to let you know that it might not be what you want. May I present to you Chick-fil-A waffle fries?

I was going to say, waffle fries and BoJack Horseman are suddenly winning the Oscars. And you're just like, okay. Isn't Ford vs. Ferrari like the Chick-fil-A waffle fries of this year? It could have been. It could have been. Among your cohort, Bobby, of young car bros, you could have literally roomed your way right to the top of the heap.

I would have been really pushing for it in the office, you know, like pulling people aside. Yeah, I think we could do this next year. I mean, I don't think it would really mean anything about how the Oscars are going to turn out. And I think it would be funny to watch people try to campaign. That's kind of a good bit. And, you know, we famously did campaign ads here a few years ago

for NBA players, for MVP. I would love to see our political ads for certain films. Maybe we'll put a pin in that and try to do that next year to make this a little bit more fun.

What's next? Mando asks, should we boycott biopics to end the best actor and's next? Mando asks, should we boycott biopics to end the best actor and actress domination? Mando! Thank you, Mando. I did a little research here. Last 10 years, seven of the 10 best actor winners played real people. Three of the 10 best actress winners played real people. I mean, that's a little bit about history and we don't need to go down that road, but it's a good point. I still think Roger Sherman's hottest take, which is that we should just do the best impersonation of a person, is the best way to solve this.

I agree. how we're talking about the acting categories and evaluating acting is either totally broken or non-existent. Like, are we evaluating acting anymore? Not we, but the people voting on the awards is a great question. You said this, I think, on Sunday, and I think it's a good opportunity for a future episode. I think you and I trying to figure out and maybe even have a guest on who can help us understand what actually is a good performance and what goes into a performance would be beneficial. Because a lot of acting and a lot of movie experience is purely emotional. Did I connect? Did I feel it? But acting is a craft. And I don't want to hear somebody talk about specifically how they act, but how people identify what a good performance is would be an interesting conversation. So let's do that down the road. Sounds good. Well, the follow-up to that, the next question you guys kind of answered a little bit from Noah, have we reached a point where best actor and actress are defined by roles

more than performances? Depends. Yeah. I mean, I think we don't know the answer to this question. I would argue that they're defined as much by the personalities than they are by roles or performances. Also, you know, is there a distinction between the role and the performance ultimately is a question that we could possibly discuss on the podcast on the future episode. I thought a lot when I saw this question of Frances McDormand in Three Billboards,

another two-time winner, where I think a lot of people just thought her character in Three Billboards was Frances McDormand. If you watched her give speeches with that kind of, you sharp elbowed funny brassy fearless style that she has i think people were like i just like her i just like what she's about she just seems like she's tough and doesn't take any shit and i i respect that and i want to get behind that and i'm sure that she has some things in common with that character but she's not the they're

not the same person right and that kind of conflation, I think, tends to happen in the same way that a lot of people after I perhaps erroneously, angrily lobbied against the Renee Zellweger win, a lot of people were just like, people just love Judy Garland and they just wanted to give Judy Garland something. And this is as close as they're ever going to get because she's not alive anymore. it could be as simple as that it could just be like i want to reward a dead person yeah and this is how i'm going to do it um who knows these are diffuse bodies what's next breeze wants to know netflix had an all-time high number of nominations and still barely won anything is it just a matter of timing or are they doing something wrong as a studio? And if so, what do they need to correct? This is a tough one. They're in a tricky spot.

It might take a little bit of time for people to get more comfortable. I think similar to the Tarantino conversation we're having, I think a couple of films just got unlucky this year. They obviously released some of the very best movies of the year and there's no value judgment laced into this. I just think that there are people that still resent it and they just don't want to reward it and they want to reward neon for putting parasite in 1500 theaters they think that there's something noble about that um and they don't want to reward everybody stays home and watches 2.6 hours of the irishman and then goes bed. And part of it is just whatever projects they have this year and what other films are a big deal. I don't know. What do you think?

Do you think they need to change anything? Yeah, I don't know. I genuinely don't know. I loved both of those movies. And I think they definitely ran an aggressive campaign. They spent a lot of money. I do wonder whether there was a response not just to the Netflix of it all, but the type of campaign which does feel from a different era as opposed to Bong Joon-ho just rolling around being delightful. And it's a different type of experience that people have as they're deciding who to vote for. Yeah, I think some people probably saw Netflix executing a campaign. Yes. As opposed to Bong Joon-ho having fun. And if you can see that, maybe you don't like that. Maybe you don't like feeling pitched to.

Maybe you just want to love something purely. I think that that is also circumstantial. And it depends on whatever you're going up against. I'll never forget even just talking to some friends that work in Netflix after seeing Parasite at Telluride and all of those people being like, wow, that movie is really good. Yeah. And there's almost like nothing you can do about it. It's just like that movie is really good and it comes along once in every 10 or 20 years. And when it doesn't matter how long you spent planning your marriage story strategy,

Parasite is Parasite. And sometimes you run in fourth place and it's nothing against you. You just run in fourth place. I think that's really true. I do also just think again, and it has nothing to do with Netflix or the campaigns, but how people respond to the movies. And I guess this has to do with the experience of watching Netflix in your home. But there were a lot of people who watched The Irishman in situations that we don't normally associate with Oscar movies.

