Author-director Todd Field made two acclaimed movies within the early 2000s after which disappeared from the large display screen for 16 years. “Tár,” concerning the scandalous downfall of a classical music conductor, marks his return. The film burst forth in dramatic style: Its screenplay took him solely three months to put in writing.
On this episode of “The Envelope,” Field breaks down how a Górecki composition impressed the inner rhythm of lead character Lydia Tár and discusses what it was like collaborating with star Cate Blanchett, who “always wants to do things that are dangerous.” He additionally explains why he’s delighted by reactions to his movie — even these which might be ferociously dismissive. Hear now wherever you get your podcasts.
Mark Olsen: Hey, and welcome to a different episode of “The Envelope.” We’re contemporary into 2023, and our visitor is certain to assist us begin the brand new yr off proper. At the moment we’re speaking with author and director Todd Field, whose newest movie, “Tár,” has some actually strong Oscar and awards season buzz. It’s an exploration of an artist’s fall from grace.
Yvonne Villarreal: Yeah, the film stars Cate Blanchett as Lydia Tár, this famend musical conductor whose record of achievements is dizzying. We watch as Lydia’s profession falls aside when her use and abuse of energy involves mild.
Todd wrote and directed the movie after a 16-year absence from filmmaking. His final film was “Little Children,” which acquired three Oscar nominations, and critics say “Tár” is a triumphant return.
However the actually gorgeous a part of all of this, Mark, particularly as we face our personal story deadlines at present: He wrote “Tár” in three months. Three months! It’s fairly the profession turnaround for Todd, whose begin in Hollywood was as an actor.
Olsen: Yeah, it’s humorous: The type of well-known Quentin Tarantino monologue about “Top Gun” truly is delivered to Todd — like he’s the opposite particular person in that scene — which is especially form of humorous on this, the yr of “Top Gun’s” return. I feel to most individuals, although, Todd as an actor, you consider the piano-playing Nick Nightingale in Stanley Kubrick’s closing movie, “Eyes Wide Shut” — a bizarre, marvelous, provocative film. Which, come to consider it, isn’t a foul approach to describe “Tár.”
Villarreal: Sure, precisely. And I’ve to offer honorable point out to his position in “Twister,” which is a private favourite of mine and which we do focus on later within the dialog. However I’ve to say, you already know, he’s as considerate and intentional and coy as you may anticipate when discussing “Tár.”
So let’s get to the dialog.
Villarreal: Todd, thanks a lot for becoming a member of us at present.
Todd Field: Properly, thanks for having me.
Villarreal: So, Todd, that is the primary movie you’ve written and directed in 16 years, however you had been at all times busy. You spent a lot of these 16 years engaged on tasks that in the end didn’t make it to display screen. What was it about “Tár” that was completely different?
Field: Properly, uh, that someone mentioned sure, you already know. Merely as that, actually. However it was actually Peter Kujawski and Kiska Higgs at Focus principally saying, “Write whatever you like.” That was an enormous accountability to be paid that privilege and respect to put in writing no matter you needed. And you already know, I hadn’t written an authentic screenplay in years as a result of sometimes that form of factor is completed on spec and I’ve by no means had a four-month runway the place I didn’t have a whole lot of payments to pay. So most of my writing life is predicated on adaptation. So it was a really completely different alternative, and one which I really feel very, very fortunate to have had.
Villarreal: Yeah, ‘cause what is it like to get a call like that? I know for me as a writer to be told, “You have free rein, do what you want,” it could seem freeing, but I would also feel so much pressure, feel handicapped by that freedom. How is that for you?
Field: Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. I remember our eldest child, our daughter, when she went away to the New School in New York City and she had called me up at one point and said that she was thinking of doing something very practical with her life that involved numbers. I went on a sort of polemical, long speech trying to tell her that that was exactly what I wouldn’t pay for and that she needed to attempt to do extra artistic endeavors. I mentioned, “You can do whatever you want.” And he or she mentioned, “Do you understand what kind of pressure you’re putting on me? I don’t want that kind of freedom.”
Field: You realize, I felt a little bit of my daughter’s pangs by giving a type of related speech from Peter and Kiska. However, I’ve been very privileged to work with some unimaginable writers through the years and I’d loved that quite a bit, however I’ve additionally envied their solitude and their means to world construct from floor zero. That’s one thing if you’re adapting materials that you just solely have a type of obscure acquaintance with. In order that was extremely thrilling, and it was a really wealthy expertise.
