Hot Takes with NotCorry

We are joined for our first EVER Hot Takes by the incomparable Corry. Corry is Scottish, and a super-star co-host of popular science based podcast ‘Sci Guys’. You can find him on Tik Tok, YouTube and Instagram with lots of crunchy nuggets for your brain.  We like Corry, send him love. Find Us Online - Twitter: https://twitter.com/QueerMoviePod  - Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thequeermoviepodcast - Website: http://www.queermoviepodcast.co.uk/  - Multitude: @MultitudeShows   Production - Hosts: Rowan Ellis and Jazza John - Editor: Julia Schifini - Executive Producer: Multitude - Artwork: Jessica E. Boyd   About The Show Queer Movie Podcast is a queer movie watch party hosted by Rowan Ellis and Jazza John. Join us as we research and rate our way through the queer film canon, one genre at a time. From rom-coms to slashers, contemporary arthouse cinema to black & white classics, Queer Movie Podcast is a celebration of all things gaaaaay on the silver screen. New episodes every other Thursday.   Transcript ROWAN:  Welcome to the Queer Movie Podcast, celebrating the best and worst in LGBTQ+ Cinema one glorious genre at a time. I'm Rowan Ellis and welcome to one of a couple of brand new types of episodes that we'll be releasing between our usual queer Movie Club episodes. This is hot takes, where I'll be joined by a guest who's come ready to go with three Queer Movie hot takes that they'll need to persuade me of in three arguments or less. I'm very excited to have my friend and shameless Marvel fanboy Corry as our first ever guest of the show. Hi, Corry. CORRY:  Hello, Rowan. And hello everyone listening. Wow. ROWAN:  What an intro. CORRY:  I love that your intro for me now is always Marvel, despite the fact that I'm not always talking about Marvel. I feel like I should have bought a Marvel thing today. ROWAN:  Here's the thing, if you send me 1000 voice memos about every Marvel show that's ever come out. That's going to be my go to introduction for you, you need to send me voice notes about whatever you want to be known for. In order for me to now change your introduction. CORRY:  You're you're already getting yourself in to so--you're you're, you're not going to enjoy all the voices I'm going to be sending you after this then unfiltered-- ROWAN:  No I love a good voice mate. So you are our very, very first guest on this new show. And you have not told me your hot takes in advance which I'm very excited to find out and and hear all of your reasonings and your ar--and your arguments and all that stuff. So I have no idea if I'm going to be fully in support of what you're saying. Or utterly outraged at everything you have to bring to the table today. So would you like to hit me with hot take number one? CORRY:  Okay. I think hot take number one is an easier one. Hot take number one, all love triangles would be improved, if the characters were bi, every single one. ROWAN:  I am obsessed with this already. Okay, so take take me through this. Give me Give me your argument. CORRY:  Okay. So, before I do little argument number one, I'll just give a little bit of an explanation. ROWAN:  Oh, yeah. Give me the explanation. CORRY:  When I say love triangle, I mean any love polygon. So any any number of shapes you want for people to be in love would be improved by all of the characters, not just some, all of the characters being by I'm saying this out loud. I'm realizing how ridiculous this sounds ROWAN:  No commit commit to the bit, Corry. CORRY:  Argument number one, is that it is more interesting, because there are more interactions, all right. You've got a normal love triangle. Okay, let's use Twilight as an example. Something that I haven't even I haven't even watched all the Twilight movies. Twilight, you've got Bella, you've got Edward and you've got Jacob, right? And Jacob and Edward both like Bella, but they can't like each other because they're straight boys. You know, it doesn't work. ROWAN:  Hmm. CORRY:  You've just got Bella is this intersection. But if Edward and Jacob were to like each other, boom. What if Edward and Jacob got together? That's another interaction there. It's a perfect way to sort of have some more. There's there's more going on there more character interactions. You don't have just people, "Oh, I hate you because you want the same girl that I want". It's a case of what if I want you too? ROWAN:  Ooh. CORRY:  More interactions, means more better. ROWAN:  Okay, so already, I have a a potential comment on the example that you've chosen to use, which is that and I think that because you haven't finished all of the Twilight movies or books. This might have passed you by and that's why you've chosen this particular example. But are you aware that this loved supposed love triangle is in fact a love square? And the fourth corner of the square is Bella and Edward's infant child. CORRY:  I'm look I'm well aware of Renesmee and I detest her name. I detest almost everything that happens is to do with that character. And I like to just pretend that she doesn't exist, because then we have to get into the conversation of does imprinting, did that come into love triangles? Is it not a love triangle and then an imprinting square if you add that in? I don't know. ROWAN:  So I think your hot take is your hot take is love polygons would be improved if everyone was bisexual, and there was no imprinting like in brackets asterisk, like also no imprinting. CORRY:  Oh, absolutely. I think also no Imprinting is it's just an addendum to my life at this point. That's how that's how much impact these films that I haven't fully watched have had on me, yes. ROWAN:  Did, yeah, just assume every hot take from now on both Corry's and you know what everyone who comes to the show has an asterisk, that's also also no imprinting. And I fully support that I've got no arguments here. CORRY:  Fantastic precedent to set. ROWAN:  So okay, hi--hi hit me with your second argument, cuz you're making a strong one so far, this does seem like it would add add to the drama add to the connections. CORRY:  Okay, good, I'm glad. I've built this one, just I I've actually structured this one, I think quite well. So the first argument is more interactions, but more interactions means more outcomes, okay. So if there's more outcomes, then you you're left guessing like, what's going to happen? Is Edward going to end up with Jacob? Is Bella going to end up with Edward or Ja--? Who knows? We don't know. There are more outcomes. And so you don't you know, usually when you're watching a film, you're like, Oh, well, this character is obviously gonna end up with that character. But if there's a love square, gosh, you've got so many different interactions and people can people can end up with each other. Also also, you can have the coveted polycule. You can have a little get a little thruple going on there as well. So many things happening. You left guessing you don't know films just become far, far better. Because there's so many more options to choose from. You don't have to go with just like, you know, the first boyfriend or the other one the bad boy that comes in. In the second film. Again, I'm talking about Twilight. I hope that I'm being accurate because I haven't seen it. Well, maybe the Hunger Games. What if Gale and Peeta ended up together huh? ROWAN:  Hmm. CORRY:  That'd be interesting. What if Katniss just left because she doesn't care about either of them. That would make more sense. ROWAN:  You're not wrong it would, it in fact would. My favorite part of, I can't remember if it's in the films, but in the books when she's