In the first episode of our Summer Reading with UEN LitFlix, Matt and special co-host Jenn Gibbs are joined by film expert Julie Gale with the Utah Film Center. Listen to learn more about the connections between film and literature and Julie's tips for educators looking to teach film as literature.
In the first episode of our Summer Reading with UEN LitFlix, Matt and special co-host Jenn Gibbs are joined by film expert Julie Gale with the Utah Film Center. Listen to learn more about the connections between film and literature and Julie's tips for educators looking to teach film as literature.
Explore classic films and related booklists with UEN LitFlix: https://www.uen.org/litflix/
Utah Film Center: https://www.utahfilmcenter.org/
Utah Film Center Upcoming Events: https://www.utahfilmcenter.org/upcoming-events
Teacher Professional Development: https://www.utahfilmcenter.org/education/teacher-professional-development/
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Hello, UEN Homeroom listeners. I am your regular UEN Homeroom co-host, Matthew winters. Before you ask, don't worry you. UEN Homeroom is on summer hiatus, and Danny and I will be back in September with coverage of the local, state, and national issues facing education.
UEN launched new program this year called UEN Litflix, which examines the connections between film and literature. I have long been in love with the connection between the silver screen and the written word, so when they asked me to jump into a podcast, I leapt the idea. This summer, we have a limited series of podcast episodes called Summer Reading with UEN Litflix.
Jen Gibbs, UEN's Operation Manager and fellow literature and film expert, joins us my co-host as we meet with film experts, librarians, authors, historians, and researchers to discuss the intersections between literature and film and a lot in between. Welcome, listeners, to Summer Reading with UEN Litflix.
Jen, first of all, I'm so excited, as a literature nerd and a film nerd, that we're doing this series this summer about the intersections between film and literature and how the Utah community is addressing those and working with those as programming throughout all these different venues. But today's guest is one of my favorite people I've ever heard talk about film as literature, and she has such a deep knowledge about those two subjects.
I'm really excited to talk to her too. The intersection between literature and between films, they share so many features, and yet what you do in these different art forms, what they make possible, is also different, right? So I'm just really intrigued to hear what a film scholar has to say about the technical side of it and the storytelling side of it.
Absolutely, and today's guest is exactly that, a film scholar with deep roots in film but also helps out in the community through the Utah Film Center. We have Julie Gale, who helps with many projects, which we'll hear about at the end of the podcast, at the Utah Film Center, including film screenings, teacher programs, and the Tumbleweeds Film Festival that happens every May, which is just a fantastic program. I'm super excited to talk to her. Should we jump into it, Jen?
Perfect. Let's go.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
I am so excited about our guest today. We have a wonderful director from Utah Film Center. Julie Gale is going to talk to us a little bit about film and all the amazing things that go on with it in the state of Utah, but also how we can connect it to literature and some of the things that are going on in schools and libraries.
The first thing that we want to talk about, Julie, is I often hear-- I mean, I hear this all the time when I was in the classroom, oh, the book's better than the film, or this movie is so much better than the book and back and forth. What are some reasons why directors and writers choose to change the books they film, and in your opinion, are there films that are better than the book that you've seen before, either classic films or maybe newer films?
Oh, wow. Well, first of all, thanks so much for having Utah Film Center on to talk about this. And particularly me, this is something that I geek out on all the time when I think about books and films. I'm a very big bookworm. I've always been since I was little, and I also, obviously, am a huge film buff. So these are really great topics to chat about.
You know, I've heard that too, and I think we can all probably attest to a time where we have read a book, we've been very, very passionate about it, and we go see the movie, and it's a huge disappointment. And what I've often observed as the reason why that occurs is because as you're reading a book, you're almost envisioning what the book is like in your mind. You're looking at how the characters beh-- you're already envisioning what the characters look like, what settings look like, what worlds look like if you're dealing with a fantastical novel.
And then when the film comes into play, I think where I've seen the biggest disappointments is that either, A, it's very different from how you envisioned it in your mind, or B, you feel like they've left out some really key details or scenes that you really enjoyed. So I think obviously why us screenwriters and directors have to change the film is because the medium is different. The way that you're unpacking the story in terms of length of time and those expectations, those are quite different.
So for example in a book, you can really take your time with some of that. You can take your time describing characters. You can take your time introducing the world and all of the minute details in that world. And you can also take your time in terms of how the audience, which is the reader, actually receives that information.
