Welcome to Defending the Indefensible Week, where we attempt to vindicate some of pop culture’s crappiest moments through the magic of harebrained internet theories. Such as …
The Indiana Jonesfranchise has its share of terrible moments, from the time Indy passed up the opportunity to kill Hitler to Temple Of Doom‘s suggestion that Indian food is mostly insects and severed heads. But most fans would agree that the dumbest moment in the history of Indy’s adventures was the infamous “nuke the fridge” scene in Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, in which Dr. Jones stumbles into a nuclear test site …
… hops inside a refrigerator …
… and gets blown across the desert sky like he’s starring in a particularly artsy Maytag ad …
… only to roll out and walk it off like it was all just a shoddy carnival ride.
LucasfilmWhich doubles as a meta explanation of the production of this movie.
There are so many problems here. Sure, the fridge is lead-lined or whatever, but even if you accept that (you shouldn’t), it doesn’t account for the senior citizen bouncing around like a rag doll inside a metal coffin. Wouldn’t he break his neck, at the very least? Fans of the series accepted face-melting Old Testament lasers, but they couldn’t swallow Indy surviving this scene.
But what if this scene does make sense, but only because it’s Indiana Jones? One redditor has a theory asserting just that. Indy is no average guy, after all. He’s battled the Nazis, freed a city of enslaved children, and, uh, battled the Nazis again (it’s hard to think of a third thing). But most importantly, Indiana Jones keeps having brushes with God, who in this universe is a verifiably real guy. Indy survives the Ark of the Covenant’s actual magic attack. He discovers the literal Holy Grail, and then drinks from it.
Lucasfilm“This is just water, right? I noticed a lack of bathrooms here …”
In The Last Crusade, we learn that drinking from the cup grants immortality, but only if you decide to spend the rest of your life in a dank cave full of fake grails. Apparently, JC was all about the irksome loopholes. Indy bails on relocating to the world’s filthiest Crate and Barrel, so he isn’t immortal. But isn’t it possible that there was at least some effect on his physiology? Like, maybe downing an entire cup of holy water imbued Indiana Jones with some degree of healing ability …
That would mean the fridge scene wasn’t just terrible; it was a clue that Indiana Jones has become something more than human as a result of his constant encounters with the supernatural. After all, it was George Lucas who originally proposed that Last Crusade focus on the search for the Holy Grail, even when Steven Spielberg didn’t like the idea because it had been “defined by” Monty Python. And as we’ve mentioned before, Spielberg also resisted the fridge-nuking scene. They only wound up including it because Lucas absolutely insisted on it. If it wasn’t telling us that Indy was a little magical himself, then why make such a big deal over a scene that doesn’t actually add anything to the film?
Aside from being bad at making movies, of course.
This could also explain something in The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, which originally had bookend scenes featuring an elderly Indiana Jones mainly yelling at teenagers.
Lucasfilm“You belong in a museum!” “Where’s my whip?”
The show revealed that Indy was born in 1899, but the present-day scenes were shot and apparently took place in 1992. But apart from the eye patch and an unbridled hatred of anyone under 30, Old Indy sure didn’t seem 93. In fact, the actor who played him, George Hall, would was only 76 at the time … almost the same age Harrison Ford is now. So why does Indiana Jones look almost 20 years younger than he should? It could be that his youthful sheen is all the result of his actions in The Last Crusade. Expect to see Gwyneth Paltrow’s “Grail-Water Enema” on shelves this fall.
I grew up watching sex comedies because my parents were the sorts of people who felt their preteen should get to know why the shitty dean of a college was ruining everyone’s horny time. Fast-forward a few years, and I noticed that all modern movie deans seem to hate boners too. Basically, sex comedies haven’t really changed a lot in the past 30 years, and that is definitely for the worse. These films desperately need to evolve past their standard material, which is at best old and at worst vengefully inappropriate in real life.
Peeping As A Wacky Prank
In a curious break from reality, spying on someone who is naked in a movie is nearly always presented as hilarious good fun. If your landlord was watching you shower, you’d probably be upset. But if the gang from American Pie is watching two women get undressed, it’s a goddamn party. Let’s see how those crazy kids mess this up!
