The Big Picture - The Heaving ‘Wuthering Heights’ and the Throbbing ‘Pillion’: A Very Horny Valentine's Day Double Feature

Episode Date: February 13, 2026

Sean and Amanda are joined by Sam Sanders from the Sam Sanders Show to break down two new horny and thorny releases. They begin the show with an extensive and fascinating conversation about Emerald Fennell’s ‘Wuthering Heights,’ starring Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi (2:22). They explain why they found her provocation unsuccessful, why Robbie and Elordi were miscast in their roles, and how the film doesn’t look nearly as good as it should. Then, they discuss Harry Lighton’s delightful debut feature, ‘Pillion,’ starring Alexander Skarsgård and Harry Melling, which they all absolutely adored (1:02:13). Finally, Sean is joined by Lighton to discuss how he approached adapting the original source material for the film, why he purposefully avoided classic biker and leather films as inspiration, and how he coordinates intimacy on screen (1:23:33). Hosts: Sean Fennessey and Amanda Dobbins Guests: Harry Lighton and Sam Sanders Producer: Jack Sanders Production Support: Lucas Cavanagh A State Farm agent can help you choose the coverage you need. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.®  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 sex, love, yearning, desire, and movies. Today on the show, we are joined by our pal, Sam Sanders. It's so good to be here. Thank you for being here. Host of the Sam Sanders Show. We are here talking about two very sexy, horny, unusual movies.

The first one, of course, is Weathering Heights, the much anticipated Emerald Fennell adaptation of the Bronte novel. The second is Pillion, which is written and directed by Harry Leighton. Harry Leighton is a guest on the show today. We talked about how his movie, which is a DOMCOM, a BDSM rom-com, exhibits power, love, vulnerability, difficulty, and relationships, and the size of Alexander Scarsguard. We will get into that after our conversation, and we'll start talking about Wuthering Heights right after this. This episode of The Big Picture is presented by State Farm.

You know those friends who show up for whatever you're into, the ones will debate which superhero universe is better or binge true crime documentaries with you at three in the morning, those friends are gold. State Farm is like that, helping you figure out the coverage that actually fits. Car, home, life, whatever you need, they've got your back. And if you want a hand, a local agent is just a tap away on their award-winning app. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there. Sam, welcome. It's so good to be here.

Thanks for coming. I tell you, as a longtime fan, being where y'all make the sausage. It's quite nice. What's it like? How does it feel? And he thought, what's different? Sausage is an interesting metaphor for this episode. A lot of lights.

Yeah. Yeah, I guess you asked for that. Fancy your mics. Four cameras. This is big time. Right. This is big time. Well, we have been on your show the last couple of years and we wanted to have you on too.

And, you know, your setup is, is nothing to, nothing to be shy out. People like it because it's like a blue sky background and plants and a rug. But that is all IKEA and Amazon. We are public media. Yeah. It's budget. Our sign that hangs with the station logo. our producer like screw that up himself.

Okay. I mean, sir, that's wallpaper. Yeah. So I'm just like a... This is the power of big tech right here in front of you. Let's talk about Weathering Heights, okay? Let's talk about it. So just as a little...

We'll give background on the movie, but I want to give a little background on Emerald Fennell between Amanda and I. So we have covered her two previous films on the show, Promising Young Woman, which is a movie that I liked some aspects on, but was very mixed to negative, especially on the ending. I think you were more like, that's the same maybe even more negative on it than I was.

I think so. I think that's going to be a theme. Yeah. Salburn not a big fan of. You were not... Playing in my face. Playing in my face. What she was doing with that movie. But we got to give her some credit because she has emerged, I think, as one of the very few brand name female

filmmakers in studio filmmaking in the last 10 years. And she has an identity. There is excitement about this movie. When she does something now, there's a lot noise. And so I've had this date circled on the calendar for a long time. And we should, we should explain, Sam is here because we got to do your show last month and we were trying to figure out a good opportunity for you to come on the show since Wicked for Good didn't

really work out for any of us. I was a total Wicked One stand. Wicked Two, I just kept my mouth shut. Yeah. Yeah. But so I think, you know, Pillion came up on the episode that we did with you. Yeah. And then we were talking afterwards, like, interests. in Wuthering Heights and what's going to go on and you said, and you seemed curious? Yeah. I feel about Ms. Finnell. You know that Will Ferrell quote from Anchorman or the Kanye West song,

like, it's provocative. It gets the people going. That's her movies. It's provocative on purpose. It makes you pay attention. But with all of her films that I've seen, the landing isn't stuck. The plane doesn't land the right way.

But there were moments where you say, oh, that's interesting. Yes. I'm going to talk about this. Yes. This is worth discussing. I think that is a skill and a skill worth acknowledging. Yeah. It doesn't mean I approve.

Yeah. But I'm kind of fascinated by this project. So let's talk about Wuthering Heights, right? So it is an adaptation written by Emerald Fennell. She directed the film. It's based on the Bronte novel, which was published in 1847. I read that this is the 35th film or television. adaptation of this work, which even by the standards of great literature is a lot.

Also, can I just ask, I have read multiple synopsies of the book. I've read write-ups of how the book works. I've talked with friends who have read the book. It is one of the most confusing books ever written. Why then does every filmmaker say, I'll do it? Well, what do you think it is? Well, I think it's because of the tradition of the book in English literary history, which comes, so 1847, it's the same year or a year after Jane Eyre written by Charlotte Bronte, Emily Bronte's sister, and about 30 to 40 years after Jane Austen and is just kind of, for whatever reason, considered like one of the great achievements and also like a stopping point in terms of literature written by women, gothic literature.

There are a lot of like taboos broken here. It was sensational at the time. Yeah. So I think it's just like it's IP, honestly. It's like, I mean, it is kind of like literary IP and has become really buzzy. And so when you say Wuthering Heights, people, most people have some sort of reference or interpretation or at least like Heathcliff has become a concept outside of this book. Yeah. Like I had never engaged with the book or any of the movies.

Yeah. But I know Wuthering Heights exists. Yes. And I should pay attention to it. Right. Yeah, I think you're right. And I think it is almost like because those books seem like a kind of response to the Jane Austen era of literature where they're sort of like almost like a Victorian rejection. You know, like desire can be expressed clearly and loudly.

It doesn't have to be this kind of rom-com of manners, which a lot of those Austin books are. So, and that's very cinematic, you know, that level of desire and confusion. And darkness. Totally. And just. Just the setting is very, she conjures it. It's very visual. It's a great set piece for a film story.

There are a handful that are very, very notable. You mentioned that just this morning you finished watching, I guess probably the most famous version of the film, which is the 39 version, which was nominated for Best Picture, which famously stars Lawrence Olivier as Heathcliff and Merle O'Bron as Catherine, which is a film I like quite a bit. I think it's an interesting adaptation. It is very similar in some ways to this new version,

it's differences, I think, are what makes it the superior film, but we'll talk about that. Yes. Yes. Yeah. You guys really did the work also, which I appreciate. You watched a lot of adaptations. Well, I watched he did rivalry to prepare for this podcast, but that's fine. I do want to talk about him and what is happening right now. And I reread bits of the book because this, have you read this book before? It was not handed down to you. I was talking to a good friend who did read it and I was like, give me a download. And she's like, the thing you need to know about this book is that like it is so confusing. there's two families because there's like the first gen, then they're kids fighting,

there are multiple Kathy's, you forget who's telling what. And multiple perspectives. And all the same names. And unreliable narrators. It is, I don't want to, convoluted.

I say that. Totally. It's like a literary experiment. Yeah. The way that she's kind of shifting who's telling the story and why that person gets to tell the story at that time. It's a really interesting text apparently. I haven't read it though.

Well, and also what I get when I talk to folks about the book, they're like, oh, this is a story of vengeance and like revenge, which is why I was so thrown off for Finnell to have the tagline for her Weather and Heights be the greatest love story ever told. It's like, Weather and Heights is a revenge story, not a love story. And it is also just a bunch of people like alone in the middle of nowhere going, like,

going crazy. Making decisions that are very strange. There is like an isolated wild, like gothic quality to all of it. But it's interesting, I was handed this, you know, in my like nerdy girl era, like after the Austin, along with Jane Eyre. And did you like the book? Yeah, I've always been more of an Austin than a Bronte, which, you know, like I do think there is a little bit of a divide there. But I think it was handed to me as kind of like, okay, now that you've read the comedy of manners, the style. Like now.

Let's get dark. Right. You're going to understand the rejection of it. to understand the weirdness of it. But it was presented as like not girls gone wild, but like this is weird stuff is happening here. Yeah. And not as like Star Cross lovers. Yeah.

And I don't think anybody really understands the story that way except for Emerald Fennell. She seems to be the only person who seems to be seeing the movie in that respect. Like if you look at the Robert Fuest version from 1970, famously with Timothy Dalton, one of the first big things that he ever did. I mean, Louis Bonwell did a version of this story. Jacques Rovet did a version of this story. We just talked about the 1992 version, which I still haven't seen, which is Juliet Benoche and Ray Fines in his first film role, actually. And then in 2011 Wuthering Heights, Andrea Arnold made a version of it. Yeah.

Which. Tried to watch that last night. It speaks to something that is in the novel that is sort of hard to parse, which is some of the language she uses to describe Heathcliff's ethnicity or cultural background. The language of characters is. Yes. The end of word for me for a loop. She uses the word gypsy to describe him, but then later in the book, she describes him

as sort of having the whitest pallor possible, like, whiter than the wall. So it's confusing, like, who Heathcliff is meant to be in where he comes from, because he's this youngling who comes from nowhere, right? He's kind of adopted into this higher class family. So we don't know, like, is this a story about race? I think it is.

And I think it needs to be. I think there are moments in the finel version of this film where you're like, This is supposed to be a person of color. Sorry to jump ahead, but there's a moment when Jacob Allerty is getting whipped and lashed and you see the lashes on his back. I'm like, okay. It's recalling like 12 years of late. Right.

Very, very overtly. And the 2011 version goes there. Heathcliff is played by a black person. And in that film, they're using the N-word. They're beating him. It's hard to watch. But it feels like the racial difference is something that the author of the original book intended to be a part of. Well, yeah. So there's a, I'm just going to quote this great piece written by Jasmine Vajani for New York Magazine just for their book newsletter. So I like honestly don't know if we can even link to it. But it's great. It's called book gossip. And she spoke to a lot of literary historians and critics about this and about the language. And like is Heathcliff white? Is he not white? What kind of not white? Is he like what would Bronte's intention have been at the time? What would have audiences have understood? And the scholars are.

are like he's definitely not white in the in the way that the other characters who identify as white understand themselves in the and that class and race or ethnicity are a huge theme of this of this novel and the relationship or the you know the rejection of heathcliff and his relationship to the lennon family to the to kathy's family etc like the the the the genealogical or the you know what the actual dissent is. There are lots of interpretations. Someone said Indian descent. Indian descent because there is that some people suggest Irish because of just like time and place and where so I don't know whether there's like an actual answer.

Like according to the scholarship. I thought this was very interesting. I mean, I don't know the answer. But you're right to the point that. And I guess I don't know whether Bronte thinks that he's specifically black. He is different enough that in this world, he is considered less than. And he speaks a different language at first in the book, no? Yeah, a gibberish that no one understands.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. He is a foreigner, which is why it's so strange in the finel version of this film to see that played by Jacob Allorty. Like, sure. Let it be a white guy, but like that one, he's so central casting. Yes. And he does a heartthrob. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. For brooding heartthrob. Yeah. Like they, like, yeah, it was a weird choice. It was a weird choice.

