UW Film Club Podcast #44 – (500) Days of Summer

“The following podcast is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Especially you, Jenny Beckman.”

We’re deep into the summer of 2019, so we figured what better time to delve into Marc Webb’s directorial debut – the quintessential indie darling rom-com (500) Days of Summer! In this podcast, we talk about the current state of romantic comedy films in the mainstream, the film’s unique, twee aesthetic, as well as its polarizing perspectives – are we supposed to side with Tom or Summer? Find out what we think on the 44th episode of the UW Film Club Podcast!

On this episode: Cynthia Li and Jim Saunders.

You can find us on Facebook at /UWFilmClub, and on Twitter and Instagram @FilmClubUW. Make sure to rate, comment, and subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify, and Google Play, and tune in every Monday for a new episode of the UW Film Club Podcast!

UW Film Club Podcast #43 – The Art of Self-Defense

“This is your podcast. It is yours, and it’s sacred. There’ll be a $15 charge to replace a lost podcaster.”

Showing first in Seattle as a hit at SIFF 2019, The Art of Self-Defense broke through the festival circuit and has now hit its wide release. Writer/director Riley Stearns has crafted a film that starts out a story of a meek, passive accountant seeking self-defense training that quickly morphs into a biting takedown of toxic masculinity and false leaders. We talk about its unusual tone and dialogue, Jesse Eisenberg’s performance, and even include an interview from Stearns himself, all in the 43rd episode of the UW Film Club Podcast! Check it out now!

On this episode: Cynthia Li and Jim Saunders.

You can find us on Facebook at /UWFilmClub, and on Twitter and Instagram @FilmClubUW. Make sure to rate, comment, and subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify, and Google Play, and tune in every Monday for a new episode of the UW Film Club Podcast!

‘The Art of Self-Defense’ Interview with Director Riley Stearns

Way back in March, we saw the world premiere of The Art of Self-Defense at SXSW. The film centers on Casey (Jesse Eisenberg) who is determined to muscle up by joining a karate dojo after becoming the victim of a brutal mugging that leaves him shaken and traumatized. At the time, we praised it for its dark and humorous take on toxic masculinity, and how it’s a film that’ll “make you think twice before you caveman that beer in front of your friends.”

Fast forward two months and the film made another appearance at the Seattle International Film Festival, and along with it came writer-director Riley Stearns. During the festival, we had the opportunity to speak with the director and discuss where the idea came from, the process of scripting such a tact-sharp comedy, and whether or not he himself knows karate.

Below you’ll find a written transcript of the interview as well as the audio recording of our discussion with Stearns. The interview has been edited for clarity and readability.

G: One of the themes in The Art of Self-Defense deals with toxic masculinity and the absurdity of it all. Where did the idea come from and what set you in motion?

R: The initial feeling is one I think a lot of men have and one they aren’t willing to admit having and that is they don’t feel like they’re enough of a man. I didn’t feel like I was as masculine as other guys presented themselves as, and I didn’t know that I related to men in the same way that I was supposed to. I kinda wanted to explore what that meant.

That was also how i got into jujitsu without even realizing it. I started out as, “Oh I want to learn how to defend myself, and I’m super into watching MMA fights, but this jujitsu element seems really cool.”

The deep-seated thing in my head was that I don’t understand who I am. It came from a real place of wanting to deconstruct what it means to be a man, and tackle it in a super literal way. And if you present these things as literal as possible, then it can be easy to see how absurd it is.

G: The scenarios are very spot on. You talked about how literal it is at times. For example, not being able to learn French because it’s a feminine language. It’s like a hyperrealistic form of our own reality that’s not so far removed from experiences in normal conversation.

R: Yah, people have over the years said that sort of thing, and that’s why it’s so dumb. This is something we’ve heard before, but we’re gonna say it even more in the film — it’s gonna be louder. There’s a scene where — and I don’t think I realized it as I was writing it — when Alessandro [Nivola — Sensei in the film] is explaining masculinity versus femininity to Casey, he says the word masculine four or five times in the scene. It’s just hammering it home. It’s being super overt and that’s where the humor lies for me . . . being as on the nose as possible in some scenes.

