At the Movies

Wuthering Heights & Midwinter Break Transcript

Intro

[upbeat music plays]

Marie Westhaver:

Hello, and welcome to At the Movies with Mike and Marie, a show where two film professors talk about movies. I'm Marie Westhaver.

Mike Giuliano:

And I'm Mike Giuliano.

Marie Westhaver:

And today we're going to talk about Wuthering Heights and Midwinter Break, starting with Wuthering Heights.

[music fades out]

Marie Westhaver:

And there's been a lot of attempts to make this movie. I think there's going to be a lot we're going to say about this particular version, but Mike, why don't you set us up?

Wuthering Heights

Mike Giuliano:

Yeah, there have been so many versions of this story. The source novel goes back to 1847, and now, gosh, for all these decades, we have cinematic versions. The most famous still remains the 1939 version directed by William Wyler with Lawrence Olivier and Merle Oberon. That's what I call high gloss studio filmmaking. It's very much Hollywood in that classic phase and how it approaches it. But there have been so many different takes on this. Some of them very much studio bound. Others shot on location in the Yorkshire moors. And likewise, in terms of how they tackle the protagonist differences there, they're even, this is relatively obscure, so therefore I pursued it. This is something that even Luis Bunuel. Luis Bunuel, the great Spanish surrealist, did a version in Mexico in 1953 because he was always interested in crazy passions. And so we could get sidetracked for hours talking about the different iterations of it, but let's cut to the chase in terms of this version.

I got to tell you right up front, when I first saw the trailer for this movie, I laughed out loud. I thought, "Is this a Harlequin Romance? What is this?" And in terms of how it treats the material, how it treats the story, essentially it's that tempestuous relationship and sometimes non-relationship seemingly between Catherine and Heathcliff. It's one of those head over heels, crazy loves, people from very different backgrounds within that class stratified British society, where are they? Where could they be? And the principle selling point for this film version is the cast. It's Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi, both of them hot actors right now. And to put it politely and keep it PG-13, they're hot for each other on screen. Personally, I don't think chemistry entirely works here, but the casting is smart. It's certainly what I call eye candy appeal in a romantic or erotic sense there.

As to whether that works here, on the one hand, people have talked about this film as being very much of our moment in the sense that it is more direct, more explicit, if you will, in terms of the sexuality of the relationship. And certainly you can show things on screen now that the production code would not have allowed in 1939. So I'll grant it those points. And it does have a lot of what I call production value. It's really easy to watch. And I don't mean that as a left-handed compliment. Really, it's entertaining. It's easy to watch. I'm not persuaded by it in various ways because on the one hand, it does seem like it's bold and of the moment and ostensibly cutting to the heart of the material in terms of their hearts, their actions and so on. But on the other hand, ironically, that mid-19th century novel is bolder in some ways.

And I'll give for me what qualifies as Exhibit A. In the film version, we're talking about Jacob Elordi has just presented as this fashion plate of a quasi-boyfriend, furtive boyfriend, if you will. And his background, his identity, things like that are not really explored to any great degree. And that's not a knock against the actor whatsoever. He's been so versatile. Think about it. The same actor appeared in both Priscilla and in Frankenstein. So he has range as an actor. So I admire him because I'm talking right now as if you somehow just had pretty boy features. And believe me, he's a very capable actor, but it has to do with the characterization in the film. It doesn't really explore his identity in any really meaningful way.

In the source novel, as I say, ironically, there are questions raised about Heathcliff's racial identity. And nowadays, you might sort of just shrug it off or what have you, but we're talking the mid-19th century in England where such things really mattered in terms of race and class and all those big ticket items. And of course they still do in our society, but to a greater extent then even. In the source novel, there are fleeting but significant references to, "Is he Spanish? Is he what they called a gypsy? What is he?" And the crucial point there is that he is an other. He is not one of them. And so if she's to have this love, it truly would be a forbidden love in a lot of ways because in terms of class, there are different classes, but in terms of very basic racial identity, the film totally ignores that.

So on the one hand, in terms of sexuality, yes, you can say it's bolder. On the other hand, thematically, perhaps it's less bold. And there's a lot more to say about this film, so I'll turn it over to you.

