Wine and Movies: THE LINGUINI INCIDENT (1991) - Director's Cut

Also known as Houdini & Company, The Robbery, The Incident, and (our favorite) Shag-O-Rama.

The Linguini Incident was the directorial debut of Richard Shepard, the man who would finally get out of “movie jail” when he made 2004’s Matador (starring Pierce Brosnan), then went on to make The Hunting Party (starring Richard Gere), Dom Hemingway (starring Jude Law), and The Perfection (starring Allison Williams).

It was a low budget film by a first time director that somehow snagged the INSANE cast of:

• David Bowie
• Rosanna Arquette
• Ezster Balint
• Marlee Matlin (already an Oscar-winner!)
• Buck Henry
• Andre Gregory

The final edit was taken away from the director, different cuts were released in different countries, and it’s main theatrical release was in Los Angeles in 1992…during the LA riots. When there was a curfew.

30 years later, the co-producer and director got the rights back, sourced the longest 35mm print they could find (an epic story in its own right!) and release this Director’s Cut - 8 minutes shorter than the shortest of the previous cuts!

Chapters

• 4:48 The Linguini Incident - What Even Is This Movie?
• 12:46 Why a Director's Cut?
• 21:24 Hints on the Drinks We Paired With This
• 26:52 The Making Of The Linguini Incident
• 34:45 Our Respective Backgrounds With the Movie
• 46:14 How the Director Got Out of "Movie Jail"
• 49:28 What Did We Think of the Script?
• 53:46 The Ending (Slight Spoilers!)
• 58:49 Dave's Wine Pairing
• 1:01:43 Dallas' Beer Pairing

Transcript

0:05

Are you not entertained? Yes, Real good time! He's Dave, and I'm Dallas, and this is Ventertainment. We have opinions on just about everything. Sometimes those opinions are spot on. Sometimes they go down easier with a glass of wine. This is entertainment. The wine and entertainment pairing podcast. Welcome back to another wine and entertainment pairing for your entertainment. This is the podcast where wine and entertainment intersect. Every episode we delude ourselves into thinking you want to hear what we have to say about different pieces of pop culture and art. But we know for a fact that you need to hear what we have to say about wine because man, wine is complicated. You think all you need to know is the name of a grape. But wait, where was that grape grown? That. is actually more important than the grape itself. They're the two most important things. But I would say, honestly, I would give where a grape is grown 60 % importance. And the grape, the characteristics of that variety, 40 % because there are a lot of grapes out there that are known for being chameleons. Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay were from California. The two, the Queen and the King. Queen of the Whites and the King of the Reds. Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon are known for being chameleons. based on where they're grown, what the winemaking techniques are. So then what kind of container was this wine aged in? Was there skin contact or no skin contact? Cold or warm fermentation, whole cluster or de-stemmed? What's the alcohol level? How long has it been in the bottle? Okay, okay, you don't actually need to know most of that, but you do need to know roughly, I would say half of that to know what you're getting in any given bottle. So what better way to get to know more about wine and about more wines than to hear two jerk-offs natter on about specific wine details, flavor profiles, the stories behind them, and all couched in terms of how well they may or may not go with certain kinds of entertainment. It's the best, man. This podcast, my podcast is the best. Man, I'm just gonna say it. Wow, wow, take notes guys, take notes. Sounds like a poo coming. Wow. So just like with entertainment and wine, it's a very caddy industry like you just witnessed right there. No, just like with entertainment, you get the most out of it when you have an adventurous spirit, an open mind, exploring different corners of what an art form has to offer. Wine itself is an art form. It's history and culture in a glass and in most cases, a winemaker's passion, just as entertainment is history and culture and an artist's passion on a page, screen or record. which is why they go so goddamn well together. Now, please be sure to give this podcast a follow or subscribe and even better, leave a rating and or review on Spotify or Apple Podcasts or whatever platform you're listening to this on, both a rating and review if you can be bothered with it. The more you do, the more the algorithm loves us, shows us to others who listen to other wine and or entertainment podcasts. I should just say or because there is no other and we're the only asshole. And that's... And that's how we grow. Also tell a friend or family member about this podcast if you think they'd enjoy it. Send them to our podcast and to our Instagram, Ventertainment POD on the IG and our home base of operations, which is Substack, which you can find at VentertainmentStudios.com. I know most Substacks are something something dot Substack dot com, but we are. it to substack you know what the blue checkmark assholes on Twitter are like we now have a vanity we paid for a vanity URL and we are of entertainment studios.com but that will take you to our substack and substack is where you will find a directory of all our episodes directories of all the wine and entertainment pairings broken down by category bonus pairings not featured on this podcast articles about the wine and entertainment industries guest collabs of their wine and entertainment writers interactive polls my god if you enjoy this podcast whatsoever You simply must go follow us on Substack. is entertainmentstudios.com. It is the best place to get to know us better. All right, now before we tell you the title of today's film, why don't we give you a quick flyover of some of the industry's reviews, some of the industry reviews upon this film's initial release. just to let you know what you're about to get into here. Dallas, why don't you let everyone know what these reviews said once upon a time about today's film? All right, David and I differ in that I do enjoy going back and looking at some of the old reviews because it contextualizes the, you know, the initial release. And for me, this film, as you guys will come to see, it was a bit of a stinker, but it had a reason. There was a reason and we'll get into that later. Variety's Lawrence Cohn labeled the film initially as an uninspired poverty row production, criticizing the miscasting of David Bowie in the lead role and the film's overall execution. Chronicle highlighted the film's eclectic cast but noted that despite their talents the movie felt more like a casual endeavor among friends. Empire magazine criticized it as an unbearably protracted dud and pointed out that the lead actors lacked chemistry which hindered the romantic aspect of the story. A video librarian labeled the film as a bow wow expressed pity for the marketing executives who had to promote it suggesting that the film was a limp Noodle and Time Out commented on the film's uninspired nature, mentioning that both Bowie and Arquette seemed bored and the sexual chemistry between them was minimal. And now, Dave, tell us about the film. I will though, can I just say I did want to comment on one of the things that someone said here where they said it felt more like a casual. That's my favorite. That's something I'd say, first of all. Okay, but one thing I actually think that's a plus positive, like I love films that feel that way. When it is like everyone's just having a good time and they're just showing up to set to do like they're just like, let's just do it now. That kind of I would actually say Seth Rogen ish, you know, like, you know, those like, what were the pineapple? yeah yeah yeah pineapple. When it is like it's