[Music] [Music] This is Contra Zoom. Where we go back and forth about film. I'm Dakota Arsino. And I'm Rachel Ho. Today's episode is another installment of Make Remake. It's where we take a movie and it's remake and compare the two. Not to see which was necessarily better or worse, but to see how two movies can tell the same story both similarly and differently. In the past we have paired such films as Dune, 1984, The Invisible Man, and others. On today's show we are considering the 1957 Akira Kira Sawwall film Throne of Blood in the 2021 Joel Cohen film The Tragedy of Make Bath. Both are adaptations of the William Shakespeare play Make Bath first performed in around 1606. The Scottish play is one of the most popular productions to be put on as been put on film at least 30 times, either directly through an adaptation or taking segments from it. Akira Kira Sawwall took the original play that took place in 11th century Scotland and changed the setting to 400 years later and feudal era Japan in the 16th century. Originally Kira Sawwall wanted to make the film in the late 40s, but when he heard that Orson Wells was making a version of Make Bath, he put it on the shelf for almost a decade. The film was released by the production company Toho, that's known for the original Godzilla franchise, and it ended up being the highest grossing Toho film of 1957. The exteriors were shot on Mount Fuji to give the production a sense of vastness and to use the natural force in fog. Kira Sawwall was heavily influenced by the Japanese theater style of No, with the actors using the style of movements, synonymous with the style, along with incorporating the set design, costumes, and makeup of No. Joel Cohen has been working with his brother Ethan since they were children. They made their debut film Blood Simple Back in 1984 and have worked together ever since. The tragedy of McBath marks the first time one of the brothers have worked separately. According to their longtime composer Carter Burwell, Ethan Cohen at the moment doesn't want to make movies anymore, is instead focusing on other kinds of projects. This allowed Joel to work alone for the first time. He casts his wife in longtime collaborator Francis McDormitt and Densel Washington as the leads in film the entire movie on sound stages and in black and white. The adaptation is more or less a straightforward retelling of the story, albeit with a few unique spins on the story. The film was released by A24 in theaters and on Apple TV+. This will not be a part of our A24 retrospective, as Rachel and I are eventually going to come back to the film when we get to an chronological order down the line when then will be a part of our A24 retrospective. For anyone that doesn't know the general story of McBath, it is about a general who after defeating a traitor in war comes across witches who tell McBath that he will receive a promotion and eventually become King. His companion Banquo is told that his son will become King after McBath's reign. Once things in the prophecy start to come true, McBath's wife Lady McBath starts encouraging her husband to put plans in motion to fulfill his destiny eventually becoming King. So this is a very famous play turned into movies. We've all seen this before, whether it's, you know, your high school production or going to see it in the theaters, whether it's Stratford or somewhere else, and of course the many, many adaptations of it on screen. Originally we were going to have friend of the show Sebastian Heinz come on as he would be a perfect guest for this. He's been an actor on Stratford. He has plenty of experience working with the Shakespearean text, and I thought he would be a good guest to have on for this. Unfortunately, the scheduling didn't line up, so he's not going to be here today, although we are going to steal probably a few of his ideas as he sent through some of that. But I have you today, Rachel, to talk about this, and I'm very excited. This was a movie, "Tragically McBath," I've been looking for for a long time ever since they announced it, and I am already a big fan of "Throne of Blood," but I'm curious, you've never seen "Throne of Blood," how did these two movies work for you? Very well. Both of them. I'm really, I really enjoy both of them. So I wasn't a huge like Shakespeare person as like in high school. I think that's when most people have their introduction to Shakespeare. I wasn't ever kind of like overly enamored with it. Like I know some people really, really love the writing and the style and that. But "MacBath" was the one play that really stuck with me, and it was the only one in high school I remember actually enjoying having to read and having to do whatever project it was in English class. So when "Tragically McBath" was announced, he actually even before that there was a version with Michael Fassbender and Mary and Coltoyard. That was from, I won't say 2015, and I remember being really excited for that. And then when this one was announced and it was Denzel being "MacBath," Frances McDormand being "Lady MacBath," I thought that's the coolest thing ever. And I remember in the summer there was only like a black and white still of the two of them. And that's all that we were given and everyone was so jacked for it myself included. And then when you, you know, we were talking about what movie we were going to compare because there's so many remakes as you said, or not remakes, I shouldn't say adaptations of it. And I was saying like, which one should we, or did you have in mind to do? And you said, "Throw on a blood." And I looked at one up and I thought that sounds badass. Like Akira Kurosawa doing "MacBath Adaptation," but it's not a straight Shakespearean adaptation. It's just taking the story. And putting, you know, the Japanese samurai culture around it. And of course, you know, it's Kurosawa. I was one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Like that's such a awesome marriage to me. So when we were going to talk about comparing the two, I was really excited for it. And then thankfully, after watching them, they're both amazing. So I love that. It's nice when the make remakes that we both, like the both movies are actually really good. Because sometimes, I'm not usually that good. Like, let's be honest, I think the first episode I ever did with you was Rebecca. It was. And it was like, the new one wasn't great, let's say. But obviously, like, it's so it's nice that, you know, even a modern adaptation 2021, it's still amazing. But that might also just be to the credit of Shakespeare of, you know, such a timeless play and timeless story. Yeah, it's definitely one of those things where because the text is so strong, it's kind of hard to screw up. Unless you have a poorly cast actor. I don't know. I'm just going to throw a name out there. Maybe someone like Keanu Reeves playing a Shakespeare role. How dare you listen. Whoa. That's what are we doing here? I've heard his hamlet in Winnipeg, Manitoba was very highly revered. Thank you very much. Wasn't he in like much ado about nothing though? Yes, he was and that was really bad. There we go. That's what I thought was quite bad. Co-starring, I believe, Denzel Washington, right? Yeah. Yeah. There we go. It all comes full circle. But yeah, it's interesting. I look at these two movies and obviously the plot Macbeth, you know, I read out the plot description. I think if you're listening to this episode, you probably know what Macbeth is. It's one of the most famous stories of all times. It would be like reciting what Romeo and Juliet is or hamlet is or whatever. It's just one of those stories that even if you're not intimately aware of it or haven't seen it, you kind of know the story of a guy who sort of gets drunk on power because he hears this prophecy. And it's sort of the argument of free will versus predetermination and how that sort of affects your actions. If you know what you're going to become in the future, are you going to work towards it or are you just going to believe that the path that you're currently on will eventually get you into that place? So it's a very interesting story. And it's also really interesting looking at these two movies, how I had more notes about the differences. Despite the fact that these stories are almost identical where it gets to the point where you're sort of like micromanalizing me like, "Oh, there's very subtle differences." And this is how they're very different. Obviously, you know, the big difference is one is a samurai picture taking place in Japan. And the other one is a very literal stage adaptation filmed. They can't be a more different one when you talk about that way, but they still hit on the same note in the truth of the story. And that comes from having such a great base of text. And I think one of the great things about Macbeth, and I mean, you could argue this is Shakespeare in general, is that if you want to look at the layers and it kind of really dig deep into the text and into, you know, kind of each, what are they called, like, not parameters, diameter? I don't know, anyways. But if you want to really look and like really, really analyze it, you get a lot out of it. Like, it's incredibly enriching to do something like that. And at the same time, if you just want to take it at face value, it's such a cool, like, action story as well. And so I like stories that are like that, that you can enjoy it on kind of a very, very superficial level. And then if you choose to kind of keep going and dig deeper into the characters, into the motivations, into the conversations, you get so much more out of it. And to me, that that's like a sign of just really good storytelling. You don't necessarily need to sit there.