In other scenes, you can be more subtle. People are very black and white about how they present their thoughts and feelings. Imogen’s [Poots — Anna in the film] character is the one who can present the gray area. Sensei is super on the nose. Jesse is just like a sponge that soaks up everything he is learning. Imogen gets to play devil’s advocate and fill the role of the audience. I liked exploring all those thoughts in a comedic way.

G: One other question I had was how early on did Jesse Eisenberg sign on to the project because he fits that role very well.

R: It’s so weird to think about it now, but at one point his name was brought up, and I said, “No he’s not right for it.” The initial idea was that Casey was supposed to be in his forties so it would be even more ridicules and sad that a middle-aged guy wasn’t feeling like a man. And when he signs up for something like karate, I thought of how ridiculous that would look — like jumping, kicking and punching along side teenagers in the class. I was really set on that age for a while, so when Jesse’s name was first brought up, I thought, “He’s not the right age,” but as we went down that path, we began to realize a lot of guys around that age didn’t feel like they could do the role.

I had one actor tell me in an email something along the lines of he didn’t want to play a weak character. That kind of struck me, and made me realize why I wanted to make a movie like this. Like, why is Casey considered weak? He’s just trying to figure out who he is, so why is that weak? He’s actively trying to better himself and figure out who he is for himself instead of letting expectations define him.

When Jesse’s name was brought up later on, it kind of just clicked. The fact that he got the script as well as he did, it was a no brainer, but at the same time, that also meant once he said ‘yes’ his schedule was very finite with regards to how much we could shoot with him. He was coming off a project and had another one starting at the end of the year after Self-Defense. He said he wanted to make it in late June or early July 2017, so the second he said that, we started prepping in Kentucky. I think we were in Kentucky in August 11th until September 11th.

So from the beginning of July to September 11th, that’s the amount of time we had with Jesse from him saying, “Ok, I want to do it. Figure it out,” and actually shooting. It was a 25 day shoot. It was fast and by the seed of your pants sort of thing, but we did it. It’s still insane to think that we were able to put everything together in the way that we did.

G: The film works in a lot of dark, dry pan humor. Do you have any personal inspirations that worked their way in there?

R: I don’t necessarily feel like I’m inspired by films while I’m writing. I want it to feel like a world with my own thoughts and views. I’d say in general that people who inspire me are Paul Thomas Anderson, Hal Ashby, Yorgos Lanthimos… I really respond to people who like to blend tones … oh, the Coen Brothers for sure. People who blend tones and aren’t afraid of making people uncomfortable for laughing at something really dark or uneasy. That kind of stuff is fun for me. In terms of tone, I definitely borrow from those people. I’m very inspired by them, but I definitely don’t try to give an homage to something or put other people’s shots into my movies. That’s just the way that I work.

G: When I was watching The Art of Self-Defense, the first thing I connected it to was Dr. Strangelove and how that situation is very similar to this film — that being a serious situation that’s set to absurdist escalation.

R: That’s super cool to hear you say. I actually hadn’t thought of that film with regards to this movie in a long time, but when I first put together a director’s packet and I was sending the script to certain producers to get the feel if people wanted to work on it, I did mention Dr. Strangelove as a film The Art of Self-Defense could be loosely inspired by tonally. I hadn’t thought of that in forever, but I remember that.

G: Tone management for a comedy is very important. Your film goes from an absurdist comedy to being pretty serious about its subject— it reaches a tipping point where it is no longer a funny. Spoilers, but Casey ends up carrying out the same acts of violence that were committed against him.

R: He becomes a tool for Sensei’s machine. It’s fun to play around with that . . . to have a character that you are relating to go down a path that you know is wrong and still hope that they come out on the other side in a positive way. Being able to play around with the darkness while they’re in it is fun.

