The Next Picture Show

David Robert Mitchell’s wandering, shaggy, endlessly referential UNDER THE SILVER LAKE isn’t nearly as tightly plotted as Roman Polanski’s CHINATOWN, one of its many cinematic reference points, but it’s just as stark and cynical about both human nature and its Los Angeles setting. In this half of our pairing of twisty, paranoid LA mysteries, we dig into whether UNDER THE SILVER LAKE is a movie that can be solved, or a movie that mocks attempts to solve it, before bringing in CHINATOWN to see how these two films approach conspiracies and paranoia, L.A. as a setting and symbol, and women and their would-be saviors. Plus, Your Next Picture Show, where we share recent filmgoing experiences in hopes of putting something new on your cinematic radar. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about CHINATOWN, UNDER THE SILVER LAKE, or anything else in the world of film by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Your Next Picture Show:  • Genevieve: J

In David Robert Mitchell’s new UNDER THE SILVER LAKE, every clue leads deeper down a rabbit hole toward an endpoint that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the beginning point. In a film as referential as Mitchell’s, that structure seems purposefully lifted from Roman Polanski’s 1974 classic CHINATOWN, another sunlit noir about a private investigator who starts with a simple philandering case and winds up peeking into a secret battle for control of the city. In this half of our pairing of the two films, we dig into CHINATOWN’s legacy and how to reconcile it with the Polanski Problem, examine how its story and performances diverge from the noir tradition, and consider whether its twisty mystery ultimately lands in a satisfying place. Plus, some feedback inspired by our recent episodes on US and VELVET BUZZSAW. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about CHINATOWN, UNDER THE SILVER LAKE, or anything else film-related by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voi

The new superhero movie SHAZAM owes such a debt to Penny Marshall’s weird and whimsical 1988 comedy BIG that it includes a giant piano as an homage, but the connections between these two wish-fulfillment fantasies go beyond their shared premises. After discussing how SHAZAM distinguishes itself from other superhero films, and what it might say about the future of the DCEU, we bring in BIG to see how these two films echo and refract each other in their ideas about what maturity looks like to kids, in their depictions of home and family, and in their use of toys as signifiers of childhood. Plus, Your Next Picture Show, where we share recent filmgoing experiences in hopes of putting something new on your cinematic radar. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about BIG, SHAZAM, or anything else in the world of film by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Your Next Picture Show:  • Tasha: Wim Wenders’ WINGS OF DESIRE (via The Criterion Chan

The new SHAZAM, about a 14-year-old kid granted the power of becoming a grown-up superhero, openly acknowledges the debt it owes to Penny Marshall’s 1988 breakthrough BIG, which made a potent comic fantasy out of what adolescents imagine adulthood to be. In this first half of our pairing of the two films, we wrestle with BIG's age-shifted central relationship and marvel over how stars Tom Hanks and Elizabeth Perkins manage to find some real sweetness within an uncomfortable romantic scenario, which leads us to consider how the horrors lurking beneath the comedic premise reveal themselves with age, and whether the film works despite that. Plus, some feedback inspired by our recent episodes on INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and US, and a response to some criticism of our recent string of superhero pairings. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about BIG, SHAZAM, or anything else film-related by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Work

Our pairing of devious doppelgängers arrives at Jordan Peele’s new US, which brings into 2019 some of the same themes of paranoia and dread seen in one of its many predecessors, Philip Kaufman’s INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. After comparing our reactions to US’s “messy by design” narrative and the conversations that have sprung up around it, we bring these two films together to compare how they reflect their respective eras, how each works as horror, and the weird character relationships that underscore the human drama behind the allegory. Plus, Your Next Picture Show, where we share recent filmgoing experiences in hopes of putting something new on your cinematic radar. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, US, or anything else in the world of film by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. *Show Notes* Works cited: • Unpacking Reddit’s Wildest Theory About US, by Rebecca Alter (Vulture.com) • What

