WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.580 Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Okay, before we 00:00:03.580 --> 00:00:05.919 jump in, just take a second. When you hear American 00:00:05.919 --> 00:00:08.679 cinema, what pops into your head? Is it, like, 00:00:08.820 --> 00:00:12.820 explosions, fast cuts, big heroes saving the 00:00:12.820 --> 00:00:15.339 day? Yeah, that's sort of the default, isn't 00:00:15.339 --> 00:00:17.679 it? The Hollywood machine. Speed, spectacle, 00:00:18.000 --> 00:00:20.460 everything wrapped up neatly. But today, we're 00:00:20.460 --> 00:00:23.519 diving deep into Kelly Reichardt. And she's... 00:00:23.820 --> 00:00:25.579 Well, she's pretty much the exact opposite of 00:00:25.579 --> 00:00:27.820 all that. Totally. A powerful counterpoint. Yeah. 00:00:27.879 --> 00:00:30.280 So our mission today is to really get under the 00:00:30.280 --> 00:00:32.299 skin of her work. We're looking at her whole 00:00:32.299 --> 00:00:35.859 career, her life, her very distinct style, trying 00:00:35.859 --> 00:00:38.140 to understand why so many people see her as one 00:00:38.140 --> 00:00:40.140 of the most important American filmmakers working 00:00:40.140 --> 00:00:42.840 today, even though she actively avoids, you know, 00:00:42.859 --> 00:00:44.799 the whole commercial game. Or maybe because she 00:00:44.799 --> 00:00:46.679 avoids it. And yeah, let's nail down who she 00:00:46.679 --> 00:00:48.299 is right away. She's known for these incredibly 00:00:48.299 --> 00:00:50.640 minimalist films. People connect her to slow 00:00:50.640 --> 00:00:54.259 cinema and her focus. Almost always on working 00:00:54.259 --> 00:00:56.780 class folks, people on the fringes, often in 00:00:56.780 --> 00:00:59.200 these small rural settings. She's telling stories 00:00:59.200 --> 00:01:01.039 that you just don't see coming out of the big 00:01:01.039 --> 00:01:03.000 studios. It's a whole different slice of America. 00:01:03.219 --> 00:01:06.120 Exactly. Documenting the margins. OK, so let's 00:01:06.120 --> 00:01:08.700 build this up from the beginning. Part one, the 00:01:08.700 --> 00:01:11.879 foundation. How did this unique vision develop? 00:01:12.219 --> 00:01:14.700 She was born back in 1964, grew up in Miami. 00:01:15.019 --> 00:01:17.939 And the detail about her parents always jumps 00:01:17.939 --> 00:01:19.500 out at me. They were both in law enforcement. 00:01:19.640 --> 00:01:22.239 Right. Police officers. Who split up when she 00:01:22.239 --> 00:01:24.799 was young? It's just an interesting contrast, 00:01:24.900 --> 00:01:27.159 isn't it? Growing up surrounded by, you know, 00:01:27.180 --> 00:01:30.780 rules, authority, structure, and then spending 00:01:30.780 --> 00:01:34.079 her career exploring lives lived right on the 00:01:34.079 --> 00:01:36.239 edge or totally outside of those structures. 00:01:36.299 --> 00:01:38.159 That's a great point. And maybe that early grounding 00:01:38.159 --> 00:01:40.140 in photography is key, too. That was her first 00:01:40.140 --> 00:01:42.620 passion, not film. Ah, okay. So that patient 00:01:42.620 --> 00:01:45.239 eye composing a single shot. Exactly. You can 00:01:45.239 --> 00:01:47.480 feel it in her movies. They feel like these carefully 00:01:47.480 --> 00:01:50.959 composed still images that are just... allowed 00:01:50.959 --> 00:01:53.500 to breathe the landscape, the small actions, 00:01:53.620 --> 00:01:56.599 washing dishes, walking. It all gets space. And 00:01:56.599 --> 00:01:58.439 she formalized that with an MFA, right? From 00:01:58.439 --> 00:02:00.260 the School of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. 00:02:00.439 --> 00:02:03.560 Yep. But just as important, maybe even more so 00:02:03.560 --> 00:02:05.980 for her artistic freedom, is her academic side. 00:02:06.200 --> 00:02:07.799 She's been teaching for a long time. Right, the 00:02:07.799 --> 00:02:12.340 position at Bard College. Since 2006. S. William 00:02:12.340 --> 00:02:15.219 Senfeld, artist in residence. Precisely. And 00:02:15.219 --> 00:02:18.120 having that steady base, that academic role, 00:02:18.280 --> 00:02:20.620 it gives her incredible freedom. She doesn't 00:02:20.620 --> 00:02:23.340 need her films to make millions. She's not constantly 00:02:23.340 --> 00:02:25.340 chasing studio funding, which means she doesn't 00:02:25.340 --> 00:02:27.259 have to compromise. No pressure to speed things 00:02:27.259 --> 00:02:29.819 up or add explosions. Which brings us to her 00:02:29.819 --> 00:02:33.939 debut, River of Grass, in 1994. Because that 00:02:33.939 --> 00:02:36.939 was... Well, it was critically acclaimed, right? 