be in deep thought all the time, which some movies can be accused of doing, like kind of overthinking it a little bit. Or others are just kind of mindless, popcorn entertainment. Both have their place, but when you can marry the two together, I think that that's like you've just created something quite magical and it's rare, obviously, to do something like that. By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes. My husband, King Benchel P. If we should fail. We fail. Does God not hear noise? So I say we get started. Let's start things off with things that are done similarity between the two films. Of course, if you haven't seen at least one version of Macbeth, not necessarily these ones, but their stage adaptation or what have you, I sort of suggest holding off listening for now because we're not going to go full spoilery, but you know, this is a play that is several hundred years old. If you don't know how this ends by now, then that's sort of on you, I guess. But yeah, let's start with some similarities. I think the obvious one is that both films were shot in black and white. The first color film made in Japan was actually Carmen comes home, which was released in 1951, six years before the throne of blood. While black and white was still the norm, it was definitely a stylistic choice to make it in monochrome. Much like today, where it is a special occasion to see a film in black and white, Joel Cohen made the choice to shoot the tragedy of Macbeth in that palette. How did both of these films being explicitly in black and white, not being in color work for you? And do you think that sort of added anything to it? Because when I think of the Michael Fassbender version, it's so brightly colored and it's so unique in that sense, where that would be a very big stylistic difference. How do the two similarities of them both being black and white work for you? I like it. I think I'm a big sucker for anything that's done in black and white. And so, especially if it's shot purposely in black and white, like a bit of a pet peeve of mine is when filmmakers make a film in color, and then they transfer it to black and white later. Because I feel like that's kind of cheating. Because when you're shooting a movie in black and white, you can use a lot of, obviously it's a lot of shadows and light. Like that's kind of the whole point of shooting in black and white really. And I think Joel Cohen does such a cool job of it in making sure, like the cinematography in tragedy Macbeth, it was nominated for Academy Award. It's gorgeous because of the way he plays with the shadows and he plays with the light. And then in a Kira Kira Salas version, his is obviously done in film. So it's a similarity, but there's also like a kind of slight difference between the two as well where Joel Cohen shot purposely in digital. Because it's much colder when you shoot digitally. And then a Kira Kira Salas did it in film, obviously, because that's what the time was. But it actually made me think a bit about a movie I just watched recently called Od's Against Tomorrow, which is a Harry Belafonte movie. I don't know why I just made it really fancy there, but Robert Wies shot that one in black and white as well. And that was done in 1959. And one of the reasons he decided to shoot, it was the last movie he did in black and white in that aspect ratio. And the reason he did it was because he wanted to get like kind of a real gritty raw realism to it. And that reminds me a bit of, or it makes me think anyways of what a Kira Kira Sal was kind of going for, of getting it really looking quite gritty. Because there's something about the grain of black and white that is just different that you don't get with color. And I think when you're talking about a character like Macbeth being so grizzly, like I always think of Macbeth just being so grizzly and very like worn out from life and from war and all that kind of stuff. And so when you use black and white to emphasize that character trait of Macbeth, I think it works really, really nicely. Yeah, I agree with your sort of comment about films that later turn their stock into black and white despite being shot in color. Like I know just recently Nightmare Ali was released a second time in black and white and a parasite famously was also released in black and white. And that's not something I'm really a fan of. I have no real interest in see I'm sure it looks great and beautiful, but there's something very specific about going into a filming process knowing it's in black and white and having to adjust your lighting, the colors that you choose for your set design and your costumes and all that sort of stuff really needs to be thought out and prepared ahead of time. You know, I love Nightmare Ali. It looks so good and like that color has some very rich yellows and reds and things like that where I'm sure it looks good in black and white, but the fact that you're removing that I think that's a bit of a I don't want to call it a failure, but it sort of defeats the entire purpose, whereas tragedy of Macbeth, they went in knowing it's going to be black and white. And so it was shot accordingly, it was shot like a German expressionist film, everything has very hard angles harsh lighting things like that where if that was shot in color and then they tweaked it afterwards, it will look so different. It would be so blown out the color scheme, the palette would not work. And I think the caution design works with the black and white because it almost looks like everyone is actually wearing gray clothing in that which is so interesting. And I think it also works for thrown of blood because one obviously I said that Macbeth was first published in the 1600s. So we automatically think of all this is so old. This is a very classic time period. But then also you have thrown a blood which is shot in feudal Japan, which is a sort of a similar era. Obviously it's a few hundred years apart, but regardless, it's still several hundred years ago. And so we think way back when this is old school, this is this is the color format we're dealing with. And obviously, you know, it's funny when you think of like kid asking not anymore. But I guess like when we were young asking our parent what was life like in black and white because color TV hadn't been invented, you know, that sort of thing. Obviously life when thrown of blood is taking place was in color, but it's just sort of one of those things were like, oh yeah, that makes sense black and white. Yeah, that era makes sense sort of. But yeah, overall, I think it really works for both films and sort of allows you to focus on other things, not just like look at the pretty costumes and things like that. It really like highlights angles and structures in the way things are shaped because you have your eyes have less to sort of, you know, be all a glaze over everything. Oh, look at this very pretty thing. You really have to hyper focus on things to make out what they are. And kind of to add to that, I know we're not doing a make remake of three movies, but we've already mentioned the fastbender one and that's in color like you said, and but that one's more of like a war epic almost like I always think of it as more almost born like it's an action movie kind of. It's more brave heart. Yeah, exactly. It's great example. And so when you use color in that kind of a movie, it really works because it just it highlights the the violence and the, you know, the gruesomeness because I think sometimes. When you see black and white movies, not to say that you'd need to see the color of blood, but it helps, right? Like it it's like kind of when you see it in black, it takes you out of it a little bit sometimes when when you see blood because it's just a dark stain. Whereas with it's in color and it's like vibrant, it just feels a bit more visceral, I suppose. So it like it depends on I suppose the type of adaptation they wanted to make. And so because Joel Cohen wanted to do it, I know we'll get to this aspect of it later of it being almost like a theatrical setup or yeah theatrical setup. It's it really plays to that aspect of it of just like it's not necessarily focusing on the violence. It's not necessarily focusing on, you know, like like, you know, the costumes or whatever, like you said, you're focusing more on the characters and what they're saying and, you know, they're facial expressions, so on and so forth. Yeah, and I think that the blood thing is a really interesting thing because especially in thrown of blood, there is a room in one of the castles that they say people don't stay in there because it's blood stained and when we see this room, it looks really interesting because it's a wooden room. It's a gigantic black splotch, both on the floor and on the wall, and you sort of have to use your imagination of what happened there to make such a big stain and it really sort of like plays with your head because if it was just blood, I feel like it would hit differently, but because it's in black and white, you really have to think about what that means. Definitely. Another, I think, sort of interesting similarity is how water plays an important part in the witches' prophecies in both films and thrown of blood, both times the witches are seen. It is during a rainstorm and in tragedy, the second prophecy sequence makes Macbeth think the room he is in has flooded and the visions are coming up from the water. During the scholars, water and Macbeth is seen as a way of symbolizing guilt, which is obviously a huge theme across the whole story of Macbeth and how the characters perceive guilt of moving forward to reach their own destiny sort of thing. I was sort of wondering.
