The Big Picture - William Friedkin Meets a Real-Life ‘Exorcist’ | The Big Picture (Ep. 61)

Episode Date: April 23, 2018

Ringer editor-in-chief Sean Fennessey chats with legendary filmmaker Willam Friedkin, who’s responsible for films such as 'The French Connection,' 'The Exorcist,' 'Sorcerer,' and 'To Live and Die in L.A.' Friedkin discusses his distinguished career in film and why, at 82, he decided to create a new documentary about a real-life exorcism called 'The Devil and Father Amorth.' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

99.99% of what you read about exorcisms and possession is bullshit. Most of the movies are complete fabrications. My film is a fiction. I'm Sean Fennessey, editor-in-chief of The Ringer, and this is The Big Picture, a conversation show with the most interesting filmmakers in the world. Some days, you meet an icon. That was the case last week

when the iconic director William Friedkin visited us at The Ringer. Friedkin doesn't need much of an introduction, but here are some of the films he's responsible for. The French Connection, The Exorcist, Sorcerer, To Live and Die in L.A. At 82 years old, Friedkin has returned to his most famous work, The Exorcist, sorcerer, to live and die in LA. At 82 years old, Friedkin has returned to his most famous work, The Exorcist, with a new documentary called The Devil and Father Amort. It is a tight and fascinating movie that captures for the first time ever

a real-life exorcism performed on a woman named Christina by the Vatican's official exorcist, Father Gabriel Amort. It is a startling thing to see, and it's all hosted by Friedkin, who takes us to Italy and then to neuroscientists and theologians as they try to explain what's happened to this woman. It's a violent, thrashing physical experience we see Christina having. Her head is not quite spinning at 360 degrees as young Reagan did in The Exorcist, but it's still a sight to behold. The Devil and Father Immort is a grace note on Friedkin's career,

both an exploration of mortality and faith, as well as a direct callback to his masterwork. It was a genuine honor to chat with him about this new movie, his past work, God, faith, and the devil. Here's the great William Friedkin. Absolute honor for me to be joined today by the great William Friedkin. Thank you for coming in. It's my pleasure. Why is the show called The Ringer? It's the name of the company is The Ringer. The name of this show

is called The Big Picture. You can imagine. No one told me that. Filmmakers seated across from me talking about their work. Got it. You might be perhaps the most legendary

to sit in that seat. Well, you might have had a lot of first-time indie directors. No, well, we've had a few. We've had some icons. Errol Morris was here a couple weeks ago. You know, we get some greats. You know, it's interesting thinking about the scope of your

career too, because of your new film and it takes you back to a major moment in your career. And I'm wondering what brought you back to The Exorcist and why you wanted to talk about this again. It was a total accident. I had no intention of doing this documentary. I was in a little town called Lucca in Italy, which is the birthplace and was the home of Puccini for about 21 years. He was the church organist in the town, as was all of his family. And I was receiving the Puccini Prize for my work in opera. This was in March of 2016. I have a friend who is a theologian in Rome. His name is Andrea Manda, and he writes a lot about Catholic issues in Catholic papers. And I emailed him and said, Andrea, do you think it would be possible for me to come to Rome for a day and meet either the Pope or Father Amort?

And he emailed me back saying, well, the Pope isn't here right now, but I've spoken to Father Amort, and he would love to meet you. Father Amort was the Vatican exorcist for 31 years, and he had written many books about his work. In his first book, An Exorcist Tells His Story, which is in over 50 printings all over the world, he wrote about a page about my film The Exorcist, in which he basically said that while the special effects were over the top, the film did help people to understand his work. So he was happy to meet with me. And I went to Rome, met with him. He's the most spiritual man I think I've ever met. And then I came home. I went to the Vanity Fair Academy Awards party,

where Graydon Carter, who was the editor of Vanity Fair, said to me, well, where have you been lately? Where have your travels taken you? Are you doing any more operas? And I told him I'd been to Rome, met the Vatican exorcist. He said, oh, you got to write about this. You have to write about this for Vanity Fair. I'll give you as much space as you need. So I wrote a 6,500-word article about Father Immort in my meeting with him. I went back to interview him again on tape, and I asked him if he would ever allow me to witness an exorcism, which the church never allows. They just don't. Why is that? Well, it's not an entertainment. It's not for people's pleasure or even understanding.