And I think that affects how you receive The Irishman. And I assume that that affects how you compute your vote. And that's the trickier part. I don't know how you get past that long term. And at the risk of sounding like a corporate shill, I just really appreciate that they give a lot of great filmmakers money to make movies. And at some point,

there'll be a narrative that'll calcify, that'll say like, it's time now. It's time to do it for Netflix. And to that point, let me also say this, like thrilled that Parasite won. And I hope at this point that most people listening to this podcast have been able to see Parasite, but it was very hard for a lot of people who want to

participate this in this to see parasite for a very long time you're right and everyone was able to see the irishman and everyone is able to see marriage story and we all got to talk about that and have like weird emotional journeys about marriage story and that really that has value and that's honestly like bigger than the oscars but I think it's possibly a bummer if you don't get to win Oscars. I got a chance to see Miss Americana on Netflix and I hated it. Okay. I hated it fully. That's great for you. I love doing this podcast with Amanda and I respect her opinion, but I think Miss Americana is a pox in our society and I think it should be deleted from Netflix immediately. Do you think if you keep going that I'll take this bait? I respect you no matter what.

Okay, great. Bobby, what's the next question? Well, this is a question from me. Do you think they overpitched Roma? Because there was a lot of talk among people in the industry being like, I just received a hundred page shot by shot, frame by frame version of all of the shots in Roma. I got that for Marriage Story and The Irishman as well. And they were very beautiful. So I think that they are definitely going big. I think that a lot of people would not have taken Roma seriously if they hadn't done that. And I think that a lot

of people saw Roma, which was a tremendous cinematic achievement. I feel kind of bad that Roma has fallen a little bit to the wayside because we got what we wanted with Parasite and it's our beautiful, shining child. And I think— I would take Parasite over Roma 100 times out of 100 for the record. I was about to say the same thing, but also like maybe we actually don't have to choose. Yeah, no, we don't. And I think the fact that so many people saw Roma and argued about it and that it was a contender at the Oscars is still an achievement. And some of that was a function of what you're saying, which is sometimes you need to overdo it to get attention.

And Netflix went from 15 nominations last year to 24 nominations this year. And they had more films that were in contention and a stronger presence. Maybe they'll have 30 this year. I don't know. They don't have an Irishman coming, to the best of my knowledge. They don't have a movie that's just like, look out because Marty is making a gangster movie again. So without that,

it's a little hard to say. That's 10 nominations right there. But we'll see. They're not to be underestimated by any stretch at this point. They are the biggest

producer of original movies in America right now. What's next? Penko wants to know which three actors today would you pick to portray young Shirin Hoffa and Bufalino in The Irishman, assuming no de-aging technology is used? I wrote down three names.

They're not as flashy. One of them already appeared in The Irishman. His name is Bobby Cannavale, who strikes me as an adequate young De Niro. Okay. Max Cassell, who you may recall from The Sopranos and I believe Doogie Howser, M.D. Right. Max Cassell, who you may recall from The Sopranos and I believe Doogie Howser, M.D., who I think is a strong Pesci stand-in, has that kind of unctuous energy that Pesci has. And an actor named John Magaro, who people will be able to see in First Cow, Kelly Reichardt's new movie, who also appeared in David Chase's film right after The Sopranos not fade away, which is one of my favorite movies of the decade, which nobody talks about, which nobody cares about,

which a lot of people don't like. But I think he has got a real knack, and I think he would have been a very amusing young Jimmy Hoffa, even though we don't really see young Jimmy Hoffa in the movie very much. We need it more for Russell and for Sheeran. Yeah, well, I guess that's my question to you is do you actually need it? Do you think this is a good idea? I like what they did. Even if the de-aging is a little distracting, I liked what they did. Yeah. I just think you need the continuity throughout the three hours or else there's no reason for it to be that long. It's your experience with

these characters and specifically these old men over time. I agree with you. What's next? Mike wants to know, is the sound editing versus mixing split award an attempt to honor two great works or just a fluke because of confusing distinction between these two categories? I don't know the answer to this.

Do you think people who are voting on it know the answer to that? Well, some do and some don't. Yeah. I think a lot of people, I think a lot of craftspeople

and below the line people see the key distinctions and there are distinctions. There are definitional distinctions between the two of the things. However, if you just made best sound, you'd be able to incorporate all of those people. And so you'd be able to combine the people who worked on both sides of this craft into one category, the same way that you do, you know, you heard Roger Deakins talk about his focus puller and his gaffer and how helpful those people are and how essential they are to his process and his work. But those people are not nominated for Best Cinematography, even though they contribute to the cinematography.

I think finding a way to adequately pull in that entire aspect of filmmaking in sound is logical and makes a lot of sense and would streamline the process. And it would probably eliminate voters being confused. Yes. And then weird things like Ford v. Ferrari winning in one category and 1917 winning in another category and just put the two together. But we'll see. What's next? Andrew wants to know why there's an arbitrary limit of one entrant per country in best international feature. I don't know. I mean, obviously it was very bad for a portrait of a lady on fire. Yes. I mean, we didn't write these rules.

And I think if I could just channel Wesley Morris for a second in terms of the rules being arcane and super confusing and not really getting them, I don't know. I honestly kind of don't even want to try to guess their intentions.

I assume it's to try to get more countries represented. I think you're right. I think that's what it is. Unfortunately, the filmmaking apparatus in France is more organized and they just produce more features than other countries. And that should not come at the expense of Senegal or Turkey. But if there's two great French films, it's just stupid that we can't honor one of them. That's just not good for movies. It doesn't make sense.

Yeah. I mean, I think at some point it just becomes a question about the philosophical nature of this category. And I think the language requirements are also tied into this where a film has to be primarily not in English in order to qualify for international feature. But that does exclude many countries where English is the national language. And there was a snafu about that during the nominating process this year. So I think it is trying to spread the wealth. It does also seem like perhaps the rules are increasingly outdated as we have more access to more movies from around the world. I completely agree.

