I always felt that the whole ‘no, it’s just dumb!’ theme was an attempt to answer the question of ‘how do we deliver a Knives Out experience to an audience that has seen Knives Out and is wise to our tricks?’ Playing into the desire to see something complex, by having it actually be obfuscation of something very simple seemed like a pretty good way of trying to give a still-surprising story.
One thing I liked about The Glass Onion is that you can watch Ed Nortan poison Bautista when he does it. Like, they called attention to people's personal drinking glasses, so I paid attention to the glasses constantly. When Ed Nortan does the poisoning, he literally hands the glass to Bautista. They try to fill in what happened a moment later and the camera shows him putting the glass on the table, and I was like -- That wasn't what happened! And I was able to put everything together from that. So... I felt pretty good about having been able to solve the murders before they happened. Ish.
22:57 There's actually no cheating in the scene Brandon's describing. The first shot we see of Dave Bautista (with Benoit looking on from the tree behind him) takes place after the shot with Janelle Monae, chronologically. In the second shot, as she leaves, she steps on something that snaps, Bautista hears it and turns around briefly, then looks back into the window again.
I think there was a misunderstanding as to the stakes in Glass Onion. They aren't just "Will Miles get his comeuppance?" Or "Will Miles get away with murder?", they're "Will Miles get away with pushing through this extremely volatile, dangerous product that will certainly kill a lot of people and destroy a lot of homes?". He has political, scientific and social protections in place through his wealth and his control over the "disrupters" and he manages to get rid of all evidence that might destroy those protections. So, something massive needs to happen in order to stop him. And idk about you but the destruction of the Mona Lisa seems like a fair trade for not having a hydrogen based energy source out there
There’s one issue in this episode where you say that Miles being shown that Andi is dead is not new information to him. But it is! He did not stick around after causing Andi’s death. When he left her house, she was still breathing in the car. I thought the movie made it clear that he assumed he had failed to kill her when “andi” showed up on the island. And I think that’s also a big reason why he doesn’t immediately freak out and call his men and whatnot. Because he thinks this is Andi, who has apparently decided not to press charges on an attempted murder, meeting with him. Why would he be worried she would suddenly accuse him if she hadn’t already? Sure, a smart person would probably freak out just in case, but Miles is nothing if not overconfident. So finding out Andi DID actually die is a surprise to him. A gigantic one, actually.
Yup. Miles is so much of an idiot that he did not confirm his kill. Twice. I think that's the big mistake that Brandon and Dan make: they assume that the movie can only be smart if the villain is smart.
Well, he also did it because Duke was the only one who knew that he was the only one who could have killed her. He was the only one who saw him leaving her house.
At least as far as why the house had to be blown up and the mona lisa burned I am pretty sure the point is less: 'I need to destroy the mona lisa so Myles gets his comeuppance' and more 'I need to destroy the Mona Lisa so Myles' negligence in regards to this incredibly dangerous fuel can't be covered up by lawyers and before he can proliferate this far enough that widespread disasters start happening'. The Mona Lisa had to be destroyed because anything less wouldn't actually affect him.
You could also say that the house being destroyed adds to that as well, though as much as I'll defend the movie the characters being as physically unharmed as they are is a little wild. I mean I heard the explosion happens upwards rather than all around like other explosives but still.
This is the reasoning used by climate activists to dump soup on paintings right now, except even less tenuously connected. These are not appropriate means to accomplish those ends.
@@FellshardYT as far as I know the soup didn't actually do irreperable damage to any work of art, and all appropriate means of protest have been ignored... So in that context i think it is kind of tolerable. Still the destruction of the mona Lisa in the movie irks me.
@@maximeteppe7627 If it helps, the Mona Lisa in the movie was intended to be a copy, not the original, there was a cut after credits scene confirming that the original was safe. Miles apparently just kept reaching out to the Louvre until they gave him a copy and assumed it was the real one. You can tell it's not because the original isn't on canvas. It got cut because they felt it was a bit convoluted and didn't serve the narrative as well, even though it would have reassured people.
@@thegrandwombat8797 if it's not in the movie, it's not canon though. As far as I know, the movie takes place in a bizarro universe where the Mediterranean sea has tides worth speaking of and the Mona Lisa was painted on canvas rather than on a wood board.
I assume y'all will get into this, but KO and GO are some of the best examples I've ever seen of using classic tropes as red herrings while still being clearly respectful of the works that made the tropes popular (Christie, Doyle, etc).
When you're talking about why Miles killed Duke, I think you're misunderstanding why he did it. He didn't kill Duke because Andi's death got out. He killed Duke because Duke is the only person who knows that Miles was at Andi's house when she died.
I think Brandon and Dan fixating on how important a cultural artifact the Mona Lisa is is part of why Rian Johnson had the protagonist of his murder mystery destroy it in a moment of triumph. The Mona Lisa is important, sure. But it is not as important as a human life, let alone all the lives Ed Norton’s new miracle fuel would jeopardize. The point is that at the end of the day this priceless piece of artwork is just an old rag with some colors smudged across it but the human beings that would be killed by this dangerous fuel supply are human beings.
I wasn't bothered by the Mona Lisa burning. Since the movie was framed as a comedy, I didn't take seriously anything about the world as if it was our own. Also, I remember the rich guy was trying to sell this energy pellets that were actually dangerous and would've gotten people killed. By burning the Mona Lisa with the byproduct of these pellets, it gave a case for them being dangerous and will prevent their adoption.
I prefer the phrase, "Nuking the fridge" instead of "Jumping the shark". This refers to the scene in Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull where Indiana gets in a refrigerator to avoid a nuclear blast.
Except that scene was cool, actually, and completely in line with the kinds of weird stunts that would never work in real life but that we love anyway from the first three films. I will never understand why people complain about Indy surviving through a method that wouldn’t work in real life in that one particular case but have no issue with him jumping from a plane onto a mountain with a raft that he is inflating as they fall and then falling from a cliff many feet straight down into rapidly flowing river…. Or any of the the other ridiculous things that happen in those films. That are still great.
"Nuking the fridge" is more when "jumping the shark" happens in the course of a single work rather than during the course of a series. I will say jumping the shark is a bit of a misnomer, as I've seen some Happy Days post-shark jump and it's actually still good.
I think the key here is when you guys note that a certain character ‘felt like a symbol, not a real person’. That’s the point. He’s not supposed to be or act like a real person. He’s a symbol standing in for a particular type of person, an exaggerated version. Same goes for the ending. The things that are destroyed aren’t a triumph because of the literal objects involved, but because of what they represent. You’re trying to pick apart Glass Onion like it’s meant to be a grounded, realistic story. I really don’t think that was the intention. It’s more of a parable or an allegory - every person and thing in the story is a symbol or a metaphor, a stand-in for something in the real world. It’s like trying to pick apart plot holes in a fairy tale. There are certain classes of stories where the point isn’t for the plot to be perfectly logical or for all the pieces to make sense from a realistic perspective. The point is to use characters and objects and situations to draw comparisons to the real world and make a statement or teach a lesson. Now, it’s fine not to enjoy those kinds of stories. But it’s important when criticizing something to at least criticize it based on what it’s trying to be/do. (You can’t criticize a romantic comedy for not having enough fight scenes.) I feel like you’re just fundamentally misunderstanding the type of story that the creator was trying to tell, whether or not he was successful.
I always read Glass Onion as a parodical comedy masquerading as a murder mystery. It reminded me in a lot of ways of an old movie called Murder By Death. It mocks the tropes of mysteries even as it imitates them. Glass Onion goes the extra step though and is sneakily mocking the audience as well. It really did feel like I was being trolled, hehe. It's a good troll, I appreciated it on that level.
Priorities. I would burn the monalisa to bring down my sisters killer. There is a serious disconect between the high ideals of people who live a confortable enough life and those who survive under the thumb of powerful people. A painting is a small price, no matter how many people think it is important.
I haven't looked through all the comments, I haven't seen anything mentioning how much Glass Onion looks like an Agatha Christie novel. All the bait and switch and other shenanigans with the audience happen in her novels. I loved it for that fact. On the destruction of the Mona Lisa, I saw it as a parallel to his arrogance and disregard in the use of the substance he was using to power the island. The character is thinking "I can add the override to the painting's security because I can do anything I want and get away with it."
I think they missed the point with the Mona Lisa. The scene where she tears the room down is mirroring the description of disruptors. Everyone cheers for you as you break the rules, but then you go too far and they're outraged. Both the other characters in the scene and the audience are made to go through that emotional reaction to show that she is the true badass disruptor, not any of the other characters.
Interesting point about Myles at around 28:00. I always thought that him seeing Benoit and "Andi" was him genuinely believing he failed in killing Andi, and she didn't realize his attempt. Because he's an an idiot, who didn't even care enough about Andi to even THINK about the fact that she has a twin sister.
I just think this is TOO stupid, unless you go full on parody. Like, who doesn't panic in that situation. Maybe if she weren't literally in the presence of the greatest living detective. For this to work, he has to be so dumb that: 1) He doesn't know this very important person in his life has a twin she never tried to hide. 2) He has to assume she isn't suspicious of him. And the detective isn't involved in his murder attempt. 3) Have no plan at all to deal with Dave B. beforehand. Have no plan to deal with suspicion of him for the murder he thinks he committed. 4) Have no kind of security, police bribes, etc. It's just too much for me. He's not dumb, he's a cartoon. And it kicked me out of the film.