them and their friends and they're just riffing. They're just doing the movie and it's a shit. Sometimes they're misfires to be fair. They absolutely can. I recently heard that like the Adam Sandler grown ups movies there are like half of the movie is them sitting on a porch literally ad-libbing at each other and apparently it's not funny. It's just like boring as AF. So like in general, hate that concept, but when it's done poorly, and it's generally done poorly, but it can be passively entertaining, i agree, i agree I'd agree with it's generally done poorly. think I think it is just like everything every kind of film. It's it's 50-50 It's like you get it right as often as you get it wrong and just because you're doing it Makes no never mind. It makes no difference one way or the other disagree with that but go on go on okay, I definitely disagree with you on that one. So everybody, we are going to talk about a mostly forgotten little gem of the 90s indie movie scene that has recently been given new life with the director's cut just released on Blu-ray and streaming synopsis. Waitress and aspiring escape artist Lucy, who is fixated on the legacy of Harry Houdini and her friend lingerie designer Vivian, conspire with bartender Monty to rob their employer in order to fund their respective ambitions. Monty agrees to help the duo rob the restaurant in exchange for Lucy agreeing to marry him for reasons unknown. All right. Now, this movie is called The Linguini Incident. It is the solo directorial debut of Richard Shepherd, who would go on to direct Matador starring Pierce Brosnan, The Hunting Party starring Richard Gere and The Perfection starring Allison Williams. He got a start co-directing the 1989 comedy Cool Blue starring Woody Harrelson, Hank Azaria and Sean Penn. Though he said during about that experience of co-directing Cool Blue that he was really, he was like, it wasn't my voice, my vision. Like we were, and we did not know what we were doing. I think he was 21 when he co-directed that. And so he almost doesn't count it. When he did the Linguini incident, he told the producer, of the Linguini incident, he had no directing experience because for the most part he didn't or according to him. But the Linguini incident would land him in what we like to call movie jail because it bombed so hard. Though it has since become a bit of cult classic thanks to its title, cast, an endless number of alternate cuts in every country and an endless number of equally memorable alternate titles such as Shag-O-Rama. That was actually one of its titles and Houdini and company. Now, it should be noted that to date, no one knows why it's called the Linguini incident. Now, if you watch this movie, it makes no sense. There's no reason for it to be called the Linguini incident. I think it's it's virtually, virtually a nonsense title. It is an incident. There is a robbery about to take place in a restaurant, but Linguini is not their like number one dish. The robbery has nothing to do with linguine. I'm not sure linguine even comes up once in the entire It's mentioned at all in the final cut. No! It's not. So it is it is a kind of nonsense title or or a poet or a riff kind of like, you know, let's draw a name from a hat. I kind of love it as the title because it just makes no real sense. In isolation, it's a great title. In vacuum, it's a great title. Yeah. Yes. And I actually I'm going to show Dallas this. I might cut this out of the actual podcast because nobody can see this. Maybe we'll make this as a short clip. But I didn't like so I'd never seen this movie until very recently. But I remembered the VHS cover is slash poster that came out in America because it was very memorable. Also kind of a makes no sense, nonsense poster and VHS cover. I'm going to share my screen here with Dallas so he can See what I'm talking about? Yeah, this is the one I saw it actually my knees buckled I laughed so hard yes I can tell you this is just some poor sap they pay to make a fucking other and it's hilarious something called the Linguini Incident. So folks, if you are, can't see this or maybe we put this up on social media, but for those listening to the podcast, this is the heads of all the cast, David Bowie, Rosanna Arquette. We're gonna get to the cast here in just a moment actually, but David Bowie's head is screaming for some reason. And they're all coming out of this background of Linguini. Actually, it's not even Linguini, it's spaghetti, It's It's not even technically Linguini. No one knew what the fuck Linguini was who made this poster. So they're just emerging out of this. I thought it was a horror movie. Right. Because I thought I thought it would be like, you know, the stuff or the thing like thing like Linguini comes to life and tries. Right. Attack of the Killer Tomatoes with Linguini. That's what I thought this movie would be because of this. And the caption is great. He wants to be tied down. She wants to be tied up. It's not what you think. Come on. Exactly. right, right, right. Because as we've already mentioned, this is did I stop the share? did stop the share. OK, perfect. Yeah. As already mentioned, he wants to get married. He needs a green card. She's an escape artist. So get it. She wants to be tied up. He wants to be tied down anyway. The film is co-written by a lady named Tamar Bratt. We're going to get back to her in just a moment, because that's a fun story. It's produced by Sarah Jackson and a man named Arnold or Galini. Arnold Orgelini is the main producer. Sarah Jackson is kind of known as the co-producer. Sarah is very instrumental in getting this director's cut out. Arnold is MIA. No one even knows where he is anymore. And he's the producer that he and everyone else had falling outs with the whole time. So when we mentioned the producer that gave a lot of issues during the production, we mean Mr. Arnold. Now it stars Rosanna Arquette as a waitress at a themed restaurant who moonlights as an escape artist and Harry Houdini fangirl. David Bowie as a British bartender looking for a green card marriage. Esther Belint as Arquette's best friend and clothing designer of a quote, self-defense bra unquote. Andre Gregory and Buck Henry as the owners of the restaurant. Marlee Matlin, Oscar award winning Marlee Matlin as the hostess. She won the Oscar in 1986, it was 1991. And Vivica Lindfors is a pawn shop owner selling Harry Houdini's wife's wedding ring, an artifact that will be very important in the film as we go. The film was co-produced by David Bowie's and co-financed by David Bowie's Isolar Productions. For the most part, it was co-financed, which is why they got the co-production credit. They weren't actually hands on outside of David Bowie being in the film. We're not technically hands on on the production itself. All right. According to the director, quote, The film was stacked to succeed when we shot it back in 1990. After all, it had David Bowie, Rosanna Arquette, Marlee Matlin, Esther Belin, Buck Henry, and Andre Gregory in the cast. Quick side note, folks. Andre Gregory, he looks so familiar to me when I was watching this film. I did not quite recognize the name. If you've ever seen My Dinner with Andre, the movie directed by Wallace Shawn, starring Wallace Shawn, co-starring Wallace Shawn, he is Andre. in my dinner with Andre. So he's an experimental film guy on the New York theater scene, very beloved by most of the New York creators, both in theater and in film. And he's wonderful. He and Buck Henry are both old schoolers in this and they are both. OK, there you go. There you go. All right. Back to according to the director, quote, Robert Eoman was the DP. Thomas Newman did the score. I was all set to surf the golden wave of indie film adulation. But then the tide turned when I was washed out to sea, forgotten and humiliated. The movie was taken away from me, recut, barely released