0:00

This

0:00

episode of the Slate Culture Gap Festival

0:02

is brought to you by the relentless podcast

0:05

from Slate Studios in Century twenty

0:08

one real estate The relentless

0:10

is back for a third season. And this

0:12

time, they're looking at the ways entrepreneurs

0:14

overcome barriers so they can move

0:16

fearlessly in business and

0:18

beyond. Join returning

0:20

host, Kristen Meinser, as she

0:22

talks to everyone from athletes

0:25

to venture capitalists who have used

0:27

strengthened motivation to find success in

0:29

the face of obstacles. Listen

0:32

to learn how these passionate industry

0:34

leaders transformed their fears into

0:37

inspiration. Season

0:39

three of the relentless is out

0:41

now. Listen and subscribe wherever

0:43

you get your podcasts.

0:56

I'm Steven Mcafin. This is the slate culture

0:59

gap fest. She said, he said, edition.

1:01

It's Wednesday, November twenty third, two

1:04

thousand and twenty two, on today's show,

1:06

she said is the new feature film recounting

1:09

the struggles of two New York Times reporters

1:11

as they attempt to break the Harvey Weinstein

1:14

story. It stars Carrie Mulligan

1:16

and Zooey Kazan. And then

1:18

on Hulu, we have Fleishman is

1:20

in trouble It's a limited

1:22

that stars Jesse Eisenberg and Claire

1:24

Danes as a now divorced couple

1:26

who have come to loathe one another. It's

1:29

a serial comic and very rashman like

1:31

anatomy of a deteriorating marriage.

1:33

And finally, what to make the

1:35

fact that Joan Didion's estate, art,

1:38

furniture books and iconic

1:40

pairs of sunglasses fetched

1:42

crazy sums at auction.

1:45

We will discuss that first joining me today is

1:48

Julia Turner, the deputy managing

1:50

editor of the LA Times. Hey, Julia.

1:52

Hello. Hello. and always

1:55

liked to have Jamil Bui, New York Times

1:57

columnist extraordinaire.

2:00

Back on the show, of course, late alumeness too.

2:02

Hey, Jamil. Hello. Psych

2:04

to talk these movies and TV shows shall we

2:06

make a show? Let's do it. Alright.

2:08

Well, she said is a journalism picture

2:10

in the classic style of, like, all the president's

2:12

men and spotlight more recently.

2:15

In the atmosphere, it's a thriller, in

2:18

execution, more of Heineseen procedural,

2:20

journalism procedural. Here

2:22

we follow as two times reporters. In

2:25

real life, Jody Kantor and Meghan and TUI,

2:27

in the movie played by Zooey Kazan

2:30

and Carrie Mulligan, cold

2:32

call. They knock on doors. They pound

2:34

the pavement. And they're also agonizing

2:37

over a a huge moral

2:39

dilemma. In trying to get their

2:41

sources, women who are afraid to

2:43

talk, to talk, They

2:45

understand the risks they're putting

2:47

themselves and these women

2:49

at and are unsure whether to move forward.

2:51

The movie is directed by Maria raider

2:53

who's best known I think for the Netflix hit

2:56

unorthodox. Let's listen to a clip.

2:58

In the clip, we're about to hear Jody

3:01

Kantor played by Zoë

3:03

Kazan is convincing Meghan to a

3:06

played by Carrie Mulligan that it is,

3:08

in fact, eminently worth doing.

3:10

Let's listen.

3:11

What is it exactly

3:12

that we're looking at here? We're looking

3:14

at extreme sexual harassment in the workplace.

3:18

These young women walked into what they all had reason

3:20

to believe were business meetings with

3:22

a producer, an employer. They were

3:24

hopeful, they were expecting a serious

3:26

conversation about their work or a possible project.

3:29

Instead, they say he met them with threats

3:31

and sexual demands. They

3:33

claim assault and rape. If

3:36

that can happen Hollywood actresses. Who

3:38

else is it happening

3:39

to?

3:41

Julia, let me let me start with you.

3:44

I made the obvious comparisons to spotlight

3:46

on all the president's men. How did you feel

3:49

this stacked up relative

3:51

to those? And as a as a movie in its own.

3:53

Right?

3:54

I think this is a

3:55

very very good journalism

3:57

movie. I was both

3:59

gripped

3:59

and moved by it. although

4:02

I'm excited that there may be some contrary opinions

4:04

on the call. But

4:05

what I actually think is revolutionary about this

4:07

movie is it is the best depiction

4:09

I have ever seen of modern working parenthood.

4:12

Like -- Oh, interesting. -- the way in which the movie

4:14

very quietly and very subtotally

4:18

and not too ostentatiously

4:19

renders the

4:22

fact that the people who are

4:24

doing this work, who are

4:26

being professional who are finding

4:29

satisfaction and stress in

4:32

their professions are people

4:34

with partners and

4:36

children and emotional

4:39

fluctuations and postpartum

4:41

depression. as the Meghan 2E

4:43

character is depicted as having the

4:45

film. And who

4:48

do the work?

4:49

anyway, and it's not

4:51

the, you know, there have been

4:53

some films where

4:54

that is the point of the film. Oh, gosh,

4:56

can you have it all? How do you do it?

4:58

And this

5:00

movie

5:01

just

5:02

depicts that it is what modern

5:04

work is for you

5:06

know,

5:06

workers of this kind, white collar workers

5:10

often involves two income families

5:12

and and two working parents. And

5:16

the juxtaposition of that

5:18

thematic material

5:19

with the story that they're

5:21

working to get,

5:22

which is fighting for the

5:25

right of women to pursue

5:27

their professions without fear

5:29

of harassment, derailing their

5:31

careers, or sudden them off on entirely.

5:34

different paths and quashing

5:37

their artistic and professional potential,

5:40

I found incredibly powerful.

5:43

Yeah. Jamal, I mean, the

5:45

extreme wisdom of Julia's

5:47

response to this wise

5:50

movie is interesting to me. It

5:52

seems to me what ties those two things

5:54

together powerfully that

5:56

makes the movie either work or not. work.

5:58

Right? If you if you buy this, you buy the

6:00

movie is the

6:03

cost as they keep

6:05

saying in the course of the movie, these two

6:07

journalists you know, it

6:09

it the it the very power discrepancy

6:12

that exploded these women in the first instance.

6:14

Right? typically kicks

6:16

in and buys or blows them into

6:19

silence. And so they're faced with a

6:21

collective action problem. Like, we need everyone

6:23

to jump into the pool at once or nobody

6:25

is going to do it. And anything

6:27

short of that could result in

6:29

compounding the initial crime.

6:31

Like, you might be re re victimizing

6:34

the victim So you

6:36

feel the moral quandary at the same

6:38

time, you feel this is thriller

6:40

like suspense of not

6:42

only will ex person. It's not

6:44

deep throat. It's not like one person.

6:46

It's like, will essentially

6:48

an entire community break

6:50

its conspiracy of silence and bring

6:52

down Harvey Weinstein. Did you

6:54

find this effective in that regard

6:57

I didn't. III

7:00

take Julia's

7:03

point about the film

7:05

being a great

7:07

depiction of

7:09

professional

7:09

class working parenthood. I

7:13

think it is. I I

7:15

do think that that

7:17

aspect of both characters could have been,

7:19

like, better integrated into

7:22

the investigation, or vice versa, the

7:24

investigation better integrated into

7:26

their experiences working in

7:28

parents and partners in addition to a journalist.

7:31

But I I guess my my

7:33

issue with the movie is that

7:35

I felt that so much of the

7:38

investigation part of it was just like

7:40

very didactic and very sort

7:42

of like very

7:45

preoccupied with just explaining things to

7:47

you in inflow dumps. Mhmm.