It is a very private matter between someone who believes they're possessed and an exorcist. So the church doesn't grant permission. So how do you compel him to let you do that? He didn't need permission. He how do you compel him to let you do that? He didn't need permission. He was the Vatican exorcist. Every other priest who performs an exorcist, and there aren't many, needs permission from their bishop. In Father Amort's case, it was the Pope, and he had the complete support of all the Popes. And he founded a group called the International Association of Exorcists. It sounds almost made up. And he trained most of the ones who are around.

They're training more now. So he never used email or anything. He hand wrote letters. But he had his superior in the Pauline priest order, Father Stimomilio, write to me and said, okay, Father Amort is doing an exorcism on May 1st of 2016 at 3 p.m. You are welcome to attend. And I then pushed my luck and wrote back to him and said, do you think he would allow me to film it? And word came back saying, yes, you can film it, but without a crew, with no lights, alone. So I got a little, I had a little Sony CX-7 still camera that shoots high-definition video.

And I sat two feet away from Father Immort when he exercised this woman, Christina. She was 46 years old, and she was possessed. She had had eight prior exorcisms, unsuccessful. This was her night. Explain to me the atmosphere in the room before you turn the camera on Are you just an observer? Are you standing far away from the moment? Set that scene for us a little bit

I was sitting closer to them than I am To you. I was two feet Away from them with this little Unobtrusive still camera Her family was in the room Her mother, her father, a couple of other relatives and her boyfriend, and five people to just hold her down.

That is an extraordinary part of the film, just watching her be contained while she's being exercised. But how did she receive you? Was she comfortable with you being there for this moment? Yes. So was the family. They were well aware of the exorcist film. She had never seen it, too afraid. But they were most welcoming because of Father Amort. He introduced me, said who I was and what I was doing there. And they agreed and they gave me really what was

the seat of honor. Her mother was sitting there and her mother got up and gave me her seat. And so I filmed the whole thing and I didn't know what I was going to do with it. I thought it was like a home movie. I filmed it because I could. And then I decided to take it to all these neurosurgeons and psychiatrists to debunk it, to tell me what this was. Because who knows what it is? The truth of the matter is, as Hamlet said to Horatio, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.

And that's basically what I believe. I made The Exorcist film as a work of fiction. It is a work of fiction. It's said to be based on or it was inspired by a case in 1949 that is really today not provable. What inspired Bill Blatty, who wrote the novel and the screenplay, was the reports of that case, which took place in Cottage City, Maryland in 1949. And then an exorcism was done on this 14-year-old boy in St. Louis at Alexian Brothers Hospital in St. Louis. And he's around with a couple of children. Do you have any relationship with him? No. Okay. The church asked us initially, the diocese in Washington, D.C., to have no contact with the boy. I did speak to his aunt, who was witness to a lot of the things that they claim

happened, a lot of the supernatural stuff. But the Exorcist film is a work of fiction, as is the novel. Blatty didn't use the real characters. He created his own set of characters, set it in a different place, and set it at the time he wrote the novel, which he started to write the novel about 15 years after 1949. I'm very interested in your relationship to faith and belief across this long period of time. So you say that was a work of fiction, that film, but I know that your beliefs and your relationship to God and faith has changed over the years. What makes you, are you more of a believer now? And why does, why are you pursuing a story like this today? I did because I could, as I told you, and I was able to film an exorcism, which no one is able to do. Not a real exorcism by the Vatican exorcist in Rome. And so it was a rare opportunity to do it. As I say, I didn't know what I was going to

do with it until it occurred to me later to take these doctors. I have always and strongly believed in God. I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ as set down in the New Testament. I'm not Catholic. I don't belong to, I was bar mitzvah. I was raised Jewish, but I never embraced the Jewish faith, except I respected tremendously many parts of it. I respect a lot of Catholicism, but Catholicism is basically man-made, and no one, I believe, knows anything. Not any pope, not any philosopher or scholar, Bertrand Russell, Stephen Hawking, I don't care who it is. We don't know anything about the eternal verities. We don't know why we're here. We don't know if there's a heaven or a hell or a devil or angels.

