Hard Eight

You're listening to They Shoot Films with Ken Mercer and FT.

Kosempa.

Hey there, everybody, and welcome back to another episode of They Shoot Films.

My name is Ken Mercer, and I'm joined here by the great FT.

Kosempa.

FT., how are you?

I'm doing well, Ken.

How are you doing?

I regret to inform that once again on this podcast, as an unfortunate theme here, I'm once again nursing an injury as we prepare to go on air.

We are on air, and I'm nursing an injury.

What happened?

Well, you know, those big monster book of matches, like those big daddy ones with like 40 matches, I had a pack in my pocket, then I was sitting here waiting to go on air on this podcast, and they just burst into flames.

Get out of here.

Yeah, like wham, it scared the shit out of me.

I've got like a third degree burn on my leg, and it was like this close to my dick.

Well, what are you gonna do?

I was thinking about suing the match company, but you know, what are you gonna do?

You know, things happen.

This happens, that happens, shit just happens.

You know, just deal with it.

And wait, I get it.

This is like in the movie, Hard Eight, right?

Excellent, FT.

Well done, yes.

That was John, the character of John is played by John C.

Reilly in this episode's film, Hard Eight, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson.

Yes.

It is directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, PTA.

Yeah, actually, you may ask, and I hope you will ask, FT., why are we doing this film, Hard Eight, by Paul Thomas Anderson, 1996, correct?

Was it 1996?

Yeah, it is 1996.

Not now, but that's when the film was made.

Yes, so you may ask, why are we doing that film?

I might.

You may.

I will, and I shall.

Right now, watch.

Why are we doing this film, Ken?

We decided, you know, PT was in the air.

I guess ten days ago, his latest film, One Battle After Another, premiered, a huge premiere, number one at the box office, first time for Paul Thomas Anderson.

It's already his biggest grossing picture after only ten days in theaters.

And it just seemed like PTA was in the air.

There was a lot of buzz.

People were talking about him.

So we decided to do the show.

Of course, in this day and age, nothing can stay in the air for long.

I feel like it's already been eclipsed by all kinds of other news stories.

But we still thought, with so much interest in Paul Thomas Anderson, with his latest film, there might be some interest in his very first film, which is Hard Eight, the first motion picture he wrote and directed.

So we decided to do it for this episode.

Do you agree with that decision, FT.?

Oh, absolutely.

Or are you feeling like it's a stupid decision, like you say about everything that is put before you?

That's not true.

That's A, a lie, and B, not true.

Which is the difference apparently these days.

No, it's a great idea.

I think it's better than, yes, go to the first for the most recent to see what's going on there.

So where to begin?

Typically, we begin with a little bit about the origins of how the film came to be made.

Do you think we should do that?

Yes, I do.

I think that would be important.

I think there's a problem with it, though.

There is so much backstory for this very short film.

I think this film runs 95 minutes, but the backstory would take us three hours.

So I would recommend folks to go to the excellent book, which we've talked about in previous versions of this podcast, Sharon Waxman's fine book, Rebels on the Backlot, which gets into this film, Paul Thomas Anderson.

Basically, it's a look at all the 90s directors.

Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, David O.

Russell, Soderbergh and Fincher.

Fantastic book.

But I think we should jump, why don't we jump into the origin story kind of three quarters of the way through, shall we?

Sure.

And I think we also covered some of the early days of PTA in our previous episode on his film, The Master.

I think we got into it there.

So folks might want to go back and take a listen to that if you haven't heard it.

But I think where we should maybe pick up the story is in I think 1994 Cannes Film Festival, where a film by Quentin Tarantino won the Pomdor Award, the biggest award at the Cannes Film Festival.

Do you know what film that was, FT.?

Was that The Reservoir Doggies?

No, that was earlier.

That was earlier?

No, I don't know what film it was.

Which one?

It was a little film called Pulp Fiction.

And our man, Paul Thomas Anderson, was in attendance at the festival, but with no film to show.

He had the script for Hard Eight, and his agent, John Lesher from UTA, said that PTA could sleep on the couch in his suite.

So PTA was there trying to hit up everybody, talk up his script, and saw Pulp Fiction win the Pomdor Award.

Interesting, it was a televised ceremony.

Cemetery, televised cemetery for good films.

Yes, a televised ceremony of that Pomdor Award at the Cannes Film Festival.

And you can find it on YouTube.

Interesting because Pulp Fiction wins, and Tarantino and the producers, and Bruce Willis and Travolta go up on stage, and a French woman starts going berserk, screaming.

A French woman who apparently thought the award should go to Christophe Kieslowski's film Red.

Oh, boy.

And so she went nuts that Pulp Fiction had won, and she was calling out this film is shit, blah, blah, blah.

And what does Tarantino do?

He gives her the finger.

It's kind of a classic Tarantino moment.

Yeah.

And I'm sure, and I don't want to get into it here, because we'll lose our audience, but I bet you would say, yeah, Kieslowski's Red should have won instead of Pulp Fiction, but let's not go there, FT.

I've said it on your behalf.

You don't have to.

Blue, definitely.

Okay, I said, let's not go there.

I've given your fellow, even White, your fellow Polish citizen.

No, he was a real, he's a citizen.

I'm an immigrant.

And as Bob Dylan pities the poor immigrants, as we all know.

Yes.

I think of you more as a vagrant, but we'll let that, let that lay.

So Pulp Fiction wins the Palm Dior total upset.

And then Harvey Weinstein at Miramax, the independent company that financed Pulp Fiction, says, boy, maybe this film, Pulp Fiction could be a big thing.

And he pours all this money into promotion and Pulp Fiction debuts and is number one at the box office.

And a huge success.

It makes back like 20 times its production budget within a month or two.

And again, we've talked about this with the movie business before.

You make $100 million picture and it makes $120 million.

That ain't so great.

But if you lay out, I think, $5 million for Pulp Fiction and you make 200 million, it gets people's attention.

Yeah, sure it does.

And so what happened then, and this film, Hard Eight, which we're discussing, and we're going to get into luck and chance and all these gambling things.

But talent is important in life, but luck is maybe equally or more important.

So a young Paul Thomas Anderson who's got this script for Hard Eight that he's trying to sell is now in this environment where every studio, every producer wants to find the next Quentin Tarantino.

Right.

And if you've got a film, you can shoot for $2 million back then, and you're looking like the next possible Tarantino.

There was a lot of money to be found.

And not to diminish Paul Thomas Anderson's struggle, he did get financing $2 million to film Hard Eight, which at that time was called Sidney, after the title character.

And I guess the only other thing that we should talk about here in the origin story is how Paul Thomas Anderson kind of arrived, I want to say, fully formed at that time.

And I think actually has mellowed quite a lot since then.

But again, a nobody, and he had never gone to film school, he had never directed a commercial, he was a PA, he had this script, people wanted to buy the script and he said, no fucking way, I'm not, you know, unless I get to direct it, I'm not selling the script.

And finally somebody said, okay.

And it was a cable television outfit called Rysher Entertainment that said, okay, here's $2 million, you can direct your script.

At which point Paul Thomas Anderson locks the producers, bars them from the set.