00:02:37.280 --> 00:02:39.759 But then things went quiet for a long time. Oh, 00:02:39.759 --> 00:02:42.599 yeah. Critically, River of Grass was a huge success 00:02:42.599 --> 00:02:45.039 straight out of the gate. Nominated for three 00:02:45.039 --> 00:02:47.659 Independent Spirit Awards, the Grand Jury Prize 00:02:47.659 --> 00:02:50.439 at Sundance. Big deal publications loved it. 00:02:50.639 --> 00:02:53.840 Boston Globe, Film Comment, Village Voice called 00:02:53.840 --> 00:02:55.939 it one of the best of the year. By all normal 00:02:55.939 --> 00:02:57.919 industry logic, her career should have just taken 00:02:57.919 --> 00:03:00.139 off like a rocket. But it didn't. And this is 00:03:00.139 --> 00:03:02.580 fascinating. She talks about this lost decade. 00:03:02.969 --> 00:03:05.889 Ten years. From the mid -90s onward, she just 00:03:05.889 --> 00:03:08.189 couldn't get another feature funded. Ten years. 00:03:08.330 --> 00:03:10.930 After that kind of debut praise, it wasn't like 00:03:10.930 --> 00:03:12.770 she took a break. The industry basically shut 00:03:12.770 --> 00:03:15.370 her out. And she's been pretty direct about why 00:03:15.370 --> 00:03:17.389 she thinks that happened. Heartbreakingly direct. 00:03:17.930 --> 00:03:20.509 She said point blank that she felt being a woman 00:03:20.509 --> 00:03:22.409 trying to raise money for these kinds of quiet, 00:03:22.530 --> 00:03:24.969 character -driven films was a major barrier. 00:03:25.189 --> 00:03:27.169 The money people just didn't see the commercial 00:03:27.169 --> 00:03:29.530 potential, especially with a woman at the helm 00:03:29.530 --> 00:03:33.039 of that kind of project. Wow. So after all that 00:03:33.039 --> 00:03:35.800 initial success, 10 years of doors slamming shut, 00:03:36.000 --> 00:03:39.080 what did she do? Just give up? Not a chance. 00:03:39.139 --> 00:03:40.939 This is where you really see her independence 00:03:40.939 --> 00:03:43.560 kicking in. She basically adopted this attitude 00:03:43.560 --> 00:03:45.680 of, you know, fine, if you won't fund my features, 00:03:45.780 --> 00:03:47.919 I'll just make Super 8 shorts, like a fuck you 00:03:47.919 --> 00:03:50.939 to the system, as she put it. Ah, love that. 00:03:51.080 --> 00:03:53.439 So she kept working, just on a much smaller scale. 00:03:53.599 --> 00:03:57.620 Exactly. She made shorts like Ode in 99, then 00:03:57.620 --> 00:04:00.400 a year in 2001. It wasn't just about staying 00:04:00.400 --> 00:04:02.919 busy. It was about honing her style under extreme 00:04:02.919 --> 00:04:05.939 limitations, learning to do more with less. And 00:04:05.939 --> 00:04:09.280 one of those shorts, Travis, from 2004, seemed 00:04:09.280 --> 00:04:12.180 significant. It tackled the Iraq war. Yeah, quite 00:04:12.180 --> 00:04:14.539 directly for her. It was maybe the first really 00:04:14.539 --> 00:04:16.980 clear sign that her minimalist approach could 00:04:16.980 --> 00:04:19.980 carry serious political weight. So even in that 00:04:19.980 --> 00:04:23.300 so -called lost decade, she was developing her 00:04:23.300 --> 00:04:26.079 voice. Absolutely. Critics picked up on it, too, 00:04:26.120 --> 00:04:29.610 saying Travis and Sus. Then a year showed her 00:04:29.610 --> 00:04:31.769 unease with the Bush administration, the war. 00:04:31.949 --> 00:04:34.930 It wasn't lost time at all. It was incubation. 00:04:35.069 --> 00:04:37.670 She was doubling down on low -budget realism, 00:04:38.009 --> 00:04:40.569 embedding critique within character. So when 00:04:40.569 --> 00:04:42.970 she did get back to features, her vision was 00:04:42.970 --> 00:04:46.490 rock solid, unshapeable. And the turning point, 00:04:46.610 --> 00:04:48.850 the thing that finally broke that decade -long 00:04:48.850 --> 00:04:51.569 drought? Yeah. It came about almost randomly. 