Chat: The Golden Coach

Tracy: Let me get my Golden Coach notes. They are sparse, seeing as the title pretty much tells you a bunch about the movie.
  In that there is a Golden Coach.

Natalie: Ha! Yeah, I have no notes.

Tracy: Okay, my first is "Slaves! Awesome!" so this is sort of where I'm operating.

Natalie: HA! Oh dear. This movie. I kept trying to wrap my head around the nationalities involved. So it was an Italian-style story with an Italian troupe of "actors" in a Latin American country of no name (although Wikipedia says Peru--I don't remember that) where they all spoke English except when a joke was being made about there being a language barrier and all directed by a French dude?

Tracy: I know! My second note is, and you know how unusual this is for me, "this shouldn't be in English." It seemed like a really strange mix. And some stuff was just too obviously a SYMBOL. Like, for instance, the golden coach. It did teach me a lot about commedia dell'arte, though. I looked it up after, and I guess it was associated with the rise of the actress as a profession, and the attendant possibilities for power, money, self-sufficiency, etc. So I guess that makes sense thematically. Because though this is another woman who is obsessed with jewelry and bad at having an affair, at least she doesn't take it so seriously.

Natalie:  I know! I was surprised that there were no subtitles. It felt strange. So, re: golden coach. Is this just a retelling of the Golden Goose fairy tale? And, huh, re: commedia dell'arte. I wish this were a more interesting movie about those things. Because, YES!, goodness, how many movies are we going to see about women who are terrible at affairs? Although with this past week's news about Petreaus' mistress . .

Tracy: Oooh. Remind me of the Golden Goose fairy tale. I thought the c d'a was angle was the most interesting, as it also appeared to be extremely racist. But yes! Maybe people are just terrible at having affairs and movies are reflecting that! What did you think of the "stage-iness" of the movie itself? The way the curtain kind of opened at the beginning? Reminded me of Wes Anderson a bit.

Natalie: The Golden Goose per wikipedia (because I couldn't remember the specifics): "The hero is the youngest of three brothers, given the nickname Simpleton. His eldest brother is sent into the forest to chop wood, fortified with a rich cake and a bottle of wine. He meets a little gray man who begs a morsel to eat and a swallow of ale but is rebuffed. The eldest brother meets an accident and is taken home. The second brother meets a similar fate. Simpleton, sent out with a biscuit cooked in the ashes of the hearth and soured beer, is generous with the little old man and is rewarded with a golden goose. The goose has been discovered within the roots of the tree chosen by the little gray man and felled by Simpleton.

With the goose under his arm, Simpleton heads for an inn, where, as soon as his back is turned, the innkeeper's daughter attempts to pluck just one of the feathers of pure gold, and is stuck fast. Her sister, coming to help her, is stuck fast too. And the youngest, determined not to be left out of the riches, is stuck to the second. Simpleton makes his way to the castle, and each person who attempts to interfere is joined to the unwilling parade ranging from the parson, his sexton, and two laborers.

In the castle lives the King with the Princess who has never laughed. But the despondent Princess, sitting by the window and glimpsing the parade staggering after Simpleton and his golden goose, laughs until she cries. Some versions include an additional three trials. Simpleton succeeds in all with the help of his little gold friend and finally wins the princess, living happily ever after."

J walked in at one point and said "Is that a dude in black face?!" Because one of the players had a mask on that did, in fact, give him a black face. Sigh. And, yeah, everything about the Latinos was racist. It didn't remind me of Anderson then but I see what you mean now. At the beginning it was kind of interesting; at the end it was just, really?


Tracy: I can see some parallels there--this thing that stands for riches being coveted by everyone. So, according to le book, apparently :this is the first in Renoir's loose theatre trilogy." I'm sure we'll have to watch the other ones eventually. Most of it is summary, but at the end it says "The movie's surface frivolity and farcical plotting camoflauge a mature, even melancholy film about the fraught relations between love, art, and life." I guess. Francois Truffaut called it "the noblest and most refined film ever made." That I'm not so sure about.

Natalie: Three?! Sigh. At least it's a "loose" trilogy. Apparently one is a French musical and the other has Ingrid Bergman--both already sound better than this one. I see the melancholy (more so than the frivolity really) but not anything noble or refined. Eh. I wouldn't keep it.

Tracy: Me either, since I know we're going to watch more Renoir before this project is over.

