This week, we conclude my reviews of 31 new primetime TV shows.

Hello, this is Chris Young. Welcome to a special episode of Contemplating Life.

Back in Episode 75, I set myself the goal of writing a brief review of every new TV show that premiered from September through November this year. I accumulated a list of 31 shows.

I planned on making it one large episode, but it was too large, so I split it into two parts. This is Part B.

Unfortunately, many of the shows will receive my lowest two ratings of “Skip It” or “Worthless.” But there are some that I’m going to highly recommend.

CBS/Paramount+ brings us a new reality competition series, “The Summit.” A group of 16 people have 14 days to hike across a gorgeous New Zealand landscape and climb a mountain. Each contestant starts out with a package of thousands of dollars totaling $1 million for the group. If a contestant is eliminated for medical reasons or is eliminated for failing to meet a challenge, the money is lost to the group. But as they camp at each checkpoint along the way, the group votes out one member and splits that person’s money equally among them.

The gimmick is that if they don’t reach the summit in 14 days, NONE of them get any money. As a fan of shows like “Survivor” and “The Amazing Race,” I’m really enjoying this new take on reality competition. By the way, I never cared for “Big Brother” because it is almost 100% a social game and doesn’t require much in the way of physical challenges.

The thing that surprises me about this series is that the contestants must think they are playing “Survivor,” but they are not. They are consistently voting out players who they think are “a threat to my game.” They don’t seem to appreciate that if they don’t vote out the physically weaker players, they will ALL lose the money. This is not going to be a winner-take-all game with just one winner like “Survivor.” They need to be voting out the weakest players, guaranteeing that they can reach the summit by the deadline, and then work on voting out the people they don’t like socially.

I’ve seen about five episodes, so I don’t know what will happen, but I seriously hope they don’t meet the goal and everyone walks away with no cash. Maybe then, contestants in season 2, if there is one, will learn how to play this game.

We’re calling this one “I Really Like It.” And if you enjoy “Survivor” or “The Amazing Race,” I’m sure you will too, even if it’s just to yell at the screen to tell the contestants how stupid they are for throwing out strong players and slowing themselves down by keeping weaker players.

Now we get down to action and drama, and boy, we have some whoppers here.

Let’s start with the only questionable series in the bunch.

Apple TV+ brings us Billy Crystal, in a dramatic role in “Before.” Crystal plays child psychiatrist Eli Adler, who is grieving the recent loss of his wife to suicide. He blames himself for not seeing the signs of her depression. One evening, a young boy knocks on his door. The boy doesn’t speak, and Eli tries to find out where the boy is from and if he is in some sort of danger. The boy escapes before he can extract any information from him. The next day, a social worker tries to get him to take on a difficult case. He initially refuses because he still dealing with the grief of losing his wife. The social worker persuades him to meet the boy, and of course, it’s the same boy who showed up at his door.

The kid is troubled by bizarre visions of some evil force trying to attack him. The description of the series reveals that the “troubled young boy seems to have a haunting connection to Eli’s past.”

Although I normally like Crystal in both comedic and dramatic roles, this one was just too strange and slow-paced to grab me. I struggled through an episode, and I may go back again to see what happens when, overall, at this point, I’m going to have to say “Skip It,” even though it’s based on some pretty incomplete information. Again, I’m reluctant to commit to the show until I have a better idea of what it’s about. Based on my recent bad experience with “Grotesquerie.” The IMDB classifies it as “drama” and “thriller.” It doesn’t say “sci-fi” or “horror,” so I don’t think there is a supernatural component at work here, but I could be wrong. Proceed with extreme caution.

Next up, Amazon Prime offers us two new spy thriller series. “Citadel: Diana” and “Citadel: Honey Bunny.” These are both spinoffs from an earlier Amazon series, “Citadel.” The gimmick is that the original was produced in Britain, and the various spinoff versions are produced in other countries. Diana is an Italian series dubbed in English. Honey Bunny is from India and is also dubbed in English. I had not seen the original series, so I decided to go back and watch it first before taking on the spinoffs. I’m quite happy I did.

The opening sequence of a gunfight on a high-speed European train. It’s cinematic in its execution. It looks like something out of a James Bond movie. There is much chemistry between the male and female agents who are on board the train trying to stop the bad guys. The opening sequence ends with the destruction and derailing of the train and our two heroes barely escaping with their lives.

We fast-forward eight years to find the male agent has amnesia and doesn’t remember his life as a secret agent. When his former boss recruits him for a special mission, his wife inquires, “So what is the deal here… Are you Jason Bourne?” So, they are upfront about ripping off a plot. There are also other highly unoriginal scenarios, including a chase down a mountainside on snow skis reminiscent of James Bond in “The Spy Who Loved Me.”

Our hero eventually meets up with the female agent, who has similarly lost her memory. It turns out that they have had their memory wiped as a security precaution. There is a vile of medication that will restore his memory, but it is accidentally destroyed.

They work for an agency of good guys called Citadel. They have an archrival agency called Manticore. The whole thing feels like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. versus Hydra. The opening sequence on the train was one of several traps that Manticore set for Citadel, essentially destroying the agency. The series revolves around the efforts of the boss, played by Stanley Tucci, who is trying to revitalize the organization.

Despite all of these unoriginal plotlines, I really enjoyed this series. It had some great plot twists along the way, and the action and special effects were cinematic quality. Rate it “I Really Like It.” I highly recommend it.

After watching a couple of episodes of the Italian spinoff “Citadel: Diana,” showed some potential, but I did not find it nearly as compelling as the original. The series takes place in 2030, which is 10 years after the fall of Citadel. I’ll eventually go back and watch the rest of the series, but I was not as impressed as I was with the original. Let’s call this one a weak “I’m Watching.”

The version from India, while not as compelling as the original Citadel, is much better than the Italian spinoff. The title “Honey Bunny” actually refers to 2 married agents: Honey and her husband, Bunny. This story flashes back and forth between 2000 and 2010. In earlier flashbacks, we learn how Honey was recruited by the agency. In 2010, we find that they are married and have a young daughter. Watching Honey fight bad guys to protect her child was much more compelling than the CW series “Joan,” in which an allegedly humble single mother takes on the glamorous life of a jewel thief to regain custody of her daughter. You feel a lot more for Honey, Bunny, and their daughter than you ever do for Joan and hers.

Let’s rate this one a strong “I’m Watching.” It may not be as spectacular as the British original “Citadel,” but it still has plenty of action and drama. The kid is adorable, and you can really feel the struggles of her parents trying to maintain their secret life while protecting their daughter from the forces of evil.

My only complaint so far is that they’ve not mentioned that they work for Citadel, which leaves a nagging question: Could they possibly be working for Manticore and just believing that they are the good guys and not the bad guys? Then again, are the allegedly good guys at Citadel really good guys? I will be binge-watching the remaining episodes soon. All three series have six episodes each. The original Citadel has been renewed for a second season, which I’m really looking forward to.

Another thriller with an international flair is Peacock TV’s reimagining of “ The Day of the Jackal.” The original 1973 film based on the 1971 Frederick Forsyth novel was about an assassin hired to assassinate French President Charles de Gaulle in the 1960s. This updated version stars Freddie Redmayne, who is most known for his portrayal of Newt Scamander in the “Fantastic Beasts” franchise, and Professor Stephen Hawking in “The Theory of Everything.” It’s strange to see him playing a bad guy, but he pulls it off well. This series is as much about him as it is about a British MI6 firearms agent, Bianca Pullman, who struggles to balance her life as an agent with her home life with her husband and daughter.

In this version, Jackal assassinates a German politician, which draws attention to him because it involves the longest sniper kill in history. A group of businessmen hires him to kill the richest man in the world – a tech entrepreneur who is about to release software that will trace any banking transaction in the world, thereby exposing all of their money laundering, bribes, and other transactions they would prefer to be kept secret.

Five of the 10 episodes are available now, and I can’t wait to see the remaining episodes. I’ve heard it’s been renewed for a second season, but I can’t imagine it ends with the Jackal getting away. I’m not sure what will happen in the second season. Rate this one: “I Really Like It.”

Just for fun, I’m also re-watching the original 1973 film and, for the first time, reading the book at the same time. I highly recommend the new theories, the book, and the original film. I can’t comment on the 1997 film “The Jackal” starring Bruce Willis and Richard Gere, but I know that novelist Frederick Forsyth insisted his name be removed from the film. That’s one strike against it.

Moving along to another action drama, Amazon Prime has “Cross” about Detective Alex Cross from the novels by James Patterson. This DC homicide detective is also a trained psychologist. In the opening scene, his wife is murdered. We then skip ahead one year later, where we see him filling out forms requesting a leave of absence. His Captain and the Chief of Police have different plans. They need an African-American detective to investigate the death of a community organizer. Although the official cause of death is a drug overdose, no one believes that. Cross and his partner, John, find plenty of evidence that the deceased did not overdose.

Eventually, they begin to realize they are dealing with a serial killer who is kidnapping victims and giving them a makeover to make them look like famous serial killers. In the first episode, you will learn who the killer really is. You follow along as Detective Cross first tries to identify the killer and then, upon doing so, has to figure out how to catch him and make his case. Meanwhile, Cross, his children, and his grandmother are all being threatened by a stalker. This stalking is related to the death of his wife.

This is a very enjoyable wild ride that I highly recommend. Rate this one: “I Really Like It.”

Another procedural drama worth checking out is the new CBS spinoff NCIS: Origins. Set in 1991, it follows the opening days of agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs’s career as he joined what was then called NIS: Naval Investigation Service. We see his relationship with his old friend, Agent Mike Franks, whom we saw in the original NCIS in 20 episodes.

Mark Harmon provides a voiceover as the present-day Agent Gibbs. The narration teases that of all the stories of his past, these are the ones he has never told before. We see Gibbs still struggling with the murder of his wife and daughter. Franks recruited him even though he failed his psych evaluation.

Having only seen a couple of episodes, I can tell it’s going to be up to par with the other versions of the NCIS franchise, and for now, I’m giving it an “I’m Watching It.” However, I’m not sure if I will be able to keep up because I’m at least two or three seasons behind on the original NCIS. So maybe it’s better to describe it as “Recommended Watchable.”

Just two more to go.

Apple TV+ offers us a thriller called “Disclaimer.” Cate Blanchett plays Catherine Ravenscroft, a respected award-winning documentary journalist. Kevin Klein plays an elderly widower, Stephen Brigstocke. He is forced to take a sabbatical from his teaching job, and while puttering around the house, he discovers his late wife wrote the manuscript of a novel fictionalizing the events of their son Jonathan’s death 20 years ago.

In the novel, Jonathan is on vacation in Italy and meets an attractive young woman with whom he has an affair. We learn that the woman is Catherine. She was on vacation with her husband and five-year-old son, but the husband was called back to work. In the novel, she seduces Jonathan, and he takes a series of erotic photos of her. Stephen discovers the photos with the manuscript.

While Jonathan and the woman were having sex in a beachside cabana, the young boy drifted out into the Mediterranean in a small inflatable raft. Jonathan swims out to save the boy. Two other bystanders join him and bring the boy back safely, but Jonathan is so exhausted he cannot make it back and drowns.

Stephen decides to get revenge on Catherine. He will ruin the woman’s life as she has ruined the lives of him and his late wife. He self-publishes the novel under a pseudonym and sends a copy to Catherine, her husband, and their now 25-year-old son.

The book contains a disclaimer that reads, “Any resemblance to real people is NOT a coincidence.”

The series uses a variety of voiceover narrators. Some are of Stephen, others Catherine, and sometimes an omniscient narrator who speaks in the second person present tense, which is a bit strange but effective.

Stephen becomes so obsessed that he will stop at nothing to get his revenge. With each victory along the way, Klein delivers an evil smirk that shows Steven’s joy that his plan is working.

Although a bit slow-moving and difficult to follow at first, with multiple flashbacks and flash-forwards, this one will keep you on the edge of your seat throughout the 7 episodes. There are award-worthy performances from Klein and Blanchette, as well as great supporting work by Sacha Baron Cohen as Catherine’s husband, Robert, in a rare dramatic role. Also noteworthy is Louis Partridge as Jonathan and Kodi Smit-McPhee as the adult son Nicholas.

There is a huge plot twist in the final episode that you will not see coming. But in some respects, we enter the story through Stephen’s eyes, and the twist is a surprise to him that we really feel. I was concerned it was going to end with the audience not being sure what really happened, but there is no doubt at the end as to what the truth really was.

Again, it is very slow-moving but well worth your time. Let’s rate this one “I Really Like It.” Strongly recommended.

Finally, here is the review of the last of the 31 new TV series.

CBS/Paramount+ offers us a 10-episode series, “Landman,” starring Billy Bob Thorton as Tommy Noris. He works for an oil company in the oil fields around Midland, Texas.

In the opening scene, we find him in a remote warehouse, tied to a chair with a burlap bag over his head, being guarded by some nasty-looking guys with guns. When the boss arrives, he asks, “So you are going to take our land to drill oil?” Tommy calmly explains that the man purchased the land from someone who had previously sold the mineral rights. All he is there to do is negotiate a lease for the surface rights to put in a road and set up the drills.

After some fascinating exposition, Tommy explains that the oil company is bigger than this man’s drug business. Tommy says, “We are the same. Your customers are dependent upon your product, and so are mine.” He threatens that if they don’t cooperate, he will see to it that the DEA sets up a substation on the property, and/or the oil company will hire mercenaries to eliminate them all. The company will pay them for a lease to the surface rights as well as reparations for any damage that is done to the land.