Villarreal: The place did the thought for Lydia Tár come from? I do know it’s a personality that’s been percolating in your thoughts for some years. Was there part of the character that exposed itself to you first?
Field: Properly, she’s type of been waving at me for about 10 years. You realize, I feel this occurs for lots of writers, you already know, and generally these are characters wind up in fiction in the event you’re a fiction author. However in the event you’re not, there’s no place to accommodate them aside from a pocket book.
There was type of a obscure concept to put in writing one thing about classical music that concerned a conductor. That was type of it. Apart from that, the studio actually had no concept, nor did they inform me what they needed. So it was an ideal alternative to take this character and simply say, “All right, here we go. It’s time.”
[Clip from “Tár”: LYDIA TÁR: Please please please please. You must watch. It’s got to be like just one person singing their heart out.]
Villarreal: Why did you select the hyper-specific world of classical conducting?
Field: Properly, the hierarchy is sort of clear. The strains of energy are very comprehensible. For somebody standing on the entrance of that orchestra, it’s unimaginable. It’s the closest factor to being a god on Mount Olympus, you already know, throwing down thunderbolts at mere mortals. So, that, together with what could be concerned with any form of cultural, bureaucratic machine — you already know, the nods and winks and the choice making processes that contain different folks, and them benefiting from energy or not.
Villarreal: How did you determine to additionally take it to a different nation with one other language? That would appear like an added problem.
Field: There’s one thing about Berlin that’s not like wherever else on the Earth. Anybody that’s hung out in Berlin will inform you that you may’t flip left or proper with out seeing someone pulling a suitcase down the road. And people individuals are not vacationers. They’re those that stay there and commute to different cities and nations for enterprise for a cause: as a result of they like it there. So there’s a really explicit form of crossroads of many arts — high-quality and in any other case— and there was a convention for that for a very long time.
However for classical music, it’s the very omphalos, the whole lot’s type of seated, and it’s the hub. Every thing type of spokes out from Germany. In order that was the principle cause. You realize, it’s additionally this concept of, in the event you’re going to set one thing on this milieu and also you’re going to have this character be an American and also you’re going to have this character need to climb to the very heights, that’s German-Austro territory. That’s the place Leonard Bernstein went and had his type of final hurrah. There’s a cause for that. That’s the place that music comes from.
Villarreal: The factor that I did instantly after exiting the theater, along with type of sitting with my ideas, was needed to take heed to Mahler’s Symphony No. 5 on my manner residence. It performs such a central position within the movie. Why did you determine on Mahler?
Field: So, once more, in the event you’re taking a look at an American, that’s type of like setting their sights on a type of heroic determine for themselves — on this case, this character’s obsessive about Leonard Bernstein — Mahler could be pure. Every thing adjustments with Mahler, you already know? I wanted to get beneath that, and I wanted to know that.
I learn the e-book “For the Love of Music” by John Mauceri. and John, John had been Leonard Bernstein’s assistant for 15 years. John was allowed to conduct Leonard Bernstein’s personal compositions whereas Bernstein was alive. And he was the individual that I used to be privileged to talk to earlier than I began writing.
I had about three and a half weeks with John, and one of many first questions that John requested me was, “What’s your favorite piece of classical music?” And I mentioned, in a really type of apologist manner, mentioned, “Well, it’s Mahler’s Fifth.” And he mentioned, “Well, why are you being so sheepish about that?” And I mentioned, “Well, you know, everybody knows that.” And he mentioned, “Yeah, everyone knows it for a good reason, you know. No one that’s serious about concert music would ever be cynical about Mahler’s Fifth Symphony. It’s important, and here’s why.” And so he actually took me via that.
And naturally, he was completely proper. I imply the primary piece of conducting we see, the very first downbeat, is Bar 20 of the primary motion of the Fifth Symphony, and that in fact is the Trauermarsch, or the Funeral March. So there’s a whole lot of foreshadowing for this character. There’s this type of clarion name that she will be able to hear that’s coming from throughout an enormous panorama, that’s coming for her.
Villarreal: What did that imply for you by way of writing? Like, what had been you listening to whilst you had been creating this mission? Or are you somebody that should sit in silence whilst you’re working?