And apparently any comment, any note from the production company, he deemed interference, shoots the film and then proceeds to turn, it's like a 95 page script, and he turns in a two and a half hour cut.

Wow.

And when the production company says, okay, this is two and he says, Paul Thomas Anderson says, I'm not touching a frame.

And again, what's interesting here, so he proceeds to get the film taken away from him by Reicher who cuts it.

And, sorry, I should have said that PTA had originally done it as a short film called Cigarettes and Coffee.

And Philip Baker Hall was in that short.

It did very well at Sundance.

He got into the Sundance Filmmakers Lab.

So when this film gets done, I think Reicher obviously sent it to Sundance.

Paul Thomas Anderson sends in his cut.

Oh my God, nice.

And calls up Michelle Satter, the head of Sundance, and says, well, you know, this ain't, you know.

Don't look at the other one.

Don't look at mine.

Yeah, and she says, well, yeah, of course, we would show the director's cut.

So he gets it shown at Sundance.

It gets some buzz.

The two-hour cut, the two-and-a-half-hour, or did he cut it somewhat?

I believe so, or, you know, it was reduced somewhat.

Somewhat trimmed or whatever.

It was not the righteous cut.

So they give him another chance.

And, you know, he says, I won't work with this.

And so I forget what the deal was.

He had another chance at it, but gets the picture taken away from him.

Sorry to laugh.

Gets the picture taken away from him a second time.

And sorry, the other place, if you don't like to read books, Mark Maron's interview with Paul Thomas Anderson goes into this quite a bit.

Yes, that's a good one.

And Paul Thomas Anderson starts like camping out, parking in front of the head of Reicher's house and stalking them.

All this stuff goes on.

And then finally, they submit it to Ken.

And again, Paul Thomas Anderson goes nuts and has Michelle Satter from Sundance call up the head of Ken.

I think his name is Gill.

Martin, Jim Martin.

And tell him, hey, this is not the director's cut.

And of course, Ken said, well, we would only show the director's.

And so Reicher has to then get, I guess, gets the Paul Thomas Anderson cut.

And this goes on and on.

And then finally, they say they're not going to release it or they're not going to make the changes Paul Thomas Anderson wants to make.

But you know what, buddy?

If you want to make your changes and do your post, because he wanted the music changed and all this other stuff, he wanted different music, the music from Michael Penn and John Brion who did this.

He wanted his soundtrack, he wanted his music.

And they said, if you want that stuff and you want your cut, I'll tell you what, we've already put up enough money in post-production.

If you want to pay the post-production cost to redo it your way, have at it.

Which they figured would stop.

No money.

He didn't have two nickels to rub together.

But what they didn't know is he had just sold Boogie Nights.

The script.

The script, Boogie Nights.

And Paul Thomas Anderson apparently took every penny from Boogie Nights and maybe some more, bought, paid to do his own post-production on Hard Eight, which he hated the title, by the way.

That was the, Reicher's title was Hard Eight.

And he wanted Sidney.

But apparently that was a breaking point with both Reicher and Samuel Goldwyn Company, who was the final distributor.

They said, no, Hard Eight is the title.

Sidney's not a great title, by the way.

No, it's terrible.

But it is very much like a film I want to talk about later when we get into influences, which also is titled after the character, and we'll get into that in just a bit.

I'll leave that at that.

The Godfather.

No, like I said, named after the character's name, and I think that's what.

But yeah, I think Hard Eight was a better title.

Yes.

And so it got released in a few small theaters, got some good reviews, and he had already sold Boogie Nights, and it definitely helped push the young Paul Thomas Anderson on his way.

PTA, speaking of which, FT., question for you.

How old do you think PTA was when Hard Eight was released?

25.

Yeah, very good guess.

26.

Really?

Yeah.

Which, you know, if you're 19 years old, that sounds old, but I think...

If you're four years old, that's really old.

Really old.

Yes.

But I would say now, there's great things about being that age, if you have the confidence of a Paul Thomas Anderson.

Yes.

Everybody's wrong, but you, you have all the answers.

And by the way, there's, if you want to view the young Paul Thomas Anderson, slightly older Paul Thomas Anderson, there's a fantastic documentary, which I hadn't seen until last night.

It's called That Moment.

Have you seen this?

No, no.

You should have told me.

Yeah, well, it was, like I said, I saw it last night at about midnight my time.

So that was 3 a.m.

your time to change.

You want me to call you out?

Jesus, come on, man.

Anne-Marie, why don't we put it in the show notes for this episode when it comes out.

So it was a documentary about the making of Magnolia.

But even then, which is probably 28, he is so young.

So I really think you could retitle this documentary, That Moment, as a portrait of the artist as a young coke fiend.

Which one in Hollywood at that time?

Yeah, no, but I mean, the one from Ohio.

It's like, I was just watching the film.

I was, he's just, he's so coked up.

But, but putting that aside, he's so self, so full of himself and so self-confident, but somehow remains likable.

And Unlike Tarantino.

Yeah.

Well, I get, you know, it's a good, Compared to Tarantino.

Yeah.

That's a very confident also.

Yeah.

No, that's a fantastic point, FT.

Beasley.

Tarantino, definitely when you watch him comes off as more obnoxious and more off-putting than the young PTA.

But it's interesting because they, coming back to that, the origin story after Cann, Tarantino became somewhat, became a mentor to the young PTA in the ways of show business.

So they became close friends and drug buddies.

How much older is Tarantino?

Five?

That much older, is he?

Well, that's what's strange because you think of them as contemporaries, but again, by the time Pulp Fiction came out, which was Tarantino's second film, PTA hadn't even got off the starting blocks.

For this thing, yeah, yeah, yeah, interesting.

Quentin Tarantino was, at least in terms of career, was senior to PTA.

I'm not sure in terms of age.

That's a mystery.

If you're listening out there, you can put in your comments at theyshootfilms.com.

We don't use Google, so we can't find it out unless you tell us.

And you win absolutely nothing, which is fun.

You won't believe this fucking documentary, FT.

I wanna see it.

I'm gonna see it maybe after the show here tonight.

Where is it, on YouTube?

Yes.

All right.

But strangely, I'm surprised it didn't get taken down, but strangely buried because it's got very little...

I had never come...

You know, I was doing all this research for this film, a lot of stuff on YouTube, and it never came up as, you know, YouTube also suggests this over, you know, on the right-hand column, never came up.

And then I heard about it, searched for it, and has very few views.

What's the name of it?

It's called That Moment.

That Moment, okay.

But I'm glad we came back to this, because what I was going to say is, again, he's coked up, he's so young, yet when you see him blocking scenes or describing scenes, like they show him prepping for, or talking about the game show sequence in Magnolia, and he starts describing, I think to the crew, or in a pre-production meeting, and he's describing it, and he's gesturing with his hands, and the sign's going to turn around, kids and adults.

And I just watched Magnolia the night before, and what he was describing, and clearly what he had in his head was exactly-

What he got down.

What turned out on film.

What he got down.

Yeah, which is no easy-

No.

A, to have that kind of vision just in your head from the beginning is a big, huge thing for a director.

But then to be able to power it through and capture it.

So it's exactly as he's describing it in this pre-pro-

Like exactly.

