(upbeat music) (muffled singing) (upbeat music) (muffled singing) (muffled singing) (muffled singing) (muffled singing) - Hello listeners, this is David Blakes, welcoming you to episode 152 of the Criterion Reflections Podcast. Today we are going to be talking about something that doesn't always happen on this podcast, a disc and a film that's kind of in the current conversation. It's Peter Bogdanovich's Paper Moon, which was recently released right at the end of November 2024 in a beautiful 4K and Blu-ray edition, or there's a Blu-ray only version, I think, that's available if you don't do the 4K thing. And it doesn't always happen on this podcast that I'm talking about kind of a new release. I mean, we're always talking about old movies here, of course, but Paper Moon is a pretty fresh product on a lot of people's wish list, and maybe some of them got given or received as Christmas or holiday presents over the past few weeks. I got a review copy from the Criterion Collection back in early November, which I really appreciative of. I did a bit of a video review, did some TikTok clips, and kind of said my piece about the packaging, which I love. It was my favorite packaging and cover of the year. And I've had a few thoughts about the film, but I want to kind of fulfill my reviewers' commitment to the Criterion Collection by getting some other voices. I'll have a few things to say, of course, myself, but let's talk about the guests that are going to be sharing. There are impressions and opinions of Paper Moon, people who've seen the film a few times over the years, and at least one of us who've only just taken it in recently for the first time. So let's go ahead and get the guest introduced. Start with one of our regulars here, Richard Doyle. How's it going today? Hey, it's going well. That's nice to talk to you again. Happy New Year. I hope it's been a pleasant holiday season for you as we get things rolling here in 2025. It has, actually, yeah. Well, I'm very happy that it's worked out for you that way. All right. Our second guest is a return guest, but it was from 2021. I think it was April or so of 2021 that Eric Grant joined me in a conversation about Peter Bogdanovich's previous film, What's Up Doc? So Eric, welcome back to the show. Glad to be here. It's always nice to talk more about Peter Bogdanovich as always. Well, fantastic. Yeah. And I think you're the newbie to this one, right? You hadn't seen this one before? Is that correct? Yes. I watched it yesterday and my 4K player stopped working halfway, so I had to continue it another way, too. So it was a nice choppy introduction. All right. Well, I'm very intrigued to hear your fresh take. So thanks again for being with us. And then Josh Wilson, Josh down there in Texas in Houston. This is your first time appearing on my podcast, but welcome to the program. Thanks, David. It's good to see you again. Yes, it is. And even though we haven't podcasted before, we have had the pleasure of meeting in person. I believe it was back in 2021. It was whatever year it was when Top Gun Maverick opened, that my wife and I took a road trip. We went down to Memphis and Houston and St. Louis and a bunch of places in between. This was the pandemic, of course. We just wanted to get out of our home state of Michigan and see what was happening in the rest of the heartland of America. And so there was an exhibit of MC Escher down in Houston that, Josh, you were kind of the tipping point for me to say, "I got to go see that one." Because I thought it was going to be a touring program exhibit. Maybe it would come up to Chicago or Detroit even. But Houston was it. That was the one and done program. And what an incredible show it was. So I always will be grateful for you to bring that to my attention. I'm a huge fan of MC Escher. But anyways, enough of me rambling. How are you doing today? I'm doing well. I'm doing well. Yeah. Yeah, I think that was maybe 2022. That was a great show. Yeah. It was probably better than Top Gun Maverick, but that's okay. Which we did see in together. Well, we enjoyed it. That was opening weekend. So it was pretty memorable. Yeah. It was a pretty rocking audience. The theater was packed and it's a pretty, you know, adrenaline rush of a movie for sure. But a big difference from what we're going to talk about today. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Definitely a different vibe of what we've got in store for us. So we're going to talk about Peter Bogdanovich and Papermoon, Ryan O'Neill, Tatum O'Neill, the father-daughter pairing of leads in this film. Richard, I'm going to go ahead and let you kind of just kind of give us maybe the opening take here. What are your thoughts about Papermoon? What interested you to be in this particular episode? I think the movie is delightful. Yeah. Wanted to talk about it because it delights me. Yeah. Okay. Well, that's, yeah. And it is. It's a great uplift. I've been watching again this morning again just to refresh in my acquaintance. And it is. It's an uplift. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's one of Bogdanovich's best in that early period where he was, could almost do no wrong. And it sort of caps that period off. I really enjoy this. Yeah. And what's your relationship? Like how often have you seen it when's the last time? I think this, but I watched it this time is the third or fourth time. Okay. I saw it for the first time, like maybe 20 years ago. Okay. I have not actually bought this disc yet. I watched it on. I rented it on iTunes. But it's one I should get. All right. Well, yeah. And this is a, this is a film that's probably had lots and lots of exposure. I mean, buying the new criterion isn't necessarily an essential step to appreciating this film. In fact, let me bully ask that. Eric, do you have a, you do have, it sounds like your 4K player wasn't working. So you must have been playing this version of it. Is that correct? Yeah. I mean, I, I had it shipped very quickly for this podcast. Okay. Because I wanted to do my due diligence of having the criterion version. And then it was actually interesting that the 4K stopped working because then I tried the Blu-ray version, which was fine. And it was interesting to see the very slight difference in the restoration in the look of between the 4K disc and the Blu-ray disc. Yeah. And, and I, I have made the similar observations before, even though I have done some upgrading of criterion 4Ks, you know, from my Blu-ray edition. I don't always get the full benefit. It doesn't seem to me. I, I don't have a huge monitor. I think a 55 inch. I do have a 4K player. And I, sometimes I see some differences. But sometimes it's, it's pretty fine tuned. And, and if you're just sitting on your sofa, you're not really going to be thinking too much about it. Exactly. Yeah. But what were your impressions of the film as somebody who likes to talk about Bogdanovich. And yeah, you definitely had some great input on our What's Up? Doc episode. I'm honestly a little bit surprised that you hadn't seen this one yet. But tell us about your first take. I was too. I think that, you know, like I said in the What's Up? Doc episode, I'd seen that so many times growing up and I'd so ingrained into my psyche. I think that it was always kind of a blind spot that I hadn't seen Paper Moon. And I think it was one of those things where I just, for whatever reason, whenever I went to watch it, I just steered towards something else. But I made a grave error that I usually don't make in first time viewing, which is that I learned from a friend about halfway through watching Paper Moon about the kind of many of the struggles that Ryan O'Neill had with his children and the, you know, the big tabloid scandals, especially in the '80s and '90s. And that colored the movie a little bit for me. So I was trying really to hold on to how delightful I felt in the first half. And then I couldn't kind of, every time I got angry at Tatum and the last half, I think I took it more personally. But, well, I think overall, I mean, I really loved it. And what stuck out to me in terms of Bogdanovich, certainly in comparison to What's Up Doc, you know, is the pacing for this feels so expertly done. Everything feels really, really precise. And there is