And it felt like Emerald Fennell could have made a more interesting film and a braver film had she grappled at all with race. Well, well, the, the book gossip piece also points out that then all of the other characters who are pretty clearly white in the book or at least their descriptions are not as developed. are then cast by, played by non-white actors. So there's kind of like a race-blind thing going on here, which is... Which is always hard to pull off. Which is hard to pull off, but also, you know, ignores what is in the book, which is that race and class, which are intertwined in this society and also in, you know, in the world at large art, like are a major part of why the characters are doing what they're doing. There you go. It is a really...

It is an interesting and maybe inappropriate strove. that she has taken here. So it's not just that, you know, Hong Chow is playing Nelly, the sort of the handmaiden to Catherine. Shazade Latif is playing Linton, the Edgar Linton, is sort of the man who Catherine eventually marries.

He was too hot to hate. I'm like, this guy's attractive. I don't dislike him. Yeah. A lot of the Linton's are handsome, but they're stiffs. Anyhow, the fact that she's doing that and then casting, ultimately, a lordy,

and also Owen Cooper as the young version of, And he was in adolescence. So she's kind of going like bad boy, bad boy. Like these are the kind of the classical bad boys in their age range right now, but they're white. Yeah. So for her to go against that, but also go against so much of the intentionality and the purpose of the novel. I kind of wanted to talk about the idea of adaptation with you guys before we get into the text of the movies.

So a deeply faithful adaptation of a novel runs the great risk of being very boring. And in the case of this. this book, Weather and Heights, it would have been unable to understand. It would have been impossible in a two-hour movie.

This is a two-hour and 15-minute movie and it's a sprawling novel that covers 70 years. It's a really big book. I think you can go too far with an adaptation too. Or maybe just too wrong. And there's something about

the choices that she's making in order to make the kind of movie that she wants to make, which is obviously a story of epic desire and sex and, you know, a tragic romance. That's the thing that she really wants to make. And she does make that here in this movie.

But that isn't really what Wuthering Heights is. It's like, it is much more loaded. It's a revenge story. It's a revenge story. And it's about, like, resentment and class warfare. And kind of like cultural frustration, like the lack of understanding between people. And also ownership and property and like who gets which house? Yeah.

Yeah. And this is not really about any of that stuff. Like it doesn't, it kind of like it glances at it, but it doesn't. It removes characters that would have made those points more clear. The biggest difference between Finnell's version and the book and most other versions is that she loses the mean brother. Yeah. The mean brother is the source of a lot of the conflict and the motivation for Heathcliff to be a jerk the rest of the book and film. So you, like, you can't make it a revenge story once the brother is gone.

I think it's worth putting some context around that. In the novel, there's a father figure in the film. The father figure represents essentially the entire Earnshaw family. He is the person who brings Heathcliff into this home, introduces him to his entire family, especially his daughter Catherine. In the novel, the father brings that character home, but it's the brother who becomes kind of the rival and the person who makes Heathcliff feel less. And he's and antagonizes him. And eventually he sort of enslaves him, you know? Right.

Also just in the novel, there are like heavy implications. that Heathcliff is being brought home because he is the like bastard child of Mr. Lenton. There is, I mean, I think, there's an insinuation. And I think like, in that time, in it just sort of would have been questions of like, I guess I'm assuming that this is, now you're responsible for this kid.

So, but also, so then the rivalry between the two brothers is also hinting at like, this brother understands him as a threat because he is his half-brother. And that creates so much of the tension. Totally. It helps explain Heathcliff's psychology, which is that he feels like he's been made to feel less than.

And then that makes you understand not just his desire for Catherine, but the kind of impossibility of Catherine and Heathcliff. Right. Which is a great idea. And they're sort of related, yes, and maybe actually related. Oh, snap.

That would have been interesting in the movie. There is also part of this, which is, and there is a lot. lot. They say brother and sister a lot in the first 15 minutes of the movie where I'm like, I guess you were maybe trying to hint at this. It has that Game of Thrones, you know, incest, incest kink thing that they're trying to, she's kind of like nodding at it, but she's not really going for it. And that's kind of, to me, a failure of the movie in general. I missed that. I missed that point. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, damn. So anyway, you're right. But you're right.

Removing the brother. It just changes the whole plot. Removing the perspective of the book, I think is really important, too, because the first part of the book is essentially a lodger comes to stay at Weathering Heights, or is it to stay at the Linton? The Grange, is that what it's called? Cross Forest Grange. And that is where the Linton estate was, and it's many years in the future,

and this lodger comes and discovers a diary, and he starts to learn about Catherine and Heathcliff, and then he thinks he sees Catherine's ghost. And then that is like the launch pad into the story. So we're starting in the distant future, and then we're going back and Nelly, the handmaiden tells the story. And we're meant to understand her, as you said, as an unreliable narrator.

She's a person who has her own motivations and her own interests. She's in the movie. And she does stuff in the movie. She does. But it's not from her perspective. Yeah, it's not from perspective, but I found myself leaving the movie the most upset with Nellie. Because I felt like she was just getting involved too much and making shit strange. I don't want to say more and spoil it.

But I found that a lot of... A lot of movement that would have gone to the brother had he been there kind of had to go to Nellie. I agree. Yeah. It's an interesting choice of adaptation and I know why she did it and she made the movie that she wanted to make. You know why she did it because I don't. Well, I think she felt like she wanted to spend more time with Catherine and Heathcliff. That like the sort of the people that were orbiting them were of less interest to her.

And there's just a lot more of these two characters together as far as I can tell in any of the adaptations and at least in the novel based on what I've written. So she wanted to make Romeo and Juliet. She wanted to make a movie where these two people are kind of desperately coming together over and over again. And it's against other people's wills, but those people don't matter. She has another character in the movie who is the best character played by or the best performance by Allison Oliver. Isabel, yes. Retell the story of Romeo and Juliet. So which, you know, it's clearly a signal poster.

She's like if that's what's going on here, people are getting in the way. Yeah, she's great. She's really good. That was great. She also was in Saltburn, one of the best things in Saltburn as well. Yeah. And it is true that the baddy women's side characters are the best parts of Emerald Fennell book movies. See also Carrie Mulligan in Saltburn.

But that was just confusing to me because Romeo and Juliet's very different from Wuthering Heights. And I have read the book and I guess I'm not devoted to it. So I was not particularly concerned with this as a faithful adaptation. I'm still really riding my like train dreams wave of, you know, if you don't bring the expectations, then, you know, magic can happen. But I just, I don't understand what I, you can't use the puzzle pieces of Wuthering Heights to make Romeo and Juliet. And it just, and I just, I watched it and it didn't, they didn't fit together for me.

it's on its face. But I think you can, if you do it better. I think the challenge here is that I'm not like a, I'm not a loyalist when it comes to faithfully adapting a novel. I don't think you absolutely have to

do everything intended. In fact, I think you can distort theme based on the time period that you're in and change the meaning of it. I just think the meaning here is meant to be one thing, which is that we live in a more highly sexualized world where we can more confidently talk what we want and how we want it.

But then the movie doesn't really live up to that idea. It doesn't really give us a movie that truly adequately, I think, portrays that idea. So the thing that she's going for, she doesn't get. And in the process, she kind of breaks weathering heights over her knee. And you're like, why did you break Weathering Heights to not make the movie you think you want to make? Well, and I think what viewers have kind of been promised in the run up to this film's release was that, oh, it's sexy, it's kinky, it's Emerald Fennell. And that at every moment when this film is supposed to be sexy and erotic, I found it gimmicky and too much.

Right. So you should talk about that. Yeah. Well, I think that there is, there's the foreplay section of the novel, of the film. And then there's once they actually consummate their affair, which we should know doesn't happen in the book. And it's like, it's not Henry Miller, okay? Like no one is fucking in whether it's the book. It's the book of yearning.

Right. And also, it's been pointed out that, like, Emily Bronte has probably never actually, probably did not have sex in her life, just based on what we know biographically. Listen, the 18, it was a tough time for a lot of people. It was a time. You don't want to be, you don't want to be a lot of things in 1847, but like an unmarried woman, like, living in Yorkshire is like on the list. That's why you write weather and heights. What the fuck else you're doing? But so, and also, and she had a wild imagination and a lot of women. ways, but I don't think adventures towards, like, actual sex.

Yeah. So putting aside the consummation, everything ahead of time is, like, that classic Emerald Fennell, like, sex is, like, is very viscous and gross. Viscous is the word. It is, like, the slug, the bread. Yeah, the eggs. Even, like, the wall of her bedroom slash boudoir is, like, supposed to be skin of her face, but also, you know, looks like what skin that you kind of can, like, plus great,

great production design. Where it gets pushed, it's like sort of dimpled. But yeah, it's like really like ooey, gooey, gross, very memorable. She has a way to this. It's just like the bathtub scene. But it doesn't turn me on.

It doesn't turn me on. But it's like it's scary. It's like she is better portraying sex as like, like you have sex and you die as, you know, something that a lot of women of my generation were taught. And also like clearly, a motif in her movies. All three of her movies.

And so she's portraying the idea of it. She's very creative, very visually imaginative, and can portray sex as not like sexy, but as like the evil around the corner. Yes. But when you get to the actual sex, I was like, this is pretty boring. Yeah. Let's talk about that. Because there are

it's not just like two or three visual representations of that gooiness that you're talking about. There's like 10 or 12. The eggs show up several times. The eggs cracked underneath the bed. You know, you mentioned the scarred back and the scarred back, it's not just that it's the scarred back, but it's a sweating scarred back,

which is almost meant to, there's something... It's supposed to be hot, and I'm like, girl, it's not. Dangerously kinky going on there, but she doesn't really explore it. She just shows us an image and makes us think about it a little bit. Yes. You know, the movie opens also with this groaning sound.

And the groaning sound, we think, is a man masturbating, maybe climaxing, and in fact, it's a guy who's being hanged. and his neck is not broken, and he's just joking. Which is another kind of like, we're bringing you to the edge of climax. And this is a movie that basically does that.

Like, it keeps trying to get you to get off. But then when they do have sex, they're just fully clothed, you know, it's in the rain. By the corset or something. It's just... Yeah, I like that image. It's not physically possible.

Yeah, yeah. That was a bit strange. But an interesting image, yeah. But, like, there's no nudity in this movie. And I don't need it to be pornography. But, like, if you're going to break the text and you're going to redefine what Wuthering Heights is. Yes. And you're going to cast

Jacob Allerty and Margot Rabe. Right. They're just going to be fully clothed in three sex scenes? He takes his shirt off. Okay. And you do notice it. Well, I do. Because I was like, there's a bicep because there's also, I mean, we'll talk about their performances, but there's like not a lot of chemistry behind that between them. He was sexier in Frankenstein.

And he was kind of also doing Frankenstein for the first half of the movie. Yeah. But there's not a lot of heat between them. The block is sort of unimaginative. They're just like in a dining room. Yeah. You know, it's, it's, it's, it's not there. And like, maybe, maybe if you want to be generous, there's an argument that it's like,

that's the point that, you know, the consummation is the, is like is the letdown and this is a movie about desire. But I thought it's not. It's not. I agree. Like I said, I don't. I don't think it gets there. I think that would have been a really interesting way to tell the story. But they are into it for each other.