Did you notice the water as an important aspect when you were watching these movies? Because right away for me I was watching it and it was obviously very apparent in tragedy at Macbeth during that second prophecy scene, but in Throne of Blood, how often rainstorms play an important part in telling of the story and setting the mood? Did that work for you? Yes, and partly because specifically about Throne of Blood kind of linking it back to the black and white conversation we were just having, I love seeing rainfall in black and white. I think it just has, it looks different, like it just looks, I don't even know what it looks like, I don't even know how to describe it because it kind of looks distorted in a sense like, you know, old school TVs when you have the black and white distortion, like that green enus, it kind of reminds me of that a little bit. But you know what's funny is that, like I saw your note about water being a sign of guilt. I always associate water with being like purity, you know, like people always consider that, you know, you wash, wash away the sins, your sins or whatever, you know, all that kind of stuff. So in my head, water is always associated with something clean and pure. And so the idea of it being a sign of guilt, I thought about that when I read your note on it because I just thought, that's such an interesting because it's kind of almost the complete opposite because you're using, I suppose it's connected because you're using the water to clean away your guilt, but in the way that they use it, like the water is flooding the room and tragedy of Macbeth and the constant rain in thrown of blood, which the character is remarked to saying, like, this is really funny whether that we've been having recently, like, this kind of weird. And it's just such constant constant rain. So it's like the idea of, it's like too much purity, almost like you need so much of that water to cleanse away all of the bad crap that you got up to because, you know, and that that is a sense, your guilt. Is that kind of the reading of it? Is that like, is that what I'm saying correct? Yeah, I sort of look at it almost of like, you're drowning in it. You know, it's no longer there to wash away. It's your drowning. It is so all-encompassing. Right. That's really interesting. I love that though. I really like, you know, again, like I said, when you can dig deep into something like that aspect of it, like I find that really fascinating to look at. Do you have a, I know we don't do preferences, but like, do you think both of them were as effective in showing that sign of guilt? Or do you think that like, tragic Macbeth? Because it literally was a room drowning. Was that more effective for you? Yeah, I think it was probably a little bit more effective in tragedy of Macbeth, just the way they symbolized it. Obviously, you know, this big scene that we're talking about is his second prophecy vision when he meets, his second time he meets the witches. And he had been hallucinating the night before and Lady Macbeth had drugged him to go to sleep. And it's sort of, I think the reading of that scene is that it is sort of a drug-induced vision because it's obviously not really happening. His room is not actually being flooded. So it sort of hits a little bit differently when you know that it's him basically tripping of, and you have like these spectraels coming up from the water of who would succeed him afterwards of being king and all this sort of stuff. So I think it's just a little bit more effective because I don't want to say it's more on the nose, but it's definitely more explicit in the meaning. Yeah, and I suppose it makes, like you said, more on the nose, but it just kind of, it punctuates that specific scene, whereas in Throne of Blood, it's just not constantly reigning, but it happens throughout the movie versus just one time. There's like a big rainfall. I think it happens what I want to say two or three times. I think in the movie that there's just massive, massive amounts of rain coming down. Yeah. Yeah, I think it's at the beginning and then about halfway. I guess closer to the end it happens. Yeah. But elements really play a big part in Throne of Blood, which is something we're going to kind of talk about in the next half when the decision to shoot that on a mountain comes into play. Is there anything that you kind of want to point it out as some similarities? Yeah, one thing I'm going to steal it from Sebastian's notes, but it was also, I will say, I did kind of notice it. I'm going to give myself a little bit of credit here, but it was about like the score. The score and just the sound maybe is maybe that's a bit more accurate thing to say in both of these movies are so pronounced and almost necessary in the movie, I think. In Tragedy of Macbeth, there's a lot of, I really like the sound design in Tragedy of Macbeth. I think that there's because the palaces or the castle is meant to be very echoey. It has that sound, that kind of reverberation off of the cold walls, the steely walls. But the actual score in Macbeth is also very, very overwhelming. Whereas thrown of blood, you've got sound again being really, really important, but it's almost more of the kind of carrying on from what we time up the rain. It's more of like the elements. It's the nature. It's the sound, like the howling of the wind. It plays a really, really big part into it. They also have a great score as well, like one that takes over. But for me, it's the sound of kind of the rustling in the forest and things like that. That's what really takes over for thrown of blood. Yeah, I agree too. I think that the sound design is so excellent in both of them. For very different reasons, like you were talking about there, thrown of blood, it seems so magical at times, especially the scenes with the witch where it has this real other worldliness to it, where the sounds that you're hearing don't sound like they're actually emanating from the source they come from. And it has to do also the fact that clearly whatever voice manipulation they're doing to the witch, because it's played by an older woman, but her voice kind of sounds very masculine and has this real foreboding, basically vocoder-ness to it, which obviously was not a thing back then. So they did some sort of manipulation to her voice to be able to create that effect. And then you were like, like you were talking about the rustling and the crinkling and all that sort of stuff in the background of the forest, it just didn't quite sound natural. And it really kind of messes with your head a bit. And then of course, on the flip side of tragedy of Macbeth is they Cohen really does a great job of marrying the theatrical with the film. And so we get stuff that if it's happening on screen, we assume it's basically practical, but he takes a filmmaker's approach to where it obviously isn't. So Sebastian pointed out stuff like Foley, which is what you do to make sound effects, not in studio, because in studio you need to be as quiet as possible when you're filming, because you don't want to ruin the sound over someone's talking. So you make the sound effects of someone stepping on leaves and cracking branches and things like that afterwards. So yeah, I think the really interesting job was sort of marrying those two worlds together to create its own unique sound landscape, whereas Throne of Blood also had its own very unique palette too. Absolutely. And one other thing I want to talk about in terms of similarities is, and it seems like it's a really obvious thing, but it's Lady Macbeth's out-damped spot. I mean, it's a little quiz section, whatever you want to call it. I always find it interesting that even though, like throughout all of the different adaptations, obviously, Tragedy Macbeth is a more direct Shakespearean adaptation in terms of the language that they use. And Kira Sawas Throne of Blood, he's not precious about sticking exactly to what was prescribed in Shakespeare's text, which I think is really cool. And I think that that's kind of what makes it work a bit. But I love that the one thing, not the one thing, but like one thing that they keep. And I think it speaks to, I suppose, how powerful and how prolific that scene is, they always keep that. Like no matter what kind of