such a precision in the shots he's choosing and the pan exactly, you know, here's our characters, here's what they do and here's the adventure they go on. And it never feels like there is a moment of wasted space. Not that What's Up Doc necessarily has wasted space, but it's a much different vibe. And I was really struck by how focused this was. Yeah, yeah. Bogdanovich, he's making almost universally acclaimed films at this kind of early phase of his career. But he's growing, he's progressing, he's showing his skill as a relatively novice director, you know, being able to carry off a pretty impressive series of films that each have their own kind of unique tempo and vibe. So, Josh, tell us just a little bit about your connection to this film and how often you've seen it, what format or what, you know, what set up did you use to watch it? Well, I just got a new 4K player and TV for myself for Christmas. But I just got a pretty low end one because I'm cheap like that. But so I did get to try it out on the 4K disc. And that was one of the first 4K discs that I've watched. And I watched it with the Bogdanovich commentary this time. But the first time I saw it, I have to give a shout out to my sister-in-law because for some reason there's been this ongoing kind of inside joke between us that she said she's never seen any movies from the 70s. And I find that, you know, incredible. Because obviously there's so many great films from the 70s. And of course it's not even true. But she said that this movie, though, is one of her favorites that she used to watch a lot of times when she was a kid and her dad would show it to her. And so the first time I saw it was her- this was on her suggestion. So it was really great for her to introduce that to us. So thanks for that, Sarah. And of course I really enjoyed it. She did not think of this as a 70s movie, though. I guess so. Yeah, I don't know. It has all the feel of a 30s movie except for some of the candor and some of the things that the code would never have let them, you know, unless this would maybe think of this as a pre-code. But this was set after the code that actually got into effect in 1935. Right. Yeah, I guess that might be part of it. It's just not thinking of this as a typical 70s movie. But obviously there's a lot of films in the 70s that have that backwards-looking setting to the depression and to the earlier eras of Hollywood history. That this is just one of those movies in a way. Although it's pretty unique in the way that it approaches it. Yeah. So she's not seen Star Wars or Jaws? You know, I don't want to get too much on a soundtrack. Yeah, I have to ask her again. But I sometimes do that same game with her. Like, didn't you ever see Superman or something, you know? Anyways. Well, and 70s movie. If you say 70s movie, that is a certain sort of vibe and attitude, I suppose. And you could almost make the case that Star Wars and Jaws and even this one sort of outside of their time. They have this timelessness about them. But let's see, let's get into Paper Moon. So the setup here, I'll kind of give the little synopsis here. We've got opening scene, a young girl close up standing next to a grave. We've learned very quickly, this is her mother. This girl is an orphan. The mother's died under tragic circumstances, a car crash of some sort. And she's there with, I guess, two women who are sort of aware of this young girl's situation. They're not relatives. They're just kind of protecting her, kind of watching out for this little wave. And uprolls this traveling salesman who wanted just to pay his respects through a little bit of exchange of dialogue. He finds himself, you know, with a new passenger with a mission to get her to St. Joseph, Missouri, where she will be handed off to her aunt. And as the movie goes on, we recognize that there's perhaps some connections here between this traveling salesman, the girl's dead mother, and the girl herself who might have been a product of the relationship that we've just described there. Or maybe not. It's never really declared, but you feel that chemistry and people notice the physical resemblances as well. And, you know, really, to me, as I've sort of been thinking about my impression and my main takeaway for reviewing the disc, is that this really is like the Tatum O'Neill show. She is the heart and soul of the film. There's a lot of great stuff that happens around her, but she delivers her part so fantastically and unforgetably that it almost is like everything else works because she kind of gets the process started. She gives everything else a chance to congeal into this. You know, as we've already said, this kind of joyful, amusing, you know, there's certainly a nostalgic feel to it as well. Even if you didn't exist in the 1930s, there's a certain reminiscence that I think it stirs up in recreating the feeling of that period. So, yeah, so Richard, tell me a little bit more about what it is that brought you that joy. Maybe I've already mentioned a couple of things. Maybe there's some other elements you want to point out. One, I think it's a fabulous screenplay. Like, it's extremely funny film and sort of episodic yet not feeling like an episodic film, like really sort of like a road film. Yeah. I agree about Tatum, apparently Bogdanovich worked really hard to get that performance out of her saying he would never work with children again. It's funny in his little director's videos that are supplements on this disc from an old Paramount Edition. He certainly didn't elude to any real problems with Tatum there. He made it just not like that's just part of paying your due to the actor. I don't think she gave him a hard time as she was an experienced writer. Yeah. Right, right. And he had very specific ideas. You know, he's one of these directors who envisions everything, whether it's storyboarded or not. Every shot, every angle where the characters would be, how they'd be framed. That's all kind of known in advance as he was making the film. He had a very kind of visualization in his head that he was realizing with his actors. But of course, the actors have to know how to hit their marks, say their line the right way, the right verbal inflection, the timing, all of that stuff that Tatum, maybe she grew up around it. But what do you think was the key? I mean, maybe Eric, I'll give you a chance. Any insight as to, you know, what do you think that Tatum did to bring her part to such life? I know you're also a screenwriter. So maybe you could talk a little bit about the work that went into crafting that screenplay that Richard rightfully admires. Yeah, yeah, no, it's interesting what Richard brought up about, you know, saying he'd never work with children again and how hard he worked to get that. Because you also see that in some of the kind of contemporary reviews of the time is them all praising the patients that went into bringing that performance out in Tatum. And I think what helps it is that at the same time that he's pulling this really masterful, very, you know, this like cunning companion out of Tatum, he's making Ryan O'Neill, who for the most part has been in a lot of these, you know, leading roles, romantic roles where he's really electric and he's really like, you know, magnetic. And he makes him so the opposite to the point where when he first showed up, I kind of didn't recognize him. Later in the film, when he gets a little bit, you know, beat up and is a little more screwy, I think that that's the Ryan O'Neill that I'm more used to. But, you know, he seems so muted and he seems so like, we believe that he is getting away with this, but we also believe Tatum's, you know, opinion that he's not very good at getting away with these scams. And so I think that he brings out this really, really precocious child in contrast to making Ryan O'Neill very like, leave me alone. I'm a loner and there's nothing interesting about me and I'm just kind of skating by in the depression. And I think that's what is the key to these performances is how contrasting they are and how much Bogdanovich really forces that contrast on the audience. Yeah, basically we've got Tatum upping, upping her, you know, guardian slash possibly dad's game as he's doing his little Bible swindle and she's