The Golden Coach (1952)

I don't normally write these intros but our intrepid intro writer is *already* on her Thanksgiving vacation-- Sigh. We won't talk about how jealous I am of that little fact--so I figured I'd give her a break and just write something sub-par and we'll get back to our usual tasks after the holiday.

This little French film about an 18th century Italian commedia dell'arte troupe in Peru was filmed in Rome, is apparently one of three of a loose trilogy, and was based on a French play. If you can wrap your head around all of those nationalities, toss in a golden coach (yep, an actual coach made of gold), a few would-be lovers of the female lead, and the fact that the French director is Jean Renoir (the son of THAT Renoir) and we're in for an interesting view.

Chat: All about Eve

Natalie: I can chat All about Eve if you want.

Tracy: Sure! So I think it's sort of appropriate that we're doing it this week, since watching it this time I kept thinking how much like a horror movie it was.

Natalie: It WAS sort of like a horror movie. There were a lot of "knowing" camera shots on Eve's face. Kind of like a horror movie might do with the killer.

Tracy: Yes! And this creepy liar, insinuating themselves into your life and into your house and nobody else being able to see what a monster they are. What did you think of how she is eventually brought to heel? I was sure that critic was gay.

Natalie: And the terror of the person being, well, terrorized while no one believes her. Total psychological thriller in some places. Yeah, eh, I was sure he was gay. While I liked her being put in her place and her lies being brought to like, I didn't like the rape-y force with which it was done. He wouldn't have done that if he were exposing a man.

That reads wrong--I meant Yeah, eh about the bringing to heel, not the gayness of the critic.

Tracy: It was totally rape-y! And doesn't something about the ending suggest that all professional women--or at least actresses--are replaceable parts, and that the only way for women to get real meaning is to get married? In some ways, the movie is so great for women because of the wonderful roles (including Marilyn Monroe's!), but it's retrograde too.

Natalie: The ending totally suggests that. As does Margo's retirement really. Not that she can't retire but she doesn't need to retire ONLY because she's getting married and dude will be there at 6am. I love the Marilyn cameo, well, not really a cameo since she wasn't famous yet; so, bit part. I agree--the plot movie does a lot to dispel the aging actress idea that says 30 and 40 something women can't be on stage but then it plays right into that. And, we don't get a married woman who works or does anything but meddle. Karen is a great character but she's the only married, educated woman we see and she does nothing but lunch and cause trouble.

Tracy: And take back her cheating husband! I know the movie isn't totally interested in whether they had to do any work to repair what happened with Eve, but Jesus. So do you think that Eve's name also is sort of anti-feminist? THIS is the essence of women?

Natalie: Do we actually know he cheated? I thought it was just Eve's lies. It seems like they would have had to do quite a bit of repair work. And then a lot of maintenance. Ooooh. Her name is a touch problematic. The move does nothing to say that her character is an abnormality and the end suggests it's completely normal for actresses at least.

Tracy: I guess we don't--I just assumed she was successful with him since she failed with Mr. Margot--and gay critic dude seemed to think so too. And I don't know--when he ran to her during the fake breakdown . . . but it is ambiguous. And yeah--I think the actress thing is important, which makes Marilyn's bit part important. It seems like there's no other way to be successful other than to instrumentalize yourself in that way, and that encourages the kind of lying (acting?) that Eve does.

Natalie: There's a strange look between him and Karen in the bedroom but I think that's all besides Eve's questionable info. Oh, yeah, gay critic dude. Interesting. Marilyn seems the more benign version. She knows what she's doing but she's not trying to destroy other people in the process. But, I guess Marilyn has the body to do things that way.

Tracy: True. I do have to say, like I said on the phone, I so love Bette Davis in this role (pre-taming of the shrew). She's so magnificent in her snarky rage.

Natalie: I LOVE Bette Davis in this role! I love her face and all of the close-ups. She has a magnificent control over her body and the way she shows emotion. Was she in Taming of the Shrew?

Tracy: Not that I know of--though she would have been GREAT--I just mean after she decides to get married, it seems like that great body and voice deflate a bit.

Natalie: Oh! That makes sense! But, Taming of the Shrew related, she and Elizabeth Taylor shared an amazing ability to portray anger on film--Taming and Who's Afraid for Taylor, especially.

Tracy: Yes. And not make it seem hysterical or weepy, but rather like a righteous storm. Incidentally, book reminds us that this film holds the record for the most female acting nominations (4!). The rest of the info is about how its a great movie about show business, witty screenplay, etc. Also says "its only flaw is Baxter" (Eve). I thought she did a decent job with a pretty impossible role.