Let's try to go a little lightning round. Let's do the last few, Bobby. Brad wants to know what's next for Todd Phillips. Weird career. Keep getting them checks, Todd. You did it, man. Pride of Long Island. You are the most successful writer of original films,

I think, in the world, between the Hangover movies and Joker. I don't, you know, his participation on Hangover is legendary. I can only imagine what kind of participation he had on the Joker. I hope he has a cool house. I don't, you know,

he'll make another movie. He'll make whatever movie he wants now, which is, look, I like Todd Phillips''s movies i know that's not a popular opinion i i know that that's uh in some corners cancelable um i think he's actually now we're officially in the like this person's underrated uh phase because people seem um politically distraught with what with his work but as a craftsperson as a person with a vision, and you saw what Hildur Guana Jatir said during her acceptance speech, she really respects him

as an artist. And I think over time, if he keeps leaning into this kind of a movie, we may slightly change the way we see him as a filmmaker. But maybe he'll just make

another frat comedy as well. No insights, Amanda? Good luck to him. Okay. Next question. If you were to win an Oscar, how would you approach your speech? That's from Greg. Straight endgame quotes.

It nearly killed me. But the work is done. It always will be. Okay. Good. I like the speeches that start with an anecdote. You know, there's like one tight, focused, hopefully with a little bit of humor, not like totally self-serious anecdote. And then it leads into the, I'm so grateful, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And also no agents. Respect to agents. Good job at being agents. And you're getting a shitload of money. And keep going with that. And no more for you at the oscars there we go i i will i will i will thank eileen my wife that's nice that's my only rule okay she's the only person

that ultimately deserves thanks in this world to me so um and and bill simmons god bless him okay uh next question uh nick is representing the Christopher Nolan hive. He wants to know if Tenet is going to win Christopher Nolan an Oscar. We'll find out. Yeah, I say it won't, but I solemnly commit on this podcast to reset my feelings on Nolan and to look at all the movies again and evacuate my nastiness about it and try to see it as purely as I can. Because I like, you know, three or four movies a lot, and I really don't like three or four movies a lot.

And I thought that talking with Tarantino about Dunkirk was big, and I saw that movie in a new way. And I think you really like his movies as well. So it's kind of a good topic for us this summer. Yeah, I'm excited. I do like his movies. I think that he is one of the few original minds. You know, it's a classic thing where you have to separate the movies from the fan base, which is just increasingly the case for all sorts of things. But I do like his work. I'm curious to see whether the Academy will take it seriously. Yeah, crime thrillers don't usually do well, and neither does science fiction.

So TBD. What's next? Two more. Kyle wants to know, will Shia LaBeouf ever be nominated for an Oscar? How can he do more in a movie year than he did for doing Honey Boy and Peanut Butter Falcon in the same year?

I view this as the first step in the long road to acceptance. What he did, and even just appearing on the telecast, which people loved. And there's so much warmth and good feeling for Peanut Butter Falcon. And a lot of people saw it. And Honey Boy, now that it's available on Amazon Prime, I think a lot of people are going to see.

And his performance in both of those movies is undeniable. I mentioned on Sunday night, I think it's crazy that he wasn't nominated for Honey Boy. I thought he was so good in that film. But he still has his baggage. He does. To your point, I think showing up at the Oscars and being a part of that moment indicates that he is willing to do some of the work

needed for Oscar acceptance, which I don't... Those are the Oscars terms and not mine. You're right. But it does require a certain amount of playing the game. And Shia has not always wanted to do that. And it seems like he might be willing to. And that might go a long way.

He had said that Zack Gottsagen, who he appeared on stage with, who was his co-star in Peanut Butter Falcon, changed his life and that they're actually very close friends. And it seems to have had a meaningful effect on him. Since he was like 16, everybody knew he was one of the best actors to come along in a long time he had like that james dean energy where people were just like whoa this guy just got it he just i just you just want to watch him so it's cool to get watch him get a chance to come back into our lives i hope he's i hope he's well and it's just better for us if he's in big important

movies that get a lot of attention last question. Andrew wants you guys to start discussing another pod a la the Sense and Sensibility Spider-Verse conversation. Which two choices would you give? I guess this is a little bit of an on-the-spot thing, but people liked it. And we discussed this on Sunday night. Yeah, we talked a bit about it. I think Sean's going to pick an action movie for me.

And I will probably pick a romantic comedy of some sort. Do you think we should let people suggest what we do? I'm open to suggestions sure maybe we wouldn't guarantee it because I I do think part of what made that podcast work was that they were two movies that we both actually had personal connections to so I would love we would love to hear what you guys want to say just you know no promises yeah and i think you know on that episode you were even more generous to me than i was to you and i'm hopeful to be more generous to you on the next go around and more open-minded as we uh figure it out but that episode was just an absolute blast and um is also completely unpegged and it's nice to do something

just because we want to do it uh so if you guys want to make suggestions to us cool no guarantees that we'll take it if anybody can find another movie as ill as spider verse um i'm on board with that um this is going to conclude our mailbag bobby thanks for for helping out with this um you know we have a lot of stuff to cover in the movie world in the next few months. Um, our boss, Bill Simmons, made a request to me yesterday morning. He said, I need you to do a Dump You Area episode. I need you to look at all of the bad movies that have been released this year. I'm not going to say what movies are bad and what movies are good, but let's just say we both saw Birds of Prey.

I did. Um, we'll be seeing Sonic the Hedgehog. Yeah. I'll be seeing Fantasy Island. Yeahhog yeah I'll be seeing Fantasy Island yeah I won't be seeing that one there's been Underwater

that was a movie that was released earlier this year there have been some bad films so we'll talk about the bad movies next week

and sometimes there's fun stuff in bad movies to explore and then there'll be more good movies and hopefully

we'll be here every week for you to help you understand what good movies are there. Are you ready for that, Amanda? I am, especially for the good ones. But, you know, we'll also see the bad ones. Yes. So TBD on Sonic the Hedgehog could be good, could be bad. It could be something. How do you feel about Dr. Robotnik, aka Jim Carrey? Is that a character in Sonic?