The “spying on women getting naked” trope is about as old as nudity. It was such a big part of the movie Porky’s way back in 1981 (right after the Civil War) that they used an eye peeping through a hole as part of the poster art. If you need a reminder, that specific thing is also a big part of the movie Psycho. A good rule of thumb when it comes to interactions with women: Don’t do anything that a serial killer who dresses like his mother would do.
Yet this same gag happens in literally three different American Pie movies, and maybe more, since I don’t even think the company behind the American Pie movies knows how many exist at this point. You can also find it in The Girl Next Door, Hall Pass, I Love You Beth Cooper, and countless direct-to-video releases intended to make teenage boys laugh while jerking off. And it’s so bizarre, because in any of those, just changing the score to horror movie tension music would turn the scene into nightmare fuel.
And every time, the woman’s body is just a prop — the point of the joke is the peepers’ hilarious bumbling. The comedic tension comes from the threat of them being caught. In one of the American Pies, Jim sets up his camera so his friends can watch him debauch the unsuspecting foreign exchange student, but the dullard accidentally emails the links to the whole school and Blink-182 (plus a monkey). What a silly goof! His small crime turned into a much larger crime because of his ineptitude, and an unsuspecting woman has now been embarrassed in front of thousands of her peers. Where’s that “wah wah” horn when you need it?
Other “Sexy” Pranks
The sex prank is a lot of good-natured joking, if you consider things that are blatantly illegal and even more blatantly gross good-natured. How would you feel right now if someone broke into your house to steal your underwear, then jammed their dick through a hole next to you while you showered, then waited until you were at a school dance and ripped your clothes off while other half-naked people chased you? Fun, huh? The sex prank basically asks what would humiliate someone most, and then adds a penis to it. And comedy has loved it for years.
Hell, if you grew up on ’80s comedies, you were probably convinced that half of all sex was sexy pranks. The panty raid in Revenge Of The Nerds, the dick in the wall from Porky’s, the “Scott Baio uses his creepy powers to strip everyone naked and instigate a bizarre mass sexual assault party” from Zapped. Twenty years later, we had Van Wilder filling pastry with dog semen and feeding it to unsuspecting frat guys. And in American Reunion, Stifler proclaims himself a Vagina Shark before diving below the water and groping a random group of teenage girls.
On some level, we like the idea of sexual grossness in a comedic context. Hell, that’s how half of the articles I write work. Sex is still a very taboo topic for the most part, so when we see outrageous sexuality in some way, it gets a big reaction. But if you step outside the slapstick universe and into the real one, that whole dog jizz thing is horrifying. That’s shit that would put you in therapy for years, not to mention putting the person who perpetrated the prank in prison for the crime of, in legal terms, “being an absolute fuckin’ creep.”
But most of the time, these things are done by the protagonists. We in the audience are rooting for the prank, because the victims, uh, deserve a sex crime because they’re jerks? That kind of seems like a bad lesson to send.
A Lady Is A Prize
About 30 years ago, John Hughes went balls to the wall with the teen genre and made Weird Science, a movie about two teenage boys who literally create their own magical sex slave with the omnipotent power of ’80s computers. Flip to 2018, and while no one has actually produced a lady from scratch on film recently (aside from the odd robot), women are still more or less the objects of mystical boner quests for male protagonists. And rarely does anyone give a handful of happy horseshit if she’s interested, cares, or even has a name.
Now, before anyone gets their ball bag in a knot, remember: This is me. I’m the guy who introduced a generation to the Baby Jesus Buttplug. I’m not opposed to any number of debaucheries. But I’m just feeling like maybe comedy needs to evolve past the time of making a woman with a computer that had a 64 kb hard drive.
The general point behind films like Superbad, most of the American Pie series, Wedding Crashers, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, and so many others is that pursuit of women. Booty is the Mount Doom into which the male protagonist wants to throw the One Wiener. But Mount Doom wasn’t particularly important to the plot, and neither are the women in most sex comedies. Superbad and 40-Year-Old Virgin flesh the ladies out verrrrrry slightly, but that almost feels like kind of a nod from the filmmakers, acknowledging that they’ve done a disservice to the female characters. But it doesn’t make up for actually creating complicated female characters. Like James Franco wearing a “Me Too” pin, there’s a step that’s been missed in the chain of understanding.