00:04:51.750 --> 00:04:54.639 It involved Todd Haynes. Yeah, her close friend, 00:04:54.819 --> 00:04:56.600 the director Todd Haynes, she drove him from 00:04:56.600 --> 00:04:58.879 the Seattle Film Festival down to Portland. And 00:04:58.879 --> 00:05:00.839 that trip was pivotal. Because that's where she 00:05:00.839 --> 00:05:02.740 met writer John Raymond and producer Neil Kopp. 00:05:02.899 --> 00:05:05.079 Exactly. And Raymond especially became this huge 00:05:05.079 --> 00:05:06.899 influence. He's the reason so many of her iconic 00:05:06.899 --> 00:05:09.360 films are set in the Pacific Northwest. He gave 00:05:09.360 --> 00:05:11.939 her these incredibly specific human stories rooted 00:05:11.939 --> 00:05:14.180 in that region. Stories that just fit perfectly 00:05:14.180 --> 00:05:16.740 with what she wanted to do. OK, so that connection 00:05:16.740 --> 00:05:18.839 really kickstarts everything again, which leads 00:05:18.839 --> 00:05:21.550 us nicely into part two. The Ascent, the period 00:05:21.550 --> 00:05:24.569 from 2006 onwards really defined by Oregon, Montana, 00:05:24.829 --> 00:05:28.009 and John Raymond. And that partnership bore fruit 00:05:28.009 --> 00:05:31.410 almost immediately with Old Joy in 2006, based 00:05:31.410 --> 00:05:33.490 on one of Raymond's short stories from his collection, 00:05:33.629 --> 00:05:36.370 Livability. And the plot is pure Reichardt, isn't 00:05:36.370 --> 00:05:38.550 it? Yeah. Two buddies, maybe drifted apart a 00:05:38.550 --> 00:05:40.990 bit. One feels kind of hemmed in by family life. 00:05:41.329 --> 00:05:44.889 They go camping. That's it. Pretty much. A weekend 00:05:44.889 --> 00:05:47.410 trip to the Cascades, Bagby Hot Springs near 00:05:47.410 --> 00:05:51.290 Portland. All the drama is internal, unspoken, 00:05:51.290 --> 00:05:53.910 quiet tension. But it wasn't quiet critically. 00:05:54.069 --> 00:05:55.470 It put her right back on the map internationally. 00:05:55.829 --> 00:05:58.709 Big time. Old Joy won the Tiger Award at the 00:05:58.709 --> 00:06:00.970 Rotterdam Film Festival, which was huge. It was 00:06:00.970 --> 00:06:02.629 the first American film ever to win that award. 00:06:03.250 --> 00:06:06.329 Suddenly, this small, quiet film about two guys 00:06:06.329 --> 00:06:08.290 in the woods was getting major arthouse attention 00:06:08.290 --> 00:06:10.970 worldwide. The momentum was back. Yeah. And she 00:06:10.970 --> 00:06:13.170 built on it straight away. Wendy and Lucy in 00:06:13.170 --> 00:06:16.610 2008, also adapted from a Raymond story in Livability. 00:06:16.730 --> 00:06:18.769 Yeah. And Wendy and Lucy really amps up those 00:06:18.769 --> 00:06:21.589 themes of loneliness, financial insecurity. It's 00:06:21.589 --> 00:06:23.649 just gut wrenching. This woman, Wendy, her car 00:06:23.649 --> 00:06:26.250 breaks down. She loses her dog, Lucy, her only 00:06:26.250 --> 00:06:29.589 companion. She has basically nothing. It's about 00:06:29.589 --> 00:06:32.389 desperation on the margins. And that film really 00:06:32.389 --> 00:06:34.089 brought Michelle Williams into the spotlight 00:06:34.089 --> 00:06:36.410 too, right? There was serious Oscar buzz for 00:06:36.410 --> 00:06:38.589 her performance. Definitely. And that kicked 00:06:38.589 --> 00:06:41.110 off this amazing collaboration between Reichardt 00:06:41.110 --> 00:06:43.470 and Williams. Reichardt talks about how much 00:06:43.470 --> 00:06:45.949 she values Williams' confidence, her curiosity. 00:06:46.629 --> 00:06:50.730 She sees her as a real partner in exploring the 00:06:50.730 --> 00:06:52.970 material. That partnership is so central to her 00:06:52.970 --> 00:06:55.680 work now. But Riker didn't just stick to one 00:06:55.680 --> 00:06:57.959 kind of story after that. She started playing 00:06:57.959 --> 00:07:00.199 with genre, still often with Williams. Absolutely. 00:07:00.300 --> 00:07:03.839 In 2010, she makes Meek's Cutoff, a Western. 00:07:04.060 --> 00:07:07.259 Which sounds unlikely. A minimalist, slow cinema 00:07:07.259 --> 00:07:09.959 Western. The genre is usually about epic landscapes, 00:07:10.259 --> 00:07:12.680 gunfights, clear heroes and villains. Right, 00:07:12.779 --> 00:07:15.139 but she flips it completely. Meek's cutoff is 00:07:15.139 --> 00:07:18.220 about getting lost. It's 1845, pioneers on the 00:07:18.220 --> 00:07:21.439 Oregon Trail, completely stranded. It's claustrophobic, 00:07:21.560 --> 00:07:24.639 tense, almost silent sometimes, no score, just 00:07:24.639 --> 00:07:27.180 the wind, the creaking wagons, the fear. So the 00:07:27.180 --> 00:07:29.019 focus is on the mundane struggle of survival, 00:07:29.240 --> 00:07:32.420 stitching clothes, finding water, the anxiety. 00:07:32.839 --> 00:07:35.600 Exactly, the existential dread, not the heroic 00:07:35.600 --> 00:07:38.860 action. It's anti -spectacle. And again, critics 00:07:38.860 --> 00:07:41.139 recognized its power. It competed for the golden 00:07:41.139 --> 00:07:43.910 lion at Venice. And she kept pushing. Next up 00:07:43.910 --> 00:07:47.449 was Night Moves in 2013. A thriller. A thriller, 00:07:47.610 --> 00:07:50.069 yeah. Also written with Raymond. About environmental 00:07:50.069 --> 00:07:53.029 activists planning to blow up a dam. So a definite 00:07:53.029 --> 00:07:59.110 shift in tone. More overt tension. a faster pulse 00:07:59.110 --> 00:08:01.189 than some of her earlier work. And Night Moves 00:08:01.189 --> 00:08:03.050 was different technically too, wasn't it? Huge 00:08:03.050 --> 00:08:04.769 difference. It was the first time she shot digitally. 