Yes. Did you play Sonic? I certainly did. I wasn't allowed to. Well, I wasn't allowed to play video games. Well, that's a key topic of conversation for us then. But I'm familiar. I knew like the allure, but it was like on a different gaming system, right?

It was on Sega Genesis. Yeah, and most people didn't have Sega because I would have to go to friends' homes to play video games, but that wasn't available to me. So I'll be sort of an anthropologist on this upcoming podcast. I can't wait. I look forward to it. In the meantime, please stick around for my conversation with Portrait of a Lady on Fire writer-director Celine Sciamma. I'm honored to be joined by Celine Sciamma.

Celine, thanks for being here. Thanks for having me. Celine, you know, I noticed this is your first feature-length film that is not about adolescence, that is not centered around adolescence. And I'm wondering why it took this period of time to get to a film about this stage of womanhood. Yeah, I wonder too.

Is that something that you had been plotting when you started your work, I don't know, over 10 years ago as a filmmaker? Did you think, I'm going to be charting the progress of a person's life over time and I'm going to be looking at the different phases of life or is this just something that sort of comes to you naturally organically yeah I did it did happen organically but it I mean after girlhood I I kind of decided that this would be a trilogy. I kind of handed it also to the press, saying, like, promoting girlhood.

It was like, this is the end of a trilogy. Also because I wanted to depart and I wanted to actually, like, it was a way to make it happen. But I didn't have no scheme where I would go through the different steps of childhood and teenagehood but it's actually the case because Water Lilies was about really beginning of

adolescence Tomboy was about the end of childhood and Girlhood was about the end of adolescence I think it has to do mostly with the fact that I got the opportunity, the privilege to make film at a very young age because when I wrote Waddle Lisa, I was 26. Basically, it was obvious that I would write about teenagehood because I wanted to write about something that I knew. Do you think it's useful to have that 20-year remove from the experience to be writing about it in that way? Are you looking at things in that specific way?

Did you think about this film in that way too? I think this film, I mean, well, I'm 40 years old now. And I was like, I was really, really wanted to have a new experience in crafting portraits

with grown-ups character and wanting to tell about a love story that was fully lived. Whereas the desire, the rise ofire with teenage characters is mostly about discovering yourself. And I really wanted to, and about love that is not completed.

And I wanted to depart from that frustration and go with the full love dialogue and also work with professional actresses. It was a way also to put, I mean, to depart also from the comfort of, you know, your craft. I think also it was a way working around coming of age story was a way to figure out what kind of director I was because you're not enslaved to casting. You get to have also a more equal relationship with your cast, for instance. And yeah, not be set into this idea that,

okay, you make a first film and then you make a second one with more money. For instance, Tomboy was cheaper than what A Lilies, for instance. And those things, I think about them a lot. They're not happening by chance. I'm like trying to not compromise ever and to build each film as a prototype and to be free. So to make them not too expensive

and also working with teenagers was also a way to find, yeah, my own way of directing, understanding myself as a director. And with these three films, first film, I kind of, I was like, okay, I think now I'm ready for adulthood.

Even entering girlhood, you felt that way? You felt like it would be almost on a more level playing field with your actors if they were not as experienced? Because by then, I feel like Tomboy and Water Lily is very well received, beloved by many people. Of course.

So, you know, you're reputational in the world at that point. And even still, you felt like it would be easier for you at that stage to work with more inexperienced people. Well, I think it's, I wasn't thinking, it was different for Girlhood because the movie was more, I experimented, it wasn't about, yeah, I was kind of confident now with actresses and not being anxious at all. But it means that this discomfort, I could rely on that, but to be more bold on other levels of the film, like

narratively and making it bigger. So, it's a real film regarding the script, the construction. So, yeah, it was another form of prototype, I must say. And this time, yeah, I really wanted to, it was kind of a paradox, but to focus on the fact that I wanted to make the most contemporary object, the most contemporary film. And the paradox was that it was set in the past, but that would set the ambition and the bar.

Like you can't compromise with the fact that it has to be super contemporary did you do you anticipate this being the part of the first part of a new trilogy in any way no okay that's just something you you jerry-rigged to explain the last three so why did you want to write a love story? Why was that important? Well, because I think love stories are the films that have the most impact on us. And there's not that many, I must say. I mean, here, there's the romantic comedy as a genre. In France, we don't really even have that, I think.

We're doing it increasingly less in this country, too. Yeah, too, you know? Yeah. And it's weird because it's, I mean, we all have

a big appetite and as cinephiles, I mean, we all have this passion for films that are not even interesting

in cinematically speaking. Right. But that we adore because, and like if you look at the greatest film in the history of cinema, you know, Gone with the Wind, Titanic, it's love stories, Pretty Woman. So I really wanted to, yeah,

to confront myself to that genre and to craft a film that would be really generous. And also, love story. I mean, it's also a lesbian love story. And that hasn't been done much. And I wanted to give that also. Especially in a period piece like this. So I'm sure there was a lot of intentionality

around the time that this film is set. I was hoping you could kind of explore and explain some of that, like kind of right at the height of the Age of Enlightenment and what's happening in France at that time. And maybe you can help us understand why you wanted to set a film in this period.

Yeah, I mean, I wanted the 18th century for the Enlightenment, which is a very very important moment in france and i mean we keep convoking it today uh regarding very political matters like the enlightenment like the universalism for instance france is strong it really rebandicates universalism you know know, whereas communitarism, you know, and this, like it would be this ideal. And we keep living every day.