adaptation there is, you have that one specific scene for Lady Macbeth, and it's the same movements, you know, with the hand and all that kind of stuff. And I know for me, as again, as being somebody who's quite a bit of a novice when it comes to Shakespeare, that's always been, when I think of Shakespeare, that's the scene that I think of the most. That's the thing that I associate with Shakespeare almost the most because not only is it a scene that's given to a woman, like quite a powerful scene and lines given to a woman, but it's really, I don't want to say it's mental because that sounds really inappropriate, but like it's just, it's really all-encompassing powerful. Like it's really crazy the way and it gives whatever actress is taking on Lady Macbeth. That's kind of their moment. That's the thing that they focus on the most. Yeah, I'm gonna, I guess we, this isn't supposed to really be a review episode, but I found that that scene and tragedy of Macbeth didn't work for me as well as it has. I agree with you. Yeah. I'm gonna reference two different podcasts here. First is on Classic Movies Live. They did an episode talking about Anacendrick musicals and they brought on this guest Ben who is talking about how certain musicals, when an audience goes to see it, they are very interested to see it.
see how this cast or this particular actor will interpret a song. So they're talking about the movie the next five years, which I've never seen either the play or the movie. And they're talking about how there is this really key song and audiences are always interested to see how will the actress perform this song and make it her own and sort of bring it to life. And that's something that we sort of also get with Shakespeare. So the very famous "Out of Dam Spot" or if you're going to see Hamlet, you really want to see to be your not to be it, how that's going to be played out in certain aspects of Romeo and Juliet. And whatever Shakespeare play, there's usually at least one moment where you're like, how is the director and the actor is going to stage this? And then the other thing I want to reference is film spotting on their review of it. They obviously love this movie because it's a fantastic film. But they sort of brought up the fact that if you had never seen Macbeth before, and this was your first time and you don't know the story at all, you haven't seen the play, you haven't read it, you haven't seen other movie versions of it, whatever. And this is the first time you watch it. You'd be sort of caught off guard by that scene because it sort of happens a little too quickly and there isn't a lot of meaning behind it. Obviously, as people who have read it or seen it before, you go in understanding a bit more of the backstory and understanding that you can't fit everything into a movie unless you want to make a four hour movie sort of thing. And it sort of feels that they skipped some of the details and I think they did a better job with a thrown of blood to get to the out-out damn spot scene that they did for tragedy of Macbeth because it just sort of comes out of nowhere, frankly. And I also think, and this is, I often talk about expectations being a really crappy thing to bring into movies, but you can't help it. And I think for me, it's Frances McDormand. So I'm kind of expecting to be blown out of my seat because it's her. And I would agree with you, like I don't think her version of it landed as well. And I'm not saying she was bad in the movie, obviously, she's still Frances McDormand. But I think I was expecting it to be a bit more pronounced, a bit more powerful, you know, that kind of thing. And I think I never thought about the placement of it in the film itself, but yeah, that does make sense. It does kind of come out of nowhere and it relies on, it's like Jill Cohen relying on audiences knowing the backstory behind why Lady Macbeth is saying this, why is she's doing that. But if you actually were to just take it in a vacuum, it probably is a bit kooky. I didn't think about that before. Yeah. So we're going to take a short break and when we come back, we're going to talk about some differences. All right. So now we're going to look at the differences between these two movies, which despite both plays following very closely to the original text, there were some very important differences to make. In fact, I probably we probably won't even have time to really delve into all of them, but I think it's so fascinating how you can take a play of so well-renowned and so well-known and do such drastic different things. I think that's probably why people always come back to Shakespeare is you can basically take any of his plays and adapt it to modern times to the past, to the future, whatever. And you can find common ground of understanding what the context is and maybe that's why he's considered one of the greatest writers ever. That's a nice trick that he's able to do with his work. But yeah, let's talk about some differences. I think the first one we sort of tease a little bit before was the use of location locations are very different. Kyrisawar shot the film on an actual mountain to get the play to have a very epic feel to it. Well, Cohen shot all of it on a sound stage, giving the feel of a heightened theatrical performance leading to very different locks. What was your take on the ways that these two movies looked? They feel quite fitting. They kind of make sense. I don't know why I tried to make that if they had shot that on location in Scotland, like in I don't know some Glyzweegin ancient castle. I don't feel like it would have hit as much because even though it's in black and white, like I had said before, they shot it in digital. So it does still look kind of modern, even though it's old school. It still has that look to it. So the fact that it's very clean. Yeah. So the fact that the set is also clean. The set is also kind of like modern art. Things, something that you'd see at the tape modern in London or something like that. Art that I don't really understand. It makes sense to me. It just is really fitting. Whereas when Kyrisawar is like, he's making it a historical period drama. Very clearly, it's meant to be historical. And so when you go into up on Mount Fuji and that's where you're shooting it, it creates a more realistic tone to the film, which makes sense because he wants to be historically accurate for the time period that his movie, his script is being set in. So it really works for me the way that they had done the two, the bit of the diversion there. And I knew some people who kind of complained about that, about the tragic and it Beth saying, why does it look like that? Like there's nobody there. I think maybe they were expecting it to be a bit more realistic, I suppose. And I think that's a bit of a shame to kind of go into it thinking that it's going to be one way. And then even though within the first, what, five, ten minutes, it's clear that that's not the kind of movie it's going to be. I think if you can kind of just settle into it and then just let it be what Joel Cohen intended it to be. I think that they're a lot to take from it. So I personally, I think it works very well for like the vision that both of the directors had. Yeah, I absolutely agree. And I love the way that Joel Cohen set up this film because yeah, it has such an other worldliness to it because it looks so fake and artificial, but at the same time, it's so real at the same time. If that makes sense or it's even possible, but whatever it is, he manages to do it because there's a few scenes where it's outdoors and we get a nice starry night sky and stuff like that. That's clearly digital and fake. And then yeah, you get these buildings in the middle of nowhere, just sort of standing there and they're such wide open and there's almost no set dressing to them. And you know, you just got these big columns and things like that. And it just looks so unique and interesting. And there's play. There's, it's simultaneously, you know, it's a full of contradictions. There's nowhere to hide, but everywhere to hide, you know, it's fake, but it's real. It's lived in, but it's artificial. Like there's so many different contradictory statements going on at the same time, but it all works for it as a grand hole. And it