00:08:05.009 --> 00:08:08.670 She'd always preferred film, 16mm, 35mm for that 00:08:08.670 --> 00:08:11.430 texture, that grain. That is a big shift for 00:08:11.430 --> 00:08:13.129 someone so committed to a certain aesthetic. 00:08:13.829 --> 00:08:16.509 Why digital for that one? Well, the thinking 00:08:16.509 --> 00:08:19.290 seems to be it fit the story. Lots of secrecy, 00:08:19.310 --> 00:08:22.129 nighttime scenes. Digital often handles low light 00:08:22.129 --> 00:08:24.569 better, capturing people moving in the shadows. 00:08:24.750 --> 00:08:27.149 So it was a practical choice to serve the thriller 00:08:27.149 --> 00:08:29.110 aspect, even while she maintained that careful 00:08:29.110 --> 00:08:32.330 framing and pacing, adapting the tools, but not 00:08:32.330 --> 00:08:35.049 the core vision. And through all this, the recognition 00:08:35.049 --> 00:08:38.700 kept coming. Guggenheim Fellowship in 2009, USA 00:08:38.700 --> 00:08:41.840 Fellowship in 2011. She was really cementing 00:08:41.840 --> 00:08:44.019 her place. And we should mention, she often edits 00:08:44.019 --> 00:08:46.259 her own films, too. Which is crucial. If slow 00:08:46.259 --> 00:08:48.679 cinema is about pacing, then editing is pacing. 00:08:48.940 --> 00:08:51.320 By cutting her own films, she maintains absolute 00:08:51.320 --> 00:08:53.539 control over that rhythm. No one else can come 00:08:53.539 --> 00:08:55.080 in and say, let's speed this up a bit for the 00:08:55.080 --> 00:08:58.419 audience. The pauses, the long takes, they stay 00:08:58.419 --> 00:09:01.179 exactly as she intends them. Makes sense. Then 00:09:01.179 --> 00:09:04.679 came Certain Women in 2016. Based on stories 00:09:04.679 --> 00:09:07.600 by Mail Molloy this time and a shift in location, 00:09:07.799 --> 00:09:09.919 too. Yep. Moved east to Montana for this one 00:09:09.919 --> 00:09:12.860 and assembled this incredible cast. Williams 00:09:12.860 --> 00:09:15.600 again, Laura Dern, Lily Gladstone, Kristen Stewart. 00:09:15.679 --> 00:09:17.700 It's structured differently, too. Three interconnected 00:09:17.700 --> 00:09:20.120 stories about women's lives in this vast landscape. 00:09:20.320 --> 00:09:22.889 And that one also did really well. Critically, 00:09:22.929 --> 00:09:24.750 internationally. Won Best Film at the London 00:09:24.750 --> 00:09:26.769 Film Festival. So yeah, by 2016, she'd spent 00:09:26.769 --> 00:09:29.049 a solid decade proving that her quiet, detailed, 00:09:29.250 --> 00:09:31.889 uncompromising approach could consistently deliver 00:09:31.889 --> 00:09:34.970 powerful cinema that resonated globally. She 00:09:34.970 --> 00:09:37.690 was firmly established as this master of depicting 00:09:37.690 --> 00:09:40.590 the interior American experience. Okay, that 00:09:40.590 --> 00:09:43.289 string of successes is the perfect lead -in to 00:09:43.289 --> 00:09:46.169 part three. Let's really dig into the style itself. 00:09:46.690 --> 00:09:49.610 Minimalism, realism, and what might be her defining 00:09:49.610 --> 00:09:53.269 trait? Ambiguity. Right. This is about her cinematic 00:09:53.269 --> 00:09:55.710 language. People always say minimalist, realist. 00:09:55.889 --> 00:09:58.230 But the critic A .O. Scott came up with a really 00:09:58.230 --> 00:10:02.289 useful term, neo -neo -realism. Neo -neo -realism. 00:10:02.289 --> 00:10:04.590 OK, unpack that. What's the connection to classic 00:10:04.590 --> 00:10:08.230 Italian new realism? Films like Rome Open City. 00:10:08.669 --> 00:10:11.210 So Italian neorealism came right after World 00:10:11.210 --> 00:10:13.190 War II. It was about showing the struggles of 00:10:13.190 --> 00:10:15.950 ordinary people in devastated cities, using real 00:10:15.950 --> 00:10:18.929 locations, often non -actors, focusing on economic 00:10:18.929 --> 00:10:21.750 hardship, moral gray areas, rejecting Hollywood 00:10:21.750 --> 00:10:24.190 glamour. Reichert takes that same spirit, that 00:10:24.190 --> 00:10:26.070 commitment to showing hardship without making 00:10:26.070 --> 00:10:28.230 it pretty. And applies it to contemporary America. 