Right.

Wow.

Nice.

I can't wait.

It's pretty fascinating.

So he really showed up, I think, fully formed.

But we talked about FT.

This was his first film, and I thought it might be interesting to talk about the general topic about directors' first films.

Are you game for that?

I sure am, buddy.

Actually, I know you like quizzes.

Let me give you a little quiz.

Because I'm going to throw some, what I consider to be, I think, are generally considered to be great directors.

I'm going to give you their names, and let's see if they did, you know, if their first films were great or even good.

So I'm going to name the director, you name their first film.

Okay?

Jesus, okay.

Okay, you should calm down.

I wish there was a movie called I Don't Know.

No, I think you're going to know.

What?

By Roman Pomanski.

What?

Okay, Martin Scorsese, what was his first film?

I don't know, I really don't know.

Okay, but this kind of, sorry, Frank, relax, because this is what proves the point, that if you knew, again, my point is, you know, first films are tough, and these great directors, their first films were not great.

So that's the point, so just relax, there's no-

No, I am relaxing.

There's no loser here.

Wait, are we on air here still?

Yeah, we're on air, but I'm the winner, I'm the winner, but it doesn't mean you're the loser.

There's no loser.

Right.

Right on.

What's wrong with being numbered too?

Martin Scorsese, has it come to you yet?

It's not Mean Streets, it's before that.

Yes.

There's something else, Boxcar somebody, or is that Coppola?

Boxcar Bertha?

That's ringing a bell, but the answer is, who's that knocking on my door?

See, I almost said, what's the name of the movie?

All right, yes.

All right, next?

I'm ready now.

Francis Ford Coppola, what was his first film?

Boxcar Bertha, no, that's Spielberg, right?

Somebody did something like that.

No, I don't know, what is it?

Dementia 13.

Oh, right, you're right.

Corman film, I believe, yeah.

Yes, exactly.

Stanley Kubrick, what was his first film?

Was it The Killers?

It was not.

It was something in the 40s.

What is it?

Fear and Desire.

Huh, how about that?

Alfred Hitchcock, what was his first film?

Oh, Jesus, I don't know, some silent thing, wasn't it?

I would assume so.

I only have the title in front of me.

What is the title?

The Pleasure Garden.

It was a porn film, started as a porn director.

Who knew?

It's pretty clear, with Tippi Hedren's great-grandmother.

Last one, which is the easy one, I like to send you home a winner, FT., David Fincher.

David Fincher, wait, I know this one.

It's unusual.

Alien 3, yes, nice.

You're the man, ding, ding, ding, FT goes home a winner.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.

Which is so bad that he's basically done everything to disown that film.

Right.

So, why is it so difficult, FT., to make a good first film, would you say?

Because it's difficult to make a film.

Okay, but why is a first film so hard?

I don't know, why do you think?

Resources, experience, what do you have in mind here, Ken?

Well, the leg up for somebody like Paul Thomas Anderson is he's a writer, so he wrote the script and said, I've got to direct it.

If you're not a writer, you're fucking screwed because the only things that get offered to a first time director are the ones that all the other directors have turned down, so your material is going to really work against you.

That's kind of an obvious thing, but beyond that, there's just a litany of problems, of difficulties as a first-time director.

You know, if we're talking about working within the system in some way, studio production, you have to be able to work with the crew and get the crew on your...

Well, first of all, it's just intimidating working with, you know, it's 150 to 100 people and they're all looking at you like, you know, wait, why is this guy directing?

And in the US., you know, the system is, there's, you know, there's deference, they, you know, follow orders, but if they turn against, you know, if they're just rolling their eyes at everything you're doing, it's a very bad atmosphere on the set.

Then you've got actors to deal with.

And again, if you're dealing with big time actors, you know, it's challenging enough if you don't have a lot of theater experience or experience as an actor, just how to work with actors.

But if you're dealing with a star and all that stuff, even Paul Thomas Anderson with his next film, Boogie Nights, you know, the stories about Burt Reynolds and the problems there have been talked about quite a bit.

And then just dealing with the nervousness, you know, the anxiety where you really need to be more relaxed.

And you know, the tough thing is, A, planning your day, but then when you're in a shot, do you have it?

And do you move on or do you do another take, knowing when you've got it or not?

Yeah, I mean, this is basically, it's difficult to make a film.

And if you've never made one, it's doubly difficult because you never made a film and you don't know what, you know, yeah.

Even if you have a small crew, even if you're like a Cassavetes type, you know, with shadows, it's still difficult.

You know, location scouting, permits, all that shit, if you're independent, you know what I mean?

And three process, right?

Writing, shooting and editing, you know?

So there's three difficulties right there.

Not like making a podcast.

Yep.

Our first episode, if you haven't yet heard it, folks, it was My Hall and Drive, the David Lynch film.

And if you haven't heard it, it's good to see where our first podcast.

Famous now.

Yes.

So.

I wanted to talk about what influences do you see on this film, FT.?

Nothing really came to mind, you know.

Well, that would be too generous of you, really, because then you'd be saying this film is wholly original, which there's no way you're saying that.

No, I'm not saying that.

No, I can't see a specific iconography.

Can you name a genre at least?

Well, the gambling films, Mammoth, House of...

Bingo.

Right.

Was that before?

Was that before?

Well, so pause right there.

So I would say there's a huge Mammoth influence on the writing, the dialogue and the way the actors perform.

I feel a huge shadow of David Mammoth.

And as you just brought up, you know, people compare this to House of Games, the Mammoth film, and definitely, again, there's this Mammoth influence.

Yeah.

So that was a good one, FT.

Thank you.

Well, the procedural business in the, you know, about the card, the original, you know, in there.

Yeah, when I was watching it the first time, I'm going, Jesus, this is Mammoth, you know, about what's it called, the Witch McCall card, the whole scam about how to ring up money when you're spending 20 bucks.

The raid card, the raid card in the casino, right?

Yeah.

Raid card, right, right.

Great sequence, by the way, for everybody to watch that.

Yeah, Mammoth-y for sure.

Yeah.

But you said the acting too, huh?

Yeah, I don't see that.

Well, I think Philip Baker Hall has his own style.

And, you know, I've seen Philip Baker Hall a lot as a character actor, where he's much more animated.

You know, the low-key, flat Mammoth, you know, just say that, I definitely feel Mammoth influence on Philip Baker Hall's acting.

I have the money to give you right now.

In this moment, I will give you all that I have.

Maybe before you were going to kill me, maybe, I don't know.

I know John, and I love him like he was my own child.

But I can tell you this, I don't want to die.

I killed his father.

I can tell you what it was.

This is not an excuse.

I'm not begging for clemency.

All that matters, I do not wish to sacrifice my life for John's well-being.

But I will sacrifice this money for mine, because you have asked me.

Because after this, I will have done all I can for John and for myself.

I'm going to ask you with all the heart and sincerity that I have, please do not put a bullet in me.

And please don't tell John what I've done.

But not so much Gwyneth Paltrow and John C.

Yeah, no, I would say even John C.

Reilly, yes.

I definitely feel Mammon influence the way he, yes, I would say John C.

Reilly too.