trying to decide between them. She functionally is like, Okay, well, this one bakes bread. But this one hunts, but I can hunt. But I can't bake bread, I guess it's Peeta. And yeah, I feel like that would be maybe improved if the boys had had other options. And just waiting to see whether  she needed someone who could bake bread or hunt more. CORRY:  We--this is because I think this is a really a really good example as well. I'm glad you brought this up, because I'm pretty sure that well, he bakes bread and he hunts is in the book, because there's not really a huge love triangle in the book. It's more focused on, you know, the PTSD of having to kill numerous children. ROWAN:  Mmm mmm, Of course, of course. CORRY:  Yeah. Which the film interestingly chose to set aside in favor of which hot boy do I want. Now if the film chose to set that aside in favor of which hot boy do I want? But also, do the hot boys want each other? Perfect. It it's so much better because which hot boy do I want would absolutely take over your life in place of that PTSD from-- ROWAN:  From the Hunger Games. CORRY:  --getting rid all of those kids. Yeah. ROWAN:  This is very much reminding me of you know those puzzles where there's a shape and then in the shape, there are triangles. And it's like how many triangles in this shape? And at first-- CORRY:  Yeah. ROWAN:  --I think there's just one triangle and then there's so many more. I feel like this is like there's so many combinations you could go to because we're only talking right now about Edward, Bella and Jacob or Katniss, Gale and Peeta. But you could have Katniss, Gale, Peeta, Edward, Bella and Jacob. CORRY:  That's I've got I've got one I've got I've got one who like all the stops. ROWAN:  Okay, take me-- CORRY:  A Midsummer Night's Dream. ROWAN:  Huh. CORRY:  Boom. Every single person falling in love with every single other person across gender lines. ROWAN:  Incredible. CORRY:  And then ending up together in the end. Wow. Perfect. Even get Bottom in there. Amazing. ROWAN:  He, yeah, obviously. I doubt there was no question that the that Bottom was going to be part of his equation. But Bottom human or or Bottom donkey? CORRY:  I think the top was donkey, the bottom was human. ROWAN:  There we go. It's all-- CORRY:  Right? ROWAN:  --all of the above. This, this is making a lot of sense to me. To be honest, I kind of wanted to find some kind of hole in your argument. But ultimately, it's just making sense to me. And I think that as well, because you you added in there polyamory I feel like that adds another level to it. Which I only appreciate more. You know what I mean? Like this is all this is all making sense. Okay, I guess here's a counter argument. Are we tired of love triangles all together? Is there a hotter take where we just take love triangles off the table? CORRY:  I thought this, I'm glad that you've said this. Because I've got argument number three. ROWAN:  Hit me. CORRY:  Which is, I think a direct answer to this. The reason that love triangles are boring. We don't want love triangles anymore. It's because there's no stakes. It's which pretty boy will you choose? Which pretty girl will you choose? Non-binary people don't come into this because non-binary people aren't in films. But if if we have every character in a love triangle be bisexual, there are more stakes. Because of the two things I've said already. The more interactions and more outcomes. There's more at stake here. There's more to lose, there's more to gain. It's way more interesting. It's way more exciting. The only reason love triangles are boring though is because we've got to see which which straight couple is going to be straight. But if they could all end up together, perfect resolution, everyone's happy and no one sad. It's so much better. ROWAN:  Have you seen this particular hot taken action before? Do you have any examples of love triangles that you've seen? Where we you know, this is a theory right now, you're a science boy, from what I remember of science when I did to do it as a child, you got a hypothesis and you've got to test it. Do we have any examples currently or is this new waters that we're entering with this concept? CORRY:  I'm going to go out on a limb and I'm going to say the first Scooby Doo film is an example of this. I choose to believe that the Mystery Gang they are not they are not simply four friends. They are a polycule. They're they're a little group of polyamorous pals hanging out together solving mysteries. ROWAN:  So, far be it for me to question. The additional hot take you've added on to this one with the theory that the Scooby gang are in fact a polyamorous like quadrant and dog. What evidence Have you bought to me to to say that this is happening? And this is this is working as a relationship as a love square. CORRY:  I'm going to be honest, Rowan it's just vibes. It's just it's pure vibes. ROWAN:  And you know what that is the heart of Queer Cinema. To be honest, Corry, vibes is what we had for a very long time. We've only really had solid evidence for a short few decades. And so in in this court of Queer Cinema, vibes do count as evidence. CORRY:  Fantastic. I'm so glad, have I have I convinced you? Do I win? Have I have I won? ROWAN:  I wish I had some kind of sound effects to like a bell or something that could be like ding, ding, you've won. Yes, I fully already was on board. As soon as you said it. I I also think that this would be much more interesting. And I feel like this is a an immediate sell for me. If if someone was to come up to me and say, "Hey, read this book. It's got a love triangle. But it's a proper triangle". It's not just like an angle. CORRY:  Exactly. ROWAN:  Without a third line joining the the last two points. It is a full triangle. I'm there. I don't have to know anything else about the book like I'm intrigued. So yeah you already had me and and giving me those arguments giving those examples hinging it on Twilight, a bold move, but I think it paid off in the end because it is such a classic love triangle that I think could only be improved by the bold decision to not have one of them be in love with a fetus. So that that-- CORRY:  Good Lord. ROWAN:  -- completely convinced. Ding ding ding. Would you like to bring me hot take number two? If on the hot on the hottakeometer. Is this spicier? Is this hotter? CORRY:  Yeah, I think this is, you know, I think it's increasing in levels of spice, you know-- ROWAN:  Love that. CORRY:  It definitely in levels of my own personal spice. We're going to we're going to be getting very heated towards the end. This this-- ROWAN:  I'm excited. CORRY:  --little one. I think it's a little bit hotter. In fact, I'm I'm so bold that I've included only a single single argument because I am so confident with this one. ROWAN:  Oh, wow. So listeners at home when I sent Corry the sort of instructions for preparing for this episode. I did say that he could try and convince me in three arguments or less. Now I was kind of thinking that he was going to prepare the three arguments. And then I might just be like, Nope, we only needed that one. It was good enough. But he everyone is so confident in this next hot take. It's only going to take one argument to persuade me and assumably you at home as well. Corry, take it away. CORRY:  Call Me By Your Name, the tentpole groundbreaking gay film of the summer, is not a gay film. ROWAN:  Huh. Everyone, pause for a moment to absorb that when me and Jazza conceived of this format. Truly, we could not have predicted the wild sentences that we're about to come our way from our first guest. Okay, you know