and opened on the weekend of the 1992 LA riots in LA only. Right? So, and I think I just slurred that one. 1992 LA riots. Though it garnered some nice reviews, missed the point. One complained about the number of trees that were destroyed printing the script. And the film soon disappeared to dusty video store racks and unloved VHS tapes and inglorious midnight cable runs. Still, the movie had its ardent fans, but the fact was, I wasn't one of them. It ended my directing career just as it was beginning. And worse, I couldn't even really stand by it. My heart sank every time I watched it. I knew there was a better movie in there, but the original producer and I had stopped speaking. At 25 years old, I was arrogant, insecure, and not a cinematic wunderkind, a horrible trifecta. And the producer had recut it out from under me. Not that my lost version of the Linguini incident was some sort of masterpiece, but still. Then about three years ago, Sarah Jackson, the film's original co-producer, reached out after many years and suggested the craziest idea. What if we got the rights back, produced a director's cut, and finally released it properly on Blu-ray? Dallas, you want to pick it up from there? Yeah, so continuing in the director's own words, first, the rights, because no royalties had ever been paid on the film and all the companies involved had since gone bankrupt, the rights had reverted to SAG or the Screen Actors Guild. SAG was actually difficult to negotiate with, which probably won't surprise a lot of people. Richard and Sarah kept trying to explain to them that they weren't. loaded producers, but it still took years and years to get them to allow for a price they could actually afford. And in case you thought unions were easier than studios, guys, this is sometimes what you come up against with the guilds. But then they still had to find an actual print of the film. So in the director's words again, quote, during the Linguini, the Linguini incident, Strange Life, several versions were made and distributed. An over long and joyless editorial assembly was released in Europe and Asia. The producers cut was distributed in the United States and Canada. Shorter versions ended up on late night TV for a while. At various times, the film was released not only as the Linguini Incident, but also as Houdini and Company, The Robbery, The Restaurant, The Incident, and yes, Shagarama, our personal favorite. The European distributor rank had gone bankrupt. The lab had that process, the original film had gone bankrupt as well. You see a pattern here. I checked with every lab in the United States and Canada. None of them had even heard of the film, much less had the negative secretly stored in a Raiders of the Lost Ark warehouse somewhere. Sarah reminded me that years before someone had reached out about selling us the film's dailies. We'd stupidly passed and now that lab was out of business too. I scoured eBay hoping someone would be selling a battered old print and spoke to a weird assortment of obscure film collectors in Tokyo, Buenos Aires, and Paris, hoping for a lead. I hit nothing but dead ends. But the thing was, I came from the world of independent film, where dead ends happen every day. I was hardened and fully immune to the idea of giving up. I started searching from where the movie might have screened in the past 30 years. Maybe there was a copy out there somewhere just waiting to be rediscovered. I knew the film. The movie had shown once over a decade before in New York at a museum doing a Bowie show, but they admitted that they had no access to a print, so they showed the crappy VHS version. I was hoping another theater somewhere might have projected a 35 millimeter print. One day in one of my many linguine dark web searches, who knew there was a kinky strangulation fetish group of shot. Sorry. I skimmed over that when I reading this initially. Sorry, hold on. This is the joy of deep diving on the internet to find a printed It really is. I would love to just hear his comment, his commentary fully about this. Anyway. If only he had a podcast while he was doing it and he was just recording the whole thing. Alright, let me pick back up here. I was hoping another theater somewhere might have projected a real 35 millimeter print. One day in one of my many linguine dark web searches, who knew there was a kinky strangulation fetish group obsessed with the scene where Rosanna Arquette's escape artist character Lucy nearly chokes to death on a noose. I found in a theater in Zurich that had shown it a few years back on its website that it said they had screened a 35 millimeter print. Holy shit, could that be true? Where did they get that from? I emailed them cold hoping they would remember and immediately got a response. Yes, indeed, they remembered it. It seems a distribution company in the UK had somewhere along the line retained European rights to the film. This was great news as a European version was significantly longer than the US version. If I could have access to it, I could at least have more footage to play around with to produce my director's cut. Even better, not only did they have a print, they had a 35 millimeter interpositive. A new 4K transfer of that would produce a gorgeous looking movie. It took months for the English distribution company to track the interpositive reels from deep in their storage facility. Another few for the company's lab to make a transfer of it for me. Things move slowly in England, especially when you're not exactly offering a truckload of cash, but Four days before Christmas in 2022, I got a call as if from Film Santa himself, the transfer was complete. I had my movie back after more than 30 years. So we are here today, folks, to talk about the director's cut version of that film. But first, let's give some hints as to the wines we're gonna pair with this bad boy, Dave. What you got, buddy? All right, indeed. So mine is something effervescent because there is something about this movie. It's so bubbly. It's so sparkly. It's so, you know, we mentioned earlier about it's like a bunch of friends hanging out and just like, you know, having fun with each other. And I'm like, there is that element of almost like live theater to this movie. And some of a lot of the people were coming from the live theater scene. This was a director who did not really no film that well at the time. So he was shooting it very like elements of this film are very point and shoot. There are some really cool camera moves and cool cinematography going on in places. But a lot of it feels that very late 80s. Dallas texted me at one point when he was watching it he was like, this is so 90 Indies. It's ridiculous. And I was like, extremely so. It's a very like I got a camera. I got some cash. Who cares what the cast is really like this cast is amazing. But even if you didn't, it's a lot of we're in a room, we're doing the diet, we're pointing the camera, people are talking, it's more about the characters and the dialogue, less about the cinema of the whole thing, right? Which was very much, but that said, there are certain sets like the restaurant that are amazing, their costumes are amazing here. So this movie has a little bit more going on than that, but this movie is so bubbly and fun. and everyone involved seems so into doing it and having so much fun being there feels very celebratory, even though it's a weird film. So I picked something that's effervescent, something made in a now classic style, but it's a unique spin. It's a unique spin on it for where it's made and it kind of tastes nothing like what it's trying to copy. So it's Champagne style, but far more mineral driven. almost none of the nutty, bready aromatics or flavors that you get from champagne. It's stony and crisp and with a touch of nuttiness and dried citrus and a little bit of that breadyness, but it's got this more body, I