It's convoked every day, even though, I mean, our president keeps talking about that. So politically, it was interesting to set the movie at that time. But it was mostly also for a matter of art history because at that particular moment, the second half of the 18th century, there was a very, and I was ignorant about that, I must say,

there was a very strong female-driven art scene, also with a critic scene. And there were hundreds of women painters in Europe. And then there was backlash. And, you know, we keep being told that women's rights, women's opportunities keep growing. And it's not true. It's a cycle. And as we are going through today as some kind

of cultural shift around this question we also experience strong backlash and resistance so um i mean i was amazed to discover the body of work of these women that were erased from art history it's glorious it's beautiful and it's it's missing it's it's missing to art history but that can be corrected you know uh but it's it has been missing from our lives i mean i felt looking at these images like these images have been missing from my life like i i would have it would have been better if i had encountered the body of work of these women um i would have felt less lonely uh because you know that's what the fact that we that we are missing women's perspective uh in literature in in art in general it means that we are not of course we're missing great pieces of art but also we're not given the transmission

of our intimacies because you know that's what literature is also, you know, sharing the experience of a character. And so that's a way to isolate women. You know, we're not being given the historicity of our intimacies, of our desires. And that was the project also with Portrait of a Lady on Fire. We wanted to give back to these women their desire. It's not because you're oppressed that you don't have the desire. It's not because

you don't love who you want, that you're not full of love for somebody. I also can't imagine a more intimate movie. It is truly a movie between two people, a secret unspoken in many ways between two people the whole time. This is very smart. I was reading that you write your films scene to scene. But I'm curious, especially for something like this, which is an invention in a lot of ways, is it character first? Is it setting and time first?

Is it story first? Like, how do you come to the decision to begin writing something? Well, it is images and scenes first. I have this, I take a long time buffering. I take a long time having this reverie, dreaming about things, not trying to bring things together. For instance, for Portrait,

I had like, since the beginning, I had the final scene that we're not going to talk about, but I had that. No spoilers here. I had the image of Adele and Elle being really set on fire, for instance, not knowing why would this happen, but I had this. What do you do? You jot it in a notebook? You open up your computer? Yeah. I put up my computer. I read it. And I use only one file and put all the ideas and dream about them. Dream about them and never give up on the desire.

Because those things that come to you first, if you're not trying to put them in a storytelling, if you're not trying to make them fit in, they stay. They stay as compass. And they will be in the film. They will be. You have to put them in the film. And then I begin to think about the storytelling.

But the unit is always the scenes. I'm always thinking about the scenes and not the plot for instance. And trying to find solutions for the plots within the scenes. So basically when I have a list of all the scenes, I begin to write the script. But before that, it's not, it's sometimes it can also be a line of dialogue for instance i had uh don't regret remember like a motto and i i didn't know it would be like part of the dialogue it could be part of an idea it could be a global philosophy uh wrote that into my notes for a question later so it's basically it's a puzzle that you've never seen pieced together before. Exactly.

And you have all of the pieces. Exactly. That sounds very difficult to make it fit together though. It is. Is it challenging to actually construct a coherent story from that? It is very challenging, but it is very exciting. It puts you in a dynamic where you're like hunting for a treasure in a way. You're like, have yeah it's

it's it's mapping the film and and it's actually fun i mean it's really challenging but i hadn't been always doing like this your other films feel so naturalistic i wondered if that this is so i mean it's i'm sure you've heard it's very painterly the new film and very purposefully i'm sure but that the images are so stark and so defined. But your other films don't feel quite that same way to me. So this is the first time you're doing it specifically in that way? Well, there's a reason for that. I think it is that my previous films, there were no shot, reverse shot.

Very few. Very, very few. Will you explain to the listeners what that means? Well, it means like if we would film our conversation, for instance, there would be a shot on you and then there would be a shot on me and we would edit this. And it's basic cinema grammar.

Every film has a shot, reverse shot. You can't find a film without a shot, reverse shot. I mean, otherwise they'll be conceptual. And I'm all about long takes and trying to find choreography of the body in the frame. So, using the dolly a lot. And when I had this idea about the relationship between a painter and a model,

I thought, okay, but this is going to be a film about shot, reverse shot. I'm going to have to do this. And I don't have a strong appetite for this. So now, but it's like, you know, you're like a student also when you write. You're like a student with no teacher. You're like a student studying your own film in a way. And so then when I decided, I realized that it would be it would have to be

basically about shots reversal because the model is in front of the painter then you begin to think about to reflect on that on different ways like how can you make shot reverse shot fun how um how can you even build the storytelling around around this idea that one character will go in their own gaze? Because if you're in your shot, then you go in the shot of the other person. Then it's a tension. It's a dramatic tension. When you introduce the mirror into the frame too, that is the third level of understanding the seeing yourself in someone else quite literally is the most

well I don't want to digress too much but that blows my mind when you put it in that context and that's being playful and that's harvesting an idea ideas

and so that's why I think this film is also quite different because it's not working on the same it's not thinking about the same

grammar of cinema so you were thinking about exploding some of the formal dynamics that you had settled on from your last three films too here was that a very purposeful choice that you were making as you were designing the movie no it was it was a total consequence of the storyline i must. So it wasn't about, okay, how am I going to renew myself? It was about, okay, I have this, the relationship is based on the model and the painter. So, well, how am I going to shoot this?

And so, oh, okay, so I have to reflect on shot, reverse shot. So it wasn't about, I'm going to make it different. It just organically happens and you have to be honest. I mean, you just have to be honest i mean you just have to be honest um and i think you especially at the stage of screenwriting the more honest you are with what's going to happen like with the storyboarding the future storyboarding of the film the most honest you are about that then the most playful you will be with this you know you won't become the victim of what you've been writing because sometimes it happens.