coming in using her girlish charm, her, you know, ability to kind of get a little bossy demanding. But all of that working to improve the bottom line as they do their little riffraff swindles throughout the Dust Bowl, Kansas and Missouri area. And I think in terms of, oh, sorry, just real quick, I think in terms of the screenplay since that was what you actually asked me about was, you know, something that stood out to me was the initial kind of, I guess you would say, ticking clock of the movie is whether or not they're going to get to Missouri and, you know, get to her. And but I think that what I noticed was that there was this kind of sense of the, you know, so-called ticking clock in, here's how much money left you owe me. And that seemed to be really like, you know, that's driving for us that is driving the we care entirely about Tatum and whether or not she's going to get her money in this very, you know, in the depression of whether or not, you know, how much does she have left before she's running out of what she's owed. Yeah, yeah, and where did she get this ruthless instinct as far as, you know, keeping track of the cash and being able to stare an adult down and kind of work her will on them. Exactly. Pretty fascinating. Yeah. So, Josh, tell me just a little bit about sort of how you see the story developing, the characters, supporters, whatever you want to kind of highlight there. Yeah, I think that the talking about Buck Danvitch and Tatum O'Neill's performance, it's, it is a remarkable child performance, and I've been watching a couple of Iranian films with a lot of children in them recently. And, you know, when you see like the films that have sort of a neo-realist approach where you have a non-acting children, you get, sometimes you get really wonderful. Performances from that, but it's a different style of performance needed than what this movie needs, which, you know, is very precise and very, it's very acted, you know, it's, it, obviously he had to take, do a whole ton of takes with her in some of these instances. But one thing that they talked about a lot on the disc was how he didn't do a lot of coverage, he did a lot of editing in, in camera, so that he was only taking the shots that he needed to assemble as he went along, which leads you to think that maybe, you know, a lot of his performance could be constructed with an inexperienced child actor, but then you see how many of those extremely long takes he also put in there, which of course just meant that they had to do very long retakes or, you know, additional shots, additional takes of that. But, so, you know, it's not just the fact that he's constructed the performance in the editing room, you know, he had to do it on, he really had to do it on the set to get what was needed out of Tatum, you know, and she had to do it, I should say, that's taking, taking the credit away from her, which, you know, Bogdanovich, you know, likes to take a lot of credit for himself already, so we might as well give everyone there, there too, sure we can. But at any rate, yeah, I think it is a, it is just a remarkable child performance in the pantheon of different child performances in film history and in different contexts, and it's not, she has a real range of emotions, you know, she's got all of that goofy, child-like stuff that it plays for the laughs because it is very funny, like Richard said, but then she does stuff that really is generally moving without being, you know, but that it or something, you know, it's not. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. You realize this girl's in a very precarious and pretty depressing situation, honestly. I mean, you know, kind of going back to some of the points Eric made about sort of the real-life cloud hanging over with some of the addiction and the abusive stuff that happened with Ryan and his children, and just, you know, the chaotic environment of growing up as a child of actors in this time in Hollywood, you know, and the indulgences that were very common that took place within that community, it created some pretty hard conditions for young ones to grow up. I was just reading a little bit like, "Who is Tatum O'Neill's mother?" And it was a woman named Joanna Moore, she was kind of more of a bit actress, she was a beautiful woman, as you could probably imagine she was, and I think she had a small part in a touch of evil, but she was in a lot of TV and she was basically an attractive blonde woman. She herself had her own problems with addiction and died relatively young of cancer and had some problems, you know, that kind of prevented her from acting beyond much beyond the 80s where she just kind of fell out of condition for that. So Tatum O'Neill, you know, she growing up in a very hectic and very mature milieu, and I wonder how much of her own sort of experiences of even surviving that, even though she probably lived in relative material comfort, but there was a lot of intense emotional stuff that I'm sure she had to navigate and some of it by her own instincts as just a young person, without my be a lot of trustworthy guidance. Richard, do you know much about the background there or anything you want to talk to just a little bit about the Tatum O'Neill and her career, her relationship with her dad, any of that kind of stuff? So, you know, she was nominated and won the supporting actor or actress Oscar for this movie, and Ryan was nominated, and so what I've heard is that she was actually visiting him on the Senate Berry London when these nominations were announced. Now I'll say, she said that she does not remember anything about this whatsoever, but Vivian Kubrick said that Ryan O'Neill wasn't sensed, that she was nominated and he wasn't and was afraid he was going to clock her. Right. I mean, that to me is honestly just so twisted. I've got four kids of my own. I'm not really getting into judging his parent, but I would be delighted with that. I mean, who cares about my award? He's already almost like the King of Hollywood, at least in terms of his popularity. I don't know, and I don't know what serious aspirations he really had to an Oscar, I guess, when you're in the business at that level. Why not? The other jerks who get Oscars? Why don't I get one? But I don't think of him as an actor on the best actor level. He's not that kind of a guy, at least in my opinion. No, I would agree. Obviously, it's disappointing not to be dominated, but to not feel any pride in your daughter coming out of the gate into an Oscar nomination is somewhat astonishing. Yeah. It's obviously unique, and it was probably in some ways for the Academy members, kind of a fun vote to cast. Let's do something kind of different outside the box there. But, you know, I think maybe the only mistake there is that she probably should have been more of a lead nominee than supporting because he's pretty much carries the movie. Yeah, I would think they were promoting her for supporting because she had a better chance of winning in that pool. They do that a lot. Yeah, Eric or Josh, do you want to follow up on any of that? You know, like you said, you know, I can't imagine not just being thrilled for my own child, especially acting with him in such an incredible movie, but also I think him not even getting nominated to me a little bit. I mean, highlights, you know, the Academy thinking this is a fun vote to cast and a little bit highlights that, especially when you throw in Madeline Kahn and kind of the rest of the... Who was also nominated? Right. When you throw in the rest of this really wonderful, you know, pseudo ensemble, I mean, it really is kind of a two-hander, but every time a new actor shows up in the film, it was kind of highlighting to me how Ryan O'Neill was the weakest performance in this film. And again, I think it might have been part of the design. It's a little bit of the design and his character and the screenplay as well, but I can also see, like, you know, yeah, of course, he's not going to get a nomination because his role is not the kind of role that's meant for it in the way that Madeline Kahn's is or in the way that Tatum's is. Right. He's really just the vehicle. I mean, he's a con man and he does have to carry his piece, you know, adequately, which he does, but