Episode 637: LA Movies vs NYC Movies
In this episode, Tyler and David are joined by Jim Rohner to discuss Los Angeles movies and New York City movies.
Recent Theatrical Reviews
Recent Home Video Reviews
COMMENTARIES
PREMIUM EPISODES
In this episode, Tyler and David are joined by Jim Rohner to discuss Los Angeles movies and New York City movies.
Tags: battleship pretensionbpdavid baxfilmfilmsjim rohnermoviemoviespodcasttyler smith
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
More
as Tyler said, “New York is Awesome vs LA Sucks” – how many movies can you think of where a character says “I love this city!” about either of them? Many more NY examples.
The one that comes to mind immediately is Bringing Out the Dead – the partner film to Taxi Driver, where Cliff Curtis, as a drug dealer impaled on a metal fence (and possibly dying), yells “Goddamn, i LOVE THIS CITY!”
Also, that movie’s hilarious (in spurts, at least). Probably Schrader’s funniest film? Would love to hear it discussed more, but it seems largely forgotten.
LA Films you didn’t mention (unless i missed it):
Night Moves
The Driver
Fletch
Collateral
The Terminator/2
The Two Jakes (but it’s understood when you said Chinatown)
Marathon Man
Three Days of the Condor
NY Movies not mentioned (where the city is featured, not just the setting like Sully)
They Came Together (it’s the 5th character!)
The Warriors
Eyes Wide Shut (shot in London, tho)
Searching for Bobby Fischer
The Devil’s Advocate
Bringing Out the Dead
PS: Did you see the 2hr CSI that Quentin Tarantino wrote/directed?
whoops, Marathon Man & Condor belong in the NYC list.
We definitely mentioned Collateral and T2 but I’m pissed at myself for forgetting They Came Together. It really is like another character!
Was that the CSI with George Eads being buried alive?
– David
yes, George Eads got buried alive, Grissom a monologue about a toy from his childhood TV show fandom, and we even got a variation on the QT-famous “trunk shot”, IIRC. It was a pretty Tarantino ep, all in all.
it was a good ep. It was season 4 or 5, i think, by which point i’d given up watching the show, and it was enough to bring me back. I had no idea that Friedkin directed a couple eps, i might have to go find those.
A lot of my favorite movies named in this episode. I’ll add one more, Chantal Akerman’s documentary News from Home. A rich portrait of New York City and an incredibly poignant personal story that in its precise strokes leaves so much alluring open space that it practically can’t help but let the viewer complete the picture. I love it to bits.
I have to say I do romanticize pre-gentrification NY quite a bit. Immortalized in so many great films. Incredible art scene in its vibrancy and variety. The birth of hiphop, the CBGB’s scene, porno chic, Warhol Factory, Akerman, Mekas, Jarmusch, Sonic Youth, Basquiat…
Probably the greatest New York movie not mentioned is Martin Scorsese’s “After Hours.” It’s a supremely underrated classic, one of the director’s best. Have you guys seen that one?
On the topic of the election, I think a lot is going to change after the debates begin. I’d like to see Joe Biden try to defend his record when a dozen or so much more progressive candidates are running against him.
Current polling has Bernie Sanders not so far behind in California. Obviously he’s once again the long shot second place candidate, but if he can take some early states including California (which has bumped up its voting to much earlier this election), he definitely has a shot. Wouldn’t be surprised, however, to see some other candidates break out at the debates.
Jim definitely mentioned After Hours but it was near the end of the episode!
– David
I’m also incredibly upset with myself in retrospect for not mentioning In America
Also Whit Stillman’s Metropolitan. Man, why did they even have me on this podcast?
I was really surprised that Sidney Lumet wasn’t brought up for New York movies. Serpico, Prince of the City, Dog Day Afternoon, Night Falls on Manhattan, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead – all good stuff.
I was thrilled that you mentioned The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, though – that’s an all-timer.
Would have!….if I didn’t leave my notes in my hotel
Maybe I missed it, but did anyone see/mention Under the Silver Lake? It’s long and imperfect but I kinda loved it, and it clearly has a lot to say about Los Angeles.
A little late, but I feel compelled to chime in and disagree with David and the guest’s comments about the primary. Biden is currently polling in first place among black voters and Clinton won the black vote overwhelmingly during her primary campaign (it was almost 75% to 25%). So if David believes nominating those candidates was some kind of slap in the face to black voters, well, actual black voters seem to disagree with him and he should probably consider that before seeking to speak for them.
This notion that black voters were somehow responsible for Clinton’s loss is also dubious. The Black vote in 2016 was down about 5%, which isn’t great (the drop was less pronounced in Michigan and Pennsylvania), but that’s about on par with their turnout in 2004 and higher than their turnout in 2000 and throughout the 90s. In other words she did about as well as someone who wasn’t Obama was likely to do to turn out those voters. There’s only so much the party can do if they’re going to be that dependent on any single demographic.
Look, Biden isn’t my first choice either, but debates about the primary should be based in facts and not inside the bubble generalizations, and the last thing we need is another election where the candidate comes out of the primary having been demonized by divisive rhetoric.
I didn’t know about the less pronounced drop in MI and PA. That’s interesting.
I’m gonna end up voting for whomever the Dems nominate but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with pointing out how the party is changing faster than its establishment is.
– David