But let's keep moving.

What other influences, buddy?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

That's about it for me.

What do you see?

Well, obviously, as always, with Paul Thomas Anderson, Robert Altman.

Oh, right, Altman, right.

And of course, that's where PTA knew Philip Baker Hall from The Secret Honor, the Altman film that starred Philip Baker Hall.

Probably his only leading role before Hard Eight was Altman's Secret Honor.

But also, Altman had done a gambling film, FT., that was set in Reno, where this film is set.

What is it?

Which one is that?

It's called California Split with Elliot Gould and George Siegel.

California Split, right.

As always, with especially the young PT.

Anderson, but with all young directors, Martin Scorsese looms large here.

I forget, is this before or after Casino?

I hadn't thought about this till this podcast.

Oh, really?

So Casino was before Hard Eight, so I hadn't even thought of that with Scorsese.

But clearly, the sequences inside the Casino in Hard Eight were kind of PTA's Poor Man's version of the moving shots in Casino.

And as you said, the rate card thing, kind of the behind-the-scenes look at casinos.

So there's that influence, but overall, you know, PTA Anderson has not been shy about talking about being influenced by Scorsese.

But there was a small scene in Hard Eight that I was just like screamed goodfellas at me and maybe I'm crazy.

But there's a very strange shot in Hard Eight after the first meeting sit down between Philip Baker Hall and John C.

Reilly in the diner, Jack's diner.

Yeah, Jack's coffee shop, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, after they get up to leave, the camera stays behind on the table in this coffee shop with the two coffee cups sitting there and looking out the window behind them.

And then does this push in on the empty table.

And for some reason, it really remind me of the famous shot in Goodfellas, where Scorsese pushes in on De Niro and Reilly Otis sitting at the table in the diner with the window behind them and pushes in and zooms out, I think is what he's doing at the same time.

This trick shot.

Trick shot.

And of course, PTA Anderson doesn't do that trick shot.

But for some reason, the push in on the table reminded me of Goodfellas.

And you can call me crazy.

Crazy Guggenheim.

Already a character.

It's interesting that you bring this up, because that whole first scene is oddball.

In the diner, what struck me?

Me too.

I also go like, what the hell is going on here?

They leave the table, and he pushes in slowly, and you end up on the two brown mugs.

And I'm like, OK, well, this is the first film.

Yes, I have some sort of transition.

And it's only later on where Sidney is mentoring Clementine in the casino coffee shop, where they're both sitting there in the same two-shot as Sidney and John were, but in the other coffee shop with brown coffee cups.

And I go like, that has to be it.

He is going to use this as like, it's a badge, as it were, an icon.

That's the only thing I could come up to explain that, that he was in a, like, echo that, you know, beginning as like, you know, here's the mentor, mentoring.

You know, yeah.

Here's the big elephant in the room, FT., and it's strange because it was something I thought about and is not really out there.

And I had to go back before this podcast and do a Google search to say, boy, am I...

I love your dialogue.

Boy!

And it is out there, but it's not out there the way it should be.

The influence on this film, can you name it?

I mean, the obvious influence with the same plot, the same character.

It's not obvious because I would know it.

Gipsy Goes to Hollywood, 1937.

No, Babel of Flambour, the Jean-Pierre Melville film.

Oh.

No, you can't say, hmm.

Do you want me to...

OK, you say, umph, and then I'll run down all the parallels.

Wait, wait, wait, the gambling?

OK.

Yeah.

I haven't seen that in a long time, so I can't speak.

I can't speak.

All right, so let me refresh your memory and perhaps the only thing...

Bob the Gambler for the people out there, yes.

Let me just run down some of the similarities and see if I can turn you around, FT., and you can either call me an idiot or a crazy or a genius.

OK.

Easy with the name calling, but no labels.

No labels.

Take it easy.

Here we go.

Ready?

You're a good man.

Take a breath here.

OK.

For...

Bob LaFlembour, sorry, Bob LaFlembour, Bob the Gambler to us Americans, is about an older single man who is a full-time gambler but was previously a criminal.

Does it remind you of anybody in this film, FT.?

No.

He has a young surrogate son that he takes under his wing.

That's right.

And there's even a scene, because I was watching, and now you're going to say, why didn't I call you?

But it was, again, very late.

There's a scene in Bob LaFlembour where, again, the surrogate son, the protege, Paolo, he's in a bar having a drink and the women in the bar comment on how he dresses just like Bob.

He acts just like Bob, which is in this one.

Oh, yes, dang.

Demle, it comes in the view.

In Bob LaFlembour, Bob, again, has the surrogate son, already Paolo, but then takes under his wing a surrogate daughter who is a prostitute, a young blonde prostitute who he takes in.

And she thinks, you know, she's like, do you want sex with me?

And he takes him into her apartment.

No, you live here.

I'm going to give you money.

I don't want you to be a prostitute anymore, much like Clementine in our film Hard Eight.

Well, be darned.

The girl that he takes in and the surrogate son fall in love in Bob LaFlembour.

Genius.

Rip off.

And then, but then it goes down to minor.

It was blowing my mind watching it last night because you watch Bob LaFlembour in the casino lounge in the exact same place that PTA puts it in the set of, or not in the set, on the location.

There's a vibraphone player in the casino lounge in the same position.

He has a vibraphone layer in Hard Eight.

I mean, it's like crazy.

And then, you know, it even extends to, if you look at the poster, the movie poster for Bob LaFlembour and you look at the movie poster for Hard Eight, the designs are, you know, which PTA hadn't been the one insisting on this, incredibly similar.

Wow, nice.

And then the last thing, which is, here's where you can call me crazy, because again, I was just, you know, I was going like one after another here.

I'm not calling you crazy.

This is totally there, man.

So, Jesus.

Hard Eight, how does it start?

Before, you know, as the titles end, we're still on black, still on the titles, before we open on Jack's coffee shop, what's the sound we hear?

What's the soundtrack there, FT on Hard Eight?

I believe it's that incredible pulse.

Yes, it's called Clementine's Loop, and it was written by John Brion.

And for this film, and then PTA brings it back in Boogie Nights in the scene where Mark Wahlberg is turning tricks and gets beat up turning tricks.

And he also brings it back in Magnolia in a hallway.

So it's called Clementine's Theme.

It's very distinctive.

And then I'm watching, last night, Bobble of Flambor, how does it start?

Don't say this.

What?

Don't say what?

Don't say it.

It starts with...

With Clementine's Theme?

No, it starts with a bell.

And so what it sounds...

And I was like, wow, it's the same thing.

And then when I listened to it, what happens in Clementine's Loop is, it sounds like a sample church bell, and then there's this synth, I feel, there's an instrument...

It's like a bass.

It's like a bass.

Yes, and it goes, it goes, bell, boom, ching, boom, ding, right.

But in Bobbala Slam Boar, it's just the bell.

Interesting, interesting.

You know the alternative English translation of Bob the Flamberer, besides Bob the Flam-bay, which when I first saw it, I go, when did they get a fire in this guy?

Bob the High Roller, I remember seeing one version.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Interesting, good one.

No, listen, I will not call you crazy.

But will you call me a genius?

You're short of genius.