We're just not really as into it when we're watching it, or at least we weren't. I mean, I think people are really going to like this movie, I think, and I wanted to talk a little bit about that, which is sort of like what is happening culturally and why a movie like this is so anticipated. Because you mentioned you watched heated rivalry. And Romanticy is the most reliable thing at the Barnes & Noble around the corner from your home right now. And we've been talking about Colleen Hoover movie adaptations for the last 12 months. What do you think is like... People are horny again and I like that. that? Why do you think that is? I think, you know, there was a moment, and it was much covered,

that the MCU and Marvel and the superheroification of movies made movies and TVs a bit more sexless. I think we've turned the corner on that, and now it's sexy again. People want to see sex, and they're unashamed to see it on screen. And so in that moment, when you see heated rivalry work because there's fucking. Yes. And you see in Pilead, it works because there's fucking. It's so weird to see Emerald Finnell in that moment. So we're going to talk about what's missing from those two films. Yes. Yes.

I also, it's like I've been trying to figure out what motivates Emerald Vanel to make this kind of movie and to do sex this way and to do pain this way and to do pleasure this way. I found this one podcast where she was talking about her motivation to get into film. She talked about how when she was seven years old she goes to see Jurassic Park with her family

while they're on holiday in America. It gets to the scene. where the Raptors come into the kitchen. It scares her so much. It's so visceral for her. She throws up in the theater. But she stays and she keeps watching and she tells her parents, I'm staying. And it's like, oh, that's your kink.

You want it to kind of hurt a little bit. You want the pain. You want the suffer. And that is your philosophy of sex on screen. It is not mine. It's not mine. It's not mine either. But I want an artist who's willing to be.

to do that in a film? I'm interested in that? Okay. Let me just, last night I had a very interesting experience. I went to the new Beverly for a double feature. Double feature was famous Japanese film called In the Realm of the Senses, which is a different but similarly sensational movie about a doomed couple who are obsessed with each other and have sex.

The reason the movie is famous is because all of the sex scenes are unsimulated. So it is effectively art house pornography. And it is very dramatic. and intense. And all month, this month at the New Beverly, they're showing kind of erotic cinema

as to pay tribute to the theater's history when it used to be basically a porno theater for a few years. And then it was doubled with this movie Bloods battered bride,

which is like just a cult movie that is fun. But watching in the realm of the senses, which is, there's nothing like it because it's Nagisa Oshima

so it's like a real master filmmaker making pornography. That is transgression. That's pain for pleasure. Like that, and I know that Warner,

others is never going to make in the realm of the senses. And I'm not saying that she should. And it's not a standard that I want to hold her to. But it feels like she really comes up short on that idea so many times that it makes you wonder like what's what, maybe it's just that that's her taste is like the 30% of BDSM that she's into. It's funny. Like you mentioned the word edging.

It's hard to be frank here. The point of edging is that eventually you get off. This film never gets off. Yeah. It never gets off. And you tease it, you're kneading the bread and it's fucking. The snail is slim it and it's fucking. And it's like, everything is like the eggs are fucking and then no one fucks and no one resolves.

And it's like, damn it. In the realm of the senses, we literally see human ejaculate. Like, there's nothing even close. Right. I'm like, even rivalry. They fuck. They do. They do.

They like a lot. Like, you never see Dick, which we'll talk about. Season two. There's still time. But, I mean, the thing is, is that, like, you're both right, that in terms of, like, I guess, emotionally or, like, the tone of the film, she, like, never gets off. But she still does have to shoot sex scenes. And that's kind of the problem is that, like, both the text and you can tell, like, her interest and what, or what she finds sexy is in is in the foreplay, is in the restraint, is in the, like, is in the punishment, is in the, is in the, is in the, is in the, is in the, is in the, is in the, is in the, is in the, is in the, is in the, is in the long. is in the longing, is in the it not happening.

Yeah. But then this adaptation because of like the pop cultural moment has to add a lot of sex. Yeah. And it's not there. It's not there in the filmmaking. It's not there in the chemistry. It's like the story, I guess, you know, it's fine. But it is also one of those things where the puzzle pieces of what they've laid up.

It's like, I guess like they could have sex for a while and it's fine. Even that she's like, he was like, I'm pregnant, but I'm not going to tell him. but we're not, then paternity doesn't become an issue at any point. It was very weird. It's not to keep mentioning her on this podcast, but it was a TCM podcast talking pictures. She's talking about her philosophy of film. And besides that whole Jurassic Park story, which explains everything, she also at one point was like, I don't like happy movies. I don't like movies.

I just like hold your hand. I want a movie to like kick you and scratch you. Yeah. That's my favorite thing. It's not my favorite thing. I love that. And I don't think that she really pulls that off. That's the thing.

It's like if you're going to do it, do it all the way. Yeah. Yeah. This one is trying to tow both, yeah, toe the line. Yeah. I think a lot of it is around resolution in her films, you know, like, promising young woman I watched the first time and I was like, this is a pretty interesting exploration. It's like a rape revenge movie for the 2020s post me to toxic masculinity.

Like, there should be modern set movies about this. I thought she totally like spit the bit in the last 10 minutes where she was like, actually, we do need the cops to help arrest. people. And it was like, the whole point was that the police weren't listening to the people who were saying that they had been victimized or assaulted. Anyway, so that doesn't make sense. Saltburn, the last 10 minutes, I find, like, incoherent. I'm like, is it because he felt like he was, like, a lower class?

And so he had to destroy them? Was it because he was queer and he wasn't able to communicate about that? Like, what? Was he just the sociopath? Like, what? No explanation. She also handled race really strangely in that film. Like, there was one biracial.

who's also gay and you get that he's supposed to be performing some version of blackness and queerness. But it all felt like it was tacked on. Yeah. Right. She also strikes me as a filmmaker. She's like, here's your one. Here's like all your things in one issue.

Yeah. She strikes me as a filmmaker and this is no harm, no foul, no shade. She feels most comfortable in a sandbox that is pretty white. And I'm not mad at that. Do your thing. It is her right to do that. It is her right. I actually don't want her writing a black or Indian Heathcliff if she doesn't know how to do it.

You know, like you don't want that. She could work with other writers and figure it out. That's true. But we're also in this moment of like singular talents that do it all themselves. Yeah. Right. Or you could just adapt a different novel that is like more in line with what you're talking about.

Like just make Romeo and Juliet. It's fine. There have been a lot of those. Or just write a whole fresh new love story that is taking bits of what you like to reading growing up and make a brand new thing that is not weighed down by the expectations of such an iconic. piece of IP. Like there's so much expectation

sitting over Finnell's film that even if she did it 25, 30% better, we'd still be, you know, taking kicks out. Okay, Sue, I want to, I put this question in the doc, but like I want to ask you this. Is she making a movie?

Does she think that this movie is like romantic or sexy? Or like is she exploring like, you know, a tragic love story in this? Does she think that these, or is this total provocation and is it, like, not quite satire, but is the whole thing tongue in cheek? Like, I, on, it's a genuine question. I can't tell what the intention of the movie's, like, tone and emotions are. Well, we should note that

the, the title of the film is, in quotation marks, weathering heights. Which is so annoying. It's a little, like, first year college creative writing, you know? But I do understand what she intends by that, which is like, she is saying that I'm going to do something different. And then this is like a text that many people know and understand, and this is what I take from it and what I am interested in. I think that the question is a little bit,

the answer to the question that you're asking is a little bit confused by a couple of other choices. Like in addition to some of that production design, like you've got these completely like a historical, anachronistic costume designs from the Jacksonville. Which my favorite part of the movie. That's fine. They're amazing.

They're so good. They're so good. But they're like made of cellophane and plastic and materials that you just wouldn't find in that kind of costume, which is not a bad thing. But it is a choice that also puts the quotation mark around the movie. You've also got this score by Charlie X, X, X, X. Which I kind of liked. When it first appears, I'm really into it. It is interesting.

And then, but that does kind of lead me to where my head is with her in general as a filmmaker, which is the movie I think is at its best when it's in montage and is a music video. I was going to say. She's a music video director. She's a music video director. And the filmmaker that she most reminds me of and that she really feels like the spiritual air to is Baz Luhrmann. Now, some people love Baz Luhrman. I don't.

And I really like his Romeo and Juliet. And that's pretty much where it stops for me because I felt like he made the ultimate music video adaptation in Romeo and Julia. Yes. Where it's like the cutting style, the color, the recreation of that world I thought was so inventive and cool. And then I just felt like he kept sputtering.

Now, I'm kind of on the outside. A lot of people love his movies. They love Mulan Rouge. They love Gatsby. They even love his Elvis. I didn't really care for any of those movies. But they hit a similar note to me. But they put so much time and effort into all the stuff,

the way things look and the way that they feel. But the idea is like, feels very barren. But here's the difference between Baz Luhrman and Imelphanel, at least with this movie. Bazelerman at some point is going to have fun. He has fun, Romeo, Julia, even though it is a tragedy. It's true. No part of her Wuthering Heights felt fun to me.

I don't know. Did it even feel fun to you? No, and I also didn't think it was funny. I think she thought it was funny. I do as well. And there's like the Kathy character in particular was really annoying. What was your take on the park like a dog scene? It threw me for a loop and I was like, where is this coming from?

I just like the, there is, she's trying to do like plucky, independent. You know, there's like a little bit of like girls. Girl power running or Girl Boss running through it that I don't care for. And then I think, like, Margot Robbie's bringing a little bit too much Barbie to the performance, at least when she's trying to do comedy. And, I mean, comedy is very hard to do. And if you just don't get the tone right, then it doesn't communicate. But, like, it was not fun.

And I also, I did not laugh. Also, the scenery and the imagery and the lighting doesn't lend itself to comedy. I found it to be a very. dark and dim film, which was wild because the costumes are so great. The rooms are so beautiful. And it was hard to see some of it. It was weird to me. So let's talk about this because you have informed me that this was shot on 35 millimeter

in VistaVision. We did not see it on film. I don't know. I don't know how they projected it in the room we saw it. Yeah. We all saw it together, we should say. Yeah. I don't think that we saw it on on VistaVision, but like what's going on with how it looks.

It was giving Frankenstein. It is like the darkness of that. Yeah. You said the darkness. And also, you know, there's so much effort put into the costumes and the production designs on these films. And it's, like, intricate and ornate. And then there's something about the lighting or the way it's shot or the way it's being projected where it looks like strangely flat. I'm like, I'm sorry.

It didn't work. Weathering Heights looked like a flip. Like, you know, like an echo park. Like the, you know, like modern farmhouse or whatever. Like, what are we doing? Not an echo park clip. You know, I said to you when we walked out that you can, and this is not, we all wear makeup or I wear makeup. I'm wearing it right now.

So wearing makeup is cool. But you can see Margo Robbie's makeup and not in a, like, she's getting sick. Spoiler alert. And so you're. Or in the Marie Antoinette way where it's sort of like this purposeful, showy, like a demonstration of class. Yeah. You can see the powder like sitting up like on this skin. at certain points.

And that's not a fault of makeup application. That's, I have been noticing this on like more and more, honestly, like a lot of like Netflix streaming shows. Yeah. Where I just, I think there's just something about like, like, what is it? Like, what are we not calibrating where like the texture? Because I think it really takes away from the visual achievement of this film. I did not think that this looked that good.

Which is wild because the costumes are so great. Yeah. It was like a waste of opportunity. Those veils when she's, anytime they're outside. Anytime they're on the wars and the wind's going and the bail is framing Margar Robbies. Or like the red dress that goes into the red floor in the room with the fireplace made of plaster hands. Like that better. It's gorgeous.