7:49

And not so much in depicting

7:52

the process of discovery. It does

7:55

that. It does not do that. And the times

7:57

when it does it, I think it's it's one of the movies

7:59

that it's strongest. But

8:01

I think that there's also

8:05

too

8:05

much of you know,

8:07

we're

8:07

gonna have a phone call and there's

8:09

gonna be pretty much one person on the line. They're

8:11

just gonna, like, give you, you know, a

8:13

block of text. that

8:15

you can then move forward to. Basically, you have you have a

8:17

question or something. This block of text will

8:19

answer that question for you. And I think you

8:21

can pull that up once maybe

8:23

and and and Amy kind of movie, I think you pulled that

8:25

off once. And, like, they sort of journalism. I call

8:27

them document movies because

8:31

it's not, you know, It doesn't necessarily

8:33

have to be about journalism, but like this kind

8:35

of structure for a film involves

8:37

people Sifting through documents. you

8:40

can do it twice to maybe one of these movies. But I

8:42

think this the the script kind of

8:44

leans on this a lot rather

8:46

than show

8:49

you the investigation. My

8:51

sense like, the

8:54

movie's over two hours long. And it

8:56

seems to me that they maybe had

8:58

a hard time either

9:00

cutting or streamlining because I'm not

9:02

necessarily sure the movie should be two hours

9:04

long. or over two hours long.

9:06

And it makes me think that

9:08

part of what might have happened

9:10

is that halfway

9:12

through the film, Carrie Mulligan's character

9:15

kinda drops out for a while.

9:17

Zoey Kazan's character

9:19

is traveling. to London,

9:23

to to Wales, I believe, to San

9:25

Francisco. And that I

9:27

don't I haven't read book on which the

9:29

movie or which the scripted space, but I I

9:31

have to assume that this is how things played out in real

9:33

life. And I think that there's a certain amount

9:35

of, like, fidelity to what really

9:37

happened that actually is not good

9:39

for the story or the characters that I think

9:41

there could have been some license taken

9:43

to both give Kerry

9:46

Mulligan and Zurikizan's character. It's

9:48

just more to do and

9:51

sit in more better cinematically

9:53

to pick being folding of the investigation.

9:55

because I that's where that's where the I

9:57

think the movie is at a two week. It's sort of, like, actually,

9:59

cinematically presenting this

10:02

investigation on holding and the and the

10:04

information coming in. I

10:05

think that's interesting. And your point

10:06

about the dialogue is I've

10:09

there's a way in which The

10:11

film is also functioning

10:14

as a brief in defense of

10:16

journalism as practiced in

10:19

the twenty first century and

10:21

and seems to feel an obligation to

10:25

properly and judiciously

10:29

and flatteringly represent,

10:31

like,

10:32

the evocation

10:35

of journalists uphold the creed

10:37

and tell the truth and do, you know, there there's

10:39

a little bit of Saint Hood in the

10:41

portrayal of Jody

10:44

Cantor and Meghan to even as it is

10:47

depicting some of the personal challenges

10:49

they are wrestling with. But, yes, the

10:51

dialogue

10:51

with their editors. is always

10:53

like the editor just says the three things

10:55

that you would say in the lawsuit

10:58

about how you would defend the story.

11:00

Like, get the documents, get them on

11:02

the record. like, get, you

11:04

know, like, the the the conversations with the

11:06

editors are stripped down to, like,

11:08

what would you want the

11:10

ultimate first amendment editor to say? And

11:12

there's not, like, any

11:14

any personal foyling there. And I think

11:16

probably

11:16

because of that sense of desire

11:18

for fidelity in representing Right.

11:21

I think you

11:21

probably could have made a better movie if you're like, what

11:23

if we told a story that was kinda like

11:25

the story of how they got the Harvey Weinstein

11:27

story?

11:28

Right? Well, I mean, I would I would definitely say that

11:30

some of the conversations in the movies

11:32

sound like what

11:34

the you know, various

11:36

participants would like Harvey

11:38

Weinstein's pitbull lawyer to

11:40

imagine they were. Right?

11:43

Like, they're somewhat sanitized,

11:45

the kind of cynicism and

11:47

just necessary self distancing

11:49

that the journalist, the hardcore journalist,

11:51

sci know, practice in order to

11:53

stay emotionally balanced during,

11:55

you know, the often wrenching

11:57

process of getting people to talk.

11:59

It's cleaned up a little bit

12:01

or quite a lot actually. And

12:03

and it results in some clunkers admittedly.

12:05

I'm numbness. I found this an enormously

12:08

powerful movie. I sat there

12:10

as the credits rolled, pinging

12:12

to my seat as did, I think,

12:14

everyone in the movie theater that I saw

12:16

it with. I

12:19

thought it's virtue so completely

12:22

outshone. It's obvious defects that

12:24

it was a success both artistically and

12:26

and morally. I mean, spotlight is a

12:28

very, very clean, very streamlined,

12:30

and almost perfect version of this.

12:32

And there are all kinds of comparisons you can

12:34

make there both ways, but I thought there

12:36

was just a there was there

12:39

was a resonance here and

12:41

also I'm a sucker for the genre. I I

12:43

was spent my life effectively as

12:45

a freelancer around journalists

12:47

and journalistic organizations. I

12:49

love all of these discussions,

12:52

you know, I'm going back to all the

12:54

president's men, like, what's gonna go on a one

12:56

on and on and on. So I'm

12:58

vulnerable to them. I No.

13:00

Don't get don't get me wrong. I I am also a

13:02

sucker for this genre. If you have a movie or

13:04

people or sifting through documents and someone

13:06

at some point They knew. I'm

13:08

I'm in. I'm like, I'm there. Mhmm. Mhmm.

13:10

Yeah. I mean, it's so interesting, Steve. I love

13:13

journalism movies. There's so many different kinds with

13:15

varying degrees of cynicism about profession.

13:17

And and certainly in

13:20

calling out the kind of

13:22

extreme taught journal, like,

13:24

editor saying the exact right thing notion of those

13:26

scenes, I don't mean to suggest that they were saying something

13:28

wildly

13:28

different. But, you know, there's been a

13:30

huge conversation in media

13:33

you know, in in recent decades about propaganda.

13:35

Right?

13:35

We love cop shows. We love crime

13:38

shows. Like, what are the cop and crime shows really

13:40

telling us about you

13:42

know, our our criminal

13:44

justice system, how it works,

13:46

whether it actually administers justice and

13:48

to whom. And,

13:50

you know, we are all journalists in

13:53

our own ways and so

13:56

possibly we are not the clearest people to

13:58

look at you know,

13:59

journalism movies, some of which are kind

14:02

of journalist, Uganda. So I'm I'm

14:04

curious how you would place this

14:06

within that

14:09

question or dilemma of, like, the

14:11

appropriate way to to portray

14:13

journalism on screen, Steve. I

14:15

mean, it's as you pointed

14:17

out, it's inseparable from the

14:21

highly propagandized pseudo

14:24

backlash against the MSM

14:26

and against journalists. In particular, I

14:28

regard them as as heroes, net

14:30

net their obviously, like any

14:32

profession you can name. There are ethical

14:34

lapses, but journalism

14:37

what you know, the good journalists that got let's

14:39

police themselves against it. So I

14:41

have no problem with the degree of, like, shine to the

14:43

night's armor. The

14:45

scenes that worked for me of the

14:47

procedural scenes, the ones that worked for me

14:49

best were deep Bekei, the,

14:51

you know, managing editor or whatever

14:54

editor with New York Times, on the phone with

14:56

Harvey Weinstein. Which we're

14:58

so great because

15:00

it's exactly that thrill. Right?

15:02

It's very minimalist. It

15:05

doesn't feel that sanitized. and it's this

15:07

moment where a person from a highly self

15:09

policing, rigorously self policing

15:11

ethical profession

15:15

is confronting a person

15:17

who's an absolute travesty

15:19

of all of those things and has gotten away with

15:21

it because of his communities. moral

15:24

problems. And Becky and

15:26

everything he says is letting him

15:28

know, you do not have the power here

15:30

now. Right? Like, you are not gonna

15:32

shape this or me

15:34

or anything about what we

15:36

write other than whatever on

15:38

the record statement you wanna make. And

15:41

it's it's the spot. And I don't need to

15:43

re center this narrative on

15:45

Becky. He's not the moral center of this

15:47

movie in any way, shape, or form. That is

15:49

simply all I'm saying is that is the moment where the

15:51

procedural aspect of it to me

15:53

was very effective because it didn't seem

15:55

sanitized and it really rang true. Yeah.

15:57

That

15:57

scene is really interesting and it highlights I

15:59

mean, this is the

15:59

the the problem with, I

16:02

guess,

16:02

drawing any equivalence between what

16:04

cops do and what journalists do. But

16:08

ultimately, that kind of journalism

16:10

boss has to you know, the the profession has

16:12

to be fair. It's part of its own self

16:14

policing that it insists it is fair. but

16:16

it also gets to decide when it

16:18

is being fair because it has the power to

16:20

publish. And that's

16:21

that's the case saying, no,

16:23

we have it we have it to our standards

16:25

the story and you can participate or not,

16:27

but we're going. And

16:30

that

16:30

it highlights that

16:33

sense

16:33

of the priesthood or the or the institution having

16:35

to hold itself to its own standards whether

16:37

or not people outside the building respect them or understand

16:39

them. Right.