Inches away.

That was a good one.

Not quite genius, just heinous.

And an us, obnoxious.

No, beautiful.

Nice one.

Why don't we quickly move, I mean, there's so much to talk about in this film, but I think since again, the idea for this episode was people maybe discovering PTA for the first time, maybe really getting into the first film.

I wanna talk about how this film, you can really see the foundations, the groundwork for the PTA films that would follow.

Do you wanna kick off what you see as kind of the themes, the foundations for what he would do in his next films?

Yeah, there's a few things I'd like to say about that, particularly the next two films, because I think things change where there will be blood.

But it's interesting.

I would say that the two characters in Hard Eight, Clementine and John are ready to fall right into the hands of Boogie Nights, of the Burt Reynolds character.

Yeah, that's great.

And so again, it should be noticed, yes, I think they could be in Boogie Nights, but John C.

Reilly was in fact in Boogie Nights and Magnolia, but so keep going.

Yeah.

Well, you know, particularly I could see Clementine being, you know, roller girl, you know, in Boogie Nights.

Let me ask you a question.

I know we've gotten notes and comments.

And by the way, if you're a listener and you have comments, send them in at theyshootfilms.com.

There's a place for you.

There's even a microphone if you just want to send us a voicemail.

But question, sorry, what I was saying is people have written in and say they hate when I say, well, would it have been better if so and so was cast in this film?

Would Gwyneth have been a better roller girl than Heather Graham?

No.

Okay.

No, no, no.

It should have been equally good.

They were both great.

No, no, there's no question.

You know, Heather Graham's great in that.

You know, I don't know.

But anyhow, other things.

You know, what's interesting is like the general, those two characters though, you know, Clementine and John, they have that, you know, that sort of like naive stupidity, which I'm just going to be blunt and say it that way.

It sort of becomes institutionalized for me in Boogie Nights, you know, where everybody is that sort of naive and, you know, and not too bright, you know.

In both films also, you would notice there's a strong mentor character, you know.

But with this one difference, you know, the one difference is that with Sidney, there are no strings attached.

He has a totally different need here, right?

His need would be one of absolution or forgiveness as we later find out, you know, that he murdered John's father.

I think he's got a moment.

I think there's another dimension to it, and we're going to be talking later specifically about Sidney.

So let's get into that.

Yes.

All right.

But my point is I'm comparing the two strong mentor characters.

You're comparing Sidney with Jack Horner in Boogie Nights.

Yes.

I would argue, FT., since we're not going to be talking about Jack Horner lately, I would argue that Jack Horner also has two reasons for what he's doing.

Yes, he's using them to make porno films, but he's also building a surrogate family with these people.

Right.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

No, absolutely.

No, absolutely.

But the difference being that Jack has strings attached, loyalty, in my opinion.

And Sidney does not.

There's totally different aims there.

I looked up the word.

I just wanted to make sure, exploit.

You know, it has such a tone to it, of abuse, of using somebody.

FT., we better do the...

We can't get into the personnel issues and your issues with me on air.

Yes, I'm sorry if I exploit you and I'm sorry if you just figured it out.

No, you're not.

You're not exploiting me well enough.

You're not making full use of me or you're not deriving benefit from me.

Or maybe you are, but that's all it means to write.

I feel like I get a lot of benefit from you, FT.

Me too, man.

Oh, it's a good kiss.

We go, oh, let's come back to the foundations in Hard Eight that were carried on throughout the other films.

But one quick thing I wanted to touch on because you brought it up.

The fact that John and Gwyneth seem, as you called them, stupid to you.

And you felt, you said that, well, you said stupid.

Yeah, and stupid.

They're not too bright.

You said the same thing about the characters in Boogie Nights.

And there's something to take note of here.

And that is Paul Thomas Anderson called the Clementine character, stupid.

And so it's interesting that Paul Thomas Anderson will write stupid, you know, parts, non-intelligent characters, but doesn't make fun of them.

And it's also a credit to the actors.

They play, they don't condescend and try to act stupid.

And it's interesting because it's not, it's not really a character we get exposed.

I mean, we see them every day in our life, every place we go, every store we go to, we deal with a lot of people who it's called less than geniuses, right?

Yes.

But we don't really see them much in films.

No, you're right.

You know, there's stupid people that are comic and we laugh at them.

And there's geniuses.

And basically everybody else is just really fucking good, you know, always has the line and talks perfectly.

And so it's interesting to get it is it's I'm glad you brought this.

But it's also interesting that he only called her that, that character Clementine, because what I noted was John is constantly saying, like, you know, I mean, I know I fucked up everything, but I'm not stupid.

You know, he keeps saying I'm not stupid.

No, sorry.

I just I was just pointing out that I saw PTA specifically call Clementine stoop.

I'm sure that's not to say he didn't think the same thing about John.

Well, it's clear.

I mean, you know, obviously.

Right.

Yeah.

But my point was, is that John, the difference there is that John keeps saying, you know, I'm not totally stupid.

You know, he will say that several times in the script, you know, which is like, well, and that's what Dirk Diggler says from the beginning of Boogie Nights.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yep.

Absolutely.

Yes.

We need to move on.

But you might just list a few other of these foundations for our listeners that, and you got us off on a good start there.

Thanks, buddy.

The theme which would get continued in Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood is this idea of surrogate family.

And clearly, here, Sid is creating a family first with John, then with Clem.

Kind of an interesting footnote is, they both ask him the same question as he basically invites them into his family.

Do you remember what it is?

I'll tell you what, you come with me back to Vegas, I'll loan you $50, I'll show you what you did wrong.

What are you, man?

You think you're St.

Francis or something?

No, I don't think I'm St.

Francis.

Look, are you looking for a fag?

I'm not some boy hooker, if that's what you're after.

I'm not looking for a hooker, John.

I'm offering you a ride.

I'm offering to teach you something.

Yeah, well, I'm telling you something right now.

I don't suck a dick, okay?

I understand that.

And this is the last time I'm gonna ask.

You want my help?

I'll fuck you up if you fuck with me.

I know three types of karate, okay?

Jiu-Jitsu, Aikido and regular karate.

All right.

A, you give me a ride.

Two, you give me 50 bucks.

And C, I sit in the back.

And believe me, if you pull anything, I will fuck you up.

I believe you.

They both asked the same question.

Do you want to have sex with me?

Right.

So again, this theme of surrogate family, again, Jack Horner, Burt Reynolds, is putting together this surrogate family.

And really, the protagonist in Boogie Nights is Mark Wahlberg's character, who we see his very unhappy family, and he goes out and finds this surrogate family.

But also in There Will Be Blood, Daniel with HW, who is his true family, and sends away and builds this.

First, he tries to...

Well, I guess he thinks it's his real family.

Remember his brother, who turns out not to be his brother.

And then, of course, Eli Sunday is kind of the next surrogate family there.

But right on that same idea, which starts out here and then goes into Magnolia and the other films, is Fathers and Sons, which we know from Paul Thomas Anderson's interviews.

He has a very strong relationship with his father, Ernie Anderson.

But Ernie Anderson was kind of this larger than life showbiz personality.

And so that just permeates the film.