reminds me of something like the cabinet of Dr. Caligaria, a favorite horror film of mine in 1930s, German expressionist horror, where they are officially, I know I'm being very good at it. It is very good though. I'll say it's a very good movie. But you know, that movie is famous for creating, you know, these really jagged sets and light shadows painted on the sets that are unnatural. And obviously this movie isn't like that, but there's elements to it where it sort of has that unnaturalness to it that sort of makes a viewer uneasy about what is real and what isn't real. And you know, on the flip side, obviously with thrown of blood using the real locations, it adds so much to it. You know, I'm a big fan of, of Kerosene, all those movie seven samurai and, you know, the use of the rain in the dirt and the mud and the water and all that stuff, just like add so much grime and realness to it where it feels so lived in. And you can almost like smell the movie and thrown of blood has a very similar aspect to it as well where, you know, they're galloping through the woods and it's muddy and it's gross and it looks like their armor weighs a ton. And then at the end with like the arrows coming in. Kerosene is an absolute insane person to allow to Shiro Mifune who plays the lead character to be shot at by real archers just baffles my mind, you know, this is, this is 1950 safety standards, I guess in Japan. Yeah. You would allow his leading man, his number one box office star to be shot at by real archers and it works like goddamn, does it work by absolute Shiro insanity that Kerosene Mifune did this. I was like, I've that scene is incredible.
you're just like, oh, he's not really acting. That's really-- Yeah. [LAUGHTER] One thing I wanted to pick up on that you were talking about was how kind of fake it looks and how disengaging-- or not disengaging, but what's where am I looking for? Jarring it can be to your brain. Yeah. And I think part of it, too, is like we always have this discussion about practical effects and movies today and how we want everything to look so real. That's one of the reasons people like Dene and Chris Nolan movies, because their special effects are quite real, and they use CGI to touch it up. Whereas when things are CGI, it just looks a little bit fake. And it's, you know, unless it's very, very good CGI. So I love that the idea that that's the era of film that we live in right now when it comes to-- especially action movies and science fiction-- is we're looking for realness. Like we're looking for reality in our films. But Joel Cohen takes goes completely the other way. And I like when an artist does that. Everybody's going one way, and he just says, no, I'm going to go completely against the grain and make something that maybe in the '30s was more common in something like that. But today, it's just so discombobulating for your brain to see something like that, because we're just so conditioned at this point to see realistic depictions of characters and stories. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So it's so funny that the realness of it looks fake to us. But it works, because it's a beautiful set. And it really sort of feels like if you ever go to the theater, and sometimes they'll have special events, screenings of, you know, strat for productions, or Royal British theater productions of these classic plays. And it's just so elaborate. And you just-- and you know how hard people work to build these sets and to make these costumes, and to do the props and all that sort of stuff. How much of time and energy goes into making it look as realistic as possible that you can for a stage. And that's the sort of feeling that Joel Cohen goes for. Obviously, you would need a stage a mile long to be able to actually watch this in a real theater. But you look at it and you're like, I can see these stages, this castle, this house. I can see this on a stage. If I went to Strathurt, I could probably see something similar to this. And that's what's so interesting and unique to it. And the cool thing is, is a lot of people give stage adaptations-- or sorry, movie adaptations of stage productions. They give it a bit of flack for being like, it looks too much like a stage production. You know, like they're saying, I heard people talk about, like what was that movie like? Maradis, Black Bottom. They were like, it's too stage-y. I think you might have actually been one of those people. I thought that way, yeah. So I think the cool thing of what Joel Cohen does in this one is, yes, it's very stage-y. It's very theatrical in that sense. But he does things with the camera that wouldn't have been possible on a stage. Like I'm thinking specifically of the shot of the three witches overhead on the beams. It's like you could have that on a stage, obviously. You can have that production. But you won't get that angle. And you won't get that kind of the isolation of just us being able to see only that. And that for me, that's one of my favorite shots in the whole thing. And I think that that's what is part of the brilliance of what Cohen did, because he asks it's stage-y and it's theatrical. But it's still incredibly cinematic what he did. It's a weird thing. I also think of maybe something from earlier this year, human, the humans, where that's also an adaptation of a play where it felt way too stage-y for me. And so that weird balance of you want a play that's been adapted to look unique and be its own thing. But also, you want elements of why it was so successful in the first place. And for some reason, stuff like Maureen is Blackbonds and stuff like the humans just really don't work for me because it almost seems like they're trying too hard to be both at the same time without really leaning into one or the other. Whereas Tragic McBath really leans into this is a stage production that we're sort of filming. But I am able to do my own flair. But this is a stage production, regardless. I mean, that's just all credit to Joel Cohen, right? Not everybody is-- Yeah. He's a great director, as much as I'm not the biggest fan of the Cohen brother of movies. But there's no denying that he, him and his brother, they're amazing directors. So I get the criticism for movies like The Humans and Maureen is Blackbondom. But it's clear it's a difficult job. That it's insanely difficult to do. And it takes somebody with Joel Cohen's talent, but also his experience. This is-- I don't know how many movies have they all done together. Has he directed, even with his brother? And that's what comes of it, to do something a bit later on in your career as big as this, which you could also say for Francis and for Denzel, actually, too. So-- Mm-hmm. Yeah, for sure. So let's move on to maybe some other topics, because we've got lots of discussion still to do. The final prophecy I find focuses on two different things. We're really going to get some spoilers here. But in "Throne of Blood," the main reason by Washi-Zu, which is the Macbeth character in that movie, believes he's invincible is that he won't lose a battle until the forest moves and reaches the castle. Where in "Tragically a Macbeth" includes the forest bit, but also that Macbeth shall be harmed by no man born of a woman, which is a pretty big plot point in the play, because the no man born of a woman-- so he gets cocky and thinks that no man can ever kill him. When a reality what happens is the person who ends up killing Macbeth is someone who was born via C-section. And I believe the line was ripped from my mother's womb or something like that in the actual text. So it's just sort of interesting how they sort of focus on two different things. And we talked about the ending of "Throne of Blood" ends with this barrage of arrows raining down on Washi-Zu, the Tissue de Mifone character. And that's how he dies. Whereas that's a complete invention by Kira Salwa, because in the text, "Macbeth" goes and actually has a sword fight where I wish I had the notes up in front of me, but I believe it's its bank-wo son who ends up killing Macbeth because he's the one who was born of a woman. And so that's how he's able to become king. And sort of interesting, because even then, it sort of changes well, despite the fact that he's the one who kills Macbeth, it ends up being the