Obviously, not every film follows this template. There are female-led comedies like Rough Night and Bad Moms, which sort of reverse the template, but they’re not the norm. The norm is a movie like Van Wilder, wherein the Taj character doesn’t even want a particular woman in the end. He just wants a woman. Not even a woman, really, but a happy-go-lucky vagina, and he says as much. Sex comedies don’t all need ten-minute scenes in which the male characters stand in a circle and say their favorite things about women. But they do need female characters who are more than just penis houses for the dudes to move into at the end.
Female Sex Fiends
You’ll see the female sex fiend, the monstrously horny woman that will tear apart the film in a Godzilla-like rage until she gets that dick, in a lot of comedies — Get Him To The Greek, Wedding Crashers, 40-Year-Old Virgin, American Pie. (AGAIN. Is this series going to hit every one of these bases?) If the writers are nervous that the protagonist is too much of a pig, they throw in a lady sex fiend to balance them out. Remember when Michelle in American Pie spouts her famous “flute in the pussy” line? That’s a primo example. “Oh my God, this unassuming girl is actually even more of a sex freak than our hero! Ladies are pervs too! Karma worked out in the end!” But did it?
The lady sex freak is often a very weird character. Jim doesn’t even want Michelle in American Pie; he settles on her when he can’t get the girl he does want, and then suddenly she’s putting musical instruments in his butt. But he never considered her at first, and it was only after he found out she was as much of a deviant as him that he was into it. Isla Fisher in Wedding Crashers is much the same way — Vince Vaughn plans on using her, then she gets weird and clingy and sexually aggressive. Of course, they end up together, because her open sexuality totally balances out the fact that he makes a living pathologically lying to any women in a ten-foot radius.
The female sex fiend serves as a kind of karmic sexual retribution for the man, working on the “two wrongs make a right” principle. In Get Him To The Greek, Carla Gallo’s character is in the film for all of five minutes, just long enough to literally jam something up Jonah Hill’s ass. This is akin to how Michelle sticks a trumpet up Jim’s ass in American Pie or how Jennifer Aniston works Jason Bateman’s ass in Horrible Bosses 2. You can really zing a dude by putting things up his ass, apparently.
It’s clearly a method of having a character get what’s coming to them. After being callous or some kind of manwhore, they get their comeuppance. But they don’t learn anything, really, or change in any positive manner. It just makes you feel better about them being the “hero” of the movie, because it keeps them humble in an anally violating sort of way.
I would argue that the only reason any of us today know the word MILF is because of, let me check here, American Pie. (I guess this whole list could have been just that franchise.) It’s been a million other places since then, from coffee cups to T-shirts, and is a sprawling genre of porn. So good for Stifler and his mom, as they changed the cultural landscape, or at least the boner landscape.
Far be it from me to deny anyone’s urges to F someone’s MIL, as the world is up to its nuts in lovely mothers. But the trope in movies has always been kind of creepy, due to the weird, unspoken double standard. Consider how often an older leading man is paired with a younger leading woman — Tom Cruise was 22 years older than his Mummy co-star, 20 years older than his Jack Reacher co-star, and 21 years older than his Edge Of Tomorrow co-star. Basically, Cruise needs two decades on a woman for them to work together, and it’s never even a plot point. Nobody considers it freaky. There’s a reason there’s no Cruise genre of porn. I mean, I don’t think there is.
So right away, when a woman is significantly older than the man/boy, it’s a big deal in a movie. And you can see this trope all over the place, from Behaving Badly, in which Elizabeth Shue plays a mom who sleeps with a teen boy, to a movie that’s actually called MILF, about a group of guys who have crappy luck with girls their own age, to Adam Sandler’s That’s My Boy, where the entire comedic setup for this movie is how hilarious statutory rape is.
And at the heart of all of it is that a “MILF” is either supposed to be shocking (“She’s sexy … but also 40!”) or a straight fetish. Look at the acronym, for God’s sake. They want to fuck a mom, not a woman who happens to also be a mom. And that’s really shitty, isn’t it? You’re making someone a Fleshlight of a certain age. Don’t get me wrong, they can still fill their movies with sexually active middle-aged women. But maybe stop pretending that idea is automatically hilarious instead of just, you know, a real thing that exists.
This piece was written by the people who run the Cracked Store to tell you about products that are being sold there.
Knowing how to code used to be relegated to smart computer engineer types in sci-fi movies, and that was pretty much it. And even they didn’t seem to be that cool, considering how often the buff action hero had to yell “SPEAK ENGLISH, DAMMIT” or “COULD I GET THAT AGAIN, BUT IN NOT NERD?” at them.
