I took the scar on Lilith to be showing us she survived an attack from the man that got punched to death, and the whole thing was engineered by her in a perfect act of revenge
I don't recall the man who got punched to death. Can you refresh my memory? I've seen both films and read the book but I'm drawing a blank on that, and it seems likely that Lilith could be motivated by revenge, so if you could remind me when that happened I'd appreciate that. :)
@@MarilynFromTarotClarity the guy who got punched to death was the guy they were conning. He didn't die in the book, but in the movie Stan kills him when things go wrong. And Lilith was motivated to get the upper hand with Stan because he was an easy target basically. Despite him thinking so highly of himself
@Why the Book Wins Hi. I guess I'm asking, which guy were they conning and when? I'm just not recalling it. Or do you mean Grindle? Thanks for your response. ~ Marilyn
I read the book years ago and loved it, then watched the movie having no idea it was an adaptation of that novel, because I'm in Mexico and it' got a title in Spanish and didn't read any reviews. It was a great idea experience watching something I had seen in my mind years ago unfold onscreen. And yeah, definitely read the book. It's beautiful and likely to obsess you. I like when books do that.
@@WhytheBookWins yeah! It's like I spoiled it for myself years ago! It was fun to recognize the story right away, and thinking, for a second "Oh, are they ripping off that novel? Oh, no! It's an adaptation!"
I am a big fan of Nightmare Alley (1947). I've seen it three times. I was interested in seeing what del Toro did with his movie based on the novel. But I don't like to see redos of movies I love, even if it's just a redo of the source material. So, all that to say thank you for doing your two videos on Nightmare Alley, book, new movie, and previous movie. You have answered all of my questions!! THANK YOU!
@@WhytheBookWins Some things I like better in the 1947 movie, and some things I liked better in the new movie. For one thing, Stan's responsibility for what happened to Pete doesn't seem to be very clear in the new movie. Whereas, in the 1947 movie, it was totally an accident, and Stan had a lot of remorse for it. In the newer movie, where the psychiatrist gives Stan the dollar bills, she turns on her recording, and pretends that it's his last session, explaining why he's is so crazed right now. In the older movie, it was a lot more straightforward. We knew that Pete died because of Stan but it was an accident, and we knew that Stan had a lot of remorse. The older movie tied it up better, explaining why Stan would be mixed up, and putting things onto the psychiatrist. All in all, I saw the new one for historical reasons. But I like the 1947 one the most. I'm going to watch your review of The Shining next. Personally, when I read the book, the topiary animals terrified me. That's what I remember most. I was disappointed when nothing about that was in the movie. I mentioned in another comment on this review about an episode of Alfred Hitchcock that relates to what the Mary Steenburgen character did.
@@CynthiaLK Yeah the events with Peter were changed up a bit. I didn't see the comment about the Hitchcock reference, I'll look through again for it. I don't really talk about the topiary animals in my episode for The Shining, there was just so much to go over! But the scene eden Jack notices they move when he looks away was so creepy! I hope you like my coverage of it though! I'm wanting to read more King this year. I get scared easily though lol. But be had plenty of great books that aren't too over the top scary
An excellent analysis, Laura. I really enjoyed hearing your well-researched insights on Gresham's book of NIGHTMARE ALLEY and it's recent film adaptation by Guillermo del Toro, which I liked. I recently purchased the book and I'm going to read it. Hope to see more of your videos. Thanks so much for taking the time to do it - you really present yourself well and did a fine job. 😊
@@paulf6556 not to brag, but I got a first edition for $200! I show it in my umboxing video and I will also be showing it off in a video I'll be posting on Friday!
@@WhytheBookWins Congrats - that's awesome ... gives me hope! I love collecting old hardcover novels, especially ones that were turned into really interesting films. Since you enjoy dark stories, then one I'd recommend to you is called "Seconds", written by David Ely. Paramount turned this borderline horror book into a film in 1966, which is outstanding. It starred Rock Hudson, in a very dramatic part, completely counter to the slight romantic comedies he was known for doing at that time. He took the role turn to show Hollywood a different side of his abilities. Creepy plot is about about a middle-aged bank manager, soured on his life, who has a 'second chance' to become young again - but at a very steep price. Very much in the Twilight Zone mold, a be-careful-what-you ask-for kind of thing. Both the novel and film are not that well known, but it's a very powerful and haunting story - with a very grim ending, much like "Nightmare Alley". Would make a good subject for your podcast, I think.