16:41

Well, to me, it was just institute one form

16:43

of power, institutional, liberal institutional

16:45

power for lack of a better phrase

16:47

coming up against essentially

16:49

charismatic like almost evil levels

16:51

of charismatic power and

16:53

saying no, you're gonna have to actually

16:55

seed to this. Right? And

16:57

for me, that's powerful because to me, that is

16:59

the civil war among the civil

17:01

wars. One of the big ones that

17:03

we're currently fighting and everything's at

17:06

stake. Alright. It's it's she said it's in

17:08

theaters. Check it out. Let's move on.

17:10

It's time to reboot your

17:11

credit card with Apple Card.

17:14

Apple Card gives you unlimited cash back

17:17

every day on every purchase.

17:19

It's real cash you can spend right away.

17:21

No need to wait and wait

17:24

for rewards. Apply now in the

17:26

wallet app on iPhone to see your credit

17:28

limit offer with no impact to your credit

17:30

score. Subject to

17:32

credit approval, Daily cash is available via an Apple Cash

17:34

Card or as a statement credit. See

17:36

Apple Card customer agreement for terms

17:38

and conditions. Apple

17:40

Cash Card is issued by Green Dot

17:42

Bank member FDIC. Accepting

17:44

an Apple Card after your application is approved

17:46

will result in a hard inquiry, which may impact

17:48

your credit score.

17:50

Alright. This episode is brought to you

17:53

by Today Tics, TIX

17:55

your one stop shop for theater tickets with the

17:57

best value on tickets to Broadway

18:00

and beyond. Just download

18:02

the app or visit todaytics dot

18:04

com to find a show you want to

18:06

see. Todaytics has amazing prices for some

18:08

of the best theater out there,

18:10

and they also have a

18:12

huge cyber sale with savings of up to

18:14

fifty percent off. I

18:16

just have to say this one kinda

18:18

resonates with me. I'm from New York

18:20

City. Back in the day, I used to

18:22

queue up to get discount tickets

18:24

like physically you had to go somewhere. I know that's

18:27

impossible to imagine now in two

18:29

thousand twenty two, but physical

18:31

location. also had one of the more amazing experiences

18:34

Hamilton related. Everyone has a Hamilton

18:36

related experience. Those tickets were so hard to

18:38

get I'd somehow gotten them

18:40

and I was just in the line to go

18:42

get them. And I think they had a

18:44

ritual everyday they gave

18:46

away, like, the box office

18:48

just suddenly to said to someone you can have a ticket for

18:50

ten bucks. And that person, it was

18:52

like they'd won the Powerball.

18:54

Right? Like that excess. Well, you can get

18:56

a little piece of that ecstasy now, and

18:59

you don't have to queue up. You literally

19:01

could just go online and go

19:03

to TodayTics dot com.

19:05

And I think what's cool about this is that

19:07

you can get your tickets months in

19:09

advance or day of. You can

19:11

do either one. It's the flexibility And

19:13

not only that, it's not just for Broadway. Right? So

19:15

if you're in London, it's the West End. If

19:17

you're in other cities across the world,

19:20

Chicago, LA, D. C. and Francisco

19:22

Sydney, all of them obviously have

19:25

thriving, compelling theater communities.

19:27

Bing, bang, boom, right on your phone, right

19:29

on the app. suddenly you have tickets at a discount to go

19:31

see what you wanna see. So see that

19:34

show you've always wanted to see or discover

19:36

something new that you'll love just as much for

19:38

even less. go to todaytics

19:40

dot com slash culture

19:42

and use promo code culture

19:44

to get ten dollars off your first to

19:46

datetics purchase.

19:48

That's promo code culture

19:50

at today ticks. That's TIX

19:53

dot com slash culture

19:55

for an additional ten dollars off your

19:58

first ticket purchase.

20:00

That's today tips dot com

20:02

slash the altar culture.

20:04

Alright. Now is the moment

20:06

in our podcast. We talk business

20:08

dayness out, so I'll handle it.

20:11

Only one item of business tell you about today. It's our

20:13

SLAIT plus segment this week.

20:15

Jamele is with us. We thought

20:17

maybe we'd return to the topic of

20:19

Twitter. Elon Musk

20:21

obviously is going in several

20:25

directions with it at once. Some

20:27

anticipated, some in Peter,

20:29

we'd really like to talk to Jamal who's a

20:31

tremendously delightful gifted

20:34

Twitterer, Twitter. He'll

20:36

presumably tell us what Twitter now means

20:38

to him. what it's demise or slow

20:40

degradation might mean. And does he have

20:42

any red lines? Like, you cross the red

20:44

line, Jamel Buoy's out. He's

20:46

quitting quitting Twitter. Alright. If

20:48

you're a slate plus member, make sure you stick

20:50

around for that conversation at the end of the

20:52

show. If you are not as slate

20:54

plus member, you can sign up today at

20:56

slate dot com slash culture Plus.

20:58

Members get ad free podcasts,

21:00

lots of bonus content like

21:02

the sleep plus segment I just mentioned,

21:04

you'll get to hear members only

21:07

programming on other slate shows like slow

21:09

burn, political gap fest, all the good

21:11

ones. And remember, members

21:13

get unlimited access to the great writing

21:15

at slate dot com. You will never

21:17

hit a paywall if you're a slate plus member.

21:19

Never. I should also mention

21:21

you'll be supporting our work and the work of

21:23

our brilliant colleagues. These

21:26

memberships are very important for

21:28

Slate. So please sign up today at slate

21:30

dot com slash culture plus, again, that's

21:32

slate dot com slash

21:34

culture plus. Alright. Back

21:36

to the show. Alright. Well,

21:38

Fleishman is in trouble as an adaptation of a two

21:40

thousand nineteen novel about a collapsing

21:43

marriage. We begin in this telling

21:45

with He said, the version of the story

21:47

told from the point of view of Toby

21:50

Fleishman here played by Jesse Eisenberg.

21:52

In his least Toby was a noble victim

21:54

of a monomaniacally ambitious

21:57

woman, his wife, Rachel, played by

21:59

Claire Danes, in his

22:01

imagination we come to discover had become a

22:03

money and state of obsessed herodun.

22:05

While all he wanted, although he wanted

22:07

was to be a hero book doctor

22:09

and a humble dad. As the show progresses,

22:11

this premise becomes the object of a

22:13

rather intricate deconstruction by the

22:15

show's narrator who turns out to be Libby,

22:18

Toby's friend played by Lizzie Kaplan.

22:20

Shows on Hulu if I didn't say, and

22:22

it's an adaptation of a Taffy

22:24

Bradesse or Actner novel

22:26

from two thousand nineteen. Let's let's

22:29

listen to a clip. In the clip, we're gonna

22:31

hear Toby over dinner with friends.

22:34

describing what went wrong in his marriage.

22:36

Let's listen.

22:37

Divorce is like that old Bustelo game. You

22:40

know? You start your marriage with all

22:42

the discs white. Right? And then there's some black discs

22:44

here and there along the way. You know, you fight. But

22:46

ultimately, you laugh and it's fine because the board is

22:48

still mostly white. Right? But then

22:50

something happens and the marriage

22:52

falls apart and something the entire

22:53

board is black. Is

22:56

that how you play a fellow? They should probably change

22:59

the name a solo, you know? Yes. So now even

23:01

the good memories are, like, tinged with

23:03

darkness, you know, they're tainted. Like, they were run

23:05

from the start. Not all of them. Yes,

23:07

ma'am. All of them. Okay? Now look

23:09

back at all those memories like the fight you had on the

23:11

honeymoon, the way you couldn't agree on like a name for

23:13

your child, and suddenly they're no longer innocuous

23:15

fights anymore. Now they're foreshadowing.

23:18

I think when we get married, have no way to fully understand

23:21

what forever means. You

23:22

know? That's what I'm always saying. Mhmm.

23:25

marriages for suckers. How are you gonna know?

23:27

How are you gonna feel in three times the

23:29

amount of years you've been alive for?

