Filmshake Changes Host Sites + Final Thoughts on the Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood Filmshake Backlash
I'm excited to announce that Filmshake's episodes will now be hosted by Buzzsprout. This will offer Jordan and I some pretty cool stat-tracking opportunities, among other things. If you are thinking, What is a Filmshake, that sounds like it won't fit through the straws I use, Filmshake is a podcast I host along with my friend of 20 years, Jordan Courtney. Filmshake, sponsored by the East Baton Rouge Parish Library, is focused upon films, not ice cream-based beverages, though I wouldn't rule out us possibly centering an episode around malts in the near future. Our primary hook, and what sets us apart from many other film-centric podcasts, is that our episodes are short. They often run between 30-40 minutes. Not that there's anything wrong with the long ones. You should listen to those, too (you probably already do)!
Our plan has been to pick a six-episode theme, run with that, and then move on to another. Each episode, which is spoiler-free in that (we don't act like a couple of meanies and) we don't give away the ending of the film, gets a corresponding spoiler episode where we (do act like a couple of meanies and) discuss the ending to that respective film, as well as explore what we each believe to be that film's key moment. Our main episodes also include an ending general movie trivia battle, where the loser is forced to watch a film of the winner's choosing...usually a bad film. We'll then discuss that film for a few minutes in the next episode in a segment we like to call "The Fallen Warrior." I wish Jordan would stop winning those.
With that trusty format in hand, we've aired five main episodes, five corresponding spoiler episodes, and two bonus episodes. Sometimes Jordan and I break out of the asylum, find a movie theater, and watch something that's currently playing. Then we record ourselves talking about it, possibly in a longer format than a regular episode, and everyone gets mad at us. Those bonus episodes seem to come at about a six-week clip.
So, if your straw can fit either (wait, let me take a deep breath first...) Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, Stitcher, iHeart Radio, Overcast, Pocket Cast, Castro, Castbox, Podchaser, or the embedded app to the top right of this very page, you can drink down Filmshake, which is fortified with vitamin Jordan and mineral Nicsperiment, and tastes just like chicken or an FDA-accepted chicken-substitute.
And since I just mentioned our bonus episodes...
I haven't had the chance to respond to any of the criticism received by our most recent bonus episode, a critique of Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood, as most of the discussion of that episode occurred with our previous host's Facebook forum...and I don't have a Facebook account. Since I wasn't in on the conversation, I only have screenshots Jordan sent me to have a clue of what was going on, but there were three sentiments I saw expressed that bothered me to the point that I feel like I have to respond...and as both the comments there were shutdown, and I couldn't have commented there anyway...it's happening at homebase, baby! For reference, here is the episode:
1. Me using the phrase "That weird Paul Revere band..." could give listeners the impression I did not do the necessary research or preparation to host a show focused upon Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood.
I do not believe that this particular comment was meant to be taken personally...however, I must admit, I did take this comment extremely personally, and for several reasons.
The Nicsperiment, for the last decade, has been nearly 70% music focused (something basic research into me would reveal, as a link to this very website was provided in the episode description), particularly through a now eight-year deep-dive into my own music collection, with frequent references to my parents' musical tastes, as well as my time DJ'ing at an award-winning radio station. It's admittedly petty on my part to get mad about this, but even the vaguest insinuation that I in fact did not know or understand who Paul Revere or the Raiders were, or who any of the people Sharon Tate was hanging out with were makes me volcanically angry. I have The Mamas & the Papas record with the sticker on the damn toilet seat, and when my mom once noticed it in my collection, she commented that she spent an entire childhood summer listening to it...though she quickly outgrew it because it was kid's stuff. Soon after that she was doing watercolors of Yes albums. Yes, The Mamas & the Papas were in the movie. They don't make Sharon Tate a character. My dad has preached to me for years that Pink Floyd sold out after Syd Barrett left ("Five years before Dark Side of the Moon, pop?" "Yes! That doesn't even count as a Pink Floyd album!"). That doesn't have anything to do with Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood, I just wanted to tell that story. Of course I know who Paul Revere and the Raiders are. However, it's a bit unfair for me to get upset on those terms, as I'm taking the comment a bit out of context because of my emotions. Speaking of...
What was the context of my using the phrase "That weird Paul Revere band..." again?
21:50 into the episode, me talking:
"Her character (Sharon Tate) is only in the film as a red herring, if you're familiar with history. If you're not familiar with history, all you're going to know after watching this is "Why did he (Tarantino) keep showing that woman dancing, and closeups of her feet? She didn't do anything else, why did he keep showing those things? And she liked that weird Paul Revere band. What was up with that?" Hmm...context.