It’s In Demand
It Makes Games
It’s A Good Side Hustle
It Does Incredible Things
It Gives You Power
There’s no point in working hard if you can’t play even harder. So party on, Bane. Get your kicks out early so you can bid the rest of the nightwalkers good night as you settle in for the best darn sleep of your life. You earned it; you had a big day.
Spending is in addition to $31,000 dining set for Ben Carsons office, even asproposed budget cuts would affect poor and homeless Americans
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud) has agreed to spend $165,000 on lounge furniture for its Washington headquarters, in addition to a $31,000 dining set purchased for housing secretary Ben Carsons office.
The revelations on Tuesday of Carsons expensive decor spending come as Donald Trumps administration has proposed a cut of $6.8bn to Huds annual budget, or roughly 14% of its total spending, which would lead to reductions in programs aimed at poor and homeless Americans.
Department officials signed a contract last September with an Indiana-based seller for the furniture, according to a federal procurement record.
Raffi Williams, a spokesman for Hud, said in an email on Tuesday evening that further records on the lounge furniture contract were not immediately available.
Earlier on Tuesday it emerged that the department had agreed to spend $31,000 on a dining table and accompanying items for Carsons offices. Last week, Williams falsely denied to the Guardian that such a table had been bought.
Helen Foster said she was told $5,000 will not even buy a decent chair after informing her bosses that this was the legal price limit for improvements to Carsons suite of offices. Her complaint was filed to the office of special counsel (OSC).
Williams made false statements to the Guardian in emails last Friday while an article on Fosters claims was being prepared.
When it comes to the secretarys office, the only money HUD spent was $3,200 to put up new blinds in his office and the deputy secretarys office, Williams said in an email, declaring this information to be on background without prior agreement.
Asked to confirm, as the Guardian had been told by a source, that a new dining-room-style table was also purchased, Williams replied: Yeah, thats inaccurate. After news of Fosters complaint was followed by US media, Williams confirmed on Tuesday that $31,000 was in fact spent on a new dining set for Carsons offices.
A separate federal procurement record states that Hud agreed last December to pay $31,561 to Sebree & Associates, a Baltimore-based furniture seller. The contract is described as being for secretarys furniture.
Williams, 29, is a former spokesman for the Republican National Committee, where he served as a deputy to Sean Spicer, Trumps former White House press secretary. Williams is the son of the Fox News presenter Juan Williams.
When asked on Tuesday to explain his misleading statement, Williams falsely stated that he had been asked only about spending on improvements to Carsons office from what he called the decorating budget.
Thats what you were asking about, was the decorating budget, and no table was bought with the decorating budget, said Williams. He then claimed he had actually been unaware a table had even been bought. I walked over there and there was no new table there, so I did not know, he said. I did not find out until much later.
Williams then said that he had another phone call coming in and terminated the interview.
Sesame Street has been a beloved institution of educational children’s programming for decades, but a controversial segment on yesterday’s episode may have tainted its reputation for a long time coming. The episode showed Big Bird picking up one of Sesame Street’s child actors, dunking him in a bucket, and then using him as a sponge to wash his filthy boat, which begs the question, did the show go too far?
Yep, parents are going to have a lot of strong feelings about this one.
The scene that’s causing all the uproar showed Big Bird picking up a 4-year-old boy and forcefully dunking him into a bucket of steaming, sudsy water, then using the boy to scrub a thick layer of algae and grime off of his entire boat. The 12-minute scene included numerous close-ups of the boy’s bloodshot eyeballs, and featured a giant muppet singing a song in a brooding baritone voice with lyrics such as, “This is the only way to truly clean a boat,” and, “Every boy is a sponge,” for the entire duration.
Uh, is this really the kind of thing we want our children to be seeing? Unhappy parents are already voicing their concern on twitter, with many claiming the scene has given their children nightmares and made them afraid of buckets:
But not all parents see the scene as being problematic.
Which side of the fence are you on? Do you think it’s okay for kids’ programming to show children being used to wash boats, or does that go too far for you? This controversy is surely going to inspire some interesting debates on censorship, parenting, and what kinds of things we need to protect our kids from seeing. For now, all we can do is wait for Sesame Street to respond!