23:32

Alright, Jamil. Let me start with

23:35

you. This was a novel. It was a very,

23:37

very voice driven novel.

23:39

As I've come to understand, the

23:41

narrator of that was sort

23:43

of doppelganger of the of the

23:45

author's stand in for the author. Not

23:48

only is easy to adapt,

23:50

they definitely went with voice over that

23:52

was the decision they that they made here.

23:54

What'd you make of this? For

23:56

being something for

23:59

being something that's like pretty much entirely foreign to

24:01

my experience. affluent white

24:03

people or whatever jewelry side. I don't know.

24:05

I don't know what the neighborhoods are.

24:08

You got

24:11

I'm gonna play up the fact that I'm

24:13

like a millionaire here. I'm just a I'm just a

24:15

humble country boy. I

24:18

really enjoyed it. I've I've I've really enjoyed the I've I've

24:20

seen the I watched the first three

24:23

episodes. First two. And

24:26

I really enjoyed it. I I like Jesse

24:28

Eisenberg. I I like him as an actor. I

24:30

like Claire Danes. I like the entire cast,

24:32

Lizzie Kaplan. is is

24:34

great as the narrator. And I

24:36

have been really

24:39

absorbed in to

24:41

work with this deteriorating merit

24:43

to this this marriage that

24:46

deteriorated and the the kind

24:48

of almost mystery of you

24:51

know, what specifically

24:53

precipitated this. In the very clear sense you

24:55

get from the beginning that

24:58

Eisenberg's character, mister Fleishman, It's

25:01

immediately clear that

25:03

his perspective on this

25:05

is very self involved,

25:07

and there is a lot that we do not

25:10

actually know and a lot not getting. And I find it

25:12

very compelling. And this

25:14

is not normally my cup of tea as far

25:16

as television

25:19

goes. but I found this a very compelling

25:21

watch. And I think again, I think all the

25:23

performances is terrific. I think Isaac Brake is

25:25

very good in this. Julia,

25:27

let me just turn to you. It's it's got a lot of challenges.

25:29

One of which is that, you know,

25:31

for the first couple of episodes, it may

25:33

not be entirely clear that you're

25:35

getting a highly interested subjective

25:38

account, Aitobi's account

25:40

of the marriage. I

25:43

mean, you you know, especially

25:45

because this voiceover

25:47

is a third party who's not

25:49

Toby. Right? So voiceovers tend to be

25:51

I mean, they're either omniscient or they're

25:54

they're heavily aligned with

25:56

a character whose vocalization

25:58

is through whom we're getting

26:00

the movie itself

26:02

or whatever the dramatic action itself. Here,

26:04

actually, there's a it turns out to be quite

26:06

a discrepancy. It doesn't really

26:09

come that clear in the first couple of episodes? Does it a

26:11

little disorienting? How'd you how'd you find

26:13

your way? Yeah. I so

26:14

I read the novel and enjoyed the

26:17

novel quite a bit. and

26:19

was excited about the casting for this. I feel like we have

26:21

to pour one out for Dana who who enjoys

26:23

talking about and looking at

26:26

the acting of and also the person of Jesse

26:28

Eisenberg as she has described on this

26:31

show. You know,

26:34

great cast totally fun,

26:37

interesting story. And I think your your

26:39

note of mystery, Jamal, is totally

26:41

dead on, like, what what worked in the book

26:43

and part of what propels this

26:46

story is the sense

26:47

of, like, it's a who done it. It's

26:49

a it's a psychological portrait of

26:51

a crumbling marriage, but reframed

26:54

as two mysteries, one who done it,

26:56

how did the marriage end and who's right and

26:58

wrong about its demise, and

27:01

also kind of where the fuck is she

27:03

because the precipitating incident is that

27:05

the is that Rachel,

27:07

the wife disappears. And

27:10

Toby is sort of bizarrely unworried about

27:12

it and just pissed and peeved about it

27:14

for a while before his friends

27:17

were like, maybe think

27:18

a little harder about that.

27:21

The

27:22

good narrowing did

27:24

not work great. for me. Because when

27:27

you have actors this

27:30

good, it's

27:31

kind of a bummer to

27:34

to not let them and

27:36

their instruments and their faces and their

27:38

voices tell

27:40

the story. So I'm I my

27:43

jury is out until I

27:45

watch

27:45

the whole thing, which I will because I find

27:47

it compelling. And, yes,

27:50

fancy

27:50

fancy New York

27:52

material status anxiety

27:54

dramas are certainly overrepresented

27:56

in Hollywood, but you know, they're not

27:59

it's not unfunded

28:00

or funny to see the elements of satire

28:02

there of the, you know, hedge fund

28:05

bros getting skewered in

28:07

their whiskey swelling, great

28:09

rooms. Like, that's perfectly fine

28:11

entertainment. So I'm

28:14

I'm the acting is so good

28:16

that I'm curious to see whether the

28:18

show can use the narrative the

28:20

the voice over which feels

28:22

a little overbearing the first couple episodes to pull off the

28:25

trick of the perspective shifts

28:27

that I know are coming from having read the

28:29

book. So I

28:31

don't it doesn't feel like it's working to me, but maybe

28:33

it's gonna work is -- Yeah. -- kind

28:35

of my verdict so far.

28:37

I will say that it's

28:40

not working for me after two episodes

28:42

in part because given

28:45

how you have all

28:47

these ingredients. Right? On the one hand,

28:49

you've got a social satire

28:51

of a brewery side, as

28:53

you say, just kind of so

28:56

a pitiless social satire of the

28:58

ultra rich in Manhattan. Right?

29:00

And then you've got this

29:02

kind of, you know,

29:04

put upon martyred

29:06

Neves, who's a doctor

29:11

whose place within that social

29:13

universe is drawn with enormous

29:15

amounts of care So he's shown at his

29:17

job as not only being a

29:19

doctor, but is going above and beyond in the

29:21

way the doctors scarcely do

29:23

anymore. He's he

29:25

understands that there's a holistic nature to

29:27

it that peptide matters really important that you

29:29

have to see the entire see

29:32

the entire narrative of a patient in

29:34

order to properly diagnose them. And he's a generous

29:37

and kind, a pedagogue and mentor.

29:39

It's not just about treating patients, it's

29:41

about minting new doctors who

29:44

have this same set of, you

29:46

know,

29:46

empathetic

29:47

skills in order to be a

29:49

genuinely good one. So At the

29:51

same time, he's derided as a

29:54

complete, like, absolute

29:56

lowest rung object of

29:58

pity in this world of the ultra rich

30:00

that he has access to. He's part of

30:02

by virtue of his kids private

30:04

school, you know, which is overpopulated

30:07

by this upper upper upper point

30:09

o one percent and by his wife who's made

30:11

it big in her career. But then you

30:13

have this problem of what's the relationship between this

30:16

satire, seems acute and accurate as if it's

30:18

intended to be a depiction. I mean, it's obviously an

30:20

exaggerated depiction. But, you

30:22

know, and this, like, deep

30:24

almost Henry Jamesian inter subjectivity

30:27

of multiple competing narratives.

30:29

One of whom, it's like,

30:31

why is it being narrated

30:33

by this third party friend. Like,

30:35

why has that friend decided? And

30:37

it it it's just it's,

30:39

you know and then and because you don't

30:41

really know that what you're gonna eventually get

30:44

is this sort of rashomon or Henry JMC and,

30:46

you know, deconstruction of anything

30:48

like the possibilities of of an

30:50

objective point of view. At first, you're like,

30:52

why is it just It

30:54

why is it so centered upon his

30:57

grievances? And why is she so horrible? And

30:59

why were they ever, ever,

31:01

ever together? I agree with you. It's

31:03

rescued by the acting. But

31:05

beyond

31:05

a certain point, it's definitely

31:07

got like, it is Gmail,

31:09

it is placing huge

31:13

stockpile of TNT underneath

31:15

the he said world

31:17

and you sense, okay, it's gonna

31:19

that fuses lip. But over the course

31:21

of two full hours, it's just

31:24

unclear how that's gonna unfold.

