Contemplating Life – Episode 57 – “Oscar 2024: Also Nominated”

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

Links of Interest

Oscar Nominations 2024: https://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2024

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMDb reports 176 nominations and 34 wins.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contemplating Life – Episode 56 – “Oscar 2024: Revenge of the Robot Women”

This week we continue looking at the 10 films nominated for Oscar in the Best Picture Category. This week we look at two vastly different films on the same theme In a category we call “Revenge of the Robot Women.” It’s going to be tight, but I plan to get out three more episodes before March 10 when the Oscars are awarded. Wish me luck.

Links of Interest

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hi, this is Chris Young, and welcome to episode 56 of Contemplating Life – Oscar edition.

This week we continue looking at the 10 films nominated for Oscar in the Best Picture Category. This week we look at two vastly different films on the same theme In a category we call “Revenge of the Robot Women.” Consider this plot line…

A beautiful young woman is not naturally born but is an artificial creation. She is confined in a world created for her by her maker. She lives a happy yet mundane life. She slowly becomes aware that she is more than what her maker envisioned. Her natural curiosity and a desire to contemplate what life has to offer sends her on a quest into another world. It is a strange bizarre environment that is alien to her but she explores it with vigor and discovers that there is more to her and to life than she believed was possible. In the end, she becomes an independent, self-actualized woven who is in control of her life. At first, she exacts revenge on the men who tried to possess and control her but ultimately finds a way to peacefully coexist with the males of the species.

Pop quiz: is this a description of the film “Barbie” or “Poor Things”?

Answer: Both.

There was so much hype this year about the popularity of “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” that we shipped their names together and came up with “Barbieheimer” to describe the phenomenon of people who went to both films on the same day. It was only a coincidence that the films were released about the same time and unexpectedly found overlapping audiences which led to the Barbieheimer phenomenon.

There should have been media hype about “Barbie’s” connection not to “OppenheimerInclude but to “Poor Things”. While “Barbie” and “Poor ThingsEnclosed are vastly different in approach and style, the outline in my opening paragraph is a reasonably accurate summation of both films. The filmmakers used vastly different approaches to tell the same story of a woman discovering her potential.

“Barbie” is set in the fantasy world known as Barbieland and is occupied by the namesake toy. She journeys into the “real world” and although we are familiar with it, it is an alien landscape to her. Her fantasy world is all she has ever known.

In contrast, Bella Baxter is the creation of a mad scientist. He discovered the body of a pregnant woman who had lept to her death off a bridge into a river. He salvaged the brain of her unborn child and implanted it in her 30-year-old body. He then re-animates her in a scene typical of any Frankenstein movie you ever saw. Her literally infant mind develops quickly and approaches life with an insatiable curiosity which eventually leads her to discover the pleasures of sex. First, by herself, then with a lover, and finally as a French prostitute. All of which is depicted in explicit detail.

So, while there was an unlikely crossover of audience between “OppenheimerEnclosed and “Barbie”, “Poor Things” is extremely R-rated and not appropriate for the typical Barbie viewer.

It’s more likely you are familiar with “Barbie” given its popularity so let’s talk about “Poor Things” first.

Willem Dafoe plays Dr. Godwin Baxter, a brilliant surgeon who bears horrible scars and disfigurement on his face. This is the result of his father performing multiple medical experiments on him when he was a child. These experiments included genital torture. To say that his physical scars are only part of his problem is an understatement.

Rather than be called by his given name Godwin, he prefers to be referred to as God and makes that request unapologetically. He is a deeply twisted individual.

Emma Stone plays his creation Bella Baxter whose origin we described earlier.

Ramy Youssef plays Max McCandle, an ambitious medical student who is recruited as God’s Igor-like assistant (without the hunchback). Max’s job is to observe Bella and record in notebooks everything that she does as she rapidly progresses in mental and emotional capability.

As the film opens she has the mind of a very young child. She is awkward both physically and emotionally. Yet she begins progressing rapidly. Even her hair grows at an astonishing rate of an inch every few days. No explanation is ever given why.