00:10:28.509 --> 00:10:30.909 Exactly. But instead of post -war rubble, she's 00:10:30.909 --> 00:10:32.889 looking at the wreckage of, say, the industrial 00:10:32.889 --> 00:10:35.889 economy, precarious work, run -down towns, the 00:10:35.889 --> 00:10:38.850 struggle to get by on the margins. and existential 00:10:38.850 --> 00:10:41.429 fragility, filmed with that same kind of unvarnished 00:10:41.429 --> 00:10:43.950 realism. The landscapes shift from Rome to rural 00:10:43.950 --> 00:10:46.669 Oregon or Montana, but the core impulse is similar. 00:10:46.870 --> 00:10:49.850 And that aesthetic fits hand in glove with this 00:10:49.850 --> 00:10:53.370 idea of slow cinema. Perfectly. Matthew Flanagan's 00:10:53.370 --> 00:10:56.350 concept of slow cinema really describes her work. 00:10:56.869 --> 00:10:59.350 Long takes, very minimal dialogue, minimalist 00:10:59.350 --> 00:11:02.809 action. The drama isn't in big events. It's in 00:11:02.809 --> 00:11:05.289 the waiting, the looking, the quiet moments. 00:11:05.549 --> 00:11:07.389 It definitely asks something different from the 00:11:07.389 --> 00:11:09.090 audience, doesn't it? You can't just sit back 00:11:09.090 --> 00:11:10.970 and let the plot wash over you. No, you have 00:11:10.970 --> 00:11:13.750 to engage. You have to watch closely. The slow 00:11:13.750 --> 00:11:16.870 pace gives you time to think, to observe, to 00:11:16.870 --> 00:11:20.110 feel the weight of the moment. Reichert herself 00:11:20.110 --> 00:11:22.649 talks about mainstream movie previews feeling 00:11:22.649 --> 00:11:24.809 like an assault, all the fast cuts and noise. 00:11:25.070 --> 00:11:27.950 Her films are intentionally the opposite, an 00:11:27.950 --> 00:11:30.649 antidote. She calls them just glimpses of people 00:11:30.649 --> 00:11:32.690 passing through, not the whole story. Right. 00:11:32.769 --> 00:11:34.909 She refuses to impose these neat beginnings, 00:11:35.250 --> 00:11:38.429 middles, and especially ends, which leads directly 00:11:38.429 --> 00:11:41.309 to that core idea, ambiguity, the rejection of 00:11:41.309 --> 00:11:43.730 easy answers. Her films famously do not so much 00:11:43.730 --> 00:11:46.029 resolve as dissolve. Why is that so important 00:11:46.029 --> 00:11:48.629 to her? Well, she said she's suspicious of absolutes. 00:11:49.049 --> 00:11:51.009 The traditional Hollywood the end where everything 00:11:51.009 --> 00:11:54.029 is tied up in a bow. She finds that absurd for 00:11:54.029 --> 00:11:56.710 the kind of short glimpses she offers. It's not 00:11:56.710 --> 00:11:58.669 realistic. We only see these characters for a 00:11:58.669 --> 00:12:00.490 brief time. How could we possibly know their 00:12:00.490 --> 00:12:02.750 ultimate fate? Providing that kind of closure 00:12:02.750 --> 00:12:05.850 feels false to her. So the ambiguity is a form 00:12:05.850 --> 00:12:08.230 of realism in itself. Precisely. And it puts 00:12:08.230 --> 00:12:10.409 the weight back on us, the viewers. Like that 00:12:10.409 --> 00:12:12.730 critic said, we're forced to write their third 00:12:12.730 --> 00:12:15.009 acts in our heads. We have to sit with the uncertainty. 00:12:15.610 --> 00:12:18.090 Think about those characters left hanging. Kurt, 00:12:18.250 --> 00:12:21.029 in old joy, just wandering the streets. Does 00:12:21.029 --> 00:12:23.529 he figure things out? We don't know. Wendy and 00:12:23.529 --> 00:12:26.870 Lucy, still searching for her dog, still broke, 00:12:27.110 --> 00:12:30.070 still heading for Alaska. What happens to her? 00:12:30.269 --> 00:12:33.509 Or the pioneers in Meek's Cutoff. Lost. Depending 00:12:33.509 --> 00:12:35.750 on a guide they can't trust. Caught between potential 00:12:35.750 --> 00:12:37.809 salvation and total disaster, we never find out 00:12:37.809 --> 00:12:40.980 which. That lack of resolution forces you, the 00:12:40.980 --> 00:12:43.740 viewer, to actively participate, to think critically 00:12:43.740 --> 00:12:46.600 about the situations, the systems, the lack of 00:12:46.600 --> 00:12:49.159 safety nets. It reflects the reality that for 00:12:49.159 --> 00:12:51.539 many people, especially on the margins, life 00:12:51.539 --> 00:12:54.539 doesn't have neat endings. And that ties straight 00:12:54.539 --> 00:12:56.879 into the themes we need to unpack in part four. 00:12:57.980 --> 00:13:01.179 Marginality, politics, and her nuanced approach 00:13:01.179 --> 00:13:05.159 to feminism. The character she chooses. They're 00:13:05.159 --> 00:13:07.919 always vulnerable. Consistently, her focus is 00:13:07.919 --> 00:13:10.799 on people who don't have a net. One wrong step, 00:13:10.919 --> 00:13:13.440 one bit of bad luck, and their whole world could 00:13:13.440 --> 00:13:15.580 just fall apart. She's not making films about 00:13:15.580 --> 00:13:17.500 people climbing the ladder of the American dream. 