Your Favorite Movie: When Harry Met Sally

*Loudly fakes ecstatic anticipation in the prospect of reading yet another Your Favorite Movie interview* "I'll have what she's having."

I've been chilling with Keelan F**** for like two decades now, ever since those Presentation B.V.M. days. I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say Keelan is one of my favorite people. She's always optimistic, she has a bubbly personality, she laughs a lot, she's a loyal friend... in other words, Keelan was good company when she was gracious enough to talk with me and Pam about her favorite movie.

And just based on what I know about Keelan, it makes complete and total sense that her favorite movie is a romantic comedy. When Harry Met Sally set the standard for the genre, it seems like, and it was really fun digging into what makes this movie tick.

I've transcribed our lighthearted conversation below with Keelan's permission, lightly edited to account for all the fake orgasms. (Also, the official title of the this movie is When Harry Met Sally..., with the ellipses at the end. Even though I'm usually a stickler for proper punctuation, I just find that annoying for some reason. So just put a mental [sic] in there every time we say the title of the movie, if you want.) Enjoy!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe: Okay, so we're here to make Keelan cry.

Keelan: Great.

Joe: [pause] Do you think men and women can be friends?

Keelan: Wow, that's how we're going to start?

Joe: That's how we're going to start.

Keelan: I have a lot of thoughts and feelings, though, in general. I do. I think they can be friends.

Joe: I mean, we're friends. Do you think Harry brought up any good points about how men and women cannot be good friends?

Keelan: I do, but I don't know if... Harry says they cannot be friends, but I think it's situational to the time in your life. Maybe in that moment, they cannot be friends. But I think the movie proves that there are times that you can be friends, but it depends on where you are in your life at that time.

Joe: I mean, there was a time when they were just friends, in the movie, and that ultimately led to them hooking up. Right?

Keelan: Yes.

Joe: Which was his original point. You can't be friends, you're going to hook up.

Keelan: But it was at that point in their lives. When they were friends, everything was fine.

Joe: True.

Keelan: They were doing separate things. He was dating that baker. She was dating the other guy. They were going through their lives together as friends. And then, another time in their lives came, and something changed. A life event.

Joe: Had they tampered down their own horniness, I guess, they could've remained friends.

Keelan: But would that have been where they were in the lives at that point?

Joe: Fair.

Keelan: What do you think, Pam?

Pam: I don't know. [laughter]

Joe: I kind of connected with the middle timeline, when they were at the airport, and he was explaining the corollary to his original rule, like, "Well, if you're both in a relationship, maybe you can be friends." But then he's like, "Well, no, maybe your partner would start thinking you were hooking up with that friend, even if you weren't, and that would... not be good."

Keelan: Doesn't that show a weakness in that relationship, then?

Joe: I was thinking about it personally...

Keelan: Oh god, here we go.

Pam: Yeah, I'm ready to hear this too.

[laughter]

Joe: In this specific context. So the Philadelphia Naked Bike Ride is tomorrow—

Keelan: Are you... involved in that?

Joe: I would be inclined to do it. The main reason [I won't be] is that that I have a kid and I want to spend as much time as I can with my wife and my kid, on days that neither of us are working. But I was trying to think, hypothetically, who would I invite to go to this with me? What friend could I possibly ask to go with me? It would be weird to ask a dude, like, "Hey, you wanna get naked together?"

Pam: [off-the-record snarky remark]

Joe: Well, okay, but any [girl] who I would be comfortable enough with to ask if they want to go on a naked bike ride with me, Pam would have a problem with it. Maybe not a "problem," but would question—"Why? What, do you want to get naked with this girl? Is that why you're going with her?" Anyone in my life that I think would hypothetical say yes, would also be the type of person that Pam would say, "Why do you want to see her tits?" Even though, I personally, that wouldn't be the reason why I would be going with her, hypothetically, to see her tits. But that's what you would say!

Keelan: But you open Pandora's Box with that.

Joe: But ultimately, I'm saying—circling back—I thought in that particular point that he was trying to make, he was ultimately correct.

Keelan: I agree. I do think that it has a lot to do with the security in your relationship. But I do agree with what you're saying, yeah. He makes a lot of good points.

Joe: And was kind of an asshole, when he was doing it? I think that was kind of the point, in the movie, that—

Keelan: Can I tell you a fun fact?

Joe: Please.

Keelan: I don't know if you know this.. The character of Harry is based off the director, Rob Reiner. The character of Sally is based off of the screenwriter, Nora Ephron. So the more bubbly but high-maintenance, and very strict and stringent, and has her own way of doing things, all based off of her. And all his super dark, asshole stuff is based off of him. The whole point of the movie was supposed to be that someone like that couldn't find love. And then Rob Reiner fell in love, while making the movie. He got married at the end of making the movie.

Pam: He didn't get married to the writer of the movie, did he?

[laughter]

Keelan: No, I think he married a choreographer. [Editor's note: We'll insert here that it was Michele Singer who is his wife, then and still, and she is a photographer. According to some post-interview research, she was the photographer who took the photo of trump that he used for the cover of The Art of the Deal, something which Reiner mockingly states that she has "a lot to atone for."]

Joe: Originally, Harry and Sally were not going to get together, and then Rob Reiner got married and he changed it?

Keelan: Yeah! Well, I think... I don't know if he got married [Editor's note: He did, in 1989, after production of When Harry Met Sally, but two months prior to the movie's release], but I think Rob Reiner finding love kind of opened his eyes to the possibility of finding that, versus the pessimistic side of him, before he found that.

Joe: Would it have been too pessimistic if Harry and Sally had remained friends and not been the "one" for each other?

Pam: Yeah, it would not have been the same movie it is now.

Keelan: It would've gone down a different path. There are other movies like that. Not to compare it to other movies.

Joe: Okay, well let me ask you this, then. I assume you are a big fan of romantic comedy genre?

Keelan: I love them! Of course.

Joe: So what is it about romantic comedies that you typically enjoy?

Keelan: I don't know. I grew up with them? I hate being scared, so those movies are not for me. Horror movies? No thank you. I'll throw up. Or punch someone. [laughter] Dramas, I can get into, but sometimes they are like solving a puzzle... and also sometimes really scary. But I think a romantic comedy gives you the best of all worlds. You're laughing, and there's happiness. Even if it's not something that's happening every day of your life, sometimes a movie can be a good escape. You enjoy those moments.

Joe: Is there a requirement for there to be a happy ending?

Keelan: No. It can be more interesting that way.

Pam: Some of them have really sad endings.

Joe: I mean, I'm clearly not an expert on the genre. What would be a movie I would know that ended sadly?

Keelan: Like, if they don't end up together?

Joe: Sure.

Keelan: My Best Friend's Wedding. They don't end up together in that one.

Joe: What's that, the Adam Sandler one?

Keelan: No, Julia Roberts, Dermot Mulroney...

Joe: What's the Sandler one?

Pam: The Wedding Singer.

Joe: I don't fucking know.

Keelan: Another classic, you gotta watch that one!

Pam: I love Wedding Singer. In the romantic comedy vein, and also the Adam Sandler-grand gesture vein. The huge grand gesture at the end, singing the song that he wrote on the airplane.

Keelan: Much like Harry's grand gesture at the end.



Joe: So let's break down that speech. What's the hook there, that got Sally to realize that he's the one?

Keelan: Well, I feel like you said it. He's this pessimistic guy, and kind of always negative. Like, he always reads the end of the book before reading the rest, in case he dies while reading it! That's so depressing, and so dark. But at the end, he makes this grand gesture. He doesn't know what's going to happen. He has to put all his hope and his faith into this big speech that he makes, and just pray that it gets him what he wants, and it's the most positive thing he does in the whole movie. You don't typically see that in him. So that might be the big shocking grand thing that needs to happen. Because after they sleep together, he was like, "See ya."

Joe: He was uncomfortable, as he warned he would be.

Keelan: So I think that's what does it.

Joe: So I went back into the archives, and apparently on August 25, 2010, I wrote a very short review of When Harry Met Sally. It was part of a group of reviews of movies that I had watched that summer, I guess. So I wrote—

Pam: Wait, so we were dating that summer?

Joe: Yes, and I guess I'm leading up to a point about that, as far as why I don't feel this way anymore. But I wrote: "'You suck, but I love you anyway' is both a summary of what Harry said to Sally in his famous monologue, and also what I think of this movie."

Keelan: Interesting.

Joe: So while I'm certainly not as pessimistic as I was—well, I don't even know if that's pessimistic—but I'm definitely not pessimistic now about the movie. I really enjoyed the movie. I guess the thing that stuck out to me at the time was that Harry is making this big speech, and saying all these negative things about Sally, but somehow twisting them into positives. Like, "I like you because of those negative things"? Not that... I'm not saying it was any less of a grand gesture. He definitely seemed to open up more than he did throughout the rest of the movie. So I guess that was the point?

Pam: Well, I think when you love someone, you love everything about them. Even their shortcomings. He was just highlighting those things to show her that he liked the things that may be perceived as negative.

Joe: The difference to me was, he was saying "I love you because of these things." Maybe if there's something that annoys me that Pam does, I say, "I love you and I want to be with you always, despite these little things that annoy me." Right?

Pam: ...I guess that's the difference between you and Harry.

[laughter]

Joe: I guess. Does that make me a shittier person than Harry?

Keelan: But this whole part has influenced so many other movies.

Joe: Was this the original "grand gesture" type deal?

Keelan: I can't say on the record that I know that for sure. But I feel like it's influence so many other movies, even movies that have come out recently. The Wedding Singer, he's doing his grand gesture, and saying things about her that other people wouldn't necessarily like about her. In Ten Things I Hate About You, "I hate all these things about you," she says in the end, but the thing she hates most is how much she loves him. Even Miley Cyrus has a song, "Seven Things I Hate About You," and the last thing she says is, "I hate that I love you."