@@paulf6556 ooo that definitely sounds like one of would be into! My book vs movie calendar is full the next few months, but I'll plan on covering it in April or May!
Hi! Great video! Now I want to read the book. I just watched the movie at the theaters in black and white without knowing much about it except that it was a Guillermo de Toro movie and I really liked it a lot. I never felt it was slow. It was to beautiful to watch for me to feel that way. But I think I would’ve liked more build up to the old rich guy, with some extra obstacles… or maybe seeing how Stan and Molly ended up making it at the fancy hotel….but that’s just my preference. I did want to let you know that in an interview with Guillermo de Toro, he did say that the movie was originally over 3 hours long. And they cut it down to what it is now. So maybe if they kept it, it would’ve fixed the feeling you had about it being too fast.
I believe that this story is about how people's unresolved childhood traumas make them seek paths in life in which they feel control over other people on which they project their past aggressors. Dr Ritter and Ezra are mirror images of Stanton who also hurt and kill other that remind them their past aggressors. It also may be criticizing psychologists as being a type of con artists themselves, being paralleled to mentalists. The road-side carnival is a metaphor for their lives, which is all about putting on masks of deceit in order to hide their frail self-esteem. As in the carnival guests come to entertain themselves with the dark side in the safe environment of being the audience but the people on stage are actually constantly reliving their past traumas. Those tortured souls who keep wandering in their own Alley of Nightmares, i.e. their repressed (or not) memories of past traumas entertain themselves by manipulating others BEYOND the show at the carnival similar to how those with personality disorders do, thus providing themselves with an illusion of control but in the end they symbolically and physically go back to the cage of their childhood traumas. Another thought is that when you look closely at the picture of Ezra's wife the carnival Ferris wheel is actually in the background. Any ideas on how this is connected? Did Ezra's wife abort the one-eyed baby in the jar?
Well put! Totally agree. And interesting...I hadn't made that connection about the baby. I don't know if it is that directly connected but I think the baby in the jar is symbolic in some way. Maybe symbolic of Stan? It even has the Third eye like what he has in his eyes mask.
I read the book a few years ago. Very dark and sleazy, with no good guys. It stayed with me to this day. I loved the tarot cards starting each chapter.
David Strathaim is one hell of an actor. Since you are into books, check out the movie adaptation of Stephen King's Dolores Claiborne...it's a great movie and Strathaim gives an awesome performance
Finally saw the OG film earlier this year & it’s a good adaptation, but the tacked-on studio ending hurts the point the story makes about Stan’s behavior and how he falls for his delusion. Loves Del Toro’s take with the lavish cinematography, excellent cast (Bradley Cooper was a perfect replacement for Tyrone Power’s shoes) & the intrigue really hooked me
You didn't know that all geeks were/are alcoholics? And, YES being a geek IS the LOWEST you can go. I am older than you and when I went to the circus with my family, I was told that geeks were really far-gone alcoholics who bit the heads off of chickens. Oh and, yes the movie comes back about the woman who shoots her husband and then herself when the rich guy's bodyguard hears about the murder-suicide on the radio, and rushes out to warn the rich guy who had just been strangled by Stan after the rich guy tries to hurt the girl who is pretending to be Dory.
Yeah the book begins with Clem telling Stan that. I had never heard of a geek show though till this book. And true, the bodyguard wouldn't have died had he not heard that news on the radio
Great breakdown, thank you! One thing I might add: in the book, I think Stan reading in the newspaper that Lilith had married Grindle was the catalyst to Stan losing his mind. For example, before the newspaper, Stanton said "keep it at beer for a while" implying that only drinking beer compared to liquor was somehow better for his recovery. Following Stan reading about the marriage, Grisham goes on this crazy incoherent ramble into the mind of Stanton and liquor is once again Stanton's drink of choice. He geeks once he was back on liquor.