Natalie: Absolutely--anger in a way that makes you uncomfortable and back away from the screen a bit. Hooray for female acting nods! How is Baxter flawed? I thought she did a pretty good job. I mean she's playing opposite Davis. Who's going to do that with as much force as Davis?

Tracy: Sounds like they had a problem with the character--"ambition in a womanly form" or something. But that seemed to be the point, yeah?

Natalie: Huh. Yeah. That seems the entire point. She looks innocent and sweet and therefore you don't expect the vitriolic conniving from her. And that makes her ugly in a way her face can't. It also shows a transition between the slightly problematic high school girl, Eve, and Margo.

Tracy: And what's interesting is that there doesn't seem to be a drop-off in talent. No one accuses Eve of being a hack, just a liar. Wonder if the problematic high school girl is any good either?

me: That's true. Eve is apparently incredibly talented and, now that she has an award, she won't have trouble getting roles. Maybe that's some of the commentary, too. That women HAVE to do this sort of thing in order to get into the game. Eve didn't have a prayer otherwise--the way Marilyn was pushed over by Eve and her connections.

Tracy: I think so. And I wonder what Margo had to do to get where she is.

Natalie: Right? It MUST have been a lot because her parents were ... farmers? shop owners? Something that wouldn't get her theater connections.

Tracy: Maybe that's why she cottons on to Eve before anyone else (that and she's trying to steal her man). So now I'm coming back around to thinking the movie IS feminist.

Natalie: Yeah, to give Eve a chance but Eve isn't interested in the slow apprenticeship and gets dirty to speed things up. That way it does seem more feminist. I think what it is is a lot more complicated than it seems. Which is interesting in an of itself. Also, we don't see the male oppressive machinery so much. We know the men are the playwrights and directors and producers and generally in charge but the guy with the money is malleable (just not reliably so), the playwright is a little flaky and attached to his wife's opinions, and the director is devoted to Eve. But what we see is how these men help the women they love/like, not how they oppress them...

Tracy: That's true. They might be clueless, but they certainly don't disrespect or devalue women. The way some people do. On Facebook.

Natalie: HA! I can't imagine of what you speak :) So, does that respect and value (the director and the writer, probably the producer, too, all know that it's the actress that makes their work famous) make it more feminist?

Tracy: For me, it's more the equal footing on which the women stand that does. So I guess the respect more so than the value. Because if it's just that the actresses add value to the product, that could be objectifying or dehumanizing, but it's more that everyone is co-creators in the artistic product, and everyone is taken seriously. Then people fuck up as people do, but at least it's not because "oh she's a woman and hysterical." I don't think anyone accuses Margo of that, even when people haven't realized the truth about Eve yet.

Natalie: That makes sense. No, I don't think anyone accuses Margo of being hysterical. The director does about his fidelity but that's a different matter.

Tracy: Yes. Which is really refreshing. So verdict = feminist and list-worthy for me. You?

Natalie: Me, too! I'm happy we got to see an enjoyable one!

Tracy: Yes!

All About Eve (1950)

"Fasten your seatbelts . . . " Say it with me, everyone, "it's gonna be a bumpy night." This rightly famous, and righteously sassy, line, comes from Bette Davis's aging, put still potent, actress Margo Channing in this classic film about women, show business, and ambition. The movie is loaded with juicy parts for women--the cutthroat manipulator Eve, Margo's good intentioned best friend Karen--even Marilyn Monroe makes an appearance! The film looks at what it takes for women to make it, and survive, as actresses, in a business run by (largely progressive and kind-hearted) men. It cleaned up at the Oscars, winning Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actor for George Sanders as narrator and take-no-prisoners critic Addison Dewitt. But the main attraction is Davis's Margo, whose anger and snark takes up the whole screen.

Chat: Gangs of New York AND Brokeback Mountain

Natalie: Wanna chat whatever movie we're supposed to chat next (and remind me what that movie is)?

Tracy: Sure! I'm thinking it's Brokeback/Gangs?

Natalie: Right--that sounds right

Tracy: So want to take Gangs first? I was excited to watch it again, and was taken with the first fifteen minutes, and then any part that Daniel Day Lewis was in.

Natalie: Ha! I did not watch Gangs again because I'd just watched it for the first time pretty recently. I liked it just fine but I'm beginning to suspect that I'm just not a Scorcese sort of girl.