king's son who becomes king again, which is sort of an interesting concept, because that's also unique to this movie adaptation as well. So both movies sort of definitely take their liberties with how they want to interpret the ending. I find-- I think this is about kind of Shakespeare's language, where because Trajave Macbeth is done and performed in the Shakespearean way, it makes-- it's a bit more artistic, it's a bit more eloquent, whereas if you had just said it kind of in the way that you just did, imagine if they had just said, well, I was born by a C-section. It doesn't really have the same weight as saying, I was ripped from my mother's womb. There's something different. And I wonder, obviously, we don't know, but I wonder if that's where Kurosawa realizes, maybe without saying it in the way that Shakespeare had written it, does it lose a bit of its edge and kind of becomes like a, yeah, OK, oh, like plot twist, C-section, whereas if you use the language that is actually written, it just sounds a bit more poetic. Do you know what I mean? I wonder if that's why Kurosawa-- because I mean, like I said, he doesn't stick exactly to Shakespeare's story. He does change things around, which I think is interesting. And this is probably one of the bigger points of what he changed. But I wonder if that had anything to do with it, like because if he knew you're losing something by not using Shakespeare's language. Yeah, I agree. And it sort of allows Kurosawa to sort of be like, this is a loose adaptation of the story, because the fact that he doesn't have to use the original language, and he can change it around a bit, it works for him. I think also the fact that it's not in English. And I don't think you could probably do a one-to-one translation from English to Japanese to keep the Iambic pentameter of the exact cadence and tone that it has. It's almost easier to be like, look, we're just lifting the story. And then I'm adding my own things in order to make this film work. Yeah, and that's how adaptations, successful adaptations work, right? Like not being overly prescriptive about your source material and kind of just creating your own thing. Not every director is able to do something like that, or do it successfully, I should say. And again, similar to how we were just praising Joel Cohen, I mean, all of the praise to Akira Kurosawa as well, because it's not an easy thing to say, I'm going to take the story of Macbeth and adapt it to Japanese culture and the Japanese language. But I'm going to do it a bit in my own way, because it won't work. It will lose a lot of the impact that
it had in English by doing it in Japanese. That's really interesting to me, like changing it from different languages. Another thing I want to kind of talk about is the use of not being able to have a child is sort of a central theme in the original play as the Macbeths don't have an heir. So after Macbeth died, a different family would rule assuming that Macbeth isn't beheaded and someone takes over the country sort of thing in this idea of you producing air and they become the king after you and your family rules forever in perpetuity. But in thrown of blood, Lady Wasizu gets pregnant after coming to rule, but eventually has a stillbirth, which leads to her losing her mind in the infamous outdam spot scene that we were referencing earlier. When the casting of Denzel Wasch, Dan France, and some dormant were announced, who are 67 and 64 respectively, it sort of came with a note that these characters were unable to conceive a child and at this age are now too old to create an heir. Unfortunately, the film ended up cutting out that plot entirely, but I think it could still be read as a viewer because you can look at it as maybe they didn't want to have a child when they were younger or they didn't believe they had the means to do so. And then suddenly now that their royalty and they have a place to live in this nice castle and everything is taken care of for them, it would make more sense for them to try to have an heir in order to keep these things in their family. But obviously you look at someone, people in their 60s and you understand more specifically a woman in their 60s cannot get pregnant at that age anymore. And so she can't have a child. So it's sort of, I would have really loved it if this movie sort of touched on that aspect a bit more. And I think it would have made more sense much like how in thrown of blood, the stillbirth causes Lady Wasch-E-Zoo to sort of lose her mind and lead to the outdamned spot thing because it was such a traumatic event. I think something would have been interesting where they tried to do that in tragedy of Macbeth maybe with some sort of immaculate conception or something like that. I don't know how that would work out or some sort of, which is prophecy where they're able to incorporate that. It just would have been a lot more interesting to look at it because this idea of casting older actors, I thought was a fastening idea and they didn't really do anything with that. So it's interesting you say that because I think it goes back to kind of one of the first points that I was talking about where Macbeth is an interesting play because you can either just look at it kind of more superficially or then like if you want to, if you choose to dive into it like in the way that you're talking about, you can get a little bit more out of it because that point like like you said, I agree with you. I was very very interested when I heard they're casting two older people in the two main roles because it for me it lends a bit of desperation almost like you're right. They don't talk about why it is that they didn't have a kid up until then like was it because you know Lady Macbeth was unable to have children like or I shouldn't just put on her. The two of them were unable to make a child together was it a choice that they made that they said they didn't want to have kids for whatever reason. But the way I read. They're unable to have kids. Yeah, like the way I read it is it's like it added to the desperation that they had in the end where they're really faced with the idea now of look, we're not having an air here like this is not happening for the two of us because it's regardless of what our fertility issues were when we were younger like we are at a stage in our lives where that's not happening. And so this is the way that we're going to be remembered. This is the last ditch attempt that we have to make a name for ourselves because we don't have a legacy to leave behind to do something with our name. It's either us or nothing at this point. And so I love that idea of that's what's been gnawing at you know Macbeth for all for the last however many years you want to take it. And that's what is driving him to do what he does and it's not just about because I think when you have younger actors there is a sense of it's it's hubris it's them just wanting glory it's them just you know it's a fancy title I want to be king but when you add in this aspect of their older they don't have an air this is it like they're either going to be remembered as king or they won't be remembered at all and that's what's driving him or that both of them. And then the other thing I think is really cool about them being a bit older is I think it touches on the relationship between king and lady Macbeth because like you said you know it's it yes mostly true that at the age of 60 plus they're not going to have children but very specifically it is something more on the female side that women can have children after they have go through menopause so there is that and then you know king Macbeth if he really really wanted an air he could have gotten a younger you know and tried with her you know tried to have a baby in that sense but I I thought it was kind of a beautiful love story in a sense or like a little kind of romance line there of the two of them are just so in love with each other and that they only see they say that it's kind of the two of them or writer die as the kids say today and he's not willing to go try with another woman step outside their marriage for that it's the two of them and if they can't have an air fine so be it he's not going to do that with another woman even if it's something that knows at him even