It's almost like I said "That weird Paul Revere band..." right after I said "If you're not familiar with history..." because I was giving the perspective of someone without a familiarity with the late 60's.
It's almost like I myself wasn't calling Paul Revere & the Raiders weird, but saying that someone not familiar with that time period might be confused as to why world-famous actress, Margot Robbie, was cast in a film simply to listen to a band called Paul Revere & the Raiders (surely a name that appears quirky to the uninitiated), dance at parties, and watch herself at the movie theater, while the camera focuses on her feet. A quick shot at a character's record collection does not count as character development. There's not a character here. Would a shot of a contemporary female character's Taylor Swift collection be a revelation in a film set in 2019?
We know nothing of Tate's inner life. All we know is she's trendy! That wasn't enough for Jordan or me. That's what our point was! If you don't care about that, and it doesn't affect your enjoyment of the movie, fine! But it's a valid, well-defined, worthwhile argument on our part! I don't know how we could have made it any clearer, and an academic breakdown of Paul Revere and the Raiders' connections to the Manson Family, which is not in any way explored or even mentioned in the film, has nothing to do with, and in no way negates our point! Why would we bring this connection up?! It's a fundamental bias to project your knowledge of that historical connection as a pro in this film that does absolutely no work establishing that connection!
2. Jordan and I did not take into account who Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood was made for.
When Jordan and I bought our tickets to see Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood, there was only one stipulation placed upon our purchase: we had to be aged 17 or older. Jordan is nearing his mid-30's, and I am nearing 40, so stipulation met. That's it. We had to meet an MPAA-mandated age requirement to see the film. We did not have to read history books, watch required documentary footage surrounding the Manson family or the year 1969. We didn't have to be alive in 1969, did not have to be Baby Boomers, or older Gen X'ers. This leads me to believe that movies aren't some exclusive club only meant for the knowledgeable worthy. They're meant for everyone. They're a method of communication from the author, in this case writer/director, Quentin Tarantino, to the viewer.
I'm coming into a dark room. You're going to tell me a story with sound and light. If you don't communicate clearly, that's on you.
Jordan and I just watched six Japanese films set in various time periods and cultures in which the two of us have never existed. Those films clearly communicated who their characters were, then developed those characters through plot, inciting our empathy. How conscientious of those filmmakers to think of Jordan and me. None of those things happened for us in Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood.
If you're fond of Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood's setting and atmosphere, and that's enough for you, fine. If you're a fan of the actors, and just like watching them hang out, fine. If you like this movie...fine! That's great! I'm glad you got your money's worth. I wish Jordan and I would have liked the movie. "Intended audience" has nothing to do with a failure to tell a coherent story with developed characters who experience an "arc." Tell that to Babe. I'm pretty sure that was made for kids, but anyone who doesn't empathize with that pig...
3. Jordan and I are a bunch of damned millennials who brought 21st century politics into a film about 1969.
First of all, Wikipedia says I'm Generation X. Second of all, how difficult is it to tell the difference between how a film treats its characters and how the cultural setting and time period in which the film is set treats its characters? Jordan and I are well-aware that cultural standards in 2019 are quite different from fifty years ago because we aren't complete drooling morons. To quote a culturally standard phrase from when I was in high school in the 90's, "No shit, Sherlock."
Did the cultural standards of 1969 cause 2019 Quentin Tarantino to write Sharon Tate, the only top-billed female character, as a personality-free cypher? Did the cultural standards of 1969 cause 2019 Quentin Tarantino to hyper-sexualize his shots of Tate (i.e., the tracking butt-shot Jordan mentions 24-minutes into our episode)? Did the cultural standards of 1969 cause 2019 Tarantino to write Brad Pitt's hero character as a wife-murderer who seems to relish in enacting as much explicitly-shown violence against Madison Beaty's character as possible? Did the cultural standards of 1969 inform 2019 Tarantino's foot fetish?
There's a damn difference!!! It's not that difficult to understand!
But wait, idiot Filmshake guy! you're thinking, or screaming at your monitor or cellular device. Those weren't the problems I had with your stupid episode at all. I had an entirely different set of problems with it! Okay, awesome! Or maybe you're thinking/screaming Those are exactly the problems I had, and your idiotic rejoinders only made things worse! Even better! Let's talk about it! Our e-mail address is on our podcast website.