Tracy: It's funny--I'm not a huge fan either, but there was something about this one that I was really taken with (along with Age of Innocence). It seemed a lot more lush and expressive than stuff like Taxi Driver or Raging Bull. Maybe I only like him when he's doing the past of New York?

Natalie: That's interesting. I tried to watch Age once when I was a teenager and just couldn't do it. I should try again (is it on the list?) now that I've read and liked the book. I liked the look and feel of the film for the most part but a lot of it felt really overindulgent to me, on Scorcese's part.

Tracy: (I'll go check.) Yeah, it was definitely flawed. There was too much Diaz, for one thing, and it tried to cover too much time. But it sort of played into some of my favorite literary tropes. You have these two men who are clearly living by an outdated system of honor, trying to settle their blood feud the way their fathers did, and that just doesn't work in the modern world. Also, it reminded me a bit of Faulkner--these huge Shakespearian/ancient Greek themes played out amongst these marginalized people in a relatively small community.

No Age of Innocence, btw.

Natalie: Those parts I liked and I very much liked the idea of it. Maybe if another director had done it . . . or with a crueler editor? Diaz needs to not be in movies. At all.

I'll just have to watch Age on my own I guess.

Tracy: It's also overindulgent, but beautiful, I think. And also has DDL! Plus, no Diaz! Apparently Gangs was a movie MS had wanted to make his whole career, and I could tell how much he loved it, but it still has these big problems. Accents being not a minor one.

Natalie: Oh the accents. Sigh. That MS wanted to make it his whole career makes sense and I can see it in the film. It's hard to tell your baby or have anyone tell you about your baby that it's imperfect or a touch too much.

Tracy: Exactly. So I like the spirit behind it, made me like it more than a much more accomplished film like The Aviator, but still, there's a reason I bought it but then didn't watch it until now. I'm not surprised or angry that it got dumped for Brokeback, and it's funny/interesting that yet again, we get two movies that sort of speak to each other, and about gender!

Natalie: Yeah, and why I didn't watch it again. We do have a lot of gender chatting going on this week! A lot of testosterone swirling around.

Tracy: Hold your nose! :) Brokeback was just as heartbreaking and lovely as I remembered. It had been awhile since I had seen this one as well, but again, we have these two men who are not in the right time, but in this case, they were too early.

Natalie:  HAHA! I remember seeing Brokeback in the theater but I don't remember it impacting me as much as it did with this viewing. Maybe it's because I was getting ready to go to the wedding of two gay men or the prevalence of the issue in the news or whatever else but, goodness, those two not being able to be together killed me. But I'm also always killed by people who love each other but can't be together--Guess Who's Coming to Dinner kills me even more because they're playing at being together.

Tracy: It's excruciating, especially when they turn on each other. And it sucks because Ennis has a point about the danger of their relationship, as proven by the possibility of the "real story" behind Jack's death, so they literally have no options, and their unhappiness radiates outward, particularly in Ennis's family. It's mean and unfair and really hard to accept. I guess just in terms of the movie as movie, do you feel the passage of time was handled well? Especially in terms of actors' makeup and such?

Natalie: No options at all and all of that juxtaposed against the daughter's engagement at the end--that she can have who she chooses. I didn't notice the make-up or anything else in a negative way but perhaps there needed to be a bit more. Those men were cowboys for some or all of their lives and would have been a tad more weather beaten I think.

Tracy: Yeah, and poor Jake always looks twelve, whether you slap a mustache on him or not. Oh! And it also got me with Jack's parents at the end.

Natalie: He does. They can't do much to age him. Ugh. The parents. The mother especially got me with her knowing looks and nods and just wrapping up the shirts to put in the bag like she completely understood. And I think she did--and accepted him anyway and loved Ennis for loving her son. Which was interesting because none of the other characters did that. Anne Hathaway's character may have had a clue at the end or maybe even before but we don't get much from her, much less compassion.
Tracy: That's true. It seems like the mom might have been the only one who would have accepted them, and we can all see how much power she has. Yeah. It's a tough one. But so gorgeously filmed. And featuring not-crazy-yet Randy Quaid!

Natalie: Gorgeously filmed. This is a good example of a film that loves and lingers on the landscape but doesn't over-do it. Ha! Randy Quaid--I skimmed right over the fact that that was him.