if it's something that he desperately wants he's not even going to attempt it like I mean we don't know for sure but that was my reading of it because again they didn't really tell us one way or the other yeah I think it's definitely something that as a viewer you're probably either going to bring maybe your own experiences depending on your age or past to the reading it's just something that I sort of wish they had made a little bit more explicit talking about what they want the themes to be for them being a bit of an older couple of why they were why they were chosen specifically Washington MacDormant to be cast in this movie and and I know there probably was a reason maybe it was cut I don't know but but yeah it's just something I would have hoped for maybe a bit more but there wasn't wasn't actually there not that it really hinders the movie for me it just would have been I think it would have added a bit more subtext to it and also like I was saying with the outdam spot scene I think that would have made a little bit more sense because for me that worked so well in thrown of blood where it's right after she has a stillbirth and suddenly she feels everything is slipping away from her grasp and can't cope with that and there's such a trauma that she's sort of coming to terms with the evil that she is doing in her life and that's what causes her to go mad and and try to wash the invisible blood off of her hands the metaphorical blood on her hands and it works so well next sort of goes back to that the the concept of water of trying to wash away your sins which is interesting because in that scene she's she has this bowl and she's like washing her hands and you don't really see anything she her hands are completely in this bowl and then she like lifts her hands up and there's no water there she's just like imaginary scrubbing her hands and using water to like pour over her hand but there's no water there so it works so well to really illustrate where this woman has come to be at this point. Definitely and it's like and it's I agree like I think it's sort of blood and we already talked about how that that works a bit better but yeah the idea of introducing a stillbirth into a Macbeth story like that adds a completely different layer to the to the story but just as just as I mean you have two older people so in that sense maybe there's a bit of a similarity there where they take something that's not necessarily in Shakespeare's writing but they've added kind of an extra layer onto it of a hundreds and hundreds year old play they're still able to add extra layers onto it which is pretty cool. Yeah do you have any differences you want to bring up? One thing that I think is worth mentioning and it's Sebastian pointed it out himself too it's about the use of Denzel Washington as as Macbeth whereas like in Curacao as a throne of blood it's set in Japan during the Samurai time feudal era so it all the whole castes Japanese of course and even though Cohen's version doesn't necessarily imprint a year onto it you can assume it's kind of the middle agey type time in Scotland and yet you have Denzel Washington a black man but also you have two Americans doing it as well like it is meant to be Scottish they don't say that they're not in Scotland like they're in Scotland but they're using their American accents they're not even doing the kind of the weird British accent that they just attribute to the entire of the UK so it's an interesting difference and change that Cohen makes to the play which is introducing a bit more diversity to the cast without any explanation for it either whereas Curacao is a bit more you can call it accurate if you want but you can also just say he's going a lot more with the period of the time and following along with that yeah it's definitely interesting because for a few different reasons first talking about throne of blood
You know, you've got a Kira-Kirasawa Japanese filmmaker filming a movie in Japan, in the Japanese language. It makes sense to use all Japanese actors. And it's not like Kira-Sawa would like famously cast an American or a Brit in his movies. Use what was around him and that was Japanese casts. And so it made sense that he would make a movie about Japan and it'd be all Japanese actors performing that. Yeah, I'll sort of read out what Sebastian sent in as well, just to sort of bring his point to it. He says, "Kira-Sawa appears to create the potential for historical accuracy by building an all Japanese cast set in a time of Japanese racial homogeneity." Cohen employs a fascinating yet inexplicit racial binary between black and white cast members during a time and place in history when the film's racial diversity would be considered inaccurate or implausible. And so yeah, it's not just Denzel Washington. You also have Cory Hawke and two plays McDuff, Moses, Ingram who plays Lady McDuff, and a few other actors playing smaller parts as well, people of color. And we get this really interesting mix where you have an interracial couple as a lead if Denzel and Francis, and then you also have other people of color in different parts for the most part playing, you know, black families with black children and things like that. We get a nice interesting mix and it sort of feels like we're at the time now if you were to go to the globe or to Stratford to see a show or a show festival also in Ontario where you would see one of these classics, they really are doing their best to do race blind casting. And that's the sense of, you know, we get it. We know McBeth is a Scottish person and, you know, he's probably a white person based on Shakespeare's historical accuracy if they're doing it that way. But like also who cares if they're not a white person sort of thing? It could be anyone as long as the actor is able to bring to life this role. And so I think what Cohen does with this is I look at the idea of, you know, you know, close your eyes. You're like, all right, here's this movie coming out. Joel Cohen is doing an adaptation of McBeth and he's going to cast Denzel Washington, Francis McDormack. I heard that the first time I was like, that sounds amazing. I didn't think about how, wait, no, McBeth is a Scottish person, which means they'll probably, they probably should be a ginger, a white ginger person or whatever, like stereotype you want to use. I hear that and I think Denzel Washington's McBeth. Ooh, I like that idea. Denzel always brings a ton of intensity. He's going to be able to bring to life this character who is, you know, this middling sort of general who ends up rising to power and gets a little too power hungry. And he's married to Francis McDormack, who is able to push him further and make him commit acts of murder in order to realize this goal of ruling the country. I think those two actors, they're going to work perfectly together. They're both so they know how to be over the top. They know how to be subtle. They know how to bring intensity, quietness. They've, you know, you're talking about some of the greatest actors working today. I would list Denzel and Francis among that. And so the idea of it being a interracial couple is so fascinating where Cohen doesn't even acknowledge it. Like would you say, race is even acknowledged in this movie? Yeah, I completely agree with that. I think it's, it's interesting using Denzel because it almost would have been incredibly unjust and unfair as an audience member to never get a Denzel Washington McBeth just because he's black. Like he's one of the greatest actors of all time, I would say. And certainly one of the most celebrated actors of the current era. And a perfect McBeth, like I think it obviously shows in his performance that it's, it's he's fantastic. So I agree, like I like that they don't ever mention anything about race because I mean if you went to, if you go to the theater and you see different plays and musicals and things like that, you know, Broadway and the West end and all those places, they were kind of ahead of the curve when it comes to, you know, blind casting, if you will. They just put people in who, you know, were good and who were talented and, and they fit the part regardless of what they look like. And it's for some reason in movies is where people have a bigger issue with it. It seems like it's