Marie Westhaver:

Okay. Well, I will say I was looking forward to seeing this because I love Emerald Fennell. I thought Promising Young Woman was a really strong movie, which intrigued me. So knowing that she was going to make this movie, I thought, "Well, I'd like to see how she's going to handle the material." And I have mixed feelings. I love what you said about Harlequin Romance because that was the big thing that when I was watching and thinking, "I mean, I read the book and I just don't remember being so much heaving bosoms." It's just so much returning back to the sexual and showing you more than you needed to see.

I thought she did an interesting thing, Mike, in terms of the movie kind of has a fairytale feel to it. It starts off with a public execution. There's, I don't know, it's like a small little village. There's a whole pile of empty liquor bottles in one scene that it just looks staged in a way that just makes me think fairytale, which kind of worked, but that's not really what the book was like. And I have to disagree with you about Jacob Elordi. He is a great actor. I think he's a fine actor, but he just does not look like Heathcliff. He just doesn't. And for me, I just couldn't make myself believe the story between them because he just seems so miscast.

Mike Giuliano:

So let me push you on this. We agree he's a very, very strong actor. In terms of the casting here, I talked about it in terms of caste, C-A-S-T-E, that seems to me he doesn't have the right caste that way. But in terms of casting, what would you want in a Heathcliff that you don't find in Jacob Elordi?

Marie Westhaver:

I was looking for somebody more handsome and-

Mike Giuliano:

He ain't bad looking.

Marie Westhaver:

... and brooding. No, not in a Heathcliff way, in what you said, in a pretty boy way.

Mike Giuliano:

You want Lawrence Olivier?

Marie Westhaver:

I want Lawrence Olivier, or if we could pick somebody-

Mike Giuliano:

He's not available any longer, but go on.

Marie Westhaver:

David Tennant could have done this.

Mike Giuliano:

That's an interesting choice. Okay.

Marie Westhaver:

So anyway, I just had a real problem with that. And then the other thing I had a big problem with is they eliminated an entire character.

Mike Giuliano:

Her brother?

Marie Westhaver:

Her brother.

Mike Giuliano:

Yeah.

Marie Westhaver:

So many people love this book that I don't think you can do that.

Mike Giuliano:

There's some puzzling choices in terms of major changes from novel to screen here. You had mentioned what I was going to mention a little while. They really eliminate Katherine's brother. He drops out. And I think one reason is simply that the Harlequin Romance aspect we've talked about, there are so many heaving bosoms, as you put it. There's not enough room for other heaving characters. Some of the other family members are marginalized, aren't they? Or in the case of the brother, it just disappears. Likewise, it ditches the novel's framing device. And of course, all screen versions of essentially just filmed the first half of the novel and not the second. That's kind of a given here and understandable in terms of how much material there is. But with Jacob Elordi, I'll let you break the news to him that from now on he should play Frankenstein's monster, but should not play romantic leads. I'll let you tell him. You give him the bad news on that.

But no, but actually, all joking aside, when I said that they're both capable actors, and they are, I think they're both really roughly handsome on screen, but they're both pretty on screen that way. Like a lot of viewers, I've said for some reason the chemistry's not quite there. And chemistry is something that you notice, that you can feel. It's difficult to verbalize sometimes why some acting combinations have chemistry and some don't. You can't reduce it to a sentence or two, but somehow I always felt like it was forced.

And this gets back to one of my major reservations, which you, whether intentionally or not, mentioned, the high degree of staging here, of stagecraft. And when you say fairytale, there's that sense of artifice, there's a sense of what I call stage management, and the film is not subtle. It really is very blunt, not just with the sexuality, but the opening scene, that execution is immediately, without getting graphic about it, there's an immediate connection made between sex and death, and many scenes later in film will do that. And you can't possibly miss that point. If somebody has a trench and they're hitting you over the head, you're going to feel it after a while.

And the film is really, really so direct about that. And when I say it's crude, I don't mean in terms of the film's rating. I mean, just in terms of thematically, credit your audience was some more smarts than that. There's a degree of nuance and of ambiguity in the novel that this film has a sort of steamroller approach. It's all about the hot and heavy sexuality of it and the focus so much on those two lovers or would be lovers.

And as you, and I've been saying, some characters drop out or drop to the sides. Various issues involving those characters even don't fully get discussed. I think it's a disappointing film in that respect. But I got to say, having watched it with an audience and talked with an audience about it does have that production value. It's really striking visually in many places. And let's face it, Harlequin Romance can be entertaining.