Tracy: Probably best! The book is mostly summary--talks about the "gay Western" aspect (and notes that Lonesome Cowboys did it first in 1969, but we won't be watching that). And then calls it "heartbreaking, honest, and refreshingly matter-of-fact" as well as drooling all over Ledger. Pretty typical. Although that 1969 thing reminds me of something fairly related--did you see/hear that story on NPR about a new book or article that says there's a difference between gayness and homosexuality, the former being a culture (Stonewall, ACT-UP, etc.) that is being lost? I just saw it on my newsfeed and meant to go back but haven't yet.

Natalie: That seems on par with everything else the book says. I haven't seen that article yet. That's interesting. I can see how there's a point but I might think that the culture aspect has just evolved because it doesn't have to do the same things it needed to do then--does that make sense?

Tracy: Yeah--1hJ and I were talking about it last night--again, out of both of our asses because I had read a 30-word summary and he hadn't heard of it at all--but right, that sort of up-front political activism might be fading now (though I'd be curious to hear his take on marriage equality). But if he's saying there's a right or wrong way to be gay, then that's troublesome--like current gay people are in straight-face or something? And it also leaves out lesbians and transgenders entirely. But again, I have no idea what he actually says.

Natalie: And the political culture has changed dramatically--because of that foundation there's no need to be the same culture. When the President says you're ok and he thinks you should be able to get married... But, yeah, I'd have to actually read the article.

Tracy: Me too. Just sort of a tangent. But are we for Brokeback bumping Gangs?
Natalie: Related tangent at least. I'm for it. I'd rather bump something else that was actually terrible instead of just indulgent but I do like Brokeback much much better.

Tracy: Agreed. And I guess it's not a one-to-one thing anyway, but I'm cool with Gangs not being in there. I have to do a lot of work to like it.

Natalie: Yeah, ditto and ditto.

Gangs of New York (2002) and Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Another head-to-head match-up, this time centering on two respected directors taking on masculinity and history. Gangs of New York was a pet project of Martin Scorsese's for years, and his look at the birth of modernity in New York City didn't light the critics on fire, but it did nab several Academy Award nominations, including one for a scene-stealing Daniel Day Lewis as Bill the Butcher. It also marks the beginning of Scorsese's love affair with Leonardo DiCaprio. Brokeback Mountain is auteur Ang Lee's adaptation of an Annie Proulx short story. Though mainly known as the "gay cowboy" movie, it says much about love, compromise, and two people meeting each other at the right place in the wrong time. It snagged best director for Lee, and many wailed that Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams were robbed for not winning in their respective categories. Should Gangs have gotten bumped? Does Brokeback deserve a spot? What are our feelings on Cameron Diaz? These questions and many more will be answered in our chat!

Chat: All the President's Men

Tracy:  So--ready to discuss non-denial denials and Deep Throat?

Natalie:  Absolutely! I've heard a lot about this movie--basically just that it's excellent--and, while I didn't dislike it, I was a tad underwhelmed.

Tracy:  Really? I was interested to hear what you thought coming to it the first time. I don't remember a time when I hadn't seen this movie, so I don't think I'm really objective. Did you think it was boring? Paced weird?

Natalie:  I guess part of it was that it felt more like a documentary in that I knew what was going to happen but it wasn't as revelatory as really good docs can be--with those gasp moments where you think "I didn't know that" or at least "I didn't think of that in that way." Maybe because everything was played at the same tone? I didn't dislike it but I wish I'd come away from it with something more than I knew/felt before--even if just about the actor's performances (I already knew those guys were great).

Tracy:  Yeah, I can see that. I wonder what it was like to watch it when it first came out--if there were those kind of revelations. I think I'm really in love with the idea of it. It seems to me like the perfect movie to watch on the Fourth. Like, these two dudes brought down a corrupt president, in a completely bloodless way, just by being curious and determined. And I LOVE Ben Bradlee/Jason Robards, who I'm convinced is the same person. "We stand by our story." I don't know--there's something about the actual history that is so moving to me that I love the movie just because it reminds me of it, I guess.

Natalie:  Yeah, I think that part you love the idea of is part of why it didn't quite work for me in reality. I, too, love the idea of taking down a powerful guy whose done serious wrong just because he's done wrong, not because of a political affiliation or vendetta. But I guess I didn't quite feel the passion--even if it were just for reporting--or the urgency of the situation that I like in other news-y movies/shows. And I know the passion/urgency was there--otherwise there would be no visiting people repeatedly when they couldn't get the whole story or freaking out about bugs in that great scene with the typewriter. I don't know. I think it's a great story to tell and one that needs to be told but it didn't quite catch me.