When they're using color in the right way, it looks amazing. But you mentioned music videos and there's like one montage when like Margo Robbie's like now, you know, now I'm rich and now I'm like now I'm doing my girl boss thing. My name's Linton now. And they've cut it to a try. And it is a music video. And I said to Sean afterwards that he wouldn't understand the reference, but like that is literally what a Taylor Swift video looks like in like theme. And I don't say that as a compliment,

even though I do enjoy the music of Taylor Swift when it is edited. So I don't know. I don't understand why this doesn't look like. The movie is shot by Lena Sangren. You can make the case he's one of the five or ten most interesting cinematographers in the world. These are the movies he's made recently. La La Land, first man, no time to die, don't look up Babylon, Salt Burn, and Wuthering Heights. He's shooting Dune Part 3 right now.

He's replacing Greg Fraser to shoot Dune Part 3. He is a heavyweight cinematographer. I also don't think this film looks very good. I don't know why. I don't really understand the lighting that you're discussing. I think I also, I think that there's an idea that is inherent in the story and also that I think Emerald Fennell is trying to explode in the movie, which is the colorful. lavishness of high class and the dinginess of low class.

But I feel like she's brought the same lighting rig from the dingy part to the beautiful part. Yeah. And if that were an idea along the lines of the one that you were describing where it's like the sex is the bad part actually, it's like the letdown, that maybe there's something to that, but I find it hard to believe that that was the

intention to make like the garishness not appealing. Garrishness is the point. I mean, that's really what she does now. Saltburn is very similarly kind of constructed that whole that a state is meant to be sort of ridiculous in its opulence. It just doesn't, it's not appealing. It works more in saltburn.

I do wonder whether time periods is a part of it. Salt burn is better lit. I remember it was, it was. Well, yeah, but a lot of it's like outside. Like the MGM part is, you know, again. Again, to the music video part. Yeah, once again, shoot outside for the love of God. Just, you know, I think you kick in the lighting right.

I mean, that's something she does well. Like you said, on the Moors in this film, that's some of the best stuff. When Catherine goes outside and begins masturbating privately in front of the winds and then is discovered by Heathcliff. And then they have their sort of like that conversation. That was the only time in the movie when I was like, I'm really locked in. Like, where is this going to go now? Because now we have reached this kind of critical confrontation between how will she change this book into this movie. And you get that moment.

He lifts her by the harness. Does he put her hands in his mouth or does he just smell them? I care. I think he puts them in his mouth. And you're like, okay, you're going for it. Yeah. Keep going. Yeah.

Keep going. Yeah. Well, but I mean, that's sort of the problem. Like, that moment before you keep going is what she's really good at. And she does keep. She does. But she keeps going. You never get off.

And then that becomes a problem. Yeah. You know? Which is, which like in a more interesting filmmaker's hands, like, could be interesting. Right. Yeah. But I don't think it's thinking about it in those terms. Pillion gets off.

Pilean is just as visceral, just as, like, the sex is painful and weird as well, but they get off. I think there's something interesting about how there's an attempt to line up the power dynamics between Catherine and Heathcliff, whereas I think in the novel it's meant to always be uneven, where for the longest time Catherine holds all the power and then Heathcliff grabs the power with both his wealth. Yeah. To sort of like, we should say in the novel, the brother character who's excised from this adaptation, eventually becomes the owner of Weathering Heights, and he's an alcoholic, and he has debts. And so Heathcliff buys the estate from him, and then later in the novel, he dies. And his, like, the way in which Heathcliff rises socially, romantically. It's revenge, manipulation.

Also, this movie never gives Heathcliff enough time to do all of that and perform all of that. That's a five-minute period in the movie after he has married Isabella and kind of made her his sex slave. And so you don't really get any of that psychology that comes across in the other adaptations. You do also get that the Isabella character in this movie kind of likes the sex slave stuff. Which I kind of enjoyed. I didn't mind either. You like the dog barking? Well, I just think it's, to me, that was a clever twist because making Heathcliff so strapping and striking, you almost need to like, you need to literalize that in the movie.

movie and the fact that Isabel can't control herself around him, that she's like, oh my God, I need this. I think makes the Catherine and Heathcliff experience a little bit more legible. And also, Alison Oliver is just funny. She's just fun to watch. You know, she has a presence that is amusing and cuts through a lot of that grimness that you were talking about. Let's talk about Alorti and Margarabi before we get into Pilly and Fully. Yeah.

I think they're both miscast. Yes. Yeah. I don't think their performances are bad. But in the book, she's like a dark-haired teenager, right? Yeah, Marco Robbie's 35. Yeah. And that's...

Because they're teens in the book. Yeah. When the main action is happening. And I don't know what the exact age is when they start to... As they're getting a little bit older and she marries Linton, but presumably at this time in history, she's not marrying Linton at 32. No, no, no. It's younger. And then I think...

Yeah, I mean, I think it all wraps up before 30. I don't know. For me, it wasn't age necessarily, though I do. think that younger people communicate, like, an abandon and a sense of just... Yeah, that was what I was thinking. You know, irrational behavior. Sorry, to everyone in the booth. The most rational person here today is Jack.

That would make more sense or explain just kind of like these people are wilding. But I just thought it was more... I thought it was like decisions of how they're interpreting the character. And again, like, I really chafed on that, like, very competent, bossy, I'm doing what I want version of Kathy that the transition into like I just couldn't help myself was never really developed for me. Like, I don't think Margarabi can, like, pulled that off. And then a lordie is doing Frankenstein for the first half, as we said. Yeah. Very monosyllabic, very physical.

Lurching a lot. And he is definitely brooding and his size and just general heft is, it is overwhelming and like maybe like a little threatening, but he's, I'd find his like bad boyness to be a different quality than what I would imagine a Heathcliff to be, which is he's very, he's controlled. And there is something that is supposed to be uncontrolled about what all these people are doing. And these are two very controlled performances. And so the sex scenes also like never reached that abandon that you're supposed to.

I don't know if they require. I keep thinking about the Lawrence Lovier version of this movie, which I think was great. And yeah, he gets to kind of lose control. And his rage and his revenge is just. so much more fully embodied than a Lordy could do. But that's half a Lordy's fault. And half of the problem is, like, you don't give him enough script to do any of that. His role is so minimized.

But I think my biggest issue was with Margo Robbie, not because I hate Margo Robbie, but because I love her. Yeah. And whenever I see her on a screen, I'm just like, I want you to be a fun hero and I'm rooting for you. Yeah. I'm rooting for you. Yeah. And this is not the kind of movie asking for that kind of care. There you go.

You can't play the villain. They can't. kind of the villain. She's a hero. Like, Margo Robbie at all times, I want her to be like, guiding me towards happiness. Is she the, like, I mean, she is in the book, but again, like this movie cast her as someone who, you know, kind of gets thrown over by her, her, you know, paid friend, her maid. And then she gets pregnant and, like, dies slowly. And, and then at the end. With a big bleed out.

Oh my God. Sorry. Spoiler. She's really sad because, and it's really sad because they were like friends as children. The villain is way oversimplified. But I think one of the things that at least you see in the adaptations is that she is this representation of the failures of class. That she makes bad choices because the selfishness that is ingrained in her by her upbringing forces her away from her true passion and into a life that is like an imprisonment. And she never gets to truly express herself.

And then she takes it out on Heathcliff. And he feels worse and he seeks revenge on her because of that unwillingness to acknowledge their true love. That makes her kind of the aggressor in the story. And Marga Rau... I totally agree with you. Margo Rhabi's just winning. Like, she's just somebody that you just want to hang out with

and you are rooting for her. She has a very classical Hollywood leading lady quality. It's giving a little Julia Roberts. Like I only want Julia Roberts to like end up happy. Yes. And when Julia Roberts did stuff like this, like Mary Riley, it never worked. She couldn't pull this stuff off. And it's hard to do.

Catherine Earnshaw is a little bit more of like a romantic, you know, desirous figure than Mary Riley is, who's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde's made. Fascinating movie. But I think that they're both a little bit wrong for it. I don't think Heathcliff should be like six, nine. I mean, Jacob Allerty is enormous. Yeah. He is, I know, you're very happy about that.

Yeah, yeah. But also, we're going to talk about Pillion, and you're just going to talk about Alexander. In that case, it works. Sure. But it's just like the size, you know, it's powerful. You know? It is powerful. These movies do understand that at least.

I agree. He was totally wrong for this part. But it's also like, I remain a fan. Yeah. It's like I had two questions I asked myself leaving that movie. Well, first, the thought. My first thought was great gowns, beautiful gowns. Yeah.

And then second, it's like, you know, critically, do I enjoy this film? Probably not for the most part. But is this movie going to do what it needs to do for the studio? and for Emerald Vanel, probably yeah. Oh, I think so definitely. You got Bargobie in there. You've got Charlie XX in there. The trailer is hot.

Like, all of the pieces are hot right now. And that will be enough to get butts in seat for a good opening weekend, I think. And that is what matters to her future more than if I like this movie or not,

which makes me sad, but like this movie will do fine. I think it's going to do very well. Which is good. I think it's a great thing. Yeah. You know, we... People going to not like a movie

Is great, period. Yes. Go to the theaters, we love it. I just didn't understand this movie, you know? Like, I was honestly, like, what? I really genuinely, spoiler alert, I guess, for the end, which is really just the halfway point of a book that was written almost 200 years ago that's been adapted 35 times.

That we know of, counting wise. Yeah. So the last shot where it's a flashback to them as kids, and they're like, I'll love you forever. Is that sincere? I think so. Is Emerald's Finnell sincere? I don't know.

I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Honestly, shout out to her, though. That's great. That's interesting. This has been a way more interesting conversation about a movie than we've had in a few weeks for sure, because she's definitely got something.

You have to. Yes. She has something. Yes. I honestly, I personally, as a movie podcast host, need directors who have something. I will say that. And I will say, I had so much more fun, listening to Emerald Fennell

talk about her process on talking pictures than watching that movie. Her mind is brilliant. I like the way that she approaches her work with like a vision and a point she's trying to make.

I just don't think the point was made in this movie. I will say if this movie looked better, I would like it a lot more. Some of what I'm holding against it is really just that the promised

visual sumptuousness versus whatever is happening, which you just have to get down to the, like, we got to solve this as a nation. I think if this wasn't a big studio film, it would have been better. And I think that what I enjoyed about Pillion was that it was small, indie, and it set no expectations for me as a viewer. It was a book I hadn't read.

I didn't know what it was going to be about. I just went in and said, okay, let's see it. Whereas this finel adaptation of Wuthering Heights has the expectation and burden of so much on it. Like, could she have made a better film if less of that was in the room with her? I think it's ultimately in her perception of the story. And I think her perception of the story, and again, it is her right, is just not what Wethering Heights is. And kind of fundamentally is misunderstanding it. And it's okay to do that, but it just seems like an odd decision.

And so I found myself like three quarters of the way through the movie thinking like, what is she trying to say? Still don't know. Yeah. And I don't. know. And you know what? Some movies don't have to say anything. Some movies can just be Jurassic Park and they can just be like, wow. Holy fuck. And I do think a lot of people will have that reaction to this movie. They're going to like, Jurassic Park is saying that it would be cool to have sex with the person you want to have sex with? I don't know. It doesn't seem cool on the screen. Well, but then the movie doesn't seem to agree with it. But it's like, oh my God, there's a bad romance. I've never heard of that before. That's not an idea, you know.