@@BrandSanderson That's fair, I think there is an element of 'character as semi-satirical social archetype' in the film (a reason the side characters don't have an arc) which can be somewhat at the expense of their believability as real individuals. Your mileage will vary on that point and if it's over the line for you, then the frustration with the plot is certainly reasonable. Now that the important part of my comment's covered, it is believable enough for me - after all, Nixon knowingly recorded himself talking about committing crimes trying to bias an election he already was likely to win. In my experience people make the biggest mistakes when they assume they’re smarter than everyone else, and Miles Braun absolutely buys his own hype. I think the main characterization of Braun is someone who sees what's immediately in front of him but doesn't follow that train of thought any farther. He is suspicious of Blanc, but accepts the first reasonable explanation he hears for his presence - even repeating it as his own idea. He takes the envelope, but doesn't think to destroy it in case of a future scenario. All of the dumb things he does are like this; even his new fuel was based off of him hearing a surface level pitch and committing. It's not even necessarily that he's not capable of being intelligent, but that he's fundamentally not curious, due to believing he's better than everyone as - like Blanc says - everyone typically assumes. So he takes the first idea that comes to his head and runs with it without bothering to consider if there might be another better option. And why shouldn't he? He's one of the most successful people in the world, it's worked for him so far. I do feel that it's consistent and works very well for the story if you accept it, but consistency isn't the same as plausibility. I can definitely see how it could break someone's suspension of disbelief.
@@thegrandwombat8797 An extremely well reasoned reply. And, to be honest, part of me is happy Johnson went this direction. It's different. It hits differently. It makes the story interesting to talk about. I'm still thinking about it, and how I feel. It is hard for me to let go of the desire for the ending to have that click moment where it all makes sense. But that's not the goal here, and I have to be able to accept art for what it is, not what I would want it to be instead. In that light, am I glad we have Glass Onion despite me being kicked out at the end? Yes, I am. It is a good enough movie to teach me something, and to have something interesting to show off. And, your arguments for intentions are plausible enough that I think I like the film a little more, thinking of it in that light.
I'm surprised that Brandon and Dan missed some major themes from the movie. The Mona Lisa had to burn because that's the only way Andy could be a real disruptor. Listen to Miles talk about real disruptors again. He says it's the moment you go too far in the eyes of others that you become an actual disruptor. Basically it's revealing that all these people who thought they were so great and making all these waves they were not real disruptors. Only Andi was.
absolutely agree!! the monalisa burning saved the ending for me. It really completes Andis‘s arc of going from someone who thinks they’re incapable and weak to someone who would destroy a precious artpiece in a blink of an eye for justice. it’s also the only way for the others to desert Miles. Overall, just a better ending than some wishy washy morally unambiguous ending like miles getting crushed by the painting. what was that???
I actually really like the idea of "Suddenly, No One Can Read or Write". I imagine humanity trying to figure out the lost information from diagrams and drawings which will cause all kinds of equipment failures and rewriting of history. Terry Pratchett's style of storytelling.
Oral traditions are the oldest form that has survived multiple genocides holocausts disasters. So storytelling doesn't need a written form and no reading at all.
@@plusmanikantanr I think they’re referring more to science and information we’ve learned which would need to be rediscovered, which is an interesting story though too daunting unless refined into a certain direction.
You might be interested in the sea of ink and gold series then. It's set in a world without any form of written language and some really interesting world building around that. It's not talked about much but it's really good
I'd recommend Brandon does follow up with what he said and go back and look, the movie fits together much better than they've assumed. A lot of the critiques came off as very strange to me, the movie is far from a joke, I stand by the idea that it is smart. Although I'm sure you could make a very good movie with the suggestions they had for what to change, it would undermine the story being told. One side note, on how the cast of characters compare to Knives Out, both are doing the same thing, but with different types of people. Knives out was deconstructing old money rich families, and because our experiences with those kinds of people are interpersonal, they were more nuanced as our understanding of people we know tends to be. This movie was a deconstruction and takedown of new money powerful figures, which we tend to view from a distance - they are more caricatures, but that's because of what the deconstruction is. Final side note, the movie wouldn't have worked at all if the twins were the same person.
@@watcherofthewest8597 agree. Upon reflection, his critique in this one was the harshest I've ever heard from him... but I haven't heard all his reviews so if another comes to mind for anyone lmk
@@SpencerTwiddy This one was harsh but I think fairly so. I could listen to Sanderson talk about art and analysis and his opinions all day, not thrilling, but solid stuff. He is in a unique spot as far as what he can publicly criticize. Not saying he is being un-genuine, he is just a thoghtfull and smart guy. With Wheel of Time season 1 he was obviously very praiseworthy, but he also got into quite of it of what he didn't like...and I give him credit, it was a tuff spot for him and that show was god awful, nearly if not as bad as rings of power unfortunatly
I understood them blowing up the building/Mona Lisa being the way they could ensure the technology wouldn’t get used. I guess that’s why it didn’t bother me?
My personal favorite food related disaster is the Dublin Whisky Fire. Here's the Wikipedia synopsis: "The Dublin whiskey fire took place on 18 June 1875 in the Liberties area of Dublin. It lasted a single night but killed 13 people, and resulted in €6 million worth of damage in whiskey alone (adjusted for inflation). People drank from the 6 inches (150 mm) deep river of whiskey that is said to have flowed as far as the Coombe. None of the fatalities suffered during the fire were due to smoke inhalation, burns, or any other form of direct contact with the fire itself; all of them were attributed to alcohol poisoning."
Suddenly no one can read or write reminds me about a stargate episode where a whole town experienced sudden memory loss. It was fascinating as they tried to figure out what happened. People may lose their ability to read or write but they'll be able to understand a lot of basic stuff due to visual cues. Like when you visit a foreign country. You can understand most things from pictures and context. I think this story idea is only really good when there is someone good or bad who can still read and write/has full memories.
I'm bailing at the spoiler as I haven't seen either. It's less that I care about the spoilers and more than I won't be able to appreciate what you're saying. But before I got, I think you guys are as funny as you think you are. This episode intro is gold.
So the Mona Lisa is oil on poplar, not canvas. I have to assume the director knew this and chose to make the Mona Lisa in the movie a fake, which is even more hilarious that the Louvre duped the richest person.
@@elekbuday81 Johnson has said in interviews that there was a cut after credit scene of Benoit confirming that the real Mona Lisa was still safely in the Louvre, but it was cut because they felt it undercut the weight of destroying it.
I agree with some of the points about Glass Onion, but ultimately I think the ending does work. The secret twin sister Helen expresses multiple times in the flashbacks and recontextualizations with Blanc that Andi was the brave one while she was meek; she hires Blanc because she doesn't think she can take down Miles; she's whiteknuckling the railing the whole trip to the island and only went because Blanc talked her into it. Her flaw is fear and lack of self-confidence, and her growth is finally coming into her own when she stands up for herself as herself, stands up to Miles, and takes him down herself, without Blanc even present at that point. She uses the same methods of "brute force the puzzle" that is foreshadowed earlier, but she's finally brave enough to do it herself when she always felt like she'd never live up doing something big like her sister. On the Mona Lisa aspect, I think it's a commentary on what's actually important, and what people's priorities are when it comes to justice and protests. Keep in mind, this movie is written following and set during not just the pandemic lockdowns, but the Black Lives Matter protests. It's a commentary on radical justice and destructive protest, ultimately a sympathetic one, that says that sometimes, when justice is denied every other way, it takes getting to property damage to achieve it. Reminiscent of Civil Rights protests, or the climate protests when people tried to deface paintings. As the song that plays over the destruction of the Mona Lisa goes, the line it ends on in the movie: "Are you warm and real, Mona Lisa, or just a cold and lonely work of art?" If destroying art, even that art, is what it takes to stop terrible injustice (which is this case, it is, as the destruction of painting is what will destroy Miles, and his friends don't flip on him until it happens), is it not worth it? Do we value more a famous painting or a person's life and future people's safety? It can be an uncomfortable conversation to have, and a nuanced one that people will have different responses to, but I think that it's intentional. There's a Martin Luther King Jr quote about the white moderate who values order and keeping the peace being just as big an obstacle to civil rights and true justice as the racists who oppose it because they prevent the necessary drastic steps to achieving that progress. I do not believe its a coincidence that it's a black woman who carries out this act, even more than the surface level commentary on race: She's asking the moderates (in this case, mile's friends who don't like what he's doing but won't actually shut it down), "what's ultimately more important?" And they do the right thing and side with her. It's sad for the art that sometimes that's what it takes, and some people may never accept it, but that's the philosophy the movie, at least to me, and I respect it.
Your comment now has me wondering if the "twin sister" thing was intended as a nod to the "they all look same" aspect of racism. I haven't rewatched Glass Onion, so not sure if this supported by the rest of the movie.
Yo guys, the Mona Lisa burning was a direct reference to the artifice of value that most art has, the ML being the most famous example of a work of art that’s been replicated so many times it has lost all of its original value, and then ironically this is the one thing that the empty husk of a villain believes is the only thing of true value in the world. It *is* a joke, but about the concept of what we assign value to.