After escaping with the signed lease and his life, Tommy has a voiceover narration that explains how massive the oil industry is. He then comments, “You gotta secure the rights and lock up the surface. Then babysit the owners, babysit the crews. Then manage the police and the press when the babies refuse to be sat. That’s my job. Secure the lease, then manage the people. First part’s pretty simple. It’s the second part that can get you killed.”

Really? This guy was just tied up and about to be killed by a bunch of cartel bad guys, and that was the simple part of the job?

After two episodes, one starts to understand he was right. We see Tommy managing one crisis after another, and most of them are deadly.

The action sequences, special effects, and stunts are top-notch. They must’ve had a massive budget for the series. Thornton creates a memorable character, as always. We have memorable supporting roles: Ali Larter as Tommy’s ex-wife, Jon Hamm as the head of the oil company, and a cameo by Demi Moore as his wife.

I’m giving this one a very strong “I Really Like It.” I can’t wait for the remaining episodes. Very highly recommended.

Let’s do a brief recap of all 31 series we have reviewed in the order in which they premiered.

Fox animation “Universal Basic Guys” rated “Worthless.”

ABC police procedural “High Potential” rated “I’m Watching It.”

Disney+ Marvel series “Agatha All Along” rated ”I’m Watching It.”

HBO/Max “The Penguin” rated a strong “I Really Like It,” and after seeing all 10 episodes, I can almost upgrade this to “Must See.” Destined for multiple Emmy nominations and hopefully several wins. Again, this is a gangster movie, not a comic book movie. I think anyone would like it.

CBS/Paramount+ legal drama “Matlock” starring Kathy Bates rated “I Really Like It.”

Fox drama “Rescue Hi-Surf “ rated strong “Skip It.”

NBC medical drama “Brilliant Minds” rated very weak “Could Be Watchable.”

Fox police procedural “Murder in a Small Town” rated “Skip It.”

FX/Hulu horror series “Grotesquerie” rated “Skip It.”

ABC cruise ship romantic comedy “Doctor Odyssey” rated “Skip It.”

CBS/Paramount+ reality competition “The Summit” rated “I Really Like It.”

CW network crime drama “Joan” rated a weak “I’m Watching It” or “Could Be Watchable.”

CW game shows “Trivial Pursuit” and “Scrabble” rated “Skip It.”

Amazon Prime spy drama “Citadel” rated “I Really Like It.” Italian spinoff “Citadel: Diana” rated a weak “I’m Watching It.” East Indian spinoff “Citade: Honey Bunny” rated strong “I’m Watching It.”

Peacock horror series “Teacup” rated strong “Skip It.”

Apple TV+ revenge drama “Disclaimer” rated strong “I Really Like It.”

Max CGI animated children’s show Barney’s World rated “Recommended Watchable” for its target audience.

CBS/Paramount+ crime procedural “NCIS: Origins” rated “I’m Watching It.”

CW reality show “The Wranglers” rated “Skip It.”

Amazon Prime game show “Are You Smarter Than a Celebrity” rated “Skip It.”

CBS/Paramount+ sitcom “George and Mandy’s First Marriage” rated “Could be Watchable.”

NBC sitcom “Happy’s Place” starring Reba McIntyre, rated “Could Be Watchable.”

CBS sitcom “Poppa’s House” starring Damon Wayans, Sr. and Jr., rated “Could Be Watchable.”

Apple TV+ drama “Before” starring Billy Crystal rated “Skip It.”

Disney Channel tween sitcom “Wizards Beyond Waverley Place” rated “Recommended Watchable” for its target demographic.

Peacock thriller “Day of the Jackal” rated “I Really Like It.”

NBC/Peacock sitcom “St. Denis Medical” rated “Skip It.”

Amazon Prime crime thriller “Cross”, based on James Patterson’s novels, rated “I Really Like It.”

Finally, Paramount+ drama “Landman” starring Billy Bob Thornton rated “I Really Like It.”

So that’s it with all my reviews. I’m not sure where we go from here. It will probably be more about the aftereffects of having to quit work for health reasons and the establishment of my work-from-home software business. Then, early next year, it will be Oscar season again. There will be more prime-time shows in January, but I don’t know if I will do this again.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although I have some financial struggles, I’m not really in this for money. Still, every little bit helps.

As always, my deepest thanks to my financial supporters. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

All of my back episodes are available, and I encourage you to check them out if you’re new to this podcast. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback, please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you found this podcast.

I will see you next time as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

This week, we have the first part of a two-part episode in which I review more new TV shows. The final part will be available in a few days.

Hello, this is Chris Young. Welcome to a special episode of Contemplating Life.

Back in Episode 75, I set myself the goal of writing a brief review of every new TV show that premiered from September through November this year. I accumulated a list of 31 shows. I did several of them in episode 75 and intended to do a review episode every other week until I was done. But I got on a roll with writing my regular autobiographical podcast, and some of the TV shows were so good I had to binge-watch the entire season. So, I’m just now getting around to finishing up the remaining reviews. I should probably split this into two episodes, but I’m just going to make a really long one since it probably won’t come out on time. I apologize in advance for the length.

I was going to make this one big long episode, but after doing some editing I realized it was just too long. So, we are going to split this into Parts A and B. Here is Part A.

Unfortunately, many of the shows will receive my lowest two ratings of “Skip It” or “Worthless.” But there are some that I’m going to highly recommend. So, let’s get rid of a bunch of the stinkers first.

For some reason, I’ve never been a big fan of Fox’s Sunday evening animation. I’ve probably only seen one or two episodes of “The Simpsons.” I appreciate that it is highly popular. It has run for 36 seasons and earned 37 Primetime Emmy Awards, but for some reason, it never appealed to me. I know that other Fox animated series have been popular as well, most notably “Family Guy,” but I’ve never seen it. So, I’m probably not well-qualified to be objective about the newest entry in the lineup, “Universal Basic Guys.”

The premise is that a bunch of guys got laid off from work, and as severance, they were awarded guaranteed universal basic income. Other than the title and an opening sequence explaining that premise, the concept of UBI never came up in the first episode. It seems that it’s just a gimmick to explain a bunch of guys who sit around with nothing to do all day except come up with harebrained schemes. In the first episode, our lead character, Hank, tries to do his wife a favor. She is upset that the local country club does not admit women, and she wants to play golf there. He cooks up a scheme to get admitted to the club to try to get her access. It turns out that the members’ wives want to keep the club male only to keep their husbands occupied so that they can pursue more important feminist agendas. It’s not very funny. It doesn’t work as social commentary. I’m sure that other Fox animated series are more entertaining. We’re giving this one a big fat “Worthless” rating.

I’m similarly unqualified to be objective about the next entry from Fox – “Rescue: Hi-Surf.” This is a basic ripoff of “Baywatch” set in Hawaii. It follows the lives of a bunch of lifeguards who cover the beaches of the North Shore and rescue people in trouble in the high surf. While the action sequences of rescues are well done and exciting, you can’t help but feel it’s going to be the same thing week after week. How many different ways can a surfer get in trouble and be rescued? The characters are thinly drawn. The only plot is a politician who holds the pursestrings over the program insisting that his son be hired as a lifeguard. Wow. How compelling…No, not really. If you’re desperate to see beautiful people running around in bathing suits, go watch the new ABC series “Doctor Odyssey,” which we gave a bad review of last time. It’s not any good either, but it’s better than this. I’m giving this a strong “Skip It” bordering on “Worthless.”

I hate to trash Fox continually, but I also give the new procedural “Murder in a Small Town” a hard pass. The title tells you everything you need to know. I watched the opening episode about a week ago, and I’ve already forgotten what it was about. They solved the murder, so there will be a new case every week. There is nothing to see here. Again, I rate it “Skip it,” bordering on “Worthless.”

Let’s take a quick look at several new game shows. The CW network offers “Trivial Pursuit,” hosted by LeVar Burton, who was recently rejected as a possible host of “Jeopardy!” I had no problem with his ability to host the iconic game show, even though I really like Ken Jennings, who is the new permanent host. I have no problem with Burton hosting this show. But this show is extremely boring. The pace is too slow, and the questions are either trivially easy or ridiculously difficult. Rating it strong “Skip It.”

I was even less impressed by CW’s other adaptation of the board game “Scrabble.” While I enjoy playing the game, watching other people play it is incredibly boring. You’ll never find yourself saying, “They played the wrong word! They could’ve scored higher if they’d spelled something else.” Host Raven-Symoné is adequate but brings nothing interesting. Another strong rating of “Skip It.”

Only slightly less boring is Amazon Prime’s “Are You Smarter Than a Celebrity.” While I generally enjoyed the original “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader,” this spinoff, which uses adult celebrity helpers rather than fifth-grade children, lacks all of the charm of the original. It might be better if they used celebrity kids to help adult contestants rather than adult celebrities helping adult contestants. The format is identical to the original “5th Grader” game. Contestants answer questions ranging from first through fifth-grade levels. Host Travis Kelce brings nothing interesting to the effort. I doubt that his relationship with Taylor Swift will draw viewers to this show, even though she vastly increased the viewership of Kansas City Chiefs NFL games. Unless she shows up as one of the celebrity helpers, I doubt the Swiftlies will tune in. Kelce lacks the charm and humor of original “5th-grader” host Jeff Foxworthy.

Speaking of Kelce, he is a better game show host than an actor. He has a minor part in the Hulu series “Grotesquerie,” but his performance was grossly inadequate and amateurish.

So, let’s talk about “Grotesquerie.”

I’m not a huge fan of the horror genre, but this one caught my attention from the beginning, and I had high hopes for it. It stars Niecy Nash as Detective Lois Tryon, who is trying to solve a series of bizarre homicides in which the killer leaves the bodies staged in bizarre tableaus filled with religious symbolism. She is accompanied by a young nun who is a reporter for a Catholic newspaper and website. Her true crime articles about this bizarre serial killer not only increase the readership of her website but also boost attendance at local churches. This show is highly reminiscent of the NBC series “Hannibal,” which ran for 39 episodes from 2013-2015. That series covered the early days of the killing career of iconic character Dr. Hannibal Lecter, brilliantly portrayed by Mads Mikkelsen. I really enjoyed “Hannibal” and was ready to declare this a worthy successor.

This is a compelling mystery with excellently written episodes and deeply drawn characters with despicable flaws. With the exception of Travis Kelce, there are quality performances throughout.

I found “Grotesquerie” so disturbing I actually had a nightmare about it.

Throughout the first 6 1/2 episodes of the series, I wondered if there was going to be a supernatural component to this story. The series was co-created by Ryan Murphy, who is known for his excellent series “American Horror Story,” so it would not surprise me if there were a supernatural plot element. I’ve only seen 8 of the 12 seasons of “American Horror Story,” but my favorite was season 7, which contained absolutely no supernatural elements. Often, real life can be more terrifying than demons and witches.

Episode 7 of “Grotesquerie” introduces a plot twist that completely upends the entire story. By the end of the series, in episode 10, you will be totally confused. Although I think I understand “what really happened,” the entire thing was such a disappointment that it left a really bad taste in my mouth. It turns out to be another version of a horror trope that I’ve never liked in any of its other implementations, and this one did nothing to change my opinion. I won’t spoil it by telling you what trope I’m talking about.

Had I written this review prior to episode 7, I would have given it a strong “I’m watching it” rating. But all I can say at this point is that I watched it, and I’m not sure it was worth the time. Your mileage may vary. Let’s officially downgrade this to “Skip It.”

By the way, I love a good plot twist. But when the twist reveals that the story is deliberately deceiving the audience rather than just setting up a mystery or a big reveal, I cannot help but feel betrayed. While we are on the topic of betraying the audience, I want to talk briefly about the 2022 Netflix film “On the Line” starring Mel Gibson. By the way, I’ve always been able to separate the art from the artist, so no matter how I feel about him as a person, I’ve always been able to enjoy his work both as a director and actor. He gives a quality performance in this deeply flawed film.

Gibson plays a late-night radio talk show host that takes phone calls from listeners. Someone calls in, claiming to have kidnapped his wife and daughter. We eventually learn that he is holding them in the office building where the radio studio is located. Gibson and a new employee who runs the control room start searching the empty office building. Along the way, they find the bad guy has killed a security guard and a janitor.

As the show reaches its climax, there is a plot twist that will leave you extremely angry. I won’t hint at what it is. Just when you are about to forgive them for tricking you with this ridiculous twist, and you think the movie is back on track, there is another twist guaranteed to piss you off again. I tried to explain these twists away, saying that the characters in the film were heartless people who toy with each other’s emotions, but ultimately, the real victim is you, the audience, that is toyed with throughout the film.

Going back to the horror genre for a moment and back to our TV reviews, we have the Peacock TV series “Teacup.” It is described as a horror sci-fi thriller in which a group of neighbors who are trapped on a farm in rural Georgia must put aside their differences and unite in the face of a mysterious and deadly threat. It stars Yvonne Strahovski, who was recently seen as one of the villains in “A Handmaid’s Tale” and Scott Speedman, who is known for playing Dr. Nick Marsh on “Gray’s Anatomy” for 37 episodes.

Somehow, I managed to struggle through the first episode, but it took me multiple attempts. I’m hoping that because IMDb described it as sci-fi, it’s some sort of alien invasion rather than demonic possession, but I couldn’t get far enough into the show to find out even the basic premise. That description, which says these people are trapped on a farm, like a bug trapped under a teacup, presumably, only becomes apparent early in the second episode, which I couldn’t stand watching. I will be generous and rate it a solid “Skip It” rather than “Worthless” because there is the tiniest possibility it could get better. It runs just eight episodes, so maybe if you have more patience than I do, you can figure it out. But the pacing is so slow that it is unbearable, and I just couldn’t stand it.

While I enjoy reality competition shows like “Survivor” and “The Amazing Race,” I’ve never been a fan of so-called reality shows like “Real Housewives” or Kardashians. CW network has a new series described as a “Documentary charting the lives of ranch employees in Montana, navigating personal relationships and work duties at the Circle Bar Dude Ranch.” This has to be the most phony “reality” show I’ve ever seen. In case you are unaware, a “dude ranch” is where city slickers go on vacation to experience allegedly authentic cowboy life. The casts of wranglers, ranch managers, and other staff are about 60% female. While that is commendable, it could hardly be considered an authentic representation of classic cowboy life. The job of head wrangler is open so the staff is going to be competing for the new position. The previews hint that there are going to be romantic entanglements among the staff. The whole thing simply wreaks of fake situations created by the producers. Let’s call this a strong “Skip It” unless you are the kind of person who would go to a dude ranch but can’t afford it.

That wraps up most of the really bad ones. Let’s move on to something slightly more interesting. The CW network has a new series called Joan, based on the real-life exploits of British thief Joan Harrington, who was known in some circles as the “Godmother.”

It stars Sophie Turner, best known for playing Sansa Stark in “Game of Thrones,” and Frank Dillane, who played Nick Clark in 44 episodes of “Fear the Walking Dead.”

Turner plays Joan, an ordinary British housewife whose boyfriend is a small-time criminal. Fearing for her daughter’s safety, she turns the girl into Child Protective Services, telling them that she is homeless and cannot care for her daughter. She gets a job working in a jewelry store and has the opportunity to make off with a handful of diamonds. She tries to sell the diamonds to an antique dealer named Boisie, played by Dillane. They fall in love and begin working on bigger jobs.

We are supposed to sympathize with Joan, who is turning to a life of crime to establish herself financially and get her daughter back from authorities. Personally, I don’t feel that much sympathy for her. Had she made some smarter choices and stayed legitimate, she would’ve had a better chance of getting her daughter back. But now, enjoying the fruits of a life of crime seems to be more of a motivating factor than regaining custody of her daughter.

I’ve seen three of the six episodes, and so far, I’m giving it a week rating of “I’m Watching,” but I’m doing so more out of curiosity to see what happens than because it’s a compelling story, which it is not.

Let’s look at some sitcoms. Maybe we can find something to laugh about there.

NBC/PeacockTV brings us “St. Denis Medical.” I’ve never been a big fan of the “mock documentary” format in which the story is interrupted by the characters talking to an unseen interviewer. It worked for “Modern Family,” but I’ve never cared for any of the other uses of this gimmick, such as “The Office.” It’s not just the format that stinks here. Sadly, this works much better as a drama than it does a comedy. I’m not talking about the kind of mix of comedy and drama we saw in a series like “M*A*S*H,” which could get uproariously silly, but then there would be a poignant moment to reflect the dire circumstances of the setting. The show tries to be funny, but it isn’t. When it goes for poignant, it almost works, but it fails so miserably at the comedy that is not worth waiting for the touching parts. I’m giving this one a strong “Skip It.”

CBS/Paramount+ brings us “George and Mandy’s First Marriage.” It is a spinoff from “Young Sheldon,” which is, in turn, a spinoff from “The Big Bang Theory.” I never missed a single episode of BBT, and I must admit I’m about a season and a half behind on “Sheldon,” but I have been catching up. In this series, Montana Jordan reprises his role as George Cooper, big brother to Sheldon. His wife, Mandy, is played by Emily Osment, who appeared in 39 episodes of “Young Sheldon.” I don’t particularly recall her because George had lots of girlfriends in the series. And as I mentioned, I’m way behind.

My guess is that there was an episode of “Sheldon” that served as a pilot for this series. It seems to hit the ground running, assuming that you already know that the young couple is living with her parents. Mandy has such a difficult relationship with her mother that, at first, I wasn’t sure it really was her mother but perhaps a stepmom. In the opening episode, after a feud with her mom, in which her mother questions George’s intelligence, the couple moves out and tries to make it on their own. By the end of the episode, they make up and move back in with her parents.

My number one criterion for a sitcom is that it has to make me laugh. I may have chuckled once or twice, but I can’t remember at what. We will be generous and call this one “Could Be Watchable.” However, given that I am a huge fan of the parent shows from which this spinoff was created, I’m severely disappointed. I would have rather seen a spinoff series with Sheldon’s sister, Missy.

NBC is keeping Reba McIntyre busy these days. In addition to her role as a coach/mentor on “The Voice,” she returns to scripted television and a new sitcom called “Happy’s Place.” In this series, she plays Bobby, a woman who just inherited a diner from her father, who had the nickname “Happy.” As she is trying to manage the restaurant while dealing with the loss of her father, she discovers she has a half-sister she never knew about who is now co-owner of the facility.

The character McIntyre is playing has the exact same perky personality as her own, so there is no acting stretch involved here at all. I never saw her previous self-titled sitcom, so I can’t really compare this, but if you were expecting anything different, you won’t find it here.

If I laughed, I don’t recall at what, but I will be generous and give this one a weak “Could Be Watchable.” But it’s not for me.

A slightly better choice if you’re looking for a new sitcom might be “Poppa’s House.” Damon Wayans plays Damon “Poppa” Fulton, who is a radio personality. He is forced to take on a female psychologist as a new sidekick on his popular show to attract a more diverse audience. At home, he deals with his son Damon Jr., played by Damon Wayans Jr. Was the writing team so untalented that they couldn’t even come up with a fictitious first name for these characters, or were the Wayans such bad actors they couldn’t remember to refer to one another by the character names consistently? Draw your own conclusions.

That said, the show did have some laughs. Both stars have proven their comedic talents in other vehicles, and you can see them shine in this open-ended situation, which essentially lets them play themselves. I will give this one a stronger “Could Be Watchable,” but I don’t have room for it in my busy viewing schedule. You might want to check it out and see if it appeals to you.

The only other comedy that has potential is Disney Channel’s “Wizards Beyond Waverley Place.” As best I can tell, this is a spinoff of “Wizards of Waverly Place,” which ran for 106 episodes from 2007- 2012. I’ve never seen the original. David Hernie reprises his role as Justin Russo, who, in this series, has decided to give up his wizardly powers and live the normal life of a mortal. His wife and children have no idea about his magical past.

Life gets turned upside down when his sister Alex, played by Selena Gomez, brings him a young girl named Billy, who is a wizard in training. Apparently, Justin was a teacher at a wizard school in the previous series. Billy conjures up a silly monster to impress Justin’s children and then can’t figure out how to put it back from wherever it came from.

Although the kids now know that Billy is a wizard, they remain clueless about their father’s abilities, as does his wife.

This Disney Channel series is clearly aimed at a younger audience, and I think it will do well with them and fans of the original series. It shows lots of potential. Let’s call this one “Recommended Watchable,” which means if you like this kind of thing, I can highly recommend it, but personally, I will not be watching.

While we’re on the topic of watchable kid’s shows, Max streaming has a CGI animated kids’ show called “Barney’s World” featuring the iconic purple dinosaur. As I understand it, only kids can see him, and he has the ability to transport them to fantasy situations that only they can experience. The show is full of positive life lessons about being responsible, cooperative, and helpful, along with a dose of positive vibes about diversity. If you are anti-woke, then you are probably out protesting this show right now. But for reasonable parents, the show is completely harmless and quite positive. Obviously, it’s not for me, but we will call this one “Recommended Watchable” for your toddlers.

That’s going to wrap up for Part A of this two-part episode. Give me a couple of days to edit Part B, which will be coming very soon.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although I have some financial struggles, I’m not really in this for money. Still, every little bit helps.

As always, my deepest thanks to my financial supporters. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

All of my back episodes are available, and I encourage you to check them out if you’re new to this podcast. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback, please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you found this podcast.

I will see you next time as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

This week, we have a special episode where I review six new TV shows and one movie that have recently premiered.

Hello, this is Chris Young. Welcome to a special episode of Contemplating Life.

Years ago, I used to write an entertainment blog in which I would post non-gossip entertainment news. That is, I didn’t care who was sleeping with whom. I didn’t care who got divorced or broken up or got married or got arrested for something. I simply covered things like what new TV shows were being released, what new movies were in production, what was being canceled, who was going to guest star, etc. I also did movie and TV reviews. Obviously, I couldn’t see every new movie. I did attempt to watch at least one episode of every new TV show in the new fall and midseason to review it.

Unfortunately, I got busy, and some of my favorite web sources quit putting their content on an RSS feed. This made it hard for me to keep up with the latest news. Although the broadcast networks still release new shows in the fall and some midseason premieres, streaming services release new shows all the time, and there are just too many to keep up with. For example, I just finished binge-watching three seasons of the hit show Ted Lasso on Apple TV+, even though it was highly recommended to me by many people and won 13 Emmys. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it. It’s still streaming on Apple TV+ and is available for purchase on Blu-ray.

But that’s not why I’m here.

It’s been almost exactly two years since I last did an entertainment blog. Rather than go back to blogging reviews, I thought we would try some TV reviews for this podcast. Once again, I will attempt to watch and review every new series this fall season. I can’t promise you I will get through all of them, but we are going to give it a good attempt.

I will try to keep spoilers minimal, but I cannot make promises. I will give you a warning when I spoil.

In my old entertainment blog, I had my own system of ranking shows. Before we begin, I want to explain my system.

The worst rating was “Worthless.” Shows with this rating were so bad I didn’t even bother writing a complete review.

Only slightly better than that is a rating of “Skip It.” This is a bad show, and I will explain in detail why.

Next is “Could Be Watchable.” That means it’s not so bad that I’m telling you to skip it. On the other hand, either I wasn’t impressed or perhaps the jury was still out. I may have to watch another episode or two to decide. Some shows rated “Could Be Watchable” turned out okay, and I did add them to my viewing schedule. However, I usually drop such shows unless they get better.

Our next category is “I’m Watching.” This means the show may not be a must-see, highly recommended, wonderful show, but it’s good enough to hold my interest. Sometimes, it’s a type of guilty pleasure show that I like, even if it isn’t top-notch entertainment.

Our next category is “Recommended Watchable.” This is sort of equivalent to “I’m Watching” in that it’s good enough for me to watch but not so good that I would bump something out of my busy viewing schedule. You should consider it a mild endorsement, but I just don’t have space in my life for it. Check it out and see if it’s for you. You might like it.

Next is “I really like it.” I highly recommend it. I thoroughly enjoyed it and think you will too. It’s good for general audiences, not just sci-fi or comic book genre fans like myself. Count “Ted Lasso” in this category.

My top rating is “Must See.” This is extraordinary television that is above and beyond the average fair. It is destiny to become a classic. It works on every level. Great writing, acting, and directing make it sure to be an award winner. It is landmark television.

Now that we have that out of the way let’s get on with the reviews.

First on our agenda are a pair of spinoff shows set in comic book universes. One is set firmly in that fantasy world, while the other is quite realistic.

Let’s do fantasy first.

“Agatha All Along” is a sequel to the Marvel TV series “WandaVision” from Disney+ streaming. “WandaVision” was a surreal series about the Marvel character Wanda Maximoff, a.k.a. the Scarlet Witch. I can’t set up the premise of this new series without spoiling part of the plot “WandaVision.” I also cannot discuss this new series without spoiling something from the opening episode. Sorry about that.

In “WandaVision,” Wanda was trapped in a spell that made her believe she was a sitcom character. In each episode, she occupied a different style of sitcom ranging from a 60s black-and-white homage to shows such as “The Dick Van Dyke Show” up to more modern sitcoms.

Ultimately, we discovered that the villain in the series was an evil witch named Agatha Harkness. The big reveal in the final episode was, “It was Agatha all along.” Thus, we get the name of this new series. At the end of the previous series, Wanda steals Agatha’s powers.

In the new series, Agatha is now a woman named Agnes, who is a homicide detective in a small town. Along the way, we discover that everything is not what it seems.

This is going to spoil a plot point, but if you’re familiar with this character from the previous series, it should come as no surprise that what appears to be reality isn’t real. I mean, let’s face it: Wanda really wasn’t a character in a variety of five or six different sitcoms set over the course of five decades. She was a powerful witch living in a warped reality. It shouldn’t surprise you that Agatha/Agnes is not really a small-town detective.

Episode two sets Agatha on a quest to recruit other witches to travel something called the Witches’ Road, at the end of which you get whatever it is you desire. Naturally, Agatha desires to get her powers back.

Catherine Hahn reprises her role as Agatha. She really shows her acting range as she credibly portrays the small-town cop in the first two-thirds of the first episode and easily transitions into the over-the-top, conniving, evil witch Agatha.

Fans of the MCU, especially fans of “WandaVision,” will love this sequel, but I’m not sure it will find a wider audience. I would recommend that you watch “WandaVision” first if you’ve not seen it. If you don’t have time or inclination to do so, I think I’ve set things up well enough that you can probably jump into this series.

I’m ranking “Agatha All Along” as “I’m watching” with the caveat that it’s definitely a comic book/fantasy genre piece that might not appeal to someone who wasn’t a fan.

Our next review is another comic book piece that I can highly recommend. I will give it a ranking of “I really like it,” and you do not need to be a genre fan to appreciate it.

We are talking about the HBO/Max series “The Penguin.” It is set in the Batman/DC comics universe and is essentially a sequel to the 2022 film “The Batman,” directed by Matt Reeves and starring Robert Pattinson. In this series, Colin Farrell reprises his role as Oswald Cobb, a.k.a. The Penguin. Neither Batman nor Bruce Wayne appears in the opening episode, and I doubt that they will make an appearance in future episodes.

This series picks up immediately after the events of the film, and although it was enjoyable for me to go back and rewatch the film one more time as a refresher, this series does a great job of setting the scene without the need to watch that film.

Two crime families have controlled Gotham: the Falcone’s and the Maroni’s. In the film before this, the Maroni crime family was broken up, and its leader, Salvatore Maroni, was jailed. This leaves the Falcone family to take over the drug trade in the city. At the film’s end, Carmine Falcone is murdered, leaving his son Alberto to try to hold his father’s empire together. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have the gangster skills to do the job. Oswald sees the opportunity to get rid of Alberto and try to take over the criminal enterprise.

Falcone’s daughter Sophia, who has only recently been released from the Arkham Asylum for the Criminally Insane, stands in the way of his plans. Oswald must find a way to avoid Sophia while avoiding getting caught by the police or either of the city’s criminal organizations.

Farrell gives a highly nuanced performance in this well-written character. We see how his mother manipulates him to become a powerful man despite his clubfoot, which causes a severe, penguin-like waddling gait. State-of-the-art prosthetic makeup completely obliterates Colin Farrell, and if you didn’t know that he was playing the part, you might have never guessed. Even if you do know it’s him, only in the eyes can we perhaps recognize the famous character actor who has previously won Golden Globe awards and an Oscar nomination. Certainly, he will add an Emmy nomination to his resume and perhaps a win this year for this role.

Along the way, he recruits a young black man named Victor as his assistant. Initially, he was going to have a young man help him dispose of a body and then kill him. However, when Victor begs for his life, Oz decides to give the kid a chance. They both grew up in the same neighborhood. Victor’s home was destroyed by a flood caused by the Riddler at the end of the Batman film. We explore Oswald’s character through Victor’s eyes. Victor is played by actor Rhenzy Feliz, who you might recall from the Marvel TV series Runaways, which I greatly enjoyed.

Sophia is brilliantly portrayed by Cristin Milioti, who gives a chilling performance as the heir to the Falcone family, who was recently released from an asylum. She will make a worthy adversary to the Penguin.

Overall, you don’t feel like you’re watching a comic book story. These are realistically drawn characters that could’ve appeared in a mainstream gangster movie by Martin Scorsese. There is none of the over-the-top theatrics that we come to expect from comic book villains.

As I said earlier, I’m rating this one as “I really like it,” and I highly recommend you check it out. It will run for eight weekly episodes, with new episodes premiering Sunday night on HBO. It will also be available for streaming on Max.

We will take a brief look at a pair of medical shows. It was with much anticipation that I watched “Brilliant Minds” on NBC, starring Zachary Quinto. Quinto is famous for playing Mr. Spock in the 2009 JJ Abrams reboot of the Star Trek franchise. Now playing a doctor in this NBC drama, it’s difficult not to refer to him as Doctor Spock. And if you know who that is, your back hurts.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure there are any brilliant minds in the writers’ room of “Brilliant Minds.” Quinto plays Doctor Oliver Wolf, a brilliant but unorthodox neurologist. In the opening scene, he helps an Alzheimer’s patient escape from the hospital to attend his granddaughter’s wedding. Although he helps the man come out of his zombielike state and recognize his granddaughter briefly, you know that afterward, the patient won’t remember anything. While we can feel some empathy towards the patient and sympathize with the doctor’s intent to give the man a happy moment in his otherwise empty life, the fact that he took a nearly catatonic patient on an adventure by having the man right on the back of a motorcycle stretches credibility. He is fired from his position.

We see him as a reclusive man who tends to his plants and keeps his nose in a book. A friend of his recruits into a new position at Bronx General, but he declines, saying, “You know why I can’t work there.” By the time the reason is revealed in the final scene of the opening episode, I already had it figured out.

Wolf struggles with a neurological condition called “face blindness.” It makes a person unable to recognize people’s faces. In the first episode, his first patient at his new job also struggles with a cognitive condition in which she doesn’t recognize her own children and thinks that they have been kidnapped and replaced by substitutes. In finding a solution to her problem, he’s forced to confront his own condition, which he keeps secret from everyone except the colleague who got him his new job.

In the new job, he is surrounded by four interns who he is forced to supervise even though he prefers to work alone. They have varying degrees of enthusiasm about working with a brilliant yet radically unlikable boss.

There’s nothing original here. If you want to watch a show about a neuro-atypical doctor, I recommend you go watch “The Good Doctor,” which has more compelling characters than this series.

I’m rating this one as very weak: “Could Be Watchable,” leaning strongly towards “Skip It.” There are much better medical dramas available than this. It appears on Monday nights on NBC and is available to stream on Peacock TV.

Unfortunately, among those better medical dramas is not the new ABC series “Doctor Odyssey.” Picture this: Someone walks into a TV executive office with a great pitch for a new serious. Imagine it. It’s a cross between Grey’s Anatomy and The Love Boat. The executive buys it on the spot without seeing a single script. I don’t know for a fact that this happened, but it sure looks that way.

The story follows Doctor Max, a newly hired ship’s Doctor on a luxury cruise liner called “The Odyssey.” He is played by Joshua Jackson, known for his roles in “Dawson’s Creek” and “Fringe.” He works with a pair of experienced ship medical nurses. Avery Morgan, played by Philippa Soo, is an attractive young nurse practitioner. She is accompanied by Triston Silva, a hot young Latino nurse and a ladies’ man who is secretly in love with Avery.

The ship’s captain is played by an aging Don Johnson, who gives long discourses about his commitment to creating a fantasy paradise for the passengers. He tries and fails to have the same charisma and mystery as Mr. Rourke from “Fantasy Island.” Again, if you know what “Fantasy Island” is, your back hurts.

Like most medical shows, it’s populated with realistic yet undistinguishable-sounding medical jargon as they treat their patients miles from the nearest hospital in a state-of-the-art sick bay. Unfortunately, whoever advised them on the medical jargon knows nothing about tracheostomy tubes. They inserted a trach into a patient, and he was still able to talk without a speaking valve. Technically, it is possible to do so with a partially inflated cuff. There was no sign of a cuff inflation balloon on the trach prop they were using.

It’s populated by beautiful people running around in skimpy bathing suits and partying constantly.

The characters are mildly interesting in the medical situations run from a serious man overboard rescue to a more comical man with a fractured penis and some food poisoning along the way.

If you are desperate for a new medical show with eye-candy characters and light humor and romance, then you might find this a guilty pleasure, but for the most part, I will have to say, “Skip It.”

We wrap up this episode with a pair of episodes that I can recommend.

First, we have the new CBS series, “Matlock,” which stars Kathy Bates as the title character. This isn’t exactly a reimagining of the original series. In the opening scene, she explains her name.

“I’m Matty, informally. Formally, Madeline Matlock. Yes, Matlock like the old TV show, which was all I heard between 1984 and 1992. “You’re a lawyer like Matlock. You’re a lawyer like Matlock.” And every time I’d correct ’em, “No, he’s just pretending. You know, I’m a real lawyer.” But, you know, you can only protest so much before you sound like you got a big old pole up your heinie, so I just let ’em have it, and I just said, “Yeah, well, yeah, I’m a lawyer just like Matlock.”

She makes this explanation after sneaking into a partner meeting of a large, prestigious law firm. She has been trying to get a job interview, but the firm is not interested in hiring a septuagenarian lawyer who hasn’t practiced for 30 years. She explained that she had put herself in a position to overhear a conversation with a lawyer on the opposite side of one of their cases and learned that they would accept a settlement of $4 million greater than their current offer. Because she just made the firm $4 million, they agreed to hire her on a two-week probationary basis.

She is assigned to work with partner Olympia Lawrence, played by Skye P. Marshall. Olympia is unhappy having her on her team but accepts her help because it is the only way to prevent the law firm from dropping her case. She is defending a woman who was wrongly accused of a crime and framed by corrupt, racist police.

Olympia is divorcing one of the other partners, Julian, who is played by Jason Ritter. Olivia sends Matlock the impossible task of getting Julian to give up Thanksgiving weekend with the child even though it’s his turn.

Matlock has some missteps along the way that nearly cost them the case, but it’s not much of a spoiler to say that it all works out in the end.

Bates gives a memorable performance as a quirky, down-home, “awe-shucks,” 70-something-year-old lawyer.

The closing scene contains a gigantic plot twist that reveals a running plot line throughout the series that you will not see coming. I will make no attempt to hint at what it is. All I can say is that even without this new continuing plotline to keep you coming back, I think the show is worth watching. The big secret plot is just icing on the cake.

I’m rating it “I Really Like It.” I suggest you check it out. Kathy Bates should be enough to get you to watch this, and the character they’ve written for her makes full use of her talent.

Our final new series is the ABC crime procedural “High Potential,” the title of which is an appropriate description of my opinion. The show has potential, but it remains to be seen if it will live up to it.

The series stars Kaitlin Olson as Morgan Gillory, a single mom who works nights cleaning a police station. In the opening scene, she is dancing around the office, listening to music while she works, and accidentally knocking over a stack of case files. As she picks up the files, she can’t help but see some crime scene photos that catch her eye. She then walks up to the murder board, where there is a photo of the murder victim’s wife. She crosses out the word “suspect” and writes in “victim.”

The next day, when the detectives discover that the board has been changed, they review the surveillance video to find out that the cleaning lady did it. They bring her in and threaten to charge her with obstructing an investigation. They ask why she did it, and she explains her theory of the case. Her argument is so compelling they decide to pursue her theory.

As you might guess, she was right. By the end of the episode, they offer her a job as a consultant.

I’ve always been skeptical of the outside police consultant sub-genre, which traces its origins to Edgar Allen Poe’s 1841 character C. Auguste Dupin in his short story “The Murders in the Rue Morgue,” 46 years before Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes.

On TV, we have had a wide variety of consulting detectives in shows such as Castle, The Mentalist, Elementary (which is a modern-day Sherlock Holmes), Psych, and Monk.

While it’s fascinating to think that there are people with such keen observation powers that they can see things that even the most highly trained detectives might miss, the entire premise of this entire genre is complete fantasy. In 2018, I wrote a review of a similar series, Carter, which I described as the worst ever such show. In that review, I expressed my dismay that the entire concept of consultant detective was a giant fiction with no basis in reality. I wish I knew someone in law enforcement who could verify for me that since things never take place.

Since then, I have spoken to at least three people who are familiar with real-life police work, and they assure me that they have never heard of a so-called “consulting detective” in their departments’ history. At best, a prosecutor might hire an expert witness to testify about evidence, but no outsiders ever participate in the actual investigations.

Along the way, we learn that Morgan is a bit of a savant with an IQ of 160. She can crunch numbers in her head faster than a calculator. So, her innate ability to observe what others have missed isn’t her only gift.

While it would be easy to dismiss this as yet another well-worn, unrealistic trope, something is compelling about these characters. If you enjoyed “Monk,” then consider this as potentially a reimagination of that series with a female hero.

I’m giving it a weak “I’m Watching It,” but it borders on “Could Be Watchable.” The jury is still out, but I liked the first episode for the same reasons I enjoyed Monk years ago. You might want to check it out and see for yourself. After a sneak preview episode, where episodes begin October 8 on ABC and streaming on Hulu.

One more quick review. If you subscribe to Apple TV+, check out the new movie, “Wolves,” starring George Clooney and Brad Pitt, who portray the guys you call when you need to dispose of a dead body and make it look like it never happened. Through a contrived set of circumstances, these lone wolves are both called in to clean up the dead body of the young man who was accidentally killed in the hotel room of a female district attorney. They are forced to work together even though they prefer working alone.

It’s everything you would want from these two actors in a quirky comedy with some pretty good action sequences along the way. Highly recommended.

There are still more TV series in the coming days, and I will have another special episode to review them.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although I have some financial struggles, I’m not really in this for money. Still, every little bit helps.

As always, my deepest thanks to my financial supporters. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

All of my back episodes are available, and I encourage you to check them out if you’re new to this podcast. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback, please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you found this podcast.

I will see you next time as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

In this episode, we wrap up my six-part series on Oscar-nominated films for 2024. Our final category contains my favorite film of the year and the film that is most likely to win significant numbers of awards including Best Picture. I call this category “Troubled Geniuses”

The 96th Annual Academy Awards will be awarded this Sunday, March 10. After this episode, I’m going to take off the rest of the month and will return with new episodes in April. This is been a labor of love but a labor nevertheless.

Hi, This is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 59 of Contemplating Life – Oscar edition.

The 96th Annual Academy Awards will be awarded this Sunday, March 10. This is the last of my series on the Oscar-nominated films for 2024. After this episode, I’m going to take off the rest of the month and will return with new episodes in April. This has been a labor of love but a labor nevertheless.

Our final category contains my favorite film of the year and the film and the film that is most likely to win significant numbers of awards including Best Picture. So, we have saved the best for last. I call this category “Troubled Geniuses”

We begin with Christopher Nolan’s epic movie “Oppenheimer”. It’s the story of J Robert Oppenheimer who led the Manhattan Project to develop the first atomic bomb.

The film is actually two interconnected stories told in parallel. We have the story of Oppenheimer beginning with his career as a young physics student through his development of the atomic bomb and eventually his activism to promote nuclear disarmament. This story is described by a title card as “Fission” which is the term for the splitting of an atom which releases tremendous amounts of energy. This portion of the film is shot in color 70mm IMAX film.

The parallel story is that of Louis Strauss who was a trustee of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton and who later led the Atomic Energy Commission. This portion of the story is described by a title card of “Fusion” which is the process of combining hydrogen atoms into helium also releasing tremendous amounts of energy. It is a process that powers the sun and all of the stars and is the process of the hydrogen bomb that Strauss promoted. This portion of the film told from Strauss’ perspective is shot in black-and-white 70mm IMAX film which was specially produced for this project because no one had ever used black-and-white IMAX before.

The framework of these two stories surrounds hearings regarding the careers of these two men. Oppenheimer appeared for several weeks before a special committee of the Atomic Energy Commission in April and May 1954 as he appealed the revocation of his security clearance.

At the time he was a highly popular public figure for his role in developing the atomic bomb which was credited for ending World War II. Oppenheimer had hoped the development of a weapon as powerful as an atomic bomb would make war unthinkable in the future and would essentially end all wars. He imposed the development of the more powerful hydrogen bomb and was a strong advocate for negotiated arms treaties. This opposition to further atomic weapon development as well as past affiliations with known Communists led to the revocation of his security clearance. The story opens with Oppenheimer, played by Cillian Murphy, testifying before this committee. He chooses to tell his life story so that his work can be understood in proper context. So his portion of the film is told as a flashback as he testifies before the AEC committee.

Strauss is played by Robert Downey, Jr. His portion of the film also centers around a hearing. He is being considered for a position in the Eisenhower administration as Secretary of Commerce in 1958. Strauss testifies before the Senate committee approving his appointment and recounts the story of his feud with Oppenheimer over the development of the hydrogen bomb. His story is told in flashbacks from that hearing.

Although these two stories are told in parallel, clearly this is primarily Oppenheimer’s story. It begins with him as a graduate student in Cambridge where he proved to be clumsy and inapt in the laboratory. At one point, so frustrated with his scientific advisor at Cambridge that he tried to poison him with a poisoned apple. A fictionalized version of this true incident is shown in the film. Fortunately, he’d stopped the man from being poisoned.

Oppenheimer left Cambridge for the University of Göttingen in Germany to study under Max Born; Göttingen was one of the world’s leading centers for theoretical physics. Freed from his inability to perform in the lab, Oppenheimer prospered in theoretical physics. He became an expert in the new field of quantum mechanics and returned to the US to teach quantum theory at Caltech.

His brother Frank, also a physicist, was active in the American Communist Party. Oppenheimer never joined the party but was intrigued by the support of everyday workers and he contributed to programs to help refugees in the Spanish Civil War. Those funds were distributed through the Communist Party. One must understand that the early communist movement in the US was about workers’ rights and other liberal causes but was not yet associated with the kind of dictatorships that developed in Russia, China, and other Communist countries. So, there wasn’t quite the stigma of the Communist Party early on.

Oppenheimer had a relationship with Berkeley activist Jean Tatlock who was active in communist politics. He eventually married Kitty Puening who had also been involved in Communist politics at Berkeley but had renounced communism before she met Oppenheimer. They had an affair and she became pregnant. Kitty’s husband gave her a divorce and she and Oppenheimer were married. They eventually had three children together.

Oppenheimer was recruited by General Leslie Grove to lead a top-secret project to develop an atomic weapon. Grove is brilliantly played by Matt Damon. Grove was well aware of the communist skeletons in Oppenheimer’s closet. In the film, Oppenheimer figures out that Grove was not ignoring his previous communist entanglements but had specifically recruited him in hopes that he could hold those entanglements over his head and control him.

Oppenheimer and his brother Frank loved to roam the deserts of New Mexico and he had always dreamed of finding a way of combining his around of New Mexico with his love for physics. He recommended a location called Los Alamos where the Army would build an entire city complete with homes, schools, churches, and entertainment. Oppenheimer knew that he could not recruit the best scientists in the country unless they could bring their families with them.

The film chronicles some of the difficulties faced in this groundbreaking endeavor of creating a nuclear weapon. There were competing theories on how it should be done and there were early moves to create a hydrogen bomb although to detonate a hydrogen bomb one must use a uranium or plutonium atomic bomb. So they had to build the atomic bomb first anyway.

It’s not a spoiler to say that they did build an atomic bomb.

Oppenheimer then began actively working towards nuclear disarmament and that caused great controversy.

The committee reviewing his security clearance was stacked against him and he never had a chance at winning. During the testimony, it was revealed that he continued to have an affair with Jean Tatlock after he was married to Kitty. Kitty was aware of the affair but the way it was depicted in the hearing is quite explicit. I won’t spoil that for you.

The latter half of the film focuses on Strauss and his Senate hearings as he tries to explain his feud with the popular physicist.

Christopher Nolan is known for his extensive use of IMAX sequences in his previous films such as the Dark Knight Batman trilogy, Inception, Tenet, and Dunkirk. This film was shot almost entirely in IMAX or other 65mm film formats where IMAX would have been impractical.

There was great hype that the film would be shown in IMAX 70mm film in only 30 locations around the world and only 19 of them were in the US. With a three-hour run time, most of these theaters had to install special film platters to hold the 11 miles of film which weighed 600 pounds. The print was shipped to theaters packaged in 53 smaller reels which then had to be carefully spliced together by trained projectionists to produce the giant continuous three-hour print.

There were other digital IMAX and 70mm showings but not in full IMAX. One of those theaters was the IMAX Theatre at the Indiana State Museum at White River Park here in Indianapolis. I was able to see the film in that format at that location.

If you have heard recent episodes of this podcast you know what a huge fan I am of IMAX. You also know that I’m quite a science nerd. You would think that this was the ultimate viewing experience for a geek like me.

While it was an amazing film with a compelling story well written, well acted, well shot, and certainly worthy of its 13 Oscar nominations, overall for me it was no big deal. I go to IMAX or any other theater because I want to get my eyes maxed. I want to see something spectacular and immersive. I want to be taken to places real or fantasy that I could not otherwise go. Except for the actual detonation sequence during the test at Los Alamos, which wasn’t that spectacular by the way, there was nothing about this film that needed to be seen in the theater let alone an IMAX.

The vast majority of the film is people arguing about physics, politics, communism, and extramarital affairs, and none of that needs to be experienced 60 feet tall with state-of-the-art digital surround.

While I am eternally grateful that we have filmmakers like Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, and others who are keeping IMAX alive, this particular film was not a great showcase for the format.

Don’t get me wrong. This is an amazing film. I liked it a lot. It is my third favorite of the year. It deserves all of its nominations. It will likely win a bunch. It’s just not why I spend premium prices and risk my health to see something in IMAX. I quite enjoyed a second viewing streaming on my 23-inch desktop computer monitor. Even viewing it on my roommate’s 55-inch 4k TV wasn’t necessary.

In addition to its Best Picture nomination, Christopher Nolan is nominated as Best Director and has a good shot at winning. He has cleverly crafted a compelling story that dives deep into the minds of two amazing people Oppenheimer and Strauss. These are complex characters with complex motivations who shaped history.

The attention to detail is phenomenal. There are dozens of minor things that only physicists would appreciate. For example, at a social gathering, there is someone in the background playing bongo drums. Only physics nerds know that physicist Richard Feynman was famous for playing those drums. He is never mentioned in the film or identified as Richard Feynman but he is there in the background. Nolan already won directing BAFTA and DGA awards.

Cillian Murphy completely transforms into the character. Anyone who has seen video or photographs of the actual man can appreciate how much he has embodied Oppenheimer and from what I’ve read about the man it’s not just his appearance that he has re-created. He is nominated as Best Lead Actor and is likely to win. It is my second favorite actor performance of the year.

Robert Downey, Jr. gives a chilling performance as the manipulative, conniving Strauss. His nomination for Supporting Actor is well-deserved.

Emily Blunt is consistently interesting as Oppenheimer’s wife Kitty. She is someone who has devoted her life to supporting her husband at great cost and has forgiven him for his extramarital affair. She is constantly encouraging him to fight the forces against him yet when she is called to testify before the committee she struggles to maintain composure in the face of attacks against her. Fighting isn’t as easy as she thought it would be. She is deservedly nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar and is my third favorite pick in that category.

Is also nominated for the adapted screenplay by Christopher Nolan, Photography, Production Design, and Sound all of which are richly deserved. I have no opinion about the nominations for Musical Score, Makeup and Hair, Costume Design, or Film Editing except to say that the hair and costumes looked period-authentic and the score seemed to heighten the tension in the film.

Its 13 BAFTA nominations included wins for Best Picture, Best Director for Nolan, Lead Actor Murphy, Supporting Actor Downey, Cinematography, Editing, and Musical Score.

Its 8 Golden Globe nominations included wins for Best Drama, Best Director Nolan, Best Actor Murphy, Supporting Actor Downey, and Musical Score.

The Musical Score also won a Grammy for Best Score Soundtrack for Visual Media.

There were 4 SAG nominations including wins for Murphy, Downey, and Ensemble Cast.

IMDb lists 305 wins and 381 other nominations.

Released in the US in July and produced on an estimated budget of $100 million. It has earned nearly $330 million in the US and Canada and $957 million worldwide.

It is currently still being shown in some theaters although not IMAX. It is available for streaming on Peacock, for rent or purchase on Amazon and YouTube, and for purchase on DVD, Blu-ray, and 4k Blu-ray.

I highly recommend the film although you already have heard my thoughts about seeing it in a theater or on IMAX or 4k.

* * *

Our final film of the year is my favorite of the 10 Best Picture Nominated films. “Maestro” stars Bradley Cooper as legendary composer, conductor, and pianist Leonard Bernstein. While I was impressed with Cillian Murphy totally inhabiting the character of Oppenheimer, it is nothing compared to what Bradley Cooper achieves in his portrayal of this musical legend.

The opening scene shows Bernstein late in life sitting at the piano and being interviewed by a camera crew. He talks nostalgically about his late wife actress Felicia Montealegre who was his inspiration and muse. I had to remind myself that I was watching Bradley Cooper. I’m familiar with Leonard Bernstein from many TV programs and YouTube videos I’ve seen about the great man. It was as if he was brought back to life before my eyes. The hair, makeup, voice, mannerisms, body language, and everything about the man became incarnate in this film.

After seeing the film, I became obsessed with Bernstein and began watching hours and hours of YouTube videos and documentaries about the great genius. With every minute that I watched, I became more and more impressed with Bradley Cooper’s performance.

He is nominated as Best Lead Actor and is by far my favorite performance of the year by anyone male or female.

In addition to the lead role, Cooper also produced, directed, and co-wrote the screenplay all of which were nominated. Consider that he also starred in, produced, directed, and co-wrote the screenplay for his previous film “A Star is Born” which earned nine Oscar nominations. He is proving to be an amazing filmmaker. If he does not win any Oscars this year, it is just a matter of time before he is finally recognized as the top of his craft.

After the opening scene with Bernstein in his late years, it jumps back to the earliest days of his career. He had to fill in as conductor at the last minute without any rehearsal to conduct the New York Philharmonic in Carnegie Hall when guest conductor Bruno Walter fell ill. The next day, a rave review was published on the front page of the New York Times and was picked up by multiple other newspapers. The performance also aired on CBS radio around the country. This rocketed him to instant fame.

Although the film follows his career from that famous debut through his works late in life, it’s not your typical biopic about the career of a genius. The film instead focuses primarily on his relationship with his wife Felicia who is brilliantly played by Carey Mulligan who has earned a Lead Actress Oscar Nomination for the role.

The film is a love story about two extremely passionate people. Like some of the other films we have reviewed, it shows us the price that is paid by those close to driven people. Bernstein had multiple affairs with both women and men. This naturally put great strain on his marriage. He remained totally closeted about his sexuality and when rumors arose about his relationships with men, he flatly denied everything. There was an especially poignant conversation with his daughter in an attempt to spare her feelings.

Cooper uses a variety of cinematic styles to establish the time period being depicted. Early in Bernstein’s career, it was filmed in black-and-white in a traditional 4 x 3 nearly square aspect ratio used by early films. Later in the story, it switches to color but still in that narrow 4 x 3 aspect ratio. These scenes re-create the era much in the same way that “The Holdovers” established its era by its cinematic choices. Only later does the film switch to a widescreen format in full color. While the switch between color and black-and-white was occasionally distracting in Oppenheimer, this progression of film styles in Maestro greatly enhanced the experience and helped set the time frame and the mood of each scene. Except for that opening scene late in his life, the rest of the story is told, chronologically so the shift in cinematic style feels like a natural part of that progression. It is a very effective filmmaking technique.

Bernstein separated from Felicia in 1976 but reunited with her the next year when she developed lung cancer. He put his career on hold canceling many appearances so that he could care for her until her death in June 1978.

The film concludes with a re-creation of Bernstein conducting the London Symphony Orchestra in a famous performance of Gustav Mahler’s Second Symphony “Resurrection” Himat Ely Cathedral in Cambridgeshire, England. Words cannot describe what a magnificent piece of filmmaking and acting appears in this single scene. It is an achievement beyond belief. I’ve seen a video of the actual performance and to say that Cooper has channeled the great maestro is a huge understatement.

The film has been criticized because it glosses over some of Bernstein’s greatest works. For example, the beloved musical “West Side Story” is barely mentioned at all. But as I said at the beginning, this is not your typical biopic. It is the love story between Bernstein and his wife and it tells the story beautifully.

In addition to Best Picture, its seven Oscar nominations include Lead Actor Bradley Cooper, Lead Actress Carrie Mulligan, Screenplay Bradley Cooper and Josh Singer, Cinematography, Sound, and Hair and Makeup all of which are greatly deserved. And yes, for once I do have an opinion about hair and makeup. It was essential to the transformation.

It had 7 BAFTA nominations and 4 Golden Globe nominations as well as SAG nominations for Cooper and Mulligan.

IMDb lists 21 wins and 179 nominations.

Released in December on an estimated budget of $80 million this Netflix production has grossed only $383,000 worldwide but as we have mentioned previously, such box office numbers are meaningless for films that are produced for streaming and have only limited theatrical release.

I have insufficient words to describe how magnificent this film is. Please watch it. Also, check out some of the links in the description which include the film’s Executive Producer Steven Spielberg interviewing director Bradley Cooper about the film. Be sure to see the behind-the-scenes feature which includes interviews with Bernstein’s daughters talking about how much they loved Cooper’s performance. The Bernstein family cooperated in the production of the film. Also, check out my side-by-side comparison of Bradley Cooper and Bernstein both conducting the London Symphony Orchestra at Ely Cathedral. I’ve also linked actual footage of Leonard Bernstein, and if there is not sufficient “West Side Story” for you in this film, check out the documentary I linked which shows Bernstein conducting “West Side Story” for a recording featuring operatic singers playing all of the parts.

* * *

Well folks, that wraps up our detailed look at 14 films nominated for Oscars this year. Let’s recap the entire bunch and I will rank my favorites in order and then tell you who I think will actually win. Keep in mind that although “The Zone of Interest” was difficult to watch and “Poor Things” was sufficiently bizarre that it might not appeal to everyone, I have to say I enjoyed all of these films on some level. There is not a stinker in the bunch.

Counting down to my number one favorite in each of these categories…

Let’s start with adapted screenplays. 5 “The Zone of Interest”, 4 “Poor Things”, 3 “Oppenheimer”, 2 “Barbie”, and my favorite adapted screenplay of the year is “American Fiction” for creating a memorable character and deep satire. I love it even though it doesn’t have a chance. “Oppenheimer” is likely to win but part of me hopes that Greta Gerwig wins for “Barbie”.

For original screenplay. 5 “Past Lives”, 4 “May December”, 3 “Maestro”, 2 “The Holdovers” for its witty charm and clever twists on old tropes, and finally my favorite original screenplay is “Anatomy of a Fall” for that amazing scene in which the husband and wife realistically argue as well as for the clever way it seems to resolve the story yet leaves so many doubts lingering. It’s a phenomenal piece of writing.

Supporting Actress 5 Daniel Brooks – “The Color Purple” in one of only 2 nominations with which I disagreed. 4 America Ferrera – “Barbie”, 3 Emily Blunt – “Oppenheimer”, 2 Da’Vine Joy Randolph – “The Holdovers” who is likely to win and I will not be disappointed if she does. And naturally, my number one pick is… you guessed it… Jodie Foster – “Nyad”. It really is a great performance and not just my obsessive bias for Foster.

Lead Actress I enjoyed all of these performances so consider it nearly a five-way tie. If I had to rank them I would say… 5 Carey Mulligan – “Maestro”, Lily Gladstone – “Killers of the Flower Moon” I moved her from 5th to 4th after reconsidering. She is very likely to win and it will be a close call between her and my 3rd pick Emma Stone – “Poor Things”. My two favorite performances haven’t got a chance but I greatly enjoyed 2 Annette Benning – “Nyad” and was totally blown away by my favorite of the group Sandra Huller – “Anatomy of a Fall”. I plan to look up more of her films. Keep your eyes on her in the future. I expect great things.

Supporting Actor – 5 Ryan Gosling – “Barbie” which is the other nomination that I felt was undeserved even though I found it quite amusing. 4 Sterling K Brown – “American Fiction” which was okay but probably forgettable. 3 Mark Ruffalo – “Poor Things” which had me in stitches at several points. 2 Robert De Niro – “Killers of the Flower Moon” who remains at the top of his form and is a very close second to my favorite in the category Robert Downey, Jr.. – “Oppenheimer” which is likely to win. In fact, I think this is the only one of my favorites that is likely to win. I have to pick a winner sometime don’t I? We’ll see.

We are going to take Lead Actors from the top down this time. As you have just seen, Bradley Cooper – “Maestro” blew me away. I could easily cop out and say it is a four-way tie for 2nd place but if forced to make a choice I would pick 2 Paul Giamatti – “The Holdovers”, 3 Cillian Murphy – “Oppenheimer” who is likely to win, 4 Coleman Domingo – “Rustin”, and 5 Jeffrey Wright – “American Fiction”. All five were phenomenal performances.

For Best Director… I’m a bit disappointed that Bradley Cooper was not nominated but it was really his performance that shined the most. I wouldn’t bump anyone from this list to make room for him or Greta Gerwig. I may have rearranged these from comments made in previous episodes but here is where I stand now. All five of them have done an amazing war this year but if I have to pick it is… 5 Jonathan Glazer – “The Zone of Interest”, 4 Yorgos Lanthimos – “Poor Things”, 3 Christopher Nolan – “Oppenheimer” who is likely to win. 2 Justine Triet – “Anatomy of a Fall” for the choices she made in showing the domestic argument and the overall structure of the courtroom scenes. This leaves us with the Grand Master Martin Scorsese – “Killers of the Flower Moon” who at age 81 still keeps topping himself year after year.

Finally, we come to the Best Picture. Although I might put an asterisk next to a recommendation for a couple of these films, as I said before, there is not a stinker in the bunch. Counting down…

10 “The Zone of Interest”, 9 “Past Lives”, 8 “Barbie”, 7 “Poor Things”, 6 “Killers of the Flower Moon”, 5 “American Fiction“, 4 “The Holdovers”, 3 “Oppenheimer” will likely wi figure n but Barbie might be a dark horse. 2 “Anatomy of a Fall” mostly because of the writing, the lead actress performance by Sandra Hüller and the way it kept me guessing even after the film was over. It was a very entertaining experience. And, as you know, my favorite of the bunch was “Maestro” for reasons previously stated.

Last year I covered 10 films in 3 episodes and I wore myself out editing all of the trailers, still photos, and movie clips into the YouTube version of the podcast. When I finished, I said to myself, “I’m not going to do that in such detail next year. It was too much work.”

Well, so much for that resolution…

This year I did 14 films in six episodes in even more detail. The editing was just as extensive as I tried to get the movie clips and still photos to match up with the narration. On top of that, I did so after three other movie-related episodes. That’s nine episodes in a row that were far more difficult than my usual talking head episodes. I had to throw out my usual schedule of releasing episodes on Monday mornings to get everything done in time for the Oscar ceremony.

I’m totally exhausted but I loved every minute of it.

Who knows what I will do next year? Maybe we will throw in animated animated features which I wanted to watch this year but didn’t have time this year.

I will return with a new episode formed by Patreon supporters on April 1st and the episode will be released to the general public on April 8th

Why do I love movies so much? Because they are all about contemplating life.

I find them to be educational, entertaining, enlightening, and even inspiring.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although finances are tight, I don’t do this for the money. Still, every little bit helps.

As always my deepest thanks to my financial supporters. It expresses your support for what I’m doing. I will never be able to express how much that means to me.

Even if you cannot provide financial support, please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

You can check out any of my back episodes which are all available where you found this episode. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast. Tell me what you liked or did not like about these films. What are your picks to win the Oscar this year?

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe everyone.

In this episode, we review two more films nominated for Best Picture Oscars. I call this grouping “Genocidal Husbands.” Yes, it is strange that we would have two major nominated films on that topic but indeed we do. Check out the episode as we wind down to the end of our list and approach the 96th Annual Academy Awards on March 10.

Hi, This is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 58 of Contemplating Life – Oscar edition.

The 96th Annual Academy Awards are just a few days away as I’m writing this. We still have four more Best Picture Nominees and two episodes to cover them. We have saved some of the best for last.

When I came up with the idea of grouping the Best Picture Nominees into pairs, I didn’t have all 5 pairs figured out. But now that we are down to the end, my little gimmick for grouping the films in twos has worked out much better than I thought it would.

This week’s grouping is called “Genocidal Husbands”. We have two films about marriages in which the husbands engaged in rampant, racist, murder of people based on their ethnic background. It’s strange that we would have two such films in the same year.

The first one is “The Zone of Interest” directed by Jonathan Glaser. It is the story of Rudolf Höss who was the Commandant of the Auschwitz Concentration camps. He and his wife Hedwig live in a spacious villa with a huge garden that includes a swimming pool, a greenhouse, and stables for his horses. The other side of the tall garden wall is the camp where Jewish prisoners are sorted. Those capable of working are sent to local factories as slave labor. Those who are too weak are killed in gas chambers and the bodies burned in furnaces.

Although this is a British production by a British director, the entire film is in German with English subtitles.

The film does not show us the horrors going on in the camp but we hear them quite vividly. From time to time, you can hear screaming and occasional gunfire as unruly prisoners are eliminated. There is only one brief scene at the camp itself and the camera stays focused on the face of Höss as he oversees the unloading of train loads of prisoners. We hear the screaming of men women and children and again occasional gunfire dealing with those who are uncooperative.

The majority of the film simply shows us the day-to-day happy life of this couple who enjoy the benefits of his position. The renovation of their house and the construction of the garden and other outbuildings were all performed by or paid for by local businessmen as a kickback for getting the slave labor from the camp. In one scene, Höss meets with a pair of contractors who have come up with a more efficient design for the furnaces.

Höss and his wife have 5 children ranging from an infant up to a teenager. Their eldest son enjoys playing with his collection of gold teeth that have been extracted from the prisoners. Hedwig enjoys receiving fine fur coats and jewelry stolen from the Jews and she distributes other lesser-quality pieces of clothing to their household servants.

The family enjoys picnicking, fishing, and swimming in the nearby river. However, one day the river is polluted by ash and human remains. Rudolph has to scurry out of the river where he is fishing in hip waders and get his children out of the water quickly to run home and be scrubbed vigorously with hot water.

The movie was filmed using remotely operated hidden cameras placed around the house and grounds so that the actors would not be distracted by them. There are no movie lights used. Everything is shot digitally with natural lighting. They would act out long scenes and would be unaware of what part of the scene the cameras were focused upon. The actors said that it made their performance more natural because they didn’t have to worry about hitting their marks. They just played out the scene.

Except for one scene, I don’t recall seeing any close-ups in the entire film. During conversations, there is little or no back-and-forth editing between the participants. The cameras are static.

In one particular scene, while Rudolph is discussing the new furnaces in his office with the contractors, Hedwig is entertaining her friends, and a Polish servant girl scurries around the house serving drinks and collecting the Commandant’s bloody boots to be cleaned by another servant. The scene was filmed with 10 remotely controlled cameras in fixed locations. It is edited together to follow the servant girl as she wanders between the rooms. It’s as if this is all happening in real-time and we are voyeuristically watching it unfold. I have linked a YouTube video about the filming of that particular scene. It’s really fascinating.

The actual Höss home still exists in Poland adjacent to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and Memorial. Director Jonathan Glaser visited the museum and spent years researching the film including material from the museum’s archives. This included written testimony and interviews of the actual servants who worked in their home.

The movie was filmed on location in Poland just a hundred yards from the actual home. They found an appropriate abandoned home and renovated it. It took months to re-create the garden which is meticulously identical to the original. The museum was cooperative in the production and there is an epilogue scene filmed in the museum. I have linked the museum/memorial website in the description.

There is very little plot to the film. We are simply a fly on the wall witnessing the normality of these deeply evil people.

The only plot point occurs about halfway through the film is that Rudolph is reassigned to a new position in the Nazi hierarchy. He delays telling his wife about the move for over a week which upsets her greatly. She has worked hard to create the idyllic garden behind the house and to create a luxurious life for herself, her husband, and their children. She begs him to allow her to stay in the home as he travels to his new assignment. He petitions his superiors to allow her to stay behind and they agree. One of the servants whose testimony is in the museum archives was the source for the information that the couple argued over this incident so it is entirely authentic to what it was really like in the Höss household.

Eventually, Hitler approved a new plan to bring 700,000 Jews from Hungary to the camps in Poland for extermination and war production. Höss will be returning home to his wife and family to supervise the massive new importation of Jews. Himmler describes it as “Operation Höss”. Rudolph excitedly calls his wife to share the good news. She is mildly happy but ultimately just complains that he called her so late at night. Couldn’t this have waited?

And that’s basically it. That’s the movie in a nutshell.

I’ve summarized the entire plot. There is no “action” per se. We just our witness to the casual approach that these people have to evil.

Fortunately, the film only lasts one hour 45 minutes and that is more than enough time for it to make its point.

Rudolph is played by German actor Christian Friedel who is unknown to me and his IMDb listing doesn’t show anything I recognize.

Sandra Hüller was similarly unknown to me until I saw this year’s nominated film “Anatomy of a Fall.” Both of them deliver chilling performances although it’s a bit difficult to judge their performance with a lack of close-up shots.

The film has 5 Oscar nominations. In addition to Best Picture, it is also nominated for Best Foreign Film and Best Director Jonathan Glaser. Also nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay by Jonathan Glaser very loosely based on the novel of the same name by Sir Martin Amis. Sadly, Amis died on the same day that the film made its debut at the Cannes Film Festival where it was awarded the “Grand Prize of the Festival”.

None of those Oscar nominations are likely to win in the face of stiff competition however it is also nominated for Best Sound and although I’ve not looked up what other films are nominated in that category, it should definitely win. The entire premise of the film is that you hear the horror but do not see it.

By the way, it was easy for the actors to ignore the sound during filming because they did not have any of those sound effects of dying people during the shooting of the film.

It was nominated for 9 BAFTA awards and it won Best British Film of the Year, Best Film Not in the English Language, and of course Best Sound.

It was nominated for three Golden Globe Awards. IMDb lists 158 nominations and 51 wins.

The film has earned just over $7 million in the US and Canada and $16.5 million worldwide.

For the most part, the film is an impossible pain to watch. But then again, that’s the point, isn’t it? Is quite strange that the film can be simultaneously boring and horrifying. It is an amazing piece of filmmaking and I understand why it received its nominations. I think they are all well deserved. But I cannot recommend the film. Although I’m glad I saw it, and I am fascinated by the way it was produced, it is my least favorite of the 10 Best Picture Nominated films.

* * *

In our second film this episode, we get a different look at genocide this time a little closer to home. Martin Scorsese directs “Killers of the Flower Moon.” It is based on the true story of the Osage Native American tribe in Oklahoma in the 1920s who discovered oil on their lands. Then one by one, they are killed off by white people in an attempt to steal their oil rights.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Ernest Burkart, a young man who returns home to Oklahoma after serving as a cook in the Army during World War I. He is taken under the wing of his uncle William Hale played by Robert De Niro. Hale who goes by the nickname “King” is a wealthy rancher in the area who is very powerful in the nearby town of Fairfax.

Ernest is unable to perform manual labor because of a hernia condition but King finds work for him as a driver. The Osage people have become extremely wealthy and Ernest finds employment driving around an Osage woman named Mollie. At Uncle King’s encouragement, Ernest courts and eventually weds Mollie thus making him a partial heir to her oil rights.

King is the leader of a conspiracy to kill off the Osage oil rights holders one by one. Some are simply murdered in cold blood. Some fall victim to accidents. Some are staged suicides. Wherever possible, the powerful white men tried to marry into the Osage families so that their rights would eventually fall to them.

The story jumps in time in several places as we see Ernest and Mollie begin to raise a family. Molly suffers from severe diabetes and King and her doctors arrange for her to be given insulin treatments which are a brand-new therapy during the time the story takes place.

King claims to love the Osage people and befriends many of them. The Osage for the most part believe that he is their friend.

The tribal Council hires private investigators because the local authorities will not investigate the deaths of the oil rights holders. The investigators mysteriously disappear. Eventually, they send a representative to Washington DC to request that the federal government investigate these deaths. For some reason, he never arrives. Then Mollie joins a large Osage delegation who travel to DC themselves and insists on being seen by someone who will investigate the deaths. DC eventually sends investigators.

King insists that Ernest get his wife under control and keep her from being such a troublemaker. They add drugs to her insulin injections and keep her in a drug-induced stupor.

As members of Mollie’s family are killed off, Ernest serves as a go-between between King and the suckers they get to commit the murders. He begins to realize that at some point his wife is going to be next. Even though he is been on board with the plan all along, he truly loves his wife and doesn’t want to lose her or leave his children motherless.

So, what will Ernest do? Does he dare stand up to his powerful uncle and the other powerful white men of the community and testify against them? If he does so, he will naturally have to reveal his role in the conspiracy. While that might save the life of his wife, it will in all likelihood destroy their relationship when his involvement becomes public knowledge.

DiCaprio does a wonderful job portraying this man who participates in such evil acts yet grows a conscience when he realizes the evil is eventually targeting his immediate family. You feel every bit of his struggle with his conscience. You feel he really loves his wife yet he feels bound by loyalty to his powerful uncle. It’s an amazing performance and his Oscar nomination as Lead Actor is very much deserved.

De Niro of course turns in a phenomenal performance as the sly and duplicitous kingpin of the entire plot. He is nominated for an Oscar as Supporting Actor as he should be.

Mollie is played by Native American actress Lily Gladstone. She is the first Native American nominated for a lead role and would make more history should she win. She won the Golden Globe for Lead Actress in a Drama as well as the SAG Award for Lead Actress. I think Emma Stone who won the Golden Globe for Lead Actress in a comedy probably has a lock on the Oscar for Lead Actress but the Academy might not be able to resist the opportunity to make history. This one is pretty much a tossup. I can’t tell you who is going to win

While her performance was probably my least favorite of the five nominees, I will grant that it was worthy of the nomination. I would not bump her to make room for Margo Robbie in “Barbie” or Natalie Portman in “May December” who gave amazing performances but were not nominated.

I don’t think it’s a spoiler to tell you that we do find out what decision Ernest makes and the consequences of that decision. I won’t tell you what that is.

However, how that information is presented is a bit strange. There is sort of an epilogue in the form of a radio drama that we see performed on a theater stage in front of an audience. It’s sort of a 1930s version of a true crime podcast in which actors and a narrator tell the story of what happened. Martin Scorsese himself makes a cameo appearance in the radio play. While it was good to know how the story wrapped up and I was satisfied with how it was wrapped, I found that epilogue in the form of a radio play to be quite bizarre. I might have preferred an ordinary montage sequence with some sort of voiceover narration.

The film has earned 10 Oscar nominations: Best Picture, Best Director for Martin Scorsese, Lead Actress Lily Gladstone, Lead Actor Leonardo DiCaprio, Supporting Actor Robert De Niro, Production Design, Costume Design, and Cinematography all of which are very much deserved. It was also nominated for musical score, a song that I don’t remember, and film editing none of which I have an opinion about.

It received 9 BAFTA nominations and 7 Golden Globe nominations.

As you might expect from a Martin Scorsese epic, the runtime is 3 hours 26 minutes yet the pacing does not feel particularly slow.

Produced on an estimated budget of $200 million it earned nearly $68 million in the US and Canada and over $156 million worldwide yet it was made for Apple TV streaming so it’s difficult to say if it turned a profit depending on how much Apple paid for it. Those numbers don’t show up in the box office figures.

It is my sixth favorite of the 10 Best Pictures. I found it engaging, and well worth my time. It’s everything you expect from people like Scorsese, DiCaprio, and De Niro. You can’t go wrong with a trio like that. I highly recommend it. It is still playing in some theaters and is currently available for streaming on Apple TV+ and for rent or purchase on Amazon and YouTube.

* * *

After doing all the editing on this episode I have a few more thoughts to share.

On a YouTube channel called “Native Media Theory,” Native American Elias Gold gives a review of the film from an indigenous perspective. He has some interesting insights. He talks about the complaints that not enough of the film was told from the Native American perspective. It was all about Ernest and King Hale, and not so much about Mollie and her family.

But he reveals that the book and the original screenplay told the story strictly from the point of view of the FBI agents who came into the town to investigate after all of the killings. So, the film is much more representative of the indigenous you than the book was. Scorsese has really stepped up in that regard to tell a much more interesting and balanced story than he would have if you stuck to the original book.

Gold also supposes that the film was not made for an indigenous population. It was made for white people so that we can take a hard look at our own biases. We need to look at the people in the film who were complacent in what was going on even if they weren’t actively participating.

The same thing could be said for the other film “The Zone of Interest.” Thousands of people knew what was going on in the camps but remained silent and were thus complicit.

So, both Jonathan Glaser in “The Zone of Interest”, and Martin Scorsese in “Killers of the Flower Moon” in what ways are we complacent by our silence about the racism that still exists in the world today?

Some things to think about.

I’ve linked Mr. Gold’s YouTube video in the description. I highly recommend that you watch it. It gives an interesting perspective from an indigenous person.

* * *

So, that wraps up our look at genocidal husbands. It’s bizarre that we even have such a category but I think the phrase is applicable to both of these films.

In our next episode, we present the final two of the 10 films nominated for Best Picture and they are among the best of the best. We have a pair of biopic’s about amazing geniuses. Christopher Nolan gives us a fascinating look at physicist J Robert Oppenheimer who led the efforts to develop the first atomic bomb in “Oppenheimer”. And spoiler… My favorite film of the year is Bradley Cooper directing and starring in “Maestro”. The story of famed composer/conductor Leonard Bernstein.

At the end of our final episode in the series, I will have a brief recap of all 10 Best Picture films, as well as the 20 lead and supporting actors and actresses as well as the 10 nominated screenplays. I will recap my favorites in order and then I will pick who I think will win even though I may or may not agree with the favorites.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, (in a way I found many of these movies) consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although finances are tight, I don’t do this for the money. Still, every little bit helps.

As always my deepest thanks to my financial supporters. It expresses your support for what I’m doing. I will never be able to express how much that means to me.

Even if you cannot provide financial support, please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

You can check out any of my back episodes which are all available where you found this episode. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast. Tell me what you liked or did not like about these films.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe everyone.

In this episode, we are going to take an extremely brief look at 4 films that were nominated for major awards but were not among the 10 films nominated for Best Picture.

Hi, This is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 57 of Contemplating Life – Oscar edition.

In this episode, we are going to take an extremely brief look at 4 films that were nominated for major awards but were not among the 10 films nominated for Best Picture.

We start off with the Netflix film “Nyad” the story of famous long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad brilliantly portrayed by Annette Benning who is nominated as Best Lead Actress. She is accompanied by my all-time favorite actress Jodie Foster who plays Nyad’s best friend and coach Bonnie Stoll. She has received a Supporting Actress Nomination. The chemistry between these two is phenomenal. Together they put on a master class in acting. Both nominations are very much deserved.

Nyad set several records for long-distance offshore swimming. She swam completely around Manhattan Island, swam 89 miles from the Bahamas to Florida, and swam from Capri to Naples Italy in record time among other records. She is most famous however for her attempt to swim 103 miles from Havana Cuba to the Florida Keys at age 28. Unfortunately, she failed. She was a frequent commentator on ABC Sports Olympics coverage and was a successful author and businesswoman.

At age 60, Nyad realized she had unfinished business. She began training to tackle her white whale quest of the Cuba to Florida swim. At first, she trained alone and then eventually revealed to her friend Bonnie that she was going to make the Cuba attempt again. Bonnie began coaching her and assisting her in recruiting sponsorships.

Some initial test swims of 12 or 24 hours did not go well but she eventually built up her stamina and skills and began preparing for the attempt.

She recruited a man named John Bartlett as her navigator. He operated a charter boat in the area and was an expert on the currents and weather of the area. Nyad partially blamed her previous failure on the inexperience of her navigator. Bartlett is played by one of my favorite character actors Rhys Ifans. He recently appeared in HBO’s “House of the Dragon” and was in “Spider-Man: No Way Home” but I especially appreciated his performance in three seasons of the spy series “Berlin Station” which I highly recommend. I mentioned last week that his performance was more interesting to me than anything Ryan Gosling did in “Barbie” and I would have nominated him instead as Supporting Actor.

We follow Nyad through three more unsuccessful attempts at the Cuba crossing. She risks shark attacks and deadly jellyfish stings as well as a severe storm all of which nearly killed her. Unlike other such attempts, she did not use a shark cage. Rather she relied on electronic shark repellent systems. She also had to develop a special suit and mask to protect her from potentially deadly jellyfish stings. After these failures, her friend Bonnie, navigator Bartlett, and her entire team give up and encourage her to abandon her quest.

The film is a fascinating look at how a driven person surrounds themselves with supporters to help them achieve their goals but that those supporters pay a personal cost to be a part of the driven person’s life. This theme was especially meaningful to me as someone who is dependent upon a team of people just to live an ordinary productive life with a disability. After 68 years of being dependent upon other people for everything, I’m beginning to feel the weight of the cost it has on my friends and family. So the film triggered many emotions in me.

Nyad was raised to believe she has a great destiny in the water. She often tells the story of how her father explained that the word “Nyad” was the name of the Greek mythological nymphs who swam the oceans.

Once her friends realize that she is going to proceed with or without them, they relent and join her for one final try. I don’t think is a spoiler to say that her fifth attempt was successful.

The film fails to address the fact that her successes were not universally recognized by the marathon swimming community. For technical reasons, her successful swim from Cuba to Florida was insufficiently documented for her record to be officially recognized. Her record was removed from the Guinness Book of Records because they rely upon sanctioning bodies for such records. Still, there were over 40 witnesses to her swim and if she did not meet all of the exact technical requirements for the record to be recognized, it is nevertheless an amazing accomplishment.

I’ve been a huge fan of Jodie Foster for as far back as I can remember. I often joke about the difference between me and John Hinckley, Jr. whose obsession with Foster led him to attempt to assassinate Ronald Reagan.

Hinckley was obsessed with Jodie Foster and I claim there is nothing unusual or insane about that. I am similarly obsessed. Hinckley also hated Ronald Reagan as did I although not enough to want to kill him. There is nothing inherently insane about having those two views. The thing that separates me as a Foster-obsessed Reagan-hating person from a nut job like John Hinckley is that he somehow connected the two. That’s why he’s nuts and I’m not. Or at least I like to think so.

Even accounting for my obsession with Foster, you will probably agree she delivers a memorable performance, and as I said earlier, her chemistry with Benning is amazing. By the way, although both characters are lesbian, they are just friends in this story. Nyad explains early on that they dated briefly decades ago but are just friends. Still, you feel every bit of the great love they have for one another as friends.

Foster is my biased pick for Supporting Actress but I think that Da’Vine Joy Randolph in “The Holdovers” is more likely to win given her wins at the Golden Globes and BAFTA awards. I very much enjoyed Randolph’s performance and I will not be disappointed if she wins.

Benning is my second favorite choice as Lead Actress behind Sandra Huller in “Anatomy of a Fall” but Emma Stone is the odds-on favorite for “Poor Things”.

This Netflix film was released in November and shown in theaters only long enough to be Oscar-eligible. Its worldwide gross is only $16,056 according to IMDb. It is currently still available on Netflix. I highly recommend it.

* * *

Our next film is another Netflix biopic. “Rustin” is the story of civil rights activist Bayard Rustin who planned and organized the 1963 March on Washington DC where Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.

Rustin is played by Colman Domingo and has earned a much-deserved Lead Actor nomination for the role. In that category, I greatly appreciated all five nominees and would place Bradley Cooper in “Maestro” as my favorite with the remaining four performances in a tie for second place. I just can’t decide.

Rustin was as openly gay as one could be in the early 1960s. We see the consequences of that situation as he is forced out of the civil rights movement for fear that his sexuality will damage the cause. When there were accusations that he was in a homosexual relationship with Dr. King, He offered to resign from the NAACP and expected King to refuse the resignation. When King accepted the resignation it caused a great rift between the two friends that lasted for several years.

Rustin had studied the nonviolent philosophies of Gandhi and is credited with introducing King to the concept of nonviolent civil disobedience.

Rustin conceived the idea of the largest nonviolent protest in history. A march on Washington DC that would attract 100,000 people. It was to be a two-day affair that included encircling the White House, protesting outside Congress, and a gathering at the National Mall in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Ultimately, he was forced to scale it back to a single-day event at the National Mall. The event was still a massive success that drew 250,000 people.

The film chronicles his difficult quest to gain respect in the movement in the face of his homosexuality. His primary detractor is NAACP chairperson Roy Wilkins portrayed by comedian Chris Rock. Although Rock does an acceptable job in a dramatic role, I could not help thinking of him as Chris Rock trying to be dramatic. His performance was not strong enough to make me forget his comic roots.

We get brief cameo appearances by actors we have talked about for their other nominated work. specifically, Jeffrey Wright plays Rep. Adam Clayton Powell and Da’Vine Joy Randolph plays Mahalia Jackson who sang at the event.

Rustin reconciled his relationship with Dr. King and they worked together on the March. When accusations arose again against Rustin, this time Dr. King supported his friend.

Similar to “Nyad”, we see the effect that this highly motivated, obsessed, driven person has on his friends and colleagues around him and the price they have to pay for being his friend.

I first became aware of Colman Domingo from his excellent work in the TV series “Fear the Walking Dead” where he plays a highly troubled character Victor Strand. In that series, he is often the villain but he is one who you can root for as he tries to constantly redeem himself. He also does an admirable job playing Mister in this year’s musical remake of “The Color Purple”.

In addition to his Lead Actor Oscar nomination, he was also nominated for the Golden Globe and a BAFTA nomination for the role. He is named as part of the ensemble cast in the SAG nomination for “The Color Purple”.

The film has appeared in a number of film festivals and saw limited theatrical release but no box office figures are available. It has been on Netflix since November and is still available.

The true life story is compelling and well worth your time.

* * *

In our next film, Danielle Brooks has received an Oscar nomination for Supporting Actress in her work in the 2023 remake of “The Color Purple.” She is most famous for her work in 89 episodes of the Netflix series “Orange is the New Black.” Unfortunately, despite its popularity, I never watched the series so I was unfamiliar with her work.

I’m more embarrassed that I had never seen the original 1985 version of “The Color Purple” directed by Steven Spielberg. Initially, I could not understand why such an iconic and beloved film not yet 40 years old needed to be remade. Then I discovered that the new version was based on a Broadway musical adaptation of the story.

It seems strange to make a musical as is such a dark topic. But my three favorite musicals of all time in order are “Jesus Christ Superstar”, “Les Miserables”, and “Phantom of the Opera.” Although there are some upbeat numbers in those shows, none of them could be described as happy, feel-good stories. So the idea of taking the story of a woman who is used and abused and essentially made a slave of her husband could theoretically be ripe for appropriate musical treatment.

Sadly, this film is not an appropriate treatment of such a dark story. I am deeply surprised that Stephen Spielberg, Oprah Winfrey, and author Alice Walker are all listed as Executive Producers. They signed off on this travesty.

I watched the original and the remake simultaneously. How? I would watch 15-20 minutes of one film and then switch to the other one to see how it treated the same material. While indeed there are some happy moments in the early part of the story as Celie and her sister Olivia are young girls and this story does have a happy ending, the bulk of the story is a deeply tragic story of a woman who is sold by her father to be the wife of a horrible abusive farmer. Although they are all black and the story takes place from 1909 through 1947, he treats her as if she were a slave.

There are only one or two musical numbers that I felt were appropriately somber and emotional to fit the tone of the story. The vast majority of the numbers except for those during the happy ending and some numbers in a juke joint bar are completely tone deaf to the seriousness of the subject at hand.

I could write an extensive review almost scene by scene of everything wrong with this musical adaptation. But it’s not worth my time nor yours to do so.

Ultimately, we are only here to talk about the nominated performance of Danielle Brooks. It is difficult to be objective about her performance in a film which I so deeply hated. Brooks plays Sophia which is the same character played by Oprah Winfrey in the original film. One cannot help but compare the performances. While Brooks did an adequate job of playing the character as feisty and at times providing much-needed comic relief, overall her performance is nowhere near as moving during the tragic parts of her story as was Oprah’s original portrayal.

Sophia talks back sarcastically to the wife of the mayor of the town and ultimately strikes the mayor across the cheek which lands her in jail for many years. In Spielberg’s version, she comes out of the experience severely scarred with her left eye almost completely closed from the beatings she took over the years. In this version, there are no visible scars from her experience. Thus, the experience to me seems to be diluted or dare I say “whitewashed”.

I suppose to be fair, we ought to judge her performance on its own and not in comparison to the previous version. The kindest thing I can say about her in that regard is that her performance was adequate. I have no complaints about it. But I would not have nominated her.

I would have rather seen this Supporting Actress nomination go to Julianne Moore in our next film “May December” or Erika Alexander as Jeffrey Wright’s girlfriend in “American Fiction”.

I’ve done some soul-searching about my dislike for the film. I’ve asked myself, “Is this a case of a privileged old liberal white guy taking offense on behalf of bright people over this film?” I have concluded that if this was the story of white women who were being abused and enslaved by their husbands I would be just as offended by a lighthearted musical treatment of the topic.

The film was released on Christmas Day in the US. With an estimated budget of $100 million, it has earned only $60 million in the US and Canada and just $67 million worldwide. It is currently available for streaming on Max or for rent or purchase on Amazon and YouTube.

Okay, don’t hold back Chris… Tell us what you really think. I cannot recommend this film.

* * *

Our final film this week could similarly be accused of not taking a serious topic seriously enough. “May December” is a Netflix film starring Julianne Moore in a fictional story of a woman named Gracie Atherton who at age 36 had an affair with a Korean-American 13-year-old boy named Joe Yoo. She was the manager of a pet store and he worked as a stock boy there. Their affair was discovered and she was sentenced to jail where she gave birth to his child.

The film takes place 20 years later. Gracie was released from jail, and she and Joe were married. They had two more children. Their oldest daughter is in college and the twin boy and girl are about to graduate high school.

Natalie Portman plays TV actress Elizabeth Barry who is preparing to make a movie based on Gracie’s story. She visits the Atherton-Yoo family to interview Gracie and Joe so that she can accurately portray their story in the upcoming film. The couple is very cooperative with Elizabeth and they invite her to a family cookout, a family dinner, and other opportunities to get to know the family.

Elizabeth also interviews Gracie’s ex-husband, her children from the previous marriage, her lawyer, and other people around town who were familiar with the events from 20 years ago. I especially enjoyed her interview with Gracie’s lawyer who said that he had defended murderers, arsonists, rapists, gangsters, and other unsavory characters as a defense attorney in New York City. He had moved to Savannah Georgia to escape that kind of practice. He said that defending all of these horrible people never got him on the front page of the New York Times yet when he came to Georgia and soon after defended Gracie, that landed him on the front page of the New York Times.

Joe who is now in his 30s, is still very much emotionally a 13-year-old boy and Gracie often treats him as such. He is employed either as an x-ray technician or a radiologist in a hospital but it is not clear which. They live in a large well-furnished home on a lake or river. It’s unclear how they can afford such a place so perhaps he is a doctor. They never explained. Gracie spends her time baking and selling her baked goods to friends and neighbors who seem to only purchase them because they feel sorry for her.

There are several plot lines that seem to go nowhere as Elizabeth investigates the events from 20 years ago. Gracie is a highly emotional person who at one point breaks down hysterically simply because someone canceled a baking order.

The musical score accompanying the film features bold dramatic orchestral stings that seem to indicate something dramatic is about to happen. Yet in one example of such a musical cue during a cookout, Gracie is staring into the refrigerator and then calmly declares, “I don’t think we have enough hot dogs.” That’s hardly the dramatic moment that the music indicated we were going to see.

On initial viewing, I didn’t understand the film at all. Apparently, I was trying to take it too seriously. I was only reviewing the film because it was nominated for an Oscar for Original Screenplay. I did not notice until later that it had also been nominated for a Golden Globe as a comedy. Except for things like the overly dramatic “we need more hot dogs” and some over-the-top acting, I didn’t see anything funny about it.

So, I went looking for reviews of the film to try to figure out what others had seen in the film that I was missing. I came across a YouTube video by a reviewer I had never heard of named Broey Deschanel. Her video was titled “May December and the Melodrama of Film Twitter”. The 53-minute video talked about a Twitter debate over whether or not the film was a melodrama and whether or not the term “camp” applied to the film.

I had a rather generic layman’s understanding of the term “melodrama” even though we have briefly touched upon it in my writing seminar. But Ms. Deschanel gives an extensive history of the term from its earliest days in classic theater through more modern plays and especially in films of the 1930s through 1950s. She outlines several elements of what constitutes melodrama and as she was doing so I suddenly began to understand “May December”.

In some respects, it seems that the film is one giant inside joke for film aficionados. It is either an attempt to create a modern-day melodrama or it is a spoof of classic melodramatic films. I’m not sure which.

At one point, Ms. Deschanel is talking about Roger Ebert’s review of an earlier satirical look at the melodrama genre.

Ms. Deschanel: Roger Ebert uses that quote a decade later in his review of “Written on the Wind”. He says something in that review that caught my attention. “Written on the Wind”, like “Stella Dallas”, appears to be played straight. But while I didn’t cry while watching it, I did feel myself chuckling now and then at the ridiculousness of its stakes. Ebert points out this new, ironic take on the melodrama that Sirk is adopting and in that irony, that satire is humor. He says “If you only see the surface, it’s trashy soap opera. If you can see the style, the absurdity, the exaggeration and the satirical humor, it’s subversive of all the 1950s dramas that handled such material solemnly. Sirk’s style spread so pervasively that nobody could do melodrama with a straight face after him. (Roger Ebert, “Written on the Wind” rogerebert.com (1998))” Ebert ends his review with one blazing question. One test of satire is: At what point do we realize the author is kidding?” Which is how we arrive at this current discourse around “May December.”

Me: At what point do we realize the author is kidding? In my case, the answer clearly is I didn’t get the joke until I learned the history of melodrama as presented in this YouTube review.

The video also discusses whether or not the film is appropriately called “Camp”. Author Susan Sontag wrote one of the definitive essays on camp. She said that sometimes something is knowingly camp and other times it is unknowingly camp. She seemed to prefer the latter. The film director, Todd Haynes claims that his film is not camp. Either he is continuing to tease us or the film is unknowingly camp.

If you watched the film and didn’t understand it as a satirical look at melodrama, I encourage you to watch the YouTube review which I have linked in the description of this podcast. And even if you’re not interested in this particular film, that YouTube video is a fascinating look at the history of melodrama and camp satire. I think it is well worth your time.

So on initial viewing, I thought the film was a ridiculous mess. But viewed as satire, I begin to understand it on some levels.

I can’t recommend the film unless you are just curious about it. Many people are offended that someone would treat such a serious topic in a satirical comedic way. Then again, as Ms. Deschanel points out, one of the most beloved comedies in film history is Mel Brooks’ “The Producers” which is about a bunch of people creating a musical play about Nazi Germany including a hilarious number titled “Springtime for Hitler”.

This Netflix film saw only a limited theatrical release. With an estimated budget of $10 million, its worldwide gross is only $3.4 million. Box office numbers for Netflix films really don’t mean anything. It is still available exclusively on Netflix.

IMDb reports 176 nominations and 34 wins.

In addition to its Original Screenplay Oscar nomination, it had 4 Golden Globe nominations.

So, that wraps up our look at four films with five nominations that were not Best Picture.

Next week, we tackle a pair of films in a category I call “Genocidal Husbands” and we will follow that up with our final episode in this Oscar series “Genius at Work.”

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although finances are tight, I don’t do this for the money. Still, every little bit helps.

As always my deepest thanks to my financial supporters. It expresses your support for what I’m doing. I will never be able to express how much that means to me.

Even if you cannot provide financial support, please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

You can check out any of my back episodes which are all available where you found this episode. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast. Tell me what you liked or did not like about these films.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe everyone.