However, in film we tend to see that the traditional three-act structure of introduce the characters, the world, introduce the problem, reach its most climactic point, and then resolve itself. That needs to happen in a structure, traditionally, that's much shorter. I mean, most of our films are on average 90 minutes long. So obviously you cannot put all of the details that are rich and can take their time in a novel in a film, because the medium of how that story is told is much, much different, much more compressed.
And so I've experienced, when I've had that, like, oh, the book feels better than the film. It's been that. It's been that way. Now, the other question was what films are better than the book? Ooh. It hasn't happened to me often. I'm not even going to go into Harry Potter, because I don't want you all having like your Twitter blowing up.
But I do have one film that I did think was better than the book. It was the fifth one, but I think it's because just the fifth one for me when I read it, it was a real slog. I don't know if there was something going on for me at that time. But I felt like the film really condensed it and hit the essential elements and all of the action of that book really well. I know that there are going to be some major Harry Potter fans that will definitely disagree with that.
One that recently comes to memory for me is I've been reading a lot of young adult fiction, and I recently read Tuck Everlasting by Natalie Babbitt, which is a really well-known book. It's read a lot in schools. And I was like, I know that film came out, but I was in graduate school and it came out, so I didn't watch it. And it was on Disney Plus, so I watched it.
And actually, I enjoyed the film slightly better than the movie, and I think one of the reasons that I did is that the book is for young audiences, and the film I think tried to cater more to a general audience. So I think it unpacked the relationships and kind of that-- those subtleties of the young character Winnie, and her being kind of on the cusp of becoming a young woman, and then her developing very strong feelings for one of the characters that is Jessie, who is-- he's just right a little bit older than her. And I felt like they unpacked kind of the dynamics of the relationships a little bit more complex in the film, which I enjoyed a lot more because they had to keep it simple because it's a kids book.
Something that you said, Julie, just now about the differences in the medium and what they can get to, like in a book a narrator may unpack a lot more of that sort of interior space, but then in a film, they can show different things, like you were saying in Tuck Everlasting, kind of some nuances of relationships that are externally visible or whatever. Are there other examples of where you feel like some of that interior insight that is really thick in the book doesn't show up in the film, or there's something else that shows up in the film that's exciting?
Oh, that's a really interesting question, and you know, I think that's one that when I've read interviews or watched interviews of screenwriters talking about how they adapt a film, a book into a film, which is very, very common, I think that what I've seen the most happen, with the exception of one miniseries I watched where I was like, oh, that was an interesting device that they had to use, because it was so interior it was all like first-person inner dialogue, which I'll explain in a minute.
But I do think that one of the biggest mechanisms that I've seen happen is that the medium of film is showing rather than telling, right? That's like its big thing-- show rather than tell. And so I think that what I've noticed in some films is, and when I've heard screenwriters talk about that process, is that they said, how much can I show who these characters are and what they're thinking internally by what we focus on in the film as-- what is their gaze on?
So, for example, I'm trying to think of a film book adaptation. You know, like for example, of one that's really popular is The Devil Wears Prada. I'm sure nobody is reading that in schools right now, but there's a lot that goes on in the book that you see the character, the main character, Andy, observing and watching and noticing and kind of commenting on from what I recollect when I read the book.
But then what you see in the film, how that translates to the film, is that there will be a shot where she-- you see Andy, you see from her eyes, from her point of view, and then you see the reaction to what she just saw. And it helps communicate this is what she's thinking and feeling rather than you hearing maybe a voice narrating over the film going, oh, my gosh, what is happening in that particular scene?
However, I recently-- a couple of years ago I read Stephen King's 11/22/63, which is about the Kennedy assassination. It's all about time travel it's a really fun book if you enjoy history and all of that. And so it's about this guy that finds this portal into the past, and he has kind of been tasked with going to prevent the Kennedy assassination, because the characters in the book believe it's like a linchpin moment in American and world history that would change the course of American history if we could prevent it.
And what was really interesting is they adapted it into a television miniseries, and that book is 100% the voice of the main character. It's just him thinking, talking, reacting in his head. And what they had to do in the film is they-- I mean, in the miniseries, is they didn't have a lot of voiceover narration of the main character. They actually wrote an entire character into the miniseries that almost became this internal voice that the character had in the book, which I thought was absolutely fascinating.