31:26

And by the end of the second episode,

31:29

I kind of lost my patients. I

31:31

think that's fair. I

31:31

think that's fairly fair. I

31:34

I like I like

31:36

the cast so much basically. And

31:38

I'm so sort of, like, intrigued about the kind

31:40

of, like, where is his wife question? But

31:42

that's really keeping me

31:44

That's keeping my attention more than

31:47

anything. Yeah. I think

31:48

the tension the the other tension which

31:50

which worked in the book and may

31:51

turn out to work in the show is

31:54

like the

31:55

satire of

31:56

the world is so tart and

31:58

funny in the book. I mean, even just

31:59

putting her finger on the notion that there is

32:02

this milieu in which being a

32:05

wonderful, unrespected, and well

32:07

compensated doctor is like a

32:09

tedious humiliation and the and the

32:11

wife characters constantly trying to goad him

32:13

into more lucrative and

32:15

unethical jobs. I

32:17

think

32:17

that's a funny observation. That's like

32:19

a that's a that's a sharp

32:21

knife blade satire. There's been plenty of satire

32:23

of

32:23

this world and the what was

32:25

the Nicole Kidman Murder, Hugh

32:27

Gran Sabadi one, the undoing. Mhmm. Mhmm.

32:29

You know, the level the acuity of the

32:32

observations in the novel is

32:35

very sharp and funny when stacked

32:37

up against you know,

32:39

many, many, many criticism,

32:42

critique, satire of this world. It's really

32:45

good. And I sense

32:46

in the making of the show this tension

32:49

of so many lines

32:50

in the book are just so good and so

32:52

funny. Why not

32:53

just have the narrator say them?

32:56

but I I do think that the

32:58

show might feel more ambitious

33:01

and exciting if it had actually

33:04

found a way to use the medium of

33:07

television to convey some of

33:09

that observation of

33:11

the world. Because the other thing

33:12

that it raises is you've got this

33:14

narrator who is giving you a

33:16

lot. She's dishing with you a lot. She's telling

33:18

you a lot about this world, but

33:21

she's withholding the

33:23

reveal of how her perspective is

33:25

shifting as she's understanding

33:28

what's going on. So the

33:30

relationship with the narrator character is a little wild.

33:32

And then Lindsay Kaplan is a

33:35

great great actress. I mean, she's always

33:37

good in everything and sort

33:39

of under know, get steady

33:41

work and is always respected and yet is still

33:43

a

33:43

little undervalued. She's got a bit

33:45

of that, like, judy Greer energy,

33:47

like like, you know, to to find

33:49

more things for Lizzie Kaplan to do. So to see her playing something

33:51

so complicated is really exciting.

33:54

And then having the feeling that she's just kind

33:56

of like reading the audiobook to

33:58

me while while Jesse Eisenberg, like,

34:00

panta minds around the Capri side,

34:02

is like, I kinda want more.

34:05

but I will keep watching. Like, I'm into it.

34:07

And I I think I'm curious

34:09

to see I feel like there's so

34:11

much skill

34:12

later so much skill in the

34:14

cast

34:14

then I'm

34:15

interested to see how they land the plane.

34:18

Interesting.

34:18

I will say this that the

34:20

sort of preview after episode

34:22

two of what's to come bore

34:26

almost no relationship to the two

34:28

hours I had just seen that that kept

34:30

me intrigued. It's like,

34:32

wait, what? I can't put

34:34

this two and two together, a couple of

34:36

with four. So maybe I'll stick with it

34:39

anyway. It's Fleishman is

34:41

in trouble It's on Hulu. It

34:44

really remarkable performances. Check

34:46

it out. All right.

34:47

This episode of the

34:49

a slate culture gap fest is brought to you by

34:51

master class, the place where you can

34:54

learn singing from Mariah

34:56

Carey, comedy from Steve Martin

34:58

filmmaking from Marty, Marty,

35:00

Scorsese, and that much more.

35:02

With masterclass you can learn from

35:04

the world's best minds anytime anywhere

35:07

and at your own pace. You can learn how to write anything from

35:09

a book, a screenplay, or just a

35:11

letter. I could use help with that

35:13

one. Learn how to make a

35:15

dinner worthy of an Michelin star or just how to

35:18

make really good scrambled eggs

35:20

with over a hundred and eighty classes from a

35:22

range of world class

35:24

instructors. That thing you've always wanted to

35:26

do. Get it out of the bucket list.

35:28

Get it in the IRL. Do it

35:30

for real. it's closer

35:32

than you think. I've been

35:34

looking over these names and it is

35:36

quite a tough choice here, but I'm

35:38

gonna pick one if I had

35:40

to take, if I had to choose one master

35:42

class to start with. I gotta

35:44

go with Jotam Auto

35:46

Langhi. I mean, those, first of all, I've been to

35:48

a couple of his restaurants. They're

35:50

just fabulously, beautifully

35:52

presented meals

35:55

and his cookbooks are

35:57

era defining. Really, I think in some

35:59

ways, they're the equivalent of, I mean, I don't

36:01

know, fill in the blank. Right? Like,

36:03

the music cookbook, or, you know, joy of

36:06

cooking, or Deborah Madison. Right? These

36:08

these, you know, during a

36:10

period of five to ten

36:12

years, every kitchen you walked into had auto

36:14

lengue cookbook at it and still does. We're still in

36:16

that era. Anyway, he teaches modern

36:18

middle eastern cooking for

36:20

master class what

36:22

a conqueror of that guy is deservedly

36:25

so. So check it out this

36:27

holiday. Give one annual membership and

36:29

get one free. go to

36:31

master class dot com slash

36:34

culture today. That's master

36:36

class dot com slash

36:38

culture terms apply.

36:40

Alright. The slate culture

36:43

gap vest is brought to

36:45

you by Progressive. What's the one

36:47

thing you'd purchase with a

36:49

little extra savings? a weighted blanket, smart

36:52

speaker, the new self care trend you keep

36:54

hearing about. Well, Progressive

36:56

wants to make sure you're getting what you want

36:58

by helping save money on

37:00

car insurance. Drivers who

37:02

save by switching to Progressive

37:04

save over seven hundred dollars

37:06

on average and customers can qualify for an average of

37:08

six discounts when they sign

37:10

up. Discounts like having multiple

37:12

vehicles on

37:14

your policy Progressive

37:16

offers outstanding coverage and award

37:18

winning claim service. Day or

37:20

night, they have

37:22

customer support twenty 473 hundred sixty five days a

37:24

year when you need the most

37:26

there at their best. A

37:28

little off your rate each month goes a

37:30

long way. Get

37:32

a quote today at progressive dot com see why four

37:34

out of five new auto customers recommend

37:37

progressive. Progressive casualty insurance

37:39

company and affiliates

37:42

National annual average insurance savings by new customers

37:44

surveyed who saved with progressive

37:46

between June two thousand twenty

37:48

and May two thousand twenty one

37:51

Potential savings will vary.

37:53

Discounts vary and are not available in

37:55

all states

37:58

and situations. Alright. Well, the author of the

37:59

essayist and novel is Joan Didion went from

38:02

admired to iconic. She went to

38:04

some place mega

38:06

in the last decade or so of

38:08

her life is fitting an icon,

38:10

relics, fragments of the cross,

38:13

lots of ensure her stuff.

38:16

In reality, we're talking lamp,

38:18

sofit tables, China, napkins,

38:21

books, and yes, saline

38:23

foe, tortoise shell sunglasses were

38:26

sold at auction. They were gathered

38:28

down at sums faster

38:30

than anticipated. considerably more

38:32

than anticipated.

38:34

Jamal, I've never canvassed you

38:36

on your Joan Didion feelings. I almost

38:38

wanna start there. Do you have any

38:40

history with her as a writer, any special admiration

38:42

for her? How do you feel about didian? I

38:46

it's it's

38:46

gonna mark me as tremendous

38:50

uncultured. I have never read any Joan

38:52

Didier, and I have no opinions or feelings

38:54

about her. I have, like, zero complete

38:58

absence of

39:00

thought. We could skip that by

39:02

the way. I don't know, Jamil. No. No. Keep that in.

39:04

Keep that in. Okay. Okay. Good. Good. Good.

39:07

Thanks. I feel like I feel like I appeared to be

39:09

too eridite and I need people to know that

39:11

my brain is empty of

39:14

many things. This is this is how

39:16

you

39:16

this is how you've done it. This is how you've

39:18

mastered all of

39:19

American history and

39:22

and much of modern journalism and had so many interesting all

39:24

of film history. It's just by

39:26

leaving out Joan. Yeah. Yeah.