Field: I didn’t develop it. I imply I simply form of wrote it in 12 weeks and handed it in, they usually mentioned sure. So, very unusual scenario, very uncommon. However I used to be listening to a whole lot of music. I imply, one of many items I used to be listening to was a chunk of music I’d been listening to for 30 years since I used to be a, my first yr as a fellow on the American Movie Institute. That was this piece by Górecki, that the Kronos Quartet recorded that’s only a improbable piece of music. It has a form of propulsion to it that Hildur Guðnadóttir, our composer, she requested me the identical factor, “What were you listening to?” And so we sat down and listened to this. And he or she mentioned, “Well, that’s 120 beats per minute — bum bum bum bum — so that must be the internal rhythm of this character.” And I mentioned, “Yeah, you’re right. That’s exactly why I listened to it.” And he or she mentioned, “OK, well now, let’s go through the other characters now.” That was a very wealthy and great expertise to have the ability to work like that, you already know, from the within out.
Villarreal: Why do you suppose the writing got here collectively so rapidly? How does that examine to your different movies, which had been, you already know, in fact, adaptation?
Field: I feel it went rapidly as a result of it was a big alternative to dive into one other world and escape for a minute, you already know, from what was going via on the earth. It was the start of March 2020. It was a lockdown. We had been all attempting to determine if there was going to be something resembling the world that we knew earlier than that.
I’ve talked to different filmmakers who’ve movies out proper now, and I feel all of us had a really related feeling, like, “Who am I? You know, what do I do?”
Villarreal: Proper, hmm. One of many issues that makes the music world within the movie so genuine and the character of Lydia Tár appear so lifelike is that you just mix these fictionalized components with references to individuals who actually do exist in historical past, like a number of well-known composers. And naturally you may have Adam Gopnik, the New Yorker author, taking part in himself within the opening scene of the film. Why did you make that alternative?
Field: Um, nicely, it’s a quite simple factor. You realize, actually, there’s 4 factors of view within the movie, basically. The primary viewpoint is the unknown viewpoint. We’re seeing her asleep on this personal plane and someone’s texting snide feedback backwards and forwards, however we don’t know who that somebody is. So there’s that viewpoint. That’s our manner in.
The subsequent viewpoint is pretty goal. We now have proximity to her, and that’s seeing her for the very first time going via these types of rituals, and attempting to arrange herself to exit and carry out. That’s what these interviews are. They’re performances. I imply, this can be a efficiency I’m giving to you proper now. I’m attempting to be charming and educated and spectacular and all these items, however there’s a transaction between us.
Villarreal: You’re doing nice.
Field: Yeah. I imply, we’re taking part in roles with each other and we’re in dialogue, however we’re in dialogue for a function, and he or she’s about prepared to do that with Adam Gopnik. And the New Yorker talks could be precisely the form of manner to try this and to fulfill this particular person and see their means to carry out and to see the self-construction at its absolute earlier than we deconstruct it.
So it was essential. It was essential as a result of we’re capable of see the phoniness behind that too, in a lot as her assistant, Francesca Lentini, performed by Noémie Merlant, if you see her mouthing what Adam’s trotting out by way of that biography, you notice precisely how these items work. And it’s enterprise, you already know? However I needed to maintain her at arm’s size and get nearer and nearer and nearer to her in order that by the point she lastly goes residence and we see her, you already know, brushing her gums and her enamel like the remainder of us, that it felt like essentially the most monumentally thrilling second to have that form of entry to her. You realize, that’s how I really feel as a result of that’s type of the place the movie begins. From that second on, she has toes of clay. She walks amongst mortals. She’s now not in these lofty heights, you already know?
Villarreal: Hmm. It’s attention-grabbing ’trigger with that distance, there’s a number of decisions that you just’re type of making that type of complicates our means to type of take a stance on Lydia’s culpability. I imply there’s the truth that Lydia’s a girl fairly than a person, that the viewers is type of saved at midnight concerning the sexual relationship between Lydia and her victims, and we by no means type of get that shut as much as the ache that Lydia experiences after falling from energy. Discuss these explicit vantage factors.
Field: Properly, the foundations of the movie are, once more, we’re allowed type of, 4 factors of view. Certainly one of them is all-powerful, which is thru some sorts of machine. The opposite one is extra goal, the place we’re simply together with her and we’re allowed to expertise in actual time what she experiences. The third one could be issues that we’re allowed entry to inside her inside life — creativeness, desires, what have you ever. These are very sparse, however we do have entry to them. And the fourth are actually the watching of her assistant, Noémie Merlant, after which when she leaves, that’s actually embodied in what could be the guts of our entry, which is thru Sharon Goodnow, her spouse, performed by Nina Hoss. So, these are the foundations.