It's always interesting to listen to someone talk about why something doesn't work when it did work for me. But as someone who used to have a tendency to think of the complicated, nuanced, and very 'smart' solution to something weird.... only for the real answer to be something dumb and simple... it was nice to see that happen to a protagonist =]
About the point at 40:05 about Glass Onion working the same way if there's no twin sister but instead Miles Bron just failed to kill her... I don't see how that's possible without lots of restructuring. If this were the case, she would remember that Miles tried to kill her and defeat the entire "whodunnit". Am I missing something?
Yeah, normally I think their takes are solid but it feels like a lot of the critiques and suggested changes in this one are missing the point, to me. Pretty much all of them would mess up the entire theme as I see it.
@@LewsTherinTelescope It's basically that they're critiquing a different movie. Brandon almost realized it when he was talking about how he'd basically come up with another movie on the fly after the opening, but it seems like he ultimately never let that go.
It's worth noting that if you watch the Mona Lisa burning in the finale, you can tell that it's not the real thing. The Mona Lisa was painted on a wooden panel, and you can clearly see in the movie that it's canvas
@@elekbuday81 I thought it was just that too, but apparently the original plan _was_ for it to be a fake and they even filmed a post-credits scene that would have revealed this, but they decided that it not being the real one would undo the impact of the moment and cut it. (Can't link to the source, probably because of TH-cam's spam detection, but search "collider mona lisa stunt".)
I think saying 'burning the mona lisa' didn't solve anything doesn't work for me. It's the only way to break through the firewall of protection they are willing to give him. It's the only way to have him unquestionably accountable for something that is unambiguous and that he can't dodge. Whether that's worth it depends on whether you think Andi's life had value and whether her murderer should be held accountable for something, even if his crew would defend him from all other consequences. Plus it is awesome as the counterpoint to his destruction of the napkin. One sends the only tangible proof it wasn't his idea up in smoke. The other sends up the idea he is a responsible custodian or steward of any trust up in smoke.
obviously the groundskeeper stole some of the corn syrup while the train was derailed and replaced it with an equal weight of water, similar to the breaking bad heist.
I really liked both movies when they came out. I can definitely see where you’re coming from, but I definitely liked the idea of the villain being an idiot with too much power. (Though I can see how it can come across as a farce to people. Still, I can learn from it.)
It was too on the nose for me. It was Elon Musk. Rian hates Elon Musk, so Elon is the bad guy. There's no mystery to the movie because it's too obvious who the bad guy is.
@@markstenquist2315 fair point but to Rian's credit I think the fun of these two movies goes beyond the who did it and lives more in the structure of the film and the trip Benoist goes in to solve it. In the first one we get the Ana de Armas "twist" sort of early on. Here is the Janelle Monae reveal which we get a little later I think Anyways I think beyond figuring out he mystery I get a lot of enjoyment out of these movies throughout
@@NotMeButAnother Depends on your opinion of Musk, which is the point. Rian's opinion of him is that he's a very rich idiot, hence the bad guy is portrayed as a very rich idiot. The messaging was too obvious for me to enjoy the movie. But, I love politics and view a lot of things through that lens. I recognize other people don't do that and don't go into the movie knowing Rian's political views.
@@yasielromero8236 But even Brando Sando pointed out that Rian corrupted the actual investigative storyline by deceiving the audience with false scenes. Benoit doesn't 'solve' anything in Glass Onion, so much as have it laid out in front of him after the fact. Knives Out is a much better constructed movie.
In regards to "How does Helen the sister play this so well," they address the explanation given in the movie: she explains in the flashback that she and her sister used to play a character when younger that they called "rich bitch," and that act was the one her sister was putting on in her public life. So it establishes that she is also trained in doing that same act as her sister, since they would role-play this character together. The movie also shows that her character flaw is lack of self confidence to compete with these important people, that she is terrified of this the entire time, she doesn't think she can pull it off, and that her growth is when she drops the act, has confidence in her true self, leaves the fear behind and solves problems her way: Brute forcing it rather playing the silly games the rich people do. Her flaw was never lack of ability it was lack of confidence. And only once she believes in and stops doubting her ability, she wins.
Watching Kathrine Hahn in the background is its own movie. She is just so damn good Anyway. Miles is: overconfident, egotistical, and ignorant. He doesn't realize that he killed Ailes. Just because he is rich and lives on that estate doesn't mean he is genius. Everyone around him was brilliant and he exploited that. Miles is the glass onion, he has layers of fake complications; but was empty.
I've had a running argument with myself for years now about whether or not art is actually more important than people. Like, Brandon and Dan sound like they come down on "art", and a younger me would have wholeheartedly agreed. But I'm not sure I do anymore. It's a challenging question. (The trolley problem that haunts me is: "If it is [insert probability] that an artifact will be destroyed if the British Museum returns it to its country of origin, should it be returned?" And I don't know.)
I think the big reveal wasn't that Edward Norton was the dumb villain, I think it was that EVERYONE ELSE was. Nobody chose to do the right thing and give up their rich sponsor (who obviously murdered TWO of their friends) until the victim literally blew up the building and burned the Mona Lisa, which would make big news and no amount of money could sweep under the rug.
IMO, the Miles was so rich he did not care if his entire island was destroyed. He could always replace everything. The one thing thst was irreplaceable was the Mona Lisa. We are told he has been fascinated by the Mona Lisa. He paid an exorbitant amount of money to have the original on his island when he meets with the world leaders. He even says the insurance requirements were a lot. But he relishes in the fact he has an override to the security measures. He wants to be able to get as close as possible to the painting. He dies not care about the death of his supposed friends. They are a mesns to an end. The only thing that matters to him is the destruction of the Mina Lisa. That was the only way for Miles to suffer. I saw that coming from the moment he was revealed as a fraud
Two ideas: either Dan starts making up increasingly fake food heists and trying to fool Brandon. OR you guys both write a short story of the most epic food heist ever
I love Knives Out! However, Glass Onion left me unsatisfied halfway through. I appreciate Brandon's and Dan's breakdown of Glass Onion and agree with most of the criticisms. I think that giving the writers, director, producers--decisionmakers credit for 4D chess and being so smart but just not being able to pull the movie off is being very gracious. I don't think they deserve that much credit. Like Dan said at the end, I would love a third installment which harkens back to the things that worked in the first. movie
The only title I will accept for a food heist involving a secret alligator ranch (and tangentially, ranch dressing) is "Crouching Gator, Hidden Valley".
For me this movie felt very obvious in its continuation of deconstructing mystery tropes. It intentionally goes out of its way to do all the ‘bad’ mystery movie tropes but executes them well to demonstrate how a movie can be entertaining regardless, particularly using the audience expectations to develop the them. Ie. Rian Johnson is a good enough director that he wouldn’t do these ‘cheap’ things so you wouldn’t expect them, similar to the use of the glass onion theme. This clearly is not a mystery movie but frames itself as such, while making it impossible to solve, because we are expected to expect a mystery. Like the first half is all built towards setting up a murder, before showing that the Murder already happened. Though, I think the main sticking point of most criticism I have heard seems to stem from it doing its expectation management too well (or takes it too far) so that the audience is prepped too much for what movie to expect that they can’t switch gears when they find out what it actually is and end up disappointed by that. Also, I find the whole Mona Lisa thing funny because that exemplifies the glass onion theme as well. People think of it as ‘the greatest painting in the world’ and expect it to be the best because of its acclaim. But it is only famous because it was stolen a while back and there are plenty of other paintings that could be considered more valuable on an artistic merit. But people worship this one because it got lucky and had some fame a while back and has been riding on that as the most expensive painting. Which I find ironic because Myles worships it as the best for the same reasons he became famous.
I thought Glass Onion was amazing. I saw it as a complete comedy that they tried to shove every single mystery cliche in that they could. It was so over the top that it worked brilliantly for me. It was a slight bummer for me when they had the drink scene in the beginning and I caught on immediately the switch in story telling and knew it was Ed Norton’s character that killed him. But it was fun to watch all the ridiculous things play out. It wasn’t a thinker movie, but it was entertaining.
I think that's the problem. Brandon has a lecture about promise, progress, and payoffs when it comes to the plot. Murder mystery stories have this unwritten promise that you have to think about who is the culprit, what have they done, or how they did it. Knives Out works because it satisfies the audience in both genres that it plays, which are whodunit and cat vs. mouse subgenres. But Rian Johnson kinda mocks its audience for "playing Clues" with Glass Onion. It's also the same thing with The Last Jedi where the surprise from the mystery box from The Force Awakens are just duds and it mocks its fans for caring in the first place. Sure, it's comical and entertaining, but I don't want to be mocked for caring about the mystery genre.
This isn't a "you don't get it" but a "I know you appreciate other points of view, and this blew my mind." Movies with Mikey did a breakdown of Glass Onion that elevated my opinion of it (as someone who liked it but not as much as Knives Out). Very worth the watch. In general you're doing yourselves a disservice if you aren't watching Movies With Mikey. Rothfuss once called it some of the best content on TH-cam, and I can't disagree
Might I recommend "Food Forensics" as the name for the wider field of research? Food Science is a real thing people study and Food Scholarship may get confused with that
I mean the movie itself is a glass onion. At the beginning you are shown the pieces of the onion (the main characters). You think they are complex and meaningful. But they do nothing, represent nothing. And you slowly realize it throughout the movie. And Benoit Blanc is basically a member of the audience as well. He basically tells us that’s it’s all dumb. Even if you didn’t like it, I think the movie did what it was meant to do.