think, than most champagnes do. Excellent bubbles, mousse. And for those not in the know, champignois style or method traditional, it's a style where you do a second fermentation in the bottle. So you make the base wine, it's a still wine, no bubbles. Then you put it in the bottle, extra sugar and yeast to make another fermentation happen in the bottle, cork the bottle, and you let the bubbles form because of the fermentation. So the bubbles are from that fermentation process happening in the bottle. And then there's a special way in which they eject the dead yeast cells after the fact, although you let it age on the dead yeast cells for a certain amount of time. You let it all stay in there. This one was aged 30 months on the dead yeast cells, and yet it still tastes remarkably different from champagne. I actually featured this wine. on our very first little short video on Instagram called Judge a Bottle by its Label. I then took it to my WSET3 reunion that we did a couple weeks back where everyone had to bring a bubbly. And I brought this one because it so, I knew it was different. I hadn't opened it yet. I hadn't tried it. But when we tried it, it was a hit. We even had vintage champagne that get together. And this one kind of stood out. for a number of reasons. I feel like the Linguini incident, it's effervescent, it's fun, and it stands out. It's similar to a lot of other 90s indie movies, but this one is still kind of doing its own thing and really is at least in certain ways unlike a lot of others. So I really wanted something that matched all those elements. So Dallas, what do you got? What do you got coming up? I'm gonna just give you an overall profile of the experience of this drink to see if it rings any bells. First of all, it pours deep, rich, dark, amber-y. Maybe there's a hint there. In terms of aroma, it is complex and viting. is a little, for lack of better term, maltier than you may think. There's some... caramel in there, a little toffee, you get the dark fruit, you might get some of the fig, the raisin. It is ostensibly full bodied and well balanced in terms of mouthfeel. It is very velvety with a moderate amount of carbonation, making it feel, we did, we did kind of, kind of, making it feel plush on the tongue. The finish, the finish is dry. with lots of lingering in terms of the the dark fruit in the bottle. It technically qualifies as a grand reserve. The ABV is going to top out at best at 11 % and if anyone knows anything about alcohol with those two or three hints, you may know what this is. So yeah, that's my The only thing I will say is the hint of amber when you're like that might give you a hint. It's not an orange wine, folks. I will say that. So kick that out of your mind and then see where that hint leads you after that. So a little background on this movie, a little additional background before we get into the conversation proper. So director Richard Sheppard went to New York University with Roman Coppola and in Roman Coppola, of course, is the son of Francis Ford Coppola. Roman at the time was running a low budget division out of of Zoetrope Zoetrope being the production company of Francis Ford Coppola. And this little low budget division was called Commercial Pictures. They were making roughly 100K ish features. He hired Richard, our director on Linguini Incident, another friend, to write a heavy metal rock and roll musical. But when filming was done, the movie was absolutely terrible, according to everybody. So everyone thought it was so horrible. They actually rehired Richard to rewrite the whole movie to be redubbed with that rewrite in complete What's Up Tiger Lily style. So he was going to write a new script to go with the footage that had already been shot. They weren't going to reshoot the fucking thing. They were just going to quote unquote rewrite it. The was that, my God. Exactly. at the same time, apparently, so Roman re-hired Richard to do the rewrite. But at the same time, Daddy Francis also thought the movie was so bad, he hired another lady called Tamar Brott, who was hired in to do the exact same rewrite. So both wound up being hired for very little money to do this rewrite. Funnily enough, when the two, got together once they realized they'd both been hired to do the same thing, they're like, well, we'll do it together. And during the six weeks that they were doing this rewrite, they fell in love. Rewrite romance, people, rewrite romance. That's what that is. That's a rewrite romance. Exactly. They were an item together for six years after this experience. And during that time, they decided to try their hand at writing their own screenplay. That was not just something to be redubbed on footage that had already existed. So Richard wanted to write a robbery movie. Tamar had worked at a restaurant before, and both of them were into Harry Houdini. So neither of them knew how the movie industry works. So according to Richard, so much of the script and the film itself happened only because they didn't understand how much of their ideas were quote unquote impossible. He got a B level producer to green light the movie. This is our that producer we mentioned Arnold that we mentioned earlier, who was so B level, apparently, according to Richard, he was so B level that when Richard was like, I want to direct the movie. Arnold was like, yeah, okay. Even though Richard had no experience directing it. He was like, sure. They wanted the cast list they drafted up beforehand. This is again, they didn't know how the entertainment industry worked. They drafted, they wanted Madonna, Sandra Bernhardt and Richard E. Grant. And here's the fun part. They wanted Mick Jagger and David Bowie to play the restaurant owners. Okay, I kind of want to see that. Okay, I got it. I don't want to see that. So they sent the script to Bowie, having no idea what an insane ask that was. And Bowie replied that no, he didn't want to play the supporting role of the restaurant owner. He wanted to play the lead. So Rose and they were like, OK. And of course, they gave him the lead. And Bowie even wound up co-producing, co-financing the feature in the ultimate end. Rosanna Arquette read the script only because it was sitting on her agent's desk and she picked it up and read it. It had not been sent to her for any reason directly. Marlee Matlin phoned them up. They don't even know how she got it. Phoned them up and said, I read the script and I want to be in the movie. Can you create a role for me? So to which they were like, can we create a role for Oscar winner? Children of a Lesser God, 1986, Marlee Matlin. Yeah, right. So according to Bowie, it was one of the funniest scripts he'd read in a long time. It was to him more of a light comedy than a belly laugh kind of comedy, but he loved it. Esther Belint was coming from the New York experimental theater scene and was heading to LA for the very first time. And to her, she found the script quote unquote mainstream compared to what she had been working on previously. Yeah, yeah. And the fact that it had budget limitations made her feel right at home. So, but the main producer was MIA for most of the shoot. The script was way too long, even according to the director. Richard basically admits it should have been a hundred pages, not 120. When you're tight on money, you need, and this is all in Richard's words, when you're tight on money, you need to have less to shoot. You're going to cut it anyway. So you might as well cut it before shooting begins. then you can shoot four pages a day instead of eight to nine pages a day. You don't want to be under the gun like that. Right? So Richard, will see, see Dallas is like, nah, no, but. And if you're tight on money, right? It's like that is something that you should consider, especially. Yes, right. It's a baseline. You're like, what can we actually because you want what you do shoot to be