that's not the charm. The charm isn't that this guy is such a, you know, wonderful hustler. We're just going to kind of peer over his shoulder and watch him work as magic. He's kind of an inept buffoon. He knows how to hold himself in the fight. I'll give him that. He does, which was a nice, you know, twist at that moment. Exactly. Yeah. He's very much the straight man in the film. So, yeah, it's very much going to be the low key part. Yeah. Yeah. And it shows a little lack of self awareness that he didn't quite understand that that was his function, which, and I'm sure he was compensated quite, you know, adequately for his performance there. This movie was a bit of, I mean, the production was a little bit of a salvage job. I read that this was originally to be directed by John Houston with Paul Newman cast in the rhino Neil role and one of his daughters. And the fact that the project apparently kind of fell apart and, you know, if you want to call it devolved down to Bogdanovich and the O'Neill's, it turned out quite successfully, but it also made me wonder what was the drive to get this particular story told. Apparently it was adapted from a novel 1971 published called Addie Pray. So there must have been some kind of property or some interest in the story itself. I don't think the book was such a massive bestseller that just had to be made into a movie, but I just wonder if there was somebody behind the scenes really pushing to get that up on screen. I don't know, Richard, Josh, anybody know much about the background of how Bogdanovich got drawn into this particular enterprise? I know that I was listening to him talk again on the Criterion extras and this, you know, basically the story, it was, like you said, it was just one of those properties that was already green lit, ready to go. And he claims that he didn't really have any interest in it until Polly Platt read it and told him, you know, this is a story about a father and daughter and you have daughters and this could be good and basically convince him to do it. And an interesting sidebar that I didn't realize, maybe you guys already knew this, but apparently at the exact same time Bogdanovich was working on developing a Western that for John Wayne and I think Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart and he had that ready to go, but John Wayne turned it down. I don't know why he thought, I mean, I know he had interviewed John Wayne for his documentary and he knew all those, Henry Fonda, he knew all those guys, but I don't know why he thought that John Wayne would be a good partner in the 70s, because I don't know, John Wayne just seemed to have his own ideas about wanting to control his movies by that time. He was not going to be pushed around, but I would just spend by Peter Bogdanovich. At any rate, he turns back to, turns back to Paper Moon and that's how they got involved. And I think, I mean, I would love to see Peter Bogdanovich's Western. Yes, that would have been amazing. It's quite an intellectual exercise I'm doing right now just thinking about that. Yeah, but I don't know that I would trade it for Paper Moon, you know, because I just feel like it would have been one of those, you know, Hollywood stories where if it got finished, you know, he would have got kicked off his own project or something like that. Yeah, it's almost too much wanted. I think this is a better move for Bogdanovich, even though you can also say this was sort of the end of the run. I mean, he went on to make quite a few other movies, but he seemed to have had, I don't know, maybe there are some bad blood or he just had a little bit more of his fill of himself. And, you know, maybe made it too big, too soon to fall into Hollywood's good graces. But again, I get the sense that there was tension. I think there was a punchline at some kind of award ceremony that the only thing that brings Hollywood together is a Bogdanovich flop or something like that. So, who knows more about some of the kind of friction that may be existed between Bogdanovich and the Hollywood establishment of that time? Well, I know that, and I think the, perhaps the Village Voice article at the time about this, you know, it talked about how that was another one where even with the success of, you know, it was that kind of, oh, the coastal elites were hating him was like, that was their version of that. You know, they hated to see him succeed here, and there was this sense of like everyone else felt that they were owed something from Bogdanovich for helping to bring him up in that way, helping to support his early career. And they felt like, well, now he's too successful too quickly, and how dare he forget about us in that kind of very, I guess, upper crust, snooty way of, you know, we should get our credit kind of thing. So, I think there was a sense of maybe, you know, and this might have been a lot of projection from a lot of the Hollywood and also people in New York, but this kind of sense of, we brought him up, and therefore, you know, we should get our due. And now he's too good for us, he thinks he's too good for us, and there's that projection of he thinks he's better than us. And it's like, I don't know, Bogdanovich, you know, what he was like personally. So, he might have been really full of himself at that point, and it might have pissed a lot of people off, but it did kind of seem like it was, you know, a mix of he got too hot too quickly, and that upset a lot of people. I also think a lot of his early success, his duty, his partnership with Polly Platt, and that's pretty much over at this point, because he left her for simple shepherd. Right, he was married to Polly Platt, she was the production designer, and, you know, she is one of those solid women standing behind the great man up front, but perhaps deserving a lot of credit for some of the success and the claim that falls his way. Yeah, I think both in this one and the last picture show, her production design work is extremely important, and this is the last time she agreed to work with him, and apparently only agreed to work with him on this one if simple shepherd was never to appear on the set. Well, Madeline Kahn is her own form of temptation, I suppose, but maybe she had some boundaries that says I'm not going to get involved with the director on this one here. But that is interesting to bring up the last picture show, we haven't really mentioned that all that much, but, you know, they are both, you know, black and white, very rooted in their respective periods, the 1950s for the last picture show, the 1930s here. Did Polly Platt, did she have sort of a specialty in kind of retro film styling of that sort? I don't really know a lot more about much more about her other than her connection to book Danovitch or what else she may have gone on to do after this. In the case of the last picture show, she was actually from that part of the country, and that's part of the reason why she pushed him very hard to make that film. I think, in this case, it's a very similar setting. Yeah, just a little bit further north, right, you know, with that same kind of wide open spaces, great planes, prairie mentality all that. I mean, this is a gorgeous film. It really is. Partly, I think it's utterly convincing and it's setting and is sort of beautifully desolate looking. And I think the cinematography, my last little COVAX is just astonishingly good in this. Yeah, that is definitely the sort of the cinephiles payoff here. It's a very entertaining story, charming and winsome performances, but you're right, you do have those really gloriously beautiful scenes of the landscapes, even just some of the interiors and just the framing. These folks know what they're doing as filmmakers. Anybody else want to express any appreciation just for the technical elements on display here? Yeah, I do. You know, it's interesting to me, last little COVAX that he had shot targets, which is, I really like targets a lot. And I think it's a very good movie, but obviously it's in the Roger Korman fold and it's low budget and it's not a bad looking movie, but it's not like especially beautiful to look at because it's partly because it's kind of, you know, the sets that it used are inexpensive and the way that it had to piece