what? I've I've absorbed it. I'm I'm I'm ruminating, my brain is going. Hit me with your one and only argument. CORRY:  The characters are not gay. ROWAN:  Okay, so, Corry. CORRY:  Let me elaborate. ROWAN:  For those for those at home who haven't seen this movie or or you know, somehow aren't familiar with it. Can you take us through the plot? Like what is what is this movie about? That might make people assume that these were gay characters? CORRY:  Well, for one thing, there is an awful lot of gay kissing, and sex. But I I I I still maintain that these characters are not gay. So let's use the actor's names because it's much easier for everyone to picture. So Armie Hammer and Timothée Chalamet are two men, two bros. Timothée Chalamet, he lives with his parents. They've gone to Italy for the summer. And Armie Hammer comes to you know, work with his dad, I think, I assume. And then they hit it off, there's there's a few sparks of love. And they start getting together, and it's a lovely time. And by the end, Armie Hammer has to go back home to America and ends up ending his relationship with Timothée Chalamet. And we find out at the end, that Armie Hammer has a wife that he's going to get married to. Very interesting. ROWAN:  Mmm. CORRY:  And also in the beginning Timothée Chalamet, he has a girlfriend. ROWAN:  Okay, so we have the background info. Give us the reasoning. CORRY:  So the reasoning here is, I think fairly simple. Everyone's called it, "Oh, it's the it's the gay film". Because the main sort of relationship of the film is two men. And so saying that that is a homosexual relationship is, it's kind of true. But also, everyone is very ready to invalidate the fact that at least one of the main characters seems somewhat enthusiastically attracted to women. ROWAN:  Hmm. CORRY:  Right? So Timothée Chalamet, his character, has a girlfriend at at the beginning and has sex with her. And not in a sense of like, "Oh, gosh, I hope no one finds out my secret. I hope no one knows that I'm that I'm a big old gay". He seems happy enough with it, he seems good to go. I don't think there's any reason to assume that he is not attracted to women, just because he's attracted to a man. And, you know, obviously Armie Hammer's character at the end spoilers, I'm sorry. Those end up with a woman. Now. I think that's maybe a little bit more reluctant. But still, there is nothing sort of, as far as I'm aware explicitly in the film to suggest that these characters are both entirely gay men. And so I think saying that it's a gay film. It's not true, it's not true. And also, I really feel like the experiences are far more bisexual than they are anything else. Boom. ROWAN:  You know what? You you came out very controversially. CORRY:  I did. ROWAN:  You did a little twist in there. Because for a second, I was like, How is this boy going to convince me that that peach scene was straight? But you didn't do that at all-- CORRY:  Well we all know what a peach emoji it's supposed to represent, right? ROWAN:  True Love and romance only. Yeah. You you this is this is. So confession time, everyone. And I can't believe I must do this on a podcast literally called the Queer Movie Podcast. I have not seen Call Me By Your Name. CORRY:  Wow, I-- ROWAN:  Yeah. CORRY:  --didn't know that you hated bisexual men so much. ROWAN:  Yeah, it's it's it's been a real struggle for me. And I'm really coming to terms with it now live on the air. Yeah, I just there was just something about Timothée Chalamet, Armie Hammer, age gap romance that just wasn't calling me by any name. And I, so I haven't, I haven't done it. And there was part of me that kind of just assumed that at some point, we would do it for the podcast or for the watch alongs that we do on the discord. And that that would be the point at which I would watch it because I didn't know whether I would be able to do it. Sort of through my own volition on my own time. CORRY:  Mmm. ROWAN:  But this is, from what I understand about the movie, this makes a whole lot of sense. And, you know, we're all it's all fun and games on the hot take show. But also, this is kind of an interesting point about the idea of bisexuality being kind of a raised from a lot of these discussions that something gets labeled as like a gay movie, or a gay classic or something like that. And I think it kind of does a disservice to both kind of communities, both identities that you have this real erasure of bisexuality at all from that kind of narrative around the movie. But then you also have gay people who are watching a movie where it's like, oh, this, this also isn't me like this is this is actually not for bi people, but this, this character is bisexual. And this is kind of been not marketed wrong. But like the discussion around it seems to be kind of lacking, and and not quite what what anyone was expecting. So that makes a lot of sense to me. CORRY:  Yeah, I mean, the thing is, you say marketing, which I think it is, in part, it is marketing. But also, I feel like everyone that watches it as well. But I mean, not to not to have a go at the gays. But even the community watching it will talk about it as the gay film, which is interesting, because I think, especially because this is about two men, you have this whole thing where men can't experiment with other men. Men can't show any interest in another man in any way without being labeled as gay. ROWAN:  Mmm. CORRY:  And bisexuality for a man is generally a case of, well, you're really gay, but you're just hiding it, you know? ROWAN:  Uh-hmm. CORRY:  So and it it's interesting to see it even come in, in this sense of, oh, well, this is a film where the characters seem to quite explicitly be interested in both men and women. But we're gonna call it gay anyway. And I will understand if it didn't come into the plot, but the girlfriend is a fair part of sort of Ello's story as a character. And the sort of fiancee turned wife for Armie Hammer is a major, major thing that happens at the end of the film. So it's interesting to me that we we kind of very much ignore that for I guess, maybe more simple story of these two characters are our gay boys and love, both gay boy and gay men in love. ROWAN:  Yeah, that does make a lot of sense. I think that what you said about the idea of for bisexual men, there's this assumption of like, oh, you're really gay. And I think that for bisexual women, there is this idea of like, oh, you're really straight, but you just like to experiment a bit like it's just a bit of a double-- CORRY:  Mmm. ROWAN:  --and I think both of those are, you know, tie with the idea that being attracted to men is the priority and that everything else is going to be   surplus to requirement, which you know, not a thing. But there we go. CORRY:  As a man, as a man, I think being attracted to at least man is very important. Me, me being attracted to me is very, very important-- ROWAN:  For everyone. CORRY:  So for everyone, yes, I I would very much like to exist as an attractive being across all set lines of sexuality, you know, so I I can I can understand the patriarchy goal there. To--you can I can empathize with that. But no, no, seriously it is, it is really interesting as well, because I I think it also comes into how we describe those relationships in terms of, we've got homosexual relationships, which could include to people that aren't homosexual-- ROWAN:  Hmm. CORRY:  --technically, you know, and I think it's, I think it's just not necessarily bad or problematic. It's just an interesting and sometimes frustrating quirk of the language that-- ROWAN:  Hmm. CORRY:  --we use, you