And at first I went, no, you can't do that, because it was so good in the book. But then as I watched happen, I was like, oh, I see. This is a device they had to put in the story for some of those things that the character had just interior knowledge about the Kennedy assassination, that there was no other way that they would be able to describe that or show it without having a character there like actually giving that exposition of that information, if that makes sense. I hope that answered your question.
Oh, thank you. Like, that-- yes, you did, and so richly. At first, I was like, oh, I'm sorry to ask that level of detail, spring it on you, but--
No--
That's delightful.
I had to think a minute about it, but yeah, I think there's some fun-- I think that's the thing I enjoy so much when I do watch a book, I read a book and then I watch the film, is I actually really enjoy to see how they adapt it. I try to keep a very open mind, because I tend to get really passionate about the book usually when I read it because I'm such a bookworm.
But I also appreciate how the adaptation needs to happen from a telling you about to showing you about that happens in film. I find it really exciting actually to just watch, oh, I like how they did that to convey that in the film with the compression of time and the fact that they need to do a lot more showing than telling.
Something about classic films, old films in general, when you're bringing them to audiences that kind of aren't already like really excited about them can be how primitive the production values are compared with today, and then also outdated cultural norms might be depicted in ways that might make audiences initially reluctant to engage with those films. How do you recommend that viewers experience or appreciate those kinds of films, or how do you recommend that people who are hoping to share these kinds of movies contextualize those elements for their audiences?
I love that question, and it's one that when I was professor in college and taught film, and it was very much like a film appreciation to just give people that introductory understanding of just the mechanisms of what filmmaking is and the art of film. That was something that I thought about a lot and I and I grappled with a lot. And I know here at the Film Center, we've actually recently done screenings that have addressed some of these topics.
I think first and foremost is that when we show old movies, I think we have to contextualize for audiences, who maybe they've only seen movies in the last 10 to 20 years or so, the production value of films and the pace of films, especially in Western filmmaking has really accelerated, and we've also had a lot of reliance, obviously, on computer-generated imagery in CGI and special effects.
So one thing that, even though that's really kind of where the reality of a lot of our films are today, one thing that I always find to be really, really helpful with classical films is that if we think about the art of film, it's a baby compared to other forms of art. I mean, it's only-- what? About 100 or some odd years old?
And so I think that we're at a really interesting time that if we go back maybe to films that were during the silent era, for example, or some of even those early, early films of like George Melies who was doing Journey to the Moon, or the Great Train Robbery, for example, which are some of the first films that were ever made. I think what's really exciting about early film, and I think it-- that I think can be really helpful maybe if you're doing this in a classroom or an educational setting is that if by watching early film, we start to understand the language of what film actually is, but also we start to understand how film works as an art form.
And it's exciting to watch, because this is when people were also going, hey, we've got this thing we can point and shoot and capture something, but how do we make this a story? How do we make this an art form? And I think that's really where old film can be really, really helpful is that you can start to see how maybe where they were positioning the camera, which is cinematography when they first started thinking about that and considering that and how that actually helped tell the story.
And that can be really fun. I think it can also be really fun to look at, based on the tools and resources they had at the time, how did they still come up with really creative special effects, which a lot of it was around editing. You know, cutting it here, pasting here, and then creating something that looks like magic. And I think those can be really fun.
So I think a way that we can also enter into old film is looking at it from a genre perspective. We have all these different films like horror movies, and westerns, and romantic comedies, and we never stopped to question, where did these types of films come from? And I think seeing them in its origins and then seeing how they've evolved over time, that can be some really rich, fertile ground to have discussions with your classroom.
Now, the question you brought up, Jen, about contextualizing film, actually we recently did that with our Through the Lens series that we do with Doug Fabrizio and KUER. We actually did a screening of The Searchers, which classic, you know, John Wayne film. But if-- you know, and a lot of people reference that for the power of cinematography and that on-set location and Monument Valley in our state and how integral that is to the storytelling, like just the overall look and feel of the film.
However, the depictions of Native Americans in that film are very problematic. And so I think that rather than running away from those type of films with how-- maybe have outdated depictions of race or gender or understandings of-- that we now just accept in our world. I think let's lean into those, because I think those can actually have really great conversations on how we have evolved in our thinking maybe as a country, how we've evolved it in our thinking as human beings.
