Enter The Void

Believe it or not, we have arrived at the 100th and longest and final episode of ENTER THE VOID. On today's episode, your hosts Bill and Renan sit down together in person to reminisce about how they originally came up with the idea for this podcast, how they launched their earlier show KubrickCast, and even how they met in the first place. Next, they revisit their definition of a mindfuck movie for the last time, and then name their mindfuck "Mt. Rushmore" for both the greatest films covered on the series and their favorites... and a few of their least favorites. Plus, what are some films this show would cover if there was a season X+1? Which episodes were the most popular? They also take listener questions, addressing what kind of mindfuck movie they might make, what was the first mindfuck film, and could there still be a book in the future? You'll just have to listen! Finally, a massive thanks to all of Enter the Void's listeners and guest hosts and friends who helped to make this show far more popular than

For our final regular episode of the podcast (yep, the whole thing) we finally come to one of the essential films of the mindfuck movie discussion, David Lynch's breakthrough as a popular artist, 1986's BLUE VELVET. Starring Kyle MacLachlan, Isabella Rossellini, Laura Dern, and of course Dennis Hopper, it was highly controversial upon release, and soon became the favorite film of academics and critical theorists—not to mention the late David Foster Wallace—and today stands as a film classic. But how challenging is it 33 years later? What are we to make of the multi-layered symbolism, the sexual violence, how much was borrowed into Twin Peaks, Lynch's Reaganism, its 50-plus minutes of deleted scenes, and its place in David Lynch's filmography? For the last time, your hosts Bill and Renan take on one film and see where it takes them. Then in two weeks, we'll return for our grand finale, a recap / retrospective of the entire podcast project. Episode links: Blue Velvet on IMDb Blue Velvet on Wikipedia Roger Eber

Our pick for this episode is not your usual, bog standard time travel psychological horror... but then again, maybe it is? Today we are doing GROUNDHOG DAY, the 1993 romantic comedy directed by Harold Ramis, starring Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell. A sleeper of a mindfuck, Groundhog Day warmed hearts and tickled funny bones when it debuted early in the Clinton era, but by the 21st century it had come to be recognized for its theological significance—and then YouTube got hold of it, and the rest is history. Today, we discuss: whether it's a proper mindfuck; how long Phil actually spends in the time loop; connections to Buddhism, Catholicism and Judaism; its relationship to Camus, Sisyphus and existentialism; its place in the comedy pantheon; plus: is Ned Ryerson actually the devil? Episode links: Groundhog Day on IMDb Groundhog Day on Wikipedia Roger Ebert 2005 review NYT on Groundhog Day's religious themes National Review cover story on Groundhog Day Mental Floss roundup of popular interpretations Film Scho

So this episode was supposed to be just about PERFECT BLUE, Satoshi Kon's 1997 animated psychological thriller. But we couldn't stop at just one! So Renan and Bill went ahead and watched PAPRIKA, his 2006 science-fiction opus too, which also sadly would be his last feature film. Today, your hosts talk about the life and career of Satoshi Kon, his incredible imagination and mastery of technique, and how both films examine themes of dual identities. Also discussed: Perfect Blue on the internet and celebrity culture; Paprika on dreams and filmmaking; how Darren Aronofsky borrowed well and Christopher Nolan borrowed poorly—and borrow they did; plus, are these films definitely anime? Episode links: Satoshi Kon on Wikipedia Perfect Blue on IMDb Perfect Blue on Wikipedia Paprika on IMDb Paprika on Wikipedia Satoshi Kon interview on PerfectBlue.com Little White Lies on the optimism of Perfect Blue Roisin Kiberd on Perfect Blue and internet celebrity Peach's Almanac tries to explain Perfect Blue SyFyWire tries to exp

How have we got this far without discussing anything by the original film surrealist, Luis Buñuel? Well, today we rectify the situation and discuss not one but four films from the Spanish exile / expatriate moviemaking legend. In this episode, your hosts examine the previously promised UN CHIEN ANDALOU (1929), THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962), and THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE (1972), plus one of his more accessible films, BELLE DE JOUR (1967) with Catherine Deneuve. Among the topics for discussion: Buñuel's peripatetic life and unpopular politics, his roles in both the Surrealist and French New Wave movements, his use of dreams and the subconscious, the targets of his satire, and connections to the works of David Lynch and Last Year at Marienbad. Episode links: Luis Buñuel on IMDb Luis Buñuel on Wikipedia Surrealism on Wikipedia French New Wave on Wikipedia J. Hoberman on Buñuel's politics in The Nation Un Chien Andalou on IMDb Un Chien Andalou on Wikipedia Un Chien Andalou on YouTube Roger Ebert revi