know. ROWAN:  I was gonna say, yeah, that language quirk of, how do you refer to things? Like, what are you trying to make clear, right? Like within this. CORRY:  Hmm. ROWAN:  Are you trying to make your own identity clear? Or the relationship between two people like, how do you describe a a bisexual relationship? When one person's bi, when two people are bi, when it's different genders, same genders. Like I think that that there's not necessarily expansive enough language for that-- CORRY:  Hmm. ROWAN:  --to be like, immediately obvious from like one word, and it does have to be more complex. And maybe people are just bad at being complex. And it's a lot easier to just kind of use that use the slightly wrong word that says what you want to say about this relationship, which, you know, for people talking about Call Me By Your Name  is like, "Hey, gay, look look, we get some some gay" CORRY:  Mmm. ROWAN:  Even if that's not actually accurate. CORRY:  Yeah, well, isn't it seen as gay rep. But it's it's, I don't think it really is gay representation, you know. I I do think it's just interesting. I I mean, personally, I think that if it is two bisexual people in a relationship, that that relationship isn't that relationship isn't a gay relationship necessarily, you know. ROWAN:  Or a straight one. CORRY:  Or a straight one, yeah. Which is, I think, an issue, I think it's a bisexual relationship relationship. ROWAN:  Uh-hmm. CORRY:  And I definitely think that when is two bisexual people, when if it's a bisexual person, the gay person or bisexual person, the straight person, it's a slightly different story. But when it's to bisexual people, I genuinely think that affect the relationship in a fairly unique way. But yeah, and also, I'm going to put it out there, just in case anyone's gonna come at me. My brain side has tried to tell me there, Come At Me By Your Name, if anyone tries to come at me by your name. Yes, the characters could also be pansexual, or any other kind of polysexual. I'm going to leave that one up to you. But yeah, no, Call Me By Your Name, It's not a gay film. I've had that inside me since it came out. And I've not been I've not had an outlet for it. So thank you very much for for giving me that. ROWAN:  I'm so glad I could give it to you. I did want to also this is not necessarily about Call Me By Your Name, but because I think it's not quite you kind of hinted at the idea of maybe there being some, not necessarily coercion, but not necessarily enthusiastic relationship at the end for one of the characters with a woman. CORRY:  Mmm. ROWAN:  And, you know, it wasn't so long ago that people were essentially like, forced into relationships that were straight relationships, if they were gay. How do you think about those sort of historic narratives? Or whether that's fictional or I guess, with with real people, where we do have this complicated relationship between you know, was this person bisexual? Because it was a woman who seemed to have relationships with women but married a man? Or can we label them as gay? Like, what what is your thoughts? I know, we're going slightly on a tangent here, but I do think it's kind of relevant-- CORRY:  Mmm. ROWAN:  --on like, can we label anyone in history in that way? Like, do do we know anything? For sure if we, if they didn't necessarily have the language to describe it. Like how do you as, as a bisexual person, kind of find bisexual people in history to feel like there's, you know, some kind of connection to or affiliation with or anything like that? Or is it is it not possible? Is it is it more of sort of like a nebulous queerness in history that, that we can't really map onto today's ideas of identity? CORRY:  Yeah, I think you, honestly, I think you hit the nail on the head with that last one. But I do have to say that us going on a tangent. Wow, who would have thought we do that? ROWAN:  I know. So out of character-- CORRY:  Never once happened. Yeah, so no, I think that in in terms of sort of looking back through history, unless someone was is is explicitly described themselves in some way, yeah, I don't think you can apply on modern conceptions. Because even looking back not even 100 years ago, you have people describing themselves as transexual. Whereas now that's kind of out of fashion today. And there's a bunch of different words, some of which, honestly, I don't even necessarily want to use on this podcast. ROWAN:  Hmm. CORRY:  Because I don't want to be too, too spicy. But there were words that people explicitly use to describe themselves, whereas nowadays, we might call them trans or we might call them non-binary. Or we might use any other kind of word that, you know, that's the thing. And this was like 50, 60 years ago, oh, wait no more than 50, 60 years ago. Because time continues to move forwards. But you know, less than 100 years ago, let's say, that these words were entirely different. So if you're, if we're going to look back through history, even to you know, sort of 100, 200 years ago, it becomes really, really difficult to sort of accurately use our own terms to apply to other people. And I don't think it's, I don't think it's actually terribly important to find representation of specific identities throughout history because ultimately specific identities it doesn't. It doesn't matter in that context, all that matters is this person wasn't straight or cisgender in some way, they sort of broke those normal societal conventions. In that sense, their specific identity is sort of not hugely relevant, so long as it's not, it it wasn't that relevant to themselves, you know. Because then we get into the whole issue of erasing anything that is not inherently binary, you know. ROWAN:  Mmm. CORRY:  Which is an issue in and of itself. Although if you do want to look back and see, I don't know a lady pirate that loved other lady pirates and say she was a lesbian pirate. I think that's ultimately fine. You're not really harming anyone, they're all dead, it's it's good. They're not going to be too wound up. But-- ROWAN:  And also if they were, like, if if here's-- CORRY:  Yup ROWAN:  --the thing though, if they were wound up about it, I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing. That a hot lesbian pirate ghost now wants vengeance on me. Like that, I'm not gonna lie Corry like that's almost the dream. CORRY:  Rowan, what are you doing after this? I think we have a spec script we need to write about a hot lesbian pirate haunting some. It's like-- ROWAN:  We're on it. Sorry guys, we're gonna end the podcast early because me and Corry need to make millions with this genius idea. CORRY:  Haunting to lovers story. ROWAN:  Oh my-- CORRY:  I love it. ROWAN:  --God.   [26:32] [Transition Music to ADS]   ROWAN:   Dear listener, I have a question for you. Would you like to raise money while procrastinating online? This isn't some magical dream world this is an actual thing that you can do with tab for a cause. It is a browser extension that lets you raise money for charity, while just doing your own thing, typing away on the internet. So basically, how it works is, whenever you open a new tab, you will see two things. One, a beautiful photo and two, a small ad, part of that ads money then goes towards a charity, not just any charity, a charity of your choice. If that sounds like your kind of thing. And honestly, why would it not be then you can join Team Queer Movie Podcast by signing up at tabforacause.org/queermovie. Check out the other shows that are part of the Multitude collective. I think that you like stories, you like queerness you like a good time, in which case I think you'd also like Spirits. So Spirits was actually the first podcast that I listened to for the Multitude Collective. And I'm obsessed, I was obsessed then I'm still obsessed now. Basically, it is a mix of like history, storytelling and comedy. The focus is on, you know, folklore, mythology, the occult, all of that good stuff. But specifically looking at it from a feminist, sort of queer and modern lens. It is fantastic. Basically what happens is, they get together to learn about different stories from mythology and folklore. And they also get together to have a to have a little drink, hence, Spirits and Spirits, genius. So every week, the host of the podcast mythology, [28:14] Julia, who little behind the scenes info is in fact, the editor for the Queer Movie Podcast, and her childhood friend, Amanda get together to discuss like stories that they have found that week. So not only do they talk about the sort of origins of mythology, that all that old school stuff, they also talk about how it has fed into things like major film franchises, for example. So Lord of the Rings, Wonder Woman, how those kind of stories of old are connected to the things that we watch today. There are also these amazing episodes, which have viewers submitting their own legends of like the place that they go up or their particular culture or folklore. And it is amazing to hear about all of these, like creepy or interesting stories from around the world, that people like you who are like listening to the podcast have submitted to them. And obviously, you're listening to the Queer Movie Podcast, and we have only just started. But if you're looking for a podcast that has way more of a history to it, and mythology, you might say, Spirits will be amazing for you. They have been going for literally years, five years now. They have over 250 episodes, tons of different topics to dip your toe into, they have everything from the analysis of how mental health is portrayed in mythology, creepy modern ghost stories, around up of different werewolf mythology from around the world. Just brilliant stuff all round. So if that sounds like it is up your alley, then you can dive in at spiritspodcast.com or by searching for Spirits wherever you download your podcasts. And if you end up liking the podcast, which I'm sure that you will and you want to follow along with them on social media, please message them and tell them that I sent you. Okay, that's it for me back to the show.   [29:50] [Transition Music]   ROWAN:  Okay, so I think it's time to move on to the third and final hot take and from what you've said, so far, I'm anticipating this being the spiciest. This is, you know, we can only take one little drop of this hot sauce, because otherwise we would die. So take it away. CORRY:  Oh my gosh, I'm almost scared to say this. This is a piece of Queer Cinema that is very new, that you well know, I have had a very, very tumultuous relationship with for some time. And I actually struggled to find what exactly my hot take was, because I had to make sure that I'd be able to get through all of it in the allotted time. So I have I have come up with this single sentence. Everybody's Talking About Jamie is a bad film that exists to exploit and pander to cis white men, and straight people that are liberal, but find gays fun and cool. ROWAN:  You packed it into that sentence, okay. So for for anyone who doesn't know, Everybody's Talking About Jamie, it was originally a musical in the West End. And it recently got an adaptation on film, which is pretty accurate to the to the stage musical actually. It's they've kind of swapped-- CORRY:  Mmm. ROWAN:  --some songs around. But in generally, it's, it's there's not any kind of like, different ending to sending or anything like that. It's it's essentially it's like based on a true story. And it's about a boy and boy in England, who wants to become a drag queen. He's like 16 years old, it's his dream. And it's kind of him following his dream, and the pitfalls and the triumphs along the way. So very, very classic, kind of like British clash of cultures type movie like Billy Elliot, but more gay vibes, in terms of like the overall kind of foundations of of what the movie is trying to do. So Corry, hit me with your reasoning behind that extremely long sentence hot take that you just gave. CORRY:  Okay. So I think what I'll start with is the white men part. So I've said that it exists to sort to exploit and pander to cis white men, and let's say, liberal allies, in quotes. And the the white part is the very obvious thing of between the stage musical and the film, they changed the main character to white again. So initially, in the stage played, the character was white, because the real person is white. And then they had a good run of casting mixed race actors in this role, which was interesting, because otherwise, you know, other than a, you know, a couple of sort of, I think, two Asian characters. It's a very, it's a very white story. So this was an interesting little thing. But when they transitioned to the screen, they decided to remove that added little bit of diversity. And I I wonder why perhaps that a white face is a little bit more marketable to your target audience of liberal allies, and this white gay men who really seemed to see themselves in this story. ROWAN:  Yeah, so this is this is totally true. They had this lead character who was based on like, the actual Jamie. And then they kind of did this casting that wasn't just for one run, right? Like, I feel like there's been like two or three mixed race guys like in the role. CORRY:  Yeah. ROWAN:  And it wasn't just like a one off stunt casting kind of thing. CORRY:  It almost I would say, honestly, to the point where it was one of those things that it it kind of became a part of the role to an extent, you know. And it was, for me, it was interesting, because if you've, if you've seen the film, if you've seen the musical, you know, that the father, the dad, is very much kind of a macho man, he likes the football, and he just wants his son to be his son. He doesn't want his son to be weird and away with the fairies and you know, dressing up like a lady and all that and all that nonsense. Which I think having a black father in that role was a really interesting, it could be like, you know, even though it's a very minor role, it was an interesting little exploration of that sort of masculinity that is sort of pervasive in black men, the inability to sort of even reconcile with some kind of homosexuality. That was interesting to me that added like a nice little element to it. And I think that's what's important about sort of adding diversity in that way. That you can do it as a lateral move, you can do it if it doesn't add anything, you just want to add diversity, that is fine. That is an okay thing to do. But it is far better when you add some kind of diversity to it, you add an added identity, and it elevates by adding something new for example, making Harry Potter mixed race would add to the character in a really interesting way. I won't get into it right now. ROWAN:  I But I fully agree with you there. I to the point-- CORRY:  [34:26] ROWAN:  --where sometimes I I look at like, I read fan, Harry Potter fanfic, I know I'm a terrible person still but like, I'll read Harry Potter fanfiction or look at fan art. And there'll be a moment where I'm like, they will say something that makes it clear like in the fanfiction that this Harry is white and for a second. I'm like, wait, what? And then I'm like, oh, because yeah, he is he he is in the books. CORRY:  Yeah. ROWAN:  I kind of forgot that for a minute. Because it's it's so people have people the fandom of like, basically, it's been like, okay, Joanne, like, sure. We're just gonna do the better version of this and I fully support it. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense that there's these these elements in the story that kind of get improved. And I do think that because they did make minor but some changes, they also potentially had the opportunity within the movie to say, "Okay, we originally wrote this role about this white boy. And we changed the casting and it kind of changed maybe the interpretation or the look of it", but like, what would it mean to actually change it for a mixed race character? Like, was there anything that would have been added? Or would have been interesting to add that would have liked further that even more? CORRY:  Yeah, well, I mean, so obviously, as I mentioned, the character of the father, but Jamie himself is obviously breaking sort of boundaries of gender, to an extent, and again, has that sort of relationship with his father. And he's also got a whole issue of not really knowing where he belongs, and not having a sort of place that he could fit in and be himself. And I think that obviously, very, very easily slots into mixed race characters, you know. When you've got a character that feels like they don't fit in making the mixed race can, you know, often add another element to that. Add an interesting element that kind of goes along with that. And, yeah, it's just interesting, because I feel like it we we've gotten to a point now, and the film seems to be set in 2020 or 2021. You know, in this in this sort of decade, we're at a point now, where, generally drag is not as sort of groundbreaking as it was a decade ago when this story actually happened. And so it's kind of hard to believe, watching this film, that this white gay kid, this, this white gay kid is so groundbreaking, just because he enjoys a little bit of drag, you know, and so adding in almost a sort of racism element to it, as well, because then, you know, the bully character that is bullying him, you know, Jamie and his and his friend, is bullying, basically, the two of the sort of non white characters in the play in the musical rather, which is interesting, right? You add that sort of racism element, because the bullying isn't just about the character being gay, it's about him and his friend not being white. And also he's gay. It's just that added little thing there. It makes it I think, a little bit more believable. And ultimately, I think we've had a lot, like quite a lot of stories about gay white men, you know, not that we've had a lot of stories about gay people, but a lot of the stories about gay people have been about white men. I mean, Moonlight is the only real, like, major example of here's a story about gay people that isn't about white men. And that was marketed specifically as that as a deviation from that norm, you know. So I think if we're going to talk about this film as being groundbreaking and being the major this major story, this, this this sort of tentpole movie, we need to try a little harder and make it a little bit different from what's come before, you know. ROWAN:  Yeah, that makes make sense. CORRY:  And I think, you know, I'm not going back on the race of the sort of new race of the character. Makes sense for that. ROWAN:  Yeah, you, there we go. Tick, tick, tick. Reason number two, do you have another another argument? CORRY:  Oh, boy, I've got I've got really three solid arguments here. ROWAN:  Okay. Okay, I'm ready. CORRY:  So I've explained the sort of white part of this, and I want to explain why it's pandering to sort of cis men here. There is a line that is repeated a number of times throughout the film, a boy in a dress is something to be laughed at. A drag queen is something to be feared, is paraphrase the key point there is a boy in a dress or something to be laughed at. Now, that to someone who is entirely entirely unaware of trans and non binary people, or even just gender non conforming people is absolutely is absolutely a fair thing to say. And to be fair, at the end of the film, Jamie does show up in a dress as a boy in a dress. But the amount of times that it's explicitly said that a boy in a dress is something to be laughed at. The fact that it's not explicitly said otherwise at the end of the film, is just it's not it's not necessarily great. I think it's very easy to come away with the message that a boy addresses something to be laughed at. And Jamie was very brave for coming for coming to his prom as a boy in a dress, you know? ROWAN: Mmm. CORRY:  I I think honestly this comes down to the film just I say the film is bad. I think the film is muddled in its messaging, its character arcs don't make sense. Jamie is a very confident person who then does drag and decides that drag is what makes him confident and he's not confident not as not in drag when that's not at all what we've seen throughout the film. The film is very heavy handed in some ways. And so I think that if if you say explicitly a boy, a boy in a dress or something to be laughed at, and you're heavy handed in all other ways, I don't think you can leave it down to subtext at the end of the film to kind of go back on that, you know. ROWAN:  Okay, so here's the thing with your first hot take. I was already with you-- CORRY:  Uh-hmm. ROWAN:  --with your second hot take. I was like I do not know enough about this movie to necessarily have an opinion on the offset. With this third one. CORRY:  Yeah. ROWAN:  I reasonably enjoyed this movie. Like I've seen I really liked the musical, I've seen the musical and I was like yeah, this is fine. It did it did kind of suffer in my head from like stage acting on screen like a lot of the script and stuff was-- CORRY:  Yeah, oh God-- ROWAN:  --it was scripted, made. sense for onstage because on stage, you kind of do a little bit more expositionie, didacticiel stuff. And it sort of works-- CORRY:  Uh-hmm. ROWAN:  --because it's quite stylized. But when it's in a movie, it just feels very heavy handed. And so there was just an element of that where it's like, oh, I can forgive that, like, it's fine. I will say, with this, this hot take that you're bringing right now, you're kind of persuading me-- CORRY:  Ohh. ROWAN:  --because I I hadn't really thought about that line in terms of like its implications. CORRY:  Mmm. ROWAN:  Because I was like, so aware of the, like you said, like already kind of knew all of the stuff around like, actually that's not true. And like, this is clearly a lesson that's gonna be learned and blah, blah, blah. But you're right, like it doesn't explicitly, then counter it in a in a strong enough way at the end. CORRY:  Yeah, ultimately, I see this film as being generally and I know, and I I have friends that enjoy it that are outside of this group that I'm talking about, you know. So I don't don't take this as me saying this, I see a lot of people enjoying this film. And that's me saying these are the only people who enjoy this film. But we'll see a lot of people enjoy this film seem to be the kind of guys that would be on Grindr saying no fats, no fems, no blacks ROWAN:  Mmm. CORRY:  You know, that absolutely seems to be the kind of they'd be happy doing that. Or rather, you know, probably note, no fat, no black, no Asian, does that sort of thing. Because there is this kind of racism, and this kind of, I guess, I mean, transphobia, that is deep seated in a particular part of the gay community. And this film, it it talks about breaking gender, but only through the medium of