Yes, he caught a break with help of Zeena and Joe, giving him the info/tools to work in disguise in a mitt camp, but the image of HER getting Ezra, (and all the marbles) knocked him off the wagon.
I wondered in the Del Toro film, in the homeless camp he sees an ad for Zeena still out there performing, if he went to see her and she helps him and gets him straight, but he sees the news of the marriage and goes downward...but all that was edited out of the 3hour/15minute original version.
I’m a fan of the Tyrone Power version of the film and I agree about the last scene in del Toro’s movie. I enjoyed your talk. I’m sure you know by now there was a three hour and 15 minute version of this movie which probably details more of Stan’s downfall at the end. Multi layered story that is much more than just being about “greed” like some reviewers say. Also, you’re quite lovely.
Great video! In the new movie, the big scene where Stan has his first drink, Lileth had kissed him with whiskey on her lips - which I thought resembled how Clem draws the geeks in with just a drop of opium in their booze at first to give them a taste! So it was perhaps slightly overly dramatic because it more clearly shows her first manipulation of him...
@@WhytheBookWins It's on the list. I found the movie so interesting as I've always held an interest in addiction and the trauma and broken side of the human spirit, I can only imagine the book will give me a more in depth view. 👌🏽
@@rakbhogal3293 Agreed! I love reading books about addiction. Funny enough I went into this book not even knowing that would play a part. I have a number of book vs movie episodes that relate to addiction
Great Review welp Listening to the Audio book now the Writer seems very much a Visionary so much good “ Game” about life…. And this book seems timeless and a Classic already… just at the beginning now, Wow but still in my mind know how much suffering writer went through and having seen the Beautifully Amazing film adaptation… as I’m listening to the audio book and it’s more in depth descriptions I sum it up as both the book and movie are great “Cautionary Tales” almost like a message in a bottle from the writer in the past who’s already passed on before all of our time but still a warning to future recipients to be mindful living a life where we can be proud of ourselves when sit and think about but there definitely are ups and downs and trials and test of our human will but at then we must do good and be kind to others and not be scammers swindlers and confidence men conmen always get bad karma yes I think that’s the writers ultimate moral to the story what goes around comes around to choose goodwill and always give good karma bless Thank you for your Great Review
It wasn't a lie detector test in the book but a scale he had to "magically" move. He had fleas, which he released and some went on the cat and others went on the scale and moved it. Because it was a sensitive scale that would move with the slightest weight
Stumbled onto this video and I'm so glad I did because you did an awesome job. I just saw the movie last night (twice) and it's devastating. My god the end!!! Thank you for helping me process lol
Glad you liked the video! And glad you loved the movie so much! Its been nominated for best picture and while I don't think it'll win, it's nice it got recognized enough to be nominated
@@WhytheBookWins I actually think it has a real shot to win Best Picture! Another crazy theory of mine is that Dr. Ritter had a conjoined twin that was cut from her chest. That's why she had a scar.
Something that I would like as you read the book and I have not, the scar on the Dr., how did she got it, was it from Grindle? Was she one of the women that he hurt?
The scar wasn't in the book, I'm not totally sure why the movie included that. I guess to show that Lilith has been through a lot. Another person thought she did get it from Gindle but that's just a theory because it is never stated outright
If you take in all the "freudian" psychology that this time clearly implies you can also consider the aspect of stan and sex, and stan and his relations to older men and women. Electra- and oedipus complexes plays in I think in a lot of these characters lives, in the movie Lilith also funnily sates that he has transfered to her as a mistress and a mother as a refrence of stans issues growing up, for the recording ofc. I find it interesting and I can't help but think of sigmund's wierd 40's psychology when watching and reading!
This kind of stuff was going on in Houdini's day. 😮 Houdini had tried and tried to contact his deceased mother and had been lied to again and again. He made it a large part of his stage show to expose fraudulent medium$, and it costed him his life. The teen sent to rough him up ruptured Houdini's appendix with the punches. He was most likely sent by either Margerie or by Sir Author Conan Doyle.