Joe: Interesting!

Keelan: It's kind of traveled through pop culture history so well. And they just made that Always Be My Maybe on Netflix—great movie, didn't love it—but it was basically When Harry Met Sally, but today, with Ali Wong. It was another one with a grand gesture at the end, highlighting things that annoy you, but they all make up... things that annoy you about Pam, they all add up to this perfect Pam.

Joe: That's true! I would definitely say that about Pam.

Pam: No, you said you loved me "despite" those things.

Keelan: Can we have the court reporter bring that information bring that back up please? [laughter]

Joe: No, that I love you in total. Despite... no. [laughter] I guess, whether it created the trope or not, it is, as of now, still a romantic comedy trope. And I guess this movie had a few other ones, that are typical of a romantic comedy. There's a scene at the airport, though it wasn't a typical conversation that happens at romantic comedy airports.

Keelan: Well their big confrontation happened not long before they ended up hooking up. One thing they do in this movie that you don't see in other movies like this, is that they hold each other accountable. It seems like everybody else in their lives is doing their own thing, but Harry and Sally call each other out on each other's shit. Sally says to him, "You're just trying to sleep your way through New York to deal with your problems, you need to self-reflect a little bit here." And he's like, "You need to let go a little bit, and be a little looser, and more wild." Trying to address those areas that they may not love about each... but then they do love them about each other.

Joe: And I definitely felt like that was the most unique part about this movie, versus other romantic comedies, in that there wasn't an "easily solved misunderstand," like, "Oh, I thought you were somebody else" or, like, an "obstacle significant other," like, "She was dating a jackass at the time, and he pined for her and tried to steal her away." There wasn't anything like that! They were just dealing with their own neuroses.

Pam: Right, themselves, and their own barriers.

Joe: I thought that was pretty cool. And the actors played it very well.

Keelan: There's a huge age gap between them in the movie.

Joe: Between Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan?

Keelan: There's like a nine-year age difference. They're both supposed to 22 when the movie starts.

Pam: And how about when it ends?

Keelan: 32, I think? [Editor's note: Not sure if Keelan is referring to an age gap between the two main leads, or an age gap between when the characters met and when they consummated. She's correct, in general, on both counts. Crystal and Ryan are thirteen years apart in age, and the story takes place over the course of about ten or eleven years.]

Pam: Right, because they were supposed to be leaving college. They made them look younger.

Joe: They did their best, with the hairstyles.

Keelan: Oh my god, guys... Sally's hairstyle! We could talk for hours about it.

Joe: Yes, this is why we brought you here today.

Keelan: Obviously, this is all I'm good for, hairstyles. No, you can see her change her hairstyles... but when they end up together, her hair looks awful! She looks like a poodle.

[laughter]

Keelan: She's having a tough time! [Her ex-boyfriend] Joe's getting married, and she got this awful perm. And then she sleeps with Harry, and he's like, "Check ya later, girl." And she's like, "I have terrible hair, here I am."

Pam: But it came out in what, '89?

Keelan: It's their 30th anniversary this year, guys.

Pam: Perms were pretty cool back then...?

Joe: So would it have made it better if Harry, during his big speech, was like, "And I love you, despite your shitty haircut!"?

[laughter]

Pam: Only if that was something they had addressed before. It couldn't be the first time they brought it up.

Keelan: "What?! You're bringing my hair up now?!"

[laughter]

Pam: Yeah, she does have... some notable hairstyles.

Keelan: The weird bowl cut... It's... a lot.

Joe: I know you had mentioned a funny "behind the scenes" story. I know that on February 9, 2019, you shared on Facebook—

Keelan: What the hell?! [laughter]

Pam: He stalked your Facebook.

Keelan: Oh my god, this is wild. What did I do?!

Joe: I only said this specifically to get a reaction out of you. [laughter] But I did Facebook search "keelan f**** harry sally"... a lot of Harry Potter shit came up, because of the "harry" keyword.

Keelan: I like the movies, never read the books.

Joe: But you shared an article about stories behind the famous scenes. What was another one of your favorites? Like, a story that, say, Rob Reiner would tell.

Keelan: You're putting me on the spot, Joe.

Joe: Or just another one that the readers would find interesting.

Keelan: Another big part of the movie that I love is that, as they're going through the different times of their lives, there are breaks in both the seasons—their lives change with the seasons, and in New York, which is beautiful in the background—but they also interview couples throughout the movie. They are all real stories, just told by hired actors. They interviewed people before they made the movie. So every time you hear a story, like, "He rode nine extra floors..."—that was one of the stories, when they rode in the elevator, that's one of my favorite ones. There are so many good ones. Or even, the Asian couple, they were really sweet. I think the more you watch the movie critically, you can see how each of those stories fits into the time in Harry's and Sally's lives, that's following that story.

Joe: Do you ever think of a particular couple when you think of Harry and Sally, like a will-they-won't-they? In your own personal life?

Keelan: What do you mean?

Joe: I dunno, like, what couple in your personal life could be on that couch, telling you their story?

Keelan: I've never thought about that!

Joe: And this isn't a fishing comment. Me and Pam, we weren't anything like that, it wasn't "hate at first sight" or anything. I'm not expecting you to say me and Pam. [laughter] I'm genuinely curious.

Pam: There is a couple that I had in mind when you asked the question.

Keelan: Who?

Pam: Your parents!

Keelan: My parents?

Pam: Wasn't your dad a priest?

Keelan: He was. My dad was a priest, my mom was a teacher. He left the priesthood and asked her out. Then they were married six months later!

Pam: That's a story that would be told on that couch!

Joe: Absolutely. Rob Reiner is salivating right now, trying to get a hold of that story.

Keelan: No, I love the movie, but I know it's not a real movie. I love to celebrate the love, and think about it. But, in real life, would Harry and Sally really be together? I don't know. I don't know if they would find their way back to each other after eleven years. But I like the thought of, if it was supposed to happen for them, then it would happen for them. But I never thought about it in my own personal life. It's just a nice thing.

Pam: But there's always stories like that, when you find out. Like, these people have been married for 30 years, and I didn't know how they met, and you find out the story and are like, "Wow, that's pretty crazy." I feel like especially, nowadays, because everyone's on Tinder. That's how everyone meets, online dating. You don't get those stories anymore.

Keelan: Yeah, we don't live in a romantic comedy world anymore.

Pam: Unfortunately!

Keelan: It sucks! But, so many famous people today are influence by that, and talk about it all the time. Mindy Kaling's a big romantic comedy girl—I love her a lot—but she always talks about how we live in a world where it's just like, "I looked at you for a second, and then..." That's not a good story. That's not a meet cute. I love a good meet cute.

Joe: There's nothing like, "They are dating someone who's clearly an asshole, but they'll overcome that!" Think about it from that dude's perspective, even if he is an asshole. "My wife's cheating on me, and I'm the problem?!" Um... [pause]

Keelan: Can the record show that Joe is now consulting notes?

Pam: Yeah, this is a long pause.

Joe: I guess I wanted to go back and talk about... having watched it ten years ago, you [Pam] said earlier, "Weren't we dating when you watched this?" And I guess that I watched it differently this time because of how our relationship has changed since August 2010? Ya know?

Pam: That was the summer we started dating.

Joe: I guess I'm less pessimistic than I was then.

Pam: You were pessimistic then? I thought you would be like—

Joe: Well, pessimistic about the movie. Because we were still in that golden period. We hadn't fought, we didn't say anything negative to each other—as any typical relationship does during the first year or so.

Pam: [laughter] So we were dating for like a month.

Keelan: Everything that the other one does is perfect.

Joe: Exactly.

Pam: There is no speech at the end, because the person doesn't have any shortcomings!

Joe: Exactly. Hearing Harry saying, "Well, I love you because of all this shit," it was just like—

Keelan: "My Pam is perfect! I've never experienced this!"

Joe: Maybe I couldn't imagine, at that time, thinking negative things and having to overcome them. It was just like, "This is great!"

Pam: ...And now?!

[laughter]

Joe: Now that, ya know, we've gone through some stuff together, and grown together as a couple, a married couple... I now appreciate the realistic push-and-pull of a real relationship as portrayed in this movie.

Keelan: Older and wiser.

Joe: So take that, 2010 Joe! Suck on that! [laughter] Okay, so, let's see... It was only nominated for one Oscar. For Best Original Screenplay. And it lost to...?

Keelan: Oh, I don't know.

Joe: Take a guess.

Pam: I don't even remember, and you told me this earlier today. [laughter] I have baby brain.

Joe: Dead Poet Society.

Pam: Ugh, I love that movie. That's one of my favorites.

Joe: It was interesting to see how many times Nora Ephron gave the credit away to the actors, and Rob Reiner, and whatnot. Like, for instance, "Oh, this wasn't originally in the script, but Billy Crystal suggested that he should be spitting grape seeds." And, that made that scene.

Keelan: It did!

Joe: Apparently Meg Ryan came up with the whole fake orgasm thing, on her own.

Keelan: And she was so nervous about doing it.

Joe: So let's talk about that scene. Definitely the most famous scene.

Keelan: Everyone knows that the woman who says, "I'll have what she's having," the most iconic line in the movie, is Rob Reiner's mom.

Joe: Yeah! I learned that on the IMDB trivia page. [laughter] It was very interesting to learn that, I dunno, the Film Critic's Association or whatever, listed the "Top 100 Movie Quotes of All Time." And that was in there. But it was the only one on there that was delivered in the movie by an untrained actor.

Keelan: Very cool.

Joe: So it's a claim to fame for... Mrs. Reiner.

Pam: It's definitely quotable.

Joe: And Billy Crystal came up with that line! It wasn't Nora Ephron. So... maybe she didn't deserve the Oscar? "What exactly do you do here?"