39:31

There we go. Alright. Well, let me let me try a different

39:33

angle then. You know,

39:36

there's it seems to me

39:37

the great virtue of books is that

39:40

any one addition or

39:42

copy of a book is just like another so long

39:44

as the words are the same. Right? It's not true of

39:46

a Picasso

39:48

painting or for anything performance based, but literature has this

39:50

universality and mobility to

39:52

it. It it doesn't it's not

39:54

very object based.

39:56

Right? Like, And so in some

39:58

sense, isn't there something a little

40:00

weird and primitive about

40:02

venerating an author for their

40:04

words? Right? And yet, somehow

40:07

investing their stuff, like just their their brick and

40:09

brick and brick in some

40:11

instances with this value

40:13

and monetary value

40:16

at that? Or am I just being kind of

40:18

puritanical here? No. I think it

40:20

makes a

40:20

lot of sense, actually. Because we

40:22

do that with all sorts of

40:25

figures Right? You know, like, we we we we look

40:27

at presidents, you know, presidents who are who

40:29

are famous, important, whatever for what they

40:32

do, for maybe what

40:34

they say. for heavy action, not so much for their things, but

40:36

the the artifacts of a president

40:38

have a lot of value to people. They're, you know,

40:40

they're basically like secular

40:42

relics in a lot

40:44

of ways. And I think here as

40:46

well be it's precisely

40:48

because did the MSO famous for her work,

40:50

precisely because

40:52

people have drawn so much

40:54

from her work that her her stuff,

40:56

her things, take on out

40:58

to become objects of fact nation.

41:01

Maybe we can divine something about

41:04

what made her mind

41:06

work in the way it did

41:08

from not just what she owned, but how

41:10

she used it, how it was placed, like, all

41:12

these sorts of things

41:14

about about the objects around her. And I

41:16

think I mean, I do think that makes a lot of

41:18

sense. Like, just looking around my

41:20

house right now. I'm, like, right

41:22

next to where I'm recording now is my

41:25

I have two bookshelves of, like, blue rays on

41:27

them and just sort of how they're organized,

41:29

like, all that stuff, like, does tell you something about me.

41:31

It tells you something about how

41:33

my mind works. And

41:36

I I have to imagine

41:38

that that is especially true

41:40

of someone like Vivian.

41:42

The thing she owned where they

41:45

were relative to, you know, worship work in their house or

41:47

whatever, they tell you something about her, and it

41:49

makes total sense to me that

41:51

this would become but people would be

41:54

people would want to own this

41:56

and would want to covet this.

41:58

The thing

41:58

that I keep thinking is like the

41:59

only thing I wanna read

42:02

about this auction is like the essay Joan Didion would

42:04

have written about it.

42:06

Because first

42:08

of all,

42:08

I think you're right that we

42:10

have this association with everybody, people collect,

42:12

you know, baseballs, that their icons

42:15

have signed and touched, like,

42:17

the sense of that closeness of possessing an

42:20

object that was used

42:21

or touched by someone you revere.

42:23

Like, that's that's

42:24

quite common and not that

42:26

surprising. And then the fact that so

42:28

many

42:29

people wanted to possess her sunglasses that

42:31

they sold for, I think, twenty

42:33

seven thousand dollars is maybe a

42:36

testament to the breadth of

42:38

her fan base and the wealth of some of

42:40

them. But

42:42

she was so so

42:45

able in her

42:46

writing to describe cultural

42:50

phenomena in

42:50

ways that were part lucid

42:53

and funny and very clear, but also to

42:55

then ascribe to them like gigantic

42:58

sweeping sentiments about the

43:00

decline in fall of humankind or this hat

43:02

and the other, and I'd be so interested. You

43:04

know, she she

43:04

both wrote smartly about America,

43:08

its relationship with itself,

43:11

its direction, its fixation on sort of

43:13

the the material in the manic, and then

43:16

also so smartly about grief and

43:18

remembrance. And I'm so

43:20

curious which

43:22

of

43:22

her, you know, whether she would interpret this

43:24

through the lens of human

43:26

connection and mourning or whether

43:28

she would interpret this through a darker

43:32

lens of, like, American kind of

43:34

materialism and missing the

43:36

point. Like Mhmm.

43:37

And, you know, the

43:39

the auction proceeds are going to charity.

43:41

They're going to fund the

43:42

historical Society of Sacramento, which

43:44

I'm like, you

43:45

know, curious, I mean,

43:48

a follow-up story for a California based culture department, if

43:50

anybody knows one, is probably to figure out

43:52

exactly what the Sacramento historical society

43:54

is gonna do with

43:56

these proceeds. And

43:58

the proceeds are also going towards Parkinson's

43:59

research. So it's hard, you know, it's hard to say that this is

44:02

all, like, you know, for enriching

44:04

the heirs or anything. It seems like a

44:06

perfectly fine and exercise, but I just I don't know. The thing

44:08

I found pointed about it as someone who is

44:10

both a deep admirer

44:12

of Joan Didion's work and also someone

44:14

who feels

44:16

slightly suspicious of the,

44:17

like, the giling way in which she made

44:20

arguments.

44:20

I just wanna know which argument she

44:23

would make about this because I think

44:25

it could go so many interesting ways. And I think that to me is

44:27

like the testament to a

44:30

writer worth

44:31

tangling within your mind is like,

44:33

I don't know what she would have said, and

44:35

that's kind of part of what was exciting

44:37

and interesting about her work to me.

44:39

Yeah.

44:39

I I think the genius of diddien

44:42

I mean, it's so it's so

44:46

complex. that it I don't want to pretend to sum it

44:48

up with one phrase

44:50

or little pat, you know,

44:52

formula, but I do

44:54

think that serious part of her

44:56

genius is, you know,

44:58

she was able

44:59

to, you know, write for

45:02

example, in the sixties about

45:04

the general nervous breakdown of

45:06

American society while making

45:08

her own emotional fragility

45:12

a perfect synecdotally for it. Right? It was like she was the

45:14

part and there was the whole

45:16

and the tour in this constant and

45:18

dynamic relationship to

45:20

one another. So she was

45:22

both able to do, for

45:24

example, what mailer did, which was kind of I

45:26

mean, she never foregrounded herself the way

45:28

Norman mailer did, but she made herself

45:30

a part of her own narrative in a way

45:32

that felt socially relevant, which is

45:34

just the fucking golden

45:37

chalice. Right? And at the at the same time, she

45:39

was very playful and very cunning or the

45:41

people around her were or I'm sure it

45:43

was both. But, you know,

45:46

she did not only invest everything she wrote with her

45:48

own persona and aura.

45:50

It was enhanced by photographic

45:52

images. She was the,

45:54

you know, the you

45:56

know the lens loved Joan Didion.

45:58

Right? And that image of her, the

46:00

indelible image of her in front of

46:02

the Corvid stingway.

46:04

I think she's wearing the sunglasses in it or whatever. I

46:06

mean, it's, you know, you

46:09

didn't have trouble picturing Joan

46:11

Didi and the person when

46:13

you read Joan Didion's word word

46:16

on the page. And I think the

46:18

essence of the the

46:20

kind of you know,

46:22

lock of the saint terror or fragment

46:24

of the cross as always. In

46:26

possessing this object, I will

46:28

transfer the aura to me.

46:30

And that to me what I don't like about that

46:32

is that that's the whole point

46:34

of having written the stuff. Right?

46:39

It's like that's the essence of reading. Right?

46:41

It's like it's like this

46:43

intimate way in which the

46:45

words, like, literally the the

46:47

the stream of another person's voice becomes

46:49

your own consciousness, which

46:52

is only reading does that,

46:54

not radio, not plays

46:56

not

46:56

anything. Right? And

46:58

that's where the aura gets transferred and that's

47:00

what the aura is in some sense to say

47:02

that that adheres in specific objects

47:05

maybe I just have a lacerating, you know,

47:08

puritanical streak to me. But but

47:10

Jamil, for some reason, I

47:12

can't help recoiling

47:13

a little bit

47:15

at this. I I don't

47:17

know. III

47:20

don't.

47:20

I totally understand

47:22

the appeal of wanting to own

47:24

something that belonged to someone you

47:26

admire and even

47:27

being willing to spend quite

47:30

a bit of money on it.