G: How many revisions of the script did you do?

R: Zero. I don’t like to rewrite. It’s probably out of laziness more than anything. Faults [Stearns’ first feature] is a first draft. The Art of Self-Defense is a first draft. I say first draft as in the script is what it is. What is in the movie is on the page. That first draft gets modified dialog and situations change here and there, but for the most part, the shooting script is almost identical to the first draft. It’s not that I’m not thinking about it though. I think about a movie for up to a year before I start writing it.

That time is coming down because I just want to do more things, but I like to really figure out exactly what I want to happen— in terms of structure —and then fill in the blanks with writing. That’s the fun part, discovering fun things that happened or making a good callback. That sort of stuff isn’t what I think about when I make the story’s structure, but I usually let the idea percolate a while before I start writing. I’ve almost done all the rewrites before I start writing. It’s not just like I go in blind and be like, “Oh, he does this and then that which leads to this.” I know what I want to do, and then when I don’t do a rewrite, it’s because I’m lazy.

G: You usually hear stories about actors or producers who give input and then the script goes through rewrite after rewrite to the point where the original is a distillation of the original script.

R: I’m in a very lucky position where for two movies now, I’ve met producers who trusted my perspective and vision. Keith Calder and Jess Calder [producers on Stearns’ first feature] for Faults loved the script. That script is a first draft, and it ended up on the Black List that year — I think it was top ten for that year, what ever that means. People liked it and it was great. People would say, “Well, if I would do that script, I would need another ten rewrites.” Well, then you aren’t the right producer for it. I’m looking for the things I want to make and I hope I find people who want to do the same. When I send the script out, that’s the film.

Self-Defense was the same thing. I found Andrew Kortschak [producer on the film] and he got what I wanted to do, trusted that vision, and didn’t make me rewrite anything. The edit was where we go to collaborate. If something really isn’t working, that’s where we talk about it and have back and forths. But yah, if you want me to do ten rewrites on something, then we’re not gonna be the right team. I’ve gotten to the point now where I don’t have to worry about that. On this next movie I’m working on called Dual, I met these producers who are incredible and make really incredible movies. They are trusting me to be like, “This is the script. This is what we’re making,” and they’re not coming in and changing anything.

G: I don’t know how much you can say about it, but how different will Dual be from your prior works?

R: It’s definitely in the same vein. It’s more along the lines of Self-Defense than Faults in the sense that it is more heightened and pseudo-sci-fi. There’s a cloning element involved with a female lead. It’s its own beast, but still very dark and very comedic. I don’t think I would be able to make something that isn’t funny — not in an egotistical way — but i just like making stuff that’s funny, so I’m not gonna try to make something that is exclusively dramatic. I’m always gonna be trying to have a sense of humor about something. That’s something that’s always gonna stick in my work hopefully.

G: The comedic payoffs in this film are really good, especially with the finger technique punchline. When you are writing, are you threading these jokes into the film as you are writing it?

R: There’s two things that come to mind. It goes back to the idea of filling in the blanks after the structure is there. In Faults, there is a part in the beginning when the two characters get to the motel and one of them reverses the door knob so that the other character can’t lock herself in the bathroom. He reverses the knob so he has control of the lock. That was just something I had in my head for the narrative.

I didn’t think anything of it until later on when I got to a scene where the two were gonna have to be trapped in a confined space. I realized that would be how they’d be forced to talk. It was something that came about as I was writing. It wasn’t planned, but it became a cool callback, and I really love those.

Self-Defense has moments like that too, in particular that finger moment that you brought up. Without spoiling things for your audiences, there is a moment when Sensei is explaining his signature technique that his master never taught him. It seems so unrealistic, and in the moment as I was writing, I thought it was just this fun thing that I would figure out later. I myself believed the finger technique was real. Later on, I knew how the movie was gonna climax, and I had this epiphany moment where I could connect those two elements. It’s a callback that ended up informing the dialog after the fact. It made the original story be rewritten as a fake legend that circulates the dojo. Sensei believes it, but the grandmaster was probably lying.