So obviously, Sidney and John in this film, right?

Yes.

Jack Horner and Dirk Diggler in Boogie Nights.

Earl Partridge and Frank TJ.

Mackey as played by Tom Cruise in Magnolia.

Magnolia has these paired father and well, father son, father daughter.

He's also in the game show kid.

Yeah.

It also is Philip Baker Hall.

Right.

With the daughter, Jimmy Gator and his daughter, Claudia, in The Master.

Yeah.

Yeah.

With Joaquin.

We got Lancaster Dodd and Freddie Quell.

Yeah.

Yeah.

What are your thoughts on the character of Sidney as played by Philip Baker Hall, FT.?

I think I pretty much, you know, said what I have to say.

You know, I would have more stuff to say about the script, you know, and the idea that he ended up shooting somebody, you know, shooting John's, you know, father in the face and the fact that that's, you know, not John.

But, you know, I think I had mentioned that he's a mentor and, you know, his goal is absolution.

I mean, he provides for John's, he takes care of the son he never had, while he did have a son and a daughter, by the way, he does, right?

But he takes care of him financially by giving him a skill, questionable as it is, but he also provides for his wellbeing by finding love.

So it's like, you know, but you correctly pointed out, it's also him having a family that he never had because he's estranged from his.

What are your thoughts?

Well, too many thoughts for this podcast.

For my brain.

Yeah.

I mean, I think he's an interesting character.

And again, for a 25, 26-year-old kid to write this character, I think is pretty extraordinary.

So let me just try to-

A good Samaritan, you know, in a way, right?

I mean, let me just try to hit some of the thoughts about Sidney.

Yeah.

I think what the theme of the film is, which Sidney embodies is the role of chance and luck and the lack of control in our lives, which is then embodied of this character who both acknowledges that, but then tries to control every aspect of his life that he can control, including building, you know, creating, picking people out as a surrogate family, but also every time we see him, he's dressed in a suit, including the time we see him sleeping.

He's sleeping in bed when he gets the call from John in his suit.

Everything's so controlled.

You know, there's rules, you know, how you talk about women, you know, everything has got to be courtesy, you know, the way he tips everybody.

Right.

Jesus.

We are fucking surrounded by pussy here.

Hey, hey, hey, hey, Jimmy.

What?

It's not from my ears but hers.

She can hear that sort of thing across the lounge.

It puts her in a very uncomfortable position.

Hey, hey, I doubt if hearing she's got a great pussy puts her in an uncomfortable position.

I just don't want it coming from my table.

Hey, I live up here.

I know what flies and what don't.

You know, to tell a babe she's got a nice ass is no crime, believe me.

You said it as she walked away.

Hey, Jimmy, let's go play.

You know, it's interesting that he plays Keno, which is not a smart gambler's game.

But again, even that kind of smart in his control allows him to be in, because again, he's living in a suite in this hotel in Reno.

But he's getting comped.

So playing Keno, which is not big dollars and takes a lot of time, allows him to be on the casino floor gambling without a chance of blowing big money, like what he does when he bets $2,000 on Hard Eight.

Right.

So he's found out what all good gamblers know.

You know, we can't control the role of the dice or anything.

All we can know is the best, you know, the best odds, the best way to deal with it.

But he violates that when he bets $2,000 on Hard Eight.

He violates that when he gets involved with John and Clementine in that motel room.

That is not the smart play.

Yeah, but there's the conflict there.

I mean, you know, if he's not going to be there to help him then, then what's the point of all the other stuff?

I mean, you know, but I hear you.

I hear what you're saying, but it's not the smart play.

But it was the, wait, wait, wait, it's not the smart play.

It's the necessary play for him, for his own absolution.

Right, but this is where it all gets so, this is where it gets difficult for a man who is in control, you know, again, so controlled.

This rules, you know, everything's by probabilities.

Everything's done this way.

You only spend that much.

Can man really operate purely on logic without emotion?

But the point here is Philip Seymour Hoffman go, you know, gets the best of Philip Baker Hall's emotions and he throws away $2,000 on a, you know, a play that has nothing to do with all the things he's espousing when he bets on Hard Eight.

I don't, I didn't see that, but it's interesting that you did.

Well, what do you think is the point of the, betting on Hard Eight?

Betting on Hard Eight, because it's all chance.

He's gonna throw the dice and it's gonna be what it's gonna be.

So he figured it's, you know, this is any time as good a time as any.

Buddy boy.

You're laughing at that?

I just said, fuck you to a man, Jesus Christ.

The way you look, I think you know what I'm saying, old timer.

I think you do.

Jesus Christ, why don't you have some fun?

Fun, fun.

All right, shaka-laka-doo, shaka-laka-dooby-dooby-doo, shaka-laka-doo.

You got a little bit more there.

Coming in there, baby.

Shaka-laka-doo, baby.

I'm almost lighting it, baby.

I'm not allowed to cigarette, old timer.

What are you going to do?

$2,000 Hard Eight.

$2,000 Hard Eight's event.

So, I think that's enough about Sydney.

Let's just quickly, we're running out of time here.

Let's talk about the Jimmy character as played by Samuel L.

Jackson.

Yes, sir.

Any thoughts?

Yes, one thought.

I really like the character.

I found the character, you know, obnoxious, funny.

And, you know, no bullshitting around, you know.

I believe there's, he connects with, what the hell is a Tarantino movie?

Pulp Fiction.

Yeah, but no, the other one reason, the character seems similar.

Oh, sorry, Jackie Brown.

Jackie Brown.

Yeah, yeah, it seems like, you know, as the other characters could end up in Boogie Nights, it seems that Sam Jackson here could end up in Jackie Brown.

Yeah, you know, I like the one bit where he goes, you know, there's no smoking in his car, you know, because it ruins the resale value.

And then he goes, I'm not, you know, I don't fuck off.

I'm not smoking any.

And he goes, well, can I have one?

It was like, it was a nice little bit with the character, good writing and good work.

Sorry, and that scene, in that scene too, it's also quite interesting, the sound work, the prominent squeakiness of Samuel L.

Jackson's leather coat.

Did you notice that?

Yes, yes.

Leather on leather seats.

Mercedes leather.

Quickly on Jimmy's character, I believe, do you remember in Get Out, we talked quite a bit about Anton Chekhov's theory about when you set something up, you know, a gun in the first act.

Yes, of course.

Not Chekhov's words, but think about it, as a gun in the first act, it always goes off in a third.

Jimmy is the Chekhov gun here, shows up in the first act.

We kind of, I think, yeah, we know he's gonna go off in the third, which he does in more ways than one.

But it's also interesting, since this movie, and this film I was trying to make, as we were arguing about, Sidney a little bit there.

Again, I really see this picture about somebody trying to turn away from their past, their past transgressions.

John, Sidney was a criminal.

He murders John's father.

I see him as a profligate gambler back in Atlantic City, and now he's turned over to this new leaf as a very controlled gambler.

Everything's controlled.

But you can't run from your past.

And Jimmy, I feel as if there is an embodiment of Sidney's past.

And it reminds me of a line from The Master.

Can you, sorry, from Magnolia.

From Magnolia.

Do you know that line?

No, I don't.