I'll put it right here, and I won't even change the font: filmshakepodcast@gmail.com
Or, you can even blast me in the comments here. Or we can even talk about it civilly! Jordan and I welcome discussion. Our entire podcast is actually...GASP!...a discussion.
I will apologize for one thing, though. During the episode, I said cinemaphile. Cinemaphile. CINEMAPHILE. I am deeply sorry to all those I may have offended...including myself.
Our plan has been to pick a six-episode theme, run with that, and then move on to another. Each episode, which is spoiler-free in that (we don't act like a couple of meanies and) we don't give away the ending of the film, gets a corresponding spoiler episode where we (do act like a couple of meanies and) discuss the ending to that respective film, as well as explore what we each believe to be that film's key moment. Our main episodes also include an ending general movie trivia battle, where the loser is forced to watch a film of the winner's choosing...usually a bad film. We'll then discuss that film for a few minutes in the next episode in a segment we like to call "The Fallen Warrior." I wish Jordan would stop winning those.
With that trusty format in hand, we've aired five main episodes, five corresponding spoiler episodes, and two bonus episodes. Sometimes Jordan and I break out of the asylum, find a movie theater, and watch something that's currently playing. Then we record ourselves talking about it, possibly in a longer format than a regular episode, and everyone gets mad at us. Those bonus episodes seem to come at about a six-week clip.
So, if your straw can fit either (wait, let me take a deep breath first...) Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, Stitcher, iHeart Radio, Overcast, Pocket Cast, Castro, Castbox, Podchaser, or the embedded app to the top right of this very page, you can drink down Filmshake, which is fortified with vitamin Jordan and mineral Nicsperiment, and tastes just like chicken or an FDA-accepted chicken-substitute.
And since I just mentioned our bonus episodes...
I haven't had the chance to respond to any of the criticism received by our most recent bonus episode, a critique of Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood, as most of the discussion of that episode occurred with our previous host's Facebook forum...and I don't have a Facebook account. Since I wasn't in on the conversation, I only have screenshots Jordan sent me to have a clue of what was going on, but there were three sentiments I saw expressed that bothered me to the point that I feel like I have to respond...and as both the comments there were shutdown, and I couldn't have commented there anyway...it's happening at homebase, baby! For reference, here is the episode:
1. Me using the phrase "That weird Paul Revere band..." could give listeners the impression I did not do the necessary research or preparation to host a show focused upon Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood.
I do not believe that this particular comment was meant to be taken personally...however, I must admit, I did take this comment extremely personally, and for several reasons.
The Nicsperiment, for the last decade, has been nearly 70% music focused (something basic research into me would reveal, as a link to this very website was provided in the episode description), particularly through a now eight-year deep-dive into my own music collection, with frequent references to my parents' musical tastes, as well as my time DJ'ing at an award-winning radio station. It's admittedly petty on my part to get mad about this, but even the vaguest insinuation that I in fact did not know or understand who Paul Revere or the Raiders were, or who any of the people Sharon Tate was hanging out with were makes me volcanically angry. I have The Mamas & the Papas record with the sticker on the damn toilet seat, and when my mom once noticed it in my collection, she commented that she spent an entire childhood summer listening to it...though she quickly outgrew it because it was kid's stuff. Soon after that she was doing watercolors of Yes albums. Yes, The Mamas & the Papas were in the movie. They don't make Sharon Tate a character. My dad has preached to me for years that Pink Floyd sold out after Syd Barrett left ("Five years before Dark Side of the Moon, pop?" "Yes! That doesn't even count as a Pink Floyd album!"). That doesn't have anything to do with Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood, I just wanted to tell that story. Of course I know who Paul Revere and the Raiders are. However, it's a bit unfair for me to get upset on those terms, as I'm taking the comment a bit out of context because of my emotions. Speaking of...
What was the context of my using the phrase "That weird Paul Revere band..." again?
21:50 into the episode, me talking:
"Her character (Sharon Tate) is only in the film as a red herring, if you're familiar with history. If you're not familiar with history, all you're going to know after watching this is "Why did he (Tarantino) keep showing that woman dancing, and closeups of her feet? She didn't do anything else, why did he keep showing those things? And she liked that weird Paul Revere band. What was up with that?" Hmm...context.
It's almost like I said "That weird Paul Revere band..." right after I said "If you're not familiar with history..." because I was giving the perspective of someone without a familiarity with the late 60's.