really good. Right. And if you're just going to be like, but my script is brilliant and I can't cut a page of it. And that's going to make the movie itself be worth be less worse and cheaper and shoddier. Exactly. Or just shoddier because you're going so fast. You're not getting good takes. You're not, you don't know what coverage, you're not getting the right coverage. You can't take the time to make the best movie possible. Anyway, and then we've already mentioned how the release went. It was released during the LA riots. There was a curfew that you could not go see it after a certain time. According to the director, he's like, we opened and closed literally like hours later. Like it's like it was over before it even began. You know, it's funny, when we first started down this road for this film, and you mentioned this, I forget what it was. I think it was COVID when we first started this whole entertainment idea. I remember thinking I wanted to do like a mini sort of series of films that came out during, you know, what's it called? riots or a curfews and things like that. Right. And to see what the actual you know, returns were because that just happened quite a few times. So anyway, this this makes that idea a bit more interesting. I I'm just going to hazard a guess. The returns will always be exactly the same, almost nothing. It's like, I mean, that's sort of the point is like, well, yeah, if you do that, your movie fails because, you know, either put either postpone it. But then you can't because you have a deal with the theaters. have new releases coming up next week. You're kind of screwed because anyway, anyway, when the time came to rework the film into a new cut, it's notable to point out that the director's cut is eight minutes shorter than the shortest previous cut of the film. So Richard always thought the pacing sucked the life out of the movie. That was one of the key pieces he wanted to fix when he revisited this. He then used some scenes and alternate takes only available in the in that Austrian cut they had rediscovered. And he even used AI to fix one line of dialogue that had bothered him for over 30 years. And I do not know what that line of dialogue is, he does not say. But. I would have to watch the old one of the old cuts and like compare and contrast and like really dig through to find that line. I have no idea. But apparently he's on record as saying he did do that. So, you know, for me, backgrounds are our personal backgrounds on this movie. For me, I had I was aware of this movie. I knew that old poster. I had always seen it. That poster looks so cheap and shoddy. I always thought this movie was going to be even with that cast. I was like. Wow, Bowie slumming it, holy shit. Like, I mean, just man, man, man. But I, I'm, I am part of a letterboxed film club group, the CoLab, that does one movie a week, we vote on it. There's a theme every week and then we vote on like five or six options. And the one that gets the most votes, and it's a ranked choice voting. So whoever gets the most points on that ranked choice voting wins that week. And, Yeah, the Linguini incident one a few weeks back. And so I watched it for the very first time and the director's cut was already out. So was like, OK, well, let's see what this is. And I loved it. I just I loved it. I mean, I give it four out of five stars. Right. So it's not like the perfect movie of all time, but four out of five. I'm like, this deserves to be watched, especially I've never seen the old cuts. I don't know how bad those are. cannot speak for them. I did notice that we have people in the collab group on Letterbox, because Letterbox is an online thing, so people from all over the world. And right now, the director's cut is only available, I believe, in North America. don't think they've released it yet anywhere else. And so our groups that were in Australia, that were in Europe, that were elsewhere, they watched one of the old cuts, whichever one they had available to them. And boy, howdy, where their score is lower on this film than what I gave it for the director's cut. So I assume the director's cut is demonstrably better than what those old cuts are, but I cannot speak one way or the other because I've only seen the director's cut, but I really loved it. I loved the cast. As mentioned earlier, they just all seem to be having a great time. And this is one of those movies where because going cold, don't really look any further into the plot outside of what we've already given you, because you cannot figure out where this movie is going until it just goes there. Because every step of the way, you're like, why? Why are we doing? Why? Why is this scene now happening? And you're like, I mean, it doesn't not make sense. It makes perfect sense by the time you get to the end. But it it's just a surprising movie every step of the way, for better or for worse, whether you love it or hate it. Everything it decides to do is not necessarily the logical progression of what came before. It's just what this movie wants to do. But I thought it was wonderful. Dallas, what's your background on this movie? You know, when you mentioned this a couple of weeks ago, I did not, and this often happens between Dave and I or anyone and I, I have this sort of cache of experiences that I kind of hide away from myself until someone mentions something. And then a few weeks later, I'm like, wait, I do remember this. So when Dave mentioned it, potentially doing it, it was a couple of days after that where it hit me that I remember coming across this title. when I was doing some research on David Bowie's life. if you guys are familiar here in LA, there is a gallery up near the Forever Cemetery, Hollywood Forever Cemetery, I think it's called, no, not Hollywood Forever, the one in Glendale, it's where Michael Jackson's buried. But up on the hill above that, they have this entire sort of museum devoted to I think it's from Shtika. It's like a hundred foot long painting. But right next to that, they have this little gallery museum where they do the really interesting little features. And they had one devoted to Bowie. As a matter of fact, I think it was the first stop of this particular exhibit and lots of sort of ephemera and things from his life. And one of the things that was featured was a blurb about this film because they were discussing how you know, with isolar productions, which is about his production company, he was heavily into this sort of left or right of center, depending on perspective, like film quality to what he does. That's why everything he ever did was so aesthetically sort of, you know, arresting. I a little unique and odd. Absolutely. For the time. absolutely. He, you know, he had a very specific sort of ethos and point of view and which is one of the reasons I, you know, always love him and I think most people do. And I almost forgot, it should be noted, David Bowie met his future wife on the set of the Linguini incident. Imane, the Somalian model. was in she had a small cameo. was basically an extra. She was one of the people in the fine in the grand finale in the restaurant. When Rosanna Arquette's character says, who here wants to see me turn blue and die? She's the lady in the audience who then raises her hand only to have someone put it down really quick and she looks very confused and she's like, why? I do want to see that. So it's a very comical moment, really good. And apparently she and David just hit it off. Rosanna Arquette is on record as saying like it was adorable watching them fall in love on set and they were together until the day Bowie left us. that, if nothing else, that is something to note about this movie. Okay, back to Dallas. But I remember coming across this film and realizing it was 91. And I have a certain affinity for anything film wise between about 1988, 1993, that set in New York City, because it