I think it comes up multiple times in Magnolia.

Characters say, certainly Bill Macy says it.

The book says, we might be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us.

Through with us, right.

Yeah.

And Jimmy, I think Jimmy embodies that past.

I know you were reluctant to call me a genius, although many others have FT.

But do we call Paul Thomas Anderson a genius?

And the next thing makes me scratch my head.

So, there's a scene in the hotel room when...

Right, with the blackmail scheme.

Yeah, with the blackmail scheme.

That Jimmy will tell John about the whole situation, right?

Unless he gets $10,000 and then $6,000.

Yes.

And Sidney's stalling him.

They're sitting in the hotel room, which gives him a chance.

And Jimmy says, you know, he says, this is the line.

I know all those guys.

He's talking about back in Atlanta.

Back in Joisey.

I know all those guys used to know.

Floyd Gondoli, Jimmy Gator.

And what's insane is, again, did Paul Thomas Anderson have his whole career planned out?

Because in his next film, Boogie Nights, who does Philip Baker Hall play?

Oh my God.

Who does he play?

Floyd Gondoli.

Gondoli.

Okay.

And in his next film, Magnolia, who does Philip Baker Hall play?

No way.

Jimmy Gator.

Get the fuck, the-

This is Jimmy Gator.

The kids, yeah, the boy, oh my God.

So two possible explanations here.

But either explanation kind of gives you a look inside Paul Thomas Anderson's brain on what he was thinking.

Either he's like, I'm gonna write this now and my next two films, I'm gonna still use Philip Baker Hall and he's gonna play these two characters.

Or what's equally crazy is he just threw these character names in this script.

And then the next time he cast Philip Baker Hall, he's like, hmm.

Let's pick this name.

I'm gonna go Floyd Gondoli.

And the next film, he's like, okay, now he's gonna be Jimmy Gator.

But anyway you slice it, it's like insane.

Right, wow, nice.

Yes.

How about that?

One of the interesting things about this film that I'd like to discuss, FT, is what I, and I know we've argued in the past, and let's try not to argue here, about the use of POV in films.

And again, and just to work clear, I'm not talking about a point of view shot, I'm talking about when you write a scene, or you direct a scene, thinking about whose point of view is this scene coming from?

And this film I think is interesting because it's so strictly from Sydney's point of view.

I was thinking that everything we see in this film is only what Sydney can see, but then I was thinking that there was a scene in a hotel room, in the hotel suite, where it was Clementine and John and Sydney wasn't there, but what's the story there?

Sydney does show up.

Okay.

He does, you know, yeah, he shows up.

He takes room service and opens up the door.

Right, yes.

It's when we get revealed that, you know, John showed up in the middle of the night, yeah.

So very strict point of view.

We only are privy to what Sydney sees, and it becomes both interesting and problematic in a scene I'd like to talk about, which is the scene after.

Well, we see Sydney asleep in a suit on the bed, and he gets a late night call from John, who it turns out is asking for help, and we see Sydney go to this motel, and we do this long tracking shot up the stairs, down the hallway, up to the door.

He knocks on the door, and the point of view is so strict, that then we don't see what's on the other.

We just hear, you know, he just says, Open up.

John?

Sid?

Yeah, open up.

Everything cool?

Yeah, everything's cool.

Are you all right?

I'm fine.

You gonna open the door?

I said on the phone, you know, it's kind of screwed up.

Yeah, so?

Open the door.

Let's see what's going on.

You promise you'll help me?

Is everything cool?

John, open the goddamn door, will you?

What's going on, Tim?

You know, it would be so normal if we weren't trying to keep this strict point of view to...

And it would have been better for the viewer to see, you know, what had gone on, that there's a beat up guy in the hotel room or even see John beat up the guy or see that, you know, it would have been a dramatic scene with the John not paying clump.

But we don't get to see any of that because all we get to see is what Philip Baker Hall, Sydney can see.

And in this case, he can't see anything except for this closed door.

No, right.

The big delay.

Yeah, it's amazing, you know.

Yeah.

And also a little bit weird that...

And unfortunate, it seems like when Philip Baker Hall is standing at the door, the shot is out of focus.

A bit.

Unless the idea is just to be focused on his ear, which it is.

So just really strange.

And I think even when the door does open...

Well, that's what I wanted to say.

It's interesting because you found that part interesting, which I did too.

I mean, holding on the door.

What is super interesting is then what happens once he gets inside?

Because, well, there's another delay.

So there's a delay in opening the door from the outside, exterior.

We move inside.

The lights are off first.

Seven seconds, right?

Then the lights go on.

Now you have John talking to Sydney.

Sydney's looking off-screen right.

Now usually, like as you said before, you would be cut to what the person is looking at, what some people call extension of the frame.

PT.

Anderson, for one minute and 20 seconds, holds on Sydney looking off-screen as John says, you know, stuff like, no, he's not dead.

He's just knocked out.

You're really going to help me.

You promise, you know, all that pleading.

One minute and 20 seconds, Ken.

He holds on this as a question, a trigger, before he finally releases.

And we see, indeed, it is a man laying on the bed, bloodied upside down, I mean, on his belly, you know.

But that's just so unconventional.

That, you know, movie theory or practice has always been like, you know, a couple seconds, he looks off, boom, shot of the guy, then back to them.

You do a separation or something, you know?

Yes.

Not here, which I think was brilliant.

And here's where I'll go off the reservation.

You can shout me down.

So again, I think it's just an extension of this decision to this movie is really only, we only get to see what Sydney gets to see in this scene.

We only get to see what Sydney gets to see, including just a door shut in his face.

Then when the door opens, he doesn't get to see anything and we don't get to see anything as the audience because the lights are out.

And then here's where I go off the reservation a little bit.

I think then what happens, Frank, is the reason we don't immediately cut to see what Sidney is seeing is because Sidney can't believe, he's processing the scene.

And we don't get to see the scene clearly through the clear lens of a camera until he's clear about what he's seeing, which is a room with a guy handcuffed to a bed, a bloody guy handcuffed to a bed and Clementine crouched down, flying.

Yeah.

Well, I don't think you've ever been on a reservation.

But I don't think that's incompatible with what I said.

You can look at it that way for sure.

Yeah.

It was interesting though, isn't it?

Yeah.

No.

And is there another film that you can think of that the director was like, I'm going to really restrict the point of view to one character, even though it's going to get a little crazier?

No.

I can't think of it because I don't agree.

Remember?

We're not going to argue about it.

I just...

To have somebody being the center of attention doesn't mean it's always their point of view.

Okay.

Well, I will then bring something up in the film and then you should go away and then come back and see if you want to disagree on the next episode.

We can pick it up.

So in Alfred Hitchcock's film, Rear Window, the Jimmy Stewart character is incapacitated, stuck in a wheelchair, cannot leave his apartment.

Yes.

The only things we see in that film are what Jimmy Stewart can see.

It's all from his point of view.

And again, much like this film, it gets kind of redunculus when Grace Kelly goes to sneak into Raymond Burr.

You know, they think Raymond Burr is a murderer.

And Grace Kelly goes to sneak into his apartment.

And the only things we get to see is what Jimmy Stewart...