You can become the victim of what you've been writing because you're like, okay, painter and a model, if I didn't think shot reverse shot, if I didn't went through

with this idea through the process of the screenplay, I could have, you know, I would have had less desire for that situation

because it's also very repetitive. I mean, the movie is about, is a lot about rituals because, about rituals because she's going to pose a lot of times and it's set mostly in one room, which can put a lot of pressure. Like, how am I going to have desire for that room every day? I had a grip man.

Grip? Is that the word? Yeah yeah there was like an extra on the set and he hadn't read the script and he stayed with us for the whole shooting actually but like on the fourth day we were shooting and the workshop of the painter was like when are we changing rooms we're like never and he was like that's impossible well it is. So one of the ways that you, I guess, build anticipation for that shot or reverse shot is this incredible, very patient 20 minutes before we meet Adele's character or at least see her face. And you just see the back of her head and that first encounter and that trailing shot, which is just an amazing. I love that sequence can you maybe like explain what you're thinking was behind almost making us wait to get to see her and to wait for naomi's character to get to see her and what all that meant yeah it's um the character eloise character doesn't want to be painted and we we uh and the beginning of the film is about that tension, that cinematic tension of having the desire to see somebody's face,

which could be the definition of cinema or introducing a character. How do you create the appetite for a face, and especially a face that you have already seen? Because that's the paradox, because Adele and Elle's face is identified, especially in France, people know her. She's on the poster. She's on the poster. So why would you, I mean, like, spoiler alert,

you know, we know her face, but how do you build tension around that? Which is an amazing question to ask yourself. And it's a very Hitchcockian move also. I'm not a big, I'm not a cinephile director. That doesn't, I mean, I watch a lot of films and I have the cinephile culture, but I'm not a cinephile director in a way

that I'm not trying to dialogue with past filmmakers doing quotes or whatever. In this film, there's a quote, actually, there's a quote from Bergman, persona, there's a frame that is definitely a wink or an homage. This film shares a lot with persona, two women trapped in a home in an island, you know, there's something there that makes sense yeah um but otherwise i'm not into this reference thing but that moment felt yeah i was like yeah it's it's gonna be each cocaine yes yeah there's like maybe a little rebecca a little suspicion a little bit of that in there that's interesting so um so many of the

sequences of the film like i said feel so designed are you storyboarding every single moment of the sequences of the film, like I said, feel so designed. Are you storyboarding every single moment of the movie? So I'm not storyboarding. In the process of writing, I'm always trying to be accurate about the cuts, for instance. I'm trying to edit the film within the script. The film has been, and the editing process quite confirmed it. I mean, the film has been, hasn't been, you know, the scenes are in the order

where they were written, and the cuts are basically the one that were written. Did you shoot it in sequence as well? No, not at all. Okay. And I don't consider the script done unless I can definitely see how each scene is going to be storyboard.

I don't know the word. In France, we say découpage, but I don't know if you have that word. Découpage means cut. Well, anyway. But each day before shooting, I rethink it each day before shooting and I come on the set and tell about what we're going to do. So it's a double process of thinking about it before

and then re-questioning it every day, which is something that, because you're building the language of the film. And I mean, at the end of the shooting, you're practically more in the position to invent than at the beginning, which is a paradox also, I think, because you're building that this language and you you begin to speak it more and more you you learn known language of the film and that's

also something i always think about when i think about the audience i think like i think the pleasure of the the audience should be that they get to speak the language of the film and get it and be more and more connected to the language that they speak. Like it would be a new language and then they will speak it. Like, for instance, page 28, it's definitely an idea like that. It's like you own that language. A number can break your heart, but that number, and maybe that number will break your heart in life, you know, hopefully.

It may now if people see the film, yes. And that's what I'm talking about when I'm talking about language. So in the process of shooting the film, like in the last days of shooting, you know that language so well that you can play with it even more, even more. That's the beauty of doing that job, I think. Do you have a meticulous level of specificity in the script? Like the dress must be green, for example. Like is all of that very clearly demarcated?

Yeah. I mean, the green dress, for instance, yes, that's a good example. But the way Marianne was dressed, for instance, there was no color involved. So there are some things that I'm very, that I won't compromise with. And there are things that are open so that, you know, because cinema is very collaborative.

So, and I enjoy that very much. So, but for instance, for Marianne's dress, I didn't know the color, didn't know the fabric, didn't know what would be the style, but I knew that I wanted her to have pockets, for instance. So that was the costume designer came up with the fabric, this idea of this fabric, and also the color that wasn't really part of my world

because I'm not a very burgundy red person. You know, in my film, very few warm color in a way. But I went for it. I was like, okay, this is new, but didn't compromise on the presence of pockets, for instance. So it looks like you shot this with natural light. Are all your films shot in natural light? No, and it's not shot in natural light.

I mean, it is partly. All the exteriors, obviously, are shot in natural light. And we begin with this. So it was a night-day shooting in Brittany. We were surprised by an amazing sun, which is not the case in Brittany. A little cloudy there? Yeah, usually it's gray, and I wanted that gray, gothic atmosphere. And well, then I was totally, I mean, I have no control over meteorology, but

we actually welcomed this as a good news. But then we had to take back that light from Brittany to the castle where we're shooting in the Parisian periphery. It's a very ancient castle that wasn't untouched. For instance, the color of the wall was original. We didn't paint anything. We didn't touch anything. But we couldn't hang any lights inside the room, for instance. So it's all lit from the outside. And we had this big, it was really like we put a lot of money into this.