Keelan: I don't think that she... she's passed away at this point.

Joe: Is she? She's rolling in her grave right now.

Keelan: She wrote a lot of romantic comedies. She did You've Got Mail, and Sleepless in Seattle—great one—

Joe: So Meg Ryan was her muse, I guess?

Keelan: Yeah, Meg Ryan was the "Romantic comedy gal of the '90s."

Pam: I was reading an article about her today—I googled "what happened to meg ryan." [laughter]

Keelan: She cheated on Dennis Quaid, and everyone was like, "Bye girl!" Which, I would too!

Pam: With Russell Crowe?

Keelan: Yes! But, like, how could you cheat on Dennis Quaid? The dad from The Parent Trap?! That hottie! With Russell Crowe?!?

[laughter]

Joe: I was just reading an article about their son, Jack Quaid—

Keelan: Plus One? That movie? Did you see it?

Joe: Well, it was an interview he did on The Today Show, I guess promoting that movie. And they asked him about the orgasm scene. And he said, "I literally just watched it for the first time. I knew my mom was an iconic fake orgasmer, and I just didn't want to watch it."

Keelan: Makes sense.

Joe: But then, apparently on The Today Show, he said he "teared up" when he saw it, because his Mom was such a good actor? And then the Today Show audience cracked up laughing.

[laughter]

Pam: That's a strange response.

Keelan: I'd probably be giggling with them.

Joe: I don't know if I'd particularly want to watch my own mother perform those... noises... But Meg Ryan definitely did a great job!

Keelan: She did. She proved her point.

Joe: So, Rob Reiner had to rile her up a little bit to get her to do that. This was probably in the EW article that you posted on Facebook last February—

Keelan: I didn't get a chance to reread it.

[laughter]

Joe: About how she was a little timid at first, and he convinced her to go all out. It made me think of a story about Rob Reiner directing Stand by Me.

Keelan: Have you seen that?

Joe: Oh, one of my favorites. The iconic scene of the kids running across the bridge train tracks, away from the train, and how they're all, like, crying and really upset that they were going to get hit by a train. And apparently, the child actors weren't able to pull that off, so Rob Reiner took them aside and yelled at them, like, "You fucking kids! You can't do this?! Are you kidding me?!" And they all started crying and stuff, and he was like, "...and go." [laughter]

Pam: That's awesome.

Joe: So I'm curious... if he did something that like for Meg Ryan.

Keelan: ...

Pam: ...

Joe: [laughter]

Pam: Yeah, I saw your face when you said that.

Keelan: She got there.

Pam: She was faking it anyway. That was the point.

Joe: Okay... It's just something to chew on.

Keelan: [laughter] Okay. I'll wrack my brain about it.

Joe: Just think about what kind of director Rob Reiner is... Oh! Do you think that Harry and Sally would make good parents?

Keelan: I was actually just talking to my sister about this.

Joe: Your sister was one of the two people that liked your EW.com Facebook post.

Keelan: I'm thankful for that. [laughter] I think they would make good parents. Because, how they show it in the movie, while there are some outlandish moments, they do balance each other, and call each other on their bullshit. Which you don't always see in romantic comedies. So I'd like to think that, if they did have children, that they were able to bring that with them. You see them go through a lot together, they're there for each other, but then they hit snags... if they got to the point where they got married, they'd figure out how to get through the snags as a successful couple, and then as successful parents. What do you think?

Joe: In talking about them in terms of being parents, I saw more of me and Pam in them in that parent hypothetical, than in them as a couple. Like, Harry would bring a sardonic attitude toward it, and maybe seem like he doesn't care as much for the child's safety, but ultimately does. But then like, Sally picking up the slack, and actually doing the grunt work. And also both loving the child equally in their own ways. I dunno if you see that in us, Pam.

Pam: Yeah, I think that's kind of maybe a common theme with most parents? Like, the "mom role" versus the "dad role." Sally is like... that's her personality. She's the "doer," she's the organized one. Harry is more of the... jokester?

Keelan: And the silent one, maybe? You said Sally's the doer, but she also says, like, "I'm doing this! I'm getting this done! And I'm going to tell you I'm doing this! And if I get upset, I'm going to tell you that I'm upset! I'm not going to lock that in a box somewhere, because I don't have time to lock it away, I'm going to get over it and move on." Which, I feel like, is a common theme with moms. They do it, they wear their hearts on their sleeves, they get everything everything done, and if they get upset along the way, it happens. Maybe sometimes you don't necessarily see that with dads? But it depends on the dad. My own dad's an emotional guy. It depends! ...I love how this interview is so reflective on your marriage, and dating, and you life as parents—

Joe: And our orgasms?

Keelan: We're really hitting all the important topics on this.

Joe: What—and we're getting to the point where you have to explain why this is personally your favorite movie—but first, I want to take a step back, and ask—why was this successful as a movie? What made this a successful movie? Because it was, we can all agree to that.

Keelan: It was.

Joe: But from a non-personal standpoint.

Keelan: I think that it really blended the romance and comedy genres together, and brought it to how we know it today. It brought a sense of realism, that there are going to be issues, and not everyone is perfect, and no one has a completely wonderful "I saw you from across the room and we were meant to be" type thing. You see that a lot in romantic comedies, and that's just not the way the world works. I think that's really shown in this movie. You revisit it, or you're friends, or you're not friends, and things aren't good, but then you can get to a different place. I think that's why it was successful, because people can relate to it.

Joe: I read a lot of retrospectives—I guess people had written a lot for the 30th anniversary of the film—and one of the arguments for why this was successful stated that the script was very narrow in its premise. It didn't try to deal with a whole bunch of issues, it just dealt with—Can men and women be friends? And what happens when they try? And it dealt with that one very specific issue, and just walked us through it.

Keelan: And I feel like that's something people deal with every day, too.

Joe: It's an interesting way of looking at it. I contrast that with other romantic comedies, that were also successful? I guess Love Actually would be the opposite of that. It was not a narrow scope at all. It dealt with a wide variety of different bullshit. But it's still a great movie.

Keelan: Such a great movie.

Pam: I feel like Love Actually took pieces of that movie from When Harry Met Sally. Like Liam Neeson and the little boy, he's trying to help the little boy get the girlfriend, he's like, "And now, we have to do the grand gesture! Because that's what you do in movies!" And that all came from When Harry Met Sally.

Joe: I guess that's a good point. That Love Actually was a little more self-aware of the genre that it was.

Pam: And it's something that you can just assume is going to happen at the end of those movies now. Right?

Joe: Probably!

Keelan: With a lot of the movies that have recently come out on Netflix, they're trying to bring the romantic comedy genre back. The whole genre kind of died off for a while. I'm not sure if that's because it wasn't seen as realistic? Or the movies that were trying to do it just weren't doing a good job? If you think about it, from the early 2000s till now—besides Love Actually—there haven't really been a ton that stand out, like oh-my-gosh-classics. But they're trying to bring them back now and do them a little differently, and use more influence from Nora Ephron, and all those movies. A lot of that's happening too with bringing back TV shows from the '90s, and '80s, and revisiting that whole time period. So because of that, the whole romantic comedy genre is coming back now.

Joe: I haven't seen any of those movies on Netflix yet, like, what was it, All the Boys I've Ever Loved?

Keelan: All the Boys I Loved Before. It had the grand gesture at the end.

Joe: Okay! I was going to say, do they feature the romantic comedy tropes that we were talking about?

Pam: The formula.

Keelan: They do, yeah.

Joe: Is there any inversion of these tropes? Or is it just, like, "we're presenting them to the millennial generation now."

Keelan: I feel like they're just bring them to the millennials. Slowly but surely.

Joe: It's not a bad thing. It is what it is.

Keelan: Yeah.

Joe: So I guess we will then switch focus and ask, why did you personally bring this movie to this interview today?

Keelan: Well, I thought it would be a great topic to discuss—it clearly has been. I was hoping you had never seen it, so—2010 Joe, kick bricks.

Joe: Yeah, fuck you!

Keelan: But I grew up watching it, and I feel like every time I watch it, I kind of look at it differently. The first time I watched it, I was five or six, I had no idea what was going on. I was like, "They're yelling at each other! Her hair is crazy! He loves her!"

Joe: "She sure is ticklish at this diner!"

Keelan: But then when you're a little bit older, "Oh, woah. They're never going to work, they can't be together. Men and women can't be friends." And I feel like there was a time that I thought that, and I was like, "Oh god, no. No way. I agree with Harry." And then I got a little bit older and I was like, "You know what? I think they can. I think maybe, if it's done in a certain way." And then when I most recently watch it, it was, "I think it has more to do with where they're at in their lives." While the movie has stayed the same, I have grown into it more, as I've gotten older. I like that it's a good movie to reflect with. I also... I love the end. You see him running, and he's putting it all out there, it's Christmastime... it just gets ya. Christmas can be depressing as hell! And the music is beautiful, but very sad. So something like this is just so nice to see. All things can be sad, but also exciting, and there are a lot of emotions. I dunno, I love that there's a happy ending for it. Even though he's pessimistic, and a miserable guy... and Sally's, like, crazy. She's completely nuts! I feel like we didn't talk about how nuts she is!

[laughter]

Keelan: And what her upbringing must have been like, that made her that way. And why she got that perm at the end?!

[laughter]

Keelan: But they both have neurotic issues, but they find each other in the end. I feel like a lot of people today are nuts. And we're aware of how nuts we are in today's world. If you can see something like that... there's always going to be a part of me—and yes, it's not realistic—but there's always going to be a part of me that's like... I love that. I love to see that.

Joe: You hope that your own life—meaning "you" in general—has that happy ending.