Marie Westhaver:

Well, there were a few scenes I found breathtaking. There's one where Cathy is going to her wedding. And so she's walking across the field and it's an aerial shot and you just have her dress and her veil billowing like a jellyfish across her feet as she's walking across this field. It just gorgeous, absolutely gorgeous. And the second scene, and I would say all of the clothes and jewels are, I mean, worth it to watch the movie just to see the costuming. There's this one dress that she wears that's it's like black patent leather, but it's not. I'm sure it's satin or something, but it shines in this really unusual way. Just absolutely floored me how gorgeous some of these shots were. And to be fair, Margot Robbie is a beautiful woman. Every time she's on-screen, the camera loves her. And so if you like her, it's a wonderful movie to watch her just sort of move throughout the story.

I was kind of creeped out about the room that her husband prepared for her that was like the exact pink of her skin. The room was sort of inner workings of her. I found that just straight-up creepy. What did you think?

Mike Giuliano:

Well, you've identified one of the most curious aspects of the film, and I think of film in general. When you have a big budget film with a lot of production value, we're agreeing on just how easy on the eyes it is. It's just really a pleasure to watch oftentimes. But that's a mixed blessing in some ways because production design is one thing, but what about production over design? And just as the film is heavy-handed in other ways, sometimes the actual production design really tips the hand in a way where you find yourself thinking, "Well, it's not quite realistic in terms of what that house would've been in the mid 19th century and so on." So I thematically understand what they're doing, but again, it's sort of clubbing us with it. And that's the point where they're putting a lot of money and a lot of thought into decor and maybe not as much into decorum in terms of human behavior and in terms of other aspects of character.

And that's again, where when you have a big team working on the film, at the level of craftsmanship, they're all doing a great job, the costumes, the makeup, all that stuff. But see, what can happen is that can ironically become a sort of end in itself so that we find ourselves saying, "What a great dress." But how about the woman who's inside that dress? I mean, there are scenes where she just seems like a mid-19th century Barbie doll. I mean, what are we to make of this?

Marie Westhaver:

The Barbie doll thing was real because obviously she was the star of Barbie and she looks good in absolutely everything. So it must have just been impossible to resist going there. Let's just make her as beautiful as possible. Another problem I had with this is that honestly, all of these actors, as good as they are, they're too old. I mean, these are supposed to be teenagers. These people-

Mike Giuliano:

You know what it is? It's the Romeo and Juliet syndrome. When you so often would get actors who are, and this happened in Hollywood versions of it as well, where sometimes you'd get actors who are like 10 or 20 years too old for the part. And that's a matter of when you're making a film, or this happens on stage too, if the characters are in their mid-teens, if you're really blessed, you have actors in that age range who can do it. But what happens most often, and you and I have talked about this in other contexts when we talk about teen comedies, teen movies, the characters are all in high school, but the actors are in their mid-20s or 30s even, right? And you're right, the same thing happens here. I mean, push come to shove, the actors are too mature for these roles. They're a little too old for them.

We make allowance here because they are easy on the eyes. They're attractive presences on screen and they more or less make it work. But if I'm being really a tough customer here, I'd say you'd want an actor who's five or 10 years younger. So you're absolutely right about that.

Marie Westhaver:

I will also say I was disappointed that, in another thing they changed from the book, the central misunderstanding that makes Heathcliff leave is presented completely differently from the book. And I'm just thinking, "Why? Why would you take an important plot point and change it?" I just don't understand that decision. It didn't help the story.

Mike Giuliano:

No, I don't understand it either. And it gets another curious point here is because some of the, if I call it a fan base, I just mean there's so many people who were up reading that novel who admire it, who want to see the film for that very reason. But concurrently, certainly in terms of a younger movie going demographic, there'll be a lot of people who have little or no awareness of the book. They're going to see the hot romance on screen. And push come to shove on that one, I think what happens here is that crucial aspects of the novel just sort of drop away. Some you can perhaps explain. Some, like what you've just mentioned, are almost inexplicable. But the fact that it's going for a glossy big screen treatment and it's not worried about fidelity to the book. And as you and I are agreeing, that's to the detriment of the film.

But I think a lot of the film goers are not going to fuss over that point because they're not watching the film with a bag of popcorn in one hand and Emily Bronte's novel in the other. They only have the bag of popcorn. And so you and I are being academic about it in the way I think most viewers won't be. And God bless them. I would've enjoyed it more if I weren't aware of the things you're pointing out.