has this weird electric energy. It's like anything Parker Posey ever did in that period of time. I'm probably going to love. And this is sort of like adjacent to that energy. Sleepwalk by Sarah Driver is another really good one. Starring Tony Todd, a young Tony Todd, right, as one of the main guys. And that one blew me away too. I did not see that until recently as well. But yeah, there's so much good stuff. Absolutely. And you can tell a lot of the writers in a lot of that, that that sort of period who are making these films, you can tell they have serious theatrical backgrounds like proper theater, you know, playwriting sort of outsider art. You know, you see the you see it in the aesthetics, you see it in the design, everything feels a little more. you know, like that quote from the review. It's like a meandering kind of stage. Absolutely. It's a presentational quality. this was a difficulty of mine initially with the film until I tuned into it because I didn't actually reconnect to that kind of outsidery film thing quality initially. So I was watching this this first time. I was expecting sort of a slick, almost Hollywood version of a film. Wow. really was because of the cast, because of the connection to the cast. That was, you know, they're right in their estimation that, you know, this film had great expectations because of the cast at that period in time. And at Bowery, at Arquette, those were heavy hitters. so, you know, there was... it was a yeah but really it was such a low budget and everyone knew everyone a first-timer and so we were just like point the camera that way say your lines you know and it's like it's yeah it's fascinating And, and so once about 20 minutes in, I was like, I get it. Okay, I'm here now. And I loved it. I absolutely adored it. I imagine it would have been fucking fantastic to been working in that cast or on that crew. Because it just seems like such a collaborative effort and a lot of like, what the fuck is the problem today? Okay, how do we solve that creatively because we have $1 you know, it's just like energy is so clear, and it's so present and forward. So that was my sort of, you know, route into the film. And overall, just great. mean, I, like I said, anything from like 80, 98, to like 93, that set in that sort of downtown New York thing, it just generally, I'm probably going to enjoy the experience. I mean, I like the film overall, but I'm probably going to enjoy the experience. So yeah. So on that note, did you like the film overall? I did, loved it. I also, I weight the effort of the film. I weigh the effort of the film almost as much as the execution. And so I walk away often, I guess with a slightly different sort of rating system. So yeah, I thoroughly enjoyed this. It was film. people are aware. And I think that's fair. think most people do if they're aware of what the limitations were for the film. Like when because it's one thing when when something costs three hundred fifty million dollars to make all of sudden like it's almost the right. Well, you're like, OK, why isn't this the best thing I've ever seen? Because motherfucker, you spend three hundred. Like you could do anything. You could do anything. And then you have that thing where you're like, yeah, it's pretty good. It's got some flaws. And then you're like, yeah, but they, shot it for like a fraction of the car. And then you're like, this is really good then, right? So problem solving, I guess is my right back to view. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Well, and you're overcoming that obstacle. I think especially with film, because we're living in an era now where film can be it's can be so slick, so polished. So and the expenditure for film has just gotten so out of control that, you know, lot of people, the electric state on Netflix is the one right now. Because I think that is I actually looked that up. It's actually closer to I mentioned earlier, we were having this conversation, Dallas, and I mentioned 250 million. It's almost 350. Stop. No. What? It's stupid. Yes. No, no, no. Where are you getting that number? That's crazy. It's got to be. I into it. think it's like $324 million or something, but it's over $300 million. And that's insanity. It's like at that point, it's like we have to, and it's not, it's one thing if it's like Avatar, where it's a brand new technology, you are pushing boundaries. Like there's so much R &D going into the movie that that's where the budget is ballooning from. You're doing something wildly unique. James Cameron on Titanic, things like that. It's like when they, it's always Cameron, right? Cameron always doing those things, Whereas other directors, a lot of the times when they're trying new technology, like the creator, when that director, like that was, he was trying to make something that looked like Avatar or like could stand up to something like the electric state for a fraction of the cost. And they hope to do it for 50 million. It was post pandemic when inflation was going out of control, so it wound up costing them a roughly 80 million. But it's an 80 million dollar movie that probably looks as good as the electric fucking state. And it's one of those things we were like, yeah, we've got to when we're living in that era, going back to a film like this, where I don't know what the exact budget was. I actually didn't look that up. But it's it's going to be low, like a few million at most with this. cast, which is crazy. And this director, after going into movie jail, after this movie bombed, he had to make, he made a loose trilogy of thrillers in throughout the rest of the nineties for roughly half a million each. Like he could not even raise a million after that. And it was not until Matador starring Pierce Brosnan that he went back into being a major director again. And that movie only happened because he was trying to be a writer again. And they were looking for writers for the Thomas Crown Affair 2, the sequel. And he had written Matador and Matador, the script for Matador. And Matador was the first script he had written in a long time where he was like, I was really writing to the genre all through the 90s. Like he was controlling himself because Linguini incident was such a mess and such a disaster for him. And Matador was the first one where he was like, once again, I'm just writing for myself. I just want to write something that interests me. And he sent it as a writing sample to the Pierce Brosnan group to get a gig writing the Thomas Crown Affair 2. Yep, yep. And they liked it so much they were like, you know what, let's just make this instead for Pierce and you're going to direct it. And then he was back on top after that. Now, to be fair, as a quick side note on that though, Pierce dropped out. Nine weeks before filming was set to begin because he got cold feet and he got scared and was like, I don't know if this is what I actually want to do. And the director, Richard, was so broke. He's like, I could not pay the next month's rent. man. And this was all about to fall apart. But he was able to like he reached out to Pierce and he was like, what? What's the hesitation? Just tell me what's going on. And Pierce was he was like, this is a character I've never done a kind of character I've never done before. And he was nervous about it. But at the same time, he was trying to put bond. behind him. And this was the role to do it. So they got them back on board. And to this day, it pierced Brosnan and still says is one of the best experiences he's ever had. And sidebar, Pierce Brosnan just I think on the record said, you know, he'd be interested in revisiting Bond once or twice if that ever. Yeah, I bet. Multiverse bond, multiverse bond. This is the time to do it before it's all over, right? Let's just get it out of our system and before these guys are all dead. All the iterators, all of them, right now. Did Sean Connery pass away or is he just still retired? I forget. think he passed away a couple of years ago. A couple years ago, okay, I think he did too. And Roger Moore is no longer with us. That's a good question, hold on. Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's no longer with us either. maybe we missed our our our possibly Timothy Dalton still with us. Yes, Brosnan still with us. No, Roger. is still around? Oh, sorry. No, no, no, he's dead. He's dead. He's totally dead. Sorry for stringing everyone's emotions along there. Is he dead? Is he alive? What's going on with Roger Moore? In any event, back to this movie. You know, this movie, I did want to mention as one final thing on story wise. So actually, I want to ask you this, Dallas, as a writer, what did you think of the script for this movie? Ooh. I thought, I remember I do weigh effort and the sort of genesis of the film. And when those two writers described their three primary interests going into writing the film, it was, it definitely skewed things. So was like, okay, so this was an exercise in collaboration for them rather than two people having a central idea that had energy and inertia behind it. That's different, right? So there wasn't necessarily sort of a fire leading or, you know, propelling the idea. And so I weight things differently that way. For me, I do think the script was very similar to the way films, the filmmaking process happens of films in that era. When you get all your friends on board and you say those two guys are the writers, they're going to write a thing and we're going to go film it and we're going to do a thing. That's the energy of the script. That's the energy of the production. That's the energy of the actual outcome. So I think as a writer, this is less a testament to their writing skills and more a testament to their collaborative skills. And it's a little bit to your point of like, was these three elements that then they're like, can we weave a story around that? And then they do. It was almost an exercise. And I mentioned earlier how this film, like you never know where it's going until it gets there. Because it's not obvious because the plot isn't obvious and the story idea isn't obvious. You're just, there are just these characters and they are what they are. And they're weaving together in certain ways that you're like, none of it was meant to be. You know what I mean? It's not like an ideal where you're like, as a log line, as a pitch, that is gold. This is one of those movies that can only be made as an indie film, as a passion project that you somehow, someone gives you the money to make whatever you want kind of a thing. Yeah. had very acute, very intense late night cable move made for cable movie vibes to it, which is in and of itself satisfying. And, you know, and not to say that the quality is horrible. It just that's where it sat for me. I You know, it's funny, Late Night Cable, that's not where it sits for me. Though a lot of people say that. Even, I think, even the director is like, I that was its fate, is it went too late. Technically, y'all are right. It's like, there's no question about it. But for me, this still feels so indie, darling. It feels so film festival, darling. It feels far more, it feels far more that than Late Night Cable, per se. I don't know. think for me, this feels like because it feels like some friends just getting together and doing this movie and having so much because in going back to live theater to live theater, you're working together and collaborating to make this thing to like have a live performance. So you're like just rehearsing, rehearsing, rehearsing. By the time you're doing the live performance, man, you all are a team unless everything goes horribly, horribly wrong, at which point you're biting your tongue and making it happen anyway. But in most cases in live theater, You love each other so much because there's so much trust involved. There's so much of a dynamic you need to have and a relationship with each other so that you trust each other on stage to make this thing work and happen. That it really feels like live theater in that way where it's like everyone is there because they want to be there. They know what they're doing. They understand the assignment and they're delivering. they know the reigns, they know their roles, they know their lanes. Everyone is firing, everyone is firing appropriately in this film. There are no real like missteps in individual roles or, you know, performances. And, yeah, think it's fun. It's a fun film. absolutely. Now, slight spoilers ahead, guys. I want to talk about the ending real fast. gosh. And because the ending, what a lot of people take this ending to task. I feel a little differently about it, but a lot of people. So there is a romantic relationship burgeoning through blossoming throughout this entire script that does look like it's pretty much dead in the water by the time you get to the final scene. But then it does. reverse itself a bit at the end and gives hope for the romance once again. And a lot of people are like, no, that is not earned. that was like there is no going back after what that asshole David Bowie's character does. And I'm like, actually, I have a slightly different thing. First off, Dallas, do you do you feel what I'm saying there about that ending? Do I understand why everyone else, why most people say that, but I think it's earned because she gets precisely prior to that moment that one of the characters gets precisely what they've been wanting for the entire desiring the entirety of the film. know, so in those terms that character A gets. a thing she's been, it's been coveting, they've been coveting for the entirety of the film. So in terms of the character, you totally earned, totally earned. Okay. Okay, fair enough. For me, here's where the spoilers come guys, I'm gonna get a little nitty gritty on this. Not not that this movie needs like has like huge spoilers, but a little bit of spoiler. For me, because she stood him up for the marriage license originally, right? And she did it just because she could not be bothered to think about him. Like at all. Like she promised like he came through on his end of the bargain. And then she's just like, in her own little universe so much so. Now she doesn't know why it's so problematical for him not to get married by the end of that day. But he even told her whether he's lying or not. He told her he would he might die if she didn't. And she cared so little and was so in her own head. She just didn't bother to show up. So when he then gets into deeper trouble. and then realizes there's a possible way out. But the only way it would work is if he lies to her. Because he also, by that point in time, knew her well enough and knew her escape artist desires well enough to know that telling her the truth and trying to get her to come through like she would fail. And I think he's spot on about that. Even if she was willing to do it, she would have failed in executing it. And so he knew that she needed to think. She was an extreme danger in order to achieve what she'd always wanted to achieve. So a lot of people are like, David Bowie's character, Monty, is such an asshole for lying in this way. So manipulative. Right. So manipulative, so beyond the pale. And I'm like, no. A, she owed him beyond big time. But even if she was willing to do it because he tells her the truth of what's happening in this final scene, she would have failed. because she had to get over herself and passed her own insecurities to achieve what she needed to achieve. And he fucking knew that. And I'm like, so was it manipulative? Yeah. But not only did she owe him, the only way she could pay him back was by being lied to. Right. And she would not have come through. And then everyone gets what they want in the end by via this lie in its way. Even though, to be fair, it