We don't know if there's an afterlife. It is all a part of the mystery of faith. And over the years, for a very long time, Sean, I have believed in the teachings of Jesus. Now, there are a number of biographies of the historical Jesus. The people who wrote the New Testament were, you know, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, were creating a religion. They weren't writing history. There are histories of the historical Jesus by Flavius Josephus, Eusebius, Philo, and they basically say that there was a man named Jesus Christ who went among the people in first century Jerusalem and was beloved of the people and he healed the sick. And that's about it.

Everything else is a matter of the mystery of faith. Do you believe he was the Son of God or not? I've had people say to me, I don't know. I've had people say to me that without the resurrection, there is no Catholic church. There's no religion. I don't feel that. I believe that the teachings of Jesus, as they've been set forth, are very powerful. And whether you believe in the rest of the original or the supernatural or not, the teachings of Jesus are powerful as they're set forth by these guys who wrote the New Testament. When you're making a connection with Father Amort and the church, do you have to explicate these feelings? Are they trying to interrogate your faith before you can be more a part of an exorcism? Father Amort did not ask me these questions.

I did mention them to him. I opened my discussion with Father Immort when I first met him by asking him why Judas was so vilified by the church in that he was a part of the prophecy. The prophecy was that Jesus would be or that the Messiah would be betrayed, crucified, or killed, and resurrected. And Judas was the cog that set forth the betrayal. Without him, there is no resurrection, and then there is no, yeah, exactly. It's all part of the continuation. And Father Amor was interested in that question, and he said, well, you're right to the extent that he was part of the prophecy, but he was also not a good man. He was, in fact, a betrayer and a thief and a kind of a fraudulent person. And I thought, well, that still isn't enough to justify his role as the villain of the peace.

It was Judas who fulfilled the prophecy. And then, of course, Pilate. Pilate is less vilified than Judas is. Pilate was the governor, the Roman governor of Jerusalem or Palestine. And he did what they normally did to people who were accused. And he had crucified thousands of people, the Romans did, in Palestine. So are you able to have an open dialogue with him about these things? Is he willing to concede a point to you or is it more of just sort of is how I see the world, and this is how Father Amort sees the world?

He wasn't about conceding points so much as discussing them. He had his own lifelong beliefs, which I never would even attempt to talk him out of or question, but I had questions such as that, which he answered to the extent that he could. Father Amort was a very controversial figure, quite outside the church. He criticized the church constantly in print and on television. He spoke about the priest scandals. He spoke about murders in Vatican City. He criticized things like Harry Potter and other stuff that I thought was a little foolish, but he was a great man and the most spiritual man I've ever met. And he devoted his life to giving his skills to the people who felt they required them. Now, possession is certainly a religious affliction.

If you're Jewish or Muslim or of some other faith, you're probably not going to believe you're possessed and go to a priest. But few, very few priests have ever performed an exorcism or seen one. And popes are not exorcists. John Paul II was an exorcist in Poland. And before he passed, he left three cases to Father Amort. One of which Father Amort liberated, which is the term they use. The other two he was still treating at the time of his death last year, 91.

But he had liberated many and treated many and not all were successful. And you have to remember that the priest is not claiming that he's doing the exorcism. He's calling on Jesus to do it. And Jesus will do it or not in his own sweet time. Okay, answer me this. You're in the room with Christina, with Father Amort. It's an incredible scene that's captured in the film. Is there any part of you that thinks to yourself, this is absurd, this is a fiction? No. When she came in the room, I wondered what the hell she was doing there. She was totally normal, very lovely.

She's an architect. She was having these attacks and fits all the time. It's not a constant state as it was portrayed in my film, The Exorcist. The attacks come and go. When she sat down in the chair for the exorcism, she was not in any way possessed. It occurred during the course of the exorcism, and became worse and worse until she was out of control, complete personality change, a kind of a strength I've never witnessed in a woman of her size. That is particularly fascinating in the film,

the amount of men that have to hold her down. And they were strong men. A couple were priests, three were not. One was her big, burly boyfriend, who was holding her legs in that scene. And I thought, what is she doing here? And then in the course of her ninth exorcism, these symptoms came on. William Peter Blatty invented the idea that we all think of as exorcism and possession today. People know little to nothing about it.