Marie Westhaver:

Well, think of all the people we know who will watch the movie rather than read the book. They're going to get a different story. That's the part that's a shame because like we've been discussing, a lot of people really love this book. So I don't know why change crucial aspects of the story? I just think that's a bad choice.

Mike Giuliano:

Well, people who love the book, Wuthering Heights are going to refer to the film as Withering Heights.

Midwinter Break

Marie Westhaver:

Good one, Mike. Okay. We need to shift gears and talk about Midwinter Break. Speaking of complex relationships, so this is based on a book that I started reading a couple of nights ago, which actually kind of brought me back into the movie and the mood that it had set. But how do you want to set up Midwinter Break?

Mike Giuliano:

Okay. By way of full disclosure, I have not read the 2017 source novel by Bernard MacLaverty, who also is co-scriptor for the film. So in terms of whatever works or doesn't work, he's at least partially to blame there. Now, a friend of mine read the source novel all the way through and made some really interesting observations to me, ways in which things are more satisfying, more fully explained in the novel than they are in the screen version.

And just to give our listeners the setup here, the premise of it in terms of the story, Lesley Manville and Ciarán Hinds play a long married couple. Originally from Ireland, because of the troubles, they've relocated to Scotland. They have an adult son who's literally at a distance from them. It's pretty much the two of them. They're both retired. He was an architect. She was a teacher. He has a bit of a drinking problem, which he thinks he's doing on the sly, but we see it and then she knows too. And she is a devout Roman Catholic who declares at one point, quote, "I want a more devout life," close quote.

So what she does is she plans a getaway trip for them to go to Amsterdam and ostensibly just to have a getaway trip and enjoy each other's company. She has an ulterior motive, which we'll talk about presently. From what my friend tells me, all that is very well discussed, like interior monologue type discussed in the book. On screen, a lot of the points I just made are made in passing. In fact, I almost gave them more time than the film does. It glances at some of them and it's there, but not quite fully there. So there's some dangling disappointments, I call them in the film. We're like, "Well, why this? Why that?" Things that aren't fully explored that way.

And my friend found the film disappointing for that reason. So she was approaching it in terms of from page to screen and to the detriment of the screen version. And not having read the novel, I deferred on those points. And I agreed thematically, logically with everything she was saying. My only pushback on it was simply that Lesley Manville and Ciarán Hinds are two really fine actors, and I so much enjoyed the pleasure of their company. Not much happens in this film in one sense. There are a lot of scenes where just sitting around like, "Well, do you want more coffee?" Type conversations. But I love just the subtle bits, the nuance between two long married people and how they communicate or don't communicate. And so much was expressed just by their faces and all.

So even though I agreed that the film was disappointing at the level of character development and explication, if you will, for me, watching it as something performance driven, I just really was pulled into it. I really enjoyed it at that level. In terms of the title, Midwinter Break, after the weather we've been through in recent weeks, we've had all sorts of jokes about that as a film title, but there are connections made here between the seasons of life, if you will, and seasons and the ways in which a couple's been together a long time and they do love each other, but there's stress and strain and you got to wonder, will the marriage last and so on. So ultimately, although I'll acknowledge some of the shortcomings of the film, when you get two really good actors sitting across from each other at the breakfast table, that can be enough for me.

Marie Westhaver:

I love that you said dangling disappointment because I think that's sort of a theme in the movie. They both have things that they really should say to each other, but they don't. All kinds of... It's the long-term marriage situation. Lots of stuff hasn't been said for years and years and years, but it's just right there under the surface. And you're absolutely right about the acting. It is absolutely superb acting. And just to contrast it with the Wuthering Heights that we just discussed, even though it is a long-term relationship, and even though you do see issues and problems, communication and other things, there is some chemistry between them. You don't have to go back to see when they first met and fell in love to believe that they're together because they love each other in spite of all the other issues going on. That's a tricky thing to get across.

Mike Giuliano:

So in the next version of Withering Heights, you want to see Lesley Manville as Catherine and Ciarán Hinds as Heathcliff? They would be mature in those roles.

Marie Westhaver:

They would. Ciarán, I kept thinking Alfred Molina the whole time I was watching them. Actually, Lesley would make a great Cathy. She has that sort of repressed explosiveness, but she isn't reckless enough to be Cathy.