I would take it a step sideways(?) and say that the movie is the *song* Glass Onion. It's not that it doesn't mean anything, nor that there's nothing at the center, but that people people will fixate on the wrong metaphors. Glass Onion is the Beatles (John specifically, i think) expressing his frustration that people were already dissecting peripheral stuff about the band rather than taking the - usually - straightforward messages of their songs to heart.
I disagree with their main criticisms of this film. For example, why Janelle Monáe’s character was able to do things when she was established as a very nervous person. It is established in the film that she’s been unknowingly drinking alcohol, and it’s ability to diminish her inhibitions is why she’s braver and doing the things that she’s doing. I also think that this is both a glass onion and smart. The glass onion part of it is when it’s revealed that Miles is an idiot. The smart part is that it’s giving you two murders. There’s the murder of the business partner played by Janelle Monáe, and the murder of Duke. You don’t realize the murder mystery is really surrounding the business partner until things are recontextualize at the midway point until then you think the mystery is about, Duke I will admit that maybe Rian Johnson doesn’t give you all the pieces to put together what’s going on, but if you look at any breakdown videos, he does give you 99% of all the pieces if you’re paying attention to it. I highly recommend re-watching if you haven’t watched it again. You might have a new perspective on it upon second viewing.
For my very timely comment, I loved hearing your guys perspective on this film, it really made me consider what I thought about it. In hindsight it makes a lot of sense why you guys don't like it, the film is deeply cynical and is drowning in post-Pandemic doomerism. I think your discussion of promises and the arcs leading nowhere (while being the point/message) doesn't resonate because we never really got attached.
Brandon is 100% right it is meant to be a joke on purpose. If it was just a one off then maybe but the whole ‘’It’s smart becomes its dumb’’ thing gets brought up a bunch of times.
It was interesting how easy it was to accept a character who's incapable of lying. Maybe bringing a hard to believe element in right at the start of the story makes it easier to accept because it feels like it's there as a wierd thing rather than as a wierd explaination brought in as a surprise that noone would be able to guess
You guys should check out Death on the Nile from 2022 if you haven't seen it yet. It's a murder mystery that's less comedic than Knives Out or Glass Onion but I thought it was good.
Not having seen Knives Out or Glass Onion, I just came for the food heist only to hear Dan say the words, 4:32 "The most disappointing food-related story anyone has ever sent to me."
Also, speaking of the Howcatchem, there is Rian Johnson's Poker Face series which is a howcatchem series like Columbo and are you guys going to do that series?
As much as I've learned about writing from Brandon, it's weird to see him have so many back to back bad and wrong takes regarding a story. For example, I'm not sure why these two believe that the Mona Lisa was burned to hurt the villains feelings when it was outright stated it was done to ensure that he wouldn't be able to release his dangerous super fuel. How do you miss that?
@@bross92 exactly. Nobody *has* to like the movie, but it seems that they either ignored or missed the very explicit points that Miles Bron cares about the Mona Lisa only as a symbol of fame and reverence and not as part of our cultural heritage like Brandon put it, and that burning the mona lisa was a Monkey's Paw way of granting Bron's wish by making him responsible for something that would for ever be mentioned in the same breath as the Mona Lisa
I suspect that it was supposed to use a lot of what made Clue good back in the day, that there's an element of spoofish ridiculousness that has a story mocking itself and the audience--to an extent. Most of the time, that doesn't work. Mel Brooks and Monty Python managed it sometimes, and cartoons do it quite often, but with live action characters and trying to create relatable people--it doesn't. Finding the right blend is what turns a decent idea into a great or entertaining story.
I always thought that burning the Mona Lisa was some kind of commentary on the way the art world is so often used as a tax dodge by people who already have too much money. And the fact that Helen burned it and not Miles is using his gambit against him. Miles manipulated the people in that room into changing what the "truth" of the situation was, which screwed Andi over. Helen does the same thing by putting them into a situation where they most benefited by turning against him. As far as Miles was concerned, the truth is what the most powerful person in the room says it is. Helen does to him exactly what he did to Andi.
Honestly, I saw Glass Onion as no one was meant to be unconditionally good. I wrote something about this in a comment on another video and I can't for the life of me remember where, but basically each of the characters (yes including Peg, Whiskey, Andi, and Helen) has at least one flaw that we, as the audience watching the movie, share with them, and, as such, each of them makes at least one mistake either before, ongoing, and after the movie (tho it doesn't always impact the main storyline itself), that's supposed to be indicative. Like, the characters (to me at least) seemed to be built off a stereotype (for lack of a better word) of the different types of people capitalism tends to turn you into. For example, Andi was thinking about was the way the fuel would reflect on her company (she was literally shilling crypto to kids), Helen was only thinking about her persona vendetta for her sister (the whole fuel thing was just a byproduct of her revenge), Peg was thinking about her personal reputation not the impact of Birdie (I mean she literally hired a sweatshop and Peg still begged Miles to save her), and Whiskey was thinking about how she could get more power (she was grifting alongside Duke so she could get into politics). I'm only pointing out these four cuz I think the others are fairly self evident and I'm more focusing on the fact that they were the ones we were supposed to identify with and what their flaws were. Also, to some extent at least lol, the only reason these people felt more like caricatures than those in Knives Out is bc we're more used to thinking of those with power as fleshed out people just like you and me, and those who have generational wealth as snooty and thinking they're above us. Both the movies are showing similarly archetypal people (see Jacob and Meg for quick examples), it's just that it's easier to accept them bc we're used to it. If that makes sense?? Idk. I'm sure there's more to say lol, but I can't for the life of me articulate it. Edit: also, y'all kinda aren't getting what the Mona Lisa's actually there for. No one is going to care if "oh some random house got blown up and few people died, they probably just weren't using it correctly anyway, let's go ahead and continue with the plans to install what killed them everywhere". They'd only pay attention if something irreplaceable (bc people are dime a dozen of course) gets destroyed, and it just so happened to be the Mona Lisa here.
I loooved the fire It was great And that slamming case was great I never expected any of it and it was always simpler and more effective than I thought it would be. And the bad guy was great. And the whole thing was great. It's a great-ass movie.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Might I suggest "Snackademia" instead of food scholarship? I think it fits.
I thought the same!
Having a PhD in Snackademia sounds fantastic
My Gyro Snackademia
Rye Gyro Snackademia
Snackcident?
I always felt that the whole ‘no, it’s just dumb!’ theme was an attempt to answer the question of ‘how do we deliver a Knives Out experience to an audience that has seen Knives Out and is wise to our tricks?’ Playing into the desire to see something complex, by having it actually be obfuscation of something very simple seemed like a pretty good way of trying to give a still-surprising story.
Knives Out was a mystery/detective story. Glass Onion was a satire on tech billionaires masquerading as a mystery story.
@@LoganGalt8810 yes, the mystery was that it wasn't really a mystery at all. Which turned out to be a great mystery.
One thing I liked about The Glass Onion is that you can watch Ed Nortan poison Bautista when he does it. Like, they called attention to people's personal drinking glasses, so I paid attention to the glasses constantly. When Ed Nortan does the poisoning, he literally hands the glass to Bautista. They try to fill in what happened a moment later and the camera shows him putting the glass on the table, and I was like -- That wasn't what happened! And I was able to put everything together from that. So... I felt pretty good about having been able to solve the murders before they happened. Ish.
Ahhh I missed that because I was tracking Bautista's gun!
22:57 There's actually no cheating in the scene Brandon's describing. The first shot we see of Dave Bautista (with Benoit looking on from the tree behind him) takes place after the shot with Janelle Monae, chronologically. In the second shot, as she leaves, she steps on something that snaps, Bautista hears it and turns around briefly, then looks back into the window again.
Exactly! Apart from when Miles is lying about the glass with the poison. The camera never lies. All the details line up
I think there was a misunderstanding as to the stakes in Glass Onion. They aren't just "Will Miles get his comeuppance?" Or "Will Miles get away with murder?", they're "Will Miles get away with pushing through this extremely volatile, dangerous product that will certainly kill a lot of people and destroy a lot of homes?".
He has political, scientific and social protections in place through his wealth and his control over the "disrupters" and he manages to get rid of all evidence that might destroy those protections.
So, something massive needs to happen in order to stop him. And idk about you but the destruction of the Mona Lisa seems like a fair trade for not having a hydrogen based energy source out there
There’s one issue in this episode where you say that Miles being shown that Andi is dead is not new information to him.
But it is!
He did not stick around after causing Andi’s death. When he left her house, she was still breathing in the car. I thought the movie made it clear that he assumed he had failed to kill her when “andi” showed up on the island.
And I think that’s also a big reason why he doesn’t immediately freak out and call his men and whatnot.
Because he thinks this is Andi, who has apparently decided not to press charges on an attempted murder, meeting with him. Why would he be worried she would suddenly accuse him if she hadn’t already? Sure, a smart person would probably freak out just in case, but Miles is nothing if not overconfident.
So finding out Andi DID actually die is a surprise to him. A gigantic one, actually.