It's a kind of movie. I don't understand. I don't understand. I don't understand. Also, Jurassic Park has a certain appreciation for what the majority of filmmakers enjoy. And I think that Emerald Fennell, in this version of Northern Heights, cares less about what the audience will actually enjoy and more about seeing her singular view of filmmaking through. And God bless it.

But I am, I, and when it comes to male filmmakers, I will praise that all day long. You know what I mean? So I don't want to be a hypocrite. That's why I'm saying, like, she's got something, man. She has a vision. Yes. I don't really get it, but I really respect it. It's provocative.

It gives people going. I mean, it's true. But it's like, you could, this is not dissimilar for Marie Antoinette, except I understood what Marie Antoinette was about. I understood the take that it was historically. I understood visually what it was trying to do. It does actually look good. and the songs and the modern songs and the anachronisms

are actually matched to what's going on in the film. So some of it, it's not a lack of vision, it's just a lack of execution. I need both of you to talk to her. But I do also don't understand the vision. So. What was that? Wow, we need a real solve on that.

Emerald did that. That's the second time in two episodes that's happened. I just want someone to ask her and get like a straight answer. Like, what is the North Star of your work? What is your mission statement of your work? And how do you execute it? I'm just interested. I'm not.

I might be revealing too much for her. You know, that might be there's something going on. Yeah. Do you think could most filmmakers answer that? I'd love for them to. And also if they. I think many could but would not. Many could and would not.

And the ones who could, I become wary because then they're more interested in what it. That's a corporate answer, right? You know, like, what are we putting on the deck? Yeah. It's not, it's... I have to say this. I said this a bit during Salt Burn, and I circled back to it immediately after we watched the movie a few weeks ago. We know that Emerald Fennell is interested in low-born figures attempting to break the structure of power through revenge, sex, or death.

And these three ideas are intertwined in all three of her films. I am very curious about this obsession given her own class status. What is her class status? Not poor. She comes from a somewhat wealthy background. And I'm not pocket watching. This is another movie

where the lowborn person is like more devilish than they need to be in the story and more a sower of chaos than they need to be. And I don't really get what that is. And it is now persistent. It is now consistent.

Okay. And she's making films about class. Yeah. But is she like these people who have less than me are trying to kill me? Like I'm a little worried that that's what she's trying to say. Because Catherine does die. Yeah. And we kind of feel like we have to blame Heathcliff for her death.

Yeah. Yeah. And that's what Salbert is. Yeah. Yeah. I'm honestly now trying to... This makes sense to me. I'm on Wikipedia trying to parse her like early life and education sections and then her parents and like trace it back.

there's a well-known jeweler in England. Sure. But that is, you know, and then she went to Marlboro, which is also where Kate Middleton went. Her father went to Eaton. So there are people who are, like, very in the classments. But, like, England class system and titles and money. Totally. It's different than ours.

It's like, so I don't know. I'm not excusing anything. Or I'm just wondering if she sees herself or has felt herself as the outsider in these places. That may be true. Which I don't know. But we see Barry Keegan's middle class existence in Saltburn, and we see Heathcliff, a street urchin taken in by a wealthier family. That is not how she grew up. I do also think she's, like, good family friends with Andrew Lloyd Weber.

Right. She was cast to play Camilla Parker Bowles on the Crown. To me, I'm not really accusing her of anything. I'm just kind of like, why do you keep coming back to this? It's now a trend. So why is it? And that is a question I would ask. That is the thing I would be curious about.

Get it on this show. Because if it's what I'm afraid it is, it's very bad. Like, that's not a good perspective from which to write that, like, the lower class is trying to kill you. That's something that, like, terrible people in the world communicate all the time in our terrible country. Yeah. So, I don't know. It keeps churning inside hearing that. My biggest question.

And I never expect or want any filmmaker to make films that are, like, a false racial diversity cornucopia. But if she is thematically dealing with class in all of her work, you cannot have an actual conversation about class that is complete without it being complicated by race. And I think that I think that I would be getting more brave film from her if she tried to tackle that. Yeah. I get it. She's from her place, from her lane, but I'll say this till the Cald come home. It's okay for singular writers to write with other people.

It's okay to collaborate and say, how can I expand my worldview and my vision to speak to this better? I wish Mike White would have done that with the White Lotus. I just think that we're in this moment of singular creatives that drive their vision all the way through,

but I will always want a work that is tempered by a writer's room and good editors. Not the soapbox. In order to do that, you've got to have some quieting of the ego, right? Because a lot of these people are driven, and one of the reasons that are so successful is because they're like my vision, my vision. And then you also, I think, have to have trust between partners to do that well. And that's really unusual to find that, to find a diverse partnership between two people who can bring both.

I'm not saying it happens a lot. This is one of the things I love about the show industry, is that that's a show between two guys, were similar, but I've come from different backgrounds, but you can see that they're kind of like smashing up against each other at times in the way that they're portraying different characters who are not all white in that world, which I love about that show. You don't see that very often. You don't see that.

But anyway, this is an interesting movie. It's going to make a lot of money. It could have been a Netflix movie. And shout out to the people who, especially Emerald Fennell, who decided not to make it a Netflix movie and make it a Warner Brothers film. I think it's better for it. I think it's better on the big screen. I think this would be a tough sit as a streaming movie.

I'm glad it's not that. I'm sure next week we'll talk a bit about the box office reception and how big it can get. It is Valentine's Day after all. At least 20 million. Oh, I think it's like 40 million, maybe 50 million. I think it's going to do really well. And for that alone, thank you, Emerald.

Buts in Seat is always good. Yeah, speaking of butts in seats, Pillion. Did I say her last thing wrong? Sorry, Fennell? I think it's fennel, but I don't know. But it doesn't matter. I'm sorry, Emerald. I don't think she's good.

She's listening. This is a tough sit. But also call us. We'd like, I'd be happy to talk. I need all to grill her. Genuine questions. I need you all to grill her. I just, yeah, yeah.

I also, I always want a thesis statement from a creative. I like it. I know it's corporate, but I'm like, what are you about? Give me an, I love an elevator pitch. Pillian is written and directed by Harry Layton. It's adapted from a novel that I've not read. I looked at, but I've not read called Box Hill by Adam Mars Jones. I did as much homework as I could for this episode.

It stars Harry Milling and Alexander Scarsguard. This is a smaller film than Weathering Heights. I'm going to give a little recap of what this story is. Colin, a timid man meets Ray, a confident biker gang leader who initiates him into a submissive relationship, challenging Colin's mundane existence and prompting personal growth through their unconventional dynamic. What do you think of this, Sam? I love this movie so much. I saw it as God.

intended at the grove. Me too. Before the cheesecake factory. Oh, I didn't get that. Oh, beautiful. And it was just, it's, I like that this movie doesn't waste a single second. It is wonderfully paced. The script is sparse in just the right ways.

And unlike Weathering Heights, this film lands the plane. It is not a happy ending, but it is an ending that feels fulfilling. I love this movie. I loved it. I really don't have too many notes. I feel relief because it's one of my, it was one of my favorite movies of last year, even though it's technically a movie of this year.

What did you think, Amanda? Same. I mean, it's funny to say about, like, a domcom with, you know, politics and ideas that have not historically been explored in cinema. But I found this, like, very old school in the best way. Totally. And it was just very familiar.

As Sam said, it is, like, it is, I don't want to say small, but it is specific. And you are following a group of characters who the filmmaker totally understands. The world is fully realized. And, like, familiar beats, if not, of plot, than of emotion. And someone trying to figure out what they want in the world and figure out what they want from someone. else and then some unusual situations, some funny, some sad. Yeah. And then, you know, then we move on.

Bigger, you know, full of our lessons and happy for what's happened. It was great. It is a classic romantic comedy. Yeah, it is. But also, it's like, what I love about it is, like, it hits those classic beats, and yet every expression of the beat is a thing I haven't seen in this kind of film before. The first scene in which these two people come together sexually is in an alley. And he's pulling out his dick and it has a cock ring in it.

Like, it's pierced. It's true. And it's like, like, that's where we start. Yes. And so to see the rom-com beats be hit in this queer, some call it nasty, like, visceral world, I thought that was really hard to pull off and they did it very well. It is also really hard to have, to incorporate consummation sex in an inter-romantic comedy and still. keep the film and the tension going because that is so much like the tension of a romantic comedy is like are they going to get together but like are they going to they going to have sex and

you think about it most romantic comedies maybe they have sex once and it's like an accident or like oh no you know some sort of miscommunication but sexual sexual tension is an essential part of most of these structures so that to me is the ingeniousness of this movie is is that that thing is what you come to expect from a movie like this. And this has the same structure. It's just that this kind of like fights and quibbling and will they, won't they, has expressed more in their sexual encounters.

Yes. The wrestling sequence between them, the orgy, their first missionary sex. Even the first time that he bought us. And he talked about how painful it is. Yes. All of those things, those are the moments

when you expect the two movie stars to be like, I hate you. I hate you more, you know, but it actually is expressed physically between them. And you've seen, like, the way that Colin's story is told is really interesting to me because he has found something that he desperately wants, right? He's this lonely kid in Bromley who's in this really square family

and they're singing barbershop quartet music at Christmas time. And he is like unseen and unloved and you know, a gay kid who just doesn't have any love in his life. And he finds parking monitor. Yes, yes, exactly. Every time I've parked since then, it's an incredible detail in those. And those guys are either the most ignored people on earth or the most hated people on earth. Which you see the great scene of someone being like, have you no shame? Which is a great stroke. And this incredible idea of like what would you do if you're ripped from the pinup calendar idea of perfection was presented before you and actually took you on and enslaved you in a way? You know, like made you the submissive in a relationship.

And how much would you like it? what would be the ways in which you would like it, and then what would be too far or wrong? Yeah. And when would you break? And what would cause you to break? And the movie has really interesting notions of like kind of what causes someone to become uncomfortable in this kind of arrangement.

But that doesn't mean that that means the arrangement is not right for the person. So I found there's like an amazing amount of nuance in Colin and what he's interested in. And I think that they were able to get to this nuance because the whole time, in spite of this Dom sub relationship that is very much about control and power, it's also always consensual. Scarsgaard's character is never making him stay. He always chooses to do it. He chooses to be the sub.

And that is actually quite different from the book. I think in the book, the first sex scene is tantamount to rape. So to make that choice, it helps this film remain lovable the whole time. Yes. Because it's only, it is consent-focused. We should talk about Harry Milling and Alexander Scarsgard. Harry Melling, you know, I think best known from Harry Potter. Harry Lighten said he saw him in the Ballad of Buster Scruggs.

I don't know if you guys remember that from that movie, that Cohn Brothers movie, which is an omnibus story. And he plays a carnival performer who has no appendages. And he is reading a poem over and over again. And that is sort of what he's like a freak show. Oh, my God. But he's amazing in the film. And so he cast him out of that.

And he is kind of mesmerizing in this movie, even though he has to be so internalized. And you're kind of like desperate for him to enunciate how he feels or what's going on. but he, it's such a performance in the face that I really, really enjoy. And Alexander Scarsguard, by the same token, who's on a bit of a run right now.

That man is doing the work. Always on a run in my house. I came out of that film. I was already impressed with him. I think that he was the best part of season one, a big little lies. Yeah. Yes.