Mike Giuliano:

One of the things I liked about the film thematically is, and again, my understanding is that the novel goes into more significant detail here, but that they were in Ireland and because of the troubles, which get mentioned a few times in the film, and I'm happy with that. I don't want the film to go off on a political sideline that way necessarily. So it does get mentioned, but they went to Scotland, they've had their lives there. But Stella is Manville's character. Stella has a line where she says, quote, "We are exiles from each other," close quote. And I found that really fascinating within the film. And it doubles back on what you were saying just before in terms of things that are not said in a longtime marriage that they probably should have said. And as another friend said to me, "These people really need marriage counseling," because there's so much they're not saying to each other, but it's percolating just below the surface.

And I wanted that brought out, not that I need a big grandstanding speech about it, but I wanted a little bit more of that in the film to develop that a bit more because some of the things in the film seem puzzling in the sense of, well, not only are they not saying things to each other, the film itself, ironically, is not saying things to us. And there was more I wanted to know. The adult son, the adult son. I mean, there's a conversation and it's like he drops out. I can understand distance and he's got a life of his own, but it's like he doesn't exist at a certain point, son and grandson.

Marie Westhaver:

Yeah. Yeah. And there's not even a glancing, "Let's get a postcard or send it to him," or, "Let's look for something as a gift to bring back from..." Just normal things because they spend a lot of time on normal things, which I think is actually one of the quiet geniuses of the movie. Because in some ways it is acting out going through the motions, which is what they're doing emotionally. So you see them like, "Okay, we're visiting the Anne Frank house because here we are in Amsterdam." But they're shuffling along with the tour group. Not that they make light of what they're seeing or anything. You just see it as sort of a rote, "Well, these are the things we're supposed to do. These are the things we're supposed to see," and they're just sort of sleepwalking through it.

But as you mentioned, the wife has an ulterior motive of why she wanted to go to Amsterdam, and I'll let you talk about that. But what I want to point out is while she's doing this very serious thing on the side, her husband's out partying, finds the Irish pub, has some drinks, he's so able to sort of enter into the moment in a way that she doesn't necessarily read the room.

Mike Giuliano:

What I find interesting is he's more sociable and it is meant to be amusing. If he goes to Amsterdam, he will find the Irish pub there. He's the secret drinker and he has a lot of people around him, but there's an essential loneliness. Even when he's in the middle of a crowd, I like that in the film because you see it reflected in Ciarán Hinds' face. He's got people all around him, he's slapping backs and making jokes, but he's essentially alone there. He's not really bonding in a meaningful way with other people. And that's powerful in some of those scenes.

One of the weaknesses for me has to do with the ulterior motive, and this is a quasi-spoiler alert, so go and wash the dishes or something rather than hear us right now. But anyway, years ago, she had been in Amsterdam. She had been there and she was aware of a community of religious women, of nuns and other women living together as a community. And because she wants to get more in touch with that religious life, here's where it's not quite working for me on several fronts. One is she oftentimes says in this film, now that she's retired from teaching, she wants to be of service, that she doesn't feel like she's useful. I thought, "Well, you were a teacher all those decades". And as teachers, you and I like to feel we've been of service. It's just not quite explained in the film there. And not that it's implausible completely, but it needs some explaining, if you will, as to why she would feel so strongly she has not had a life of service because she has retired from a very full life of service so far as I know it.

But anyway, the other disappointment at that level is because she had been aware of this community in Amsterdam and because she is interested in becoming more overtly religious and because she's thinking about separation, possibly divorce, whatever, her ulterior motive is, and she's very careful in planning this trip to Amsterdam, but then when she gets there and they visit this community, of course, she hadn't been there in a long time and she finds out, well, the last nun died or left years before. And yes, it's still a community just for single women, but it's not overtly religious. Yes, the old building we used as a church is still there and so on, but it's really not a religious community now. It's more a matter of women, perhaps women on a certain level of income sharing the buildings, living communally that way. But again, it's not like living in a convent or something any longer.

What's, for me, a big plot hole, at least in the film, I can't speak to the book as I say, but in the film is Lesley Manville's character, Stella, is a very thoughtful, very careful person. She did this planning for the trip to Amsterdam. Wouldn't she have known that already? Instead, in the film, it comes as this big surprise like, "Oh, I didn't know that." And I thought for some characters you might say, "Well, if she were presented as a ditzy character, well, she never thought it through," but this character thinks everything through. How she could not have known that as mind-boggling. What'd you think? "

Marie Westhaver:

Exactly. Especially as a former teacher, you would think she would've researched or reached out to, "Hey, I'm going to be in Amsterdam, would love to talk to somebody in charge." Or have made friends with people on the inside the whole time. I mean, there's the internet. This is supposed to be modern day, right? It's not supposed to be said in the past.