turns out there was one other way for her to get past her insecurities, which was learning she had been lied to, being so angry that, but the lie still had to happen one way or the other. So I disagree with a lot of people that were like, his character was beyond the pale and irredeemable and that romance should not have happened. And I'm like, actually, I think these two were made for each other. My God. And I do think that, again, she was as bad as him in how she didn't come through in that way. So Yeah, I have a little bit of a different take. Guys, let us know. Come comment on this podcast. Send us an email. That is of entertainmentstudios at gmail.com if you want to. You got his ridiculous take Yes, or entertainment studios.com and our sub stack. Find this post on our sub stack and comment on the post. We would love to hear what you think. And if you think this is you feel differently about that ending. All right. That is the Linguini incident, everyone, especially if you're in North America and you could see the directors go find a copy. It's on streaming all over. I believe it's on to be or or or or TV. One of the free ones. It's on two. It's also if you have the Amazon account, you can do the free seven day trial of one of their sub services to watch it as well. So. Yeah. it's on as well. Awesome. All right. Wine parents. What are we pairing with the Linguini incident from 1991? So for me, I told you I paired it with something effervescent, something bubbly. So I paired it with a Italian bubbly done in the Chappanoise style. This is called Metodo Classico or the classic method in Italy. This is from the Alta Langa region of Italy. Now there's the Langa region, L-A-N-G-H-E, and that is plural, because Langa mean, or Langa with an A, means long or low lying hill, and Langa is the plural form, so hills, so it's the larger region, and then the Alta Langa with an A, L-A-N-G-A, is a smaller subsection just for bubbly. that is in the larger Langa, spelled L-A-N-G-H-E, region of Italy. The Langa, L-A-N-G-A, Alta Langa, this is where they do bubbly. They do it with Pinot Noir and Chardonnay, just like champagne. So this one is a 2018, so it's vintage. And in a lot of bubblies, you often don't get a year on the bottle because it's just a mixture of different vintages, of different years of grapes all blended together. In this case, it is a 2018 Brut. 70 Pinot Noir, 30 % Chardonnay. This is Mira Fiore is the name of the winery. Mira Fiore Brut from the Alta Langa, Matoto Classico DOCG from Italy. is Langa is known for, this is from Piemonte. So this is known where like Barolo is, where Barbaresco is. So you can find all sorts of wines, Langa ending in H-E. You'll find like Langa Nebbiolo, Langa Arnais, Langa Chardonnay, and then Ulta Langa, ending with the GA, is just the DOCG for the sparkling. This is, a secondary fermentation in the bottle. 30 months it aged on its leaves. But this is, the flavor and aromas of this one are somewhere in between, I would say, a cava and a champagne. Now, cava is another kind, it's a Spanish sparkling wine that also uses the traditional method, the Champenoise style. So it's a secondary fermentation in bottle. But Kava tends to be a bit fruitier, a bit more mineral driven. Champagne tends to be a bit more butter, like more toasty, bready, yeasty, nutty. It often gets very dark in color, especially if it's a vintage one. This one is lighter. It's very light in color. It's fruitier, more mineral driven like a Kava, but with some of that nuttier, breadier notes of a champagne. yeah, this Mirafiore Brute. from the Alta Langa. I thought it matched linguine incident so beautifully. I would drink this as my bubbly with linguine incident. What do you got Dallas? totally see that. I went in again, I'm here with another non traditional pairing for the boys at entertainment. the drink I chose is a Trappist product. If anyone knows what the Trappist term means, the Trappist is a monastic monastic order. And in the Roman Catholic following, of course. So I actually chose a beer, guys. It's a beer. But luckily, with the Trappist sort of brewing method, it does mirror the tradition of wine. Trappist beers are brewed by monks in active monasteries. The brewing typically takes place within the walls of the monastery. As a matter of fact, the ITA International Trappist Association You can only carry the authentic Trappist product logo if it is brewed within the walls of a Trappist monastery. the output is highly controlled. There are 14 Trappist breweries. Most are in Belgium, but there are a few in the Netherlands and the US and I think Austria and Italy as well. I chose the Chimay. This is the Chimay Grand Reserve. beer. Ale, is it is it's wonderful. It is just fantastic. It is nutty. It's woodsy. It's got all the things as I said earlier here for my notes. There we go. And that is a C-H-I-M-A-Y. I may shy may is is it is the shy may Grand Reserve blue. It is a Belgian strong dark ale. Of course, as I said, the Trappist breweries monasteries in Belgium. It is curiously enough, the Cistercian order, which is closely related to the Trappist, they are known for their involvement in wine making. And that goes back a very long time. And they played a pivotal role in the development of viticulture. in Burgundy. those are sort of your brother and sister alcohols for lack of a better term. The Chame Grand Reserve in terms of profile, it is a Belgian shrunk dark ale. As I said, ABV is going to top out at 11%. You get the dark brown reddish hues you get. It's just, it's kind of delicious. You get this weird I it. For me, it does sit someplace between a port and a beer. I know. Go ahead and write in and tell me how ridiculous that sounds. Anyone who's out there who takes umbrage with that, but I don't really care. But feel, feel free to write in and tell me I'm ridiculous. But it does sit someplace between those two things for me. And yeah, I think it's absolutely fantastic. The aroma is complex and biting as I said before. You get the rich notes of malt and caramel and toffee, dark fruit. You get the raisins, the figs, the plums are even on full display here, full bodied, well balanced. And it definitely lingers in the way a solid dark core wine, red wine would. So yeah, I needed something that was a bit more overtly engaging than just a core wine. I was initially going to go with probably a a peanutage. Yeah. But I decided to see I can see Pinotage to Dark Amber Ale. I don't know why, but I kinda can. Again, that smoky nutty quality. And Pinotage, you got more of your bolder robust red with that smoky burnt rubber quality to the back end. Yeah, so cool. Cool. All right, guys. Yeah, Shy May Grand Reserve from the Trappist Monks. Or the Mira Fiore Brute 2018 or in a year. They usually will have a year. on it. But if you find a more recent one, get it anyways. This should go for roughly around like I think I got this for around $35 a bottle for mine. So well, well worth it for a bubbly in the champagne style, champagne style, the linguine incident directors cut go look it up if you're in Europe and Australia or Africa or anywhere else. And you're like, Well, I want to watch a linguine incident anyway. Great. Go with it. watch your version, whatever is available. Actually let us know what you think with your version. Because I'd be curious to know about that. In any event, thanks so much for listening. As always, everyone, we will be back in one week with another one and entertainment pairing for your entertainment. But until then, take care. Watch, listen or read something amazing. Drink something amazing. Be thoughtful about it. Don't just binge. Actually pay attention. Think about things. Let them digest. Think about what you're drinking and eating with it. Prepare things with it. It's fun. It's being more present in the moment. And we will catch you next week. Ciao for now. Later, guys.