00:13:17.700 --> 00:13:19.299 She's making films about the people the ladder 00:13:19.299 --> 00:13:21.450 seems to have forgotten. Or maybe it was never 00:13:21.450 --> 00:13:24.289 even there for them. Exactly. That's why IndieWire 00:13:24.289 --> 00:13:26.490 called her one of the country's best chroniclers 00:13:26.490 --> 00:13:28.769 of the American experience, because she shows 00:13:28.769 --> 00:13:31.090 the parts the commercial industry ignores. The 00:13:31.090 --> 00:13:33.850 precarious jobs, the rural poverty, the housing 00:13:33.850 --> 00:13:36.250 insecurity. And these characters often seem caught 00:13:36.250 --> 00:13:38.210 in this bind, right? Between the myth of America 00:13:38.210 --> 00:13:41.149 opportunity, the frontier, and their own limited 00:13:41.149 --> 00:13:44.029 reality. Yeah, trapped between a mythology of 00:13:44.029 --> 00:13:46.990 greatness and the personal limitations that govern 00:13:46.990 --> 00:13:50.090 their drab realities. They're reaching for something 00:13:50.090 --> 00:13:52.490 better, but they're tethered to the economic 00:13:52.490 --> 00:13:55.750 edge. And she uses these individual stories to 00:13:55.750 --> 00:13:58.990 make larger political points, often allegorically. 00:13:59.210 --> 00:14:01.389 Meek's cutoff is maybe the clearest example. 00:14:01.769 --> 00:14:03.909 It really is. And here we need to be clear. We're 00:14:03.909 --> 00:14:05.909 reporting what Reichardt herself has stated. 00:14:06.110 --> 00:14:08.870 She explicitly confirmed that the character of 00:14:08.870 --> 00:14:11.049 Stephen Meek, the boastful, incompetent guide, 00:14:11.289 --> 00:14:14.269 was intended to echo President George W. Bush. 00:14:14.529 --> 00:14:17.169 OK, so the parallel she was drawing. She described 00:14:17.169 --> 00:14:19.809 it as a story about a bragger leading a bunch 00:14:19.809 --> 00:14:22.049 of people into the desert without a plan, becoming 00:14:22.049 --> 00:14:24.629 totally reliant on local people he doesn't understand 00:14:24.629 --> 00:14:27.929 and actively mistrusts. For her, this directly 00:14:27.929 --> 00:14:30.970 mirrored the situation with the Iraq war, a confident. 00:14:31.049 --> 00:14:33.149 leader taking the country into unknown territory 00:14:33.149 --> 00:14:35.429 dependent on local dynamics full of suspicion 00:14:35.429 --> 00:14:38.509 it's a historical allegory with a very sharp 00:14:38.509 --> 00:14:41.210 contemporary edge that's powerful and the political 00:14:41.210 --> 00:14:43.149 undercurrents are there in other films too even 00:14:43.149 --> 00:14:45.590 if more subtly like wendy and lucy Absolutely. 00:14:45.809 --> 00:14:48.330 Coming out right before the 2008 crash, it tapped 00:14:48.330 --> 00:14:52.009 into deep economic anxiety. And some read Wendy's 00:14:52.009 --> 00:14:54.409 specific vulnerability as reflecting how women 00:14:54.409 --> 00:14:56.730 were perhaps bearing the brunt of the economic 00:14:56.730 --> 00:14:58.950 fallout from the war years, slipping through 00:14:58.950 --> 00:15:01.529 the cracks faster. And then Night Moves isn't 00:15:01.529 --> 00:15:03.830 allegory at all, is it? It's overtly political. 00:15:04.110 --> 00:15:06.529 Right. The protagonists are political actors, 00:15:06.830 --> 00:15:09.269 radical environmentalists. And setting it in 00:15:09.269 --> 00:15:12.210 Oregon is deliberate. The state has this long, 00:15:12.210 --> 00:15:14.720 intense history of environmental conflict. conflict, 00:15:14.720 --> 00:15:18.039 timber wars, the spotted owl controversy. She's 00:15:18.039 --> 00:15:20.559 grounding the radicalism in a real place with 00:15:20.559 --> 00:15:23.519 real history. So how do these political themes 00:15:23.519 --> 00:15:25.940 and focus on marginalized characters connect 00:15:25.940 --> 00:15:29.220 with feminist ideas, especially since she apparently 00:15:29.220 --> 00:15:31.639 pushes back against the label feminist filmmaker? 