That was something that came about in the moment. I like how you can have an idea about a character or a line of dialog, and then something happens later on that makes you rethink your motives or that character’s motives. All that kind of stuff is really fun to play around with and that’s where the experimentation comes into play with the writing process.

G: One last question, you mentioned it way in the beginning, do you actually know karate? You mentioned jujitsu.

R: I’ve been doing jujitsu for six years now. I go five times a week. Haven’t gone since last Saturday.

G: The junket messing up your scheduling? You’ve been on the festival circuit right?

R: I have, but I’ve been in L.A.. This is the first festival in a string of festivals coming up. I went to Maryland a couple weeks ago then this one leads into a lot of others. I was just sick all last week, so my voice is a little lower and weaker than usual, but it effected my training. I’m like addicted to jujitsu now. If I don’t after a couple of days, I start feeling a little weird. Right now, I’m just in the mood to go choke somebody out.

I would be training in Seattle, I just don’t think I have enough time. I’m here for two days, and then head back to L.A.. I’ll train there, and then in Oklahoma City hopefully, then in New Jersey. Internationally, there’s one in South Korea that my instructor told me about and it’s great. I don’t have to speak the same language, but we’ll understand each other through jujitsu.

Review: ‘Toy Story 4’ Is the Conclusion We Didn’t Know We Needed

When Pixar released Toy Story 3 in 2010, many of us, including myself, saw it as the conclusion to a long-running saga. So, to many, it came as a surprise when Disney announced in 2014 that Buzz (Tim Allen) and Woody (Tom Hanks) were returning for one more adventure. Toy Story 4 came to theaters on June 21, 2019 to prove once again that Pixar is the master of animated storytelling.

The plot this time around follows the cast of toys belonging to the young Bonnie, to whom Andy gave his toys when he left for college. Bonnie and her family, along with her toys and new favorite, Forky, head on a road trip where at a carnival, Woody encounters Bo Peep, his old love and a toy that was sold off years ago. From there, we are introduced to several new characters, as sequels tend to do, some of which are kind of hit or miss.

For one, Bo Peep (Annie Potts), who isn’t technically new but has been completely reinvented for this movie, is great. Her personality is wonderfully fun and her emotional and thematic role in the story is terrific. Giggle McDimples (Ally Maki), her diminutive cop partner, is another riotously fun character. In the same vein are Duke Caboom (Keanu Reeves), and Ducky and Bunny (Key and Peele). These characters are all delightful, in no small part due to their eccentric and smart casting. On the villainous side, however, we have Gabby Gabby (Christina Hendricks) and her posse of dummies. The former is a bit flat and her arc is a little bit cliché. The latter’s problem lies in the fact that they are genuinely unnerving. The issue here is not just that it might not make it as much of a family film, but that the tone set by these characters feels a little off compared to the rest of the movie (or even the franchise). As for the aforementioned Forky, I personally found him a bit weird as a concept (a toy that has recently gained consciousness and refuses to accept that is a bit macabre for Toy Story) but he’s definitely a good time on-screen.

Regardless of smaller gripes, each of these characters are at least at a baseline level of entertainment, made so by great vocal performances from the cast and consistently good humor throughout the movie. Additionally, the folks at Pixar certainly have no shortage of creativity when it comes to character design. With each installment they seem to keep finding different types of toys to make into characters and doing so with great success. With as big as the cast is by this point, however, it doesn’t seem like every character gets their time to shine. I don’t know what really could be done about this as it just seems to be a natural consequence of making sequels. That being said, Toy Story 4 still does as good a job as it can of giving every character as much interesting moments as possible.