Keelan: Yeah! Or just like... they have a lot of fun, even when they're friends. And I like to do that too. I like seeing that kind of stuff happen.

Joe: Like talking in funny voices in museums.

Keelan: Or at Sharper Image, singing along to some Oklahoma.

Pam: "Surrey with a Fringe on Top."

Keelan: That's such a good one. [gasps] When his wife shows up!? Oh man, you guys...

Pam: I feel like when you said "It depends on the time in their lives." They could be friends, because I don't think he was over his ex.

Keelan: And she wasn't really over Joe. And you could make an argument about when she was really over Joe, when did that actually happen. Was she over Joe, and the whole thing about him getting engaged—to his secretary, or whatever she was, that random tramp that he ended up marrying—

Joe: [Tony Soprano noise]

Keelan: She was really... she thought that she was really over it. How many times in our lives have we been like, "I'm passed it, it's done, it's over"—

Pam: And then you run into them at a bar.

Keelan: You don't even need a bad perm to get upset then.

Pam: I think it's a nice genre to give into, too. Like, right now I'm read a romance novel, because I'm like... I just wanted something nice.

Keelan: There's so much negativity in the world.

Pam: Something that's lighthearted, and something that I can just enjoy, and not, like, pore over, trying to figure it out. Just at face value, in the end, it's lighthearted.

Keelan: I think that's another part about it. We could sit here and break down why Sally is the way she is, and why Harry is the way he is, and why none of their relationships worked until that point, and will their relationships work together... or you could sit down, and be like, "The world around me is shitty today, so I'll watch this movie, and take it"—like what you said—"take it at face value, and just be happy that there's happiness, just for a little bit." Ya know?

Joe: That definitely seems to be a theme in these interviews. These movies just give you a little hope.

Pam: They restore a little bit of faith in humanity.

Joe: Yeah. Because it's tough, man!

Pam: But I feel like every generation can say that. There's always shitty stuff happening for every generation. Ya know? And people rely on these stories to keep them optimistic.

Keelan: That's why you're not interviewing people about the worst movie they've ever seen. [laughter] That would be rough... one of the worst movies I've ever seen is My Sister's Keeper. I will go on record and say that. It's the opposite of the book. And at the end you're just like, why? Why? Why did I do this to myself? I don't feel that way when I watch When Harry Met Sally.

Pam: It's just a feel-good movie. Sometimes you just want a feel-good movie. Whenever Joe goes out—he doesn't go out that much anymore—

Joe: Yeah, can we state that for the record now?

Keelan: "Joe goes out every night."

Joe: I'm not an absentee father, c'mon.

Pam: I think when you went to the Phillies game with Jim is when I watched Always Be My Maybe. [laughter] I was like, "Ooh, Joe's out tonight, I can watch a romantic comedy on Netflix!"

Joe: So if you wanted someone like me who wasn't sold on the whole romantic comedy genre itself, how would you sell When Harry Met Sally?

Keelan: Well, I think the movie speaks for itself. I don't think I need to sell it to anyone.

Joe: But if I'm asking you to do it now.

Keelan: But if you're asking me to do it now fine Joe! No, I would try to sell them on the fact that it is somewhat more realistic than another romantic comedy would be. And if you don't want to sit and fight about whether men and women can be friends, then maybe this isn't the movie for you? But it would definitely get you thinking. I think that's a good part of it too.

Your Favorite Movie: Raiders of the Lost Ark, with Ulrick M.

I love putting together Your Favorite Movie entries, because it affords me the opportunity to hang out with a wide range of friends I might not otherwise (due to life's circumstances, mainly having a kid and in general not having a life outside of that). I don't know if I could've created a reason to hang out with Ulrick Mc****** if not for this dumb project, despite the fact that I am a big fan of Ulrick's, ever since he was a green freshman during my insane senior year of college. Thank you, YFM, for giving me this ridiculously dumb opportunity to chill and catch up with old friends.

We shot the shit over some overpriced tall boys about a true classic film, Raiders of the Lost Ark. The first in the Indiana Jones series, Raiders is a simple action adventure movie, so simple that you might imagine we'd struggle to plumb any type of depths for. You may be pleasantly surprised, then, to find that we were able to wring this movie out a sufficient amount for an interview, only leaning on the whole politics thing a tiny bit.

The conversation is transcribed below with Ulrick's permission, and slightly edited to account for the fact that we originally forgot to discuss the movie's integral Nazi monkey. Anyways, enjoy, folks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe: I feel like I'm getting a little better at guessing the certain types of reasons of why people enjoy particular movies. Sometimes it's because this movie is very "deep" and means a lot to that person on an aesthetic level. Others say that it's their favorite movie because of the time they watched it first, or the people they watched it with, family and whatnot. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are in the latter group, that this movie means something to you personally because of when you watched it or who you watched it with.

Ulrick: Yes. Me and my brother had VHS tape of The Last Crusade, the third Indiana Jones. It wasn't till we rented it from Blockbuster could we sit down and watch Raiders. I wanted to learn more about the series. With this movie, I loved it as a kid because of the action, the adventure. It just felt like some kind of awesome thrill ride. And then in Universal Studios, they had an Indiana Jones stunt thing—

Joe: The what?

Ulrick: There was a little show where they had the stunt crew from the movie going through the boulder scene. You know that scene, from the beginning of the movie? They would show how the actors went about performing it. The boulder, and how he dived under it.

Joe: A show explaining how to do the stunts? That's pretty cool. [Editor's note: And it was at the Disney park, not Universal Studios. Indiana Jones Epic Stunt Spectacular! Not sure why I didn't know what Ulrick was talking about, the K*** family has home video footage from that very same show, dating like 1998 I think.]

Ulrick: This was a long time ago. Me and my folks went down to Universal Studios, and I remember seeing it then. It was just another feeling of, "Wow, this is pretty awesome."

Joe: For sure. I kind of had a hunch that you had watched it with family. So you and your brother would what, watch it when you were bored?

Ulrick: When we were bored, yeah, or if I had the family room or den to myself, I could just pop it in. Indiana Jones was just a good movie, man. A good series.

Joe: It's definitely a cool little movie. The reason I guessed that it was due to your own personal experiences with it, versus the movie itself, was because it was, in my opinion... I don't want to say "light," but there's not a whole lot below the surface. I don't know if you would agree.

Ulrick: I just always thought it was a good thrill ride. But also, I dunno... I was thinking about this, about Indiana Jones as a character. So. Indiana Jones—Famous archaeology professor. Knows a lot of history. Yet somehow he's able to go on all these adventures, fighting Nazis, cults, all this stuff. And in other scenes, he's just a regular dude. And I feel like, during those scenes—tell me if I'm wrong, but I feel like a lot of the '80s action heroes were these buff military dudes, always ready to get down. But for Indy, it just comes down to good timing and luck, basically. Charismatic as hell...

Joe: And he's a professor. Kind of nerdy?

Ulrick: He's a nerd! Deep down, he's a nerd. He's not like the macho Schwarzenegger in Predator or something. He's not that.

Joe: I read something about how they cut a scene in which a younger girl was seen leaving Indy's apartment. Because they wanted to cut down even more on anything indicating he was a "typical action hero." That it didn't seem like part of his personality, I guess.

Ulrick: No, he's more scholarly. He's always thinking about the museums. That's what he's about. He's always thinking about preserving education and information, preserving history. He wants to preserve this history instead of it being sold off.

Joe: I do remember him making it clear that he was doing all this for the museum. He wasn't doing it for the money.

Ulrick: He's just doing it because he's... interested in bones. He just loves that shit.

Joe: It was even to the point where the villain threatened him with, ya know, Indy says, "I'm going to destroy the Ark of the Covenant if you don't release the girl," and the villain was like, "No, I'm going to destroy the Ark of the Covenant myself, because I know you don't actually want that to happen." And Indy's like, "...Yeah. That's true." [laughter]

Ulrick: And it's like, "Damn it, he could've just blown the bad guys up!" but in his heart, he's like, "I don't actually want to burn this thing."

Joe: It was even to the further point that, like, in the end, when he "got the girl," he kind of did so reluctantly? Like that wasn't the point for him.

Ulrick: Well, it felt like... you know the meeting he had with the men in the suits, the CIA, or the government people or whatever? They gave him the uncertainty of what was going to happen. It was like, "You guys have no idea what could be done with this thing."

Joe: Okay, so it was nothing against Marion, then. That was just him being pissed off and distracted?

Ulrick: Yeah, he's just more pissed off. And then the scene when he opens the Ark—which, by the way, the special effects for that time? Really good. The whole face-melting, squishing, exploding.

Joe: We'll definitely dig more into that aspect of the film.

Ulrick: Because he saw how much power this thing had, and what it could do, it was like, no one should be messing with it. It should be left alone. It has some untapped power, and it could end up in the wrong hands!

Joe: Do you feel like... I mean, [Indiana Jones] is definitely a badass action hero. Do you feel like he is a "well-rounded" movie character?

Ulrick: I believe so. I feel like Indy, you know he has some action hero tropes, but he does have some level of actual human qualities. He's just all about the preservation of knowledge. And along the way, meets up with Marion, and rekindles the romance. That one scene where he thought that Marion had blown up—

Joe: That's true! He was definitely getting drunk, and sad.

Ulrick: That's definitely a human thing too! He was then going out and was like, "I'm going to die, how about you?" I think that, and then later on in the series, you see more humility parts. In Temple of Doom, with Short Round, you have the father/son aspect of it. The third movie, you have the reconciliation between him and his dad, you see more of it. All that stuff. This movie is the first, but you see him grow more and more over time.

Joe: Yeah, I mean, I think they did just enough in this movie to make him well-rounded. It leaned heavily into the superhuman aspects of Indiana Jones, like him crawling underneath a moving car, over the car, punching the guy out who had punched him originally—

Ulrick: Having been shot in the shoulder while doing all this!