Mike Giuliano:

That was exactly my response. I thought surely she's been on the internet before. I mean, you can Google and find out in a minute or so, does this community still exist? And then secondly, gee, I can send an email and say, "Guess what? We're going to be in Amsterdam could we have a meeting?" But instead, it's just treated as sort of a lark like, "Hey, let's go down the street and pop in here and expect everything to be the same as it was 20 some years ago."

Marie Westhaver:

And I don't know about Scotland, but you would think she wouldn't have to go that far, Ireland, for example, to find a group of people who wanted to be more devout.

Mike Giuliano:

Yeah, thank you for saying that because it just doesn't quite make sense on various levels. If you want to be devout, there are people closer to home who can help you that way. They are Irish Catholic goodness sakes. I mean, you can certainly find a church somewhere. So yeah, it just doesn't quite parse that way. It just seems like an excuse for what I call travelogue because there is some really beautiful footage shot in Amsterdam, but that's picture postcard stuff. And I can understand why in their relationship she wants to take it there, that setting.

But I feel like the film itself is coasting at that point. As you put it very capably before, it's like, "Well, you're in Amsterdam, so there's the Anne Frank house." And most of it's actual location shooting. Just as a quick sideline, the Ann Frank house that we see here is a recreation. They didn't shoot inside the actual house. It was a stage that could... I'm assuming you just didn't get permission to do that. It's very convincing as you see it. And on its own, it's treated very seriously. So you're right. I mean, they're fully respectful of what they're looking at there, but it seems sort of incidentalizing, "Well, when in Amsterdam," things to do, it's sort of on that list. And I want to know more about the relationship, not the tourist itinerary.

Marie Westhaver:

Yeah. They also completely avoided the whole coffeehouse thing, but that's not part of the story. Yes, completely agree with you. The Anne Frank House thing, that is actually a really tight space if you've ever visited it. And when they were showing those scenes, I thought, "Where are they putting the camera?" So I kind of suspected that it wasn't the real place because it's really too small to get any of those shots. I do think the movie would be improved if they hadn't pulled their punches so many times. And I think it would've been 100% better had they included a voiceover of the wife's thought because I think that's what's missing from the book. It's hard to film ideas.

Mike Giuliano:

You've identified the very point that my friend was making who knows the novel well. She said it's very much a novel of interior monologues and a thought process. So how to handle that? The film basically ignores it. I think the film would've been stronger if there had been at least some, I don't want it to be obtrusive, but at least occasionally voiceover. If you have her sitting alone looking at the window, why not have some voiceover thoughts there? I mean, it's a great way to get in material, things she's not saying to her husband, but that she's thinking.

Marie Westhaver:

Actually, it would've been interesting for them to have it for both of them to find out what they could be saying but weren't.

Mike Giuliano:

Well, he's wondering what drink to order next.

Marie Westhaver:

All right. If you had to travel with one of them, but not both, which one would you pick?

Mike Giuliano:

Oh gosh, I'm not sure I want to travel with either one of them, but they're better drinks with him. So I'll take the bibulous route there. He's an interesting character because he holds so much in, and he's not always the friendliest presence to be around, but he does so have that backslapping quality. He can be friendly that way. She is so much an interior character. She's so interested in exploring her religious devotion. I'm not sure she'd be the best conversationalist otherwise. And I'm getting at, it's like she's so inward looking that I'm not... Whereas he'd be more outwardly friendly and easier to be around. But push come to shove, I'm not sure I'd want to travel with either one of them.

Marie Westhaver:

Me too. Although if I had to pick, I'm with you. I'm in the pub with the husband having a drink just for having some fun on vacation.

[upbeat music fades up]

Marie Westhaver:

But that does bring us to the end of our episode. Don't forget to check out our other episodes at atmhcc.podbean.com. And we'll see you next time at the movies.

Mike Giuliano:

See you then.

[upbeat music]

Outro

[music fades down]

Podcast Producer:

Thanks for tuning in. If you enjoyed what you just heard, we have a whole universe of podcasts waiting for you. Simply search Dragon Podcasts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also explore our full lineup and discover new shows at podbean.com/dragonpodcasts. That's podbean.com/dragonpodcasts.

[music ends]