The movie’s overall plot is very well written, despite some awkward pacing at a couple moments. It maintains the emotional lessons that Pixar is known for and delivers them in a way that is consistently engaging. In this regard, what I think Toy Story 4 does especially well is the structuring of its emotional tension. At the risk of very minor spoilers I’ll say that the key tension in the movie has to do with a difficult decision that must be made. This, I think, is incredibly potent. The tear-jerker of an ending comes not from simply a sad or happy circumstance, but due to the stress of making a difficult choice. In this way, Toy Story 4 ends on a naturally bittersweet note, providing a wonderful send-off to these characters. Above all else, this is what I love about this movie. In a franchise where every installment was as meaningful as the last, Toy Story 4 feels like a beautiful, satisfying conclusion to one of the best animated sagas cinema has ever seen.

4/5 STARS

Review: Political Ambivalence and Surrealism Collide in ‘Diamantino’

Have you ever seen giant fluffy dogs prance around pink cotton candy mist as you try to score a goal at the World Cup? No? Well me neither, but Gabriel Abrantes’ and Daniel Schmidt’s Diamantino has that and more. In a surreal depiction of contemporary Portugal, Diamantino is one of the weirdest films since Sorry to Bother You, and curiously, the film makes similar efforts to commentate on the social and political landscape it takes aim at.

The titular character is a world-class soccer player who is on top of the world until he isn’t. After missing a crucial penalty kick at the World Cup, Diamantino becomes a national pariah. Facing scrutiny, he goes soul searching and finds newfound purpose in adopting a refugee boy. The catch is that the refugee boy is actually a girl and she’s actually an undercover government agent secretly performing a tax audit on the superstar. All the while Diamantino’s twin sisters are selling him out to Portugal’s right-wing political party for nefarious purposes. Despite glaring signs that both of these farces are going on, Diamantino remains blissfully unaware, exhibiting a pure naïveté of the world around him as others influence and take advantage of him.

That synopsis is actually rather tame. Like Sorry to Bother You, this film’s weirdest elements are hidden behind spoilers, but rest assured, this film isn’t afraid to use its imagination. That imagination paints a satirical portrait of our own world despite being filled with unbelievable portrayals. Diamantino is a heightened, dumb celebrity with a genuinely good heart who is visually similar to Christiano Ronaldo. The twins are a pair of wicked stepsisters who are caricatures of money-grubbing family members. There’s a political party that literally uses “Make Portugal Great Again” as its slogan and makes calls to action for building a wall. The commentary is overt, but to the effect of creating a comical depiction of society, a depiction that is so honest that it makes you wonder if it’s even exaggerated at all.

The film has hints of something like Sullivan’s Travels (1941), but instead of a successful movie director pretending to be apart of the Depression-era homeless population, you have a football star adopting a Mozambique refugee, or as he naively callers her, a ‘fugee.’ Thematically, there are similarities between them that discuss the role of privileged individuals when a social issue arise. Though Sullivan’s Travels is more about Hollywood’s role in social commentary during the depression, Diamantino distills that film’s narrative backbone for its own angle on contemporary issues.

Is it the right thing for Diamantino to adopt one refugee when he is ambivalently letting a fear-mongering political party take control of Portugal and subsequently himself? That being, while he may feel validated for his good deed, he really isn’t helping the situation as a whole, a conclusion that Sullivan comes to in the 1941 film after trying to assimilate with the impoverished population so he can make a more authentic film.

I think Abrantes’ and Schmidt’s goal is to hold a mirror up to our own ambivalence. Diamantino is so clueless that he lets the political party take advantage of him. They gain power because of his own inability to see the world around him, so while he seemingly makes himself feel better for the one thing he did — which is genuinely something good — it ignores the bigger issue, and that’s the problem. The problem becomes so pervasive that the ambivalence results in Diamantino’s own …well… uh… let’s just say something happens to him because he didn’t bother to stop, look around, and abject to the conditions around him.

DIAMANTINO OPENS FRIDAY, JULY 19TH AT SIFF UPTOWN

UW Film Club Podcast #41 – Toy Story 4

“You can’t teach this old podcaster new tricks.
You’d be surprised.”