Tracy:  It is really subdued--even in palate, soundtrack, etc.. Did you see Zodiac? And if so, did you get the same sort of sense that it was lacking in passion/urgency? For some reason, I think of these two movies as being similar (though one group was successful and the other not), in that they're really dramatic stories told in a subdued way, where the focus is more on the workaday sort of process of doing this exciting thing.

Natalie:  Hmmm. I did see Zodiac. I guess I felt more urgency there because people were dying. I don't know. It's strange--on paper, this is a movie I like a LOT. Maybe if Paul Newman had been in it.

Tracy:  Hah! That helps with most any situation. Even though it wasn't a favorite, do you still think it should be in the book?

Natalie:  I would keep it because it seems important in the newsroom genre and while I know what happened, we're getting so far past the situation that people younger than us are getting a little vague on the facts. And, I do like that this version made it about the reporters, made those guys the focus and the heroes, as opposed to focusing on the villainy of the situation alone. And, it was well-made and acted and etc.

Tracy:  That's true--I love the way the news footage and stuff is marginalized by the constant typing of the dudes churning out the stories. On a non-movie note, I was really glad a) to have finally found out who Deep Throat was (not Hal Holbrook!) and b) that he got to be recognized for what he did before he died.

Natalie:  Ha! He wasn't Hal Holbrook?! I liked that aspect, too. It is a really nuanced film when I think about it. Anyway, the book is vague only giving some summary info and this: "The ultimate in investigative journalism pictures…continually pleases for the entertaining intelligence at work. It is among the most gripping, deft, and utterly compelling of thrillers, and this despite being based on well-known facts whose conclusion is never in doubt."

Tracy:  That is a non-review review!

Natalie:  I know!

Tracy:  What is "entertaining intelligence"?

Natalie:  I don't know. It took me reading that three times to figure out they meant work as a verb not a noun. Strangely written sentence.

Tracy:  Do you think the movie would be as lauded if it were about something not real? Same actors, cinematic choices, everything, but about a fake scandal? Something in me says no.

Natalie:  Hmmm. Yeah, I'd bet no. It seems an artsy choice when it's about something we already know about, and a folk-hero lauding choice when we already knows tons about the bad guy(s). Without the real-life widely-known info . . . it probably gets a little vague.

Tracy:  Yeah--then I think all the stuff you mention about the lack of urgency would become more pronounced. We the audience bring a lot of urgency with us simply because we know (hopefully!) what was at stake. Makes me want to ask my students to summarize Watergate for me tomorrow, just so I can be really depressed.

Natalie:  HA! While you're at it, toss in some 80s and 90s trivia so you can feel really depressed. They're super young.
They were playing NIN at IHop the other day. I guess it's "retro" and safe the play in public now?

Tracy:  Oh, that's just too upsetting. I heard Nirvana on the oldies station the other day.

Natalie::  HAHAHAHA! That's really terrible. But, true. Sigh.

Tracy:  So yeah--I guess we're both on board with keeping AtPM. Wonder if there are any other newsroom flicks it influenced. I mean, this was certainly not at all like His Girl Friday.

Natalie:  Yep, on board. That's an interesting question. It's not at all like His Girl Friday or anything from that period, I'd imagine. And everything that I know of that's contemporaneous or newer seems to operate on a faster pace and the urgency of the immediate story rather than the slow hard work of research without immediate gratification.

Tracy:  It seems almost anomalous as a newsroom movie, and it's not quite a political thriller either. Documentary-esque is probably the best way to describe it.

Natalie:  Yeah. It's strange that no one has copied it that we can think of. You'd think someone would.

 Tracy:  Yeah, especially since it's so acclaimed. So we've got the Brokeback vs. Gangs of NY face-off next, yes?

Natalie::  Not quite. Senso is up first.

Tracy:  Oh, right! My version of Ambien!   Have you watched it yet?

Natalie::  I have not. Maybe I will tonight and I'll get a good night's sleep

Tracy:  Hah! Will be anxious to discuss it with you.

Natalie:  We'll have to see how long it takes me to watch it depending on how many naps I have to take in the middle.

Tracy:  I'm telling you, it took me the better part of a day. But that was a no-coffee day, so maybe that was part of the problem!

Natalie:  AH. I'll make sure to load up on caffeine and sugar then.

Tracy:  Yes. It's a must.