The long read: Decades worth of research proves that chemicals used to make bacon do cause cancer. So how did the meat industry convince us it was safe?
There was a little cafe I used to go to that did the best bacon sandwiches. They came in a soft and pillowy white bap. The bacon, thick-cut from a local butcher, was midway between crispy and chewy. Ketchup and HP sauce were served in miniature jars with the sandwich, so you could dab on the exact amount you liked. That was all there was to it: just bread and bacon and sauce. Eating one of these sandwiches, as I did every few weeks, with a cup of strong coffee, felt like an uncomplicated pleasure.
And then, all of a sudden, the bacon sandwich stopped being quite so comforting. For a few weeks in October 2015, half the people I knew were talking about the news that eating bacon was now a proven cause of cancer. You couldnt miss the story: it was splashed large in every newspaper and all over the web. As one journalist wrote in Wired, Perhaps no two words together are more likely to set the internet aflame than BACON and CANCER. The BBC website announced, matter-of-factly, that Processed meats do cause cancer, while the Sun went with Banger out of Order and Killer in the Kitchen.
The source of the story was an announcement from the World Health Organization that processed meats were now classified as a group 1 carcinogen, meaning scientists were certain that there was sufficient evidence that they caused cancer, particularly colon cancer. The warning applied not just to British bacon but to Italian salami, Spanish chorizo, German bratwurst and myriad other foods.
Health scares are ten-a-penny, but this one was very hard to ignore. The WHO announcement came on advice from 22 cancer experts from 10 countries, who reviewed more than 400 studies on processed meat covering epidemiological data from hundreds of thousands of people. It was now possible to say that eat less processed meat, much like eat more vegetables, had become one of the very few absolutely incontrovertible pieces of evidence-based diet advice not simply another high-profile nutrition fad. As every news report highlighted, processed meat was now in a group of 120 proven carcinogens, alongside alcohol, asbestos and tobacco leading to a great many headlines blaring that bacon was as deadly as smoking.
The WHO advised that consuming 50g of processed meat a day equivalent to just a couple of rashers of bacon or one hotdog would raise the risk of getting bowel cancer by 18% over a lifetime. (Eating larger amounts raises your risk more.) Learning that your own risk of cancer has increased from something like 5% to something like 6% may not be frightening enough to put you off bacon sandwiches for ever. But learning that consumption of processed meat causes an additional 34,000 worldwide cancer deaths a year is much more chilling. According to Cancer Research UK, if no one ate processed or red meat in Britain, there would be 8,800 fewer cases of cancer. (That is four times the number of people killed annually on Britains roads.)
The news felt especially shocking because both ham and bacon are quintessentially British foods. Nearly a quarter of the adult population in Britain eats a ham sandwich for lunch on any given day, according to data from 2012 gathered by researchers Luke Yates and Alan Warde. To many consumers, bacon is not just a food; it is a repository of childhood memories, a totem of home. Surveys indicate that the smell of frying bacon is one of our favourite scents in the UK, along with cut grass and fresh bread. To be told that bacon had given millions of people cancer was a bit like finding out your granny had been secretly sprinkling arsenic on your morning toast.
Vegetarians might point out that the bacon sandwich should never have been seen as comforting. It is certainly no comfort for the pigs, most of whom are kept in squalid, cramped conditions. But for the rest of us, it was alarming to be told that these beloved foods might be contributing to thousands of needless human deaths. In the weeks following news of the WHO report, sales of bacon and sausages fell dramatically. British supermarkets reported a 3m drop in sales in just a fortnight. (It was very detrimental, said Kirsty Adams, the product developer for meat at Marks and Spencer.)
But just when it looked as if this may be #Bacongeddon (one of many agonised bacon-related hashtags trending in October 2015), a second wave of stories flooded in. Their message was: panic over. For one thing, the analogy between bacon and smoking was misleading. Smoking tobacco and eating processed meat are both dangerous, but not on the same scale. To put it in context, around 86% of lung cancers are linked to smoking, whereas it seems that just 21% of bowel cancers can be attributed to eating processed or red meat. A few weeks after publishing the report, the WHO issued a clarification insisting it was not telling consumers to stop eating processed meat.