47:32

You know, if if

47:36

if if if I somehow came into an

47:39

enormous sum of money and I

47:41

learned that, like, on Ricardo

47:44

Purcell's, like, m two was, like,

47:46

available for auction I would

47:48

totally buy it. I would

47:50

totally own it to to have, like,

47:52

maybe be able to get a sense of the

47:54

man's genius. Right? Sort of,

47:56

like, II1 hundred percent, understand

47:58

and sympathize

48:00

with that with that

48:02

impulse. It doesn't

48:02

strike me as materialistic. I

48:05

mean, this strike me as being in some sense, like

48:07

a little spiritual. Like a

48:10

the funny

48:12

thing about medianity, but like being modern humans is that we

48:14

often think of ourselves as, like, so

48:16

much more sophisticated than

48:18

people who,

48:20

you know, kept

48:22

relics around to pray to or whatever. But

48:24

we do the same thing. We do

48:26

the same thing in our own way

48:30

mediated through the specifics

48:32

of a particular time in place. And

48:34

this is all this is what this is to

48:36

me. This is that

48:38

for the very wealthy. Yeah.

48:40

You know, it's funny, Jamal. I follow you on Instagram, and

48:42

sometimes on Instagram, you sell

48:45

old clothes like sweaters

48:48

or blazers. And I bet some

48:50

people buy those blazers from you

48:52

because they admire your

48:54

style, which is

48:56

not inconsiderable.

48:56

But I, like, bet there's somebody out there who is an aspiring

48:58

writer who, like, I don't know,

49:00

like, feels

49:00

good about having a

49:03

Gemal card again and gives

49:06

that gives them, like, a little bit of inspiration

49:08

and it's, like, maybe, you know, I'm gonna I wanna

49:10

find my voice and my

49:12

expertise and figure out how I can

49:13

put my wisdom into the

49:16

world. Like, I I don't know. Maybe that's like

49:18

an imaginary thought

49:20

poem, but you know, part part of the

49:22

I have to imagine that some of your

49:24

fan based people who love your writing or

49:27

photography and the people who follow you for

49:29

your perspective on the world

49:31

are

49:31

not just buying your used sweaters because

49:34

they're like, I need a sweater and that's a good deal. And

49:36

I like sweater. Like, some

49:37

of the jhameliness of the sweaters must be part of it. Right? Yeah. Yeah.

49:39

I

49:39

mean, I'm sure that I'm I'm I'm I I've

49:41

never thought about that, but I'm I'm one hundred percent

49:43

sure that you're right

49:45

about I've named at

49:46

this too. Like, my mom and

49:48

sister and I cleaned out a bunch of my

49:50

dad's possessions. He died in twenty twenty

49:52

one and we went through a bunch of them this summer and I took he

49:55

just had a great he was like

49:57

a dapper prep and had

49:59

an understated style, but just had like

50:01

a big collection of men's

50:04

shirts for weekend sort of

50:06

subtle flannels for for

50:08

dress and he liked to he liked to

50:10

pink and he liked to peach and he liked to subtle

50:12

plaid and just this

50:14

collection of shirts that I picture him in. I

50:16

have pictures of him in.

50:17

I received hugs from

50:19

him in. And my sister and I

50:21

had this like magical day of kind

50:23

of giving them up and we we tried them

50:25

all on and they kind of look good on both of

50:27

us in a menswear way and each

50:29

shirt knew which of us it was for. Like, we didn't fight about

50:31

any of them. Like, it's just clear as soon as we both

50:33

put them on. Like like the shirts chose us.

50:35

Right? Like this collection

50:38

of shirts divided themselves up in this afternoon of trying them on.

50:40

And I've been wearing them a lot, and

50:41

they just feel nice. And that's obviously

50:43

different having having an object

50:44

that belonged to someone you knew

50:48

and loved intimately as someone who you admire and know

50:50

only as an idea or a mind from

50:52

afar, but I like the

50:54

generosity

50:54

of of

50:57

of of

50:57

kind of not pathologizing it and just sort of

51:00

saying, like,

51:00

yeah, good good on you, person

51:02

who aspires to

51:04

jones wisdom and hatter and remove in

51:06

her sunglasses. I'm like good on

51:09

you,

51:09

Jhamel Jhamel sweater

51:12

consumer. No.

51:13

Why not? Why

51:16

not? Alright. Well, certainly

51:18

if

51:18

you purchased

51:20

any of the aforementioned items we'd love

51:23

to hear from you. Otherwise,

51:26

let's move

51:28

on. Alright. Now

51:29

is the moment in our podcast. We tell

51:32

you about another podcast, and we

51:34

have, Dana Stevens, is

51:36

with us. to do just that. Dana, what

51:38

what do we got? Don't ask TIG is an advice

51:39

podcast hosted by comedian

51:42

TIG NITARO. Tig

51:44

doesn't have all the answers, but with help from guests like Kristen Bell,

51:47

Cheryl Lee Ralph, and Paul Rudd, they'll

51:49

offer up honest and usually

51:52

hilarious advice for life's many

51:54

issues. They'll answer your

51:56

highly relatable questions like, how do

51:58

you exercise bad vibes from

52:00

an inheritance given by an

52:02

evil relative? How do you snap

52:04

out of a crush on your therapist? Most importantly, what's the best way to ask

52:06

out the cute cashier at your local Trader

52:10

Joe's? Listen. We

52:12

can't promise it'll be good advice, but it

52:14

will definitely be a good time.

52:16

From American public media, listen to

52:18

don't ask TIG wherever you get

52:20

your podcasts.

52:20

Alright. Now is the

52:22

moment in our podcast when

52:24

we endorsed Jamal. What what do you

52:26

have? I I have not gotten in the

52:29

mail, but on the way, but it's

52:31

the criterion release of Spike

52:33

Lee's Malcolm x. It's it's

52:35

A4K restoration.

52:37

So it should've if you scan from the original

52:39

camera negative, sort of like remastered the whole nine

52:42

yards. I'm really looking forward to

52:44

watching it. and

52:46

I'm just recommending it because I think

52:48

I I think biopics have, like,

52:50

fallen out of style for the most part.

52:53

And and Malcolm X is,

52:55

like, one of the films

52:57

and Spike's, you know,

53:00

thermography that I think people

53:02

really respect but not necessarily everyone's really, like, stuck with it. It's like a three

53:04

hour it's like an epic. It's like three hours

53:06

long. But I I re I had rewatched it

53:08

last year

53:10

And I have seen it a couple times. And I came away once again,

53:13

struck not just by

53:15

the sheer ambition of it to tell

53:17

the story of

53:20

a very complicated man's life and like the kind and just the confines

53:22

of a film. But the

53:24

extent to which it is such and

53:26

I don't think Spike gets enough appreciation

53:30

for this. It's such a love letter to classic Hollywood.

53:32

Spikely, like, very clearly

53:34

loves Hollywood of the fifties and the sixties

53:36

and the forties. In

53:38

that film, has sort

53:41

of homages and

53:43

touchstones to those

53:46

decades. beginning as sort of like a inner shitty gangster

53:48

picture. It has not a musical

53:50

number, but sort of a big dance number

53:53

that's like very reminiscent of,

53:55

like, MGM in the fifties. In school

53:57

days, has that, like, phenomenal dance number that

53:59

it's just sort of, like, Spike. It feels like

54:01

to me saying, give me money to make a

54:04

big musical. But Malcolm X has some of that.

54:06

It's like a sick an early sixty

54:08

style prison picture. There are like

54:10

glimpses of Lawrence of

54:12

Arabia at And it's just like such it's

54:14

such a mishmash of styles and genres

54:17

and ambition that III

54:20

continuously find boy. Think it's like one

54:22

of the great American movies, like just,

54:24

you know, period. And for and

54:26

for my money, this is my favorite

54:28

Spikely film. So And so I'll say

54:30

you should watch Malcolm X if you've never seen

54:32

it. Just really, like, put away your

54:34

phone, put away your iPad, your laptop, like,

54:36

you shouldn't be doing that anyway when you're watching the

54:38

movie, but, like, for this, put it

54:40

away and watch the movie on as big

54:42

as screens he can

54:44

manage. And if you are a maniac

54:46

like myself and spend all your

54:48

money on four k blue rays, you should pick up the four

54:50

k blue ray because those things look

54:52

great. And it's, you know, it's

54:54

gonna be it's

54:56

often like the the best possible way to

54:58

experience an older movie like that.