But after seeing this, I'm like, oh, you might be on your way to being one of the greats. Yeah. He's got it. And he chooses well. He has great taste. He had a really rocky story.

Remember he was Tarzan? And he's been in some odd studio movies. But he has really, like in the last five or ten years, Harry said that, you know, it was really the last season of season four succession that got him really interested in how he could express power on screen. I know there are some ways in which you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I also recommend Parktown Works Little Drummer Girl, which is a mini-series adaptation if you haven't seen it. It's really good and he's in it, yeah. All right. I'll watch. What do you think of Scars Guard? I get it. You know, I understood going in.

And there is, I think, something both to the casting, but the filmmaking, it relies on the audience also being completely understanding why Colin would not just want to be in this type of relationship, but why this person has such a, like, appeal to him. You have to be able, even if, like, even if you're kind of going back on the fourth, on what you want for Colin, like you understand why he is in this relationship and not just because he's learning stuff about himself, also because that guy's a real dream boat. And then I think the flip at the, when they, you know, they take a day off.

How about that? And we don't have to say anymore. Beautiful. And it's so beautiful. And also what Scarsgaard does in that moment. And then how Meling responds to him and is, I think, like, a real gift

their abilities to change their relationship is pretty, it's amazing. It's kind of tragically. The impossibility of that level of happiness is also when we talk about like yearning and what people really want and what I think Emerald Fennell is thinking about and what that novel

is about as opposed to this. Yeah. Which I think really literalizes it in such a cool way in the final act of this movie that just like left me feeling that like happy sad. Yes. That's a, well, yes. And I think what we're feeling happy side about

and the difference between Pillion and Wutheran Heights is that the protagonist in Pillion by the end of the film exhibits a great deal of personal growth. Yes. He grows through this experience. And he becomes someone who knows more about what he wants and about how to get it. Yes.

He is wiser because of it. He's not defeated by the relationship. Yes. Every character in Wutheran Heights, compared to that, feels static. Who is growing? who was becoming a different person. And they pull off that growth beautifully,

and it makes me love it more. I love it. It was very interesting watching it as a homosexual with my partner in the theater full of homosexuals. And I think that the poignancy of the way that this film is expressed is that it speaks to a truth for a lot of gay men. Like, sometimes the partner that teaches you the most, you never see them again,

and you never know their name. Sometimes the act of learning how to like love yourself and your sexuality and be fully embodied, it means interacting with people on an extremely temporary basis. And this movie got that, but didn't make it sad. It said, oh, that's just the process. And you're okay. You're okay. I love that.

It's a great idea for, it's not often expressed. Like, and the movie is not. This is a very kind movie. It is. Despite the severity and like such physical intensity. Yes. Because the moral of the story is like the growth happens whether the love that you want stays or leaves. You grew.

You grew. I don't know. I find that so much more romantic. There's also something about there's one of the sex scenes starts with wrestling. You know, there's like. Which not my kink. God bless it. Not my kink.

And I thought that was like very funny. And it is almost play. wonderfully choreograph. Yeah. And shot and is played. If it's not silly, it's just, there's a lightness to it. Yes. And, but you know, they are like wrestling each other.

And I thought that there was something about the way that this, this movie. And also these relationships kind of literalize or physicalize the, like the danger or the friction. The friction is explicit. Exactly. So that so that there's room for kindness like in other places. Yes. was, I thought very lovely. I was very charmed by.

Yeah. Well, and like what you get when you have this setup, when you have these lovers being a Dom sub relationship, they're both acknowledging from the very start that the friction is the point. And the friction is the pleasure. The friction is the growth. The friction is the love. And so that felt so much more understandable to me because the Dom sub makes it explicit.

The friction in Wuthering Heights, felt less focused. Yeah. It felt like this film just, it was clearer. I think if it were made a little differently, though, it might have felt a little bit more anthropological about a Dom sub-relationship. And you get a little bit of that

because Colin is going through this for the first time. Yeah. So there is some sort of like rules of engagement that is happening. But a lot of, one of the things that I really thought was smart about it was, and I don't know if this isn't the novel or not, but the way in which Colin's family reacts to their happiness

for his relationship and then their confusion and in his mother's case like kind of revulsion and frustration with Ray when she finally meets him. Felt not like a movie made in 1972 where it was just like, oh my gay son I'm so ashamed. Conversion therapy, how can this possibly be happening?

He's been expelled from the family. It was sort of like that was an inclusive loving family but also there was a step beyond that they couldn't get comfortable with and it felt actually more like lots of relationships you see in any family, which is like your boyfriend sucks and we're not happy about him and you should break up with him, which is very universal. Yeah.

You know, like, and it doesn't really matter what the nature of that relationship is. It's just like, this guy's not nice to you and that matters. But your parents can never really understand your psychology in a relationship and they'll never really try. Yeah. So there's something, I thought that that was very subtle and interesting the way that all that was portrayed. Well, and Scars Gar's character, Ray, he kind of pushes back on the, other character.

And it's like, the fact that you even want your child to have a relationship that pleases you, that's the problem. Yes. And I'm like, say, this film, this film felt so affirming having not seen gay films get these beats right. Yeah. I think there's so many queer films, queer romances that try and then fail to get at the small bits of nuance that Pilean gets right.

And it's remarkable that it gets these small bits of nuance right in a plot that is like big and dom sub. Like, dreading that needle is pretty remarkable. And also like another like not totally happy like queer love story ending in the sense that it's not, you know. Yeah. I don't want to spoil it. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. But it's not that you worry. It's not a fairy tale. Exactly. It's not a fairy tale. And you even worry for like the first couple of minutes of like, oh, no, is this another one where it's just like the sad lonely gay kid and it's not it's not going to turn out? And it handles it with such good. Oh, yeah. Like he does like this is a romance where by the end of it, you realize that the protagonist has come out of it loving himself more.

Mm-hmm. Sign me up. Yeah. I can't stop telling how much I love this movie. Sure. Was it his? Well, I assumed not. But I thought that the editing, the cutting was more about.

that there was like a very specific, there's only so much that you can see. And you see the piercing. Yes. That's what they want you to see. Right. But before they avoid an X rating. But I just,

you know, because I mentioned I watched Heated Rivory to catch up with just how we're doing sex on screens right now. And also like a lot of gay sex, but, you know, no full frontal. And no real friction. Like compare the scenes of the first bottoming scene in Pillion

to the first bottoming scene in Heard. Yeah. the first bottoming scene in Heated Rivalry. In Pillion, he's like, that hurt. Right. And Heated rivalry, he's great at it the first time.

Now, come on now. Right. I'm sorry. It's fantasy. It's fantasy. I don't understand why we can't have a little more penis. That's just kind of where I am with it. And especially in this one,

especially when, you know, the camping scene. And I noticed the country. And I think it's a ratings issue. I think that we need to broaden the horizon. But like we're all grown-ups. I want to more butts. Because you see Scarsgaard's butt for a little bit.

And I'm like, stay there. Stay there. It is in many ways, I think, the last taboo. I think full frontal generally, but explicitly, dicks. Yeah. There is something. And you know, it's very obvious what it is. Most of the people who are in power, the ways and means of taste in our society are

straight guys or closeted guys who are afraid of dicks. That's really what it boils down to and they don't want them presented as normal as the way the breasts are presented in our culture. And that's just how it is. And it's not changing and it's been that way since 1980 and it's going to stay that way probably

as long as things keep going the way that they're going. It is interesting in the era of Game of Thrones for example. There was a very famous moment or already infamous moment on a Night of the Seven Kingdoms, the new Game of Thrones show this season where a night exited his hut and pulls out his dick and starts pissing.

And it's just full-blown, full-frontal. And the guy's got a freaking hog on him. It is like a mind-blowing. And it's clearly prosthetic. But it's like played for laughs. It's not a sex scene. Right. Well, we were talking about this and you brought up boogie nights, which did it.

But that is like the conclusion of the film and is a prosthetic and is also like in repose. Yes. But heated rivalry is very horny and sexy. arouses you without showing dick. It's true. The thrusting does the work. It can be done. You know, and it's like cutting just so.

It can. Like the shower scene. The best part of that show is how they edit the sex. You know, I'm really glad that I saw in the realm of the senses yesterday because it does kind of confront you with like careful what you wish for because part of the meat of that story is this woman's obsession, her physical obsession and this man's physical obsession with with each other and they just want to be fucking all the time. And they're just

long stretches of the movie in which the woman is just fondling this guy's dick. She is obsessed by it. She's consumed by it. We've all been there. His thing. And it is confrontational and it's so rare to see a movie linger

on an erect dick. You just don't see it if you don't watch pornography. Amanda has never seen any pornography which is an ongoing exploration on this show. So, you know, to try to map something like that from that movie, yeah. I don't think that would appear on Heated Bivalry, right? That's like a streaming show. But in a movie like Pillion where you're like, we see Alexander Scars Guard in nude erect for four minutes would be like stunning.

It's unimaginable. Here's the thing. And I'm glad you brought up pornogic. I'm glad you brought up porn because we all live in this world where we can see as much porn as we want whenever we want. and I'm guessing a bunch of the homosexual men that have gone to go see Pillion also watch a bunch of porn. Knowing that,

I don't need the dick there. I'm going to see Dick on my phone if I want. No, it's true. I'm going to see Dick. Sure. I did. There was something about Pillion and specifically that camping scene

where I was like, I can feel the cut. For sure. Like I can feel that, you know, they've talked about it. Yeah. And in that, moment I was like, I wish that we could go there. And I agree. Did it still work for you though?

As a scene? Yeah, it totally still worked. But I was like, I think it's silly. Like, I think that it's not silly on their fault. It's they cut it in order to get the ratings so that more people could see the movie. I understand that. But I'm like, we're all grownups. Like, this movie is about what it's about. Yeah. Like, I could see it. I agree with you that on heated rivalry. You got to meet people where they are. Yeah. That's a streaming show that a lot of moms are watching and you don't want to be. Well, like, or, you know, moms and daughters, which, anyway. Yeah. It would be too much.

But I just, I did note that there's no, there's just no penis anywhere. Yeah. Alexander Scarsguard. Yeah. Pull it out. Sam, this has been great. Thank you very much. I'm honored to have been here.

I was so nervous. I was like, I got to watch a bunch of movies and study because all are pros. But this was wonderful. And I'm so glad that we got to talk about Pillion because I love that movie. And I think everyone should watch it. Where can we find you? I host a radio show, YouTube show and podcast called The Sam Sanders Show. It is about entertainment writ large.

So we talk a lot about movies, music, TV, books, et cetera. And we drop two episodes a week that you can find wherever you find those kind of things. My latest really, really fun, fun chat, I got to talk to Nia da Costa recently. And hearing her talk about the way she approaches the work of being a director was fascinating because she knows that it's like half creative or even less than half creative and the bulk of it is managerial. You're running the business. And she talked at length about what it was like to work for Marvel. She even used of her own volition the F word flop and talked about it.

So I would say for fans of this podcast, you'll love that chat. But we have all kinds of things in there, all kinds of fun episodes every week about fun shit. And I have these guys on their run. Okay, let's go to my conversation now with Harry Leighton. Very happy to have Harry Leighton here. Thank you for being here. I always like talking to first-time filmmakers, debut feature filmmakers. This is your debut feature film.