Meanwhile, the meat industry was busily insisting that there was nothing to see here. The North American Meat Institute, an industry lobby group, called the report dramatic and alarmist overreach. A whole tranche of articles insisted in a commonsense tone that it would be premature and foolish to ditch our meaty fry-ups just because of a little cancer scare.
Nearly three years on, it feels like business as usual for processed meats. Many of us seem to have got over our initial sense of alarm. Sales of bacon in the UK are buoyant, having risen 5% in the two years up to mid-2016. When I interviewed a product developer for Sainsburys supermarket last year, she said that one of the quickest ways to get British consumers to try a new product now was to add chorizo to it.
And yet the evidence linking bacon to cancer is stronger than ever. In January, a new large-scale study using data from 262,195 British women suggested that consuming just 9g of bacon a day less than a rasher could significantly raise the risk of developing breast cancer later in life. The studys lead author, Jill Pell from the Institute of Health and Wellbeing at Glasgow University, told me that while it can be counterproductive to push for total abstinence, the scientific evidence suggests it would be misleading for health authorities to set any safe dose for processed meat other than zero.
The real scandal of bacon, however, is that it didnt have to be anything like so damaging to our health. The part of the story we havent been told including by the WHO is that there were always other ways to manufacture these products that would make them significantly less carcinogenic. The fact that this is so little known is tribute to the power of the meat industry, which has for the past 40 years been engaged in a campaign of cover-ups and misdirection to rival the dirty tricks of Big Tobacco.
How do you choose a pack of bacon in a shop, assuming you are a meat eater? First, you opt for either the crispy fat of streaky or the leanness of back. Then you decide between smoked or unsmoked each version has its passionate defenders (I am of the unsmoked persuasion). Maybe you seek out a packet made from free-range or organic meat, or maybe your budget is squeezed and you search for any bacon on special offer. Either way, before you put the pack in your basket, you have one last look, to check if the meat is pink enough.
Since we eat with our eyes, the main way we judge the quality of cured meats is pinkness. Yet it is this very colour that we should be suspicious of, as the French journalist Guillaume Coudray explains in a book published in France last year called Cochonneries, a word that means both piggeries and rubbish or junk food. The subtitle is How Charcuterie Became a Poison. Cochonneries reads like a crime novel, in which the processed meat industry is the perpetrator and ordinary consumers are the victims.
The pinkness of bacon or cooked ham, or salami is a sign that it has been treated with chemicals, more specifically with nitrates and nitrites. It is the use of these chemicals that is widely believed to be the reason why processed meat is much more carcinogenic than unprocessed meat. Coudray argues that we should speak not of processed meat but nitro-meat.
Okay, if you became obsessed with the movie Call Me By Your Name and its two stars like we have, this bit of behind-the-scenes trivia is going to absolutely blow your mind: Before they worked together on the movie, Timothée Chalamet and Armie Hammer both lived in fear of the same witch!
Looks like Hollywood is a small world after all!
While they’d never met prior to filming Call Me By Your Name, Chalamet and Hammer immediately bonded over their personal connection to Gruvborda, the ageless hag who’d been haunting their every waking moment since their first days in the movie business, perhaps even since they were born. At their first rehearsal, the two actors, though having grown up on opposite coasts, realized they had both gone about their day-to-day existences consumed by the perpetual terror that Gruvborda would cast an irreversible hex that covered their face in boils or trapped their father’s soul inside a rusty pocket watch with its time set to run backwards. What a wild coincidence, and one that might just explain the undeniable chemistry those two shared on camera!
In fact, along with spending their childhood nights placing chicken bones and burnt wormwood around their homes to ward off Gruvborda, Chalamet and Hammer also chummed it up on set over how they’d both made the mistake of not turning away when Gruvborda lifted her eye patch and showed them how their own deaths would play out in the foggy, bottomless socket where her eye was supposed to be. Truly, the stars aligned for Call Me By Your Name’s casting department to nab two actors who both just happened to have mothers who fell into catatonic states after Gruvborda fed their voodoo dolls to a pig to independently punish the young actors for hubris.
Welp, we’re swooning all over again. Could these two get any more perfect?!
This is the icing on the cake for how special Call Me By Your Name is. The fact that the same witch ate Timothée Chalamet’s and Armie Hammer’s infant brothers is giving cinephiles like us an entirely new appreciation for the film. Just another reason we’re rooting for this movie to take home the big prize at this year’s Oscars! Good luck, Timothée and Armie!