The long-awaited fourth entry in the Toy Story franchise is finally upon us! In this episode, we talk about the series’ legacy, the surprisingly mature philosophical themes, and everyone’s new favorite character, Forky! Did this fourth installment justify its existence? Find out on the 41st episode of the UW Film Club Podcast!

On this episode: Cynthia Li and Jim Saunders.

You can find us on Facebook at /UWFilmClub, and on Twitter and Instagram @FilmClubUW. Make sure to rate, comment, and subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify, and Google Play, and tune in every Monday for a new episode of the UW Film Club Podcast!

UW Film Club Podcast #40 – The Notebook

“Now, say you’re a podcaster.

If you’re a podcaster, I’m a podcaster.”

With its 15th anniversary just passing us, we take a look back at one of the most iconic romance films of our generation, The Notebook! In the podcast, we discuss its sustained social relevance and audience acclaim despite its mixed-to-negative critical reception, the film’s more problematic elements, and the holistic state of romance movies. Get ready to feel the love on the 40th episode of the UW Film Club Podcast!

On this episode: Jim Saunders and Cynthia Li.

You can find us on Facebook at /UWFilmClub, and on Twitter and Instagram @FilmClubUW. Make sure to rate, comment, and subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify, and Google Play, and tune in every Monday for a new episode of the UW Film Club Podcast!

Crystal Swan Interview with Screenwriter Helga Landauer – SIFF 2019

During SIFF 2019, Ivy Pottinger-Glass had the opportunity to sit down and talk with the screenwriter of Crystal Swan, Helga Landauer. During the interview, they discussed the historical context in which the film takes place, the collaborative process between Landauer and the director Darya Zhuk, and the personal connections to the film’s main character Velya. 

A full transcript of the film can be see found below, or you can listen to the whole interview as well! The written interview has been edited for clarity and readability.

Ivy’s review of the film can be found here.

I: I’m really interested in how your prior work focused on documentary filmmaking, and the creative switch between documentary and feature length filmmaking. What was your process and approach?

H: I’ve been writing for other projects, and this is what I do. Darya [Zhuk, the director of Crystal Swan] was the producer on several of my prior films. When she came to me and said she wanted to direct her first project, I was really supportive and pleased. 

I: Do you find the process between documentary and feature very different?

H: When it comes to writing, of course it’s going to be different. I feel when people make documentaries, they mistakenly think that if they have a subject, they can just film whatever happens and retroactively figure out how to structure the film. It never works. You have to have a screenplay. Even if deviate from the theme or subject, you will eventually change it, but if you have a sketch for a screenplay, it’ll have some coherence. Without it, the material won’t fit together. You’ll be like, “I wish I shot this,” and, “I don’t have enough of that.” It just doesn’t come together like you want. 

With a feature, it’s a different thing. You can change dialog and various things during production, but it’s much more streamlined and developed as something with a different level of precision. You pretty much what go with what you envisioned first. 

I: So you said you worked with Darya before. How was it working together to make the screenplay? Did you work collaboratively on the screenplay? 

H: It was initially her idea to write a story based on the situation of a phone call — which was a true story that happened to a friend of her’s. The initial idea of the story came from her. However, when you write a screenplay for a director, you always work together on the screenplay. You write a draft. You send it over. She comments on it. We talk it over. We think about what we need to add or take away from the scenes, but it wasn’t joint process from a writing perspective. It was in the realm of typical collaboration when writing screenplays for someone else. The screenplay is always for the film, for the director. It’s not like I envisioned it, it’s how she wants it.

I: How did you envision the central character Velya? Was that something you based on a conversation with Darya or something else?

H: I was about Velya’s age in the 1990s when I was leaving Russia. I didn’t live in Belarus. I lived in Moscow, so I went through a number of things myself. Being a young woman out of college trying to adjustment into this completely changed social and economic climate of 1990s Eastern Europe. 