And I think it can be a real teaching moment to look back on that. I know I've watched classical films before with my children, and I have two daughters, and we've watched films where there's-- has these very outdated understanding of roles of women and roles of men, and my kids have even picked up on that. And we have a great conversation about that.
And I think that leaning into it is actually a good thing. It is to-- don't shy away from it when it's problematic, but really take that and go, what's happening? What was going on at the moment in time that this thinking was happening and then where are we today? And where does that evolution happen? I think film can be a really great doc-- it's a huge document of that, because a lot has changed in the hundred years that we've had film and told stories and how we've perceived different groups of individuals.
Yeah, the educator in me loves that. It's having those critical conversations and really thinking about where we've come from and where do we want to be as a collective.
Absolutely, and, Julie, as you were talking, I was thinking about when I used to teach film in my classroom, I wanted to hook students. And so I always used two scenes from silent film, the famous Buster Keaton water drop where he broke his neck.
Yes. Yeah.
Talking about how-- this was-- he did his own stunts. He was basically the Jackie Chan, which I don't know if that's a dated reference now, but probably. But he did his own stunts, and it caused all sorts of havoc for his career, and then on the flip side talking about montage and like cutting and editing, looking at the scene from-- I always forget the name of the film, but it's Charlie Chaplin and he runs into a tiger's cage. And the editing there and how we talk about different cuts and shots and things like that--
Yeah. Yeah.
That always hooked students so quickly. How would you say, if an educator decides to show a classic film in their classroom, what should they highlight to get students excited? Is it things that we can directly see, like those special effects or cuts? Or are there other things that might be deeper that we can connect-- make connections with writing or dramatic readings?
I love that you had-- you used Sherlock, Jr. in your film class. That's one film that I actually used all the time when I started, like, you know, let's start at the very beginning, class, with film, because I was looking at it kind of from a timeline perspective.
I think the first way to hook them in is definitely the art form of film, because I think that they-- because a lot of students right now actually do a little bit of amateur filmmaking, and they have to think about-- make artistic decisions on things that they're making. Even if it's something as simple as a TikTok, they're thinking, am I going to do a green screen so I have this effect or am I going to actually go stand in a field instead of green screening it in?
And so I think that the art form itself and how creative some of the early pioneers were, I think is something that is-- it be a great place to start, especially with special effects. Because I think of, for example, like you said with Sherlock, Jr. in where Buster Keaton did do his own stunts and some things, obviously, to the detriment of his career and his own physical health, he did those things.
But I think what's really fun is that there are a lot of moments in that just film, and it's only 45 minutes long so you can really unpack it in a film, there are so many magic tricks that he does, and there's about three or four different mechanisms that he uses for it. First, doing your own stunts on location, number one, and just how powerful that is. Number two, I think he also-- there's a time where he actually runs, you know, he's like on a bic-- front of a bicycle, and he has like-- he barely misses the train. Like, you see it clip across him. That actually-- he filmed that in front of that actually being projected on a screen, and so it almost was like primitive green screen. You know, and you can talk about that.
And then the fact that so much of the magic tricks that happen in that is literally turning off-- is down to editing, where he jumps through the window and all of a sudden he's dressed like a woman, and he hides and runs away, you know? And I think that those are things that-- you can start talking about these are the-- you can start looking at it from, like, these are the tools that you have in the art form to make the story that you want, the story you want to tell, and I think that's the first place to begin, and it's really exciting.
And I think that there is an assumption that, oh, the older films, they have nothing to teach us. But I think that those can be really fun. Going deeper, I think in terms of that idea of dramatic readings, I really think that's where the language arts core curriculum standards and film can intersect. I really think so, because one thing that's really interesting-- if you go back and if you look at the standards, like, just for elementary school, we start talking about some of the basic principles of film as early as first grade.
So some of our language arts core curriculum standards of, whose point of view is it? Is it being told, like, first-person versus third-person narrative? We're already planting those seeds early on in basic reading and language arts skills, and those are things that are choices made in film, that is it being told directly from a first-person perspective where you hear a lot of maybe voiceover narration or narration over action? Is it being more done by a third person that is observing the actions of all characters?
I think those are some places where depending on the grade level that you're teaching and where you are with those language arts standards, I think using film can be a way that you can go much deeper into the content of the film because regardless of whether it's a book, it's a play, or it's a movie, it all follows the same dramatic structure, that three-act structure of beginning, introduce conflict, act two, we get into the real heavy details of the tension rising and then it starts to get its most climactic point.