drag. And it's really interesting, because it doesn't even get the medium of drag, right? This is not this is not one of my arguments, I'm sorry, this is just something that really woke me up. It doesn't get the medium of drag, right? Jamie doesn't focus at all on his performance. He doesn't do his own makeup, he doesn't do his own hair. He buys a dress, sure, but it's not a dress that he's picked out, or a dress that he's made himself. He does absolutely nothing. We don't see Jamie practicing his dances, or practicing his lip syncing or perhaps practicing any form of artistry whatsoever, he just wants to wear a dress. And I think that's just a complete misunderstanding of what drag is generally. And it is just really interesting that it seems to be written from it seems to be written from an outside perspective, entirely. It's it's so it's baffling to me that this this film seems to be so just almost wrong about its subject matter. I think the reason that it that it sort of so many people enjoy it. And you've said the best thing there, by the way, is that you can forgive this, you can forgive that. I think the reason people forgive so much of the the knock great stuff in this film, the stuff that you know, in any other film, you'd be like, Oh, this is a bad film. The reason that's forgiven is because there is this slight sort of emotional core to Jamie's character that is kind of explicitly said throughout the film, rather than being implicit, or there in any other sense of, I am the only gay person in my school. And this is new to everyone, and no one knows how to act. And it's very difficult for me, and I think that's something that resonates with people that are maybe it's my age or older. But with the with the youths now they everyone is everyone seems to be queer, you know, I mean. And you've got the Internet where you can find that family, it seems that this is this is sort of reaching to a slightly older audience who are willing to look past all of the stuff that is sort of not great about the film. Because it feels like it's telling their story, explicitly the fact that Jamie is an awful selfish character that really no one should like at all. If you actually look at what Jamie does in the film, awful person, but people overlook that because they're not thinking about Jamie as a character. They're thinking, I'm gonna put myself in this character's shoes, because this character feels like me, you know? ROWAN:  Yeah, this is slowly becoming a call out podcast Corry-- CORRY:  I'm so sorry. ROWAN:  I'd be really interested to know like, what young people now think of this because I I'm not entirely convinced that it's like, a gay haven out there for it all the queers are just like partying it up in their high schools, I have a feeling that there's probably a lot of young people who who do kind of resonate with that, that feeling of being the only person. CORRY:  Abso--I don't mean to give the idea that every single kid nowadays is in school and is able to be out and proud. What I mean is that there is much more now, a possibility of finding that family online. ROWAN:  Mmm. CORRY:  So while you can still have that feeling of school, you're not necessarily feeling like you need to hide yourself from everyone. Like you've got no family, like you need to find a sort of drag queens shop in the middle of Sheffield in order to have that acceptance. That that's all I mean, it it just the film feels dated, I think, because it is set now, you know, with with just the sort of phone that they're using the fact that people want to be YouTube stars, and they're filming Instagram story, videos and whatnot. It's just having it set quite explicitly now, makes it feel very dated and kind of stilted I think. ROWAN:  Do you think it would have been improved if they'd have set it when this originally happened? If it had been like a slightly 10, 20 years ago kind of vibe? CORRY:  Yeah, I think if they went 10 years ago, and they really hammered that home, and really went in more to I think the fact that Jamie has no one to connect with outside of this. That would have really been better, because we kind of got to not believe that that RuPaul has been on the air for, for for years, you know, and that drag has become something that everyone is kind of aware of no. I mean, obviously everyone was aware of drag before, but it's become something that's much more normalized, you know. You've got to put a lot of side to sort of believe and enjoy this film, I think. And you were saying, you know, about sort of what young people think of this, I I ran a poll on my Instagram, and I have a varying range of people. But it was 47% of people said they liked it, 53% of people said they hated it. Which I thought was quite interesting, it was much more split, I thought I was going to be in the minority here. But just a very slight majority, they're just very interesting, you know. I've got a third point, but it is a very, very quick and easy point. That's, that's just really to put a little cherry on top of the cake. I said that it's pandering. And I want to sort of qualify that the reason that's pandering and not sort of actually, in support of what it's talking about, is the fact that they've got Richard E. Grant playing the older drag queen, when literally any, any other British drag queen could have done it. Now granted, Richard E. Grant gives the best performance of the film, is absolutely fantastic. But to cast, a straight man to play a character whose entire point in the story is to be a queer elder, and who has an entire song talking about sort of the beginnings of pride in the AIDS epidemic, it just feels very, very hollow, to go for a kind of big name, British actor, instead of going for anyone that's actually, you know, queer, and could bring a sort of truth to that character. And again, sorry, Richard E. Grant did a fantastic job. I best best best performance from from any of the cast, from any of the cast. I'm just frustrated that that came from someone that I don't think should have been cast in the role. You know, you could have cast any older queen, you could have cast anyone that is queer themselves that could have brought that element to the character from having actually experienced it. Which I think in a meta sense, watching the film would have given it more wait, it would have felt like, oh, well, we're not bringing up the AIDS epidemic. We're not bringing up the beginnings of pride in a sort of pandering sense. Look, this is someone that actually experienced it, we're aware and we're doing the work to make sure that this film is about queer people and is by queer people. You know, it just very much feels like pandering given that they they gave that role to someone who is a straight man, specifically a straight man that said that straight people shouldn't take gay roles not too long ago. ROWAN:  Yeah, that does seem like it's feels slightly contradictory and it and as well, because it's obviously you don't you know, have to be gay to be a drag queen. But the character is explicitly gay in it as well as like a not necessarily explicitly sad, but it's like very obvious that he's had a partner who's died and like that's part of kind of the implications about his his character. And so yes, that does make sense. So if you were to try and salvage Jamie, is is Jamie salvageable for you? Is this something where you could change some some little bits and make it work? Or do you just think it's not? It's not a vibe, CORRY:  I think it's salvageable, but it would have to be quite the overhaul, the--there is a decent story in there, the story of someone who