And I feel if you’re speaking about what she might or might haven’t carried out, we’re allowed entry to what she’s doing in actual time. What got here earlier than is none of our enterprise. We aren’t allowed to have that entry. We’re dropping in at a really explicit second for her and spending three weeks of her life together with her. It’s actually simply following this character, in this time period with three weeks, after which a really quick denouement. And that’s type of it. The explanation for that’s: Any strains which might be drawn or conclusions which might be drawn, similar to in life, are left to us. In order that’s type of the train, which is: What do you make of her based mostly on the time that you just spend together with her? And no matter that’s, is form of the purpose of the movie.
Villarreal: Properly, and it’s prompted a whole lot of dialog and evaluation and theories. I imply, there was an article just lately over on Slate that argued that the movie’s closing act may simply be occurring inside Lydia’s head. Like, what do you consider that studying?
Field: I feel all these readings are extremely thrilling and legitimate insomuch as that they’re articulated by people in a very particular method. They usually really feel satisfied of their opinions. And once more, that was the intent behind making this movie in order that there could be potential for that to occur. So it’s thrilling, you already know, to listen to folks’s completely different readings. Even readings which might be very strongly political or damaging or dismissive — however ferociously dismissive, you already know? So long as individuals are engaged, I imply, that’s type of the purpose.
Villarreal: So are you conscious of what individuals are saying? Are you somebody that reads the evaluations or reads the evaluation that comes after it?
Field: I’ve had folks ship me just a few issues. I don’t learn the whole lot, um, however I’ve learn sufficient to be delighted. There’s a broad spectrum of reactions for the movie.
Villarreal: I do know you need to type of let the movie communicate for itself, however do you may have an opinion on whether or not Lydia is a villain or a sufferer of cancel tradition?
Field: I’m not excited about any of these phrases. I don’t see folks as heroes or victims. Um, sure, there’s a scandal aspect on this. However that scandal aspect might be in “The Scarlet Letter.” It might be in Shakespeare. I imply, the supply system of that scandal and the way in which that that’s communicated is what it’s as a result of these are the instances we stay in. And these are the instances we stay in as a result of we’ve been in a patriarchy for hundreds of years, of a whole lot of unhealthy conduct of those that maintain the thunderbolts that do wield the facility. And that energy, you already know, to make use of a drained phrase, corrupts. Corrupts completely. In order that’s extra what I used to be excited about, is what does energy do? How does energy profit? And who’s complicit? And who advantages and who doesn’t? As a result of no person has energy with out complicity. Nobody.
Villarreal: Properly, how has engaged on the movie made you rethink the facility that you just wield as a director and filmmaker?
Field: That’s a good query. I don’t really feel very highly effective. Um, I really feel actually drained.
It’s not a glamorous job. It’s a bodily intensive job, and it’s additionally, it’s a job the place you are concerned about the whole lot always. The wolf on the door is that you just’re going to overlook one thing. That you just’re going to overlook a chance that you just shouldn’t have missed, and then you definately’ll have this factor on the market and also you’ll remorse it endlessly. So it’s a really masochistic self-discipline. However I suppose, yeah, I imply, there are well-known examples of very dictatorial, very menacing administrators, however I haven’t encountered any of them.
Villarreal: And also you don’t take into account your self that.
Field: Properly, I imply, I actually can’t communicate to that. I’m certain others would disagree.
Villarreal: Now, Todd, let’s discuss what it was prefer to work with Cate Blanchett. You mentioned earlier than that you just wrote the character Lydia Tár for her. I’m curious: How did seeing Cate carry out that position, seeing her deliver your writing to life, change the way in which you considered the character?
Field: You realize, Stanley Kubrick used to say, you already know, “I write a script and I think, ‘Wow. Really talented screenwriter.’ And then I direct the script and I say, ‘That screenwriter was an idiot, but the director’s really smart.’ You know, and then I go into editing and I say, ‘God, that director’s a total hack,’ you know.”