At long last we get around to a movie that was on our mind when we started this podcast: FIGHT CLUB, the 1999 David Fincher film  starring Edward Norton, Brad Pitt and Helena Bonham Carter, based on the 1996 Chuck Palahniuk novel of the same name. If you don't like politics with your movies, then today's show isn't for you, because Fight Club was born in controversy, released to Boomer acrimony, and then, once it attained cult status, attracted the unwanted—but not altogether surprising—approval of some of the most loathsome ideologues of the 21st century. Today, Bill and Renan take on their most problematic fave, discussing themes of consumerism, capitalism, fascism, toxic masculinity, intergenerational animosity, violence in the media, the culture wars, the WTO, Columbine, Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos' mistress, the death of satire, and much more. Episode links:  Fight Club on IMDb Fight Club on Wikipedia Fight Club (novel) on Wikipedia Roger Ebert negative review in CST David Denby negative review in NYer Liz

This episode is a little different: rather than taking on a single film or even the work of one director, the scope in this extra-long bonus episode is the greatest mindfucks across more than 50 years of TV history. In three separate segments, Bill and Renan each make their "Mount Rushmore" picks for the greatest television series, single episodes and standout moments in mindfuck TV. Shows discussed in this episode include: Twin Peaks, Black Mirror, LOST, The Leftovers, The X-Files, The Prisoner, The Good Place, Wild Palms, Russian Doll, Dark, The Sopranos, Star Trek, The Twilight Zone, Tales from The Darkside, Friday the 13th: The Series, St. Elsewhere, Newhart, Mr. Robot, and Get a Life. Episode links: Alex Pappademas on Wild Palms BFI on The Prisoner's cultural influence Keith Phipps on Harlan Ellison's Star Trek episode Uproxx on The Sopranos' dream sequences The Tommy Westphall Universe Hypothesis AV Club on The Good Place's season 1 plot twist YouTube clips: Wild Palms miniseries trailer LOST: "We ha

In today's episode, Bill and Renan return to the work of David Cronenberg—a director twice before discussed on this podcast—to consider the 1986 film many believe to be his masterpiece: THE FLY, starring Jeff Goldblum as a scientist who accidentally fuses his genes with a common housefly, and Geena Davis as the woman who loves him. So: is it actually Cronenberg's best film? Is this movie about aging, disease, and AIDS specifically? Or is it a cautionary tale about science and the nuclear age? What does this movie want us to make of Stathis Borans? Do we think The Fly got Jeff Goldblum his famous role in Jurassic Park? All these questions will be answered, plus an incomplete discussion of Cronenberg's filmography, and whether it's already complete. Episode links: The Fly on IMDb The Fly on Wikipedia Matt Zoller Seitz review of The Fly Collider review of The Fly The Fly review at RogerEbert.com Den of Geek calls it Cronenberg's masterpiece GEEKS on The Fly as the greatest remake ever FSR summary of director's

In the waning months of the 20th century, a remarkable little film from a pair of unknown filmmakers arrived in US cinemas, and it became a bona fide sensation. That was BEING JOHN MALKOVICH (1999), written by Charlie Kaufman and directed by Spike Jonze, starring John Cusack, Cameron Diaz, Catherine Keener, and of course, John Malkovich. It was a formative film experience for your hosts, and twenty years later Bill and Renan revisit it for you today. Among the topics discussed: the film's reception at the time and how it looks now that the novelty has worn off; was 1999 the greatest year in cinema history, and what happened to indie films after?; how great art becomes problematic faves; what comes after after postmodern irony?; how it compares to Adaptation, Eternal Sunshine, and other Kaufman-Jonze work; plus, Bill's very much not good Orson Bean story and the BJM / Get Out fan theory that might yet prove to be true. Episode links: Being John Malkovich on IMDb Being John Malkovich on Wikipedia Roger Ebert r

How has this show never done a Christopher Nolan film before? Today your hosts rectify that and discuss his 2010 film INCEPTION, a $800 million-grossing summer blockbuster with no pre-established IP, unless being the next film by the guy who made The Dark Knight somehow counts. In this episode, Renan and Bill discuss: whether this and other Nolan features are truly mindfucks or mere puzzle films; whether they work on a second time viewing; how Nolan uses time, editing, and music to achieve his ends; defending Nolan from the haters on film Twitter; whether it's OK for the dialogue to be pretty much all exposition; whether Mal is actually a villain and if Dom should be considered one—in fact, isn't Dom a little bit like Red Dead's Dutch van der Linde? Episode links: Inception on IMDb Inception on Wikipedia Roger Ebert review of Inception AO Scott review of Inception Vulture interview with Dileep Rao Christopher Nolan's hand-drawn dream map Itzkoff interview with Christopher Nolan Deadline interview with Nolan