Yup. Miles is so much of an idiot that he did not confirm his kill. Twice. I think that's the big mistake that Brandon and Dan make: they assume that the movie can only be smart if the villain is smart.
Well, he also did it because Duke was the only one who knew that he was the only one who could have killed her. He was the only one who saw him leaving her house.
It's amazing how this movie falls apart if you miss this. And both Dan and Brandon missed this 😅
What makes you two entertaining to watch is your genuine love of how funny you think you are and we love that you love how funny you think you are.
Ah yes, the famed Boston Molasses Massacre, or as I and many other refer to it: The Boston Molassacre.
Bolassacre?
Molassachusetts
A man of culture and caramelization I see
At least as far as why the house had to be blown up and the mona lisa burned I am pretty sure the point is less: 'I need to destroy the mona lisa so Myles gets his comeuppance' and more 'I need to destroy the Mona Lisa so Myles' negligence in regards to this incredibly dangerous fuel can't be covered up by lawyers and before he can proliferate this far enough that widespread disasters start happening'. The Mona Lisa had to be destroyed because anything less wouldn't actually affect him.
You could also say that the house being destroyed adds to that as well, though as much as I'll defend the movie the characters being as physically unharmed as they are is a little wild. I mean I heard the explosion happens upwards rather than all around like other explosives but still.
This is the reasoning used by climate activists to dump soup on paintings right now, except even less tenuously connected. These are not appropriate means to accomplish those ends.
@@FellshardYT as far as I know the soup didn't actually do irreperable damage to any work of art, and all appropriate means of protest have been ignored... So in that context i think it is kind of tolerable.
Still the destruction of the mona Lisa in the movie irks me.
@@maximeteppe7627 If it helps, the Mona Lisa in the movie was intended to be a copy, not the original, there was a cut after credits scene confirming that the original was safe. Miles apparently just kept reaching out to the Louvre until they gave him a copy and assumed it was the real one. You can tell it's not because the original isn't on canvas.
It got cut because they felt it was a bit convoluted and didn't serve the narrative as well, even though it would have reassured people.
@@thegrandwombat8797 if it's not in the movie, it's not canon though.
As far as I know, the movie takes place in a bizarro universe where the Mediterranean sea has tides worth speaking of and the Mona Lisa was painted on canvas rather than on a wood board.
I assume y'all will get into this, but KO and GO are some of the best examples I've ever seen of using classic tropes as red herrings while still being clearly respectful of the works that made the tropes popular (Christie, Doyle, etc).
When you're talking about why Miles killed Duke, I think you're misunderstanding why he did it. He didn't kill Duke because Andi's death got out. He killed Duke because Duke is the only person who knows that Miles was at Andi's house when she died.
I think Brandon and Dan fixating on how important a cultural artifact the Mona Lisa is is part of why Rian Johnson had the protagonist of his murder mystery destroy it in a moment of triumph. The Mona Lisa is important, sure. But it is not as important as a human life, let alone all the lives Ed Norton’s new miracle fuel would jeopardize. The point is that at the end of the day this priceless piece of artwork is just an old rag with some colors smudged across it but the human beings that would be killed by this dangerous fuel supply are human beings.
I wasn't bothered by the Mona Lisa burning. Since the movie was framed as a comedy, I didn't take seriously anything about the world as if it was our own. Also, I remember the rich guy was trying to sell this energy pellets that were actually dangerous and would've gotten people killed. By burning the Mona Lisa with the byproduct of these pellets, it gave a case for them being dangerous and will prevent their adoption.
I prefer the phrase, "Nuking the fridge" instead of "Jumping the shark". This refers to the scene in Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull where Indiana gets in a refrigerator to avoid a nuclear blast.
Except that scene was cool, actually, and completely in line with the kinds of weird stunts that would never work in real life but that we love anyway from the first three films. I will never understand why people complain about Indy surviving through a method that wouldn’t work in real life in that one particular case but have no issue with him jumping from a plane onto a mountain with a raft that he is inflating as they fall and then falling from a cliff many feet straight down into rapidly flowing river…. Or any of the the other ridiculous things that happen in those films. That are still great.
"Nuking the fridge" is more when "jumping the shark" happens in the course of a single work rather than during the course of a series.
I will say jumping the shark is a bit of a misnomer, as I've seen some Happy Days post-shark jump and it's actually still good.
I think the key here is when you guys note that a certain character ‘felt like a symbol, not a real person’.
That’s the point. He’s not supposed to be or act like a real person. He’s a symbol standing in for a particular type of person, an exaggerated version.
Same goes for the ending. The things that are destroyed aren’t a triumph because of the literal objects involved, but because of what they represent.
You’re trying to pick apart Glass Onion like it’s meant to be a grounded, realistic story. I really don’t think that was the intention. It’s more of a parable or an allegory - every person and thing in the story is a symbol or a metaphor, a stand-in for something in the real world.
It’s like trying to pick apart plot holes in a fairy tale. There are certain classes of stories where the point isn’t for the plot to be perfectly logical or for all the pieces to make sense from a realistic perspective. The point is to use characters and objects and situations to draw comparisons to the real world and make a statement or teach a lesson.
Now, it’s fine not to enjoy those kinds of stories. But it’s important when criticizing something to at least criticize it based on what it’s trying to be/do. (You can’t criticize a romantic comedy for not having enough fight scenes.) I feel like you’re just fundamentally misunderstanding the type of story that the creator was trying to tell, whether or not he was successful.
I always read Glass Onion as a parodical comedy masquerading as a murder mystery. It reminded me in a lot of ways of an old movie called Murder By Death. It mocks the tropes of mysteries even as it imitates them. Glass Onion goes the extra step though and is sneakily mocking the audience as well.
It really did feel like I was being trolled, hehe. It's a good troll, I appreciated it on that level.
Priorities. I would burn the monalisa to bring down my sisters killer. There is a serious disconect between the high ideals of people who live a confortable enough life and those who survive under the thumb of powerful people. A painting is a small price, no matter how many people think it is important.
true but the purpose of burning the monalisa is based on it's cultural relevance
@@captzulu1764 nah, it was pretty clear the purpose of burning the monalisa was to ruin the murders life.
I haven't looked through all the comments, I haven't seen anything mentioning how much Glass Onion looks like an Agatha Christie novel. All the bait and switch and other shenanigans with the audience happen in her novels. I loved it for that fact. On the destruction of the Mona Lisa, I saw it as a parallel to his arrogance and disregard in the use of the substance he was using to power the island. The character is thinking "I can add the override to the painting's security because I can do anything I want and get away with it."
I think you two are as funny as you think you are! This podcast is one of the highest points of my week, every week!
I think they missed the point with the Mona Lisa. The scene where she tears the room down is mirroring the description of disruptors. Everyone cheers for you as you break the rules, but then you go too far and they're outraged. Both the other characters in the scene and the audience are made to go through that emotional reaction to show that she is the true badass disruptor, not any of the other characters.
They made the Mona Lisa the only way to take him down/ really hurt him. Which was dumb.
Interesting point about Myles at around 28:00. I always thought that him seeing Benoit and "Andi" was him genuinely believing he failed in killing Andi, and she didn't realize his attempt. Because he's an an idiot, who didn't even care enough about Andi to even THINK about the fact that she has a twin sister.
Yeah, he's visually shocked by the reveal, which is after finding out that his second attempted murder didn't work.
I just think this is TOO stupid, unless you go full on parody. Like, who doesn't panic in that situation. Maybe if she weren't literally in the presence of the greatest living detective.
For this to work, he has to be so dumb that:
1) He doesn't know this very important person in his life has a twin she never tried to hide.
2) He has to assume she isn't suspicious of him. And the detective isn't involved in his murder attempt.
3) Have no plan at all to deal with Dave B. beforehand. Have no plan to deal with suspicion of him for the murder he thinks he committed.
4) Have no kind of security, police bribes, etc.
It's just too much for me. He's not dumb, he's a cartoon. And it kicked me out of the film.
@@BrandSanderson That's fair, I think there is an element of 'character as semi-satirical social archetype' in the film (a reason the side characters don't have an arc) which can be somewhat at the expense of their believability as real individuals. Your mileage will vary on that point and if it's over the line for you, then the frustration with the plot is certainly reasonable.
Now that the important part of my comment's covered, it is believable enough for me - after all, Nixon knowingly recorded himself talking about committing crimes trying to bias an election he already was likely to win. In my experience people make the biggest mistakes when they assume they’re smarter than everyone else, and Miles Braun absolutely buys his own hype.
I think the main characterization of Braun is someone who sees what's immediately in front of him but doesn't follow that train of thought any farther. He is suspicious of Blanc, but accepts the first reasonable explanation he hears for his presence - even repeating it as his own idea. He takes the envelope, but doesn't think to destroy it in case of a future scenario. All of the dumb things he does are like this; even his new fuel was based off of him hearing a surface level pitch and committing.
It's not even necessarily that he's not capable of being intelligent, but that he's fundamentally not curious, due to believing he's better than everyone as - like Blanc says - everyone typically assumes. So he takes the first idea that comes to his head and runs with it without bothering to consider if there might be another better option. And why shouldn't he? He's one of the most successful people in the world, it's worked for him so far.