Joe: Yeah. There was an excess of action, sometimes at the expense of character-building, but not enough that I'm going to hold it against the movie, I don't think. Ya know? It was definitely an action movie, though. In big, bold letters, "ACTION MOVIE." There was enough set pieces that that was made very clear.

Ulrick: I think it's one of those movies where you just sit down and enjoy it. Not to discourage other movies that are more prolific or have more depth to them. Indiana Jones can be that if you want to dig deeper. But it's a movie, at first glance, you just enjoy. It gives you the idea that like, man it would be cool if you were an archaeologist, and you could follow bad guys. Like, how cool would it be if you could rock that fedora with a whip? [laughter] They used to sell toy fedoras and play whips, because people wanted to be Indiana Jones.

Joe: Steven Spielberg famously said about this movie, "It's basically a B-movie that's just done really well." There's no hidden depth to it. Him and George Lucas came up with the idea together based on the action serials that they watched as a kid. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that genre of cartoons. Where, it was like, [narrator voice] "Next time on Indiana Jones! We'll follow up this cliffhanger!"

Ulrick: Like Johnny Quest, all that stuff. I remember those.

Joe: Exactly. And when you were talking about you and your brother watching this as kids, it reminded me of that. You know, like the same as watching a Saturday morning cartoon.

Ulrick: USA network would every so often have an Indiana Jones marathon. I would always binge all four.

Joe: It's easy to watch. And I guess that's the point! That's there's not really much to think about.

Ulrick: It's pretty simple—find the Ark. It goes through a step-by-step process. First he had to find a professor, only to find out the professor's daughter has the piece Indy needs. Then they find a digger. Then they find where the Ark is. Oh shit, lost the Ark, and then they go back to retrieve it. It doesn't feel like too much...

Joe: It's like A-to-B-to-C, and that's basically it. Which, ya know, the simplicity of it may not be great for the purposes of this interview! [laughter] But we will do our best to dig in here.

Ulrick: Yeah, that's cool.

Joe: You've probably seen the movie dozens of times already. But this was the first time I sat down and watched it front-to-back in my life. Like I said, it was easy to watch. I could definitely pinpoint certain aspects of it, saying "this is an action trope," and "that is an action trope." Things I had definitely seen in other movies. And yet, at the same time, it felt kind of fresh to me. How did they do that? What's the magic formula? Do you know?

Ulrick: Today, movies depend on the CGI work. Back then, old movies had more practical effects, locations and sets, they put more heart and research into it so they could achieve this stuff. The whole face-melting scene, I remembering watching a behind-the-scenes thing about that. What they had to do to achieve that effect was pretty cool! Doing it today, you could do a CGI. [Editor's note: Somehow, this has become a constant refrain in these interviews, popping up both in Dwyer's and in Bob's interviews. Which, hey, if you believe that CGI ruins the integrity of any given movie, good for you, but I'm not gonna press interviewees about it anymore, since I've already made it clear that I disagree with this viewpoint.]

Joe: The effects were so good that they originally gave this film an R rating, because of all the face-melting and shit.

Ulrick: This movie did end up being PG, it wasn't till Temple of Doom that [the MPAA] created the PG-13 rating. It's kind of funny, going back. Like, it is rated PG, but you a bunch of naked ladies right there. Like, okay? But if someone's killed? "Rated R!" Like, what?!

Joe: It's definitely wild to see... I wasn't "shocked" or "disgusted" or anything when I saw a face melt. I don't necessarily think that a 17-year-old in 2019 would feel any differently than I did. The difference in the past few decades, when it comes to what children are and were exposed to.

Ulrick: Yeah, I mean, you think about, like, Mortal Kombat, with the violence, the fatalities. I wonder if there were people in a room saying, "How can we make this more fucked up?" I wonder if there is anyone in that room thinking, "Have we gone too far?" And someone else in that room saying, "Nah, we can keep going."

Joe: So you're saying there was someone in a room saying "We're gonna push the envelope here, and we're gonna... explode somebody's head!" And today, it's just like... okay, that seems pretty cool for it's time? But it's no Human Centipede.

Ulrick: ...Nope. I will not watch that.

Joe: [laughter] Okay, so let me put it another way. If Willow is six years old, I'm not going to have an issue with her watching Raiders of the Lost Ark. To me, a six-year-old can handle this Nazi's face melting off. Maybe I'm wrong, and this makes me a shitty parent, I don't know.

Ulrick: No, I think if parents were to expose this to their kids, the face-melting part might be the only thing you'd warn them with, "Okay, this might get a little scary." Other than that... you know, actually, there was the scene where Indy was fighting the big, bald Nazi guy.

Joe: Oh yeah, that was pretty funny.

Ulrick: Like, "Oh, the plane is movie around! There's a big rotating blade!"and then... blood splatter. [laughter] You don't actually see it, but it's like... okay. It was funny. But that scene, it could kind of... they cut away, but it's implied.

Joe: They had spent the last three minutes building up this dude as a big tough villain that needed to be defeated...

Ulrick: Hand-to-hand, Indy wasn't doing to well there. I guess he got a second wind. But, he's like, "This is a big dude, he's out of my league."

Joe: So why didn't he pull out his gun like he did for that other guy? Which is fucking great.



Ulrick: [laughter] Still one of the most classic scenes ever. The reason behind it was, apparently they were shooting a while, in the heat, and Harrison wasn't feeling too well. They originally had planned this elaborate sword fight, and Ford said, "Why don't I just shoot him?" And it's one of the best comedic moments.

Joe: There's definitely some funny moments in there. I guess along the same lines—his fear of snakes. Did they ever explain that [in the rest of the series]?

Ulrick: Yeah, they explain it in Last Crusade. Originally, [Editor's note: and now I'm going to cut spoilers for my own benefit, in case I ever want to watch the other Indiana Joneses.] There was a Young Indiana Jones series at one point, a TV series. I'm not sure if they delve into it even more in that. But the whole snake thing... it's a funny, comedic—like I said, you think this is an action guy who isn't afraid of anything. It's like, "Nah man, I'm afraid of snakes!"

Joe: He needed one chink in his armor.

Ulrick: Snakes... and Nazis.

Joe: You don't think it was a plot device? For the first one anyway. Maybe they had to put the snake in the plane at the beginning to justify him being scared of going into a Covenant full of snakes?

Ulrick: I think it was just a good comedic moment, when he was like, "...why is the ground moving?"

Joe: What would be the floor of Ark if Ulrick found it? I.e. what is your biggest fear?

Ulrick: Oh... I think snakes would be kind of scary... My thing would be mice and rats. I'm not good with rodents, man. Friends can tell you—I tense up when I see a rodent. I think it was in St. Basil's [dorms at La Salle], and I was asleep, feet half off the bed, and felt something graze my foot... it was a mouse. I was paranoid as hell. We got the mouse out of the room eventually, but I was not too keen on that for a long time. One time, I saw my first New York rat when I went to go visit my brother—

Joe: I bet they are fucking huge.

Ulrick: I was tense. We were on the subway, and there's a rat. My mom and dad are like, "Oh. A rat." And I could not look at it. I looked away. My parents were like, "Ulrick, are you okay?" And I was like, "...no."

Joe: [Indiana Jones impression] "I hate rats! I hate 'em!" What if I just pulled out my pet rat right now? And was like, "Oh, it's just my pet rat, Roger."

Ulrick: I'd say, "Cool." I'd be tense. He would probably be nice, I wouldn't deny that. But that would not be cool.

Joe: Nah, man, this is Port Richmond. We have pet cockroaches here, not pet rats.

Ulrick: But the whole snake thing is just a joke throughout the series. Charismatic, fought Nazis... but still afraid of snakes.

Joe: His one weakness. I feel women aren't even his weakness. That one student who wrote "LOVE YOU" on her eyelids?

Ulrick: That is dedication! Did she do that by herself? I was really impressed.

Joe: How about when we saw Marion for the first time, and she said, ya know, "You loved me, but I was just a child!" She didn't mean that literally, right?

Ulrick: No.

Joe: He wasn't a child molester?

Ulrick: God, I hope not. I think it was just that they were both young. With Indy, he was still being a "player," all that shit. But over time, he sat down and realized, "Oh, wow, this girl is more special than I realized." Especially when her supposed death hit him hard, he was like, "Oh god, I took this woman for granted."

Joe: It was a cool intro scene for her, going shot-for-shot of liquor with that burly looking person. Do you feel like, overall, was Marion well-rounded? Or, if not, does that matter?

Ulrick: I think, for Marion, she brings out the humane qualities in Indy. If it was just Indiana Jones [on the adventure], we wouldn't get to know enough sides of him. With Marion, he gets to be a little more personable and relaxed. Marion... she's a tough girl who doesn't take no crap, that's for sure. But she's actually very loving and caring. She's smart in her own way, trying to get Belloq drunk in order to escape... though, she was in a desert camp full of Nazis, so I was like... maybe not the best plan?

Joe: But that seems like her one defining characteristic. She can hold her liquor.

Ulrick: And tough! I think they could've fleshed her character out more. I don't want to say it was "the times," but it was how they wrote the characters. Some characters, female characters, don't get enough personality.

Joe: I don't think she was a well-rounded character. I think she started off great, like, "this is not your typical female lead!" And then... she turned into a very typical female lead. She was just an accessory of Indiana Jones. Which... I don't necessarily think, in the context of this movie, that that's a bad thing. I think back to those action serials that Lucas and Spielberg were trying emulate, and create a pastiche of. There wasn't any well-rounded female characters in those at all.