Jordan Peele’s new US extends a long history of horror stories that use doppelgängers to explore identity, one that includes as a cornerstone Philip Kaufman’s 1978 adaptation of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. This episode we delve into the film’s eerie version of San Francisco to talk about how its atmosphere of dread and late-‘70s malaise distinguishes it from other versions of this story, and amplifies the human drama within this classic alien-invasion narrative. Plus, some feedback inspired by our recent TOTAL RECALL episode and a broader question on the state of film criticism. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, US, or anything else film-related by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Outro music: Imogen Heap, “Bad Body Double” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our pairing of sci-fi action films with a side of meditation on memory and identity brings in the new CAPTAIN MARVEL to see how Carol Danvers’ journey of lost and reclaimed memories looks next to the very different (and much bloodier) journey taken by Douglas Quaid in Paul Verhoeven’s TOTAL RECALL. We share our reactions to CAPTAIN MARVEL and its choice to center its narrative on an amnesiac hero, then bring in TOTAL RECALL to compare the two films’ approaches to their central ideas about memory, how they function as science-fiction stories, how they treat their female characters, and more. Plus, Your Next Picture Show, where we share recent filmgoing experiences in hopes of putting something new on your cinematic radar. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about TOTAL RECALL, CAPTAIN MARVEL, or anything else in the world of film by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730.  *Show Notes* Works cited:• Captain Marvel’s Cat Wrangler Explains

The newest MCU entry CAPTAIN MARVEL is, among other things, an action-packed science-fiction film that’s also interested in the question of how memory relates to identity. That, plus the film’s 1990s setting, put us in mind of another cosmic blockbuster from that era with similar ideas crackling beneath its action-movie surface: Paul Verhoeven’s TOTAL RECALL. In this half of our pairing of brawny-yet-brainy blockbusters, we debate how much TOTAL RECALL is asking us to interrogate the bloody action in which it revels, whether casting Arnold Schwarzenegger as a would-be ordinary Joe contributes to or detracts from the film’s self-awareness, and if there’s any validity to the reading that Quaid’s memory trip is all just a dream. Plus, some feedback inspired by our recent pairings, and pairings that could have been. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about TOTAL RECALL, CAPTAIN MARVEL, or anything else film-related by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail

Like WHITE MEN CAN’T JUMP, Steven Soderbergh’s new Netflix digital experiment HIGH FLYING BIRD looks at what it takes for talented basketball players to survive outside of the professional leagues, with a high-stakes corporate heist in place of that film’s street-level hustle. This week, we talk over our reactions to HIGH FLYING BIRD’s story, dialogue, and in particular its iPhone cinematography, before bringing these two films together to look at how they each depict baller life outside the NBA, and how their respective cinematic styles buck sports-movie conventions. Plus, Your Next Picture Show, where we share recent filmgoing experiences in hopes of putting something new on your cinematic radar. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about WHITE MEN CAN’T JUMP, HIGH-FLYING BIRD, or anything else in the world of film by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730.  Your Next Picture Show:  • Keith: Dean DeBlois’ HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON: THE

Steven Soderbergh’s new quick-and-dirty Netflix film HIGH FLYING BIRD follows a basketball agent’s bold attempt to work outside the dictates of a professional league, a hustle that calls to mind the Venice Beach street-ball scene of Ron Shelton’s 1992 comedy WHITE MEN CAN’T JUMP. In this half of our look at freelance ballers and the games they play on and off the court, we talk about what WHITE MEN CAN’T JUMP has to say about the game, friendship, race, and how they intersect, and dig into how and why Shelton has so reliably put his own unique spin on the sports movie. Plus, some feedback inspired by our VELVET BUZZSAW episode and the Academy’s newly crowned Best Picture. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about WHITE MEN CAN’T JUMP, HIGH FLYING BIRD, or anything else film-related by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Like Roger Corman’s A BUCKET OF BLOOD, the new Netflix release VELVET BUZZSAW, director Dan Gilroy’s follow-up to NIGHTCRAWLER, presents as an art-world satire wrapped around the bones of a horror movie, though it doesn’t deliver on the horror element until pretty deep into the film. We talk over whether that approach is a benefit or detriment to both sides of the horror-satire equation, and about whether Netflix’s current content model is a natural evolution of the “give ‘em what they want” strategy that guided Corman’s American International Pictures. Plus, Your Next Picture Show, where we share recent filmgoing experiences in hopes of putting something new on your cinematic radar. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about BUCKET OF BLOOD, VELVET BUZZSAW, or anything else in the world of film by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730.. Your Next Picture Show: • Scott: Steven Soderbergh’s HIGH FLYING BIRD • Keith: Samuel Fuller’s 40 G