I found the movie to be full of religious motifs. Far more so than the 1947 version. I haven't read the book. In the 2021 film, the fire is very evocative of Hell. You already mentioned the Hell motif when Stan chases the geek into the funhouse. When Stan and Clem dump the geek in an alley there is a JESUS SAVES sign and the letters J.E.S. drop out in the middle of the scene signaling Stands descent. Clem tells Stand, "Don't pretend you give a shit about him!" and in the very next scene tells Stan how a geek is made. Lillith is named for a demon and Clem spelled backward is Melc as in Molach, the pagan god that children were sacrificed to as mentioned in The Bible. Pearl Harbor is mentioned in the third act which makes clear that the third act takes place in December. Christmas time celebrating the birth of Christ. When Stan first visits Ezra , we see a tree being wrapped up in paper which looks very much like a Christmas tree. All of the trees on the estate do but they are all wrapped up. In spite of the fact that this portion of the movie takes place at Christmas time, there are only two references to Christmas. The Christmas trees at Ezra's estate being wrapped up and concealed then Stan promising Molly that every day will be Christmas after their score. And yet there is no sign of Christmas anywhere to be seen. Del Toro's attention to detail in this movie is so precise that this cannot possibly be a coincidence! There is no Christ in Stan's life because he has sunk so low in his depravity.
Good point! Lots of religious symbolism. Stan just isn't as blatant about using religion to fool people as he did in the book where he called himself a reverend.
When I watched the movie, Stan gave Pete the wood alcohol, but I could have sworn that when Pete grabbed the bottle, that Stan told him that it was wood alcohol, and then he left Pete alone with the bottle. Am I mistaken?
According to IMDB, that end scene with Cooper laughing and crying was done in one take. Del Toro said it was the most important moment in the film, and he prepared Cooper and everyone on the set to be ready to do it 50 or 60 times if need be, to get it just right, but Cooper nailed it in the first take. I definitely agree with you that his descent from being on top of the world to become a drunk and then a geek is very rushed in the movie, especially in a movie that glacially paced. I think they could've cut some of the earlier stuff to make room for at least a montage of his descent. This was a great review. I'll probably pick up the book because of this.
Lilith biblically is a demon. it shows at the end. her demeanor changes. mocking him and his choices. seduced him then told him her will be destroyed sh is the road to perdition. molly was innocence and desire of a better life. he began a kinder guy. helping the geek but hit him. then trying to pull him out of the rain than just leave him there. thats molly. but Lilith appeared... he represents all of us. good vs evil. they were the struggle of the mind. the geek represents hell or purgatory and salvation. the first one was sent to a church. you can see a big neon sign. so even tho it looked grim. either he was going to con his way out of being a geek or he is set free a sent to the same place the first one was. so the movie was about man and the angel and devil on your shoulder The angel is the Superego, the demon is the Id, and the person on whose shoulders they sit is the Ego.
I took the scar on Lilith to be showing us she survived an attack from the man that got punched to death, and the whole thing was engineered by her in a perfect act of revenge
Oh interesting! I hadn't thought of that.
I don't recall the man who got punched to death. Can you refresh my memory? I've seen both films and read the book but I'm drawing a blank on that, and it seems likely that Lilith could be motivated by revenge, so if you could remind me when that happened I'd appreciate that. :)
@@MarilynFromTarotClarity the guy who got punched to death was the guy they were conning. He didn't die in the book, but in the movie Stan kills him when things go wrong. And Lilith was motivated to get the upper hand with Stan because he was an easy target basically. Despite him thinking so highly of himself
@Why the Book Wins Hi. I guess I'm asking, which guy were they conning and when? I'm just not recalling it. Or do you mean Grindle? Thanks for your response. ~ Marilyn
@@MarilynFromTarotClarity yeah Grindle, they also kill Grindle's security guard
I read the book years ago and loved it, then watched the movie having no idea it was an adaptation of that novel, because I'm in Mexico and it' got a title in Spanish and didn't read any reviews. It was a great idea experience watching something I had seen in my mind years ago unfold onscreen. And yeah, definitely read the book. It's beautiful and likely to obsess you. I like when books do that.
That's funny you went into it not realizing it was an adaptation!
@@WhytheBookWins yeah! It's like I spoiled it for myself years ago! It was fun to recognize the story right away, and thinking, for a second "Oh, are they ripping off that novel? Oh, no! It's an adaptation!"