00:15:31.860 --> 00:15:33.679 Yeah, she seems wary of labels, maybe feeling 00:15:33.679 --> 00:15:36.519 they're too prescriptive. But her work is undeniably 00:15:36.519 --> 00:15:38.899 packed with feminist ideas, both in content and 00:15:38.899 --> 00:15:41.580 form. Content wise, it's pretty obvious. Most 00:15:41.580 --> 00:15:44.039 of her films center on female characters. Yeah. 00:15:44.100 --> 00:15:46.740 Or like in certain women, the structure ensures 00:15:46.740 --> 00:15:49.450 female perspectives dominate. but it goes deeper 00:15:49.450 --> 00:15:51.889 than just putting women on screen it's how she 00:15:51.889 --> 00:15:54.070 does it how she plays with genre for instance 00:15:54.070 --> 00:15:57.570 look at old joy a film about two men but she 00:15:57.570 --> 00:15:59.649 explores their friendship through vulnerability 00:15:59.649 --> 00:16:03.370 sensitivity qualities mainstream hollywood often 00:16:03.370 --> 00:16:06.490 codes as feminine and avoids in male characters 00:16:06.490 --> 00:16:09.690 subverting expectations of masculinity exactly 00:16:09.690 --> 00:16:12.309 and night moves with its focus on environmental 00:16:12.309 --> 00:16:15.269 protection and strong female activists aligns 00:16:15.269 --> 00:16:17.629 with eco -feminist thinking valuing the earth 00:16:17.960 --> 00:16:20.679 challenging, destructive industrial forces. And 00:16:20.679 --> 00:16:22.960 just her whole way of working small budgets, 00:16:23.179 --> 00:16:26.379 location shooting, realism, you could argue that's 00:16:26.379 --> 00:16:28.840 a feminist act in itself, right? Rejecting the 00:16:28.840 --> 00:16:30.960 male -dominated commercial system. Completely. 00:16:31.039 --> 00:16:33.500 It's a resistance through practice. And her camera 00:16:33.500 --> 00:16:36.240 work reinforces that. She absolutely refuses 00:16:36.240 --> 00:16:38.399 to objectify her characters, male or female. 00:16:38.480 --> 00:16:41.080 The framing is careful, respectful. There's none 00:16:41.080 --> 00:16:43.139 of that typical cinematic gaze. And she does 00:16:43.139 --> 00:16:45.700 that thing. Yeah. Lingering on details after 00:16:45.700 --> 00:16:48.649 the characters leave the shot. Yes. That's so 00:16:48.649 --> 00:16:51.509 key. She'll hold on a landscape, a room, a discarded 00:16:51.509 --> 00:16:54.210 object. It forces you to think about the context, 00:16:54.350 --> 00:16:56.970 the environment, the labor involved, the residue 00:16:56.970 --> 00:16:59.169 of their presence, rather than just focusing 00:16:59.169 --> 00:17:01.190 on the character's emotional state or physical 00:17:01.190 --> 00:17:03.850 appearance. It challenges what we expect to see, 00:17:03.929 --> 00:17:05.869 what we value in the frame. It slows you down 00:17:05.869 --> 00:17:07.430 again, makes you consider the whole picture. 00:17:07.549 --> 00:17:09.630 And even using segmented narratives, like in 00:17:09.630 --> 00:17:12.329 River of Grass or Certain Women, breaks from 00:17:12.329 --> 00:17:15.109 that traditional, linear, often male -driven 00:17:15.109 --> 00:17:18.029 plot structure. It allows for multiple viewpoints, 00:17:18.150 --> 00:17:20.710 a more fragmented, perhaps more truthful reflection 00:17:20.710 --> 00:17:24.109 of reality. Her style is her politics in many 00:17:24.109 --> 00:17:27.630 ways. Okay, so this unwavering vision, this unique 00:17:27.630 --> 00:17:31.690 style, it hasn't faded. Which brings us to part 00:17:31.690 --> 00:17:33.849 five, recent acclaim in what she's been doing 00:17:33.849 --> 00:17:35.950 lately. No, if anything, the critical momentum 00:17:35.950 --> 00:17:38.250 has just kept building. After Serving Women in 00:17:38.250 --> 00:17:40.529 Montana, she came back to Oregon for First Cow 00:17:40.529 --> 00:17:43.730 in 2019, another John Raymond adaptation, this 00:17:43.730 --> 00:17:46.009 time from his novel The Half -Life. And First 00:17:46.009 --> 00:17:49.680 Cow. That was huge critically, wasn't it? Phenomenal. 00:17:49.680 --> 00:17:51.920 Just about unanimous praise. Critics put it up 00:17:51.920 --> 00:17:54.480 there with River of Grass as peak Reichardt. 00:17:54.559 --> 00:17:58.119 It's this beautiful, quiet story about friendship, 00:17:58.220 --> 00:18:01.859 survival, and the very beginnings of capitalism 00:18:01.859 --> 00:18:04.480 on the American frontier centered around stealing 00:18:04.480 --> 00:18:07.079 milk from the first cow in the territory. Classic 00:18:07.079 --> 00:18:09.700 Reichardt themes. Small scale, big implications. 00:18:09.900 --> 00:18:12.720 Totally. But the release. Oh, the timing was 00:18:12.720 --> 00:18:14.920 just brutal. It came out in March 2020. Right 00:18:14.920 --> 00:18:18.140 when everything shut down. Exactly. A24 was distributing, 00:18:18.259 --> 00:18:20.880 but the pandemic hit almost immediately. The 00:18:20.880 --> 00:18:23.319 theatrical run was basically canceled, forced 00:18:23.319 --> 00:18:26.579 onto VOD very quickly. So massive critical acclaim. 