Very much is, yeah. I like to start by asking debut feature filmmakers. Do you remember the movie that you saw that made you want to be a movie maker? Yes, I do. I wasn't really remotely interested in. becoming a filmmaker until I was like 19 and up until that point my favorite film had been like comfy panda I was obsessed with comfy panda I could like recite the whole thing off by heart and it's a great film but you know I didn't want to become an animator and then I stayed with a

mate of mine when I was moved to London you know start work when I was 19 stayed with a mate he was really into films and he showed me the lives of others and I think it might well have been like the first film I ever watched which wasn't in the English language language, but it also just had a sort of impact on me where I was like intrigued by the design, both the sort of narrative design, but also the aesthetics of it. And from then I kind of got more and more stuck in. So what did you do? How did you then decide to go forward towards that?

I'm quite, I'm quite an obsessive guy. So like I then was like, okay, I'm going to watch two films a day every day for a year and try and, you know, I'm work my way through film history a little bit and I did that and by doing that kind of narrowed in on um on I guess broadly a style which I liked which has obviously changed massively now but um but then practically I like I think it took me a couple of years to kind of get the confidence up to actually go and try and make something myself and the first thing I made was a was a commercial for a university theatre company they were doing a play called Arcadia by tom stop art and I made a little 30 second commercial for it, which was about a, like, a tortoise walking to the theatre. And, um, and it was,

all right. And I really, like, loved, sounds terrible, but it was all right. And I, like, loved the experience of making it. And after that, it was like, well, I could maybe graduate to working with humans. And, um, and since then, you know, it was the classic, make a few shorts. And that's how I've come into it. Did, were you kind of like hunting for the right material to make a feature? How did the story cross your path? I was sort of, so I made a bunch of my shorts had been, I guess, about like sexual transgression and it's a topic I'd always been quite interested in, but I had spent five years writing a feature film with the same people, the same producers at Element and the same execs at the BBC, but it was set in Tokyo in the world of

sumo wrestling and then the pandemic happened and it became unfeasible to make that and so I was kind of at a loss and one of the exact woman called Evie Yates from the BBC she sent me the book Box Hill which Pillions based on and she said I think you'll I think you'll like it because she knew that I've been looking for something roughly in that area and so it kind of landed at the right time when I was despairing and I was like okay thank God I can now again make my kinky film all

After all. Will you return to the sumo wrestling film? It's a question. I reread the script for the first time in a long time two weeks ago, and I had thought that there was too much crossover between Pileon, and it's called Stable. But actually, I was kind of pleasantly surprised by how different they were. So maybe.

Interesting. So I took a look at the story that it's based on, and I didn't finish it, but I did notice that it's in first person. and that's very hard historically to translate movies from first person novels. And I'm kind of curious, like, how you thought about that when you were adapting it and thinking about how we should understand Colin. It was the big question for me was, like, because it's both first person, but also this, like, very complex tone in the book where it moves from sentence to sentence between, like, humor and sincerity. that's all done through that first person narration.

And I remember when I spoke to the novelist, he was talking about films which have a lot of voiceover in them, you know, referencing Terence Malik particularly. And I watched Badlands. I'd seen it before, but I rewatched it, and I thought that was an interesting example of a film which has sort of dissonance between the voiceover, which narrates it, like it's this sort of teen movie,

and then the action, which is kind of dramatizing. Interesting movie about the power dynamic that's not dissimilar from the one in your film too. Yeah, I think it definitely was a kind of touchpoint when we were making Pillion, for me at least. But I knew I didn't want to use voiceover, so then it all became about, okay,

how can we find equivalent images for that tone? And I think because the novel relies so heavily on first person and also retrospective narration, that's partly why the film is so different from the novel was we had to discover, like, a new form and a new kind of time period and all these different things which would, like, support visual storytelling rather than verbal. So, leather movies and biker movies are actually, I think, secretly crucial to movie history. There's obviously many examples, the Wild One, the Corman Biker movies, Scorpio Rising, girl on a motorcycle, I was trying to think I'm cruising, and a lot of intersections with some of the work that you do, but this movie doesn't really feel like any of those movies. I wasn't sure since the book was handed to you, like, were any of those touch points for you?

Did you look at them before you made this? I actually, like, deliberately avoided it. I hadn't really watched any of them before I was sent the book. And what I did know was that I wanted it to be a contemporary biker movie and I wanted to like update the kind of iconography of the sexual, the sort of hot biker. And so I like watch the wild ones and then was like actually, you know, I love these movies and I feel like I could love them too much where it becomes overly referential. So I then steered very widely away.

But funnily enough, you know, I still hadn't seen Scorpio Rising until we started doing press for the film. And then someone in an interview was like, I loved the reference to Scorpo Rising when, you know, the opening needle drop in our film is Betty Curtis. I will follow him. And that's the kind of little Peggy March version of that is in Scorpo Rising. So it's funny how these moments of crossover happen,

even in spite of your intentions. Yeah, that's really funny. The very first day of my very first film class, they showed a Scorpio Rising as a kind of like, I think a way to kind of unnerve your expectations of what film school might be like, you know, like that like avant-garde is going to be a part of the conversation

that we're going to have here. But it's interesting the way that like that world, that milieu, like kind of despite it evolving over time, like still holds up cinematically too. So when you say you wanted to create like a new iconography, what do you mean by that? I mean, But I think that there's just, you know, whether it, whether it is in film or in like literature,

there's such a sort of standardized image of the sexy biker in queer culture, where it's steeped in like Scorpio Rising and Tom of Finland and it's a retro level of kandum. And it just seemed like they'll, you know, if you look at Kinks in 2025, a lot of the kind of clothing, which is fetish, now has more of a foot in, um, in like urban wear, street wear and, uh, and, you know, racing culture. And so, like, I was like, well, wouldn't it be fun if the levers which, which Ray wears feel like something new rather than like he is a kind of pastiche of Tom of Finland.

I think it'd be very easy to make, at least on this car's got look like a Tom of Finland's character, but I wanted to do something else with him. So he gave him these suits which have like hardware on the knees. and go faster panelling on the back. And yeah, I think it makes for a sort of something which sits outside of that bike tradition. I don't know very much about England. And so I was like wondering if you could tell me like, why is this set in Bromley?

It was the novel set in Bromley? Like what is kind of the character of that space? The novel's set in the novel's called Box Hill, actually, which is a place. Box Hill's like a famous biker site in Surrey. But actually for practical reasons largely, it's very expensive on a low budget feature to shoot outside of London because you have to put up all your cast and crew, you know, put them up overnight.

And so we knew that we needed the place we shot to be within a certain distance of central London. And I also knew that I wanted it to have like that slightly suburban flavor of places on the outskirts of London where they've been a bit forgotten about because I thought, you know, that would speak to Colin as someone who like exists on the margins of culture. You know, he's not someone who's like, if you don't know London, this might not mean anything to you, but you know, central London and East London, if you're gay, it's like you go to Soho, you go to Hackney and there's like such a thriving, diverse, queer life there.

Whereas Colin seems like someone who's never really like never really, been witness to that. So I wanted him to be in a kind of forgotten town. And then we were like scouting locations. And I went to Bromley and it just had this amazing combination of like a slightly sort of uncared for High Street. And then next to that a very like idyllic, romantic green space, a park. And I knew that we needed both for the film, you know, particularly in that day off where they go. This is later in the film and it's a bit of a spoiler.

So I don't know what you're going to go too far. Anyway, we needed the location to be able to hold two different emotional weights, one being kind of drab and the other one being elevated and gorgeous, and Bromley could do that. So casting Harry and Alexander, I feel like, is kind of everything in the movie, and if they're not right, the movie is not going to work. So how do you cast individually and then make sure that they work together for the piece? well I think that a fair amount of it is just like a wing and a prayer when it comes to hoping that they work I don't do chemistry reasons okay that's my idea of hell is like putting two actors in a room and being like okay now have chemistry I think it's very unfair on an actor as well to like you know first dates can be rubbish but I um I think of I think like very long and hard about who I'm going to cast and in this case I thought that Colin was a very difficult past

to find because, you know, he's like, he's sort of the opposite of a leading man in many ways. He's supposed to be kind of forgettable and passive and he's rarely like showing much agency in the scenes. And yet, you know, he needs to be the person who holds the camera at all times in the film. So he needs to be magnetic. And I was at a bit of a loss as to who could do that. And then my casting director sent me the Ballad of Buster Scruggs, which Harry's in. And he's sort of, you know, paying as someone in like a traveling before.

performance troop and he's got no arms and legs and he's sort of a beta male character, but he was totally captivating and like very moving, even though he was just reading the same poem again and again. It's a great performance. Yeah, it's great. And I then kind of like fell in love with his performances, you know, across a wide variety of them. I thought he had this totally unique flavor to him where he is.

He's like, you know, he's very magnetic, but not in a way which you associate with like, like male leading men. So I wanted him and we got him. Fortunately, he said yes very quickly. And then it was, you know, thinking about who would be a good partner for him. And I just had happened to be watching Succession at the time, Succession Season 4. And I just thought Alexander was so great in that. Like, I'd seen him in lots of stuff before and thought it was brilliant.

But in Succession particularly, he was like, you know, he came onto a cast where all those other actors were just like smashing it. You know, they were, no one, no one shut up about the fact that Succession had the best cast in, maybe an, you know, all time in TV. And then he was just sort of psychologically dominating all of those, all of those characters.

And doing certain a way which, like, sometimes played into his physicality and then sometimes didn't. And I knew that's why I wanted for Ray, I wanted someone who was like a head-turning beauty, but also could, psychologically control situations and also be mischievous. And if you know, have ever seen an interview of Alex,

he's quite mischievous. It's sort of the first thing you notice about him. So I thought let's give it a, let's roll the dice. I thought it was very unlikely he'd come on board, to be honest. But, um, but he then got back within 24 hours saying, let's have a Zoom and we chatted and,

uh, he came on after that. I hear filmmakers say that sometimes where you're like, yeah, I'm meeting an actor. They've read my script. And I'm trying to, I want to see if they want to,

get involved? Like, what is a conversation like that actually like? Like, what are you talking about? Are you talking about the character? You're just talking about who you are and what you believe in or what you like, what your taste is? What does that conversation consist of? It's sort of both, I think. It's, like, definitely, it's funny. We were speaking about this last night, and Alexander was like, I remember you were wearing, like, a cuddly jumper with penguins on and, like, clearly I decided that I needed to try and show him that I wasn't just some, like, terrifying kinky, kinky man, you know, Both can exist in one person, but I, I remember we spoke for like 20 minutes about, about, you know, us and like, I don't know, football, like all sort of knee-jerk reactions

go to football. And then, and then we did speak about, like, the character, not in a, not in a very specific way, but more in terms of, like, the intentions of what I wanted to do with both the character and the film, you know, how I was going to cast around the actors, how I was going to make sure that the film felt like it had sort of a lot of research and authenticity behind it rather than it feeling like a sort of tourist approach to the world of kink. And yeah, it was, I guess, more that kind of thing. How do you, the movie amazingly like resists falling into the traps of there being like a camp aspect to it or like mocking the culture in any way.

And even if some people come to it with sincerity, it still is sometimes hard to portray it in a way that can be fun and funny, but is also like that deeply sincere mixture that you talked about in the novel. So how do you do that? The magic trick of tone, I guess, is the question. I think it's sort of threading a needle a little bit. And I knew that, you know, whenever it was always the question I was asked by like financiers was, oh, you know, what's the tone of this? because it feels like it sits between a bunch of different things. And so my approach to that was when we were shooting to sort of collect different options to play one scene

in a more broadly comedic fashion and then get the actors to do a more sincere take. Because often, you can shoot a scene and get like an amazing version of that scene, but then when you're in the edit and you're trying to compile the whole, it won't sit right. And you know, you actually need something which is less emotionally weighty.