together some of the other footage from the other movie. So just to me, I wouldn't have seen targets and thought, oh, well, this guy's going to be able to create this look of replicating in black and white in a totally different venue, but he's really definitely self-consciously imitating Orson Welles in the use of deep focus, and the Greg Toland stuff, which Greg Toland did with John Ford, like "Grapes of Wrath" and some of those shots of the depression, the few times you do see additional characters on this kind of extras on the side of the road or what happened, and just those long vistas and the very long tracking shots in some cases, I wouldn't have necessarily realized that Lazo Kovacs would have been the go-to guy for that, but he totally successfully brings that style forward into the 70s here in this movie. Yeah, and just reminds, I think you're right, those scenes of families broken down by the side of the road or pulling wagons by hand or walking with their one domesticated animal, that just kind of reminds you again of the hard-pressed settings or just small, almost like little inserts to remind you of the hardship being experienced, which is a nice little counterbalance to the laughs and the frivolity of some of these little con games that we see running. So the way that moods are modulated throughout the film, because even with all of that entertainment and joy, I like the fact that it's a story that's taking place in a pretty hard time with people who are doing what they just got to do to get through it. I think he creates some of that empathy for people who probably, a lot of folks who made this film a commercial success in the 1970s, either had lived it themselves or were the children of people who'd come up through these circumstances and had a little bit of fondness and respect for that past period. So let's talk a little bit about that, the nostalgia factor, as far as how that maybe played itself into winning over audiences. What do people think of just about the way it brought that 40 years prior setting that's like us making an 80s set movie these days, right? Who wants to talk about it? Go ahead. I was also, I guess, surprised to see Lazlo Kovac's name in the opening comments. Yeah, sure, yeah. Especially because a lot of, you know, he worked on so many films, but they all were kind of the style of film that's kind of, you know, the cinematographer should disappear and we're just watching the characters. And I think it's what struck me about the detail that went into making Paper Moon feel like it was plucked from the 30s, like you said earlier, you know, as if the 30s didn't have the code, that is. Yeah. And I think, you know, something similar goes into what made the holdover so successful last year, which is, you know, you know, the holdovers starts with a made-up version of the Focus Features title card that makes it look like it was from the 70s, and there's the, you know, the film stock kind of imagery and right down to, you know, the characters studying very specific Boston accents from different regions, you know, everything went into making it feel like it wasn't a period piece. It was like a movie we found from the 70s. Right. And that's how a lot of, and I think that's where Paper Moon a little bit falls apart from me in the third act, is that everything up until then feels very plugged in the 30s, and then it gets, once we get into the chase sequences a little more, then everything becomes a little more, okay, just throw the camera around, now we're in the 70s, everyone's being a little bit, a little bit, you know, pastiche at this point. But that also struck me in terms of the filmmaking was the sequence when they're, you know, realizing, oh, the bridge is the other way, and they had to do a big turnaround, they're immediately followed by the other turnaround. It's just that camera onsticks and that 360, you know, the way on my fiancé remarked to me was like, wow, I'm, I would not want to have been the camera operator there, because it was so close in those cars. I had that same sense. Well, those are some big hunks of metal that are sliding around those curves there. Yeah, they're very hard to control. Yeah, for a stunt driver, they definitely earned their paycheck that day. But yeah, you do wonder how much they were just kind of, you know, fingers crossed and hope this all works out. Oh, no, the other thing about the nostalgia, I wonder considering how long this was in development for and whether or not Addie Pray was necessarily popular novel. I wonder how much things like "They See Horses Don't They" and that kind of, you know, Holly would sing the trend of depression movies being nostalgia bait as the driving force for this. Yeah, yeah, it is interesting to think about Bogdanovitch. He's kind of this bridge between kind of the more kind of radical new Hollywood. He's kind of of that same group, but he's a lot more sentimental, if you will. Maybe he's a word that might be hurled at him critically or as a bit of a jab because he's not, you know, kind of exposing the guts and the cord or the corruption of, you know, the copa and the conversation or the godfather or some of the other kind of more radical stuff that you see in the like the BBS box, that kind of thing. So, yeah, Bogdanovitch is, you know, he is a very studio friendly director and that he wants to kind of revive the glory of Hollywood's, you know, past. And I think he's a true believer. He thinks, you know, bringing people to the movies and watching them up stuff slowly as I did is a great pastime. It's an honorable cause that he's out there, you know, promulgating. And he's also doing it in a way that is, you know, winning the crowds over as well. I was thinking one of those reviews that you sent us, David, from around the time of the release. I can't remember which one, but it was talking about the soundtrack and the use of the vintage radio in the movie. Including like the Faber, Mickey and Molly, the radio plays, that kind of stuff, yeah. Right. And, you know, the movie obviously doesn't have a score. It just has these vintage recordings and vintage radio plays. But the review had said something about, you know, if it was actually a movie from that time period, you know, they wouldn't have cared about any of that stuff, you know, because those kind of movies didn't use the, it was using this material in a different way. Like, even if it had a song from that time, it would have been a song that they made for this movie or they gussied it up for the movie to insert in there in some way. Or it would have been played in a nightclub, I don't know, on a, you know, scene or something like that. And they certainly wouldn't have had, you know, contemporary radio stuff going on in there to mark the time. You know, it was being used in a very specific, nostalgia-inducing way here. Right. Oh, yeah. Which means that it's not really, in that sense, it's really not of the style of the films of the period, you know. Right. Yeah, when a 1930s film would have a musical number, it was usually a song-and-dance type of number, or atmospheric music, not diegetic, you know, here's the latest hits. I mean, this is a film that's kind of post-easy writer, if you will, where the soundtrack becomes a much bigger part of the overall marketing. And even the name of the film Paper Moon was only because that song sort of had a certain feel to it. My impression is that it just kind of had that old, timey vibe that was a feel-good to the majority of people who'd heard it, whether they had nostalgic flashbacks to hearing it, you know, 40 years ago. Or it's just a cute catchy tune if you're hearing it for the first time. I think that's another interesting aspect about this release. But, you know, Bogdanovich, I think he pitched the idea of calling the movie Paper Moon to Orson Welles, who famously said, yeah, and just release that. That's all you have to do, you don't even have to make the movie just issue the title that'll say it all right there. Josh, I know you're a pretty big Orson Welles fan. You got any more insight on that little exchange there? Just, it's always entertaining to hear Peter Bogdanovich tell his Orson Welles stories, you know. You count on it, yeah. And if you make your way through