00:18:26.660 --> 00:18:29.240 But its chance in the marketplace was just wiped 00:18:29.240 --> 00:18:31.720 out by circumstance. Kind of a perfect, if tragic, 00:18:31.880 --> 00:18:34.240 metaphor for her character's lives, really. Wow. 00:18:34.740 --> 00:18:36.680 But she kept working through that period. She 00:18:36.680 --> 00:18:39.900 did. Her next film, Showing Up, came out in 2022. 00:18:40.200 --> 00:18:42.720 Back in Portland, Michelle Williams playing a 00:18:42.720 --> 00:18:45.160 sculptor preparing for a show. And this one hit 00:18:45.160 --> 00:18:47.579 a major milestone for her. Which was? It was 00:18:47.579 --> 00:18:49.660 selected for the main competition at the Cannes 00:18:49.660 --> 00:18:51.900 Film Festival. Her first time competing for the 00:18:51.900 --> 00:18:55.220 Palme d 'Or. That's huge. The absolute peak of 00:18:55.220 --> 00:18:58.440 international film prestige. For a director who 00:18:58.440 --> 00:19:01.420 makes such deliberately small uncommercial films. 00:19:01.599 --> 00:19:04.079 It's an incredible validation, proof that artistic 00:19:04.079 --> 00:19:06.599 integrity, that singular vision, can eventually 00:19:06.599 --> 00:19:08.759 reach the very highest levels of recognition, 00:19:09.079 --> 00:19:11.380 completely independent of box office. And she 00:19:11.380 --> 00:19:14.140 didn't stop there. Her latest, The Mastermind, 00:19:14.279 --> 00:19:17.180 premiered just this year, 2025, also in competition 00:19:17.180 --> 00:19:19.819 at Cannes. That's right. Starring Josh O 'Connor. 00:19:19.900 --> 00:19:22.819 So back to back Palme d 'Or nominations. Her 00:19:22.819 --> 00:19:25.500 critical standing just keeps rising. It's undeniable 00:19:25.500 --> 00:19:28.059 now. Every film gets good reviews and ones like 00:19:28.059 --> 00:19:30.880 River of Grass and First Cow are seen as pretty 00:19:30.880 --> 00:19:32.799 much masterpieces. But we always have to circle 00:19:32.799 --> 00:19:34.819 back to that commercial reality. All this critical 00:19:34.819 --> 00:19:37.759 love. Yeah. It doesn't translate to big box office 00:19:37.759 --> 00:19:40.720 numbers. Never has. Certain Women is still her 00:19:40.720 --> 00:19:42.920 highest grossing film, and it barely cleared 00:19:42.920 --> 00:19:45.559 a million dollars, which just highlights, again, 00:19:45.619 --> 00:19:48.259 her absolute dedication to her own path. She 00:19:48.259 --> 00:19:49.940 makes the films she needs to make the way she 00:19:49.940 --> 00:19:51.880 needs to make them, and the traditional market 00:19:51.880 --> 00:19:55.420 success is just not the goal. It can't be. So 00:19:55.420 --> 00:19:58.440 wrapping this up. Our deep dive really shows 00:19:58.440 --> 00:20:00.640 how Kelly Reichardt has carved out this unique, 00:20:00.799 --> 00:20:03.859 vital space in American film. It's through that 00:20:03.859 --> 00:20:07.119 commitment to slow cinema, that unflinching look 00:20:07.119 --> 00:20:09.839 at the working class bludgeons, and a style that's 00:20:09.839 --> 00:20:12.680 both politically aware and formally inventive. 00:20:13.019 --> 00:20:15.839 She really is the quiet chronicler of a side 00:20:15.839 --> 00:20:18.579 of America we rarely see on screen. Yeah. And 00:20:18.579 --> 00:20:20.700 as we finish, think about that recurring element. 00:20:21.240 --> 00:20:23.599 The lack of closure, how she deliberately leaves 00:20:23.599 --> 00:20:25.400 you hanging, thinking about these characters, 00:20:25.579 --> 00:20:28.160 wondering about their futures, long after the 00:20:28.160 --> 00:20:30.140 film ends. So here's a final thought to chew 00:20:30.140 --> 00:20:33.640 on. By denying us that easy, satisfying ending 00:20:33.640 --> 00:20:35.599 that Hollywood usually provides that comforting 00:20:35.599 --> 00:20:37.940 lie, maybe is Reichardt doing something more 00:20:37.940 --> 00:20:39.859 profound? Is she training us, perhaps, to be 00:20:39.859 --> 00:20:41.740 more patient, more observant, more critically 00:20:41.740 --> 00:20:44.559 engaged with the complexities of real life, where 00:20:44.559 --> 00:20:48.109 struggles rarely just... And neatly. What does 00:20:48.109 --> 00:20:51.089 that patience for cinema demands ask of you? 00:20:51.109 --> 00:20:52.789 And what reward might you find in that patience 00:20:52.789 --> 00:20:54.690 in terms of understanding the American experience, 00:20:54.910 --> 00:20:56.869 especially for those living without that safety 00:20:56.869 --> 00:20:59.089 net? Something to consider. Definitely something 00:20:59.089 --> 00:21:02.230 to consider. Thanks for diving deep with us today. 00:21:02.289 --> 00:21:03.230 We'll catch you on the next one.