I feel that anyone that writes their very own materials, there’s at all times that factor since you’re at all times shocked by what occurs. Nevertheless, it’s not till the opposite artists, the opposite filmmakers, present up, the place you actually know what the factor is. The way in which that they strategy materials, the way in which they strategy a personality, the way in which they transfer or their intent or the sound of their voice is totally indescribably thrilling. Or horrifying, you already know.
For somebody like Cate, you already know, Cate Blanchett is a generational artist. There’s just one Cate Blanchett, and he or she approaches her materials like a filmmaker. You realize, she actually walks across the factor and talks concerning the factor and tries to determine what it’s, above and past what the character is that she’s going to be inhabiting. That in itself may be very wealthy and makes you take a look at your individual materials very in a different way.
Villarreal: How does that type of inform your strategy together with her? How a lot of your job is guiding her efficiency versus simply letting her unfastened?
Field: Properly, um, that’s an excellent query. Cate, she at all times needs to do issues which might be harmful. That’s an enormous phrase for her, “danger.” She by no means needs to take the straightforward route. She needs you to make it more durable for her. And I keep in mind her telling me, you already know, “If I’m terrible, if I’m too loud or something, just say, ‘Stop it.’” And I assumed, “What an odd thing. Of course I’m not going to do that.” You realize, however she actually compelled me to push her other ways.
As a result of we began together with her conducting — that’s the way it labored out — she had in some ways turn out to be this character as a result of she’d already skilled in a really actual, visceral manner what it’s prefer to conduct an orchestra. She understood the place inherently. And I feel that basically knowledgeable her efficiency an excellent deal.
However by way of what that collaboration is like, that’s actually — you already know, at that time, you’ve carried out sufficient work collectively earlier than you arrive. You’ve talked via what the character’s journey is. You’ve spoken about their relationships. You’ve talked about prospects. You’ve carried out all this different work.
Usually, I’d attempt to rehearse for a number of weeks with a solid. On this case, it was good that Cate and I had a whole lot of time collectively earlier than beginning the image as a result of, by necessity, a whole lot of that rehearsal was dedicated to music and the preparation of music and the whole lot that she and Nina Hoss and Sophie Kauer had needed to do. We solely had about half that period of time to truly undergo and do scene work collectively.
Villarreal: There’s a pivotal early scene within the movie that unfolds in a single take, and it’s a BIPOC, pan-gender pupil type of expressing discomfort taking part in music written by straight white males. And it turns into this, you already know, extremely charged generational face-off. And Cate’s efficiency is riveting. And like, what course did you give her earlier than that scene?
Field: “Direction” is a humorous phrase. I imply, we discuss, you already know. That’s what you actually do if you make stuff with folks: You discuss. And that dialog has parity, and hopefully, you’re ending one another’s sentences otherwise you’re pushing one another. I imply, on the floor, the issues that you just level out are there, however what’s beneath this scene actually is, for me, is one thing else. That’s the primary scene that I wrote. And the impetus for that scene was actually simply the age-old query: In case your middle-aged self may return and discuss to your 24-year-old self and impart some knowledge, what would you say, you already know?
So there’s a few issues occurring. On the one hand, when she was Max’s age, the scholar, she would’ve been Max. She would’ve been pushing each attainable boundary she may. She would’ve been ignoring canonical work. She wouldn’t have cared about useless white man music. She would’ve been breaking each glass ceiling. She would’ve been engaged on atonal music. And we all know from her biography that she was taking place and attempting to get on the root of what she thought was the purity of creating noise, which is, on this case, was these icaros within the jap Amazon.
That’s who she was. That child sitting in that classroom, that’s who she was. So, why has she turned her again on that? As a result of when she did that at 24, that’s about shedding your ego. That’s about dropping your id. And the place we meet her proper now, she’s definitely not there. She has an excellent ego, proper? And he or she’s embraced this music that’s very patriarchal. And that she’s following within the footsteps of patriarchal icons like Bernstein or Von Karajan or Abbado, and so on.
So the place does that scene begin? It begins with us listening to the sound. And that sound is “Ró.” It’s an unimaginable piece of music by Anna Thorvaldsdottir, this Icelandic composer, who’s heralded and sung and well-known in lots of circles. And the very first thing she does is she makes enjoyable of it. Now, why does she do this? Properly, you already know, in that scene, what does she say about Anna Thorvaldsdottir? She’s not supplying you with any interpretation. She’s principally indicating that she’s misplaced, which, Lydia Tár herself is having this second the place she’s misplaced. However she is also speaking a couple of feminine composer who has a profile that she would in all probability prefer to have and, as she describes her herself, is younger and exquisite. In order that to me was you already know, what was essential about this, which is that she’s taking a look at legacy. She’s trying within the rearview mirror and saying, “How am I being perceived? Are there any mountains to climb? And if there are, will I actually reach them?”