Darya had a different experience in Belarus, and she was younger. I was trying to create a character that would be more connected to her experience. Someone that is based on her memories or occupation — which she actually was working as a DJ at the time. She was involved with different music at that time. She knew it well and it wasn’t my realm. I was trying to incorporate my experience, but mainly make the character that would speak to Darya first as a director. It was kind of like a hybrid between Darya and I.

I: I noticed that there was a sense of latent political unrest within the story. Do you think that it was symptomatic of Belarus is in the 90s?

H: Of course. It was a time of immense, sudden freedom, and also simultaneous restraint that came with the social changes. It was similar to other former Soviet Republics. We decided from the beginning that this should be a film about freedom and about different margins of that freedom … how people deal with it and how social changes work with each character we create. I was more for the stronger political underline. In the beginning and end of the film, I suggested that we take that message further, but Darya decided to make it her film, so at the end of the day, maybe it doesn’t come through as much.

I: I’m wondering what stories interest you now, and what ones you plan on telling in the future. Is there anything you have planned? 

H: I’m really fortunate that so far in my life and career that I’m working on projects I’m deeply interested in. I choose the subjects that would help me or take me further. Thinking about things that deeply matter to me. Although there are very different forms of that work, when I write a screenplay it’s more collaboration. At the end of the day, the film is a director’s statement. Not a screenwriter’s. 

Right now this year, I’ve written one synopsis that’s also taking place in the 1990s. I also wrote a feature screenplay for the whole 20th century around a historical drama. As of current, I’m developing the former film. The 1990s was a very important time for me, and I find that there’s so much to be explored during that time. Personally and historically, this period of transition for the country and me is something that I’m excited to explore.

I: I’m excited to see what you come up with next.

H: Oh thank you. Can I ask you a question? Do you find points of connection with this film? It’s a different countries and different times for you, but I’m really curious how Velya can be perceived by a young person. 

I: Even though I can’t relate to the cultural context, I still identified with this young woman who has all these dreams — there’s things holding her back, but nevertheless, she’s pursuing what she wants to do. I really related to Velya in that sense regardless of our differences. I found it to be a very engaging story not only because of our age similarities, but also the experience of a young person in general with restraints and yet all these aspirations.

UW Film Club Podcast #39 – SIFF 2019 Round Up (Part 2)

The second part of our SIFF 2019 round up is upon us! As we continue our discussion on the best films of the festival, we throw in interviews with Erin Derham on her taxidermy documentary, Stuffed, and we sit down with director Milena Pastreich & subject Choo Choo as we discuss their doc, Pigeon Kings! Get your last fix of SIFF until next year with the 38th episode of the UW Film Club Podcast!

On this week’s episode: Ivy Pottinger-Glass, Stephanie Chuang, Jim Saunders, Cynthia Li, and Greg Arietta.

You can find us on Facebook at /UWFilmClub, and on Twitter and Instagram @FilmClubUW.  Make sure to rate, comment, and subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts,  Soundcloud, Spotify, and Google Play, and tune in every Monday for a new episode of the UW Film Club Podcast!

UW Film Club Podcast #38 – SIFF 2019 Round Up (Part 1)

With SIFF 2019 coming to a close, we’re rounding up our favorite films from the festival and discussing them on this week’s podcast! We saw so many films at the festival that we’re breaking it up into two parts, but in this first half, we’re including our interview with Philip Youman on Burning Cane as well as our talk with Crystal Swan screen writer Helga Landauer! Dive into our jam packed episode now!

On this week’s episode: Ivy Pottinger-Glass, Stephanie Chuang, Jim Saunders, Cynthia Li, and Greg Arietta.

You can find us on Facebook at /UWFilmClub, and on Twitter and Instagram @FilmClubUW.  Make sure to rate, comment, and subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts,  Soundcloud, Spotify, and Google Play, and tune in every Monday for a new episode of the UW Film Club Podcast!