lacks confidence, I think, ultimately, it could be. Okay, if you want to make just one change to make Jamie a much, much better film, I think that you need to change the character of Jamie to not be a selfish person, or have that be his arc, right? He's a selfish person who isn't very confident. And the reason that he's so self-centered, is a defense for that, for that lack of confidence. And through the medium of drag, he finds confidence and realizes that he's that he treats people very poorly, and becomes a better person in the end, who is a well-rounded person who focuses on their art, you know. So you just change the character of Jamie from a little princess to someone that actually really really cares about their craft, you know. ROWAN:  I think that they got away with him not didn't get away with it, but I think they were kind of thinking that they got away with him not practicing his craft, because it is a musical and therefore you're like, oh, yeah, he's singing it's dancing. Like that's how it's but that's not like he's he's never singing and dancing in reality, like in the musical to do the practice. CORRY:  Yup. ROWAN:  There's no like, kind of practice song. There's like the ones on the house with the the other drag queens but it's not like a we're practicing song. It's like we're hyping you up as we do your makeup song, which is maybe could have had a little little edit to it to make it so that he actually does like a reasoning and I was really hoping so they they do add a song in this musical. They change out a song in the original stage musical. CORRY:  Uh-hmm. ROWAN:  Which is the Legend of Loco Chanel, which is just like a really classic like fantasy sequence song. CORRY:  Uh-hmm. ROWAN:  That's, you know, very dramatic and is the story of the kind of drag queen persona of Richard E. Grant's character. They've replaced that, as Corry mentioned earlier with a song that's about like queer history, which I thought was a really interesting change and I wish they pushed what Jamie learned from that more. They kind of had like one line where he talks to Priti about it, and then it doesn't necessarily go anywhere else. CORRY:  Sorry, can I just that one line is, they had to fight for it, it was really hard for them, it was really, really hard for them. That's that that's the whole vibe of that one-- ROWAN:  The vibe. CORRY:  --line. ROWAN:  And I think like there was an element of like, oh, yeah, actually, this kind of felt like super more modern, young people who-- CORRY:  Mmm. ROWAN:  --haven't, they've grown up with rights, to to-- CORRY:  Yeah. ROWAN:  --for lack of a better way of saying it. Like they weren't growing up in in a time when, for example, I was growing up as someone who I'm sure that the TikTok teenagers would refer to as a queer elder, at 29 years old, but I was like growing up, like knowing that I was never going to get married, that I was like-- CORRY:  Uh-hmm. ROWAN:  --only just been allowed to adopt children that I would like all of these things were were happening as I was growing up. And it was there was this moment of like, oh, yeah, actually, that probably is the reaction. Because there there's, if you've not been taught about this stuff in school, and if you've not grown up knowing that you are not equal. At what point do you start to be like, I wonder what it was like back in the day, I wonder when it changed, because you've not necessarily been living through any change yourself. And I wish that they push that further. Like, that seems like such an interesting kind of place to be in for a young person today. CORRY:  Yeah, I think I think you've hit the nail on the head there. It really is, it is a very genuine reaction. I think what's quite funny to me, is that the film doesn't seem interested in it. The film itself seems to want to pay lip service to it. They added that song because they want people to talk about the fact that what we're doing right now, they want people to talk about the fact that they included the queer history, they want people to go, oh, wow, this, this struggle of the gays, look at that. I'm an ally, you struggled so much, I feel like that's the intent behind it, rather than to actually highlight anything of note or worth. Because Jamie has a character, you could say that he's maybe spurred on by it, but there was nothing holding him back before before then really. ROWAN:  Hmm. CORRY:  He he doesn't seem interested in it. And and therefore the film doesn't seem interesting in itself. So it it it is interesting, that that's why it feels like pandering to me, you know. Because they have that song there, but they don't want to cast someone that you know, really kind of fits that role properly. They don't want the main character to do more than give a single line about it, they don't want to explore it, they just want to almost pay lip service to it. And that's why I think that Jamie is a bad film that exists just to exploit to exploit and pander to cis white gay men, and also liberal allies. ROWAN:  So Corry, I think we've kind of reached the end of your three hot takes that did-- CORRY:  Uh-hmm. ROWAN:  --indeed increase in spice as you went along. I'm gonna say this was a absolutely storming out of the gate. First episode three out of three, I'm convinced of all three of them. You made some incredible arguments, especially with that last one where I was I was very much on the fence. And I feel like you've tipped me over. And now I'm I just have this image of like, a better version of that movie that just includes all of the little things that you said to change. And it's like, oh, frustrating. And I think that potentially, like the, the answer to a lot of these kind of hot takes that you've brought in is like just more, just more queer movies with kind of queer people at the helm or involved in the process like thoughtfully included within within it. And then it won't it won't necessarily be no worthy of like, oh, this film has been praised more than it should have been or anything like that, because it it won't be praised more than it should have been. Because there will be alternatives that are better and people won't be kind of having to like it because it's the only thing they've seen that has a a you know British film of that gay teenager in it. It's it's not the the only thing that there can they've got. Congratulations, I do not have any prize for you, except for the knowledge that you have changed my mind. And I believe that's probably prize enough. CORRY:  I'll tell you what, this this pride of having one is prized enough for me. ROWAN:  Love. Very well done. Excellent. We love a good queer reference at the end of the episode.   [54:08] [Outro]   ROWAN:  Thank you so much for listening. You can follow us on Twitter to keep up to date with everything podcast related. If you enjoyed this episode, please do think about supporting us over on Patreon. Our Patrons really are the backbone of the podcast and in exchange for your support. We have some great tier rewards set up over there. One of the perks on our Patreon is a Queer Movie watch along every last Saturday of the month exclusively for our Patreons, it's very fun. So you know come and join us. The Queer Movie Podcast is edited by Julia Schifini. We're also part of Multitude Productions which has a lot more amazing sibling podcast ours that you should definitely check out. Make sure you follow and subscribe to the podcast so you are primed for our next episode. Thank you so much for listening, and hopefully you will hear from us very soon.   Transcriptionist: Vernon Bryann Casil Editor: Krizia Marrie Casil