Blatty invented it in his novel, which he started out to try to write as nonfiction, but he could get no information from the church. Rightly so. So he wrote it as fiction. But I screened this film for several psychiatrists. Some of the leading psychiatrists in this country. Two are the editors of the DSM, four and five, which are the manuals of psychiatry. Psychiatry now recognizes demonic possession. It's called dissociative identity disorder, demonic possession. If someone believes they're possessed and they see a psychiatrist who is legitimate, they will have an exorcism present along with their therapy and medication. But I had two psychiatrists say to me after I showed them my film of the exorcism,

well, it looks to be authentic, but she doesn't seem to have the classic symptoms. Which you more or less invented in your film. I said, doctor, what are the classic symptoms. Which you more or less invented in your film. I said, doctor, what are the classic symptoms? And they said, well, her head isn't spinning and she's not levitating. Where's the pea soup? It was oatmeal. The pea soup for color.

But I said, doctor, we invented that. I'd never heard of that. There are only two reported cases of exorcism that are legitimate in the 20th century. One was the 1949 case, reports of which inspired Blatty. The other was a case in 1922, a woman in Erling, Iowa, a young woman, E-A-R-L-I-N-G. They've been reported and, you know, they, in many ways, they seem credible. But these psychiatrists thought that levitation and head spinning were the classic symptoms. They were invented by William Peter Blatty.

He wrote the lyrics. I provided the music. So having seen what you saw, did you immediately know that this should be a film? Because you said you took it to the neuroscientists to analyze the footage and then you interviewed them. And is that what you expected? Because that's not ultimately what you get.

No. That was the big surprise to me and why I made a documentary. The brain surgeons also, we don't know what this is. That's amazing. And these are guys who've done over 5,000 brain surgeries. Dr. Maziota from UCLA has been the head of the brain mapping contingent that identifies all the specific areas they've discovered in the head of the brain mapping contingent, you know, that identifies all the specific areas they've discovered in the brain. And while they believe that everything originates in the brain, which of course it does, they did not feel that this was any injury to the brain that they could

cure with surgery. I said, well, would you give her an MRI if she came in here? No, this isn't a problem of her brain. We don't know what this is. It's fascinating. So what was it like to return to documentary filmmaking? That's more or less where you got your start, right? Well, the first film I made was a documentary about a man on death row in Chicago. The film saved his life. It's called The People vs. Paul Crump. The thing is, I tried to make this film without imposing any style on it, without trying to impose myself

other than to introduce people and things and places. And that was it. Why? Because I didn't want to get in the way of this incredible event that I was able to witness and film. And are you happy with how that turned out? Happy is never a word that I can use in relation to a film that I've, they are all a compromise. You know, they all, some of them come closer than others to what I originally intended. In this case, all I originally intended was to put this

out there. I was able to film this, so here it is. And now here's some context, not from me, because I don't know what this is. Here's some context from a guy who wrote five or six books about the devil, which have been widely read and reviewed and believed and accepted. They're not trash books. Four neuroscientists and four psychiatrists. And a priest, the Archbishop of Los Angeles, who said some remarkable things in the course of my interviewing him. He said, for example, that he would never be able to perform an exorcism. And I said to him, well, why not? You're the Archbishop of Los Angeles. He said, yes, indeed I am. And I said, but you have the power of Christ behind you.

He said, indeed I do, but I just couldn't go there. I could not enter the lists with the devil as Father Amort has thousands of times. I couldn't do it. What was your reaction to that? Were you stunned? That stunned me more than anything. His admission of that. Not that he was afraid. Most priests won't do it. Most priests have never done it, know nothing about it. The priest that did the exorcism in the 49 case had never done an exorcism before. is bullshit. Most of the movies are complete fabrications. My film is a fiction. It was inspired by reports of an actual case. My film called The Exorcist. Right. But the way that we have seen exorcisms through the years, in part people iterating, stealing, changing what you and William Peter Blatty put together, makes us think that this is a very dangerous act, that people can die in the process of doing this.

When you were with Father Amort and Christina, did you sense that there was a danger to what he was trying to do with her? Yes. But she had total faith in him, as did her family. And so she gave herself to him, hoping to be liberated. All of these interviews and stuff with guys around here who claim they've done exorcism, I don't believe it. And there's no real evidence of it. What I do believe is that there is evil in the world. We all know that.

We see it every day. We see it in ourselves and others, let alone on the world stage. There is evil in the world. And the devil has become a metaphor for that evil. Was Hitler possessed or was he just sick? Was Charles Manson possessed or was he just sick? There are people who perform this evil like this nanny who killed two of the children in her care. What is that?