God keeps the girl isolated in his mansion/laboratory to keep the experiment of development pure and untainted. But God himself also avoids appearing in public because of his disfigurement. Bella isn’t his only experiment. The courtyard of his villa is occupied by strange hybrid creatures such as a goat with a dog’s head or a dog with a duck’s head, I forget what weird combinations he has running around his courtyard.

When Bella reaches a mental age of what appears to be maybe 8-10 years old she discovers on her own the joys of masturbating her adult body and asks, “Why don’t people do this all the time?”

God notices her sexual awakening as well as Max’s attraction to her. So, God concludes that the next phase of the experiment should be that Bella and Max are wed. He employs attorney Duncan Wedderburn played by Mark Ruffalo to draw up a marriage contract that includes the provision that Bella must remain sequestered in God’s house.

Intrigued by this strange request, Duncan sneaks off into the mansion to meet Bella for himself and discovers this childlike creature in the body of a beautiful woman. He decides that he, not Max, should be the one to introduce her to adult life. He is quite a cad and a sleazy person and plans to exploit her for his own pleasures. Together he and Bella plot her escape and they go off on a romantic tryst to Lisbon Portugal where they engage in frequent sex and debauchery.

The setting for the film is a bit of a steam-punk Victorian setting. All of the interiors look relatively normal for such a setting but the moment that Bella goes anywhere outside, everything takes on a surreal dreamlike quality which by comparison would make a Wes Anderson film seem boringly normal and realistic.

This film makes use of varied cinematic styles and techniques to set the mood. While sequestered in God’s house, the film is in black-and-white. But like Dorothy escaping Kansas to Oz, once she leaves the house and goes on her adventure with Duncan, everything is in bright oversaturated color. Most of the color sequences were shot using Kodak Ektachrome which gives that bright oversaturated look. Those that were shot on other types of color film were color-adjusted to match. Ektachrome is a slow film that requires significant lighting the filmmaker had to use other films when more light was not available. The cinematographer also makes use of a variety of strange lenses including highly distorted fisheye lenses and some scenes filmed with a 4 mm lens look as though we are looking through a peephole. I never did figure out exactly what these varied points of view were designed to evoke.

Bella has absolutely no inhibitions and no filter so she says exactly what she is thinking at any moment. At one point while they are out to dinner, a baby is crying nearby and she announces, “I must go punch that baby.” Duncan has to restrain her as she rises to actually do it.

Bella leaves Duncan to explore the city on her own and fearful that he will lose her, he drugs her, stuffs her in a trunk, and takes her on a cruise ship where she will be unable to escape him. Aboard the ship, she befriends other passengers. By this time she has begun reading and has gained advanced intelligence. She debates philosophy with her new friends as she reads volumes of books to expand her mind.

Meanwhile, Duncan gambles at the ship’s casino and wins a small fortune. When the ship docks at its next port, Bella notices that there are poor people in the world with sick and dying children. She takes all of Duncan’s money and tells the ship’s porter to give it to all of those poor unfortunate people. She didn’t notice how broadly the porter smiled as he took the money obviously for himself.

Now penniless, they are forced off the ship in France and Bella happily turns to a life of prostitution because it gets the money she needs and involves her favorite pastime sex.

Duncan goes insane having lost complete control of her. We later see him as a shell of his former self in an insane asylum. Bella is now a highly intelligent self-actualized person who is not going to be exploited by anyone.

Although the film is highly bizarre and the surreal setting and weird cinematography can make it difficult to watch, overall I found it quite funny, strangely enjoyable, and worthy of the accolades it has received.

Emma Stone is nominated for an Oscar for Lead Actress. She has already won the Golden Globe for Lead Actress Comedy and the BAFTA Lead Actress.

Even though this is a bizarre character who is played over the top, it is a fantastic bit of acting. She transforms from the childlike creature we see at the beginning of the film through the sex-crazed uninhibited adolescent into a sex-crazed young woman and eventually a highly intelligent philosopher. It is an amazing acting feat. With those wins already chalked up she is the odds-on favorite for the Oscar but might face stiff competition from Lily Gladstone in Killers of the Flower Moon. If Gladstone wins it would make her the first Native American to win in that category.

I will rank it as my 7th favorite film of the 10 Best Picture Nominees but don’t take that as a slight. I very much enjoyed it.