And then we have a three-act structure where everything kind of resolves and deflates. And that structure is, for Western literature, I mean, that was identified as early as the ancient Greeks with Aristotle, so that's been around for a minute. And it's so embedded into our consciousness in Western storytelling that I think that having a, for example, dramatic reading or looking at a film as a piece of literature is completely valid because the story, the storytelling mechanisms, follow the exact same structure, and the characterization follows the same structure. Just the way they go about it is showing you, as I've said before, more than you reading about it or reading stage directions, or reading between the lines in a play.
Actually, you've mentioned a number of really great examples of films and really touched on one of the final questions that we had, which is how can educators teach film as literature? Do you have any favorite great classic films that you think are a great way to introduce students to connecting with the literature aspect of the film, get them into the book?
Yeah. Oh gosh, let me see. I've reflected on this quite a bit, and the first one that just kept coming to mind for me, because it's such a rich story, and it has a lot of twists and turns at the end of it-- one example, could be a classic film, is pretty much any work of Alfred Hitchcock.
But I think one that I find really, really, really intrigues audiences is his film, Vertigo. And I think that if you look at it from the point of view of maybe literature, one thing that I think people really love is that movie, and it's one of my top five favorites, and I can't wait till my kids are slightly old enough to show it and we do mommy film school. They're going to be like, oh, can't we just watch it? Stop pausing it and telling me about things.
But, unfortunately, they have me as their mom, so they're just going to have to deal with that. Because I watch movies like a teacher, and I watch movies from that perspective. But one thing I think that people love about Vertigo is how satisfying it is on all those levels that also books are satisfying. If we think about why we fall in love with characters in books, it's because they have these rich, complex stories. They are people we care about. Like, we really care about them. We want them-- to see them succeed. We want to see them do well.
And I think that also that particular aspect can really translate well into Vertigo because we have these characters that we get really invested in. One, because, one character, because she's very, very mysterious, but also seems very human and you want to know more about them. And then Jimmy Stewart's character, which just has this-- he's so interesting and so wonderful and so pleasant, but then he gets into tangled into this really complex web of lies and intrigue, and it's very-- and you see him kind of almost losing his mind over it, and it's very human. It's a very human thing that happens to him.
And so I think that looking at that depth of characterization, I think that's one that can have a really good translation across, like, how we actually analyze characters when we're reading a piece of literature, whether it's dramatic literature or just a book, and then how we're looking at depth of character in how they're unpacked in that film. I think also, too, that because the film has such an intense plot twist at the end and has such an intense climax, I think that it's so-- I feel like it's like big, red blinking lights. You know what I mean?
Like, it's very obvious. Like, we're introducing characters now in the world and exposition and the problem. Like, I feel like it's so formulaic in that film, but also still it's a really good film. It's very satisfying that I think it can be a great film that can show that very clearly. You see the climax very, very clearly, and you see the resolution super, super clearly in the film. It's just so clear. And I think that because it's not a non-linear film, like some kind of Michel Gondry, like Charlie Kaufman kind of film, which are my favorite but are very hard.
I think because it follows that traditional structure so well, I think that it can be a great gateway into looking at just the structure of the film itself, how we develop characters, and how we use location and setting because San Francisco is so important to the film, and how that helps us understand the idea of like-- it can be a motif. It is a motif in the film of like-- the thing that causes vertigo is when you look down and you get almost like a height sickness from it.
And there's so much of that, and the fact that it couldn't be in any other city but San Francisco with its up and down hills, and its giant spire buildings and all of that. So I think that it just covers so many bases of how, in literature and in books, we look at how setting becomes a character and how the setting is very important to the world of the characters live in and then the rich complexity of characters, and then the events that they go through and that structure that it follows.
So I think that because also early film doesn't deviate from that a whole heck of a lot from-- then more, like, contemporary films that play with all that and throw it out the window and fiddle around with it. I think it can be really rich and fertile ground to show those films and to really treat them as a work of literature because they follow that structure almost to the t, and it can really help students solidify in their mind what those different elements are. So then they can actually see it and maybe also how it's deviated from in other films that maybe don't follow those rules.