Is that mental illness? I think that's what we tell ourselves to feel better about how we can be in a world in which these things happen, that someone is mentally ill and that's why that happened. But you are negotiating a different kind of nuance with this movie. That's part of what's so fascinating about it is we can't just say Christina is mentally ill. And you have neuroscientists not saying that. They won't say she's mentally ill. And you have neuroscientists not saying that. They won't say she's mentally ill. Well, the psychiatrists will.

But they treat it with exorcism as well as their therapy and medication. What have you heard since you've shown the film to people? Have there been more revelations, more things that you've learned about this? No. Nothing? No. I don't show it to people. It has been shown to people for interviews and stuff, but I tend to not seek feedback. The film

opens in theaters April 20th, then it'll be on video on demand, and then Netflix for three years, which is the standard platform today. I know. But it's remarkable that it's even in theaters. Usually something like this would simply be on a pay-per-view platform and then Netflix or Amazon or one of those. Well, this film will be on Amazon, iTunes, DirecTV, and other home video on demand for 90 days, and then Netflix. Let's take a quick break to hear a word from our sponsor.

Today's episode of The Big Picture is brought to you by Shudder. Brought to you by AMC Network, Shudder is not only a premium streaming video service, but an experience unlike any other. Created for fans of all degrees of thrillers, suspense, and horror, Shudder is home to the largest and fastest-growing human-curated selection of high-quality, spine-tingling, and provocative films, TV series, and originals. And there's always something new and unexpected for Shudder members to explore. I personally am a subscriber to Shudder.

New on Shudder this month is a limited-event series called Born to Kill. Sam is embarking on his first romance with fellow teenager Chrissy, who's moved to the area after family turmoil of her own. But things are about to take a darker turn.

Beneath the surface of his charismatic persona, Sam is experiencing more than the usual teenage angst, a psychopathic urge to kill. His family and friends have no idea

what he is capable of. Only his victims know the chilling truth, and they're not talking anymore. Shudder is available for $4.99 a month or $49.99 with an annual membership, but our listeners can get a free month by entering promo code BIGPICTURE at checkout. So go to Shudder.com today and find the best collection of thrillers, suspense, and horror available to stream anywhere. Okay, now back to my conversation with the great William Friedkin. Had you been wanting to make another film?

You've obviously been making films for more than 50 years. It had been a few years since you had made one, and obviously this is a doc. Had you been itching to do something else? I haven't found anything I really was inspired to do. There is a script that I'm working on now that I hope I'll finish in about a month. Can you talk about that or not yet? I can't really talk about it. Okay.

I could tell you about it, Sean, but I'd have to kid you. Okay, fair enough. I'd like to live, so we'll move on. Because I haven't finished it, so I want to hopefully get it done. But there's not a lot that I want to do today in film. There's not a lot that I see today do today in film. There's not a lot that I see today. How do you decide what you should see? I mean, you've talked a little bit about a couple of the horror movies that came out last year that you quite liked. How do you decide what's worth your time?

Well, I generally will read about them. Not reviews, but some people who I respect will tell me what's coming out. The other day I saw A Quiet Place, the new horror film. What did you think of that? I thought it was terrific. Yeah, it's wonderful. Really, it delivers. Yeah.

It's good and it's different in the horror genre. I like Get Out very much. I liked a few of the films last year, Three Billboards. I thought it was good. But all that's changed. Mostly films are made for a video platform and Netflix. How do you feel about that?

How do you feel about people consuming films on those platforms? It doesn't matter, does it? I'm just curious. It's what's happening. Yeah, but you know. You know, how do I feel about the governor of California?

You could talk about that too, if you'd like. It doesn't matter. feel about the governor of California? You could talk about that, too, if you'd like. It doesn't matter. He's the governor of California, and I can't wait for him to be out of there. That's how I feel about him. Duly noted. There is a new platform for how films are distributed and shown and seen. And the young people who embrace these platforms don't seem to mind watching Lawrence of Arabia on an iPad or Citizen Kane. They don't mind. But what about the fact that more people will be able to discover The Devil and Father Amort because they're Amazon Prime members? Is

that heartening in any way? I'm happy about that because I don't think you need a big screen to see that. But you do certain films. Certain fictional films require a big screen and a communal participation. Sitting there on an iPad, let alone an iPhone, and watching one of the classics of world cinema doesn't seem to me to be really the way in which they were intended to be seen. Guys like George Stevens and John Ford and William Wyler and Orson Welles and others are turning over in their graves because of stuff like that. But that is the modern world. Whether you embrace it or not, it is what it is. I had a chance to see Sorcerer on the big screen recently.