I am a big fan of Nightmare Alley (1947). I've seen it three times. I was interested in seeing what del Toro did with his movie based on the novel. But I don't like to see redos of movies I love, even if it's just a redo of the source material. So, all that to say thank you for doing your two videos on Nightmare Alley, book, new movie, and previous movie. You have answered all of my questions!! THANK YOU!
Thanks! I'm glad you found it helpful!
@@WhytheBookWins I decided to watch the new one anyway. I saw it the other day. I wanted to see your reviews again now that I've seen it.
@@CynthiaLK how did you like it?
@@WhytheBookWins Some things I like better in the 1947 movie, and some things I liked better in the new movie. For one thing, Stan's responsibility for what happened to Pete doesn't seem to be very clear in the new movie. Whereas, in the 1947 movie, it was totally an accident, and Stan had a lot of remorse for it.
In the newer movie, where the psychiatrist gives Stan the dollar bills, she turns on her recording, and pretends that it's his last session, explaining why he's is so crazed right now. In the older movie, it was a lot more straightforward. We knew that Pete died because of Stan but it was an accident, and we knew that Stan had a lot of remorse. The older movie tied it up better, explaining why Stan would be mixed up, and putting things onto the psychiatrist. All in all, I saw the new one for historical reasons. But I like the 1947 one the most.
I'm going to watch your review of The Shining next. Personally, when I read the book, the topiary animals terrified me. That's what I remember most. I was disappointed when nothing about that was in the movie.
I mentioned in another comment on this review about an episode of Alfred Hitchcock that relates to what the Mary Steenburgen character did.
@@CynthiaLK Yeah the events with Peter were changed up a bit. I didn't see the comment about the Hitchcock reference, I'll look through again for it.
I don't really talk about the topiary animals in my episode for The Shining, there was just so much to go over! But the scene eden Jack notices they move when he looks away was so creepy! I hope you like my coverage of it though! I'm wanting to read more King this year. I get scared easily though lol. But be had plenty of great books that aren't too over the top scary
The 1947 original with Tyrone Power is one of my top loves in movies.
yeah that's a good one. I have a separate video talking about that one.
An excellent analysis, Laura. I really enjoyed hearing your well-researched insights on Gresham's book of NIGHTMARE ALLEY and it's recent film adaptation by Guillermo del Toro, which I liked. I recently purchased the book and I'm going to read it. Hope to see more of your videos. Thanks so much for taking the time to do it - you really present yourself well and did a fine job. 😊
Thank you so much! Glad you liked the video 😁 The book has really stuck with me, hope you like it!
@@WhytheBookWins trying to track down a 1946 first edition that's not going to cost me $500 ... Lol. For now, the reprint will have to suffice.
@@paulf6556 not to brag, but I got a first edition for $200! I show it in my umboxing video and I will also be showing it off in a video I'll be posting on Friday!
@@WhytheBookWins Congrats - that's awesome ... gives me hope! I love collecting old hardcover novels, especially ones that were turned into really interesting films. Since you enjoy dark stories, then one I'd recommend to you is called "Seconds", written by David Ely. Paramount turned this borderline horror book into a film in 1966, which is outstanding. It starred Rock Hudson, in a very dramatic part, completely counter to the slight romantic comedies he was known for doing at that time. He took the role turn to show Hollywood a different side of his abilities. Creepy plot is about about a middle-aged bank manager, soured on his life, who has a 'second chance' to become young again - but at a very steep price. Very much in the Twilight Zone mold, a be-careful-what-you ask-for kind of thing. Both the novel and film are not that well known, but it's a very powerful and haunting story - with a very grim ending, much like "Nightmare Alley". Would make a good subject for your podcast, I think.
@@paulf6556 ooo that definitely sounds like one of would be into! My book vs movie calendar is full the next few months, but I'll plan on covering it in April or May!