I do feel that it's consistent and works very well for the story if you accept it, but consistency isn't the same as plausibility. I can definitely see how it could break someone's suspension of disbelief.
@@thegrandwombat8797 An extremely well reasoned reply. And, to be honest, part of me is happy Johnson went this direction. It's different. It hits differently. It makes the story interesting to talk about. I'm still thinking about it, and how I feel.
It is hard for me to let go of the desire for the ending to have that click moment where it all makes sense. But that's not the goal here, and I have to be able to accept art for what it is, not what I would want it to be instead. In that light, am I glad we have Glass Onion despite me being kicked out at the end? Yes, I am. It is a good enough movie to teach me something, and to have something interesting to show off. And, your arguments for intentions are plausible enough that I think I like the film a little more, thinking of it in that light.
I'm on team "The movie itself is the Glass Onion"
I'm surprised that Brandon and Dan missed some major themes from the movie. The Mona Lisa had to burn because that's the only way Andy could be a real disruptor. Listen to Miles talk about real disruptors again. He says it's the moment you go too far in the eyes of others that you become an actual disruptor.
Basically it's revealing that all these people who thought they were so great and making all these waves they were not real disruptors. Only Andi was.
absolutely agree!! the monalisa burning saved the ending for me. It really completes Andis‘s arc of going from someone who thinks they’re incapable and weak to someone who would destroy a precious artpiece in a blink of an eye for justice. it’s also the only way for the others to desert Miles. Overall, just a better ending than some wishy washy morally unambiguous ending like miles getting crushed by the painting. what was that???
I actually really like the idea of "Suddenly, No One Can Read or Write". I imagine humanity trying to figure out the lost information from diagrams and drawings which will cause all kinds of equipment failures and rewriting of history. Terry Pratchett's style of storytelling.
Oral traditions are the oldest form that has survived multiple genocides holocausts disasters. So storytelling doesn't need a written form and no reading at all.
@@plusmanikantanr I think they’re referring more to science and information we’ve learned which would need to be rediscovered, which is an interesting story though too daunting unless refined into a certain direction.
@@plusmanikantanr I was referring to the style of the story. I didn't mean storytelling itself would be affected.
You might be interested in the sea of ink and gold series then. It's set in a world without any form of written language and some really interesting world building around that. It's not talked about much but it's really good
Someone gets ahold of the Pioneer plaque. How much do they figure out from that?
I'd recommend Brandon does follow up with what he said and go back and look, the movie fits together much better than they've assumed. A lot of the critiques came off as very strange to me, the movie is far from a joke, I stand by the idea that it is smart. Although I'm sure you could make a very good movie with the suggestions they had for what to change, it would undermine the story being told.
One side note, on how the cast of characters compare to Knives Out, both are doing the same thing, but with different types of people. Knives out was deconstructing old money rich families, and because our experiences with those kinds of people are interpersonal, they were more nuanced as our understanding of people we know tends to be. This movie was a deconstruction and takedown of new money powerful figures, which we tend to view from a distance - they are more caricatures, but that's because of what the deconstruction is.
Final side note, the movie wouldn't have worked at all if the twins were the same person.
I love how Brandon says he likes a movie and praises artists, then rips it apart
Yeah they did this 5 episodes straight with Rings of Power
@@SpencerTwiddy great point...Brandon does good analysis
@@watcherofthewest8597 agree. Upon reflection, his critique in this one was the harshest I've ever heard from him... but I haven't heard all his reviews so if another comes to mind for anyone lmk
@@SpencerTwiddy This one was harsh but I think fairly so. I could listen to Sanderson talk about art and analysis and his opinions all day, not thrilling, but solid stuff.
He is in a unique spot as far as what he can publicly criticize. Not saying he is being un-genuine, he is just a thoghtfull and smart guy.
With Wheel of Time season 1 he was obviously very praiseworthy, but he also got into quite of it of what he didn't like...and I give him credit, it was a tuff spot for him and that show was god awful, nearly if not as bad as rings of power unfortunatly
I understood them blowing up the building/Mona Lisa being the way they could ensure the technology wouldn’t get used. I guess that’s why it didn’t bother me?
My personal favorite food related disaster is the Dublin Whisky Fire. Here's the Wikipedia synopsis:
"The Dublin whiskey fire took place on 18 June 1875 in the Liberties area of Dublin. It lasted a single night but killed 13 people, and resulted in €6 million worth of damage in whiskey alone (adjusted for inflation). People drank from the 6 inches (150 mm) deep river of whiskey that is said to have flowed as far as the Coombe. None of the fatalities suffered during the fire were due to smoke inhalation, burns, or any other form of direct contact with the fire itself; all of them were attributed to alcohol poisoning."
Suddenly no one can read or write reminds me about a stargate episode where a whole town experienced sudden memory loss. It was fascinating as they tried to figure out what happened. People may lose their ability to read or write but they'll be able to understand a lot of basic stuff due to visual cues. Like when you visit a foreign country. You can understand most things from pictures and context. I think this story idea is only really good when there is someone good or bad who can still read and write/has full memories.
I'm bailing at the spoiler as I haven't seen either. It's less that I care about the spoilers and more than I won't be able to appreciate what you're saying.
But before I got, I think you guys are as funny as you think you are. This episode intro is gold.
Eventual Gastrology - the knowledge of and discipline studying remarkable events involving food.
So the Mona Lisa is oil on poplar, not canvas. I have to assume the director knew this and chose to make the Mona Lisa in the movie a fake, which is even more hilarious that the Louvre duped the richest person.
Agree. That struck me right away.
Alternatively, the directors made an intentional creative decision to just be incorrect, because burning canvas has better visuals than burning wood.
@@elekbuday81 Johnson has said in interviews that there was a cut after credit scene of Benoit confirming that the real Mona Lisa was still safely in the Louvre, but it was cut because they felt it undercut the weight of destroying it.
@@thomasyoung3342 In this case, I think leaving the scene in would have been the better choice though.
My favorite parts of Glass Onion were 1) Freeze frame on the Among Us game to see how many of the players you can ID. and 2) "No, it's just dumb!"
I agree with some of the points about Glass Onion, but ultimately I think the ending does work. The secret twin sister Helen expresses multiple times in the flashbacks and recontextualizations with Blanc that Andi was the brave one while she was meek; she hires Blanc because she doesn't think she can take down Miles; she's whiteknuckling the railing the whole trip to the island and only went because Blanc talked her into it. Her flaw is fear and lack of self-confidence, and her growth is finally coming into her own when she stands up for herself as herself, stands up to Miles, and takes him down herself, without Blanc even present at that point. She uses the same methods of "brute force the puzzle" that is foreshadowed earlier, but she's finally brave enough to do it herself when she always felt like she'd never live up doing something big like her sister.
On the Mona Lisa aspect, I think it's a commentary on what's actually important, and what people's priorities are when it comes to justice and protests. Keep in mind, this movie is written following and set during not just the pandemic lockdowns, but the Black Lives Matter protests. It's a commentary on radical justice and destructive protest, ultimately a sympathetic one, that says that sometimes, when justice is denied every other way, it takes getting to property damage to achieve it. Reminiscent of Civil Rights protests, or the climate protests when people tried to deface paintings. As the song that plays over the destruction of the Mona Lisa goes, the line it ends on in the movie: "Are you warm and real, Mona Lisa, or just a cold and lonely work of art?"
If destroying art, even that art, is what it takes to stop terrible injustice (which is this case, it is, as the destruction of painting is what will destroy Miles, and his friends don't flip on him until it happens), is it not worth it? Do we value more a famous painting or a person's life and future people's safety?
It can be an uncomfortable conversation to have, and a nuanced one that people will have different responses to, but I think that it's intentional. There's a Martin Luther King Jr quote about the white moderate who values order and keeping the peace being just as big an obstacle to civil rights and true justice as the racists who oppose it because they prevent the necessary drastic steps to achieving that progress. I do not believe its a coincidence that it's a black woman who carries out this act, even more than the surface level commentary on race: She's asking the moderates (in this case, mile's friends who don't like what he's doing but won't actually shut it down), "what's ultimately more important?" And they do the right thing and side with her.
It's sad for the art that sometimes that's what it takes, and some people may never accept it, but that's the philosophy the movie, at least to me, and I respect it.
Your comment now has me wondering if the "twin sister" thing was intended as a nod to the "they all look same" aspect of racism.
I haven't rewatched Glass Onion, so not sure if this supported by the rest of the movie.
Yo guys, the Mona Lisa burning was a direct reference to the artifice of value that most art has, the ML being the most famous example of a work of art that’s been replicated so many times it has lost all of its original value, and then ironically this is the one thing that the empty husk of a villain believes is the only thing of true value in the world. It *is* a joke, but about the concept of what we assign value to.
We believe it has great value too though. So for (much of) the audience this falls flat. I felt the same way as Brandon and Dan
@@samanthaa.6055 Weigh the cost of a painting against actual human lives friend.
Wit would be proud
When it comes to food heists and disasters, can I propose the term “gastrosociology”?
4:06 Culinary Crime Scholarship is the name I'd go for.