Ulrick: I think it just depends on who's writing it, what kind of story you're trying to tell. Like, in Alien, [Editor's note: I warned Ulrick I'd be cutting his long diatribes about other movies that I've never seen. Though he did briefly talk about Star Wars too, which I think is more relevant, so maybe we'll keep that part? Here:] And even Carrie Fisher—rest in peace—in the first [Star Wars] movie, I think, we know she's a tough princess, but you can't really tell until the next movie.

Joe: It's cool when directors, producers, creators of movies create deep female characters. And I always appreciate it. But I don't necessarily think that the fact that Marion is clearly two-dimensional in this movie is necessarily to its detriment.

Ulrick: Yeah, I don't think it hurt this movie that much. Now, the next one, Temple of Doom—

Joe: Is Marion in that one?

Ulrick: No, it's a different female lead. Because this movie takes place at a different time. Apparently that female lead was not that well-received. Marion does appear in the fourth one though, Crystal Skull.

Joe: Oh wow.

Ulrick: But going with the idea of deep, well-written female characters—you know I'm a big superhero comic book guy, I'm all about that—I think the Wonder Woman movie with Gal Gadot... perfect. You get more layers with that character. She's not just a warrior, she's tough, but she's still naive about some things in the outside world. I think now, with female comic book characters, it's gotten a lot better, I'll say. Before, female characters were seen as love interests, or like, damsels in distress.

Joe: I'll go a step farther with the whole "it was a different time" thing—and I'm not saying this in the typical way—in the, let's say for example, '80s, with movies like Indiana Jones, Star Wars, that were a "pastiche" of a previously created entertainment. Like, Indiana Jones—there's nothing new in Indiana Jones. They're taking nostalgia and making it seem fresh, but it's... fuck, what's the word... it's an homage to even earlier stuff. But now, flash forward forty years from when Indiana Jones came out. It would be pretty tough to make a pastiche of a pastiche. If someone were to create something that was greatly influenced by Indiana Jones without doing anything new, then that wouldn't be enough. So this feeds into... well, when you're creating movies like that now, you have to add a certain element. Maybe it's an Indiana Jones-type movie, but with a deeper female lead. Or maybe it's a Star Wars-style movie that is self-aware and has way more layers of irony in it. There are ways to create fresh ideas!

[Editor's note: I'm not sure I did a good job explaining this theory. I was trying to say that Indiana Jones might get a pass for not doing enough with its female lead, but forty years later, movies in the same vein wouldn't be able get away with that, because movies have evolved. I'll have to try again with another movie. In any case, this somehow lead to a discussion about the fucking Pirates of the Caribbean—I don't know how, and I can't make heads or tails of it because I've never seen those movies. But I know for certain that we're not fucking doing this here.]

Joe: This is definitely one of those types of movies that I'm going to shit on it because, like, I couldn't believe that this could ever happen. There's a lot of ridiculous shit in this movie, but I don't think that's a bad thing. I did enjoy watching it. I will maybe even undercut my own argument here. At one point, they asked Indy, "Well, what are you going to do?" and he said, "I don't know, I'm making it up as I go." That is pretty self-aware of this movie.

Ulrick: Yeah, it was!

Joe: Alright, so, I know we talked about the special effects during that climatic scene, with the opening of the Ark. But explain to me what was happening on a story level there. I was confused. What escaped?

Ulrick: So, from what was shown in the movie, there were... spirits? Spirits that were trapped in the Covenant, like, souls. It started to look peaceful at first, it was so weird. But I guess when it turns to the one Nazi guy with the glasses and the black fedora... it's shown evil. They kill all the Nazis, I think because they were not worthy to see what was in the Ark of Covenant. No man should look into it. That's why Indy tells Marion, "Keep your eyes shut!"

Joe: Did it have anything to do with God...?

Ulrick: In the beginning, when they were talking to those guys in the suits about the Ark of the Covenant, saying how the Ark is a piece of the Ten Commandments. And then they shows these beams of light coming out from it. It's like... holiness? I don't know. They don't show what it was. Something was coming out of it. When the other team opens it, it's showing what happens when you open the Covenant. It's supposed to show how reverent God was.

Joe: So that was something to do with God.

Ulrick: Yeah.

Joe: Like, evil angels or some shit? They didn't explain it, and I know they didn't have to, because of the whole action serial thing. But I still don't understand what it was.

Ulrick: It's like, was it because they are not worthy, or is it that no man is supposed to look into it?

Joe: I get that Indy and Marion closed their eyes, and that's why they don't get murdered. I'll take it with a grain of salt. I'm not interested in the logistics of that. I'm interested in why everyone else was killed. Is this is a judgement day thing...?

Ulrick: Possibly a test or something, yeah. How the movie sets it up, man was not supposed to look in the Ark. It's not supposed to be something that should be wielded for your own personal use. It's supposed to be something that's revered. Holy. Sacred.

Joe: Okay. [Editor's note: Still confused.]

Ulrick: The Nazis just want to use it for themselves, and because of that, they pay for it with their lives. I think that's what the movie was supposed to be going for.

Joe: Okay, so, if that's the case—and I'm just speaking off the cuff here—isn't Indiana Jones in the wrong at the end of the movie, when he's butthurt about not being able to look in the Covenant? If he's not supposed to?!

Ulrick: He's not upset about not being able to look in it, he just wants to study more about it. I don't think he really wants to look in, after seeing what it can do. I think he just wants to protect it.

Joe: And what, like, look at the outside of it? And polish it?!

Ulrick: [laughter] I guess so. He just wants to make sure it isn't used. In Indiana's eyes, they were handing a superpower nuke to the U.S. government. It was like, "You guys don't know what you have!" Basically, it's the fear of the unknown. You don't know what this could do. Maybe he could study it without opening it.

Joe: With that theory that it's "too dangerous," and whatever, maybe that's a good thing that it got lost in a pile of other artifacts.

Ulrick: Yup. It is what it is.

Joe: That's just me being nitpicky. Oh shit, also—what is the deal with the monkey?

Ulrick: I think it was just comedy...

Joe: There's definitely some comedy, and then on the other hand, it was like, "Oh shit, this is a Nazi monkey." [laughter]

Ulrick: It's a Nazi monkey, but I think they were just going for the whole "animal companion" thing. It was the '80s. They were just making a little fun with it.

Joe: A little fun, and then... the monkey gets poisoned, and dies.

Ulrick: In the scene, Indiana Jones tosses the date in the air, and Sallah catches it and is like, "[sigh] bad date."

Joe: But they never acknowledge that the monkey was a fucking spy?!

Ulrick: They never knew about it.

Joe: Right, and they never will!

Ulrick: You die as you live. The guy with the eyepatch, who knew the monkey... I guess his handler or something—

Joe: He disappears after the monkey dies!

Ulrick: He probably doesn't even know that his monkey is dead! That would be an interesting Indiana Jones movie—what happens to the eyepatch guy after the monkey death?

Joe: [laughter] Yes. Or a prequel! "How this monkey became a Nazi." The voice actor who made the monkey sounds for that—including the monkey-esque "Sieg Heil"—was also the voice of Abu from Aladdin.

Ulrick: The monkey sounds are very similar!

Joe: As far as I know, Abu is not a Nazi.

Ulrick: He's a thief, but not a Nazi.

Joe: [laughter] I did appreciate though—here, in 2019—that the Nazis were presented as the villains. And no one questioned that. They didn't even have to state outright, "These are the bad guys." They said "Nazis," and you knew, as the audience, that these were the bad guys. It was refreshing in these troubled times, when Nazism is kind of on the rise.

Ulrick: I always thought it was funny that we have Neo-Nazis in America. It's like, bro, we went to war against you guys. We won. We didn't like you. I guess America has the whole free speech idea, which I guess I have to say, "Everyone deserves free speech." But at the same time... you know what they did, what their ideology is. How can anyone embrace that?

Joe: It's not illegal to embrace Nazism, and embrace the idea of murdering minorities. But it is also not illegal for us to sit here and say: Fuck Nazis. And fuck anyone who gives Nazism a pass! Like our president.

Ulrick: Shit. Fuck that guy, man. Honestly, I never really liked him because of the... I have some things against his policy, but before he got into office, with the whole "birth certificate" thing, like, that's bullshit.

Joe: We could sit here and list thousands of things we have against that dude. But, ya know, the fact of the matter is, there are more fascists in this country now than there has been in decades. And, when you read a news story, about a group of high school boys who are yelling "Sieg Heil" during an assembly. And you read about that shit, and newspapers feel like they have to explain or equivocate... it was just nice watching a movie where they didn't even have to explain it. These are the bad guys because they're Nazis. No further explanation needed.

Ulrick: It's definitely a good reminder of like, no, the Nazis were not good people. They did stuff that was really messed up. You just know... no, these are the bad guys. There are other movies that do that, movies that are set in that time period. Captain America is about a faction of Nazis. It's a reminder... these are not things you can just sweep under the rug. Hopefully it's something that people continue to talk about, future generations, that this was not okay.

Joe: Do you think there is... in the Venn diagram of trump fans and Indiana Jones fans, do you think there is any part in the middle where those circles meet?

Ulrick: I don't know. It's an interesting question. If you like the movie just for the sake of the movie, then sure? Maybe if you're a trump supporter, that might not necessarily mean you're a Nazi. But at the same time, if you don't see that it's wrong what that dude says, it's like, what the fuck? I hear some of the stuff he says, and I'm like... is no one else hearing this?

Joe: Let's say this. The level of disconnect with these jerkoffs... it's pretty high. So, I could see there being a lot of Indiana Jones fans who also voted for trump, who just don't understand why that is a contradiction.

Ulrick: The people that voted for trump, it's not just people who are quote unquote "racist," some people say, like, "Oh, this guy is just different" or whatever. There were news articles about people who, say, voted for Obama twice and voted for trump. But at the same time, it's still hard to get past who he is and what he does, so...