I love what you're saying, and one of the films that, after hearing you talk about Vertigo, I would pair it with showing Slumdog Millionaire, because that has-- the way the plot comes together, they have the plot and the subplots are kind of like the Freytag's triangle, right? But overlap, but then the climactic moment brings together is a climax for all of the subplots, which so that-- that I just find that an interesting example of an elaboration on that theme, on that structure.
Absolutely, and I think that that's what's really fun with earlier films is that if you really treat them as a way to say, here's the rulebook of how we make a film, and then see how the rulebook either evolves if it's technical aspects of a film or artistic aspects of a film or just how we tell stories. Because we're in a really interesting time right now where there's-- I mean, there are so many different mechanisms on how we tell stories and how we use flashback and how we use flash forward.
I'm watching a TV series right now which is flashing forward and backward and in the present at the same time, and oh my goodness, is it really-- it's got-- it creates so much intrigue that I think that once you kind of know, like, here's the baseline structure, you can really have fun on seeing how it's manipulated and changed and altered with other works of film or how it follows it or doesn't follow it.
I love that, Julie, and it's obvious through your point of view and your discussion here that you have a deep investment in film. And I want to take just two minutes maybe, the Utah Film Center has a deep investment in Utah educators and the community, working with different groups. What are some of the programs that the Utah Film Center has that community members can become a part of, film screenings, events, and those sorts of things that are coming up?
One of the things that we do at the Film Center is we love to share great films that maybe you haven't seen on streaming or something. So really the first place that you would like to-- where you'd like to go to our website. We have monthly virtual screenings, and they have Q&A that kind of unpack exactly what we're all talking about right now but with the filmmakers and with people and thought leaders that are in those topics. So that's one great way to enter in.
We also have every third week of May the Tumbleweeds Film Festival, and that is a children's festival we've been doing for over 10 years. And we curate lots of films from around the world in addition to workshops and free activities that children as young as kindergarten all the way up to young teenagers can attend and have a great time and learn and experience film, not only as filmmaking but also film viewing.
We also have a big, robust series, it's going to be in Liberty Park in Salt Lake City this summer, that you can come and see some screenings. It'll be on Friday nights throughout the summer, and we're looking forward to screening some of those films that are all around local aspects of what's going on with our environment, as well as what's going on in the farming movement, because we're also kind of partnering with the Liberty Park-- we have the farmers market, and so it's a really exciting series full of really interesting conversations.
And yeah, so those are some ways that you can connect with Utah Film Center. And if you're a teacher, we have a very, very-- we have a very detailed website that gives you aspects of workshops that you can attend, professional development to bring filmmaking into your classroom, as well as a very, very comprehensive library of films from all the way-- audience of K through 12 that you can use to teach core curriculum standards in language arts, but then also in other core curriculum standards like science and history. And so we're really, really excited. And we can definitely give you any other information that you need about what we have available, but if you go to www.utahfilmcenter.org, we'd be more than happy to answer also any questions that your viewers have.
That's awesome. Thank you so much, Julie, for being a part of our podcast today, and we look forward to seeing more from the Utah Film Center in the future.
Absolutely. Thank you so much.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
So, personally, I just love that conversation with Julie, because, a, you can just feel in her conversation how much she loves film and examining film with students and from a technical standpoint, from a storytelling standpoint, but then also how she ingrains that into other people. It's not something that she just loves privately, it's something that she's really trying to get teachers and students and people of all ages to appreciate film and creating film in a new way.
You know, Matt, I hear what you're saying. I love her passion for the subject too and really it is that emotional connection that so often gets overlooked when we talk about appreciating or learning about how authors technically create a work of literature or how filmmakers technically create something, both in terms of the limits of the actual medium, the limits and the opportunities that the medium affords, but also in terms of the narrative development and the storytelling aspects. I think a lot of love for books has been killed over the years by people just analyzing them without connecting it into how that process of analysis can really just open up more love and more joy and more opportunity to engage.
Absolutely, and I'm really excited with the series to talk to all of these people who love film, love literature, and make this a celebration of those two mediums in a way that hopefully ignites everyone who listens to this podcast to go out and seek out some great experiences, whether it be a classic film like what we were talking about with Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin, or something more recent like what we talked about with Tuck Everlasting. I mean, that was a great one that she pulled out. And so hopefully we can see-- ignite some of that love for film in our Utah community. All right, we'll join you the next time. Thanks so much, Jen.
Thank you.
[MUSIC PLAYING]