Well, she's sneaking into the apartment, which is completely...

We get to see what he sees only.

Which is from across the courtyard in Long Shot.

Yes.

Yeah.

And again...

But what's interesting there in Hitchcock's case, he has the different windows and is framing within the frame.

So it's through the window, and it's almost like it's being cut.

You know what I mean?

Because then they exit one frame, one window, enter there, you know.

I love that business there.

You know, particularly that sequence you're talking about.

Yeah, it's one of Hitchcock's best, you know.

But again, the similarity there of this limited point of view, only seeing what the character sees in that sequence with Grace Kelly, you know, take a similar situation here with our character not being able to see through this motel room door.

And I'll just go on record one thing.

You could say it's from their point of view.

Fine.

Don't say POV, because that has a meaning already in cinema, right?

That means a shot strictly where you don't see the character in the shot.

Yes.

Please don't, you know, avoid-

Are you trying to say, please don't eat the daisies?

Please.

Please avoid using the term POV.

Yes, I'm not talking about POV like a POV shot.

I'm talking about a character's point of view when writing a novel or a screenplay or directing a scene.

Right, because otherwise, he would have to have, you know, eyes in the back of his head with a mirror.

To see himself walking towards the hotel, the motel room.

No, take a minute to digest that.

Yes.

We need to move on, we're so, but there's so much to talk about on this film.

Just quickly, what did you think of the ending, FT.?

The absolute ending?

Yes.

Oh, the shooting.

The roller skate, the girl with roller skates.

The shooting, and then he's, oh no, no, the absolute ending, he returns to Jack's coffee shop.

Correct.

Different iconography, he's not, he's in the center, he's just walking through the frame, not following him, but he does, he's having coffee, his hands are shaking, he's an older man here, you feel like, he's holding the coffee cup with both hands.

I'd like that, with the blood.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, you think he's an older, you think this is much older after?

No, no, no, he just seems, he's acting older.

Got it, got it, sorry, sorry to interrupt you.

And he has the blood on the, on the cuff that he hides.

Yes.

And four cigarettes, so he's been there a while.

Yeah, yes.

I thought the title, that's why I thought the title of this, this film should have been called There Will Be Blood.

Because the ending frame is, the ending shot is the blood on his, his cuff.

Not bad, buddy, not bad.

And I won't call you a genius, but I will say that's ingenious.

Yes, but here, here's another problem.

I know you don't like talking about deleted scenes, but we must.

No, no, no, no, I don't, I like talking about deleted scenes.

Okay, the script had a different ending.

Oh, okay.

Which I feel, I feel is a much better ending.

Because again, as the dude would say, it ties the whole film together.

And so, but first I asked you and did you answer?

What did you think of the current ending?

It's all right.

It's all right.

You know, it's just another form.

You know, it comes back to circle and has a blood on it.

You know, it's a different, it's a different thing.

He's not mentoring anybody.

He's done.

I don't know.

Yeah, it's questionable.

What's the other ending?

Okay, so the other ending, it's just like, it's basically a coda, right?

So you see that, right?

And then he walks out of Jack, right?

And there's like another young kid hunched down there.

And Sidney goes up to him and offers him a cigarette and starts talking to him.

And then we go to titles.

So he is going to mentor somebody else.

No, can't do it.

No, I'm only kidding.

I made that up.

I just, until we did this podcast, I never realized how much I love making up deleted scenes that aren't actually-

That's a good one, though.

What is a made up deleted scene?

It's like a double negative, a fictional deleted scene.

All right, so here is the real, so again, you feel like the current ending you said is okay, I agree.

It's all right.

I'm with you, Frank.

It's a rare case of agreement.

But I feel like what was in the script would have been a much better ending because it really tied the whole thing together.

And you asked me what it was and I made something up.

Here's what it really is.

No, no bullshitting.

This is the real, this is-

Drum rolls.

I promise.

I promise.

You better be.

Okay.

So what happens is in the script, Jimmy, before he gets killed by Philip Baker Hall, by Sidney, has gone to the John in the hotel room and told him, here's the guy who beat you up.

Sidney.

And so Philip Baker Hall is in Jack's diner and who shows up, but the John from the hotel and shoots Philip Baker Hall.

You know, he goes, there's, there's dialogue.

You know, my wife left me blah, blah, blah, because of what you did to me.

And he shoots, and he shoots Sidney.

I think, I think it's better because as, as it stands, the hotel room John scene and the blackmail is just like, again, it's anti-Chekhov's gun.

It's just something that happened, you know, comes out, this happens, and then he's got, where is, with the John killing it, it comes full, it closes the loop.

Nah, nah.

I don't like it.

It empowers the John too much.

I mean, you know, there's all that business, then you got to throw away half the motel scene where he's like, did you call the wife?

You know, and you have to throw away when Jimmy says, yeah, you know, he's making small talk in the car and when he's blackmailing him saying, yeah, you know, that scene's all over.

The guy's walking around the casino like nothing happened.

He's more embarrassment, you know.

Right, but Jimmy.

That's why it had to be cut.

And it gets melodramatic then, come on.

Well, I happen to like melodrama, unlike some people.

Mellow drama.

It's mellow, man.

That's what I heard somebody one time saying.

You know, there's nothing mellow about that movie.

What do they call it?

A mellow drama?

All right, we better wrap things up here, FT.

This has been a good one.

You know, a little short film, which I think really, when you take some time to think about it, I think it brings up, there's a lot to talk about.

It is.

I think it's a good work.

You know, it's unusual, you know.

And I guess, now that the words came out of my mouth, I hadn't thought about it.

You know, you see Paul Thomas Anderson in his later, you know, all his other films, including this latest one, are long.

Right.

I think he's a filmmaker, always has a lot of, his films are brimming with ideas and themes.

Yes.

Yeah.

Well, this was originally two and a half hours long.

Maybe you'll remake it.

Like, didn't, you know, Ozu did.

Ozu, I think, remade a couple of his films, you know, that were silenced.

Never know.

It'll be interesting.

But for now, why don't we, since this podcast is crawling, crawling with remakes.

Crawling furiously close to Paul Thomas Anderson, when, when we bid each other adieu.

It's been a good one, FT and I'm looking forward to the next one.

And for, for our listeners, I hope, I hope they're all listening.

Looking forward to the next one.

And if you don't want to miss the next one, make sure you're subscribed.

Make sure you hit the subscribe button.

Please like us, visit us at They Shoot Films because it's, it's, as FT would be quick to tell you, it's a lonely place.

They Shoot Films.

And so we love to, we love to have visitors.

It's a lot of times it's just FT and I sitting around arguing over the filmmakers' true intentions.

Or we're thinking of things to argue about.

So we're great, vast moments of silence.

We're like, hmm.

Oh, wait a minute.

Vast moments of silence punctuated by me saying, do you think I'm a genius?

Do you think I'm a genius?

Ingenious, ingenious.

All right, good night, FT.

Have a good one, buddy.

It was better than bad.

It's good.

Have a good one.

You too, buddy.

They Shoot Films is a production of Film Symposium West.

Produced by Anne-Marie De Palma, studio announcer, Roy Blumenfeld.