I cannot recommend it to everyone. You have to have a bizarre sense of humor and can deal with the explicit sex scenes and the overall surreal nature of the film. I liked it. But I’m weird. It’s a strange new take on the Frankenstein legend.

The film has earned 11 Oscar nominations including Best Picture, Best Director for Yorgos Lanthimos who is also nominated by the Directors Guild, Lead Actress Emma Stone, Supporting Actor Mark Ruffalo, Adapted Screenplay by Tony McNamara based on the novel by Alasdair Gray, Cinematography, Production Design, Costume Design, and Makeup and Hairstyling all of which are richly deserved. It is also Oscar-nominated for Original Music Score and Film Editing for which I have no opinion.

Mark Ruffalo gives a memorable performance as the sleazy lawyer who tries to exploit Bella. And what’s not to like about Willem Dafoe as a mad scientist? I wish that Dafoe had gotten more nominations. Ruffalo probably won’t win for Supporting Actor but he is definitely worthy of the nomination.

It has 11 BAFTA nominations including Best Picture and Best British Film of the Year. Its 7 Golden Globe nominations also included Supporting Actor Willem Defoe. Emma Stone won the Globe for Lead Actress in a Comedy and the film won Best Comedy.

Stone and Dafoe have also received SAG nominations for lead and supporting roles respectively.

IMDb lists 395 nominations and 90 wins at the time of this writing. It has earned over $32 million in the US and Canada since its December premiere and over $93 million worldwide. It is available for rent or purchase on Amazon or YouTube.

* * *

For our purposes, I’m going to assume you have not yet seen “Barbie” but given its popularity that is probably not true. Anyway, “Barbie” is set in the fantasy world of Barbieland. It is occupied by dozens of women all named Barbie and a bunch of men all named Ken. Our lead character played by Margo Robbie is known in the film as “Stereotypical Barbie” She is the swimsuit-wearing, dream house-residing, pink convertible-driving Barbie that you normally think of when someone says “Barbie”. Other Barbies include an African-American president, astronauts, doctors, lawyers, the entire Supreme Court, Nobel laureates, and every other occupation ever imagined for Barbie.

The main Ken is played by Ryan Gosling. He is the stereotypical Ken who is blonde-haired, blue-eyed, and who hangs out at the beach. He is accompanied by a variety of other Kens of various ethnicities. None of them have an occupation except beaching. He’s not a lifeguard by the way. He just hangs out at the beach and spends his days pining for the attention of Barbie.

It is a perfect world in which all of the Barbies are happy. They believe that they have saved the women of the real world because they have proven that Barbie can be anything and so can you. Although Barbie’s daily routine is monotonous and repetitive, one day she starts feeling some existential dread. She starts thinking about death. She also has other bizarre feelings that are foreign to her. Among the transformative changes she experiences is that suddenly her feet are no longer fixed in the typical high-heel-wearing position that Barbies are known for. Her heels actually begin touching the ground.

She is directed to seek help from “Weird Barbie” who is brilliantly played by Kate McKinnon. Weird Barbie has bizarre makeup drawn on her face in crayon. She is always in an awkward pose usually very severe splits. Her hair is a mess. She is what happens to Barbies who are played with two hard and left in a box in the basement for too long.

Weird Barbie advises stereotypical Barbie that something is wrong with the girl who is playing with her. The girl is unhappy and her negative emotions are bleeding over into stereotypical Barbie. This has opened a portal between Barbieland and the Real World. Her only remedy is to travel to the Real World, find the girl who plays with her, and figure out what is troubling her.

Barbie sets out on this quest and is accompanied by Ken who stows away in the back of her dream car.

Barbie finds the Real World to be completely unlike what she expected. She believed that because she was a role model who proved that women could do anything, she expected the real world to be dominated by powerful independent women. Obviously, it is not. On the other hand, Ken is pleasantly surprised that men are respected and not just unimportant companions for the Barbies. He does some research and discovers that the world is a patriarchy in which men rule. While our Barbie seeks out her owner, Ken returns to Barbieland and begins taking over as he teaches the other Kens the principles of patriarchy.

Initially, Barbie believes that her owner is a young tween girl named Sasha but soon discovers that Sasha and her friends hate Barbies.

Sasha: We haven’t played with Barbie since we were like five years old.