the criterion disc, you know, you get plenty of Bogdanovich doing his impression stick, you know. Oh, yeah. Which is, I actually, you know, it's kind of corny, but I actually always enjoy it. And, you know, you tend to hear, there is on the disc, there is kind of the same stories retold in different features multiple times with the commentary. And, you know, so there is a bit of that. But, it is, I do credit criterion for, for giving Polly Platt a significant amount of time on the disc to, yeah, to hear her telling it as well. So it's not just when, you know, I love Bogdanovich and I love everything he does with Orson Welles and all his, all that he did to kind of promote Welles and promote that earlier generation of filmmakers. But, you know, obviously he can be subject to some criticism for perhaps for, you know, the way he takes credit for his own movies and doesn't quite generously enough credit. I think over the years that he's not been like that too bad. I think he's, he's done better with that. I really enjoyed his podcast that he had, you know, but right before he died, he didn't finish it. That was, I was actually really sad when he died. It really was really, it was really touching to go through that podcast and get to the point where he died in his, one of his ex-wives, you know, finished it. I mean, I'm kind of rambling often. No, that's good. I mean, I think it's good to talk a little bit about Peter Bogdanovich because, you know, I mean, I knew about his movies, but there was a time where I kind of thought Peter Bogdanovich would most be remembered for supplements that he gave to the Criteria collection, then the movies he made. I even made a comment about that in a Facebook group, just kind of a Wisecrack, and I got a little reprimanded for that. But he does seem like a guy who, let's be honest, it was probably a bit of full of himself. I mean, he was a critic who got elevated to the highest levels of Hollywood insiderdom. And, you know, you're talking about some of those stories repeating themselves over the course of different discs. And I'm sure if you hung out with him in person, you probably heard a lot of those stories multiple times, right? The fact that he put himself in his trailers, you know, he was a, he was part of the show, at least for a while. So those things don't happen without him kind of pushing himself a little bit to the forefront there. And again, I think that might get back to some of the reasons that maybe he rubbed a few of his peers the wrong way because they're all in the same business doing their own version of the same thing. And maybe see, you know, Bogdanovich as a relatively new director putting himself out in front when, you know, he's got a reputation to earn for. So, you know, I can see where pettiness and ego kind of get in the way and kind of sully, sully the experience that those of us who are just kind of watching on the consumer and don't really have to worry too much about, although it makes for amusing fodder for conversations just like this one. One of my earliest impressions of him was, I owned a book you could still buy for like 20 bucks or so called Bogdanovich gives you a classic film, one for every week of the year. Okay. You'd be like American in Paris watching this week and he'd talk about American in Paris. Yeah. And recommend other movies like it. Every single write up, I started to notice, at some point, it would be like, and when I was talking to Marlita Dietrich about this film, she told me. And every single write up had some anecdote about him talking to some famous Hollywood figure about this movie that he's dropping there. And you can see him holding court at a cocktail party or an awards film festival and there he's just doing his thing. All right. So the thing about that is that, like, that could be just pure name dropping, but in his case, like, there was a time period where nobody was doing that. And he was right. And he was one of the first ones going back and saying, well, isn't Howard Hock still around? I mean, he's not making movies, but shouldn't we go talk to him and find out what he did? You know, I'm going to make a documentary about John Ford and, you know, you have to all of his leading actors. And so, yeah, it was, I always feel like he borders this line of pretension and just, like, showboating, but he always wins me over by just, he just gets my affection back just because it was, I feel like it's pretentious, but sincere. And it's like, I don't know, I end up, I end up really, I'm always on his side at the end of the day, even if I don't agree with all the stuff he did. Well, he's bringing good content. I mean, when he's talking about Marlena Dietrich and Orson Welles and Howard Hawks and John Ford in their dotage, let's say, when they're kind of washed up has beens in the world eyes of everybody else, these folks still have plenty of stories to tell. Maybe they're not doing productive work in the same way. I know Orson Welles obviously has his own sort of tragic story or history of thwarted projects and being sidelined when he's creatively ambitious and ready to go. So the fact that Bogdanovich was paying attention to these folks and getting some of those stories and memories and the perspective of their career after they were kind of past the high points and when they were looking back, that tells you some things that they might not have told you when they were in the middle of making all those, you know, immortal classics and all of that. So yeah, this release, let's go back to the Criterion Edition, maybe talk about that a little bit. This seems like it's been a very well received release. How many of you kind of follow the Criterion announcements on a regular basis? It seems like when this one was announced, there was this collective at last feeling out there, you know, this is one that people had had on their list and it seemed, if not inevitable, almost like obligatory, like why wouldn't Criterion put this one out? What were your reactions when you've heard that the Criterion was going to give an edition of one of their films to pay for Moon? Well, I think that maybe my reaction is pretty obvious to you, at least David, is that my first reaction was, "Oh good, it's an easy way for me to have an excuse to buy something during the Criterion sale." And also to finally, you know, fulfill that blind spot, but my true first reaction was, maybe we'll get a What's Up Doc Criterion. Yeah, I think that would still be very fitting, especially with Barbara Streisand's Funny Girl coming out earlier this year, late last year, I should say now that we're in January now. You know, Barbara, Bogdanovich, what's not to love there? And I think even Warner's is being a little willing to negotiate and get Criterion's benefit and boost from selling some of their materials. Josh, what did you think about this as a release from Criterion? I thought it was a great release. I've been on the fence of buying 4Ks or just regular Blu-rays in the last year until I finally bit the bullet and bought my player, but this one was kind of a no-brainer with the, what do you call it? The DigiPac, yeah. Paper, no, the paper sleeve. Yeah, the DigiPac that's designed to look kind of like Tatum O'Neill's little box and it's, you know, I mean, it's just a little bit nicer packaging and they really did their usual bang up job with the design on this one. And that's sort of the 4K only though, right? If you buy just the straight Blu-ray, it's in the regular plastic case. I think that's been the, I think so and that's one of the reasons that it was like I'm going to spend the extra, whatever it was, just to get five or ten dollars. I mean, there's a couple 4Ks I didn't buy that I kind of wish I had now that I have the player, but this one, you know, it looks, it looks really good on the 4K disc itself and the supplements are really nice, like I already said, in terms of kind of taking some vintage ones. And obviously, I think by the time they were actually producing this, I think Peter Bogdanovitch had died, but- Yeah, it did not have the director approved signature on the sticker there, so yeah, unfortunately. But he has this, he's been involved in doing supplemental stuff since as long as home video has been