Joe: You don't have to equivocate at all, man. We say "fuck trump" on this deck. The dude is a fucking Nazi. If you are a trump supporter, then you are a racist. Because if you support a racist, then you are a racist, regardless.

Ulrick: If you do not call out what he says, that's a problem on you. Some of my friends from high school say, "Well some of the stuff he says isn't that bad." And I say, "Well, okay, what about the stuff he says about Muslims? And Mexicans?" Or like, when we talk about him pandering to the black vote, it's like, "Nah man, you don't get a pass!" The whole thing with the Central Park Five...

Joe: Again, we could sit back here and talk about thousands of reasons why he's a racist... we're getting a little off track.

[laughter]

Joe: That's my fault. I always try to bring politics into this because... I don't know.

Ulrick: I like talking politics so it's cool.

Joe: As my BAC level goes up, so too does my inflammation about the current political climate.

Ulrick: It's hard not to talk about!

Joe: I thought it was kind of funny—I always read the IMDB trivia page for this shit, and apparently, they realized during the filming that there was no reference in the entire movie to Nazis hating Jews, so that's why the one Nazi says, like, "I feel uncomfortable with performing this Jewish-esque ritual." That was only added because they were like, "Oh shit, we should make this more clear that Nazis hate Jews."

Ulrick: Also, the one scene, where Indiana Jones and Marion are on the ship, and they meet the black captain. The Nazis come onto the ship. The one Nazi implies that he is a "savage," and it was like... okay, I see where they're going with that. They're all about that race purity. And for the record, everyone who is reading this—I'm black.

[laughter]

Joe: Oh man. Do you mind if I ask you if that's something you look for in movies? Like, we were talking about strong female characters earlier. Is it important for you for there to be a strong black character?

Ulrick: I would like that, honestly. If the black guys are bad guys, they're bad guys, it doesn't necessarily have to be a race thing. But I do like to see black characters with multiple sides to them, with some positive attributes. Honestly, I'm getting tired of slave and civil rights movies.

Joe: Yeah?

Ulrick: Personally, it always feel like we have to rely on someone else to help us out [in these movies]. The movie that won the Oscar, Green Book—

Joe: Don't get me started on that shit, man.

Ulrick: I have not seen that movie. When I heard it was based on actual events, I was like, "Oh, cool!" And then Mahershala Ali, when I heard he won Best Supporting Actor, I was like, "Wait, he's not the main character?" And then Seth Myers did a YouTube video about the "white savior" thing. Those movies are always like that, so that's why I'm getting tired of it.

Joe: Green Book absolutely exists to make white people feel better about racism.

Ulrick: Yeah! A lot of people were not happy about that, especially the family of the character who Mahershala Ali is playing. It just felt like... I'm just over it. I want to see movies where [black] people are kings, warriors, prophets, teachers. There are plenty stories that you can explore. When Black Panther came around, it was like... "Thank god." What people liked about Black Panther was that you had these black characters who are, like, a kick-ass warrior, smart, and it had a lot of interesting ideas about, like, "What if some parts of Africa were not colonized?" And all that kind of stuff.

Joe: So wrap it back to Indiana Jones. The creators of this movie, how did they do in terms of minority representation?

Ulrick: As far as minorities go in this movie, you're not going to get too much. If you're taking a movie that takes place in the '30s or '40s, you might not get much minorities as leads.

Joe: It's mostly white leads.

Ulrick: I'm trying to think... what was the ethnicity of Sallah? Because he was in Egypt. But it's the actor who plays Gimli...

Joe: In Lord of the Rings?!

Ulrick: Yeah, the guy who plays Sallah is Gimli.

Joe: Wait... who are we talking about? The digger?

Ulrick: Yeah.

Joe: Get the fuck out of here. Are you serious?

Ulrick: Yeah!

Joe: Jesus Christ.

Ulrick: Yeah man, listen to his voice. You can tell.

Joe: I heard that character was originally supposed to be Danny DeVito.

Ulrick: For Gimli?

Joe: [laughter] No, for Sallah.

Ulrick: Oh! Okay. [laughter] Oh god, that would be interesting.

Joe: Yeah, he was too tied up with Taxi.

Ulrick: Interesting.

Joe: Okay, but getting back to the point. How about the "savages" in the opening scene of the movie. Was that dealt with appropriately?

Ulrick: I think it was appropriate enough. With the whole Central or South America... like I said, if you're going with that whole time period of the 1930s, there were some places like that that were still closed off. I read a story—there's still a tribe today that's still considered isolated like that. So in the '30s or '40s, that would not have been unheard of. So, I think... it's not totally unrealistic. And they're not portrayed as complete savages. There's some truth to it. But, overall... I knew there wasn't going to be too many minority-lead scenes in the series. The next movie, he has a little sidekick called Short Round. He's Chinese, I believe he's Chinese...

Joe: Do they mine humor from Asian stereotypes?

Ulrick: I'm not sure, I gotta watch it again. I don't think they did too many. He was just the kind of young, plucky sidekick. And also, throughout the movie, there's more focus on the father/son aspect to it. I don't think they...

Joe: In other words, it wasn't like Long Duk Dong from Sixteen Candles?

Ulrick: Oh god. And another one, watching Breakfast at Tiffany's, holy shit. I was like... damn, that was Mickey Rooney?!

Joe: So, and, Indiana Jones was released in '81.

Ulrick: Yeah, early '80s.

Joe: Not that it would've gotten a pass, but it would've fit into... it would not have surprised me here, now, if it had treated minorities worse than it did. Unfortunately.

Ulrick: Yeah, fortunately in this movie, they don't treat minorities that poorly.

Joe: A very minor character, the captain, he ended up being noble. I guess?

Ulrick: Yeah, a good guy. Later on in the series... Temple of Doom, I think it's set in India. I don't know if it's a stereotype, but they play around with the idea of "weird, exotic foods." I don't think think they did too much injustice to minorities. I think about it more regarding the time period, when it took place, and how it would be. I won't press them too hard on it.

Joe: Let's talk about the Oscars. I guess I was kind of surprised this was nominated for Best Picture! Not that I didn't like it. It just didn't seem like a "prestige" movie, a descriptor that might be required in 2019.

Ulrick: No, I guess it's just one of those movies that did really well, that was well-received by audiences and critics alike. It's like how Black Panther was nominated. It was like, "Holy crap, it got nominated?!" It's a movie that isn't going to have much depth, but it was a simple movie that was entertaining, and some people could relate to it.

Joe: How did critics treat Indiana Jones? I mean, I guess if it was up for some fucking Oscars...

Ulrick: I dunno. That's another thing. If critics—

Joe: No critic now wants to admit that they gave it a bad review then, probably.

Ulrick: I feel like if Indiana Jones came out today, critics would give it a hard time.

Joe: Probably. I definitely don't think, if it was released today, that it would be nominated for an Oscar. Not even close.

Ulrick: Honestly, I don't think it would either. Those type of movies, like the action and adventure movies, they'll do well in the Box Office, but I don't know if it goes that far, that it would be nominated for an Oscar.

Joe: The stakes are higher.

Ulrick: The movies that got nominated for the Oscars [in 2019], I had only seen a few. Black Panther, BlacKkKblackklansman, and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. Those were the only three movies that I saw out of all of them, and it was like, these movies are pretty good!

Joe: But those movies were nominated because there was more to it than just, like, explosions, ya know?

Ulrick: With Indiana Jones, it's one of those movies... you just want to enjoy, and maybe picture yourself in the role. It's like reading a comic—"How's he going to get out of this?" You don't want to give it too much thought. You're there for simple enjoyment. I think that's what movies should be about! You just want simple enjoyment. That it takes you away from the outside world. For me, I like going to movies. I usually have people with me, but I like going to the movies by myself. It doesn't have to make sense. You just enjoy it. A lot of movies really try to go for it. It's not about that. It's about, how much fun are you having with this? Sure, you want it to make sense. But does it seem like something you could enjoy?

Joe: So you're making a case for movies to be simpler.

Ulrick: Yeah.

Joe: And I don't mean that as a bad thing for Indiana Jones. But, we talked about it already. There's a plot, it moves from A to B to C—there isn't much other than that. There's explosions. It's a simple movie. And it's enjoyable in that way.

Ulrick: There are movies that can really give a lot of details, and layers. But sometimes, simple can be just as effective. How I go about deciding if I enjoy movies is—is this something I would watch again? Yes or no? A recent example of a movie I would not watch again was the latest Mummy movie, with Tom Cruise—

Joe: But that wasn't because it was too complicated, right?

Ulrick: The plot was muddled, the tone was off...

Joe: So give me an example of a movie you've seen that was "too complicated." That you actually had to sit down and figure out what this movies means.

Ulrick: Ah shit, what was the one... it was with Josh Brolin, the Coen Brothers movie... Hail, Caesar! Okay, after watching the trailers, it looked like a comedy. I watched the movie, and I was like, "...what? Is something else supposed to happen?" Because one thing happens, and here's another subplot, and here's another subplot, and here's another subplot...

Joe: You feel like the movie itself was saying something that you had to think about.

Ulrick: Yeah.

Joe: You couldn't understand it while just eating your popcorn and watching it.

Ulrick: Right.

Joe: So after the movie experience was over, did you sit down and think about it? And think what the movie was trying to say? Or did you just say, "Fuck it, this is too much"?

Ulrick: I was honestly trying to think about what it was trying to say. There was the scene with the Writer's Guild, and Communism, and all that stuff. There was the Western hero, and everything about the movie business. I was like, is there supposed to be something more to it that I'm not realizing? Or something that went over my head?

Joe: Was there?

Ulrick: ...Maybe there was!

Joe: And that's not something you're interested in?

Ulrick: Not really.

Joe: And that's fair, I'm not judging you on that.