Girl 1: Yeah, I hated dolls with hair.

Girl 2: Me, I played with Barbie but it was like the last resort.

Girl 3: I loved Barbie. [Sasha gives her a nasty look]

Sasha: You’ve been making women feel bad about themselves since you were invented… You represent everything that is wrong with our culture. Sexualized capitalism. Unrealistic physical ideas…

Barbie: no, no, no. I am technically Stereotypical Barbie but…

Sasha: You set the women’s movement back 50 years. You destroy girls’ innate sense of worth and you are killing the planet with your glorification of rampant consumerism.

Barbie: No. I’m supposed to help you and make you happy and powerful…

Sasha: Oh, I am powerful. And until you showed up here and declared yourself “Barbie” I hadn’t thought about you in years you fascist!

Eventually, Barbie discovers that the source of her angst is actually Sasha’s mother Gloria played by America Ferrera. Gloria is a secretary at Mattel. In her spare time, she begins designing new Barbies based on her own inner fears and turmoil. She found her old Barbie and began playing with it as an adult and that is the source of our main character’s transformation.

The FBI alerts the executives at Mattel that their creations have infiltrated the real world. In a panic, the Mattel executives led by their CEO Will Farrell eventually round up Barbie and attempt to put her in a box to be transported back to Barbieland. This will close the portal and set things right. Barbie escapes Mattel headquarters with the help of Gloria and Sasha.

Then Barbie takes Gloria, and Sasha with her when they return to Barbieland where they discover that the Kens have taken over. They brainwashed all of the other Barbies including the president, the Supreme Court, doctors, lawyers, etc. into being airhead women who are obsessed with serving the needs of the Kens.

In a pivotal scene, Gloria delivers a monologue about how difficult it is to be a woman in the modern world.

Gloria: [to Barbie] You are so beautiful. So smart. And it kills me you don’t think you’re good enough. Like we always have to be extraordinary. But somehow we are always doing it wrong. You have to be thin but not too thin and you can never say that you want to be thin. You have to say you want to be healthy. But also you have to be thin. You have to have money but you can’t ask for money because that’s crass. Sigh… You have to be a boss but you can’t be mean. You have to lead but you can’t squash other people’s ideas. You are supposed to love being a mother but don’t talk about your kids all the damn time. You have to be a career woman but also always be looking out for other people…

This causes the brainwashed Barbies to snap out of it.

Can they regain control of Barbieland? What will the Kens do if they succeed? And now that stereotypical Barbie has been to the real world and had her eyes opened to the imperfection of reality, what will her life be like? Can Gloria and her daughter Sasha heal their broken relationship?

Writer/director Greta Gerwig has created a phenomenal work in this film. It is a hilariously funny yet deeply poignant and touching exploration of the roles of men and women. Even though I’m male and never played with Barbies, it nearly brought me to tears of nostalgia over my love of my favorite toys.

I can’t discuss this film without mentioning the opening scene which is a parody of a classic film. I don’t want to spoil it for you so I will describe it in detail in a spoiler section at the end of this podcast that you can skip. For now, let me just say that I have not laughed harder at a film in decades than I did in that opening scene. As it unfolded, I realized what was happening. I realized very early what film it was spoofing. At one point I said to myself, “If that girl playing with dolls starts to do what I think she’s going to do, I’m going to lose it.”

She did.

I must’ve laughed out loud for 10 minutes. I had to pause the movie. Wiped my eyes. Details in the spoiler section.

The film has earned 8 Oscar nominations yet many critics claim that the lack of a nomination for director Greta Gerwig and lead actress Margo Robbie were a serious snub. I have to disagree. Keep in mind that there are 10 films nominated for Best Picture but only 5 nominations for Best Director and 5 nominations for Lead Actress.

Let’s look briefly at the competition for director. Justine Triet did an amazing job in “Anatomy of a Fall” and happens to be a woman so we can’t say it was sexist that Gerwig did not get nominated. Just because Martin Scorsese has been nominated as Best Director 10 times, that’s more than any other living director, it does not mean he should not be nominated for his amazing work in “Killers of the Flower Moon”. Christopher Nolan very much deserves his nomination for “Oppenheimer” and is likely to win. Yorgos Lanthimos showed amazing creativity and vision in bringing to life the bizarre world of Bella Baxter in “Poor Things.” Finally, a film we have not yet discussed “The Zone of Interest” also is a stellar achievement by director Jonathan Glaser. He has found a new and innovative way to explore the horrors of the Holocaust without showing us any of those horrors. We simply hear them. I would bump no one from this list to make room for Gerwig. She did get a nomination from the Directors Guild.