It's almost like I myself wasn't calling Paul Revere & the Raiders weird, but saying that someone not familiar with that time period might be confused as to why world-famous actress, Margot Robbie, was cast in a film simply to listen to a band called Paul Revere & the Raiders (surely a name that appears quirky to the uninitiated), dance at parties, and watch herself at the movie theater, while the camera focuses on her feet. A quick shot at a character's record collection does not count as character development. There's not a character here. Would a shot of a contemporary female character's Taylor Swift collection be a revelation in a film set in 2019?
We know nothing of Tate's inner life. All we know is she's trendy! That wasn't enough for Jordan or me. That's what our point was! If you don't care about that, and it doesn't affect your enjoyment of the movie, fine! But it's a valid, well-defined, worthwhile argument on our part! I don't know how we could have made it any clearer, and an academic breakdown of Paul Revere and the Raiders' connections to the Manson Family, which is not in any way explored or even mentioned in the film, has nothing to do with, and in no way negates our point! Why would we bring this connection up?! It's a fundamental bias to project your knowledge of that historical connection as a pro in this film that does absolutely no work establishing that connection!
2. Jordan and I did not take into account who Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood was made for.
When Jordan and I bought our tickets to see Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood, there was only one stipulation placed upon our purchase: we had to be aged 17 or older. Jordan is nearing his mid-30's, and I am nearing 40, so stipulation met. That's it. We had to meet an MPAA-mandated age requirement to see the film. We did not have to read history books, watch required documentary footage surrounding the Manson family or the year 1969. We didn't have to be alive in 1969, did not have to be Baby Boomers, or older Gen X'ers. This leads me to believe that movies aren't some exclusive club only meant for the knowledgeable worthy. They're meant for everyone. They're a method of communication from the author, in this case writer/director, Quentin Tarantino, to the viewer.
I'm coming into a dark room. You're going to tell me a story with sound and light. If you don't communicate clearly, that's on you.
Jordan and I just watched six Japanese films set in various time periods and cultures in which the two of us have never existed. Those films clearly communicated who their characters were, then developed those characters through plot, inciting our empathy. How conscientious of those filmmakers to think of Jordan and me. None of those things happened for us in Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood.
If you're fond of Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood's setting and atmosphere, and that's enough for you, fine. If you're a fan of the actors, and just like watching them hang out, fine. If you like this movie...fine! That's great! I'm glad you got your money's worth. I wish Jordan and I would have liked the movie. "Intended audience" has nothing to do with a failure to tell a coherent story with developed characters who experience an "arc." Tell that to Babe. I'm pretty sure that was made for kids, but anyone who doesn't empathize with that pig...
3. Jordan and I are a bunch of damned millennials who brought 21st century politics into a film about 1969.
First of all, Wikipedia says I'm Generation X. Second of all, how difficult is it to tell the difference between how a film treats its characters and how the cultural setting and time period in which the film is set treats its characters? Jordan and I are well-aware that cultural standards in 2019 are quite different from fifty years ago because we aren't complete drooling morons. To quote a culturally standard phrase from when I was in high school in the 90's, "No shit, Sherlock."
Did the cultural standards of 1969 cause 2019 Quentin Tarantino to write Sharon Tate, the only top-billed female character, as a personality-free cypher? Did the cultural standards of 1969 cause 2019 Quentin Tarantino to hyper-sexualize his shots of Tate (i.e., the tracking butt-shot Jordan mentions 24-minutes into our episode)? Did the cultural standards of 1969 cause 2019 Tarantino to write Brad Pitt's hero character as a wife-murderer who seems to relish in enacting as much explicitly-shown violence against Madison Beaty's character as possible? Did the cultural standards of 1969 inform 2019 Tarantino's foot fetish?
There's a damn difference!!! It's not that difficult to understand!
But wait, idiot Filmshake guy! you're thinking, or screaming at your monitor or cellular device. Those weren't the problems I had with your stupid episode at all. I had an entirely different set of problems with it! Okay, awesome! Or maybe you're thinking/screaming Those are exactly the problems I had, and your idiotic rejoinders only made things worse! Even better! Let's talk about it! Our e-mail address is on our podcast website.
I'll put it right here, and I won't even change the font: filmshakepodcast@gmail.com
Or, you can even blast me in the comments here. Or we can even talk about it civilly! Jordan and I welcome discussion. Our entire podcast is actually...GASP!...a discussion.
I will apologize for one thing, though. During the episode, I said cinemaphile. Cinemaphile. CINEMAPHILE. I am deeply sorry to all those I may have offended...including myself.
Comments