Oh, great. It was an amazing experience. I'd never seen it on the big screen before. You mentioned earlier that every film is a compromise and you try to get as happy as you can and I was curious I know Sorcerer is sort of a famous production but when were you happiest with what you were able to do on a film?

Sorcerer is that the one? that's the film that came closest to my vision of it even though I didn't get the original cast I wanted I got a terrific cast and I love the film. It's one of the few films of mine I could still watch.

They're opening it in December throughout Japan. Oh. In theaters and then on Blu-rays and then on television. It's going to be like a new film that I made in 1977. But why do you not like watching some of the

other films as much? I don't know. Just not as happy with how they turned out? You see a film hundreds and hundreds of times before you finish it. You see it especially in post-production when you're adding the sound effects and the music and mixing the sound. You see it hundreds of times. And then I approve all the prints of my pictures. And by that time, I have really seen it. And that was true of Sorcerer as well. But I still like to watch it. It's such a great movie. I don't know all the times.

Sure. I do from time to time. But I watch other old films a lot. I watch a lot of film called The Verdict with Paul Newman and a great cast. And The Parallax View, a film that Alan Pakula made that's as relevant today as it was when he made it in the 70s. I guess it was the 70s. I watch Citizen Kane over and over again, and the Magnificent Ambersons, and Singing in the Rain, and the Bandwagon, the MGM musicals. I love them.

I've heard you say that's the peak for you, the Bandwagon. I love the Bandwagon. It's an incredible movie directed by Vincent Minnelli with Fred Astaire and Sid Charisse. And just to watch Fred Astaire is one of the pleasures of life. It's a reason to live. Some of the reasons to live I can cite for you are Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, Frank Sinatra, Miles Davis, the Duke Ellington Band, Beethoven's Fifth and Ninth Symphonies, a few things like that. The paintings of Vermeer and the Impressionists, which I see over and over again. The long novels by Marcel Proust called La Recherche de Tom Perdue in French. The English title is now In Search of Lost Time.

It used to be Remembrance of Things Past. I read those over and over again. They are some of life's great pleasures for me. Is there any film in your past that you wish you could approach now with the wisdom and the knowledge that you have that you would do in a different way? All of them. Yeah? Sure.

Anything in particular that jumps out to you? Well, everything, Sean. With wisdom and knowledge, you know, comes the ability to apply your skills better. And, yes, I don't know if i would change a frame of sorcerer the exorcist works pretty well for what it is as does the french connection and to live and die in la i think i think they work fairly well could they be better sure is it important to you that those films are remembered the way that people that people have a you that those films are remembered? The way that people have a relationship to those films the way that you

have a relationship to Proust or Vermeer or Miles Davis? It's satisfying. There's no doubt about that because films were not really invented to have a shelf life. When Chaplin and Keaton and Griffith and those people

invented cinema there were no other platforms. They were going to run in some theater for maybe a couple of weeks and be gone. There was no TV, no video, no nothing but the communal experience of a theater. So they never expected their films would last. They made other films until they couldn't make them anymore. I like to end every show by asking filmmakers, what's the last great thing that they've seen? You mentioned A Quiet Place. Is there anything else that you've seen recently that you loved? Well, I like Get Out, as I say. It came out last year very much.

What is it about Get Out that struck you in particular? The idea, I think, is original and wonderful. The sense of tension and dread, which was constant, it constantly overhung the entire film. The suspense was incredible. And I identified with the lead character. And I thought it was beautifully executed. Great script and beautifully realized. I suspect Jordan Peele took a few pages out of your book. William Friedkin, thank you so much for joining us today. Pleasure to speak to you, Sean.

And thank you for having me. My pleasure. Thanks for listening to this week's show. For more on movies, head to TheRinger.com where you will find a trundle of content devoted to Avengers Infinity War, the big MCU event movie of the summer. And I'll have a podcast on this feed later this week

about that very movie, so stay tuned.