Today Renan and Bill lose their neorealist chains and grapple with the 1963 Federico Fellini film 8½, hailed by armchair film scholars as one of the greatest films of all time. More than 50 years on, how does it hold up? Undoubtedly and deservedly a classic, 8½ today looks different than it did in the 1960s, or even the 1990s. In this episode: 8½'s attitudes toward women; Pauline Kael's critical review; Guido's heirs including Don Draper; Fellini's virtuosic filmmaking; whither the imperial film director; and other films about filmmaking. Also, Bill offers some hot Sundance tips, and we highlight a listener's electronic music project providing an alternate score to Eraserhead. Episode links: 8½ on IMDb 8½ on Wikipedia Pauline Kael original 8½ review Stanley Kaufman original 8½ review Roger Ebert 8½ review from 2000 Michael Newton 8½ essay from 2015 Criterion dream sequence roundup Tullio Kezich essay on Fellini and 8½ Bilge Ebiri on 8½'s influence at 50 Brian Morton on reading old books in NY Times Henry alt

We're back with the first of our last run of episodes, and today's episode is a two-for-one deal: we mostly discuss Terry Gilliam's 1996* time travel thriller 12 MONKEYS, with Bruce Willis, Madeleine Stowe and Brad Pitt, and weave throughout discussion of the 1962 French featurette that inspired it, LA JETÉE. Discussed in this episode: how does time travel work (or not) in these movies? What do we think happens after the events of 12 Monkeys? Is there anything La Jetée does better? What lessons do these movies have for modern audiences? Did you find all the character actors from The Wire in 12 Monkeys? How about the Nas Illmatic posters? And, what are we to make of Terry Gilliam's career overall? Episode links:  12 Monkeys on IMDb 12 Monkeys on Wikipedia La Jetée on IMDb La Jetée on Wikipedia Roger Ebert 1996 12 Monkeys review Scott Tobias 12 Monkeys appraisal for New Cult Canon Scott Tobias review for Criterion release of La Jetée Vulture essay on 12 Monkeys' continued relevance Den of Geek essay revisiting

Well, what have we here—it's the tenth season of ENTER THE VOID! Your patience has been rewarded: Bill and Renan are back for what we are gratuitously terming "Season X". (Multiple pronunciations accepted.) This time, we're doing things a little bit differently. The good news: we'll be doing 10 films instead of 8; we're going bimonthly, which may be bad if you need your fix, or good if you already have a lot of podcast obligations (we know the feeling); and we're doing a couple of bonus episodes, including a long-overdue discussion of mindfuck television, plus a finale / retrospective / wrap-up. And here's the bad: yep, about that finale—this will be the last season of ETV, at least for awhile, as Bill and Renan turn their attentions to new projects after this. We're not saying goodbye, we're saying "indefinite hiatus". But we're excited to go out with a bang, hit 100 total episodes, and we hope you'll come along for the ride. Here are the films we've got in store for you this season: 12 Monkeys (Gilliam) /

At last, it's the season 9 finale, and we go out with a bang: THE KILLING OF A SACRED DEER by writer-director Yorgos Lanthimos and co-writer Efthymis Filippou is one of the most searing film experiences of the last few years. Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman, and Barry Keoghan star in this family drama / suspense thriller / haunted house / horror film, which despite being a tough hang that no one's really sure what it's about, was also widely praised upon release in 2017. In this episode, your hosts discuss their experiences watching it a second time, the story's roots in Greek mythology, Lanthimos' cold but invigorating style, and appraise the slippery career of one Mr. Farrell. Also: RIP FilmStruck, the streaming service that was too good to live. Episode links: The Killing of a Sacred Deer on IMDb The Killing of a Sacred Deer on Wikipedia Brian Tallerico review for RogerEbert.com Anthony Lane review for The New Yorker Kevin Lincoln review for NY Mag A.O. Scott review for NY Times Iphigenia in Aulis at Wikiped

For the penultimate episode of season 9, your hosts alter their consciousness and explore ALTERED STATES, a 1980 sci-fi horror film written by Paddy Chayefsky, directed by Ken Russell, and today known as much for its far-out story as for its creators' infamous feud. William Hurt stars as Eddie Jessup, an academic whose experiments with sensory deprivation and hallucinogenic drugs lead him to "regress" to an earlier evolutionary state. (Literally!) Fully committed and totally bonkers, Altered States is something you have to experience for yourself, especially the wild, sexually charged religious visions; the preposterously verbose dialogue; not to mention that whole thing with the acrobatic caveman. Plus: did this movie make anyone else think of Ghostbusters?   Episode links: Altered States on IMDb Altered States on Wikipedia Altered States on TV Tropes Roger Ebert 1980 review NY Times 1981 story on Russell vs. Chayefsky 366 Weird Movies overview Dangerous Minds Altered States scrapbook Acidemic 2009 es