Inspired by Dan Gilroy’s new VELVET BUZZSAW — and a listener suggestion — we’re looking back this week at another darkly humorous tweaking of the destructive world of high art and those who inhabit it: Roger Corman’s 1959 low-budget horror-comedy A BUCKET OF BLOOD. In this half of the pairing we talk about how Corman and screenwriter Charles B. Griffith balance the film’s tricky tone, how its obvious cheapness reflects Corman’s storied ability to work within restrictions, and what it’s like to watch iconic character actor Dick Miller in one of his rare starring turns. Plus, some feedback on our recent episodes on UNBREAKABLE and WIDOWS. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about A BUCKET OF BLOOD, VELVET BUZZSAW, or anything else film-related by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Chris Smith’s new Netflix doc FYRE tells the story of huckster Billy McFarland and his doomed Fyre Festival as a compelling piece of meat-and-potatoes journalism that’s far from the verité of Smith’s portrait of Mark Borchardt in 1999’s AMERICAN MOVIE. But for all their surface differences, at heart FYRE is another movie about a charismatic leader who overpromises and under-delivers. After dissecting what FYRE shows us — and doesn’t show us — about McFarland’s history of scammy endeavors, we dig into what connects and separates Smith’s two protagonists in terms of their ambitions, their approaches, and their intent. Plus, Your Next Picture Show, where we share recent filmgoing experiences in hopes of putting something new on your cinematic radar. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about AMERICAN MOVIE, FYRE, or anything else in the world of film by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Show Notes / Works cited: • Fyre Fest Fiasco GoF

The new Netflix documentary FYRE: THE GREATEST PARTY THAT NEVER HAPPENEDfinds director Chris Smith returning to a character type that defined his 1999 Sundance breakout AMERICAN MOVIE: the charismatic dreamer who overpromises and under-delivers. In AMERICAN MOVIE, that dreamer is one Mark Borchardt, an independent filmmaker from Milwaukee whose moviemaking dreams are continually stymied by circumstance, both external and of his own making. In this half of our Smith pairing, we revisit AMERICAN MOVIE and Borchardt to see how our perceptions of both have been changed by time and distance, debate what we’re to make of the film’s curious relationships, and analyze how Smith constructs a compelling story around an ambitious eccentric. Plus, some feedback on recent episodes. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about AMERICAN MOVIE, FYRE, or anything else film-related by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730.   Outro Music: The Kinks, “Groovy

The evolution of a divisive auteur. We return once more to the Shyamalaniverse to dig into the culmination of the so-called Eastrail 177 trilogy, the new GLASS, which purports to be the thrilling conclusion of a story that began with 2000’s UNBREAKABLE. Has divisive auteur M. Night Shyamalan discovered a new trick up his sleeve, or is GLASS and its climactic parking lot fight yet another example of the diminishing returns that have plagued his filmography? After breaking down our reactions to GLASS, we bring in UNBREAKABLE to talk over what the films reveal about Shyamalan’s evolution, or lack thereof, what they have to say about the idea of determination vs. free will, and whether Shyamalan’s female characters will ever catch a break. Plus, Your Next Picture Show, where we share recent filmgoing experiences in hopes of putting something new on your cinematic radar. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about UNBREAKABLE, GLASS, or any other corner of the Shyamalaniverse by sending an email to c