Did you know that from doing the shorts? I knew that partly, no. I think because I, you didn't go to film school, I sort of have just spent a lot of time reading other directors chat about what they do. And I'd rather interview with Sandra Hula, where she had talked about Justin Tray and Maranazza, both being directors who collect lots of material. And I think Sandra actually sort of talked about how it was something which she found to be more common in female directors than male directors.

But it sounded just like a great thing to me and kind of a like maybe a sort of slightly less ego driven way of direction by being like actually I don't necessarily know what I wouldn't. And so it's worth having options for myself when I'm in the edit. And yeah, I'm very grateful for it. There were lots of moments when we were shooting where I'd be like, oh, no, I've got it. And then my cinematographer for Nick Morris would be like, but maybe we should just try a different version in the editor. I constantly was ringing a neck up and being like, I love you. Thank God that you said this. I was going to ask you if it, first of all, that's an amazing insight that just like reading the interview to say, like, I should think about actually the strategy and like kind of methodology of shooting the script that I've written is really interesting.

but on the page would you say that it was funny? Did it read as comedy? I thought it was hilarious. But then some people would read it and be like, no, this is not funny. I definitely intended it to be funny. And, you know, like Alex Sander, he was saying yesterday, one of the things, which surprised him when he read it was that it made him laugh so much. And I think actually it was the kind of sincerity, the emotional weight,

which people found harder to understand on the page because that owes a lot more in the Finnish film to very small moments of performance, like a look, which you know you don't tend to describe in the script. I do think there are a lot of people who are going to come to the movie who have no access to the culture, like that they don't understand it at all. And so I was wondering how much you thought about

where to be kind of prescriptive or instructive or explanatory about what is. transpiring versus just portraying the world as is and letting people figure it out for themselves. I definitely thought a lot about how to not, how to not just totally hold an uninitiated audience at arm's length. But my answer to that wasn't to like lean into exposition or to over explain like the processes within this subculture. It was more to find like, find tones which would make them enjoy themselves. So like comedy being the main one, it was like, okay, well, if I'm watching a film and there's something which is a bit abrasive or unsettling to me, but then in

the next moment, I'm laughing as I would if I would watch like a Bridget Jones movie or whatever, then I'm going to be less inclined to leave the cinema at the first blow job. So that was kind of my, my tactic. I get a bit turned off by films where it's about a kind of niche subject matter and then the film is constantly being like, by the way, this is how this subculture does it. Because it feels like you're, as the filmmaker's, you're existing, a remove from the subculture you're portraying. Yeah, that's really interesting.

I was also curious about, like, the choreography of the movie. You got this, like, wrestling set piece right in the middle, and there's obviously multiple sex scenes in the film. And so how you just even kind of strategize to shoot that sort of thing? I'm so fascinated by it. Is it, like, choreographing an action sequence, or dance sequence? I have not got much experience choreographing action sequences,

and I imagine they're a bit more involved. The wrestling scene was definitely the most involved choreography, and we got a stunt coordinator, but I'm a big wrestling fan, and it was one thing where I sort of on the page was pretty prescriptive and being like, and then they do this move, then they do this move, then they do this move. With the sex, it was more about finding a balance, actually. you know, we would, we, the sex scenes definitely were the longest blocking on the day of any of the scenes

because we'd like start with what we had on the page and then there'd need to be quite a lot of readjustment, you know, for instance, the orgy scene, they were having sex on these trestle tables, which were incredibly wobbly, so we had to like, find, do work around for that kind of thing. But it's about, you know, in my experience, you know, well, working with an intimacy coordinator in those sex scenes, it's about like finding enough structure. So the actors then feel confident providing the like present tense to it and not having to necessarily be like, right, I'm going to do 16 pumps. And then those kind of you can always sort of tell when a, when a sex scene has been too choreographed. Right, right.

There's a kind of a somewhat abstract idea that's in the movie that I really like, which is that yearning is not connected to sex. like there is this idea of longing for something that isn't just like a physical longing that the movie kind of like walks through. And I don't know how much you had to kind of specifically thought about that because so few movies like genuinely authentically portray sex, especially not a lot of queer movies, especially not a lot of queer movies that are released by studios. So, I mean, can you kind of talk through that? Because I think we kind of like collide those two things and they're not the same. Yeah. And I think, I think it's, you know, obviously it's not one size fits all, but like often the experience of like coming

into knowledge about sex and about your desires is like learning that actually there is a difference between those two things. And your like first love, you associate that immediate sexual desire with longing and initially you think, okay, well that combination is, is love maybe, but then as, you know, as your expectations for other parts of a relationship chafe up against the good sex you're having, then they begin to separate. And I think it's kind of the journey which Colin goes on in the film is being like, right, well, there's this man, Ray, who sexually satisfies me massively and in some ways emotionally satisfies me, but in some ways does and in some ways I need more.

And I think, you know, eventually, eventually that's what creates the real sort of conflicts in the film. I think it's such an amazing aspect of the story that you're telling. I also really like the way that you portray Collins' parents and the complexity of engaging with something like this and, like, the desire for sensitivity and then the loss of control of the sensitivity around their son and the relationship that he's in. How did you think about how to write that? I with them was sort of really reacting against like the tropes of parents in queer cinema. I think I have

quite a low attention span generally and specifically I'm just a bit bored of seeing that like arc in queer narratives where parents go from you know not accepting their gay kids to then over the course of the film accepting them and I was like you know if we're going to

set this in modern day Britain, it's more typical really these days for parents to be accepting, but that acceptance isn't sort of objective. The definition of acceptance I think fluctuates depending on how normative the homosexuality you're presenting is. And so it was kind of an interesting question for me like, okay, what if you start with incredibly accepting parents like caricaturishly, not a word, accepting parents. And then at a certain point, their son gets the boyfriend. They've always wanted him to have,

but that boyfriend turns out to come in a package which they don't recognize, which I think in some very valid ways, they find, like, a warning or off-putting. So, yeah, we sort of reverse that typical trajectory. I'm curious more broadly for the pathway to filmmaking in England right now. What was the journey like, this sort of like 10-year journey that you were on?

How do you find it? Like, what is the sort of state of the industry for young filmmakers from your perspective? I think that my journey was sort of fairly typical. I mean, I didn't go to film school, which is less typical. But shorts is really the gateway into independent film. It's making a short and it's very competitive, obviously. but then if you have a short which does well, which someone likes or goes to a good festival,

then often the great thing about the UK as you have public funding. So like the BBC or the BFI or Film Four might then be like, okay, we'll give you a fee to write a script for us, to develop a script with us, which is what happened for me and a bunch of filmmakers I know. But like, you know, as with everywhere, but it's certainly true in the UK,

that funding is really, is really limited and there's definitely massive issues in terms of like class inequality and social inequality and you know who who is even able to get on the path to accept that kind of funding so I think it's like there's still a lot of work to do in making making sure that there's sort of equal opportunity when it comes to funding and like what are your ambitions at this point now that you've made this like do you want to make bigger films do you like staying in a kind of independent lane? I, well, I definitely think I want to stay in an independent lane for now.

I really, one of the best things about making this film was that I cared so much about it, and it took a long time, but I made it with people who I really, like, I really felt protected by, and I also had a degree of control over the outcome. because the budget wasn't stratospheric. And I want to give myself the opportunity to make bigger worlds and hopefully next time

have a little bit more money. But if I think about filmmakers whose careers, I really admire someone like Yolkim Trier, his body of work feels like he's just been able to maintain a sort of authorship over it by working

at a scale which isn't which isn't, you know, totally prohibitive of control. And I think that's what I want to do. It's interesting. I talked to him last year on the show too, and he spoke a little bit somewhat similarly about kind of staying in his native country and utilizing the structures that are built up around

filmmaking in his country and how beneficial that's been for him. And he's kind of dipped out a little bit from time to time. But by the same token, like this, you've got an Alexander Scarsegard movie, 824, distributing here in the United States. States, that there is like maybe the appeal to of like a wider reach. So I always ask younger filmmakers whether or not they want to like go bigger for lack of a better phrase. I mean, it was definitely an ambition of mine with this because of the subject matter that it wouldn't be

relegated to like the underground. And I think that having Alexander come on board was very necessary to convincing even like finances on our low budget film to finance it. Because that, you know, there was a lot of concern. I think that I was going to make some, like, unrated thing with actors who wouldn't bring people into the cinemas and no matter how good the end product was, it would be, you know, a big loss and no one has any money at the moment. So you can't, you can't roll the dice on something, which is definitely going to be a loss. But I think, you know, maybe going forward, it will be the same thing.

If I want to work with big-name actors, it's because either, you know, I think they're brilliant, which I did with Alexander, and because they're going to help get a film finance, which otherwise would be tricky to get financed. Quickly, I'm curious about the long life of promoting a movie. This film premiered a can. I saw it at Telluride. It's February 5th, we're talking. It's still not out in theaters. What's that like to go through the nine-month spin cycle after you've completed the work? It's wild.

It's really wild how, you know, the journey of this film, because it's very much a first for me, it's been like full of excitement. But nine months in, like now I'm starting to be when we go to like Q&As, I'm like, but surely everyone's heard. I've said this like 20,000 times now. And I definitely am like feeling hungry to get writing again. I was like warned by other filmmakers that, you know, it was naive to think that while you're on the road promoting a film, you'll be able to just crack on with your next one.

And like sort of arrogantly was like, yeah, I'll just knuckle down. And I have not put pen to page at all for like nine months. So I'm actually, you know, we finish doing basically all. all of the promo stuff for this film in a couple of weeks and then I'm going to go lock myself away for six months and not speak to anyone about Pilly and ever again. Do you know what it's going to be that you're going to put a page about? Yeah. I do, I think. I don't think I can say, but I've recently worked out the idea. So I'm going to crack on. Good luck. We ended every episode of this show by asking filmmakers, what's the last great thing

they have seen? You've seen anything great recently? Film. Well, it could be, Damien Chazel once said the Roman Coliseum. The moon last night. Yeah, exactly. I prefer a film. I'll say a film.

The last great film I saw was the Love That Remains, the Lena Palmerston film. Oh, I haven't seen it yet. Yeah, tell me about it. I firstly am, you know, a big fan of lots of his films. I thought that Godland was like maybe the last film which truly stunned me, where I went, like, God, this is masterful. But the love that remains is, I guess, more in the spirit of, like, family kitchen, sync drama and yet it incorporates these like sort of slapstick fantasy sequences which feel

very new for him and it's also you know he's still working with with a combination of actors and members of his family but it's um it's like really laugh out loud funny it's the last time i watched something in the cinema where i was like like gasping for air from a scene which made me laugh so much so it's highly recommended it's a great recommendation harry congrats thanks for doing the show. Thanks so much. Love it. Thank you to Sam Sanders. Thanks to Harry Leighton. Thanks to our producer Jack Sanders for his work on this episode. Thanks to Lucas Kavanaugh for production support.

Next week, we've got a draft. What was the draft? Oscar Snubs. Yeah, we did it already. Yeah. I think it went well. It was great. The rules are complex and some people let their Oscar nerd freak flag fly, which, you know, we accept all tastes on this particular podcast. So that's fine. But I thought it was successful.

I agree. We'll see you then.