It's always interesting to listen to someone talk about why something doesn't work when it did work for me. But as someone who used to have a tendency to think of the complicated, nuanced, and very 'smart' solution to something weird.... only for the real answer to be something dumb and simple... it was nice to see that happen to a protagonist =]
About the point at 40:05 about Glass Onion working the same way if there's no twin sister but instead Miles Bron just failed to kill her... I don't see how that's possible without lots of restructuring. If this were the case, she would remember that Miles tried to kill her and defeat the entire "whodunnit". Am I missing something?
Yeah, normally I think their takes are solid but it feels like a lot of the critiques and suggested changes in this one are missing the point, to me. Pretty much all of them would mess up the entire theme as I see it.
@@LewsTherinTelescope It's basically that they're critiquing a different movie. Brandon almost realized it when he was talking about how he'd basically come up with another movie on the fly after the opening, but it seems like he ultimately never let that go.
I love the framed Leaog Lugh Luv picture that just rests on Dan's shoulder like a dyslexic parrot
It's worth noting that if you watch the Mona Lisa burning in the finale, you can tell that it's not the real thing. The Mona Lisa was painted on a wooden panel, and you can clearly see in the movie that it's canvas
Or the directors just decided that burning canvas made for a better visual. It doesn't need to be that deep
@@elekbuday81 I thought it was just that too, but apparently the original plan _was_ for it to be a fake and they even filmed a post-credits scene that would have revealed this, but they decided that it not being the real one would undo the impact of the moment and cut it.
(Can't link to the source, probably because of TH-cam's spam detection, but search "collider mona lisa stunt".)
8:05 The groundskeeper... No cage can hold him. NO GROUNDS CAN KEEP HIM.
I'm secretly holding out for "Surprise! We made t-shirts for ALL the heists!"
I think saying 'burning the mona lisa' didn't solve anything doesn't work for me. It's the only way to break through the firewall of protection they are willing to give him. It's the only way to have him unquestionably accountable for something that is unambiguous and that he can't dodge. Whether that's worth it depends on whether you think Andi's life had value and whether her murderer should be held accountable for something, even if his crew would defend him from all other consequences. Plus it is awesome as the counterpoint to his destruction of the napkin. One sends the only tangible proof it wasn't his idea up in smoke. The other sends up the idea he is a responsible custodian or steward of any trust up in smoke.
obviously the groundskeeper stole some of the corn syrup while the train was derailed and replaced it with an equal weight of water, similar to the breaking bad heist.
I really liked both movies when they came out. I can definitely see where you’re coming from, but I definitely liked the idea of the villain being an idiot with too much power. (Though I can see how it can come across as a farce to people. Still, I can learn from it.)
It was too on the nose for me. It was Elon Musk. Rian hates Elon Musk, so Elon is the bad guy. There's no mystery to the movie because it's too obvious who the bad guy is.
I haven't seen either of these movies, but "making the dumbest decision at every turn" is kind of what Musk is known for these days.
@@markstenquist2315 fair point but to Rian's credit I think the fun of these two movies goes beyond the who did it and lives more in the structure of the film and the trip Benoist goes in to solve it. In the first one we get the Ana de Armas "twist" sort of early on. Here is the Janelle Monae reveal which we get a little later I think
Anyways I think beyond figuring out he mystery I get a lot of enjoyment out of these movies throughout
@@NotMeButAnother Depends on your opinion of Musk, which is the point. Rian's opinion of him is that he's a very rich idiot, hence the bad guy is portrayed as a very rich idiot.
The messaging was too obvious for me to enjoy the movie. But, I love politics and view a lot of things through that lens. I recognize other people don't do that and don't go into the movie knowing Rian's political views.
@@yasielromero8236 But even Brando Sando pointed out that Rian corrupted the actual investigative storyline by deceiving the audience with false scenes. Benoit doesn't 'solve' anything in Glass Onion, so much as have it laid out in front of him after the fact. Knives Out is a much better constructed movie.
In regards to "How does Helen the sister play this so well," they address the explanation given in the movie: she explains in the flashback that she and her sister used to play a character when younger that they called "rich bitch," and that act was the one her sister was putting on in her public life. So it establishes that she is also trained in doing that same act as her sister, since they would role-play this character together. The movie also shows that her character flaw is lack of self confidence to compete with these important people, that she is terrified of this the entire time, she doesn't think she can pull it off, and that her growth is when she drops the act, has confidence in her true self, leaves the fear behind and solves problems her way: Brute forcing it rather playing the silly games the rich people do.
Her flaw was never lack of ability it was lack of confidence. And only once she believes in and stops doubting her ability, she wins.
Watching Kathrine Hahn in the background is its own movie. She is just so damn good
Anyway. Miles is: overconfident, egotistical, and ignorant. He doesn't realize that he killed Ailes.
Just because he is rich and lives on that estate doesn't mean he is genius. Everyone around him was brilliant and he exploited that. Miles is the glass onion, he has layers of fake complications; but was empty.
I've had a running argument with myself for years now about whether or not art is actually more important than people. Like, Brandon and Dan sound like they come down on "art", and a younger me would have wholeheartedly agreed. But I'm not sure I do anymore. It's a challenging question. (The trolley problem that haunts me is: "If it is [insert probability] that an artifact will be destroyed if the British Museum returns it to its country of origin, should it be returned?" And I don't know.)
I think the big reveal wasn't that Edward Norton was the dumb villain, I think it was that EVERYONE ELSE was. Nobody chose to do the right thing and give up their rich sponsor (who obviously murdered TWO of their friends) until the victim literally blew up the building and burned the Mona Lisa, which would make big news and no amount of money could sweep under the rug.
Bruh I am fourteen minutes into the episode, and they’re still talking about how much they’re going to talk about glass onion
welcome to intentionally blank. Its a feature not a bug, lol.
IMO, the Miles was so rich he did not care if his entire island was destroyed. He could always replace everything. The one thing thst was irreplaceable was the Mona Lisa. We are told he has been fascinated by the Mona Lisa. He paid an exorbitant amount of money to have the original on his island when he meets with the world leaders. He even says the insurance requirements were a lot. But he relishes in the fact he has an override to the security measures. He wants to be able to get as close as possible to the painting.
He dies not care about the death of his supposed friends. They are a mesns to an end. The only thing that matters to him is the destruction of the Mina Lisa. That was the only way for Miles to suffer. I saw that coming from the moment he was revealed as a fraud
Two ideas: either Dan starts making up increasingly fake food heists and trying to fool Brandon. OR you guys both write a short story of the most epic food heist ever
Dan is a scholar of Dis-culinary events.
The general category could be food catastrophes
Hell yeah! I love these movies. They’re what inspired me to write my mystery novel.
Good, I was waiting for their review to see if I should go see these movies.
Name suggestion for food related crime study: culinary criminology
I love Knives Out! However, Glass Onion left me unsatisfied halfway through. I appreciate Brandon's and Dan's breakdown of Glass Onion and agree with most of the criticisms. I think that giving the writers, director, producers--decisionmakers credit for 4D chess and being so smart but just not being able to pull the movie off is being very gracious. I don't think they deserve that much credit. Like Dan said at the end, I would love a third installment which harkens back to the things that worked in the first. movie
Apparently 21 people died in the Molasses Flood. That's incredible, and tragic.
An "education on edibles" haha
B-Money's extensions looking fine
Glass Onion as a whole feels like a commentary on style vs substance and trying to “buy” substance with style
So beautiful to see book writers critique Hollywood writers
The only title I will accept for a food heist involving a secret alligator ranch (and tangentially, ranch dressing) is "Crouching Gator, Hidden Valley".
For me this movie felt very obvious in its continuation of deconstructing mystery tropes. It intentionally goes out of its way to do all the ‘bad’ mystery movie tropes but executes them well to demonstrate how a movie can be entertaining regardless, particularly using the audience expectations to develop the them. Ie. Rian Johnson is a good enough director that he wouldn’t do these ‘cheap’ things so you wouldn’t expect them, similar to the use of the glass onion theme. This clearly is not a mystery movie but frames itself as such, while making it impossible to solve, because we are expected to expect a mystery. Like the first half is all built towards setting up a murder, before showing that the Murder already happened. Though, I think the main sticking point of most criticism I have heard seems to stem from it doing its expectation management too well (or takes it too far) so that the audience is prepped too much for what movie to expect that they can’t switch gears when they find out what it actually is and end up disappointed by that.
Also, I find the whole Mona Lisa thing funny because that exemplifies the glass onion theme as well. People think of it as ‘the greatest painting in the world’ and expect it to be the best because of its acclaim. But it is only famous because it was stolen a while back and there are plenty of other paintings that could be considered more valuable on an artistic merit. But people worship this one because it got lucky and had some fame a while back and has been riding on that as the most expensive painting. Which I find ironic because Myles worships it as the best for the same reasons he became famous.
I thought Glass Onion was amazing. I saw it as a complete comedy that they tried to shove every single mystery cliche in that they could. It was so over the top that it worked brilliantly for me. It was a slight bummer for me when they had the drink scene in the beginning and I caught on immediately the switch in story telling and knew it was Ed Norton’s character that killed him. But it was fun to watch all the ridiculous things play out. It wasn’t a thinker movie, but it was entertaining.
