Ryan McNeil
So I screwed up.
In the recording of this episode, I changed my usual routine, and when I made the change, I neglected to check how that change was affecting my usual set-up. Turns out, that change was having a HUGE effect on my usual set-up, and the original audio for this episode was completely useless. I feel bad, because my tight schedule only allowed one chance to record with the original guest who was dropping by for this episode, and now that discussion is lost. Apologies to that guest – you know who you are.
By now, you might be asking yourself “Why even cop to a mistake at all? Why not just plow forward and pretend that you meant to do that?” Perhaps it’s because I believe in acknowledging the contributions of my guests and what they bring to the show. I feel as though I need to tip my cap to the time they give unto me, and that they do so graciously. So to waste it, I feel terrible, and feel like I need to admit I’ve done so openly.
Anyway, the end result turned into something really good, something very different from the usual format of the show. So as I stretch my legs post-TIFF, and get ready to dig into a very exciting autumn at the multiplex, please do enjoy this latest episode. It’s deeply spoiler-ific, it’s very different from my usual show structure, and it’s a really good listen!
Here’s what’s in store in episode one-hundred-twenty-one…
Runtime
61 minutes
Up for Discussion
1. Introduction
2. KNOW YOUR ENEMY– Q& A with this week’s guest, Marya E. Gates (2:33)
3. THE NEW SLANG – Review and reaction to GONE GIRL(9:53)
Marya’s Twitter feed can be found here. You can subscribe to the Matineecast via iTunes or RSS
Comments and feedback are welcome, and thank-you very much for listening.
Enjoy!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Personally, I don’t consider Gone Girl to be a misogynist movie . . . while the scale does seem to tip in Nick’s favor (the movie seems to make him the more vulnerable, likable, etc character more than Amy). There is some background where Nick isn’t that great to Amy, and it’s not all shown on screen. (I read the book.) But there’s enough in the movie, in my opinion, that paints him as a screwed up, unredeemable character. And while he’s not psychotic, he’s a messed-up dude who’s made a lot of mistakes, and while I don’t think he should be at the end of Amy’s insanity, I don’t think he’s innocent and I don’t think he’s a woman-hater.
I can understand how it makes you wonder if Gillian Flynn isn’t a big fan of women, although I think she was just having a fun time writing a crazy piece of pulp fiction starring colorful, crazy characters.
I would agree that there are some unnecessary parts of the movie that have no effect on the plot, yet they’re still included.
I had a lot of fun listening in, and I couldn’t help but want to participate in this conversation after reading the book and seeing the film!
Great listen as ever. Sorry there was no other side, would have loved to hear what you paired it with.
Wow, Marya really hated the movie. While her augment was very strong I have to disagree with the point. I really don’t see the film as misogynist. The fact that Amy was a nut-job doesn’t make it misogynist; there are countless movies with mad male leads, we don’t watch them and say the director hates men.
I think we need to take the film on its own merits, you described it as “pulp”, I have heard the novel described as “quality trash literature”, the film is just that. It is a trashy pulpy B movie that just happens to be really well made by an A list director. It’s the kind of movie that Hitchcock did really well.
In many ways, it is the role of a lifetime for both Rosamund Pike and Ben Affleck, Pike as it a fantastic part that will put her on the radar of a lot of people and will probably earn her an Oscar nomination, Affleck as it is enhanced by the baggage he brings to it.
On the point about too soon to talk about the Oscars, is it ever too soon? Should we be talking about it all year to remind people that films throughout the year are eligible not the ones that come out in “Oscar Season”
It isn’t a classic, but it is a solid enjoyable movie that plays its cards very well and makes the most of the plot twists. David Fincher has already made three (some people may say four) great films that I would call modern classics.
@ Andy and Kristin… Marya and I obviously disagree, but she’s quite right in one key place that paints a lot of other things:
Even though the story is a piece of pulp fiction, it doesn’t go far enough to fly that flag.
Fincher’s talents and techniques actually betray the artifice because they make the whole thing feels so genuine. This looks like a town we’ve visited, populated by people we know. They are all doing crazy-terrible things to one another, but there’s not enough cheek to the delivery to underscore that it’s NOT reality. Had this film gone as loopy as something like BLACK SWAN, we’d be having a very different conversation.
Because it doesn’t, it seems plausible enough that any moron of a guy can point to it and say “See! Bitches be crazy!!”, and the timing on that is unfortunate.
I see your point, but again don’t agree. To flag that something is silly, satirical or pulp devalues it and insults the intelligence of the audience. To play it straight makes it all the better and makes the funny moments even funnier.