Hi! Great video! Now I want to read the book. I just watched the movie at the theaters in black and white without knowing much about it except that it was a Guillermo de Toro movie and I really liked it a lot. I never felt it was slow. It was to beautiful to watch for me to feel that way. But I think I would’ve liked more build up to the old rich guy, with some extra obstacles… or maybe seeing how Stan and Molly ended up making it at the fancy hotel….but that’s just my preference. I did want to let you know that in an interview with Guillermo de Toro, he did say that the movie was originally over 3 hours long. And they cut it down to what it is now. So maybe if they kept it, it would’ve fixed the feeling you had about it being too fast.
Yeah true, it would be interesting to see the deleted scenes!
In Gresham's bio on Houdini, the answer to moving the scales is explained.
Yeah the book tells us he used fleas
I believe that this story is about how people's unresolved childhood traumas make them seek paths in life in which they feel control over other people on which they project their past aggressors. Dr Ritter and Ezra are mirror images of Stanton who also hurt and kill other that remind them their past aggressors. It also may be criticizing psychologists as being a type of con artists themselves, being paralleled to mentalists. The road-side carnival is a metaphor for their lives, which is all about putting on masks of deceit in order to hide their frail self-esteem. As in the carnival guests come to entertain themselves with the dark side in the safe environment of being the audience but the people on stage are actually constantly reliving their past traumas. Those tortured souls who keep wandering in their own Alley of Nightmares, i.e. their repressed (or not) memories of past traumas entertain themselves by manipulating others BEYOND the show at the carnival similar to how those with personality disorders do, thus providing themselves with an illusion of control but in the end they symbolically and physically go back to the cage of their childhood traumas. Another thought is that when you look closely at the picture of Ezra's wife the carnival Ferris wheel is actually in the background. Any ideas on how this is connected? Did Ezra's wife abort the one-eyed baby in the jar?
Well put! Totally agree. And interesting...I hadn't made that connection about the baby. I don't know if it is that directly connected but I think the baby in the jar is symbolic in some way. Maybe symbolic of Stan? It even has the Third eye like what he has in his eyes mask.
3h30 min directors cut hopefully one day
This movie definitely doesnt need to be longer.
I read the book a few years ago. Very dark and sleazy, with no good guys. It stayed with me to this day.
I loved the tarot cards starting each chapter.
David Strathaim is one hell of an actor.
Since you are into books, check out the movie adaptation of Stephen King's Dolores Claiborne...it's a great movie and Strathaim gives an awesome performance
I'm planning on covering this one in June! I've heard great things so I'm very excited 😁
Finally saw the OG film earlier this year & it’s a good adaptation, but the tacked-on studio ending hurts the point the story makes about Stan’s behavior and how he falls for his delusion. Loves Del Toro’s take with the lavish cinematography, excellent cast (Bradley Cooper was a perfect replacement for Tyrone Power’s shoes) & the intrigue really hooked me
Definitely agree!
You didn't know that all geeks were/are alcoholics? And, YES being a geek IS the LOWEST you can go. I am older than you and when I went to the circus with my family, I was told that geeks were really far-gone alcoholics who bit the heads off of chickens.
Oh and, yes the movie comes back about the woman who shoots her husband and then herself when the rich guy's bodyguard hears about the murder-suicide on the radio, and rushes out to warn the rich guy who had just been strangled by Stan after the rich guy tries to hurt the girl who is pretending to be Dory.
Yeah the book begins with Clem telling Stan that. I had never heard of a geek show though till this book.
And true, the bodyguard wouldn't have died had he not heard that news on the radio
Great breakdown, thank you!
One thing I might add: in the book, I think Stan reading in the newspaper that Lilith had married Grindle was the catalyst to Stan losing his mind. For example, before the newspaper, Stanton said "keep it at beer for a while" implying that only drinking beer compared to liquor was somehow better for his recovery. Following Stan reading about the marriage, Grisham goes on this crazy incoherent ramble into the mind of Stanton and liquor is once again Stanton's drink of choice. He geeks once he was back on liquor.
Interesting, I forgot he started drinking more after reading about her!
Yes, he caught a break with help of Zeena and Joe, giving him the info/tools to work in disguise in a mitt camp, but the image of HER getting Ezra, (and all the marbles) knocked him off the wagon.