Ulrick: For me, there are movies—not comic superhero movies, those seem pretty simple to some extent. I'm trying to think of movies that are pretty deep. Maybe BlacKkKlansman, it gets a little deep, but it was pretty easy to follow. Another movie, I'm trying to think off the top of my head... King Kong, either the original one or the Peter Jackson version. The original was a straight scary monster movie. The Peter Jackson version, they humanized him. He's not all bad, he's just an animal... [Editor's note: insert King Kong plot points here] We can talk about that some other time [Editor's note: Agreed].

Joe: But do you really feel like it's a bad thing when you get to the end of a movie, and you're like, "What the fuck was that?"? And I'm saying that—I want to clarify—not that the movie was unskillfully done, and you couldn't follow the plot. I'm saying, maybe it was a little heady, a little artsy, and it's gonna take a little bit to sink in. When you get to the end of that type of movie, you think that's a bad thing? In your opinion.

Ulrick: For me... I think that's a bad thing. I feel like, I always try to keep it simple. You can make things that ultimately make sense when you come back to it, sure, but when you're going for leaps and bounds in a character, and he only has this, and also does this, and it's like, nah, just reel it back in sometimes. I feel like the average person is not going to be a big movie critic. Simplicity has its perks.

Joe: I mean clearly, because your favorite is Indiana Jones. No offense.

Ulrick: No, I think simplicity in movies makes it more enjoyable, makes it easier to follow. Some people who are average movie-goers—not an art critic—can be like, "Okay, I can still follow this." Following a beginning, middle, and end, just like you're reading a storybook. And I don't think movies have to be too crazy or too artsy. If it works with the story you're trying to tell, sure. But I feel like you don't always have to do that. At the end of the day, simplicity wins. There are some movies that have open endings, which might be pretty cool. There are movies that make you think, and you're like, "Okay, that might be interesting to think about." But I think if you make it too complicated, you lose it. It would be hard to enjoy it.

Joe: It's certainly new to talk to someone who believes that. The movies I've talked about so far, for the most part, they've been like—there's something to get. At the end of There Will Be Blood, I wanted to know more. I was interested. And in fact, teenage Drew A******* felt the same way, and that was one of the reasons why it was his favorite movie. It awakened in him a desire to understand these complicated movies. Is that necessary in every movie experience? Not that he was trying to make that case. But it's different to just hear, "I like this movie, because it's just fucking cool," ya know what I mean?

Ulrick: Yeah, and I can... there are movies where I can say, ya know, this movie is more relatable, a little more in depth. But Indiana Jones, he could be the everyday man, an everyday hero. He's a handsome nerd! But he's simple. He's just a guy who wants to preserve history for the sake of research. That's what I like about it. It's like you're transported into this other world, one where you are Indiana Jones, and you can get lost in it.

Joe: Yeah man.

Ulrick: And also, I don't know if you had this down, but... the soundtrack was iconic as hell.

Joe: Fuck man, I meant to talk about that. I was in the Philadelphia Archdiocese Honors Band in grade school, and we played the Indiana Jones theme. So I knew the theme song before I even knew the movie. And I'm wondering... a couple questions here. First, do you feel like kids today, in 2019, would still recognize that theme?

Ulrick: I feel like only if you had already introduced them to Indiana Jones. Otherwise, they'd be like, "What is this?"

Joe: It's interesting, because it's was so famous, to us anyway.

Ulrick: Yes! It was composed by John Williams, who did Star Wars, and I think he did Superman? That theme song, you know it, you know it means adventure. The soundtrack, I was listening to it earlier, because I wanted to talk about it here. And I was listening and like, oh, this song is from this scene, or whatever. That's what I like about movie soundtracks, not songs with lyrics, but songs that are in the background. So you can feel like you're a part of it. I like to listen to those songs on my phone, so I can feel like I'm a part of the adventure, walking around, like, transported to the desert in Indiana Jones.

Joe: So John Williams lost the Best Sound Oscar to Chariots of Fire. Which, I was not familiar with the song from Chariots of Fire, but Sam and Stephan filled me in on it today. It's the song that goes [sings song].

Ulrick: That song?!

Joe: Yes.

Ulrick: Oh my god. It lost to that?

Joe: Yeah! When I first read this, I was like, "The fuck? Chariots of Fire? Indiana Jones is way better than that!" But now that I know that this is also an iconic song, it's like, okay, fair.

Ulrick: I feel like I've heard that song so many times, in, like dream sequences. I don't know. You can't beat the Indiana Jones theme song.

Joe: I mean, I agree that the Indiana Jones theme is great.

Ulrick: I have it as my ringtone!

Joe: That's awesome. Are you familiar with the documentary Raiders?

Ulrick: No.



Joe: Apparently it's a documentary about, it started out with three eleven-year-olds who decided to film a remake of Raiders of the Lost Ark, shot-for-shot, in a primitive eleven-year-old way. So it's a documentary about how this remake got made. And what they did to recreate each particular shot.

Ulrick: Oh wow, I gotta look this up now.

Joe: Yeah man, I only saw the trailer, but it looked pretty cool. And it was like, it was obviously a bigger project than eleven-year-olds could handle. So, every summer, for eight years, the three of them got together to continue this lifelong project. And in creating this documentary, they finally got the Kickstarter funding to do the airplane scene. Because they couldn't do that as eighteen-year-olds. So I thought that was cool, that the fandom of Raiders of the Lost Ark—

Ulrick: That's another thing with the whole Indiana Jones franchise. It can reach out to a lot of people. It can inspire you to do your own thing. It's definitely influenced a lot of other medium, like video games. How it was set up, it left its mark as one of the most influential movies of all time. You have your everyday man, it amounts to a treasure hunt... but there's something else to it. It uses actual lore and history, but adds a twist to it. It took the Ark of the Covenant, which was an actual thing, but added an adventure twist to it, how it was incorporated—

Joe: The twist was "We're gonna blow shit up" I guess?

Ulrick: Yup. Blowing shit up.

Joe: "We're gonna melt some faces."

Ulrick: And how—why the Nazis would be interested in that.

Joe: Yeah, why was Hitler interested in it?

Ulrick: Apparently he was interested in the witchcraft and lore. I dunno, Hitler was crazy, man. He was into some weird magic shit.

[laughter]

Joe: He was just interested in melting some faces, I guess.

Ulrick: I guess! He wanted to melt some Jews, but it melted the Nazis instead.

Joe: That's maybe a nitpicky question to start with. I understand that this is a movie you're not supposed to question, or say, "Why did this happen?" You're supposed to watch it and say, "Man, that was exciting. That got my adrenaline up a little bit."

Ulrick: And I think, because of the whole adventuring aspect, it kind of makes you... when there's a movie that does the whole treasure-hunting thing, this is definitely more interesting in how they go about doing it. There was a treasure-hunting movie called Sahara. It was with Matthew McConaughey and Penélope Cruz. I actually enjoyed it for what it was. It was...

Joe: Influenced by Indiana Jones, you're saying?

Ulrick: Influenced, maybe more like a nod toward it, with the whole adventure aspect. I think a lot of treasure-hunting-type movies were inspired by it. I'm trying to think, before Indiana Jones, was there a lot of treasure-hunting-type movies?

Joe: I mean, this started because Spielberg said he wanted to direct a James Bond film, and Lucas was like, "Eh, I have a different idea. We can maybe do a spin on that." Like, a nerdy, non-playboy version of that.

Ulrick: Funnily enough, they eventually have the original James Bond, Sean Connery, as Indiana Jones' dad.

Joe: Wow, okay.

Ulrick: Indiana Jones and James Bond in one movie!

Joe: This goes against the whole "action serial" ethos, but... how would you end the Indiana Jones series, if you could?

Ulrick: I'm going into spoiler territory but... in the last one, he actually ends up marrying Marion, and he finally has a kid.

Joe: So was that a good ending?

Ulrick: I thought it was a good ending. There was a moment when his kid—played by Shia LaBeouf—he picks up the hat, so it was a kind of send-off, like, "You will be the next Indiana Jones." I feel like that's... if Indiana Jones had to end, maybe it could end with him finding treasure and actually shows it to the world, or he passes it on to his son to keep up the work—because like I said, he's not interested in all the glory, he's interested in the history. If you're following his character, this is how you want it to go—with someone else taking the lead, so he can retire for good. Indiana Jones, over the years, through the movies... at the end of the day, he's just a simple guy. At the end of the day, he just wants to go home and be with the one he loves.

Joe: Is this what eleven-year-old Ulrick was thinking?

Ulrick: As a kid?

Joe: In general.

Ulrick: Nah, eleven-year-old me was just like, "This guy is so cool."

Joe: Did you want to be him?

Ulrick: Honestly, yes. I always admired how charismatic he was. For me, even now, I find myself... I don't consider myself smooth, when it comes to the ladies, and that kind of stuff. And when I would watch this, here was a guy who was basically a nerd, but somehow... he made nerds look good! He made nerds look kick-ass. It was something that I respected, he somehow wins the girl, even though he was the "everyday man."

Joe: Would you say that Indiana Jones is someone to aspire to be now? Like, should an eleven-year-old child aspire to be Indiana Jones?

Ulrick: I would say he could definitely be a good role model, in that he is dedicated to his research, goes on adventures, and is bold and confident. Also, how we were saying about his fear of snakes—despite that, he was still able to get to the Ark, and get the bad guys. He had a fear of snakes, but he was still able to say, "Alright, here we go."

Joe: He faced his fear!

Ulrick: He's still scared of them, but... that's one of the main things about the idea of courage. Knowing that you're scared, but you still face it anyway. It's Indiana Jones versus an army of Nazis, and yet he still goes for the Ark. For the most part, by himself. He's still able to do all this stuff. It shows how he can be brave, charming, intellectual. Those are some characteristics that kids could learn by. You can emulate that.