There was this very big structure with a lot of lights and it would be really really accurate we wouldn't use actually the natural

lighting it's so funny because I feel like so many of especially things framed in front of the window I was like

wow she really this is like Barry Lyndon or something it really feels that way there's like 20 spotlights

over there doing the job yeah yeah yeah and the night scenes of course with the candle uh agenda which is really you could look at every period film really just looking at the candles and and that would tell a lot about uh the directing choice um that was something that took a lot of time and a lot of invention also, because as we couldn't put any spotlight in there regarding the candle, like do you put the source in the frame or not? And you have to invent a whole bunch of lights with rope lights mostly. And the set would be like for just one candle, the set would be full of rope lights, very, very strange shape.

And all the actresses were always, how do you call that? They were always followed by a guy with a light, you know, as they would be followed by the microphone for the sound. Wow. microphone for the sound wow um so when it's long takes of uh marian crossing the whole i mean taking the stairs and riding through the castle she's basically always followed by a whole bunch of lights um because obviously the candle didn't lit anything but you could i mean you could also make that decision or it's all candle lit and like as i understand it that's very hard to do it is that's sort of why i asked but also that choreography that you must have been doing just to use that lighting rig must have been really difficult to pull off. It was.

But it really works. The most difficult part for me was the waiting. Because if you decide, you know, when people are saying, how do you make it beautiful? Well, you have to give time. You have to give time to the DP and the camera crew. So basically, it was a lot, a lot. And it's kind of a, I mean,

it's not that only, I'm a smoker, so I can wait. But it's not about the fact that I have to wait and then I'm bored. It's the fact that, well,

it's time you won't, you will have less time with the actresses. So, you know, it's a strong decision. But I'm glad we took it. I love the way that you've captured

the act of painting in the movie. Yeah. It's so tactile. How did you, who is the painter in the film? I assume it's not Naomi. No. Okay.

So who is that? How did that happen? Yeah, I really wanted to show a painter at work. That's also why we chose to shoot digital with a very, very high resolution, which was also a decision that had consequences because regarding focus, it was very, it had a very narrow window. The actress, it would really constrain them, their whole body, the way they would move.

And focus, yeah, it was like lost a lot of sweat, sweated a lot, I think. Some of your other, Water Lilies is on film, right? I don't know if your other films are also on film. No, Water Lilies was 35 milliliters. Tomboy was shot with a 7D, Canon 7D was one of the first films shot with this. Partially why it's cheaper, I'm sure, than Water Lilies. And this one, yeah, digital. And why was I talking to you about that?

Oh, the painting. It was mostly about that because we wanted to have, like, to see the moist of the painting, the colors. And so the painter, I was looking for somebody who was able to make it look 18th century, but didn't want to go with a copyist or a specialist, wanted to work also because it was the film

with a contemporary painter who would be 30, who would be the age of the character so I encountered Hélène Delmer's work she's the painter of the film on Instagram actually totally fell in love

with her work wrote to her she was she had been studying old painting in Florence

in Italy with a maestro specialist of the 19th century that's why Marianne

is a little bit avant-garde but it was mostly important to me I knew that it was mostly important to me. I knew that it wasn't going to be like 18th century perfect, but I kind of didn't care, you know. Let's be modest and let's try to, you know,

but the painting should belong to the film. And so we worked with Hélène, who had no interest or knowledge about cinema. We were both ignorant of how hard it was going to be. You know, when you look at film with painters, it's like, it's pretty rare that you get to invent a painter. Usually it's like the biopic of, I don't know, Turner or Van Gogh, or we know the body of work and it's like about, you know, the pleasure of seeing it happening.

And I understand why it's hard to invent a painter. It's super hard because you have to create everything and make it true. Yeah, I was wondering if you had studied painting at any period of your life just to have access to that, what goes into that. I mean, as I'm watching it as a know-nothing, I'm kind of blown away by the idea of someone just inventing a style a painting style

yeah on camera yeah it was crazy it was like the hardest job it was like really the thing like luckily I was ignorant otherwise I wouldn't have done it um and it was painful also for her, because like for each painting, it's an 80-hour job. Wow. And it's cinema, so she had to paint several because there were different steps and we weren't doing this chronologically. That's amazing. That's amazing.

She nearly died. And she had to create several paintings, the portrait of Lady on Fire that we see in the beginning. And there are several paintings. Well, we don't want to spoil that. But it was super hard. But the beauty of it is that she would come on the set and she would paint before.

We would do the canvas before we would do a Noémie Merlin painting. But Noémie would look at her. So she would see what the painter was doing and especially, okay, the gestures, but mostly also the choreography, the steps, how you take a look back, how you come back, and the gaze of the painter, which is very, very specific. So there was a strong collaboration between them

that was beautiful to watch also. How has it been to have your film kind of explode in a way? I mean, this is certainly, it feels like the noisiest reception you've gotten in the States. Obviously, you won an award at Cannes and it was hugely celebrated. It feels like a bigger amount of exposure to someone like me. What has it been like to kind of enter that realm as a filmmaker? It's full of contrast, I must say. It's not one thing.

It's, I mean, the thing I enjoy the most is feeling totally depossessed of the film. The fact that… What do you mean by that? Well, the fact that there's kind of a cult around it. Maybe it's not a lot of people, but it's definitely super strong. I talked to Todd Haynes a few months ago, and I have talked to him a few times. And the relationship that people have to Carol reminds me a lot of the relationship to this movie. And not just because of the love story at the center of it, but because of the amount of affection, the sort of intense affection that people have for it, who've seen it,

is really quite unusual in cinema now. And it is because it is a lesbian love story because Carol is also a lesbian love story. It's because it has been missing from the screen

and so people get passionate about it. That's why we should make those films very... I mean, that's why we must be very careful because there will be passion.