I think that's the problem. Brandon has a lecture about promise, progress, and payoffs when it comes to the plot. Murder mystery stories have this unwritten promise that you have to think about who is the culprit, what have they done, or how they did it. Knives Out works because it satisfies the audience in both genres that it plays, which are whodunit and cat vs. mouse subgenres. But Rian Johnson kinda mocks its audience for "playing Clues" with Glass Onion. It's also the same thing with The Last Jedi where the surprise from the mystery box from The Force Awakens are just duds and it mocks its fans for caring in the first place.
Sure, it's comical and entertaining, but I don't want to be mocked for caring about the mystery genre.
Loved this discussion. You articulated so many details of why I liked the one movie and hated the other.
This isn't a "you don't get it" but a "I know you appreciate other points of view, and this blew my mind."
Movies with Mikey did a breakdown of Glass Onion that elevated my opinion of it (as someone who liked it but not as much as Knives Out). Very worth the watch.
In general you're doing yourselves a disservice if you aren't watching Movies With Mikey. Rothfuss once called it some of the best content on TH-cam, and I can't disagree
Mikey actually *looked at the napkin*!
Food Criminology is a budding field of niche study
I know they're joking when they say it's intentional how late they talk about pop culture things but I really do appreciate having the buffer zone.
Might I recommend "Food Forensics" as the name for the wider field of research? Food Science is a real thing people study and Food Scholarship may get confused with that
I think the burning of the Mona Lisa was supposed to be used to prevent the use of that alternative fuel.
I mean the movie itself is a glass onion. At the beginning you are shown the pieces of the onion (the main characters). You think they are complex and meaningful. But they do nothing, represent nothing. And you slowly realize it throughout the movie. And Benoit Blanc is basically a member of the audience as well. He basically tells us that’s it’s all dumb. Even if you didn’t like it, I think the movie did what it was meant to do.
I mean.. sure, but that doesn't mean the premise was a good premise.
I would take it a step sideways(?) and say that the movie is the *song* Glass Onion. It's not that it doesn't mean anything, nor that there's nothing at the center, but that people people will fixate on the wrong metaphors. Glass Onion is the Beatles (John specifically, i think) expressing his frustration that people were already dissecting peripheral stuff about the band rather than taking the - usually - straightforward messages of their songs to heart.
Brandon, you can't really call the molasses flood a natural disaster when neither molasses nor metal tanks exist in nature...
"cut away sweep away, sweep away and celibrant, some belical again, keepin me from killin you"
I disagree with their main criticisms of this film. For example, why Janelle Monáe’s character was able to do things when she was established as a very nervous person. It is established in the film that she’s been unknowingly drinking alcohol, and it’s ability to diminish her inhibitions is why she’s braver and doing the things that she’s doing.
I also think that this is both a glass onion and smart. The glass onion part of it is when it’s revealed that Miles is an idiot. The smart part is that it’s giving you two murders. There’s the murder of the business partner played by Janelle Monáe, and the murder of Duke. You don’t realize the murder mystery is really surrounding the business partner until things are recontextualize at the midway point until then you think the mystery is about, Duke I will admit that maybe Rian Johnson doesn’t give you all the pieces to put together what’s going on, but if you look at any breakdown videos, he does give you 99% of all the pieces if you’re paying attention to it. I highly recommend re-watching if you haven’t watched it again. You might have a new perspective on it upon second viewing.
For my very timely comment, I loved hearing your guys perspective on this film, it really made me consider what I thought about it. In hindsight it makes a lot of sense why you guys don't like it, the film is deeply cynical and is drowning in post-Pandemic doomerism. I think your discussion of promises and the arcs leading nowhere (while being the point/message) doesn't resonate because we never really got attached.
Dan has a Doctorate in Culinary Crime.
Was waiting for them to play the Beatles song "Glass Onion" and got it at the end.
Brandon is 100% right it is meant to be a joke on purpose. If it was just a one off then maybe but the whole ‘’It’s smart becomes its dumb’’ thing gets brought up a bunch of times.
It was interesting how easy it was to accept a character who's incapable of lying. Maybe bringing a hard to believe element in right at the start of the story makes it easier to accept because it feels like it's there as a wierd thing rather than as a wierd explaination brought in as a surprise that noone would be able to guess
You guys should check out Death on the Nile from 2022 if you haven't seen it yet. It's a murder mystery that's less comedic than Knives Out or Glass Onion but I thought it was good.
Not having seen Knives Out or Glass Onion, I just came for the food heist only to hear Dan say the words, 4:32 "The most disappointing food-related story anyone has ever sent to me."
I think Knives Out was a little better, but if you’re into the style they’re both well worth watching IMHO.
Loved these two movies. Excited for the discussion!
Also, speaking of the Howcatchem, there is Rian Johnson's Poker Face series which is a howcatchem series like Columbo and are you guys going to do that series?
the monty python shirt is amazing and i want one
I prefer Food Journalism to Food Scholarship.
Dave Bautista was the only one that could place Miles at the scene of the crime. Miles was killing the only witness..
Whom had just threatened to blackmail him.
Cuisine crimes, it's right there 🤣
As much as I've learned about writing from Brandon, it's weird to see him have so many back to back bad and wrong takes regarding a story.
For example, I'm not sure why these two believe that the Mona Lisa was burned to hurt the villains feelings when it was outright stated it was done to ensure that he wouldn't be able to release his dangerous super fuel. How do you miss that?
Yes, burning the mona lista wasnt supposed to hurt Miles' feelings, It was to create a PR nightmare for him and his company
Yeah, there's a lot of very strange takes and suggestions for what to change.
Yeah totally agreed; Brando Sando I love this podcast and your books, but this discussion just seemed….lacking an extra layer of depth?
@@bross92 exactly. Nobody *has* to like the movie, but it seems that they either ignored or missed the very explicit points that Miles Bron cares about the Mona Lisa only as a symbol of fame and reverence and not as part of our cultural heritage like Brandon put it, and that burning the mona lisa was a Monkey's Paw way of granting Bron's wish by making him responsible for something that would for ever be mentioned in the same breath as the Mona Lisa
His entire mansion exploded, it was already a PR nightmare, there was no need to destroy the painting if you only wanted to discredit his product.
I suspect that it was supposed to use a lot of what made Clue good back in the day, that there's an element of spoofish ridiculousness that has a story mocking itself and the audience--to an extent. Most of the time, that doesn't work. Mel Brooks and Monty Python managed it sometimes, and cartoons do it quite often, but with live action characters and trying to create relatable people--it doesn't. Finding the right blend is what turns a decent idea into a great or entertaining story.
I always thought that burning the Mona Lisa was some kind of commentary on the way the art world is so often used as a tax dodge by people who already have too much money.
And the fact that Helen burned it and not Miles is using his gambit against him. Miles manipulated the people in that room into changing what the "truth" of the situation was, which screwed Andi over. Helen does the same thing by putting them into a situation where they most benefited by turning against him. As far as Miles was concerned, the truth is what the most powerful person in the room says it is. Helen does to him exactly what he did to Andi.
HIS HAIR GREW BACK
Honestly, I saw Glass Onion as no one was meant to be unconditionally good. I wrote something about this in a comment on another video and I can't for the life of me remember where, but basically each of the characters (yes including Peg, Whiskey, Andi, and Helen) has at least one flaw that we, as the audience watching the movie, share with them, and, as such, each of them makes at least one mistake either before, ongoing, and after the movie (tho it doesn't always impact the main storyline itself), that's supposed to be indicative.
Like, the characters (to me at least) seemed to be built off a stereotype (for lack of a better word) of the different types of people capitalism tends to turn you into. For example, Andi was thinking about was the way the fuel would reflect on her company (she was literally shilling crypto to kids), Helen was only thinking about her persona vendetta for her sister (the whole fuel thing was just a byproduct of her revenge), Peg was thinking about her personal reputation not the impact of Birdie (I mean she literally hired a sweatshop and Peg still begged Miles to save her), and Whiskey was thinking about how she could get more power (she was grifting alongside Duke so she could get into politics). I'm only pointing out these four cuz I think the others are fairly self evident and I'm more focusing on the fact that they were the ones we were supposed to identify with and what their flaws were.
Also, to some extent at least lol, the only reason these people felt more like caricatures than those in Knives Out is bc we're more used to thinking of those with power as fleshed out people just like you and me, and those who have generational wealth as snooty and thinking they're above us. Both the movies are showing similarly archetypal people (see Jacob and Meg for quick examples), it's just that it's easier to accept them bc we're used to it. If that makes sense?? Idk. I'm sure there's more to say lol, but I can't for the life of me articulate it.
Edit: also, y'all kinda aren't getting what the Mona Lisa's actually there for. No one is going to care if "oh some random house got blown up and few people died, they probably just weren't using it correctly anyway, let's go ahead and continue with the plans to install what killed them everywhere". They'd only pay attention if something irreplaceable (bc people are dime a dozen of course) gets destroyed, and it just so happened to be the Mona Lisa here.
I loooved the fire
It was great
And that slamming case was great
I never expected any of it and it was always simpler and more effective than I thought it would be.
And the bad guy was great.
And the whole thing was great.
It's a great-ass movie.
Prestige did the surprise twin very well though.
On Edward Norton's character not making logical decision, there are a few real life billionaires that have made numerous bafflingly stupid choices.
26:37 a narcissist would believe they’re there to bask in his presence
9:30 Actually... 😏 I didn't know Glass Onion was created until I saw this podcast title. So I waited to watch this onetill I watched the movie. 👍