55:00

Barring being able to see like a thirty

55:02

five millimeter print on on a proper

55:06

screen. I have

55:06

not seen that movie. It's a it's a hole in

55:09

my spikey cannon. So and

55:11

I will take your advice and

55:13

watch it ASAP.

55:16

Yeah,

55:16

absolutely. Alright, Julia, what do you have?

55:18

Okay.

55:19

okay I'm a start with the

55:21

question. Jamal, are you watching Andor? I

55:23

am watching

55:24

Andor.

55:25

Okay. My endorsement

55:28

is episode

55:29

ten

55:31

the and or of Andor. came

55:32

out a couple weeks ago. It's

55:34

a great episode in a bunch

55:36

of ways. There's a kind

55:39

of exciting rebellion set

55:42

peace. There's a fraught

55:44

tense drama among the financers

55:46

of the rebellion. But

55:50

also, The

55:51

episode ends with an incredible

55:52

monologue performed by

55:54

Stalin Sarsgard who plays kind of

55:56

the a

55:58

guy who's coordinating this the fledgling

55:59

rebellion. And

56:02

I don't think of the

56:04

Soliloquy as like a modern form.

56:08

Right? It's like Shakespeare write them. They are kinda

56:10

in older plays. Dialogue these

56:12

days is a bit more rattatat. And if you

56:14

are giving a

56:15

long speech, it probably means

56:18

your thing is fucked. Like, the script isn't good.

56:20

Like, in general, I think

56:22

the best

56:23

screenwriters avoid having

56:26

characters speechify because it so often

56:28

sounds wooden, feels wrong,

56:31

doesn't seem right. I'm

56:33

very curious for

56:34

your view of this a little, like, wait. Do my left

56:36

here caught up on on the season?

56:39

I loved it. I Who? My mind.

56:41

Like, I

56:42

feel like it should actually be taught

56:44

next to Shakespeare. So, like, it's

56:46

an incredible piece of writing and

56:49

performance. I gotta say, like, I I it's

56:51

it's incredible. I mean, I I don't wanna spoil

56:54

anything, but it's it's in

56:56

in short, it's him sort of, like,

56:59

He's meeting with a a

57:02

double agent in the

57:04

empire, and it's he's

57:06

asking this guy to sacrifice more,

57:08

like do more for the rebellion. And this guy's

57:10

like, what have you done for the rebellion? And

57:12

then he just, like, goes on this terror

57:15

where he's, like, He's basically sort

57:17

of like, I have destroyed

57:18

my inner life in order to

57:20

make this happen. And the lot some of

57:22

the lines in there are just unbelievable.

57:26

I've made my mind a sunless place.

57:28

I share my dreams with ghost.

57:30

You know, I live my life for

57:33

Sunrise that someone else will see. I

57:35

yearn't to

57:35

be a savior against injustice without

57:38

contemplating the cost. And by the time I

57:40

look down, There's no log or any ground beneath

57:41

my feet. What is my what is

57:43

my sacrifice? It's so good. And and

57:45

the other thing that's amazing about it

57:47

is how it

57:48

starts, and it reminded me

57:50

what's powerful about Goodcellularies, which is it's watching

57:52

someone you speaking to think.

57:56

And

57:56

in this case, it's sort of thinking a lot, and it's sort of thinking for persuasion. But

57:58

the first word so he

57:59

gets asked, what have you sacrificed? And

58:02

you watch Stalin Sarsgard's face,

58:04

and he

58:05

pauses and he

58:08

thinks And you're like,

58:09

for a moment, as watching, you're like,

58:11

oh, no. He stumped him. He's behind the

58:13

scenes. He's the Spin Master. He's not on the front. He he isn't sacrificing.

58:15

Like, you're you're like, is he about to cop

58:17

to not sacrificing as much? Like,

58:19

what you have this spent?

58:21

Like, what is his answer? Does he have a good answer to this

58:24

double agent who's who's got

58:25

such a hard lot? And the

58:27

first word he says

58:29

is

58:29

calm. Like the thing

58:31

he sacrificed first is calm. And

58:33

I don't wanna to spoil more about what he says

58:35

or overhyped too much, although too late

58:37

for that. But I'd

58:39

love starting with Calm. Because Calm, you're like, okay, Calm. Like,

58:41

for the rebellion,

58:42

like, maybe Calm is fine. Like, maybe it's

58:44

fine that you sacrificed

58:46

Calm. but it's it's calm,

58:48

kindness, kinship, and then

58:50

it goes into the -- Yeah. -- I

58:52

mean, also, by the way, Jamal and I

58:54

are, like, reciting this fucking speech.

58:56

from memory because it's so fucking good and also because I rewind it, rewound

58:59

it, like, three times twice.

59:00

I immediately rewound it. I was like, I

59:02

need to watch this again. But the the other line

59:06

that, like, stuck in my head, I burn my decency for

59:08

someone else's future. Like,

59:10

that that's not only writing, we

59:12

don't normally get, and like Jean Brassaud's

59:16

pure period or like a Star Wars. Right? Sort of just like That's

59:18

just like great writing

59:20

period. It's just like great It's

59:24

so evocative. And

59:25

it all works and it sound I'm sure it sounds over a rod if you're not caught

59:27

up, Steve, but it's so good. And I will I'm

59:29

gonna go on record here and I'm gonna call out miss

59:31

Dana while she's traveling for

59:34

her book. Somehow, we talked about reboot in this show in

59:36

rapid

59:36

succession and the takeaway I had is that

59:38

Dana thinks reboot is one for the ages and

59:40

andor is so so. and

59:43

I just want to say that as I dig

59:44

further into Andrew, this is the

59:47

wrongest opinion held on the podcast and Steve

59:49

talked about Taylor Swift and we will return

59:51

to this when she returns to the show. like, she got she like,

59:54

this show is so good. You have to be watching

59:56

it if you are not.

59:58

I feel like Jamal, this show is sort of up your alley. I think show is kind of

1:00:01

not up my alley. Take it

1:00:03

from the the joint force

1:00:06

here. You gotta be watching this. Like, it it's

1:00:08

just incredible what they're doing. That's my endorsement.

1:00:11

Thank you, Jamal. I'm so glad you

1:00:13

you also are a fan. fun

1:00:17

to mess with you. Oh

1:00:24

my god. I

1:00:28

I just can't compete with that. I

1:00:31

mean, I liked a

1:00:34

song. Mine's

1:00:36

a song. Good songs.

1:00:38

You boys

1:00:38

got good songs. Good

1:00:39

news, please. Don't sleep on your

1:00:42

son. Don't cut. I

1:00:43

just said to be chilly. It's

1:00:45

just not necessary. It's five.

1:00:48

I like this song. I don't know

1:00:50

much about it. A friend sent it to me. It is

1:00:52

called super rich kids.

1:00:54

It's new. It's from Trio SR

1:00:56

nine and a collaboration with Malik DeJudy, DJ0UDI

1:01:02

Judy. Choose music. I

1:01:04

really like Too

1:01:06

many jawrides in

1:01:08

Vantage drive car, too

1:01:10

many white lines and

1:01:14

white lines. super rich kids with nothing but good

1:01:16

kids and super rich

1:01:18

kids with nothing but fake

1:01:21

friends. I am

1:01:24

Alright. It's just a song.

1:01:25

It doesn't have she experience

1:01:28

resonances that I'm familiar

1:01:30

with yet. but

1:01:32

it's it's fun. Check it

1:01:34

out.

1:01:41

Jamal,

1:01:44

thank you so much for coming on the

1:01:46

show as always just it's just as

1:01:48

great to hear

1:01:50

from you. my pleasure as always. And, Julia,

1:01:52

thank you so much. That was fun. That was

1:01:54

good. So fun. You will

1:01:56

find links to some of the things we talked about today at

1:01:58

our Showpage, That's at

1:02:00

dot com slash culture fest, and you

1:02:02

can email us at culture fest at slate

1:02:04

dot com. Our introductory

1:02:06

music is by the

1:02:08

same composer. who did the

1:02:10

music for. She said Nicholas

1:02:12

Purtell. And andor, by the way.

1:02:14

Oh, by

1:02:16

the way. That guy is that guy is everywhere.

1:02:18

And our production assistant is Jessica

1:02:20

Baldorama. Our producer is Cameron

1:02:22

Drews for Jamel Buoy and Julia

1:02:24

Turner. I'm Steven Mecha. Thank you so much for joining us. We will see

1:02:26

you soon.