people are more willing to point it out that, hey, look at this, like that's kind of weird. Like why is, why is Denzel a black man playing McBeth? But truly, like, you know, that's what would have been the case on, on the stage, like you would have had people not necessarily Scottish, definitely not Scottish and not necessarily white performing it. But for some reason when we talk about movies, it's a real sticking point for people. But just that I just think, you know, what a tragedy, life would have been if we hadn't, if we hadn't seen Denzel as McBeth and the only reason we wouldn't have gotten this performance is because he's black. Like that's ridiculous. And he's tremendous at it. Like he's from, I'm like, that's one of my favorite interpretations of McBeth that I've ever seen. And one of my favorite Denzel performances as well, I know it's a bit recent. So maybe there's some recency by his seat going on. But yeah, I think it's phenomenal that Joel Cohen decided to go this way and not and just take the best people. But it's also great that he cast other black cast members as well. Not just Denzel alone and just a bunch of white people around Denzel, like that would have looked really weird. So I think, you know, when you when you put McDuff is black as well, his family is black, it makes it not as jarring, I suppose, but I've heard definitely heard comments from people being like, why is McBeth black? And I'm just like, why not? You know, like that's kind of the response is why not. And yeah, but I thank God that Joel Cohen decided to go this way because I think we're all better for seeing Denzel as McBeth because he is tremendous in this and he would get my vote in the Academy Awards just saying. Yeah, I definitely think if your reaction to the concept of Denzel Washington Washington has been cast to play McBeth, if your reaction is basically anything other than, wow, I bet he'll be really good in that isn't. And instead your reaction is something along the lines of, but wait, Denzel is black, why is he playing McBeth? I think you have some bigger issues that you need to deal with your racism probably. Oh, just a little bit. Just a smidge of it. Yeah, I was I wanted the things I really want to have Sebastian on to talk about his Sebastian, you know, is a good friend of mine. He's he's also half Jamaican, half German. And he has played numerous Shakespearean plays in Stratford, including the last. Thing he worked on was he was in the tempest and he did a great job in that and I'm so happy that like that the people who who cast plays at Stratford weren't worrying about, you know, quote unquote racial authenticity in order to portray these instead working to just get the best actors they could, which Sebastian is someone that absolutely is and I saw I'm playing the temp to tempest any absolutely crush it so so happy about that. But yeah, it's sort of interesting, you know, we're talking about his concept of inaccurate or implausible for the time period that McBeth would take place in into other things where it's like obviously, you know, black people were in Scotland and they were across the United Kingdom. But you know, there wasn't a black Scottish king. So that's where the sort of inaccurateness would probably come up if some people decide that they need to be racial purist or whatever nonsense term that they would have. But in reality, it's a friggin story. It's like anytime people get mad when, you know, a character is a gender reversed cast or race reversed cast or things like that where it's just like who cares, like, you know, just enjoy whatever the production is and there's probably a reason that makes it more interesting that they're changing it up in the first place. People need to chill, especially when it's made up characters to begin with. You know, I would also say in McBeth, I mean, there's three witches. So, I mean, right? We're talking about realism here. So, let's just be real now. Like, it's not. I think if we can accept that witches are in this world, I think McBeth can be black as well. And like, I'm so sad that we're not doing a full-on review because I just want to praise Catherine Hunter in tragedy, McBeth for playing the witches, which might be one of the finest supporting roles of the past year. She was so damn good in that part of being so unique with her body movement and her voices and all that sort of stuff. And I just loved it. So the screening I went to there was a Q&A with Frances McDormand and Joel Cohen afterwards. And they were talking about Catherine Hunter and they were saying, like, American audiences, like this side of the pond, we most people don't know who she is, unless you're really into theater, like, especially if maybe if you were. You go to England a lot, like London a lot to do theater, but like, she's been an incredibly renowned stage actress in the West End in London for a very long time. And so it's like, we're just catching up with her kind of thing. And this is our introduction to her is like, for, for, you know, mass audiences is the introduction to her. But yeah, I completely agree. She's amazing. She's fantastic. Yeah, for sure. Like, and that sort of like the Cohen thing again that they are so good at casting their supporting roles where they're so memorable and, you know, you talk about Catherine Hunter as the witches or Alex has a who played Ross or a Harry Melling as Malcolm, Brendan Gleason is Duncan, all this sort of stuff where you get the idea.
these really great actors who are only in a couple scenes, but every time they're on screen, they just absolutely own their presence. - I would love a movie between Brendan Gleason and Denzel Washington, wouldn't that be cool? Like a buddy caught movie, maybe or something like that. I would totally go be down for that. - A sequel to Inbruges? - Yes. - With a 10-movie girl with Denzel. - Happy amazing. - Yeah, of only. - All right, do you have any other similar, sort of differences you wanna talk about? - No, I think that we covered the good gamut here. And I think that, you know, I would say I'm not an expert on Shakespeare, I don't think that you would consider yourself one either. I feel like we covered this one pretty well. I may say so myself. - Yeah, it was a really fun one. And it was a sort of episode where ever since this was announced, I've been kind of dreaming of doing this as a make remake because I thought it would make really good fodder for our show and have a really good discussion. So I'm really happy we were able to do it. I'm sorry Sebastian, if you're listening to this that you weren't able to come on, I hope we did it just as for you. And maybe when we get around to the A24 retrospective of this movie in like three or four years, we'll have you on for that. And you can correct us for all of our mistakes that we may have made. - I was gonna say, he's probably listening just to be like, "God, they missed the point completely, didn't they?" - Taking all the notes. - I missed me a very long essay. So I apologize in advance. Well, Rachel, where can listeners find more of your work in you? - You can go to RachelKH.com. My socials are underscore Rachel KH. Kind of think of what new work I have. I did a review for Cosmic Dawn, which is a Canadian sci-fi movie. So always happy to support Canadian filmmakers. But also I did a review for Trajave McBeth, which is with exclaim. So you can only go check that out too. - Yes, I'll make sure that is linked in the show notes. I believe I previously linked it there, but because this is relevant for this as well, I'll link it again so people can check it out and read your excellent review of that movie. So you can also follow this show on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook @ContraZoomPod. And if you have seen "Throwing a Blood" or "Tragity of McBeth," let us know your thoughts of these two movies and how they adapted Shakespeare. Send an email to
[email protected] and be prepared for lots of Oscar content in the coming weeks. We've got lots of fun stuff with that. Thank you to Eric and Kevin Smail for the theme music and Stephanie prior for the logo design. If you'd like to listen to podcasts on YouTube, we do post all episodes there too. Thanks for checking this out. (upbeat music) (water splashing)
PodcastTranscript AI