around, obviously, so they had a wealth of, and obviously they had all these, he was never absent on TV or anything like that in the 70s and 80s, so yeah, so I think they did a great job with this release and I'm really glad to own it. Yeah, yeah, I think it's been very well received from most of the reviews I've read, everybody who's reviewed the disc itself says this is a pretty solid criterion release. I did, I mentioned early at the beginning of the episode, this is my favorite cover and packaging of the year and the criterion cast year end episode we just published the 31st, I think it was, of December, and I actually had a chance to interact with the artist Raphael Gironi, so I want to give him a shout out here. He's a pretty experienced criterion pro, he seems to be one of their go to guys, he did the big Fellini box set, he did showboat and swing time, and he did the Todd Browning side show shockers last year, which is another pretty elaborate package of that kind of grimy carnival feel to it. So he seems to have an emphasis on like bold typefaces, but he said he put a lot of time and effort into creating that little cigar box insert, which is definitely, you know, Addie's little worldly possessions, kind of like her little talisman that she clutches and gets her through all the adventures with memories of her mother and a few other goodies hidden inside and the box on the set reproduces that so Richard you'll definitely want to get the 4K version of that when you finally edit your collection. Yeah, so yeah, what were some other thoughts you have about the film or anything else you want to say as we kind of get into wrap it mode here. Yeah, yeah, Eric. I mean, I would say the only point that I really came with is that it was almost, it felt almost, I guess the word is a disservice maybe I felt that because Madeline Kahn was, you know, Madeline Kahn. Sure. And because she has that, you know, what, you know, what my fellow screenwriters always focus on with Papermoon is that fantastic monologue that she does on the hillside. Oh, yeah. And, you know, I think that she is so excellent in this as she isn't everything, but it was almost like the long scheme to have the the bellman go up to her room and everything in the hotel once she is out of the picture. I kind of felt, oh, man, this is not going to be as fun because she's definitely not coming back. And I was so excited because she's almost, you know, pretty much like first billing after Ryan and Tatum O'Neill. And so I was at least Ryan O'Neill. And so I almost anticipated her having a larger role. And so once she was, you know, assuredly out of the movie, I think that I found myself kind of waning a little bit because I thought, oh, they, they set us up with this, you know, such an election. You know, such an electric personality and such a really, really fun, different character who was yet another kind of scam artist in her own way. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Once Trixie Delight is gone, I kind of was like, well, I don't really care anymore because I really just wanted to see more of her because I felt that there was something in the interaction between her and Addie that I almost wish there was a way, there was a way to have explored it more because, you know, there is a recognition there. And I think that, well, I think it was right and you've clearly followed the novel to have her leave at that moment and it made sense for their story arc. I still wish that there was more interaction between them because that's kind of, that's my only gripe at the movies that I wish there was more Madeline Khan. The maid is delightful too. Yes. Oh, yeah. Imaging. Right. Yeah. So, yeah. So, so I even like that that crusty old railroad teller, the guy who's selling the ticket and Gorham, Kansas, whatever that is. I mean, but yeah, the casting, they found, you know, obviously Madeline Khan, she's a pretty much a known quantity and she does her thing impeccably, you know, awesome as always. But I think imaging and some of these other true bit players, you know, probably didn't have real lengthy careers. Maybe that, maybe that had been a lot, but I don't think the young black girl that we're talking about did a whole lot else in movies. So I'm sure there's a fascinating story behind how it was her who happened to get into that, but she, she had nailed it in a very, you know, very short little role, but she makes the most for opportunities. But yeah, yeah, Madeline Khan definitely deserves a little bit of a specific mention here. And you're right, there is, I guess, a little bit of that. Yeah, I'm not going to call it feminist, but it's basically women of two different generations, a very young woman, of course, but a girl wise beyond her years, you could say, who's, again, continuing to learn the ways of the world as she's kind of being, you know, dragged along on this little misadventure. Well, they also, in terms of the women in the film, they both, she, Addie and Trixie played, you know, two sides of the thematic coin of Addie is really like, you know, I'm going to do it takes to survive, but with a companion sticking together the way Frank Roosevelt tells me to. You know, I know how to survive, and I'm going to do it with, you know, sticking together in some way, either with imaging or with Ryan O'Neill, and Trixie is very much this character of, I'm going to do what it takes to survive, and I will do it completely alone, and I will only use people to what I need until I don't need them anymore. And I think that was really interesting of, like, they played this weather, you know, a lot of the theme in the movie is not just survival, but it's about sticking together, and what that means for these two, you know, women and, you know, girls who are trying to survive a weather or not, they think sticking together is necessary. That's a great observation, Eric, thank you for that. Yeah, the movie itself, I think, only followed roughly half of the book, and again, I have not read the novel, haven't even seen it really. But apparently, as they were making the movie, they had pretty much everything ready to go. They just didn't really know how they were going to end it. So, the ending does kind of tie things up in a nice little bow. Anybody want to talk a little bit about that or kind of how they feel the film landed. Eric, I know you mentioned that you would have liked more Madeline Khan, but you understand she had to leave, but yeah, I mean, what did we think of how this little narrative reached its conclusion and left us, hopefully smiling as we go. Well, I think if you, I mean, listening to the, again, to Bogdanovich, or maybe not have been on the commentary, it was somebody else was talking about having spoken to Bogdanovich over the years, and him, he said he saw, sees this movie not really as a comedy, but as a very sad movie, and, you know, this theme of the, you know, the little girl she just wants to have approval and love from the person she sees as her dad. And the ending, you know, it's funny and it's sweet, but it's also a bit ambiguous. Sure. And I think bringing it back a little bit to Ryan O'Neill's performance, maybe his, there was something about him, you know, I like Ryan O'Neill. I mean, obviously Barry, Barry Linden's one of my favorite films. I think he's great in what he does, but that's very, it is very limited. And so perhaps this, something about his frustration, that's the wrong word, but his impatience with his daughter's performance throughout. And that friction, you know, translated into the character, it was appropriate for this character's, you know, who was never really quite wanting, he was pretty, he did care for her, but he didn't fundamentally want to give up his, his own freedom or what have you. So, you know, I think the ending really brings that brings that back together. Yeah, yeah, he, you know, didn't want to get pinned down. And I think that's, you know, that can be a character trait that some of the viewers identify with others feel like, well, you know, maybe that's all he was capable of giving, but wouldn't it have been nice if they could have cleared this up. But I think that ambivalence you mentioned, Josh, kind of keeps it open so the audience can sort of tell itself