I wondered in the Del Toro film, in the homeless camp he sees an ad for Zeena still out there performing,
if he went to see her and she helps him and gets him straight, but he sees the news of the marriage and goes downward...but all that was edited out of the 3hour/15minute original version.
I’m a fan of the Tyrone Power version of the film and I agree about the last scene in del Toro’s movie. I enjoyed your talk. I’m sure you know by now there was a three hour and 15 minute version of this movie which probably details more of Stan’s downfall at the end. Multi layered story that is much more than just being about “greed” like some reviewers say. Also, you’re quite lovely.
Yeah I would like to see the extended cut!
@@WhytheBookWins I found this analysis very helpful: th-cam.com/video/bZMnQ4AhUXU/w-d-xo.html
The Ending is so Ugh!! It unnerves me. Well Done. I wonder how many takes it took to shoot it
checked out two of your videos and really dig them. keep it up!
Thank you so much!
Great video! In the new movie, the big scene where Stan has his first drink, Lileth had kissed him with whiskey on her lips - which I thought resembled how Clem draws the geeks in with just a drop of opium in their booze at first to give them a taste! So it was perhaps slightly overly dramatic because it more clearly shows her first manipulation of him...
Oooo I love that detail! Good catch
Very good break down. Interesting how the story is so comparable to Williams life. You've got me really interested in reading the book. Thank you.
Thanks! If you found the movie interesting, I highly recommend the book!
@@WhytheBookWins It's on the list. I found the movie so interesting as I've always held an interest in addiction and the trauma and broken side of the human spirit, I can only imagine the book will give me a more in depth view. 👌🏽
@@rakbhogal3293 Agreed! I love reading books about addiction. Funny enough I went into this book not even knowing that would play a part. I have a number of book vs movie episodes that relate to addiction
@@WhytheBookWins I'll have a look now that I've subscribed. Keep up the good work.
Amazing video 😊
Thanks!
Great Review welp Listening to the Audio book now the Writer seems very much a Visionary so much good “ Game” about life…. And this book seems timeless and a Classic already… just at the beginning now, Wow but still in my mind know how much suffering writer went through and having seen the Beautifully Amazing film adaptation… as I’m listening to the audio book and it’s more in depth descriptions I sum it up as both the book and movie are great “Cautionary Tales” almost like a message in a bottle from the writer in the past who’s already passed on before all of our time but still a warning to future recipients to be mindful living a life where we can be proud of ourselves when sit and think about but there definitely are ups and downs and trials and test of our human will but at then we must do good and be kind to others and not be scammers swindlers and confidence men conmen always get bad karma yes I think that’s the writers ultimate moral to the story what goes around comes around to choose goodwill and always give good karma bless Thank you for your Great Review
glad you liked my review! Yeah the book is amazing, and the new movie was so fantastic. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
In the book how does Stan get the light to light up when Grindle tests him? That was not in the movie. It somehow involved his cat right?
It wasn't a lie detector test in the book but a scale he had to "magically" move. He had fleas, which he released and some went on the cat and others went on the scale and moved it. Because it was a sensitive scale that would move with the slightest weight
Stumbled onto this video and I'm so glad I did because you did an awesome job. I just saw the movie last night (twice) and it's devastating. My god the end!!! Thank you for helping me process lol
Glad you liked the video! And glad you loved the movie so much! Its been nominated for best picture and while I don't think it'll win, it's nice it got recognized enough to be nominated
@@WhytheBookWins I actually think it has a real shot to win Best Picture! Another crazy theory of mine is that Dr. Ritter had a conjoined twin that was cut from her chest. That's why she had a scar.
Something that I would like as you read the book and I have not, the scar on the Dr., how did she got it, was it from Grindle? Was she one of the women that he hurt?
The scar wasn't in the book, I'm not totally sure why the movie included that. I guess to show that Lilith has been through a lot. Another person thought she did get it from Gindle but that's just a theory because it is never stated outright
If you take in all the "freudian" psychology that this time clearly implies you can also consider the aspect of stan and sex, and stan and his relations to older men and women. Electra- and oedipus complexes plays in I think in a lot of these characters lives, in the movie Lilith also funnily sates that he has transfered to her as a mistress and a mother as a refrence of stans issues growing up, for the recording ofc. I find it interesting and I can't help but think of sigmund's wierd 40's psychology when watching and reading!