In today's episode, your hosts grapple with the Danny Boyle-directed, Alex Garland-written 2007 science-fiction horror-thriller SUNSHINE. A commercial failure at the time, with a mixed reception among critics, the film has over the past decade gained an appreciable cult following. But what do your hosts think? Is it a spooky, contemplative outer space film with some third act troubles? Is it a stylish but conceptually thin entertainment that needed a major rethink? Maybe both! You'll just have to listen and find out. Also discussed: which story elements worked and which ones didn't; how much we should care about scientific accuracy, the career arcs of Boyle and Garland; and whether it's ever a good idea for smart characters to do dumb things. Episode links: Sunshine on IMDb Sunshine on Wikipedia Roger Ebert 2007 film review Manohla Dargis 2007 reivew AV Club 2007 film review Anthony Lane 2007 review Mark Kermode 2007 review Vanity Fair 2009 essay on Sunshine Popular Mechanics Brian Cox interview IFC Danny Bo

Once nearly impossible to find and now... still pretty tough to obtain via legitimate means, Dalton Trumbo's JOHNNY GOT HIS GUN—the 1971 film he wrote and directed based on his own 1939 novel—is both legendary and forgotten at the same time. It tells the disturbing tale of a young soldier who loses his limbs and nearly all of his senses, but whose mind remains intact as he's trapped inside his own body in a military hospital. Adapted into Metallica's music video "One" and rubbing shoulders with the great anti-war and surrealist films, Johnny Got His Gun is not easy to watch. Also discussed: the film's most effective techniques; Trumbo's career and politics; other adaptations on stage and film; and its maybe-possible influence on Better Call Saul. Plus: does Metallica really own the film outright? Episode links: Johnny Got His Gun on IMDb Johnny Got His Gun (film) on Wikipedia Johnny Got His Gun (novel) on Wikipedia Roger Ebert 1971 film review New York Times 1971 film review TCM overview of Johnny Got His Gu

Alan Parker's 1987 ANGEL HEART contains explicit sex, voodoo rituals, amnesia, chickens, and a few shocking twists that your hosts figured out at different points. In today's episode, they reveal when they knew what and compare their impressions of this not-quite-successful but still semi-legendary Hollywood thriller, now more than thirty years old. Combining elements of gothic horror and film noir, featuring performances from early period Mickey Rourke, mid-period Robert DeNiro, and only-period Lisa Bonet, Angel Heart is worth considering for its religious motifs, keen historical detail, uncomfortable datedness, sometimes horrifying imagery, sometimes goofy dialogue, and its relationship to films like Devil's Advocate, Jacob's Ladder (which we covered in season 3) plus Sixth Sense and even Big Lebowski. Episode links: Angel Heart on IMDb Angel Heart on Wikipedia Roger Ebert 1987 review Little White Lies on Angel Heart Dread Central on Angel Heart Den of Geek on Angel Heart EitDoH on Angel Heart Angel Heart

Our third episode this season is about the semi-obscure but recently-Criterioned 1973 French animated film FANTASTIC PLANET, or La Planète Sauvage (literally, "wild planet"), from the minds of René Laloux and Roland Topor, with music by Alain Goraguer, based on a novel by Stefan Wul. It's a psychedelic audiovisual trip, and tells the story of an advanced alien society of blue people who like to meditate almost as much as they like to toy with the fates of the comparatively-tiny humanoids who roam their planet. It's a film about interplanetary race relations, or maybe it's unfamiliar environmentalism, or telling the difference between pest control and genocide. Also discussed in this episode: what other animated works would you like to see get a Criterion release?  Episode links: Fantastic Planet on IMDb Fantastic Planet on Wikipedia Fantastic Planet on Filmstruck New York Times review from 1973 AWN obituary for René LaLoux Senses of Cinema review in 2005 LA Weekly evaluation in 2011 Weird Fiction Review in 2

Is Julia Ducornau's 2016 film RAW (French: Grave) a coming of age film about cannibalism? A body horror film about family relationships? A tale of sexual discovery and veterinary practices? Yes, no, and maybe—but not necessarily in that order! In this episode, Bill and Renan consider a film they might not otherwise have been drawn to... with sexy results! Discussed: what the film has to say about cannibalism and teenage sexuality, not to mention college hazing rituals; whether Raw is a true horror movie or something else; references to Kubrick, PTA, and Cronenberg; other films about bloodthirsty teenage girls (and veterinarians); what would people say about Raw if a man directed it; and, Bill's own recent up-close experience with wild horses. Episode links: Raw on IMDb Raw on Wikipedia Variety Raw review Vulture Raw review Collider Raw review AV Club Raw review Vanity Fair Raw review RogerEbert.com Raw review Ducournau Film Comment interview Ducournau Independent interview Ducournau BFI interview Ducournau G