what happens next. I agree with, I guess, like Donovan's own conclusion of is that I really was surprised at a movie that I know to be known as so funny and so comedic. I was surprised that I felt, I really feel the ending is kind of tragic. I, you know, because the fact that she has this, you know, perfect aunt to come home to who is going to do it on her and who loves her and is just thrilled to pieces to have her around. And she immediately, you know, goes to Ryan O'Neill who tells her to screw off. I mean, you know, to me it was such a tragic ending, I guess, because I guess in a way I was thinking, oh my God, she is so used to not knowing that kind of love that she can't handle it. And she has nothing to do with that kind of safety. And that made me just, I guess, very wistful for that character, very sad because I'm like, oh, she doesn't know how good she could have it because she doesn't want it. Well, and that innocence has been sort of stripped away and can't really be restored because I think she views staying with her aunt as kind of a trap, you know. Her life experiences said, don't let people like that, you know, get involved because it'll just take over your life. And even though you're scraping by and you're lonely and you're not sure what's going to be happening to you tomorrow. That's just sort of the life she's become accustomed to. Absolutely. But she also enjoys, she's got something very much in common with Ryan O'Neill's character, she enjoys the con stuff. And he's not going to work a desk job, you know, he's not going to be a factory hand, right? And she's better at it than him. Exactly. She's got growth potential there. Yeah, exactly. She would have been just a nice little, you know, church girl, you know, in her dress and frills and being told how to cook and house keep and all of that type of stuff. Interesting. Yeah. Well, obviously the parallels between the real life behind the scenes and what happened afterward have their own sort of way of sobering us up from the, from the fancy, the escapism, the entertainment and illusion of a film like this. But at the same time it's a beautiful piece of work and the one that I think is going to find a lot of new audiences courtesy of the Criterion release and just the ongoing conversation and revisiting of what I think is a really beautiful example of vintage early 70s cinema looking backwards. All right. Any final comments before we wrap things up, I want to be Eric, you know, I've introduced you guys, but I haven't really said a whole lot about you. So Eric, tell us a little bit about yourself and say it's been a few years since we've had a podcast on what you've been up to lately. Well, since the last time you saw me, I've moved to L.A. You were in Chicago back in '21, right? I was. Yeah. And so I still have my production company in Chicago that I worked with and we actually just got nominated for Best Dance Film of the Year over there, which was nice. And so now I'm a screenwriter and producer in L.A. and I'm getting my Masters in Screenwriting at Chapman University currently. Excellent. Well, congratulations on your accomplishments. Nice to have another L.A. connection. I'll just have to find a way to mosey on out there one of these days. Again, I had a nice visit out there in 2019 and love any excuse I have to hit the West Coast once again. Well, get out of the 19 degree weather today. Yes, it is. It is very birds cold down here in West Michigan. Josh, you're down there in Houston. Tell us a little bit about yourself for people who don't know who you are on the podcast here. Well, I teach in two high schools. I'm a choir director and I also teach a little elective on film studies for students and I sing professionally and that keeps me pretty busy between those things and my family. For sure. And you're part of a Grammy Award winning project. Is that right from a few years ago? Oh, that's true. Yeah. Houston Chamber Choir. We did win a Grammy for Best Choral Performance in 2020. So that was one of the only good things that happened that year. Well, it's nice to know that there's a little bit of balance. It wasn't out now tragedy all the way around. So, well, that was a cool thing. I remember kind of seeing that in the social. Well, that's a pretty significant accomplishment. So, belated congratulations on that. I think if I already said something, but I wanted listeners to know that you've had some success in the musical recording arts as well. All right, Richard, I think people know your situation in the background, but yeah, any little updates or news you want to share with any of us? Oh, I wish I had something I could add to that. Well, I'll just say follow them on Facebook folks. He will give you plenty to ponder and smile about. He's a pretty funny social media feed there and a great contributor here in the podcast. Really appreciate you getting us getting this new year started. I've got some projects coming up as well. I'm going to be doing an introduction to Ingmar Bergman's winter light at the local Film Society on Monday. So I've been kind of exploring that kind of a cedic stripped down statement from the Ingmar Bergman over the past several days saw Michael Mann's heat last night on the big screen. That was a pretty fun experience with a packed crowd of enthusiasts, as well as a lot of folks who had not seen it before. So, yeah, my podcast, I think I've got some interesting stuff coming up and me doing a Mike Lee podcast with And he's got a film that just came out or is about to come out called hard truths. And I'm going to be doing another Mike Lee film called hard labor that came out in 1973. You know, so that's the thinking amazing that this guy's, you know, 50 years later still making new movies and a great quality from what I've heard about hard truth. So those are a few things I've got coming up in the podcast Trevor Barrett and I are going to be doing another inside the box. That's on the calendar. And I'm also doing some work with Aaron West and Jill Blake over at CineJourneys. There's a Passelini journey that's underway that I'm becoming involved with leading that going through the complete career of Parapolo Passelini. And so that's an interesting project to get kind of caught up on. We've already covered Mama Roma. And we did. Oh, and the previous film, Akatoni. I'll be leading a discussion on love meetings later this month in January. So, that's a little update from me from what I've got going on. And I also received two new criterion collection for case in the mail the other day. I got the mother in the whore and Winchester 73, which I'm very excited to all be doing some video reviews of those fairly soon. And I'll probably do an episode on the mother and the whore. That's a 1973 release from Jean Eustache. Long unattainable, kind of one of these grail type movies as far as the Caillé de Cinema Art House set is concerned. So I'm very eager to dig into that and let you all know what I think that'll be coming out on the middle of this month and Winchester 73 at the end of January. So I'll be having a few first glimpses at these upcoming hot new releases from the criterion collection in the very near future. So, all right, well, folks, thank you for listening in. I hope you've enjoyed our conversation. And thank you, Eric, Josh, and Richard for helping me give this disc an even fuller review. Definitely encourage you to check it out if this movie appeals to you, even if you've got it on another edition. I think the criterion collection is pretty definitive in their in their portrayal and presentation of Peter McDonald's Paper Moon. So, with that, wrap it up. Thanks again, guys. Talk to you all soon. Bye bye. ♪ And keep your sunny side up ♪ ♪ Keep it up high the side that gets blue ♪ ♪ If you have nine sons in a row ♪ ♪ Start a baseball team, they make money, you know ♪ ♪ Keep your funny side up ♪ ♪ Don't let 'em let your laughter come true ♪ ♪ You reduce hands upon your legs ♪ ♪ Be like two Fridays ♪ ♪ Keep your sunny side up ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪</
David is joined by Richard Doyle, Eric Grant, and Josh Wilson to talk about a recent release from the Criterion Collection. We had a fun conversation, that unresolved matter of $200 notwithstanding.