So true!
This kind of stuff was going on in Houdini's day. 😮 Houdini had tried and tried to contact his deceased mother and had been lied to again and again.
He made it a large part of his stage show to expose fraudulent medium$, and it costed him his life.
The teen sent to rough him up
ruptured Houdini's appendix with the punches.
He was most likely sent by either
Margerie or by Sir Author Conan Doyle.
I found the movie to be full of religious motifs. Far more so than the 1947 version. I haven't read the book. In the 2021 film, the fire is very evocative of Hell. You already mentioned the Hell motif when Stan chases the geek into the funhouse. When Stan and Clem dump the geek in an alley there is a JESUS SAVES sign and the letters J.E.S. drop out in the middle of the scene signaling Stands descent. Clem tells Stand, "Don't pretend you give a shit about him!" and in the very next scene tells Stan how a geek is made. Lillith is named for a demon and Clem spelled backward is Melc as in Molach, the pagan god that children were sacrificed to as mentioned in The Bible. Pearl Harbor is mentioned in the third act which makes clear that the third act takes place in December. Christmas time celebrating the birth of Christ. When Stan first visits Ezra , we see a tree being wrapped up in paper which looks very much like a Christmas tree. All of the trees on the estate do but they are all wrapped up. In spite of the fact that this portion of the movie takes place at Christmas time, there are only two references to Christmas. The Christmas trees at Ezra's estate being wrapped up and concealed then Stan promising Molly that every day will be Christmas after their score. And yet there is no sign of Christmas anywhere to be seen. Del Toro's attention to detail in this movie is so precise that this cannot possibly be a coincidence! There is no Christ in Stan's life because he has sunk so low in his depravity.
There is also a more supernatural element in the Del Toro film in that that Molly looks exactly like Dorrie.
Good point! Lots of religious symbolism. Stan just isn't as blatant about using religion to fool people as he did in the book where he called himself a reverend.
I thought Christian Bale would also be a great choice as the main character.
Yeah I can definitely see him in the role
I liked the 1947 film better but didnt know it was a book. Thx 4 this vid
glad you liked the video!
When I watched the movie, Stan gave Pete the wood alcohol, but I could have sworn that when Pete grabbed the bottle, that Stan told him that it was wood alcohol, and then he left Pete alone with the bottle. Am I mistaken?
Not that I recall. In the book and movie, Stan didn't realize it was wood alcohol
@@WhytheBookWins I guess my mind does immediate rewrites as I watch movies
Stan Says I was Born for It!! Not Born to do it.
Could you compare the book, "
Was there more to this question?
According to IMDB, that end scene with Cooper laughing and crying was done in one take.
Del Toro said it was the most important moment in the film, and he prepared Cooper and everyone on the set to be ready to do it 50 or 60 times if need be, to get it just right, but Cooper nailed it in the first take.
I definitely agree with you that his descent from being on top of the world to become a drunk and then a geek is very rushed in the movie, especially in a movie that glacially paced. I think they could've cut some of the earlier stuff to make room for at least a montage of his descent.
This was a great review. I'll probably pick up the book because of this.
Wow, I didn't know it was one take! Incredible.
And thanks! I would definitely recommend the book!
It’s hard to hear but the Geek says to himself
I’m Not like This
A few times
You remind me of Barbara Streisand ❤
Lilith biblically is a demon. it shows at the end. her demeanor changes. mocking him and his choices. seduced him then told him her will be destroyed sh is the road to perdition. molly was innocence and desire of a better life. he began a kinder guy. helping the geek but hit him. then trying to pull him out of the rain than just leave him there. thats molly. but Lilith appeared... he represents all of us. good vs evil. they were the struggle of the mind. the geek represents hell or purgatory and salvation. the first one was sent to a church. you can see a big neon sign. so even tho it looked grim. either he was going to con his way out of being a geek or he is set free a sent to the same place the first one was. so the movie was about man and the angel and devil on your shoulder
The angel is the Superego, the demon is the Id, and the person on whose shoulders they sit is the Ego.
Loved the movie! You are incredibly beautiful!