Villarreal: Properly, please enable me to be annoying, Todd. Like, at this stage in your life and profession, what would you inform your youthful self?
Field: Oh boy. What would I inform my youthful self? Wow, that is going to get very confessional. You realize what I’d do? I’d inform my youthful self, and I’d inform my kids this too: Put 10 cents of each greenback away within the financial institution and don’t contact it.
Field: If solely I had listened.
Villarreal: Critically. Oh my gosh.
Villarreal: Past “Tár,” you made a whole lot of makes an attempt at bold diversifications of novels since your final movie, “Little Children,” however they in the end didn’t make it to display screen. Are you able to discuss what that felt like? Was there ever a second the place you thought-about, “Is this telling me something? Do I need to take my career in a different direction?” Like, what had been you feeling in these moments?
Field: It takes an act of religion for anybody to sit down down and work on materials. It’s a must to imagine that this one is essential sufficient to me, and it will likely be essential sufficient to another person and it’ll occur. I feel it will be protected to say anybody who does this sort of work feels that manner. They need to really feel that manner. And the query is: Are you in-built such a way that you may shake it off when someone says the kid is ugly or they don’t need to take a look at it? It’s a must to hold hope alive and never get discouraged. And I feel that’s the toughest half.
However it took me a very long time to get my first movie on. It took me 5 years after movie faculty to get my first movie on and 5 years after my first movie to get my second movie on. So it’s taken me 3 times that lengthy to get this movie.
So, yeah, I imply, I haven’t been sitting round crying in my soup or something. However it has been a very long time, after which truly being on set for the primary time and, and turning over and watching — on this case, the very first scene that we shot was with you already know, Cate Blanchett, Nina Hoss and Noémie Merlant. I imply, discuss simply feeling just like the luckiest particular person on Earth to have the ability to watch these three actors. You realize, that’s fairly a privilege, and it’s not one thing that I’d ever take as a right. And if I’m by no means allowed to do it once more, then I’m one of many luckiest folks on the planet that I ever acquired the possibility in any respect.
Villarreal: OK, I’m simply going to do that, Todd. Earlier than I allow you to go, my “Twister”-obsessed youthful self has a query. It was just lately introduced that Lee Isaac Chung is in talks to direct the sequel of the 1996 movie, which you had a job in. If Lee known as you up and mentioned, “Hey, we need Beltzer to drive the van again,” is that one thing you’d ever take into account? Todd, please suppose very fastidiously on this.
Field: I don’t know. You realize, I used to be very fortunate that Jan de Bont requested me to try this. I truly had been up for Phil Hoffman’s half.
Villarreal: Oh wow.
Field: Then when Phil acquired in, Jan had supplied me this different half, Beltzer, and I used to be somewhat chapped about it ’trigger I actually needed the Dusty half. However once I noticed that I acquired to sing “Oklahoma,” you already know, I mentioned, “OK, I’ll do it. You know, I’ll do it.” And after we had been capturing, it was a really, very robust, difficult shoot. And I keep in mind Jan was speaking about dropping that.
And I acquired very upset, let’s put it that manner, and we ended up capturing it. So I really feel utterly happy. I had my “Twister” second, and it was a beautiful solid. I’ve very, very comfortable reminiscences of that shoot.
Villarreal: Properly, I didn’t even know there was talks of a sequel after which it acquired me, like, understanding that I used to be doing this interview with you, I used to be like, what would a “Twister” sequel written and directed by Todd Field seem like?
Field: So long as it may star Cate Blanchett, I’d be high-quality. You realize, I’d like to get, yeah. Cate Blanchett, Nina Hoss, Noémie Merlant. “Twister.” Yeah. Very attention-grabbing. It’s a world crew of storm chasers.
Villarreal: And then you definately do have to come back in as Beltzer, although, in that case.
Field: In that case, I’d do it. Yeah. For certain.
Villarreal: OK. Good, I like that. Properly, Todd, it’s been such a pleasure talking with you. Thanks a lot for taking the time.
Field: Positive. Properly, thanks. I actually admire it, Yvonne.