So we must make the most beautiful, intelligent film. And that moves me the most because that reminds me of my own relationship with cinema when I was a teenager. What was a film that you had built a cult to? Huh? I built a cult to Mulan on Drive. Mulan on Drive, for instance. That is also a lesbian love story. True.

That's why also it was a cult for me because I wanted to see those images. And the fact that I've been liking lousy, direct-to-DVD lesbian love story. I've been loving them. Because, you know, I mean, I had to wait

till I was 16 to see two women kiss on screen, but I'd never seen it in life either. Imagine how lonely, how ignorant of, not in the art of how it goes, but how ignorant of how you feel about this you are and Malone Drive was kind of a

yeah totally occult around that film but mostly also because he actually it's

he crafted a narrative about love. Everybody seems to think the movie is super mysterious. It's really simple. It's just like he's telling this,

the first half of the film is a dream about the second half, the realities. It's really easy. But what does it tell us about love? It tells us, Bill London Drive says that I love you is always something that you say in the past. Like, that's it. Because that's the most striking thing in Mulanandrive.

Those two women, they don't know each other. Suddenly they're in bed and one of them said to the other, I think I'm in love with you. And this is striking because it's mysterious. But it's even more striking when at the end of the film, because it's not mysterious at all. It says that, I love you is something always say in the future.

And I thought a lot about Mulan and Drive while writing Portrait because I said, I thought I have to find a narrative that will also say something about love. It's not about just, you know, crafting a love story.

What's going to be the politics of love, the philosophy of love that I want to hand to people. And it be the politics of love the philosophy of love that I want to hand to people and it's the opposite is that I love you is something you will always say

in the future is a sentence that always has a future I can't interrogate that anymore because I don't want to spoil the movie for people

you mentioned you sort of feel dispossessed from the movie are there downsides to a movie like this, getting such extraordinary exposure? Well, the downside is that when it's despised, you take it very badly.

Have you had some complicated... I feel like most of the reaction has been so positive. Yeah, here it's amazing. The movie's been released, I've done 15 countries, 15 release of the film and um from one culture to another I must say the French culture is quite resisting the film yeah didn't really do well in the French box so I mean it did okay but it's it's an international hit you know um but but domestically didn't feel quite understood, I must say.

What accounts for that, do you think? It's totally French culture, I think. Like, for instance, the French critics thought the film was cold and was lacking flesh. That is the opposite of how Americans have received the movie. Exactly. So, you know, I'm not here to comment on that

I mean it's what they feel it's their culture it's like but it's yeah it's troubling because I was

really trying to make this film that I found hot you know and like the people tell you it's cold it's like

okay you just I mean it's still kind of contrast sometimes it can be not hard to live.

Come on, this is just crazy, beautiful life that I have. But it's asking myself questions about the difference. So beyond the obvious increased level of exposure in this country and elsewhere, you mentioned that this feels like it is a leveling up in some ways do you intend to make even bigger films than this do you have a sense of what kind of films you want to make in the future well i'm thinking about it yeah um my next dream so it might not be my next film but my next dream is to make a very, very long film. Like very long.

Like television? Or like an epic film? Not an epic film, not television. I don't know. But I mean, no, I'm not saying I want to make a six mini series, something like that. Maybe I will. I would have always wanted to write a very long film. And I love TV series. I mean, something like that. Maybe I will. You know, I would, I've always wanted to,

to write a very long form and I love TV series. I mean, I love TV series, of course, but I mean, it's been an inspiration for Girlhood,

for instance, was built like five, five episodes of 26 minutes. Right. So it was kind of influenced by the rhythm of television.

But, I'm thinking, I'm trying to think out of the box and think like, I just can't tell you that I want it to be super long, but maybe it will be eight hours of streaming. Maybe it will be, but without episodes. Maybe it will be, I don't know. But I'm buffering. It's interesting, you're buffering.

Each of your films, I feel like each is longer than the last two. Yeah. Do you feel more confident writing at length as well when you're doing this? Yeah. But the weird thing is that the scripts are always really short. For instance, Portrait is only 68 sequences, 68 scenes, which I know can seem like people don't really know how many scenes there are in a film, but like a classic script would be 90 pages and 110 scenes something like that um portrait was like 80 pages and uh so sometimes I don't have really the sense of because you know usually a

page is a minute so you're like okay 90 page an hour and a half you like those long shots I like those long shots too and I like to find the rhythm also you get a sense of the rhythm live when you're on the set

and at some point you're like okay a continuity person is looking at you saying your movie's gonna last two hours

and I'm like okay why not but it's not that I have that in mind you know Celine we end every episode of this show by asking filmmakers

what's the last great thing they've seen. Have you seen anything special lately? I haven't seen much because mostly I've been seeing the last two minutes of my film. That's like not for Andrew. Or your Q&A work. But I'm going to say something that is maybe, that might seem conventional,

especially these days around her award season. But I must say that Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Fleabag, has given me a lot of joy, love, emotion. And I think she's a great author. And I'm just trying to meet her in the city. If you hear this Phoebe Waller-Bridge, like, let's hang out. What is it about that show that you responded to?

I think it's, I mean, I feel connected to the project. I mean, I even feel like we have, there's this kind of connection regarding the philosophy of the gaze and the representation. And I just, and I think she's just brilliantly directed and good comedy. I mean, comedy when it is that good, as everything I want from fiction.

I don't know. You're gazing into the middle distance, looking for the right word. Yeah. I just think it's brilliant. And I can't wait for what she does next. I feel the same about you. I think portrait is an absolute masterpiece. So thanks for doing the show.

Thank you. Thank you to Celine Sciamma and of course thank you to Amanda Dobbins please stick around for this podcast next week we will be back to explore the films of Dump You Ari and we'll have more conversations with great filmmakers hopefully talking about great films we'll see you then