With M. Night Shyamalan’s new GLASS purporting to be the culmination of his so-called Eastrail 177 trilogy, we’re returning to the film that set it in motion, and that many rank among the divisive writer-director’s best: UNBREAKABLE. How does this brooding, stylistically bold superhero origin story look today, in a culture where both comics and their movie adaptations play a much more central role than they did in 2000? How do Shyamalan’s various auteur signatures, good and bad alike, play out in  this film and his filmography more generally? We get into all that and more, with some bonus disagreement on Shyamalan’s breakthrough, THE SIXTH SENSE, and some feedback on our recent episodes on THE FAVOURITE and INTO THE SPIDERVERSE. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about UNBREAKABLE, GLASS, or any other corner of the Shyamalaniverse by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoice

The remarkable new animated film SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDERVERSE has us thwipping through the beloved web-slinger’s cinematic history to see how it culminated in a Miles Morales origin story that doubles as a giddy trip through Spidey-lore. After some collective swooning over SPIDERVERSE’s unique and eye-popping style and clever conceit, we put the new film in conversation with another top-tier Spider-man film, Sam Raimi’s 2004 sequel SPIDER-MAN 2, to see what the films share, and how they differ, in their respective handling of their various Spider-entities, their villains, and their setting. Plus, Your Next Picture Show, where we share recent filmgoing experiences in hopes of putting something new on your cinematic radar. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about SPIDER-MAN 2, INTO THE SPIDERVERSE, or both by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. *Show Notes* Works Cited • “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse directors on the film’s

Spider-Man, the web-slinging comics creation of Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, has made the leap to movie screens many times, but arguably never as successfully as in Sam Raimi’s 2004 sequel SPIDER-MAN 2 — or, perhaps, in the new animated entry INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE. This week we’re putting two of Spidey’s cinematic high-water marks in conversation, beginning with a deep dive into why SPIDER-MAN 2 holds up so well, how its performances and action work together to honor its comic-book roots, and whether we prefer our web-shooters organic or engineered. Plus, some feedback on recent episodes and a reader question about whether different generations regard the film canon differently. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about any and all Spider-men (or Spider-women, or Spider-pigs) by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our trip through Girl World makes its second stop with Yorgos Lanthimos’ new period piece THE FAVOURITE, to see how its portrayal of women battling for social advantage in Queen Anne’s court looks next to the more contemporary high-school machinations of 2004’s MEAN GIRLS. After sharing our reactions to THE FAVOURITE and pinpointing its most “Lanthimosian” characteristics, we pit these two films against each other to see which portrayal of the cruelty and backbiting of Girl World—and Guy World!—is ultimately more fetch. Plus, Your Next Picture Show, where we share recent filmgoing experiences in hopes of putting something new on your cinematic radar. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about MEAN GIRLS, THE FAVOURITE, or both by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Your Next Picture Show: • Keith: Roy Del Ruth’s IT HAPPENED ON FIFTH AVENUE • Tasha: John McPhail’s ANNA AND THE APOCALYPSE  • Scott: Michael Dweck’s THE LAST RACE • Genev

Yorgos Lanthimos’ THE FAVOURITE is, in the words of star Rachel Weisz, a bit like a “high-stakes MEAN GIRLS”: It’s the story of a woman in power challenged by a fresh young outsider, only it plays out in the halls of court rather than the halls of a suburban high school. In this half of our pairing examining the power plays and back-biting of “Girl World,” we look back first at Mark Waters’s MEAN GIRLS to ask whether the much-quoted Tina Fey-penned comedy is still totally fetch, and which of its insights about teen girl-dom circa 2004 still resonate today. Plus, some feedback on recent episodes and a discussion of other pairings we considered for THE FAVOURITE. Please share your comments, thoughts, and questions about MEAN GIRLS, THE FAVOURITE, or both by sending an email to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Outro Music: Boomkat, “Rip Her to Shreds” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices