In this episode, we continue our look at Oscar-nominated films. In this episode, I explore four films so bizarre that they left me asking, “What the hell was that?” Apologies for some poor-quality audio and other technical glitches in this podcast.

Hello, this is Chris Young. Welcome to Episode 111 of Contemplating Life – Oscar Edition.

In this episode, we continue our look at Oscar-nominated films. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to get this out before the awards were presented on March 15.

In 1979, Steve Martin and Bill Murray performed a sketch on Saturday Night Live that has since become a classic. They stared off into the distance beyond the camera, pointed, and repeatedly asked, “What the hell is that?” Here’s a clip.

[Clip from Season 15, episode 1, October 13, 1997]

I don’t want to include the entire sketch to avoid a copyright violation, but I have provided a YouTube link. I highly recommend you watch it.

The reason I mention it is that it very nearly expresses what I felt after watching the four nominated films we will cover in this episode.

Let’s start with the worst. “The Secret Agent” has been nominated for Best Picture, Best Foreign Film, Best Casting, and Best Lead Actor, with Wagner Moura portraying the film’s protagonist, Armando.

It is set in Brazil in 1977 during a period of military dictatorship that lasted from 1964 until 1985. The film is entirely in Brazilian Portuguese with English subtitles.

It was nearly an hour into the film before I had any inkling of what it was really about. Initially, it’s just a guy driving through Brazil, eventually taking a room from the landlady, who is part of an underground resistance movement that provides shelter. They describe it as a private witness protection program for people who have somehow come under fire from the brutal government.

Armando is a widower whose young son is being raised by his late wife’s parents. He reunites with his son and, with the help of the underground, is attempting to take the boy and leave the country to escape persecution. In a series of flashbacks, we learn that he was a professor who held a patent on an advanced lithium battery. When he refuses to negotiate a license with a powerful oligarch, he becomes a target of the government.

I was never sure if the bad guys killed his wife or if she died of some illness. He told his son she died of an illness, but I got the feeling that was just the story.

Suddenly, in the middle of the film, we see an iPhone. This scene was a flash-forward showing a college girl researching Armando’s story as she transcribes audio cassette testimony he gave to members of the underground.

The film is peppered with extraneous subplots that I presume were included to give you a feel for what life was like in Brazil in the 70s. To demonstrate how ridiculous these subplots are, there is a story about a group of marine biologists at the University who are doing an autopsy on a large shark. They find a severed human leg inside. The story blows up in the newspapers and spawns a ridiculous urban legend about a big, hairy leg that goes around kicking people.

In other words, “What the hell is that?”

This slow-moving bazaar story eventually builds to a climax as hired killers close in on Armando. The result is a highly unsatisfying ending, with an epilogue that returns to the college researcher and at least wraps up her storyline satisfactorily.

By the way, Google searches provided a variety of explanations of why the film is titled “The Secret Agent” when our protagonist is not involved in espionage. None of these explanations was satisfactory for me. It’s something symbolic, but I didn’t get it.

In addition to the Oscar nominations, it won the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film and Best Actor in a Drama. IMDb lists 159 nominations and 85 wins.

IMDb shows an estimated budget of 27 million Brazilian Real, or about $5 million US. Its worldwide gross is listed as $16.4 million.

Its runtime of two hours, 41 minutes only adds to the reasons this one is not worth your time. However, if you are curious and want to try to figure out what the critics saw in it that I did not, it is available for streaming on Hulu.

Next, we explore another film about an underground movement of revolutionaries. Paul Thomas Anderson directs and writes the dark comedy action film “One Battle After Another.” It stars Leonardo DiCaprio, who plays Pat Calhoun, who goes by the nickname “Rocketman.” He is the bomb maker for an American far-left revolutionary group called French 75. The film is sort of an alternate history or takes place in the near future. It’s not quite the world we live in, but it’s close.

Teyana Taylor plays his lover, a black woman named Perfidia Beverly Hills. Together, they raid immigrant detention camps, freeing prisoners. While liberating one such camp, she sexually humiliates the camp’s commanding officer, Colonel Stephen J. Lockjaw, brilliantly played by Sean Penn. Later, he catches her attempting to plant bombs in a building. He agrees to let her go if she will agree to have sex with him.

She becomes pregnant with his daughter, yet Pat believes it is his. Pat tries to get Perfidia to give up her revolutionary ways and settle down to raise her daughter. She refuses and continues her terrorist activities until she is caught for the murder of a security guard. Lockjaw arranges for her to enter witness protection if she gives up information about other members of the revolutionary group. She does rat out some of her people, but then flees witness protection and is never seen again.

Pat and his infant daughter flee to a sanctuary city in California, where he takes on a new identity as Bob Ferguson. We skip 16 years and find Bob living in a small, rural house off the grid. His daughter Willa is a high school student.

And now we come to the “What the hell is that?” moment.

Lockjaw is invited to join a white supremacist group called the “Christmas Adventurers.” This group of rich white businessmen and politicians worship Santa Claus and greet each other with a salute and “Heil Santa.”

Lockjaw is concerned that if they ever discover that he has a mixed-race child, he won’t be eligible for this secret organization. So, using all his resources as a federal agent, he tries to track down Pat, a.k.a. Bob, and his daughter. When he discovers their location, he comes up with an excuse to lead a massive operation on this small sanctuary town that is harboring large numbers of undocumented immigrants.

Surviving members of the underground movement get wind of the raid and rescue Willa, who is at a high school dance with her friends, just as the troops move in. They attack Bob’s cabin, but he escapes through a tunnel and rushes into town to try to meet his daughter. He is assisted by Willa’s karate sensei, who is a community leader, played by Benicio del Toro.

Bob is told that the underground has taken his daughter to safety, and he can meet her at the rendezvous point. When he calls the network to try to find out where that rendezvous point is, the person on the other end of the line insists that Bob answer a codeword. Bob has done too many drugs over the years and can’t remember the organization’s protocols.

What follows is a comedic chase involving Bob, Willa, Lockjaw, and an assassin that the white supremacy group hired to kill Lockjaw when they discovered he had a biracial child.

I would have titled the film, “One Ridiculous Thing After Another.”

Again, we have a two-hour-41-minute runtime that seems a bit excessive, but the climax moves along quickly to a poignant and satisfying ending.

I hate to admit it, but I sort of enjoyed it, and I don’t believe it is worthy of all the hype it’s been getting. The performances are top-notch, and I think Penn’s portrayal of Colonel Lockjaw was memorable. He won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for the role. I certainly would not have nominated it as a Best Picture. Unfortunately, the Academy didn’t agree with me.

It is nominated for 13 Oscars and won six. It won Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay for Paul Thomas Anderson, inspired by the novel “Vineland” by Thomas Pynchon. It also won for Best Supporting Actor for Sean Penn, Best Casting, and Best Editing. By the way, Penn did not show up to claim his award. I don’t know whether he was committed elsewhere or just didn’t want to come.

Other Oscar nominations were DiCaprio for Lead Actor, Benicio del Toro for Supporting Actor, Teyana Taylor for Supporting Actress, Cinematography, Sound, Original Score, and Production Design.

It was nominated for 13 BAFTA awards and won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, and Best Supporting Actor (Sean Penn).

It received 13 Critics’ Choice nominations and won Best Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay.

From its 9 Golden Group nominations, it won Best Picture Comedy, Director, Screenplay, and Supporting Actress for Taylor.

Nominated for 7 SAG Actor Awards, Penn won Supporting Actor.

Overall, IMDb lists 493 nominations and 280 wins.

Its estimated budget was $130 million. It grossed $72 million in the US and Canada with a worldwide total of $209 million.

You can expect it to win multiple Oscars.

It is available on HBO Max and can be purchased or rented digitally on Prime Video and other platforms.

While we are discussing films about fighting fascism and evil, I want to call your attention to “Nürnberg”. I fully expected it to be an awards favorite, but it earned only 17 nominations and 4 wins from minor awards organizations. Oscar, Golden Globe, and BAFTA all ignored it. I was shocked.

It stars Rami Malek as Dr. Douglas Kelley, a psychiatrist who is tasked with evaluating Nazi war criminals during the Nürnberg war crime trials. Russell Crowe plays Hitler’s second-in-command, Reichsmarshall Hermann Göring. Michael Shannon plays US Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson, who presides over the war crime trials.

In my opinion, all three gave memorable performances worthy of award nominations, yet the film was overlooked. There were numerous other supporting roles that I thought were excellent as well.

With an estimated budget of $12 million, it earned $14.5 million in the US and Canada and $43 million globally.

It will be available for streaming on Netflix on March 7.

I highly recommend this film.

Let’s move on to our next pair of bizarre films, which will leave you asking, “What the hell is that?”

Our next film is yet another with a title that seems to have no relationship to the subject matter whatsoever. We’re talking about “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You.” Rose Byrne stars as a psychiatrist named Linda who is in worse mental shape than her patients. She is under treatment from another psychiatrist, played by Conan O’Brien in his first dramatic role. While not a mental case himself, he certainly is incompetent as a therapist.

Linda has a young daughter who has some sort of eating disorder and requires overnight feedings through a G-tube to supplement what little she eats by mouth during the day. Linda is in a constant battle with the girl’s doctors and insists that the G-tube be removed, but the doctors say she is not ready.

Early in the film, their apartment floods due to a water leak from the upstairs apartment. It leaves a giant hole in the ceiling of Linda’s bedroom. They are forced to live in a nearby motel until the repairs are completed. However, the repairs are taking weeks.

Somehow, the hole in the apartment is symbolic of the hole in Linda’s life. She suffers from hallucinations about the hole. These hallucinations will leave you asking, “What the hell is that?” Throughout most of the film, I began to wonder whether the apartment was really damaged or if she had just imagined it. There was also a strong possibility that supernatural forces were involved. Ultimately, I was forced to conclude that it was just depicting Linda’s mental illness. The hole was real. She may have been exaggerating its significance.

Throughout the film, the camera never shows the daughter’s face. It’s as if Linda never works her daughter in the eyes until the end of the movie.

The ending is as ambiguous as the rest of the film, so don’t expect any resolution.

Rose Byrne gives a powerful performance that is definitely worth the nomination. Unfortunately, to see that performance, you have to watch a very bizarre and confusing film, which earned no other nominations.

In addition to the Best Lead Actress Oscar nomination, she also earned nominations for the BAFTA and Golden Globes. The Golden Globes split their awards between dramas and comedies/musicals for both films and performances, and they listed this one as a comedy. Certainly, it is surreal and bizarre, but it is in no way humorous or satirical. If anything, it is a dramatic exploration of mental illness as well as the stress of having a special needs child.

IMDb lists 78 nominations and 35 wins. With an estimated budget of only $1.5 million, it only made $1.6 million worldwide. It is currently available for streaming on HBO Max.

The performance was great, but I can’t recommend the film.

Our final bizarre journey reunites director Yorgos Lanthimos and Emma Stone. I greatly enjoy their most recent collaboration on another bizarre film, “Poor Things,” which received multiple Oscar nominations two years ago.

In their new collaboration “Bugonia, “ Stone plays Michelle Fuller, the CEO of the pharmaceutical conglomerate Auxolith, who is abducted by conspiracy theorist Teddy Gatz and his autistic cousin Don. Teddy’s mother, Sandy, previously participated in a clinical trial for an Auxolith drug that rendered her comatose. Teddy has come to believe Michelle is a member of a malignant alien species known as the “Andromedans” who are killing Earth’s honeybees, destroying communities, and forcing humans into subservience.

Believe it or not, we are not at the “What the hell is that?” aspect of the film yet. That doesn’t come until the ending.

Teddy is brilliantly played by Jesse Plemons. Aidan Delbis, in his first feature film, is also memorable as the autistic cousin. The director chose to cast a neurodivergent actor with no prior acting experience, and it paid off.

The duo holds the CEO hostage in their basement. They shave her head and slather her with antihistamine cream to prevent her from communicating with her fellow aliens. You know, like you do. They plan to hold her hostage until an upcoming lunar eclipse, in which the mothership will arrive. They then expect her to take them to their Emperor to negotiate the aliens’ withdrawal from Earth.

They torture her with an electrical device, and when she is able to tolerate high levels of current, Teddy concludes she must be part of the alien royalty.

We are treated to an amazing battle of wits between Teddy and his hostage, who tries to negotiate her own release. The film appears to be a deep exploration of corporate greed and the mental illness of an out-of-control conspiracy theorist who manipulates his autistic cousin to support his bizarre activities. The story takes unexpected twists and turns along the way, making for quite compelling drama.

Emma Stone has earned a Best Leading Actress Oscar nomination. As I said, Jesse Plemons should have been nominated as well. He did receive a BAFTA nomination as Lead Actor. Both gave amazing performances.

The film is nominated for Best Picture, Adapted Screenplay, and Score. Overall, IMDb lists 133 nominations and ten wins. On the estimated budget of about $50 million, it earned only Pentagon$47 million globally.

It is currently available for streaming on Peacock TV.

I would highly recommend this film for its brilliant performances and thought-provoking themes; however, there is a problem.

Fans of this podcast might recall that last year I reviewed the 2022 Mel Gibson film “On the Line.” I thought it was a great film up until the ending, and reported that the ending would make you extremely angry at the writer and/or director. The ending ruined what was otherwise a pretty good psychological thriller.

Well, the anger and disappointment I felt about the ending of that film is nothing compared to my anger, hatred, and disappointment about this film.

I’m going to wrap up this episode, but if you are curious, after my usual closing, I will spoil the ending and explain why it ruined an otherwise brilliant film.

In our final installment of this series, I will cover the remaining four Best Picture nominations. One of which was a nice film, but it didn’t really appeal to me. The other three were amazing, including my choice for Best Future and Lead Actress Oscars.

So, as always… 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 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. Let me know what you thought of these films.

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

Okay, spoiler time for Bugona. Do not proceed unless you want to know how the film ends.

It was all true.

The woman really was an alien. Cutting her hair and covering her with cream really did prevent her from communicating with the mother ship. The mother ship arrived during the lunar eclipse. When she tried to beam Teddy up to the mother ship, the bomb vest he was wearing exploded.

In the final scene, the alien leadership is discussing what to do about Earth. They conclude it isn’t worth saving, and they destroy all human beings on the planet, leaving only the peaceful flora and fauna alive.

Not only did I feel betrayed as an audience member, but it also completely undermined the significance of the film as a whole. I suppose the aliens’ arrogance is not dissimilar to the corporate greed the film appears to be about. However, as an exploration of mental illness or the ridiculousness of conspiracy theorists, it completely falls apart because Teddy wasn’t crazy. It wasn’t a made-up conspiracy. He was right. He was pretty much sane. It was not really about the mental breakdown of a man whose mother was put into a coma after participating in a trial of an experimental drug.

Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy a good plot twist or a surprise ending. However, this was just totally ridiculous. It’s like the filmmaker is saying to the audience, “fuck you.”

My recommendation is that you watch the film for the amazing performances and for what you think it explores, and then just ignore the ending as a bad joke that didn’t land.

Meanwhile, fly safe, everyone.

In this episode, we continue our look at Oscar-nominated films. We will discuss three nominated films and a bonus film about men who have devoted their lives to show business. As they age, they look back at the sacrifices they had to make to fulfill their dreams.

Hello, this is Chris Young. Welcome to Episode 109 of Contemplating Life – Oscar Edition.

In this episode, we continue our look at Oscar-nominated films. We will discuss three nominated films and a bonus film about men who have devoted their lives to show business. As they age, they look back at the sacrifices they had to make to fulfill their dreams.

When I first saw previews for the film “Song Sung Blue” starring Hugh Jackman and Kate Hudson, I was quite excited because it appeared to be a biopic about singing legend Neil Diamond. Then I saw Jackman on the Stephen Colbert talk show, and I was greatly disappointed that it was the true story of a man and his wife who formed a Neil Diamond tribute band.

Mike and Claire Sardia performed in the 1990s around Milwaukee and Chicago under the names Lightning and Thunder.

This film is based on a 2008 documentary also titled “Song Sung Blue.”

I was so disappointed that it wasn’t an actual Neil Diamond biopic that I wasn’t sure I wanted to watch it when it came to streaming. However, Kate Hudson received Golden Globe, SAG Actor, BAFTA, and Oscar nominations for her portrayal of Claire, so I had to check it out.

Although there are tragic moments in their lives, overall, it is a feel-good movie. The musical numbers will make you smile and sing along. I’m not just talking about “Sweet Caroline.” Hugh Jackman does an amazing job of channeling Mike channeling Neil Diamond. We know from other films that Jackman can sing well. However, on a few occasions, I thought I detected him deliberately singing ever so slightly off-key, which added realism to the performance.

Claire not only sings backup to her husband, but she also sings classic songs by Patsy Cline. Kate Hudson also does all of her own singing in the film and never misses a note. In preparation for the role, she stopped her usual skincare regimen, which had included occasional Botox injections. She also gained 15 pounds for the role.

The original documentary is available for free on YouTube. I have provided a link. Most of the major plot points in this drama follow the true story depicted in the documentary. Writer/director Craig Brewer only takes a few minor dramatic licenses with the ending of the story.

You can’t help but root for this hard-luck couple. Mike is a part-time auto mechanic, Vietnam veteran, and recovering alcoholic who has been sober for 20 years as the movie opens. He has a teenage daughter from a previous marriage who visits occasionally. Claire is a single mom with a teenage daughter and a preteen son who tries to make ends meet working as a hairdresser. In the documentary, it says that at one point she was on welfare.

You journey with them through highs and lows. Their goodhearted yet less-than-competent manager, played by Jim Belushi, accidentally books them in a biker bar, and a fight nearly breaks out when someone in the crowd yells, “Neil Diamond sucks!”

They bounce back when Eddie Vedder invites them to open for Pearl Jam at a Milwaukee concert.

Both of those incidents are depicted in the documentary.

Just when you think that their careers might be ready to take off, Claire is hit by a car in her front yard as she is working in her flower garden. She loses her lower leg in the accident and falls into a deep depression and becomes dependent on pain medication, which leaves her listless and lifeless.

Meanwhile, Mike struggles to stay sober and battles a serious heart condition.

For several days after watching the film, I couldn’t stop humming Neil Diamond songs. Just when I managed to get the songs out of my head, my sister watched the film, and it all came back again for several days.

You will laugh, and cry, and be thoroughly entertained by this film. I wholeheartedly recommend it. It’s currently available to stream on Peacock TV and to rent or purchase on Amazon and other services. I can also recommend the documentary.

I want to give a brief note about some of the special effects. For fans of special effects like me, I know that giving a person an amputated limb is relatively easy. You put a green sock over the limb, which lets you easily edit it out, and then add a CGI stump. But there is one scene where Claire is lying in bed and reaches down to scratch the end of her stump. I’m not sure how they did it. It left me with the impression that the special effects artists deliberately did that to make people like me wonder how they did it.

As previously mentioned, Kate Hudson is nominated for the Best Actress Oscar. IMDb reports 13 nominations and 4 wins. On an estimated $30 million budget, it earned $39 million in the US and Canada and $57 million worldwide.

Our remaining films in this episode are not as uplifting as “Song Sung Blue.”

While we are covering films with the word “blue” in the title, let’s look at “Blue Moon.”

Director Richard Linklater and Ethan Hawke team up for their ninth film together. In this biopic, Hawke plays legendary Broadway lyricist Lorenz Hart, who, with Richard Rodgers, wrote 28 musicals and over 500 songs.

The film has been in development for over a decade. Linklater wanted Hawke for the part but concluded he wasn’t old enough for the role. So they waited 10 years and spent the time polishing the script. That may seem like a long time, but consider that in one of their previous collaborations, “Boyhood,” they spread the filming over 12 years so that the main character could gradually age throughout the movie.

In this film, we learn that Lorenz Hart struggled with alcoholism and had a poor work ethic, which led Rogers to team up with lyricist Oscar Hammerstein to create the hit musical “Oklahoma!”

The entirety of the film depicts the events of March 31, 1943, the opening night of “Oklahoma!” Hart wanders out of the theater before the play finishes and goes to the famous Sardi’s restaurant, where preparations are underway for a party to celebrate the opening of the musical. There, he drinks and pours out his soul to the bartender, played by Bobby Cannavale, a piano player, and a delivery boy. He also discusses the art of writing with the famous author E.B. White.

Hart reveals his infatuation with Elizabeth Weiland, a 20-year-old Yale art student and aspiring production designer. After months of correspondence and an unconsummated weekend with Elizabeth, 47-year-old Hart believes this may be the night he finally wins her love.

Screenwriter Robert Kaplow based the story on letters that Hart and Weiland exchanged, but I don’t believe there is any claim that the events depicted in the film actually occurred. For example, there is no evidence he ever met E.B. White.

Kaplow is nominated for his Best Original Screenplay, which is very much deserved. I’m confused about why this isn’t an adapted screenplay, given that it is based on the correspondence between Hart and Weiland. Give me a break, a couple of years ago, Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach were nominated for adapted screenplay simply because the “character” Barbie was created by someone else. It wasn’t based on any other movie, TV show, or book about Barbie. It was a highly original take on the character. Oh well.

In this amazing screenplay and performances, we are treated to a magnificent exploration of the art of writing and the sad story of a lonely man who sees his career coming to an end. There are heartbreaking exchanges between him and Richard Rogers as Hart tries to pitch him an idea for a musical about Marco Polo with a love story that parallels his obsession with young Elizabeth.

Rogers suggests they could collaborate on a revival of their musical “A Connecticut Yankee,” but he shows no interest in any other collaborations. In real life, they did revive an updated version of that musical later in 1943. It was their final collaboration.

Seven months after the premiere of “Oklahoma!” Hart collapsed in the street and died a few days later.

Ethan Hawke delivers a truly Oscar-worthy performance. I thoroughly enjoyed this depiction of such a tragic character. I don’t think he has much of a chance against his other nominees, which include Leonardo DiCaprio, Timothée Chalamet, and Michael B. Jordan. Given the opportunity, Hawke would be getting my vote.

In real life, Hart stood just under 5 feet tall. The filmmakers used a variety of practical special effects to make the other actors tower over Hart. At times, I found this distracting, and it pulled me out of the story. Other than that, I loved it.

IMDb reports 73 nominations and 15 wins.

This made-for-Netflix film only earned $3 million worldwide and is still available for streaming on that platform.

Our final nominated film for this episode is “Sentimental Value.” This is a Norwegian film with dialogue in Norwegian, French, and English. I watched it with English subtitles.

It is the story of two sisters, Agnes and Nora, who are estranged from their father Gustav, who divorced their mother when they were children. There is a voiceover narration at the beginning of the film that tells the story of this family from the perspective of the house they live in. We see the sisters’ relationship and the failing one between their parents, which leads to him leaving.

We jump ahead to find adult Nora is a successful stage actress who suffers from nearly debilitating bouts of stage fright. Agnes is married and has a young son, Erik. She works as a historian.

When their mother passes away, their father Gustav, played by Stellan Skarsgård, returns to their lives because their childhood home is still in his name. He is a renowned filmmaker who is struggling to get his films made late in his career. He has written a film about his mother, who was a resistance fighter against the Nazis during World War II. She had committed suicide in that home. Gustav wants to film his movie in the home and tries to recruit his actress daughter Nora to the role.

She cannot forgive him for abandoning them when she was a child and refuses to even read the script.

Agnes is only slightly more open to a relationship with her father. He quickly develops a relationship with Erik, his grandson. Later in the film, he tries to recruit the boy to play young Gustav in his new film. Agnes had a part in one of his earlier films as a child, even though it was her sister who went on to have a career as an actress.

Along the way, Gustav meets a famous young American actress, Rachel, portrayed by Elle Fanning, who agrees to play the role that Agnes turned down. The problem is, if she takes the part, the film will have to be made in English. They debate whether she should attempt a Norwegian accent.

The film is filled with deeply dramatic scenes as the daughters and their father struggle to reconcile their past. There are quality performances all around.

It has received nine Oscar nominations. Best Picture, Best Foreign Picture, Best Lead Actress for Renate Reinsve as Nora, Best Supporting Actress for both Elle Fanning and Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas as Agnes, Best Supporting Actor for Stellan Skarsgård as Gustav. Director Joachim Trier has a Best Director nomination, and with co-author Eskil Vogt, has earned a Best Original Screenplay nomination. Additionally, it has earned an Oscar nomination for Film Editing.

All the performances are worthy of their nominations. Again, I have to complain about the categories. Skarsgård is nominated for Supporting Actor, and indeed, the story is primarily about the daughters. However, he is the most prominent male character in the story. Does that not make him a lead actor?

IMDb lists 297 nominations and 64 wins. With an estimated budget of $7.8 million, it earned only $5 million in the US and Canada, but its worldwide total was a respectable $21.4 million. It is not yet available for streaming, but can be rented or purchased through Amazon and other digital download sources.

Even after I told you about all the Oscar nominations it has received and that they are well-deserved, watching a 2-hour 13-minute movie in Norwegian, subtitled in English, might not be your cup of tea. Let me offer you a similar alternative.

The Netflix film “Jay Kelly” stars George Clooney and Adam Sandler, both of whom received Golden Globe nominations for their performances. Clooney plays the title character, a famous actor whose career sounds a lot like George Clooney’s. He isn’t exactly playing himself, but it’s not at all difficult to find him credible in this role.

After decades of success, he begins to realize that life has passed him by, and like Gustav in our previous film, he tries to reconnect with his two adult daughters. He decides to ditch his commitments to his next film to chase his daughter across Europe as she travels with friends before going off to college. He wants to reconnect with her and make up for lost time.

Adam Sandler plays his manager. Laura Dern is his publicist. Billy Crudup plays an old friend who blames Jay for stealing a role from him when they were young, struggling actors together. Like several of the films I’ve reviewed over the past two years, this one explores the cost to those who attach themselves to driven people.

We get plenty of drama as Kelly struggles with his life choices and his unsuccessful attempts to reconcile things with his daughters. However, this is mitigated by many comedic moments that help carry you through this relatively dark storyline.

Director Nora Baumbach blends flashback scenes with current scenes as Kelly physically walks through his past, much like Scrooge is led through scenes from his past by the ghosts of Christmas.

Baumbach co-wrote the screenplay with Emily Mortimer, who has a small role as Kelly’s hairdresser.

Although Oscar passed it over, IMDb lists 37 nominations and 12 wins. IMDb does not list any budget or income figures. It was screened at multiple film festivals and only saw limited release in theaters. It is currently available for streaming on Netflix.

I highly recommend it, especially if Sentimental Value doesn’t appeal to you. This film is much more accessible and entertaining while remaining a poignant look at the struggles of balancing a career in show business with family relationships.

That wraps it up for this episode. In my next installment, I will take a look at four films that were perhaps my least favorite of the bunch, even though one of them is a major contender for multiple awards.

So, as always… 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 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. Let me know what you thought of these films.

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

It’s time for my annual review of the 10 Best Picture Oscar-nominated films. In this episode, we review three nominated horror films: Frankenstein, Weapons, and Sinners. I’m not going to be able to finish all of these reviews by the March 15 Oscar ceremony, but even if I can’t get them recorded, I will write the scripts and post them on the podcast website and on Patreon. Post comments and tell me what you thought of these films.

Hello, this is Chris Young. Welcome to Episode 108 of Contemplating Life – Oscar Edition.

For the third year in a row, over the next few episodes, I will review all 10 films nominated for Best Picture by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a.k.a. the Oscars. We will also review all films that received acting nominations but were not nominated for Best Picture. Also, we will include some comments on a couple of films that did not get nominated. I may have time to recommend a couple of quality films that were passed over for this year’s awards.

The good news is, I was able to see all 10 films and all of the films that received acting nominations. The bad news is, I will not be able to produce enough episodes to cover them all before the awards are presented on March 15. I may be able to write scripts for all of those episodes, and if so, I will post them on the podcast website and Patreon. I will probably record them for audio and video versions later. There will not be loads of video clips and still images in the YouTube version. I really enjoy including such clips, but they take a lot of time to edit. I just don’t have time.

Of the 10 Best Picture nominees, only one of the films left me flat. I would not have nominated it for any awards. Another one I thought was amazing right up until the ending. That ending ruined the experience for me. I greatly enjoyed the remaining eight films.

To bring you up to speed on some terminology, the Golden Globe Awards were presented by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association on January 11. The British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) Awards were presented on February 22. The Actor awards, formerly known as the Screen Actors Guild Awards, were presented on March 1. I will refer to these as SAG Actor awards because just calling them “Actor Awards” would be confusing. Additionally, the Internet Movie Database or IMDb reports dozens of other minor awards, most of which you’ve never heard of. We will report IMDb’s total nominations and wins, even if they’re for obscure awards. Any box office numbers we report are courtesy of IMDb. With that business terminology out of the way, let’s get to the reviews.

I don’t know if I’m good at seeing patterns where none exist, or if once again this year’s films can be grouped into specific categories or themes.

We have a group of stories about struggling entertainers. A pair of dramas about men whose work takes them away from home. A group of films about the battle for justice against fascism and corruption. All of the above explore the struggle to maintain family connections amid these pursuits. There are two stories of obsessively driven sports competitors who are the best in their fields. We have a pair of bizarre, surrealistic stories about mental illness. Finally, in this episode, we explore three phenomenal horror stories, one of which set the record for the most Oscar nominations for a single film.

The title of this episode is “Something Wicked This Way Comes.” This quote comes from Shakespeare’s “Macbeth,” Act 4, Scene 1. The full quote is delivered by a witch who says, “By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes.” However, this is not the episode where we review the movie about William Shakespeare. And despite the word “Wicked” in the title, it’s not about that film either. But there will be thumb-pricking involved.

Briefly, “Wicked: For Good”, the sequel to last year’s “Wicked,” received 135 nominations, including nominations for SAG Actors Awards, Golden Globes, and BAFTAs. The Oscars completely bypassed it. I enjoyed it, but not nearly as much as I enjoyed part one. You may recall that last year, part one inspired an entire series of episodes exploring my fandom for fantasy films. This one was okay, but did not affect me as much as the original.

So, what are we talking about in this episode?

Let’s start with the reimagining of what many claim to be the very first science fiction story ever written… Frankenstein. The film was written and directed by Guillermo del Toro, based on Mary Shelley’s classic story.

My first question was, “Do we really need another Frankenstein movie?” According to Wikipedia, as of January 2026, a body of 469 known feature films, 236 short films, 93 TV series, and 394 TV episodes feature some version or interpretation of the character Frankenstein’s monster, first created by Mary Shelley in her 1818 novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. I’ve included a link to Wikipedia’s list of films featuring Frankenstein’s monster.

Oscar Isaac plays Victor Frankenstein, who is believably obsessed to the point of abandoning morality, yet avoids the sort of over-the-top manic portrayals we have seen in other versions of the story. The creature is magnificently portrayed by 6’5” Jacob Elordi, who is nominated for a supporting actor Oscar that is well-deserved. His portrayal is of a creature who is initially enslaved by his maker, escapes, and goes on a quest for revenge against that maker for creating him in such an awful state.

My best estimate is that I only read parts of the original story sometime in 1973. In that year, there was a made-for-TV movie called “Frankenstein: The True Story.” They were not implying that this was a true story, but that this version was the most true to the original work. It wasn’t what I was expecting. So, I went to the library, checked out the original, and only got a few pages in before I realized that the TV movie was nothing like the original novel. I don’t recall if I read the entire book. Once I realized how bogus that TV version was, I had proved my point.

Note that in the first draft of this podcast, I incorrectly identified this bogus “true story” as another made-for-TV film from 1992, which included the tagline, “The legend has been told for generations… The real story is the most horrifying of all.” I don’t know how accurate that version was. I’m pretty sure the one I remembered was from 73 because I was routinely going to the library in those days and not in 92. Anyway…

From what I recall of that reading, and reviewing the plot summary on Wikipedia, this version is a hell of a lot closer to Shelley’s story than any other version I’ve seen. My one initial disappointment in this latest retelling was the absence of Frankenstein’s hunchbacked assistant Igor. A Google search informed me that that character was not in the original novel. I have linked a Wikipedia article that explains the origin of the character sometimes called Fritz and other times called Ygor (with a “Y”) and how this character became fixed in our imaginations. It’s fascinating reading.

This latest retelling is a quality film with quality performances. The creature had a slightly more supernatural inability to be killed than I would have liked, given that the overall feeling of the film was not supernatural beyond the premise that the doctor was able to reanimate a stitched-together corpse.

Overall, I enjoyed it. I can recommend it. However, it is not a strong enough recommendation for me to urge you to say, “Don’t miss this must-see film.”

It’s 9 Oscar nominations: Best Picture, Supporting Actor for Jacob Elordi, Best Adapted Screenplay for Del Toro, Original Music Score by Alexandre Desplat, Cinematography, Sound, Production Design, Costume Design, and Makeup and Hairstyling. IMDb lists 59 wins and 257 nominations total. It has an estimated budget of $120 million. Made for Netflix, it grossed only $114,496 in limited theatrical release to make it Oscar-eligible. It is currently available on Netflix.

Our next film’s only Oscar nomination is for supporting actress Amy Madigan. We are talking about the box office hit “Weapons” from writer/director Zach Cregger. Initially, I wasn’t sure I’d bother watching it. I wanted to focus on the Best Picture and Lead Performance categories. I’m not a huge fan of the horror genre. I am very happy I checked this one out.

The story begins with a voiceover from a young girl who explains that at 2:17 AM in Maybrooke, Pennsylvania, 17 of 18 children in a third-grade classroom got out of bed, ran out of their houses, and disappeared into the night. The film begins weeks later at a town hall meeting in the school, in which distraught parents are demanding answers. Their anger is directed at the teacher, Justine Grandy, played by Julia Garner. She is as clueless as anyone else in town about what happened.

The lone survivor of the incident, Alex Lilly, is transferred to another third-grade classroom with a different teacher. Ms. Grandy is dismissed from her teaching job not only because she no longer has students to teach but because no one would ever trust her to care for their children again.

She begs the school principal, Marcus Miller, played by Benedict Wong, to allow her to speak to the boy Alex, in an attempt to uncover what really happened. The principal refuses. When she stalks the boy on his way home from school, he refuses to speak with her and says he wants to be left alone.

She busies her time drinking vodka and having an affair with a married police officer.

The film shifts focus several times, showing events from different characters’ perspectives. It’s not quite like the classic “Rashomon” storytelling technique, in which different characters observe the same events from different perspectives. Rather, each retelling of the events fits together pieces of the puzzle, gradually revealing the truth.

Minus spoilers are coming here. Trust me, there are still many plot twists and surprises I’m leaving out.

The first half of the film is a compelling mystery story as various people try to piece together what happened. It’s not until we’re nearly halfway through the film that it becomes obvious there are supernatural forces at work. These come courtesy of young Alex’s great aunt Gladys, who practices some sort of voodoo-like magic that allows her to control people and turn them into weapons. Thus, the name of the film. The voodoo magic requires the witch to prick her finger on a thorn, which makes a nice reference to the Shakespeare line we mentioned earlier.

Josh Brolin is excellent in a supporting role as the father of one of the missing children who teams up with the teacher to conduct their own investigation. There is a humorous side story about the police officer (the one who is having an affair with the teacher) who has a run-in with a homeless drug addict who plays a key role in the investigation.

When the story shifts to the young boy Alex’s perspective, only then do we realize what’s really going on. We are taken on a wild ride of violence and gore, featuring some of the most memorable horror scenes I’ve ever seen.

While some reviewers were disappointed in the ending, I felt it built to a thrilling, memorable, and satisfying conclusion.

I found the film way more entertaining than I expected. Although a bit slow-moving in the first half, the suspense of the mystery keeps you watching until all hell breaks loose.

Amy Madigan’s portrayal of the evil Aunt Gladys earned her a Supporting Actress Oscar nomination. She won a Critics’ Choice Award for the role, as well as a Golden Globe and SAG Actors nominations. The film was also nominated for a Globe under their bizarre “Cinematic and Box Office Achievement” award, given to popular films that would not otherwise have received awards. Julia Garner as the teacher and Josh Brolin as the father of one of the missing children give quality performances, but not necessarily award-worthy ones. IMDb lists 46 wins from 114 nominations, including several for the original screenplay by writer/director Zach Cregger.

With an estimated budget of $38 million, it grossed $151 million in the US and Canada and $269.9 million worldwide. It is available for purchase on Amazon Video and for streaming on HBO Max.

I very much enjoyed it and can recommend it if you like any kind of horror stories.

Rounding out our trio of horror films is one of the year’s most talked-about films, which has earned a record 16 Oscar nominations. We are talking about the hit movie “Sinners” starring Michael B. Jordan and Michael B. Jordan. That’s correct. Jordan plays twin brothers nicknamed Smoke and Stack. He is nominated in the Oscar category officially described as “Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role.” My question is, “Which performance earned him the nomination? Was it for brother Smoke or brother Stack?”

Anyway…

The film is set in 1932 in Clarksdale, Mississippi. The twin brothers, whose real names are Elijah and Elias, have just returned to their hometown after working for an organized crime gang known as the Outfit in Chicago. Using money they stole from the mob, they purchase an old sawmill to convert it into a nightclub known as a juke joint.

They recruit an old friend, pianist Delta Slim, and their cousin Sammy, who plays guitar and sings, to perform at their new venue. They are also assisted by a husband-and-wife Chinese couple who operate a supply store in town. Smoke’s estranged wife, Annie, does the cooking. She believes in hoodoo magic, which she believes has protected the twins for years. Smoke is not a believer because the magic failed to prevent the death of their infant daughter. Stack reunites with his ex-girlfriend Mary, a light-skinned black woman who passes as white. Sammy becomes enamored with an attractive singer named Pearline.

Meanwhile, an Irish-immigrant vampire named Remmick is being pursued by Choctaw vampire hunters who are trying to kill him. He sees refuge in the home of a Klansman and his wife, whom he converts into vampires.

For me, the most memorable scene in the movie is when Sammy is performing in the club, and his music is so powerful that it attracts the spirits of performers past, present, and future. This includes the spirit of the Chinese ancestors of the shopkeeper couple. It is an amazing piece of filmmaking.

Sammy’s music is so pure that it also attracts the evil of the vampires. They try to enter the venue but are not allowed. However, anyone who stepped outside was attacked by the vampires and converted. The remainder of the film is the struggle of the people inside the club to survive the evil lurking just outside and to determine who among their number may have been converted into a vampire. It is reminiscent of John Carpenter’s sci-fi horror classic “The Thing,” in which scientists in an Antarctic outpost are infected and converted by an alien. No one can be sure whether or not the person next to them has been converted.

The cinematography is magnificent. There are quality performances throughout, including the musical performances.

The 16 Oscar nominations are as follows: Best Picture, Best Lead Actor Michael B.Jordan, Best Supporting Actor Delroy Lindo as Delta Slim, Best Supporting Actress Wunmi Mosaku as Annie. Ryan Coogler is nominated for Best Director and for Best Original Screenplay. Other nominations for Cinematography, Sound, Original Score, Original Song, Casting, Visual Effects, Makeup/Hairstyling, Production Design, Costume Design, and Film Editing.

IMDb Lists 285 Wins from 481 nominations, including 13 BAFTA nominations and BAFTA wins for original screenplay and supporting actress. It turned 4 wins from 17 Critics’ Choice nominations. It won the Golden Globe for Cinematic and Box Office Achievement as well as 6 other Globe nominations. I would have nominated Miles Caton for his portrayal of cousin Sammy rather than for Delroy Lindo as Delta Slim. IMDb lists him receiving 21 wins from 36 nominations, several of which were for young actors or rising stars, and some were awards for being part of an ensemble cast.

IMDb reports an estimated budget of $90 million with a US and Canada gross of $280 million and a worldwide gross of $270 million.

Overall, I enjoyed it but thought it was a bit overhyped. It opened in early April, and some critics were already saying it was destined to win Best Picture. There were lots of memorable moments, and I understand why it received all of those nominations, but I cannot describe it as “must-see.” It did not leave a lasting impression on me the way some of the other nominated films did.

That wraps it up for part one of our review of Oscar-nominated films.

My personal life is so complicated, I don’t have time to tell you about it. The bottom line is I will not be able to record and edit all of the necessary episodes before the Oscars are presented on March 15. I hope to be able to write the scripts for these related episodes in this series and will post them on Patreon and the Contemplating Life website. I may or may not go back and record them as audio and video podcasts.

So, as always… 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 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. Let me know what you thought of these films.

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

In this episode, I bemoan the lack of new or innovative content on broadcast TV based on the offerings of this new fall season.
We also take a statistical look at the recent Emmy awards and notice that the few broadcast and basic cable shows nominated did not earn any wins. AppleTV+ and other streaming services dominated the landscape. Although all of my podcasts are listenable, this one includes charts and spreadsheets that you may want to view on the YouTube version.

Hello, this is Chris Young. Welcome to Episode 100 of Contemplating Life.

Wow! A hundred episodes!

Although all of my podcasts are listenable, this one includes charts and spreadsheets that you may want to view on the YouTube version.

I began making preparations to review new TV series premiering this fall, and I’m already feeling disappointed when I look at what’s coming. I doubt that I will bother doing extensive reviews of all the new shows. I’ve only surveyed broadcast TV. I’m not sure I can come up with an exhaustive list of what’s available on cable and streaming. So I’m only referring to ABC, CBS, CW, Fox, and NBC.

I count 12 new shows premiering in the coming months. There are three half-hour comedies, four reality/competition shows, a documentary series, and four police/fire shows (three of which are spinoffs of existing series).

The overall schedule of prime-time broadcast TV does not resemble the schedule that was typical just a few years ago. I’ve compiled some statistics that shocked me.

NOTE: You can click on the images for larger versions.

There are 91 hours of broadcast network programming per week. ABC, CBS, and NBC each have 21 hours per week. Fox has 16 hours per week, and CW has just 12 hours.

Reality competition shows lead the list with 22 hours or 24.2%. Police and fire dramas capture 19 hours, which is 21%. Sports programming comes in third, at 18 hours, with a 19.8% share. Movies, specials, and variety shows occupy seven hours per week. Sitcoms occupy five hours, medical dramas four hours. A full six hours per week of prime-time network programming is devoted to reruns. I categorized “Matlock” and “Elsbeth” as legal dramas, but I suppose I could’ve taken half of the five hours per week of “Law & Order” as legal as well. Ultimately, I classified all “Law & Order” series as police dramas. The character Elsbeth is a lawyer, but it could be classified as a police show.

Let’s break down the new schedule on a network-by-network basis, starting with ABC.

They start off Sunday night with “Wonderful World of Disney” and/or other entertainment specials. Monday Night Football, which originated on ABC and later migrated to ESPN, is now shown on ABC, ESPN, and ESPN2 simulcast. We get college football on Saturday night.

“Grey’s Anatomy” returns for its 22nd season, and I doubt there will be much new and different about that. Police procedural “High Potential” is a guilty pleasure returning for its second season, and I enjoy that one.

I continue to enjoy “9-1-1” as it enters its ninth season. It is followed by a new spinoff, “9-1-1 Nashville”. As much as I enjoy it, it won’t be anything new. Just more of the same. Note that the 911 franchise originated with Fox and migrated to ABC a few years ago.

Tim Allen’s sitcom, “Shifting Gears,” returns and is typical of his two previous sitcoms. The sitcom “Abbott Elementary” is one of the few broadcast TV shows that are routinely nominated for Emmy Awards. However, it did not win any this year.

Newsmagazine “20/20” returns for its 39th season. The remaining five hours on ABC are devoted to reality competition shows: “Dancing with the Stars,” “The Golden Bachelor,” “Shark Tank,” and “Celebrity Wheel of Fortune.” Is there anything here that excites you? I will enjoy “High Potential” and both “9-1-1s,” but there isn’t much to see beyond that.

Let’s see what CBS has to offer. Newsmagazines “60 Minutes” and “48 Hours” return.

Tuesday night, we get three hours’ worth of “NCIS,” “NCIS Origins,” and “NCIS Sydney.” Great shows, but nothing new to see here.

Two of my favorite reality competition shows, “Survivor” and “The Amazing Race,” fill up Wednesday. These programs expanded from 60 to 90 minutes during the writers’ and actors’ strikes last year, and they are sticking with the expanded format. A new reality show, “The Road,” features aspiring artists who compete to become the next big music star while touring with a headlining superstar.

Sitcoms “The Neighborhood,” “George and Mandy,” and “Ghosts” are joined by newcomer “DMV,” a workplace comedy about people who work at the DMV. I’m not excited.

When I learned that Morena Baccarin had a new show, I was excited. On the other hand, I don’t think casting her as a small-town sheriff in “Sheriff Country” is going to work very well. Former “Battlestar Galactica” star Katee Sackhoff was cast in “Longmire” in a similar role a few years ago, that didn’t work. I don’t expect Baccarin to work out in a similar role. I will check it out, but I don’t have high hopes. This is brought to you by the same people who bring you “Fire Country,” which returns for another season.

The popular missing persons procedural “Tracker” returns for it’s third season.

Donnie Wahlberg returns as Danny Reagan in “Boston Blue,” which is listed as a new series, but let’s face it, this is just a retooling of “Blue Bloods” in a different city without Tom Selleck. I’m looking forward to seeing former “Star Trek: Discovery” star Sonequa Martin-Green and Ernie Hudson joining the cast.

I am excited about the return of Kathy Bates in “Matlock,” which was one of the other rare broadcast shows to earn an Emmy nomination. She didn’t win. I alsoenjoy Carrie Preston as the quirky lawyer “Elsbeth,” and I hope to catch up on the back seasons and watch some new ones.

“FBI” returns for another season. However, its spin-offs are absent from the schedule.

Medical drama “Watson” returns for its second season. I was unimpressed last year.

That leaves us two hours on Saturday night, which CBS markets as “Crime Time Saturday.” In reality, it’s reruns of police procedurals. It’s nice that the “Blue” franchise is continuing, and I’m anxious for “Matlock.” The NCIS-verse is enjoyable, but you’ve seen it all before.

Moving along…

I haven’t watched any CW network shows since they canceled “Supernatural” and all of the DC comic heroes. Having abandoned that genre, this network was also known for young adult dramas and family shows, but they are all absent from the upcoming schedule.

Sunday night will be a movie, and Saturday will have sports programming. Tuesday is filled with WWE. We get three hours of magic per week, featuring “Penn & Teller,” which I greatly enjoy, as well as two nights of “Masters of Illusion,” which doesn’t work for me for some reason.

Thursday, we get reality police ride-along show “Police 24/7” followed by a rerun of “Police 24/7.”

Wednesday, I believe, breaks the record for the longest named show of the year with “Law & Order: Toronto Criminal Intent.” Nothing new here. Move along.

Previously unknown to me is a sci-fi police show called “Wild Cards,” which returns for a new season. I may have to check that out. The only bright spot in the CW schedule might be a documentary miniseries titled “TV We Love,” which will cover classic shows like “I Love Lucy” and “The Brady Bunch.”

So, tell me, where are the big hits such as “Supernatural,” “Veronica Mars,” “Riverdale,” and “Vampire Diaries?” It’s sad to see that this network is a shell of its former self.

Speaking of networks that are a shell of their former selves, let’s look at Fox. Sunday night sees the return of four adult animated series that have been a staple of the Fox schedule for many years. It kicks off with “The Simpsons,” which will premiere its 37th season, continuing its streak as the longest-running scripted TV show in television history. This is followed by “Universal Basic Guys,” which I gave a scathing review of last year. I’ve never seen the returning series “Krapopolis” or “Bob’s Burgers.”

Friday and Saturday are devoted to college sports.

Tuesday is the only night of scripted live-action shows on Fox, featuring returning series “Murder in a Small Town” and “Doc.”

Everything else on the Fox schedule is reality competition. We have “Celebrity Name That Tune” and the allegedly new series “Celebrity Weakest Link.” Wednesday has game shows “The Floor” and a new entry, “99 to Beat.” Thursday gives us the return of “Hell’s Kitchen” and “Special Forces: World’s Toughest Test.”

As I said, the network that brought you such popular scripted shows as “The X-Files,” “24,” “Bones,” “Prison Break,” “Beverly Hills, 90210,” “Lucifer,” “The Resident,” and “Fringe” has disappeared.

I’m sad to report that NBC isn’t faring much better. Sunday night kicks off with NFL football. Saturday night will be nothing but reruns.

The first two hours of Monday and Tuesday are devoted to “The Voice.” Monday also sees the return of medical drama “Brilliant Minds,” which did not impress me when I reviewed it last year.

Tuesday night has the premiere of a new reality competition show called “On Brand with Jimmy Fallon,” which will also air on Friday night. As best I can tell from the previews, this is a reboot of “The Apprentice,” blissfully without its former host. Contestants who are marketing experts complete designing marketing campaigns.

In mid-fall, Tuesday will be handed over to the return of the NBA to NBC.

In late fall, “The Voice” is reduced from two hours to one hour, making room for the return of the sitcom “St. Denis Medical.” This is followed by a new sitcom, “The Paper,” a mockumentary about a small town newspaper that tries to survive by bringing in volunteer reporters. The series is currently streaming on Peacock+, essentially making this a rerun on broadcast TV. It is produced by the team that brought you “The Office.”

Chicago Wednesday returns, with Chicago Med, Chicago Fire, and Chicago PD.

Law & Order Thursday returns, with the original followed by SVU and “Criminal Intent.”

In late fall, “On Brand” is replaced by the return of the Reba McIntyre sitcom “Happy’s Place,” followed by a new mockumentary, “Stumbles” about junior-college cheerleaders. This doesn’t have me jumping for joy.

Friday is rounded out by two hours of “Dateline NBC.” While the Law & Order and Chicago franchises remain popular, where are the hit sitcoms like “Seinfeld” or the quality family dramas like “Parenthood” and “This Is Us?”

None of the new shows planned this fall is going to show us anything new or different.

For several years now, I’ve been bemoaning the death of broadcast television, at least when it comes to quality content. This year’s Emmy awards continued the trend away from broadcast toward streaming. Let’s look at some numbers.

We’ll look at the major categories awarded by the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, a.k.a. the Emmy Awards, at the ceremony held on September 14, 2025. I will limit our focus to prime-time scripted comedies and dramas. We will exclude late-night shows, talk shows, reality competitions, and live events. There were 21 awards were given to a field of 104 nominees.

Let’s break down the nominations by network. Out of the 104 nominations we are considering, streaming services earned 61. Breaking down the distribution: AppleTV+ had 26, Netflix had 18, HBO Max had 8, Hulu had 7, and Disney+ had 2. The only premium cable network to earn a nomination was HBO with 21 nominations. FX was the only basic cable channel to be nominated, and it earned 15 nominations.

Of the 21 winners, streaming services accounted for 19 awards. Breaking that down, we had seven going to Apple TV+, Netflix had six, HBO Max had five, and Disney+ had one win. Israel cable had 2 nominations. No basic cable or broadcast TV won anything in these categories.

As we mentioned, ABC was the only broadcast network to be nominated in the categories we are considering. All five of its nominations were for the sitcom “Abbott Elementary,” Which did not win anything.

Of the 15 nominations for FX, with ”Dying for Sex” and “The Bear” earning 6 each. “What We Do in the Shadows had 2 nominations, and “Say Nothing” had one. None of them won, although it should be noted that “The Bear” has won 21 Emmys in previous years.

The most impressive performance was AppleTV+ with 7 wins from 28 nominations. Surrealistic drama “Severance” had 2 wins from 10 nominations. The new comedy, “The Studio” took home 3 statues from its 6 nominations. British spy drama “Slow Horses” earned one win from 4 nominations. “Shrinking” and “Presumed Innocent” each had 5.

Of all the nominated shows that I saw, every one of them was much deserved.

All of this raises the question: What good is broadcast TV?

I’m going to be moving into a skilled nursing facility soon, and although they have cable TV in each room, it does not include a DVR. I’ve been exploring streaming options and have decided on YouTube TV, which provides me with all the local channels, as well as all the basic cable channels, all of this over the internet. It also includes unlimited recording for nine months. That means that when you record a show, it stays on your on your virtual DVR for nine months and then disappears.

Although I haven’t canceled cable yet, I’m discovering that unlimited DVR changes the way I manage my content. I click on record for any show that I might ever possibly want to watch. The show will remain in my library for nine months before it’s removed.

So who needs broadcast TV? All of the major networks also release their content on streaming services. Original local programming, such as local news or community affairs shows, can be easily made available on a streaming service. For decades now, the only time I’ve ever used over-the-air television via an antenna is on the rare occasion when my cable goes out.

I attempted to find statistics on the number of people who actually use over-the-air content via an antenna. I came across an article on Forbes from August 2024 titled, “The Future Of Television Is Broadcast & Streaming: Here’s Why.” Really? They think the future is watching TV through an antenna?

Forbes cites statistics from Civic Science, which states that 30% of households have a television antenna. That is split with 17% who use it often and 13% who have one and don’t use it much.

I can understand why the rising costs of cable TV and growing interest in streaming make cutting the cord a popular option. For under $200, you can purchase a DVR that records over-the-air broadcasts, making broadcast TV a viable option for those who want to save money on cable. But is that enough to save broadcast TV?

Consider that 92% of households have Internet access, so even if they cancel cable, I still feel that over-the-air television might soon become irrelevant.

I agree with Forbes that there is a trend toward streaming, but I’m not as optimistic as they were about broadcast TV. At the end of the article, they quote industry analyst Bill Harvey, who believes that the impending death of broadcast TV, which he describes as “linear TV,” has been greatly exaggerated. Harvey goes on to say, “…the networks need not care which delivery path a viewer chooses, they will all be almost equally lucrative. But not if linear backs away from scripted series in favor of lower cost reality shows, that would be the way to make the feared future doom scenario come true.”

So there you have it. An industry expert who is very much pro-broadcast TV admits that the abandonment of scripted series will be the downfall of broadcast TV. And the statistics I’ve compiled indicate that the doom scenario has indeed come true.

In conclusion, it is extremely evident that broadcast TV is on life support, and the prognosis isn’t good.

Since the FCC doesn’t regulate streaming content, I wonder if shows like “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” could be moved to streaming platforms. The problem is, Disney owns ABC, Disney+, and Hulu. If Kimmel moves to Hulu exclusively, would the FCC have the guts to threaten ABC broadcast licenses over content presented only on Hulu? Could Stephen Colbert move to Paramount+ only? Could the FCC threaten Paramount/CBS over content that was streaming only?

Given the current circumstances, I would guess they would try. If ABC or Stephen Colbert attempted to sue over government censorship under the current circumstances, most pundits believe they would prevail. However, if Kimmel and Colbert were exclusively on streaming services and the government tried to punish the parent companies by revoking their broadcast licenses, I think they would have an even stronger case. The problem is that neither Disney nor Paramount seems to have the necessary spine to bring such a case.

Perhaps a student service that is not owned by a media company that also has broadcast licenses would be less likely to be censored. Then again, Apple TV+ recently canceled “The Problem with Jon Stewart” over creative differences regarding his comments about China and artificial intelligence. Naturally, Apple has economic interests in China and doesn’t want to upset the Chinese government. So even though this isn’t a case of government censorship, it still is a case of corporate interests influencing what a network or streaming service will or will not show.

Either that or we need an entirely new non-fascist administration.

If my dad were alive, he would say, “Why don’t you wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which gets full the fastest?”

The bottom line is that there is plenty of high-quality content available these days. But you won’t find it on broadcast TV. You have to pay to see it.

So, as always… 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 rather lengthy episode wraps up the reviews of most of the Oscar-nominated films for this year. I’m sorry I didn’t have time to do a better job but I was out of commission with the flu for about 10 days and just didn’t have time to do the kind of job I usually do. The Oscars will be presented Sunday, March 2 on ABC-TV and I wanted to get this episode out before the awards were presented.

Hello, this is Chris Young. Welcome to Episode 86 of Contemplating Life – Oscar Edition.

As previously reported, I’m not going to have time to review all nine of the 10 Best Picture nominated films I’ve seen this year in the kind of detail I usually do. So here is a brief summary of the films I’ve seen, what I liked or didn’t like, and what I think may or may not win.

Also, the YouTube version of this episode is not going to have the kinds of video clips or still pictures that I normally have when I do movie or TV reviews. I’m recording this on Saturday, March 1. The Oscars are tomorrow night, and I’m going to be lucky to get this thing done before then.

As reported last time, “Wicked” is one of my favorites of the year. There is one other fascinating musical up for consideration. That is the Netflix film “Emilia Pérez”. It is the story of a vicious cartel boss who is transgender and wants to become a woman. Pérez hires a lawyer, played by Zoe Saldaña, to recruit a surgeon to perform the operation. Pérez fakes her own death to start their life over as a woman. She makes provisions for a wife and children to escape to Switzerland, where they are given access to a hefty Swiss bank account. She has no idea her husband faked his death. Selena Gomez plays the wife. The majority of the film is in Spanish with English subtitles. While I usually don’t mind reading subtitles in a foreign language film, I found it particularly troubling during the song and dance numbers because I was too busy reading subtitles to enjoy the performances.

After the surgery, the story jumps four years. Emilia tracks down her former lawyer. This terrifies the lawyer, thinking that she is going to be killed because she is one of only two people who know her secret. On the contrary, Emilia wants to hire her again to help her reunite with her wife and kids. She will claim to be a cousin of the deceased husband.

Along the way, Emilia is then moved by the story of a woman who has a missing relative. Hundreds of people go missing in Mexico each year, either kidnapped or killed by the drug cartels. She formed a charity to help track down the fate of these missing people and bring closure to their families. Many of the missing were at her own people’s hands. Much of the information comes from interviewing people in jail who literally know where the bodies are buried.

The performances are top-notch all around. You genuinely feel Emilia’s anguish in her quest to live her true life as a woman and somehow make up for all the evil she created as a vicious cartel boss. As you might suspect, because she continues to live a lie, the truth has its way of catching up with her, and she cannot escape her violent past.

Although you might find it difficult to watch such a film with subtitles, it is certainly worth its nominations, and I can recommend it.

The film has been nominated for 13 Oscars, the most for a non-English-language film. Nominations include Best Picture, Best International Feature Film from France (which is surprising because it’s mostly in Spanish), Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Sound, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, and Best Film Editing.

Director Jacques Audiard is also nominated. Karla Sofía Gascón is a controversial nominee for Best Lead Actress because she is the first transsexual to be nominated in any category other than the gender assigned at birth. As if that weren’t controversial enough, racist, antisemitic social media posts that Gascón made in the past have surfaced. Pundits seem to think that this controversy will hurt not only her chances but perhaps the chances of the entire film. That seems unfair. Controversies aside, I thought it was an outstanding performance that truly made me feel her plight.

Zoe Saldaña is nominated for Supporting Actress as the lawyer. While it is a fantastic performance, and probably deserving of the nomination. I was more impressed by Selena Gomez, who played the wife. My only previous familiarity with her work is in the show “Only Murders in the Building” alongside Steve Martin and Martin Short. In that series, she plays a rather timid, laid-back character. In my opinion, that doesn’t allow her to show off her acting skills compared to what she is called to do in this film. I was very much impressed by her performance.

In addition to the nomination for overall musical score, two of its songs are nominated for Best Original Song: “El Mal,” my favorite of the film, and “Mi Camino.” Typically, having two nominations in the same category for the same film is a problem because it splits the fans’ votes, but I wouldn’t be surprised if one of these songs wins.

IMDb lists 106 wins and an additional 245 nominations, but recall that they list dozens of nominations for awards you have never heard of.

The film has only earned a little over $15 million on an estimated budget of €25 million, however, it is on Netflix, and box office numbers don’t mean much for films released directly to streaming. It is still currently available on Netflix.

I think it is a good contender to win some awards if it can avoid the controversy.

Moving along…

There are two other films with strong female protagonists that I cannot recommend. I don’t find either of them to be worthy of their nominations for Best Picture nor their nominations for Lead Actress.

The first is “The Substance,” which stars Demi Moore as an aging actress. Although she is still quite attractive and has an exceptional fit body for a woman her age, she no longer lives up to the ideal of beauty expected by Hollywood. She hosts an exercise program on TV but is fired by the network, which wants a younger woman. Soon after, she is contacted by some mysterious company offering her “the substance.” This is a drug which, when injected, creates a younger clone of yourself. She reluctantly agrees to take the substance without much forethought or detailed explanation of the consequences of the decision.

In a pivotal scene, she stands naked in her bathroom and injects the first dose, which will create the clone. She falls to the ground and begins writhing in agony until her spine splits open. A fully formed adult, beautiful twenty-seven-year-old woman crawls out of her body defying every law of physics you can think of. How do you magically double the mass of a human being by simply injecting a chemical? We are clearly in the realm of fantasy and not science fiction.

The gimmick is that these two versions of the woman must share a life. One of them will be conscious for seven days while the other lies in a coma. After seven days, there is another injection and they swap positions with the older one taking over and the a younger one unconscious. To survive these seven days, you have to extract fluid from the unconscious version using a syringe and inject it into yourself.

The young clone is given the older actress’s former job and becomes a big overnight sensation. She enjoys fame and fortune so much that she gets greedy and tries to extend her seven days of consciousness. This drastically affects the older version, causing her to age rapidly.

The entire thing deteriorates when she attempts to clone herself yet again, turning into a hideous monster reminiscent of the creature in John Carpenter’s classic sci-fi horror film “The Thing.” John Carpenter isn’t the only director that this film references. We can easily see director Coralie Fargeat attempting to emulate the styles of Stanley Kubrick, David Cronenberg, and Brian De Palma, just to name a few. I never got the sense that she had a style of her own. Her nomination for Best Director is not deserved nor is her nomination for Best Original Screenplay.

It was nominated for a Golden Globe in the comedy category and indeed I found myself laughing not because it was finally but because it was so ridiculous. It tries to take a serious topic like our cultural obsession with youth and beauty, and it makes a mockery of itself. In no way do I believe it deserves a Best Picture nomination. Demi Moore won the Golden Globe award for Best Actress in a Comedy or Musical for the role and is nominated for the Best Actress Oscar. None of which are deserved. I think she must’ve just gotten some sort of sympathy vote for daring to be on camera naked at her age. This is at best a mildly entertaining cheesy horror movie. You might find it a guilty pleasure when it comes to your favorite streaming service, but overall, it is not Oscar-worthy.

It is nominated for Makeup and Hair and won the BAFTA and the Critics Choice awards in that category. I suppose the creature makeup was nomination-worthy.

Margaret Qualley received a Golden Globe Supporting Actress nomination as well as other nominations in her role as the younger version of our protagonist and I slightly enjoyed her performance more than that of Demi Moore. Qualley did not receive an Oscar nomination.

IMDb lists 128 wins and an additional 247 nominations. Although it earned only $17 million in the US and Canada, it earned $77 million worldwide on an estimated budget of $17.5 million.

It is currently available as a digital download from Amazon and other sources

The other undeserved nomination with a strong female lead character is “Anora.” This is the story of an exotic dancer and prostitute who lives in Brooklyn in the present day. Her boss at the strip club asked her to take on a special client named Ivan. He is a young, wealthy son of a Russian oligarch. Anora, who prefers to be called Ani, speaks Russian because her grandmother was Russian. After giving the client a lap dance, he asked if she ever offered private parties, and she gave him her contact information.

She goes to his mansion, which has a picturesque overview of the Hudson River, and she has sex with him. He invites her to a party on New Year’s Eve, and she has a girlfriend go and have a raucous time partying and doing drugs. She spends the night with Ivan, and he asks her to be his pretend girlfriend for an entire week. He offers her $10,000, and she asks for 15, and he agrees. Near the end of the week, they fly off to Vegas to party some more, and on their last night together, he proposes marriage. At first, she assumes he’s joking, but he seems serious, and she agrees. They get married in a Vegas chapel and then return to New York for more sex and partying.

The first 45 minutes of the film are nothing but them partying, drinking, smoking, and having sex. We get very little character development and zero plot.

Eventually, the young playboy’s Russian parents find out about the marriage and send three Armenian gangsters to the mansion to force them to get the marriage annulled. Ivan flees the mansion, leaving Ani to deal with the gangsters. They tried to tie her up to keep her from fleeing, but along the way, she kicked one of them in the face, breaking his nose.

They try to impress upon her that Ivan doesn’t really love her. They offer $10,000 to agree to the annulment and go away. The alternative is that the powerful Russian parents will ruin her life and the lives of everyone she loves. Throughout the rest of the film, they Go around New York trying to track down Ivan as she insists he really loves her.

In the end, of course, he doesn’t. She realizes that. They have to fly back to Vegas to get the annulment accompanied by the Russian parents and the Armenian gangsters. Along the way, we begin to see that one of the gangsters, Igor, begins to feel sorry for her.

The only marginally interesting scene in the entire film is after the annulment, Ivan’s mother screams at Ani, “You’re nothing but a whore!” To which Ani replies, “And your son hates you so much that he married me just to spite you.” At this point, Ivan’s father, who hasn’t had a word to say the entire time, begins laughing hysterically. I loved it

Like “The Substance,” this is, at best, a mildly entertaining B-movie that in no way deserves any of its nominations. It was awarded the prestigious Palm d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival. This reminds me of the Palm d’Or winner two years ago, “Triangle of Sadness,” which highlighted the arrogance of the ultra-rich and their condescending attitude towards allegedly lower-class people. I find this ironic or hypocritical because the attendees at the film festival represent the rich upper crust of society. I think they believe it’s redeeming to give awards that criticize the very arrogance of the typical Festival attendees.

In addition to the undeserved Best Picture, Sean Baker is nominated for Directing, Original Screenplay, and Film Editing. Mikey Madison was nominated as Best Actress for the title role. One of the gangsters, Igor, who befriends her, played by Yura Borisov, has a Supporting Actor nomination for a mildly interesting performance. I don’t believe any of the nominations are justified.

IMDb reports 131 wins and an additional 272 nominations.

The film has earned $15 million in the US and Canada and $38 million worldwide on an estimated budget of just $6 million.

It’s a mildly amusing B-movie that I could recommend when it comes to streaming. It is currently available for purchase as a digital download on Amazon and other platforms.

Moving along…

Every year, there are one or two films when you see the trailer, and you can already imagine there will be a version of the trailer that adds the words “For Your Consideration.” At first glance, these films aim for award nominations and are probably worthy of them.

In varying degrees, we have three of these films this year. The first is probably the odds on favorite to win Best Picture and Best Actor. This is the three-and-a-half-hour epic film “The Brutalist.”

Adrian Brody stars as László Tóth, a Jewish architect from Hungary who immigrates to the US to escape the Nazis. He is forced to leave behind his wife and adult niece. He travels to Philadelphia, where he rooms in the storage closet of a furniture store owned by his cousin. They are approached by a young rich man, Harry Lee Van Buren, Jr, who wants them to redecorate his father’s office with custom furniture. The rich father is unaware of his son’s plans. When he returns home to see the work partially completed, he throws a fit… especially because they’ve hired “Negro workers” for the job. He fires everyone and refuses to pay for any of it. The cousin blames Brody for no reason and throws him out.

Eventually, the wealthy father Harrison Lee Van Buren Sr., played by Guy Pearce, realizes that the office remodeling is a masterpiece of design when it is featured in a photo spread in “Look” magazine. He tracks down László and commissions him to design a large community center on top of the hill on his estate. The center will contain meeting rooms, a library, a gymnasium with a pool, and a Christian chapel. The Van Buren also assists him in getting his wife and niece out of Europe to join him in the US.

László turns out to be an arrogant person who insists that no changes be made in his design. At one point, he even agrees to forgo much or all of his fees to preserve an expensive aspect of his design. At this point, I became confused about the title of the film. Was the rich benefactor the brutal one, or was it the architect? I wondered if this was based on a true story. A quick Google search revealed that it was not. The title comes from the style of architecture known as Brutalist style. It is a postmodern style of architecture known for bland concrete walls and uninteresting cubic structures.

I won’t bother spoiling the rest of the plot except to say that after an accident, the project is canceled and everyone is fired. Later, they attempted to resurrect the project, leading to a bizarre and violent encounter between the benefactor and the architect. The project gets canceled again, and we jump to an epilogue decades later when the architect was being celebrated for his lifetime of work. There appears to be some sort of explanation given by his niece as to why he was so insistent on his design of the community center, but I couldn’t follow it. His niece, who spoke with a thick Hungarian accent that I couldn’t understand it.

Although I hate to admit it, the only version of this film I could obtain was a bootleg camera copy. Naturally, there were no closed captions available. Even the open captions of the Hungarian dialogue was of such low contrast, I couldn’t read it. Because I respect copyright, I will purchase a copy of the film once it is available.

Speaking of the Hungarian accents, the film is controversial because the producers revealed that AI enhanced some of Brody’s and Jones’s Hungarian dialogue to make it more accurate. I’m not opposed to such the use of AI even though I think it’s entirely unnecessary. How much of the audience is going to 0now or care if the Hungarian pronunciation is perfect? Well, I suppose there are some. There are people complaining that the accents in “Emilia Pérez” were not accurate. They were not Mexican enough. They were from some other Hispanic territory.

“The Brutalist” received 10 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, Cinematography, Original Score, Film Editing, and Production Design.

Brady Corbet is nominated for Director, and co-author of the Original Screenplay.

Adrian Brody is an odds-on favorite to win Best Actor. Felicity Jones does an admirable job as László’s wife Erzsébet Tóth. I should mention that when she arrives from Europe, she is in a wheelchair because she is ill from malnutrition. She is a strong woman who had been a journalist in Europe. With some assistance from the benefactor, she is able to continue her journalism career in America.

At a climactic moment in the film, she finds the strength to stand up from her wheelchair and deliver a scathing indictment of Van Buren. Suddenly, when she needs to “stand up to” the millionaire she is able to do so despite her disability. I found this to be a cringe-worthy gimmick. Despite my issues with this plot point, I believe Jones deserves her Supporting Actress nomination. Guy Pearce also creates a memorable character as Van Buren and deserves his Supporting Actor Nomination. IMDb lists 124 wins and an additional 344 nominations and I would not be surprised if it takes home multiple statues on Oscar night.

The film has grossed only $15 million in the US and Canada and $36.6 million worldwide on an estimated budget of $10 million.

I couldn’t judge the cinematography very well because I watched such a poorly captured copy. It was filmed in VistaVision, a 35mm film format in which the film travels through the camera and projector horizontally rather than vertically, giving it a larger image. This is similar to how IMAX film uses the same gimmick on 70mm film. The filmmakers wanted to use this older format because it was introduced at the same time as the events of the film.

The film itself probably deserves its nomination just for the audacity of telling an epic story over three and a half hours. But personally, I don’t think it was worth my time. I will pay for it out of a sense of honor, but I would not have felt it was worth it to go to a theater and spend three hours and 45 minutes, with a 15-minute intermission, to see this film.

Moving along…

Another of the films whose trailer implies “For your consideration” is “Conclave”. It’s a fictional story of the Vatican conclave that gathers to elect a new Pope. It stars Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, and Isabella Rossellini.

Everything about this film makes it worthy of all of its nominations, except perhaps the Supporting Actress nomination for Rossellini, who is only in the film for a couple of minutes. She doesn’t contribute much. The story of the political infighting surrounding the election of a new Pope will keep you on the edge of your seat, guessing what new scandal will pop up next, thus eliminating various candidates. I had a pretty good idea of who I thought was going to end up winning the election, and I was wrong.

There is some interesting symbolism in the film. At one point, there is a terrorist attack just outside the Vatican, which causes the windows of the Sistine Chapel to blow out. That’s a turning point in the movie. It’s a subtle reference to the statement by Pope John XXIII, who is reported to have said that he called the Second Vatican Council in order to “throw open the windows and allow the Holy Spirit enter.” By the way, there seems to be some controversy over whether or not Pope John actually said that.

Overall, the acting, cinematography, plot, direction, and everything about the story were top-notch until we got to the end. There is a plot twist at the end that I don’t think you could have remotely anticipated. I will have more to say about that plot twist in a skippable epilogue at the end of this podcast. All I can say at this point is that I felt like it ruined an otherwise excellent film. I can still recommend it, and your opinion of the ending might vary from mine, so you may like it more than I did.

In addition to the Best Picture Nomination, it was also nominated for Original Score, Adapted Screenplay, Film Editing, Production Design, and Costume Design. Ralph Fiennes deserves his Lead Actor nomination. As mentioned earlier, I didn’t think Rossellini did anything special to deserve her Supporting Actress nomination.

IMDb lists 82 wins and an additional 312 nominations. It has earned $32 million in the US and Canada and $98 million worldwide on an estimated budget of $20 million. It is currently available for streaming on PeacockTV. I will have more to say about the film at the end of the podcast in a spoiler section.

Our next film is Denis Villeneuve’s Dune Part 2. I am completely unable to be objective about this though because I was a huge fan of Frank Herbert’s original novel when I read it back in my college days. I didn’t hate David Lynch’s 1984 adaptation of the work as much as I probably should have. There was a SyFy Channel adaptation that was adequate but boring. Together, “Dune: Part One” and “Dune: Part Two” are the adaptations that fans and I have been waiting for for decades. It is an amazing piece of filmmaking that shows great respect to the original work. The changes that Villeneuve makes from the original novel are mostly positive. Paul Atreides’s girlfriend Chani played by Zendaya is a much more interesting character in this film than she is in the novel.

The screenplay by Villeneuve and co-author Jon Spaihts does a great job, in part through their reimagining of Chani, of explaining that Paul really is not a hero. He is a dangerous vengeful person with a Messiah complex who is going to lead the Empire into a deadly war for his own selfish personal reasons. “Dune” was always supposed to be a cautionary tale about Messiah figures but many readers didn’t get that from the story. In this adaptation, the message is much clearer.

There was one plot change that did bother me. The timeline of Paul’s time in the desert is compressed. When Paul and his mother fled into the desert, she was pregnant with Paul’s sister. In the original novel and other adaptations, Paul spends several years leading the Fremen in a rebellion against the House Harkonnen who overthrew Paul’s father. In the book, by the climax of the story, Paul’s sister is approximately four years old, yet she is not yet born in this film adaptation. That means everything Paul did to rally the Fremen in rebellion and Paul’s awakening as a Messiah is compressed into less than nine months. That just didn’t make sense to me. Except for that change, everything else was either highly true to the original story or the changes made good sense to me.

It much deserves its 5 Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Visual Effects, Cinematography, Production Design, and Sound.

Although it received no acting or directing nominations, I have to say the entire film is top-notch, especially the performances by Timothée Chalamet as Paul Atreides and Zendaya as Chani.

Timeout for a quick joke. Austin Butler, who is most known for playing Elvis in the 2022 biopic, plays Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen. There is a climactic fight scene between him and Paul near the end of the film. When Paul kills him, I leaned over to my friend Rich and said, “Elvis has left the building.” By the way, there’s another rockstar connection to that character. Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen was played by rock/jazz superstar Sting in the 1984 David Lynch adaptation of the story. I liked Sting’s portrayal better.

I would call “Dune: Part 2” a close tie with “Wicked” for my favorite nominated film this year, but I don’t think either it or “Wicked” have a chance at Best Picture.

The film has earned over $714 million on an estimated budget of $190 million. Is currently available for streaming on Netflix and Max.

Speaking of Timothée Chalamet, he has turned in quality performances this year in the lead roles in two of the Best Picture nominees. Although not nominated for Dune, he is nominated as Best Actor in our next film.

“A Complete Unknown” is a phenomenal biopic covering the early career of legendary songwriter Bob Dylan. The film opens with 19-year-old Dylan arriving in New York with little or no money and an acoustic guitar. He’s on a sort of pilgrimage to visit his folk singing hero Woody Guthrie, who is hospitalized, struggling with the severe effects of Huntington’s Disease. Guthrie was mostly bedridden and unable to speak. While visiting, Dylan meets folk singing icon Pete Seeger, brilliantly played by Edward Norton.

Norton’s nomination for Best Supporting Actor is very much deserved. In fact, I think it may be my favorite performance by anyone this year. As Norton begins to discover what a musical genius Bob Dylan is, the expressions on his face of pure joy are a sight to behold. He doesn’t have to say anything. His body language and facial expressions speak volumes.

There are also moments where Dakota Fanning gives a tremendous performance as Dylan’s girlfriend, Sylvie Russo. Again, it’s not so much what she says, but the facial expressions she delivers while listening to Dylan perform are a master class in acting. Unfortunately, she did not receive a supporting actress nomination. That honor went to Monica Barbaro for her portrayal of folksinger Joan Baez. She too gives a phenomenal performance, although if I had been nominating for the film, I might have given it to Fanning instead. They both really deserve a nomination, but that would kill both of their chances of winning because it is rare that either performer wins when two performers from the same film are nominated in the same category. Fans of the film split their votes, and some other films win.

Chalamet gives an amazing performance, singing more than a dozen musical numbers. He channels Bob Dylan completely. It is an amazing accomplishment.

The film covers the beginning of his career up through an iconic performance at the Newport folk music festival, in which he shocked the audience and alienated much of the folk community by performing on electric guitar with a full rock band behind him. The audience failed to realize that this new era of his career contained lyrics that were every bit as powerful as anything he’d written before and were completely in tune with the social justice themes of the folk music movement. He was seen as betraying folk music principles, yet he was simply taking their message to a new level that would reach an even larger audience than the folk music Nich.

Like several of the films that we discussed last year, this one explores the personal cost that must be paid by those who are friends and family of someone who is driven by genius.

Overall, let’s call this one my third favorite nominated film. Sadly, it was only available by bootleg camera copy, and although the video quality was above average for such a download, the audio suffered terribly. I will definitely be purchasing a clean, legitimate copy as soon as it is available so I can fully enjoy the film. I highly recommend this one. I don’t know if it has much of a chance to win any of the awards, but I would be greatly pleased if it does.

The eight Oscar nominations include Best Picture, Sound, Adapted Screenplay, and Costume Design. Director James Mangold is also nominated. Timothée Chalamet is nominated as Best Actor and is the only person who might give Adrian Brody any competition. Edward Norton much deserves his Supporting Actor nomination, and Monica Barbaro deserves her Supporting Actress nomination for her portrayal of Joan Baez.

IMDb lists 23 wins and an additional nominations. The film has earned $110 million worldwide on an estimated budget of $70 million.

I was not able to see the film “I’m Still Here,” which, like “Emilia Pérez,” is nominated both for Best Picture and for Foreign Film. That is the first time in which there have been two such double nominations in the same year.

I was able to obtain a copy of the nominated film “Nickel Boys,” but I found the film to be unwatchable. The film is shot from the point of view camera of the two main characters. You are working out through your eyes and occasionally using the character’s reflection in a window. It switches POV about every 8-10 minutes. I found this cinematography so annoying that I couldn’t watch the film. It’s based on a 2020 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Colin Whitehead. It tells the story of a pair of boys who go to the historic Dozier School, a reform school in Florida that operated for over 100 years and was eventually closed because it brutally abused the boys.

I can easily presume that it is a poignant and compelling story. I may go back to it and try again, but overall, it’s going to be a difficult film to watch because of the bizarre cinematography style. In addition to its Best Picture nomination, it is also nominated for Adapted Screenplay. IMDb lists 50 wins and an additional 189 nominations. It has earned only $2.8 million worldwide with an estimated budget of $20 million.

All of the Best Actress nominees were in Best Picture nominated films this year. So, we have covered all of those.

In the Best Actor category, Coleman Domingo received a nomination for the film “Sing Sing.” Based on the quality of his work in nominated films last year, I presume he has turned in another great performance. I have access to the film but have not had time to watch it yet.

We have to talk briefly about “The Apprentice.” It stars Sebastian Stan as a young Donald Trump who is learning to be a ruthless businessman from iconic corrupt lawyer Roy Cohn. I can’t testify how accurate the film is, but if it is accurate, it explains that everything you know about the kind of man that Donald Trump is today, he received studying under Cohn.

In this case, Trump is “The Apprentice. England

Sebastian Stan deserves his Best Actor nomination, as does Jeremy Strong deserves his Supporting Actor nomination for his portrayal of Cohn.

I highly recommend the film, which is currently available for digital download purchase on Amazon and other platforms. There is no word on when subscription streaming or cable will be available. This small independent film has earned $4 million in the US and Canada and $17 million worldwide on an estimated budget and $50 million.

By the way, both “The Apprentice” and “Nickel Boys” were shot in a nearly 4:3 aspect ratio like an old analog TV rather than a modern widescreen format. This continues the trend we saw last year in “Maestro” and “The Holdovers” in which the cinematography tries to reflect the time period in which the story takes place.

I was also able to see “A Real Pain” in which Kieran Culkin received a Supporting Actor nomination. It was written and directed by Jesse Eisenberg who also stars in the film. They play a pair of mismatched cousins who reunite for a vacation tour of Poland to honor their late grandmother who survived the concentration camps during World War II. It’s a poignant little buddy comedy with quality performances. I doubt Culkin will win but he earned his nomination well.

So, there we have it. We have briefly covered all 10 Best Picture nominees as well as all of the acting awards that we were able to see. I had hoped to cover the animated features, which include Pixar’s “Inside Out 2”, “The Wild Robot,” and “Flow,” which was also nominated in the Foreign Film category. I have access to these films as well as the stop motion animated films “Wallace and Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl” and “Memoir of a Snail” which also received feature animation nominations. “Memoir of a Snail” is the first R-rated film to receive a Best Animated Feature nomination.

My prediction is it will be a big sweep for “The Brutalist.“ The only competition will be “Emilia Pérez.” Look for “Wicked” to win production design and costume design. It could also beat Dune for Visual Effects. Brody is a shoo-in for Best Actor. However, if the Academy wants to stick it to Donald Trump, they could give it to Sebastian Stan.

The 97th Academy Awards will be presented on Sunday, March 2 on ABC-TV.

I will probably take a couple of weeks off from this podcast and then return with either some political rants or more autobiographical stories.

By the way, you know that I always sign off with the words, “Fly safe, everyone.” That salutation comes from an online outer space game I play called “Eve Online.” For me, it means have fun, but be careful. These days, unfortunately, it has a double meaning with all of the tragic air accidents we have seen. But the intent remains the same. In these turbulent times, whenever we fear or whatever threatens us, remember to have fun but be safe.

So, as always… 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.

Okay, here is the spoiler section about “Conclave.”

Just as the Cardinals are about to lock themselves into the Vatican to deliberate on who will be the new Pope, a new Bishop arrives to claim that the previous Pope has elevated him to Cardinal just before his death. The Cardinals accept his credentials, and he is permitted to participate in the voting. After multiple Cardinals are faced with charges of misconduct, manipulation, and other scandals, this newly appointed Cardinal stands up and makes a speech chewing them out and telling them to cut the crap and politics and just elect someone, for God’s sake. Although he is a complete unknown, pun intended, space.they rally around him, and he is elected the new Pope.

If it had ended there, I would’ve congratulated them for a clever plot twist and would have really enjoyed the entire experience.

After the election, it is discovered that this new Pope is actually intersex. They have both male and female sexual characteristics. They claim that the previous Pope knew about it and also supported his decision to not have surgery to make him male definitively.

Of course, had the other Cardinals known the secret, they would’ve never elected him and would have likely stripped him as a Cardinal, Bishop, and priest.

I have some personal experience attempting to write a story about an intersex character. I sought advice from knowledgeable people about the condition in addition to my own extensive online research. I wanted to ensure that I was handling the topic sensitively. Ultimately, one of the people I contacted to advise me refused to take the job, saying that even my brief outline of the story was, in their opinion, offensive to intersex people. They would not allow for the possibility that a straight, cisgender male might be able to handle the topic sensitively.

The advisor who turned down commenting further on my story has a YouTube channel in which they discuss intersex issues and how to sensitively portray them in stories. One of the number one things they said you should not do is to make their condition a surprise plot point. They were referring exactly to the kind of thing that occurred in Conclave.

In my story, I reveal my character’s genetic and gender issues upfront within a few paragraphs of a 25,000-word story. It was not a surprise gotcha reveal like it was in Conclave. I have linked that YouTube video talking about mistakes made in portraying intersex characters. I have asked the creator of that video if they would review the film “Conclave”. I looked through their channel and did not find such a review.

My guess is they would not approve.

That’s all for now. Fly safe, everyone.

This is the first of my abbreviated reviews of Oscar-nominated films for 2025. After several weeks of talking about Broadway musicals, fantasy, and fairy tales, we finally get around to discussing “Wicked.”

Hello, this is Chris Young. Welcome to Episode 85 of Contemplating Life Oscar Edition.

For several weeks now, we’ve been building up to my discussion of the Oscar-nominated Best Picture “Wicked.” Note that when I began this series, the title of that film was “Wicked: Part 1,” but now it has been shortened to just “Wicked.” The second half of the adaptation of the Broadway musical is now called “Wicked: For Good” and is scheduled for release in November of this year.

This year, I do not have time to edit in trailers, movie clips, etc., into the YouTube version of the podcast. So be sure to check out the links in the description for articles and videos related to this year’s films.

As I mentioned in the previous episode, this is the story of Elphaba, a.k.a. the Wicked Witch of the West, played by Cynthia Erivo, and her school friendship with Galinda, a.k.a. the Good Witch of the North, played by Arianna Grande. It is based on the hit Broadway musical that has been running since 2003. It is, in turn, based on the Frank Maguire novel “Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West.”

The film opens with a shot of the Wicked Witch’s iconic pointed black hat sitting atop a puddle of water surrounded by dying sparks. Obviously, this is just seconds after Dorothy has doused her with a bucket of water, causing her to melt. We then go to Munchkin Land, where Glinda arrives in her floating bubble to confirm that, yes, indeed, the Wicked Witch is dead. There is a song called “Nobody Mourns the Wicked,” which is a stand-in for “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead.” The musical creators were prohibited from using anything from the original 1939 “Wizard of Oz.”

Someone asks Glinda if she knew the Wicked Witch when she was younger. We then begin a flashback that gives us the complete story. It quickly becomes apparent that this is not a children’s story. We hear that Elphaba’s mother had an affair with a stranger. The stranger gave her some sort of green liquid, so when Elphaba was born, she had green skin. Not knowing what to expect from the story, I was surprised it started with a somewhat adult theme.

We later learn that Elphaba has a sister who is in a wheelchair. Her name is Nessarose. She is portrayed by Marissa Bode, who in real life had a spinal cord injury at age 11 in a car accident and uses a wheelchair.

We are told that Nessarose’s condition is because her mother took some sort of herbal remedy to try to prevent her second child from turning out green. There is a scene depicting Nessarose and Elphaba as young girls, both being teased for being different. When Elphaba gets angry, her magical abilities start to manifest themselves. Small rocks begin hovering off the ground as her temper flares.

We fast-forward to the girls going off to college. Galinda is a rich, spoiled brat who thinks everything revolves around her. Nessarose is there to study, but Elphaba is not enrolled. She is simply there to help her disabled sister settle in.

Someone tries to push Nessarose’s wheelchair to help her get to her dorm room, but she insists that she’s not helpless and can get there herself. When they don’t listen to her, Elphaba becomes angry and unleashes magic, which flings several objects into the air including her sister in the wheelchair. The disabled actress who plays the part did her own stunt work for the scene. Behind-the-scenes videos reveal multiple wires were attached to the wheelchair, causing it to fly. In an interview, she explained she was quite proud that she had been allowed to do this stunt on her own. This further reinforces the concept that neither she nor her character always needs special help.

As you might guess, at this point, I was totally hooked. The realistic depiction of an independent disabled woman was so spot on that it left my jaw hanging open. Elphaba’s defense of her sister was not because Nessarose needed help. On the contrary, she defended the idea that her sister was capable and independent. I was shocked and amazed that an adult fairy tale perfectly depicted this disabled character.

As you know from our previous discussions, I identified with Cinderella daydreaming in her own little corner in her own little chair. We were barely 5 minutes into the film, and “Wicked” says to me, “You think Cinderella is something special for a disabled kid. Hold my beer while I show you something you’ve never seen in a fairy tale.”

When Elphaba accidentally displays her magic powers, it catches the attention of Madam Morrible, who teaches magic at Shiz University. Morrible is played by Oscar-winning actress Michelle Yeoh.

Madame Morrible immediately insists that Elphaba enter the University. Through a series of misunderstandings, she ends up roommates with the overprivileged Galinda, who was promised a private dorm room.

Along the way, we are introduced to a couple of other characters. Fiyero is a bit of an airhead frat boy who is only there to party. Also, we meet Bok who is from Munchkin Land. By the way, in this version of Oz, munchkins are a bit short but are not portrayed by little people. Elphaba and Nessarose’s father is the mayor of Munchkin Land.

Both Elphaba and Nessarose are treated poorly because they are so different. Bok had a crush on Galinda, and she suggested that he befriend Nessarose as a favor to her. Bok is happy to oblige because he thinks it will gain him favor with Galinda. Nessarose is ecstatic that a boy would show interest in her. Neither she nor Bok understand how they are being manipulated. Bok is blinded to the realization that he has been heartless towards Nessarose.

Eventually, Galinda begins to feel sympathy for her bizarre roommate, Elphaba, after initially despising her. They begin to form a strange bond.

Some of the teachers at Shiz University are talking animals, most notably Dr. Dillamond, voiced by Peter Dinklage. We discover a conspiracy against talking animals that is trying to force them to shut up. Eventually, Dr. Dillamond is arrested and hauled away in a cage, causing him to lose the ability to speak. He was replaced by another teacher who wanted to experiment on animals, specifically a lion cub. This outrages Elphaba and her magic manifests itself again, knocking out everyone in the classroom. Except for her, Fiyero, and the cub. Remember that. It turns out to be significant later. They take the cub out into the woods to release him. They do so by hopping on bicycles that are identical to the one ridden by Miss Gulch in the original Wizard of Oz when she kidnaps Toto. Seeing Elphaba riding that bicycle with an animal in the basket sent me into hysterical laughter. My sister Carol immediately began singing Miss Gulch’s theme song, “Dat da dat da da da…” I had to pause the movie until we stopped laughing. It was just too perfect an Easter egg.

Dr. Dillamond always had trouble pronouncing Galinda’s name using his goat voice. After he is arrested, Galinda announces she will henceforth be known as Glinda, which is how Dr. D pronounced it.

Eventually, Elphaba gets an invitation to go to the Emerald City and meet the wizard, who is anxious to mentor her and her magical abilities. At the last minute, she invites Glenda to join her. Upon arrival, we get the back story on the wizard delivered in a dramatic presentation featuring cameo appearances by Kristin Chenoweth and Idina Menzel. They originated the roles of Glenda and Elphaba on Broadway. I’m certain their appearance delighted many fans of the original musical.

The entire Emerald City experience contains multiple other Easter Eggs to the original film.

Finally, we meet the wizard, who is magnificently portrayed by Jeff Goldblum. Without spoiling too much, we can tell you that the wizard isn’t who we think he is. Elphaba sees through him, casts a spell that allows her to fly on a broom, and she escapes singing the iconic song “Defying Gravity.” Madam Morrible gets on a PA system announcing to the entire Emerald City that Elphaba is a Wicked Witch, and the film promptly ends.

It may seem like I’ve spoiled the entire movie, but trust me, there are plenty of details I’ve left out. At the end of this episode, I will have some serious spoilers where I reveal things I figured out about the plot along the way and things that I’ve heard will be in the second film based on what happens in the musical.

It saddened me when I realized that my disabled hero in the film, Nessarose, is the one who gets a house dropped on her by Dorothy in the original story. We get a brief glimpse of ruby slippers however in this story, Nessarose wears silver slippers, which is more consistent with the original L. Frank Baum story.

I can tell you now, without any spoilers to the movie, that the book was much more adult than the musical. Author Gregory Maguire dives deeply into many adult topics, including speculation that the Wicked Which is actually a transsexual. He creates multiple religions and political parties in which he explores various issues. There is even a character who has two penises and has an affair with a mother and a daughter. Fortunately neither the musical nor the film go that far. Except for the story that Elphaba’s mother had an extramarital affair, the rest of the story could be considered kid-friendly. The film is rated PG.

There is a musical Easter Egg in that the first seven notes of “Over the Rainbow” are hidden in a couple of the songs from the musical. It is in the “Unlimited” motif. The notes are the same, but the rhythm and harmony surrounding them are different. Once you copy eight notes of a melody, you are at risk for copyright infringement, so composer Stephen Schwartz stops at seven notes. See the video linked in the description where he explains this.

My sister and I, who are huge fans of the original Wizard of Oz, thoroughly enjoyed the film, and we plan to watch it again sometime soon. The combination of the phenomenally spot-on treatment of the disabled characters and the amazing Easter eggs referring to the 1939 film made it a thoroughly enjoyable experience for both of us. We anxiously await the second part. Again, at the end of this podcast, I will have huge spoilers for the second part.

In addition to the Best Picture Oscar nomination, it was also nominated for Musical Score, Makeup and Hairstyling, Sound, Visual Effects, Production Design, and Costume Design All of which are very much deserved. I don’t have any opinion about the nomination for Film Editing.

Cynthia Erivo and Arianna Grande are nominated for Lead Actress and Supporting Actress, respectively, and are much deserved. The film won the Golden Globe for Cinematic and Box Office Achievement. IMDb lists 304 nominations and 99 wins.

Although Jeff Goldblum did not receive a supporting actor nomination, I thought he was perfectly cast in the role and did a wonderful job.

It has over $728,000,000 in worldwide box office on an estimated budget of $150,000,000. It may still be showing in some theaters. It is available for purchase on digital download on many platforms and will be coming to the Peacock in late March.

A one-hour behind-the-scenes documentary, “Defying Gravity: The Curtain Rises on Wicked,” aired on NBC and is currently streaming on Peacock. I highly recommend it. You will be amazed at the detail that went into constructing the practical sets for the film. There is very little CGI involved.

Stay tuned after my typical closing for spoilers about what we can expect in the sequel currently scheduled for November 2025.

So, as always… 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.

Okay, do not proceed unless you want the plot of Part 2 spoiled.

It didn’t take me long to conclude that the wizard was a mysterious stranger who had an affair with Elphaba’s mother and drugged her with the magical green liquid. I also correctly speculated that the small lion cub rescued by Elphaba and Fiyero turns out to be the Cowardly Lion.

I did not predict that Fiyero would become the Scarecrow and Bok would become the Tin Man. That was a surprise.

Madame Morrible’s limited magical powers are strongest in her ability to control the weather. She is responsible for conjuring up the tornado that brings Dorothy to Oz. Therefore, she is responsible for the death of Nessarose.

One more chance to stop this podcast before I reveal the biggest spoiler of all.

You were warned.

I’m also proud to say I guessed this one.

Elphaba, the Wicked Witch, did not die when Dorothy threw the bucket of water on her. She faked her own death.

I knew they could not spend the entire story trying to redeem Elphaba as simply a misunderstood and tortured soul who was branded as wicked when she really wasn’t and then ended up killing her.

I can’t wait to see part 2. Until then, fly safe, everyone. Or should I say, Defy Gravity.

This is the third in a multi-part series inspired by the hit movie musical Wicked–Part 1. The series will explore musical theater, fairy tales, and fantasy in general.

Hello, this is Chris Young. Welcome to Episode 84 of Contemplating Life. This is the last in a multipart series inspired by the hit movie musical “Wicked”. In this series, we’ll explore my relationship with musical theater, fairy tales, and fantasy in general.

In our last episode, we discussed my fascination with the made-for-TV musical Cinderella. Around that time, I immensely enjoyed one other musical TV special. Sometime in the early 1960s, possibly more than once, I also enjoyed the TV production of the 1954 musical Peter Pan, based on JM Barry’s 1904 play and his 1911 novelization “Peter and Wendy.”

NBC aired versions of it in 1955 and 1956, but I would’ve been too young to recall those. There was another 1960 version, which was videotaped in color. It was rebroadcast in 1963, 1966, and 1973. My guess is the ‘63 rebroadcast was the first I saw it, But I might have seen it in 1960. I also distinctly remember watching it in color, but I don’t think we had color TV by ‘66, so it might have been the ‘73 broadcast. NBC also aired a restored version of the videotape in 1989 and 1991, and from there, it was moved to Disney Channel, where it was shown several times.

A version of the musical starring former Olympic gymnast Cathy Rigby eventually made it to television, and I caught a performance of it. It brought back many nostalgic memories of the original.

NBC also produced a new production in 2014 starring Allison Williams as Peter and Christopher Walken as Captain Hook.

[Allison Williams sings an excerpt from “Never, Never Land.”]

I looked forward to that with great anticipation, but I was a bit disappointed that Walken suppressed his usual strange vocal cadence and played the role much more straight than I would’ve liked.

The original Broadway and TV production featured Mary Martin as Peter Pan. I never understood why a woman has so often played the role of Peter. If the musical were produced today, I’m sure the anti-woke forces would condemn it for having a woman play a male character. Peter is the leader of a group known as the “Lost Boys,” yet he is not portrayed by a boy in these musical productions. There’s nothing significant about the flying sequence stunts that would make a woman more appropriate for the role.

I also thought the plot was a bit kinky in that the lost boys practically kidnapped Wendy to become their mother.

Anyway, I could go on and on about various versions of the story, including the 1991 Steven Spielberg film “Hook,” which features Robin Williams as an adult Peter Pan and Dustin Hoffman as Captain Hook. However, as much as I enjoyed the various adaptations of the 1957 musical on TV, I didn’t connect with the story as I did with Cinderella.

One final point: while researching this, I discovered a 1950 musical based on Peter Pan, with music and lyrics by Leonard Bernstein. The original production only featured a half-dozen songs, but researchers have uncovered that Bernstein wrote much more music than was used. There have been several subsequent productions that include the restored Bernstein score. I will be looking for a way to see that version or at least hear the soundtrack, which I believe is available.

Finally, let’s talk about the musical that is the focus of this episode, the 1939 film “The Wizard of Oz.” It is based on the children’s novel “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz,” originally published in 1900 by L. Frank Baum.

The film was nominated for Best Picture Oscar but lost to “Gone With the Wind.” It was also nominated for Art Direction and Special Effects. It won for Musical Score and Best Song for “Over the Rainbow.” I think much of my nostalgic appreciation of the film is tied to that song. The original Judy Garland version is magnificent, and I’ve never heard a bad cover version.

[Judy Garland sings an excerpt from “Over the Rainbow.”]

My favorite cover version, however, is undoubtedly a soulful reinterpretation by the late folksinger Eva Cassidy.

[Eva Cassidy sings an excerpt from “Over the Rainbow.”]

Check out the YouTube video of the Eva Cassidy version linked in the description. Unfortunately, she died of melanoma in 1996.

Another amazing popular version was created by native Hawaiian singer Israel Kamakawiwo’ole.

[Israel Kamakawiwo’ole sings an excerpt.]

He significantly adapted the lyrics and melody and combined them with the Louis Armstrong hit “What a Wonderful World.” Sadly, he died of complications from obesity in June 1997 at age 38 before his recording became a hit.

I’m also extremely fond of the version Katharine McPhee performed in the final round of American Idol Season 5.

[Katharine McPhee sings an excerpt.]

I think that performance made me a permanent fan of the Show.

On November 3, 1956, the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz was the first feature-length film to air uncut on prime-time coast-to-coast television. This was partially in response to the popularity of Peter Pan, which NBC first aired in 1955.

CBS paid $225,000 per showing for the rights to the movie, which is over $2.6 million in today’s money. The film runs for 101 minutes, so even with adding commercial breaks, CBS needed to fill more time for a two-hour time slot. The network hired a host to introduce the program and briefly comment before and after each commercial break. Bert Lahr, who played the cowardly lion in the film, hosted the initial broadcast.

It was shown again by CBS in 1959 and then annually thereafter until 1991 when it was shown twice. It was not shown in 1992 but shown twice in 1993. The program moved back and forth between CBS and NBC several times throughout these years. See the linked Wikipedia article for details of the various showings of the film on TV, including its move to cable in 1999.

I recall being at my grandma Osterman’s house, and my family was having an excited conversation about an upcoming showing of the film on TV. My grandmother said, “Dick Van Dyke is going to be the MC.”

“What’s an MC,” I inquired.”

My family informed me it was an abbreviation for “Master of Ceremonies.” I still had no idea what they were talking about. I seem to recall that I must have had some familiarity with the film because I didn’t remember a character called “MC.” Still, I think that airing with Dick Van Dyke as the host/MC/whatever you want to call it was probably the first time I saw the film. According to Wikipedia, he was the host in 1961 and 1962, which would’ve made me 6 or 7 years old, respectively.

Not only was I enchanted by the song “Over the Rainbow,” I also had great fondness for all the other musical numbers, including the three versions of “If I only had a… (Whatever… a brain, heart, or the nerve).”

I can’t guarantee that I saw the film every year after that initial viewing, but I’m confident I saw it many, many times. I recently discussed the movie with my sister Carol, who is eight years younger than me. She, too, has many fond memories of watching it year after year.

At a young age, it didn’t bother me that the wizard was a fake. I think Frank Morgan’s portrayal of him as an absent-minded professor was so endearing that you wouldn’t mind that he was actually a con man. It wasn’t until years later, when the phrase, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain,” became such a euphemism for someone who was engaged in a cover-up, that I began to see the wizard in a negative light.

I was always a bit disappointed that Dorothy woke up only to discover that it was all just a dream and that her world had reverted to the mundane sepia-tone life she had lived rather than the Technicolor adventure she had experienced. Sure, it was nice that she now had a deep appreciation for what it meant to be home, but it meant that all her fantastic experiences were simply figments of her imagination. She was just dreaming about that place over the rainbow and never got to experience the adventures of the larger world beyond her simple Kansas farm life.

It wasn’t until years later that I learned that L. Frank Baum wrote several other books about Oz, including return trips Dorothy made. Eventually, she and her Uncle Henry and Aunt Em became permanent residents. That would’ve reinforced the idea that Oz was a real place. I think I would have liked that.

Considering Hollywood’s obsession with franchises and sequels, I never understood why the remaining 13 books were never adapted for film. It wasn’t until I researched this episode that I discovered the 1985 film “Return to Oz,” based on two later L. Frank Baum novels. It must not have been very successful if I never heard of it.

I did see Sam Raimi’s 2013 film “Oz the Great and Powerful “ and enjoyed it in 3D. Yet, I must confess I don’t remember much of anything about the plot.

I never saw the 2005 made-for-TV film “The Muppets’ Wizard of Oz,” although I thought it was strange that they would make such a movie because the original 1979 “The Muppet Movie” was a thinly disguised version of “The Wizard of Oz.” Songwriters Kenny Ascher and Paul Williams discussed the need to write a song that would be a stand-in for “Over the Rainbow.” They rejected several approaches because none of them had “the rainbow connection.” That produced a “Eureka” moment, and they wrote the song for Kermit titled “The Rainbow Connection.” About halfway through the movie, I realized that the story was an homage to the original “Wizard of Oz.” I think the pointy hat on Gonzo that made him look like the Tin Man was a giveaway. I also figured out the connection between “The Rainbow Connection” and “Over the Rainbow” before I heard Paul Williams explain the song’s origins on a talk show soon after its release.

It just occurred to me that there are many similarities between “Over the Rainbow” and “In My Own Little Chair” from Cinderella. Both are sung by young women stuck in a mundane existence and dreaming of exciting adventures in a faraway place. What is it about these songs that is so appealing to me? I don’t know. As Kermit explained in his version of the song, “Someday we’ll find it, the rainbow connection, the lovers, the dreamers, and me.”

It’s tough to put into words what that original 1939 version means to be. I don’t have a personal connection to it the way I connected to Cinderella sitting in her own little corner in her own little chair. Still, nevertheless, I was thoroughly enchanted by the film when I first saw it in the early 1960s and on every subsequent viewing since then. As previously reported, it is in my top 10 list of favorite musicals of all time.

I had heard of the Broadway music “Wicked” years ago and didn’t think much about it. I thought it was an attempt to rip off or capitalize on the popularity of the original story. A few years ago, I saw the 2014 film “Maleficent” and the 2019 sequel “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil.” These stories attempted to explain away the evil of the wicked queen from the classic Sleeping Beauty fairy tale. It seemed that “Wicked” was just another attempt to make excuses for an evil character. I was unaware that the musical “Wicked” was first produced in 2003 and was a loose adaptation of the 1995 Gregory Maguire novel “Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West” both of which predate “Maleficent.”

I knew about the popularity of the Broadway musical, although I hadn’t heard any of the songs. I also knew the film would be highly popular, but I wasn’t particularly anxious to rush to the theater. I was also a bit wary when I heard that “Wicked—Part 1” would be released on Thanksgiving 2024. I wasn’t sure I wanted to waste my time on half a movie. Maybe I’d wait until Part 2 was available.

When it finally became available as a digital download, I decided to take a leap and get a copy. I watched it with my sister Carol in 2 sessions as the film runs two hours and 40 minutes. I was totally blown away by the entire experience, as was Carol.

In my next episode, I will review the film as part of the opening of my annual review of the 10 Oscar-nominated Best Pictures.

We interrupt this podcast for a special announcement.

For the past 10 days or so, I’ve been struggling with a nasty case of influenza A. I spent lots of days in bed and on my ventilator during the day, which I typically only used at night. Today is February 17. It is the first I have been able to stay out of bed for an extended period.

Only 7 of the 10 Best Picture-nominated films are available for streaming or digital download. One of the three remaining films is completely unavailable online, and two others are only available via bootleg copies where someone took a camera into the theater. I try to avoid that unless I absolutely have to. And if I do watch the bootleg, I always purchase a copy afterward to make up for it.

As a result, I’m not going to be able to review all 10 movies by March 2nd, when the Oscars are awarded. My current plan is to finish out talking about Wicked and perhaps one other nominated musical in the next episode and then do a brief overview of the other nominated films I have been able to see. I’ll not have time to download trailers and clips to include in the YouTube version like usual. That is a tremendous amount of work. I won’t have time.

I’ve had a lot of fun doing this series on musicals and fantasy leading up to this. I think it’s some of my best recent work. I guess that will have to do for this year’s movie reviews. When that is complete, we will return to some autobiographical topic. I’m not sure which part of my life we will cover next. And don’t be surprised if we get a political rant thrown in as current events unfold.

So, as always… 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.