Along with Noah Baumbach, Greta Gerwig is Oscar#nominated for Adapted Screenplay. I believe this is where her creativity and contribution to this film truly are Oscar-worthy. It is a brilliant screenplay.

That nomination is not without controversy. The Academy considers it an Adapted Screenplay because she did not create the characters Barbie, Ken, and others. This is a ridiculous distinction. There is nothing in the lore of Barbie remotely related to the story she has created. This is not an adaptation of an existing Barbie-themed book, cartoon, or any other work. The children who play with Barbie create their own stories. Barbie as created by Mattel is simply an image. Not a character. This isn’t like Transformers or G.I. Joe or other toys with movie, TV, or comic book tie-ins.

Typically when a work is listed as an Adapted Screenplay such as “American Fiction” the credits list the author of the book upon which it is based. This was also true with “The Zone of Interest”, and ”Poor Things”. Christopher Nolan has made it clear that “Oppenheimer” is the result of research from many sources including written biographies of the real man.

While I cannot defend the criticism that she was snubbed by the lack of a Director nomination, the criticism of this screenplay being listed as “adapted” is very much an appropriate complaint. This is a highly original screenplay.

The Writers Guild of America nominated it as an Original Screenplay as they should have.

Let’s look at Margo Robbie’s competition. We’ve not yet talked about the film “Nyad” in which Annette Benning plays long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad. It is an amazing performance. A very memorable character. Lily Gladstone’s performance in “Killers of the Flower Moon” while not my favorite among the five nominees is certainly Oscar-worthy. Carey Mulligan’s performance as actress Felicia Montealegre the wife of composer/conductor Leonard Bernstein in “Maestro” was a quality performance. German actress, Sandra Hüller was previously unknown to me. She delivers one of my favorite performances of the year in “Anatomy of a Fall”. She is also quite chilling in “The Zone of Interest” as Hedwig Höss the wife of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss but was not nominated for that role. Had these films premiered in different calendar years she might have been nominated for both performances. And finally Emma Stone will likely win for “Poor Things”. Who would you bump? I wouldn’t bump any of them.

The question we should be asking is how did Ryan Gosling get nominated for Supporting Actor as Ken? He did a good job. It was a funny character. But I don’t think there is anything that special or memorable about his performance. In fact, I went back and watched the entire film a second time just to focus on his contribution. I saw nothing after two viewings that impressed me that much.

In contrast, I will long remember Willem Defoe in “Poor Things” although I can understand why he would not be nominated in the same film in the same category as Mark Ruffalo. Nominating 2 Supporting Actors in the same film usually means neither of them will win. I would’ve liked to see a nomination for Rhys Ifans who played in “Nyad” as navigator John Bartlett who helped Nyad make her way from Cuba to Florida. I will long remember that performance after I’ve forgotten Gosling. Although I hated the musical remake of “The Color Purple” I could’ve given a Supporting Actor nomination to Coleman Domingo for his role in tha Christina film. Fortunately, he is nominated as Lead Actor for “Rustin”.

America Ferrera has a Supporting Actress nomination which is very much deserved. Her monologue that I discussed previously was brilliantly delivered and other aspects of her performance are quite memorable.

Although “Barbie” ranks only as my 8th favorite of the 10 nominated films, I very much enjoyed it. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it.

The film has 8 Oscar nominations. Best Picture, Supporting Actor for Ryan Gosling, Supporting Actress for America Ferrera, Production Design (much-deserved), and Costume Design (also much-deserved). They have gone to meticulous detail to re-create Barbieland based on actual products sold such as houses, cars, and especially clothes.

There are about 6 or 7 big musical production numbers and songs. Two of the songs are nominated for Oscars. “I’m Just Ken” by Mark Ronson and Andrew Wyatt wasn’t a bad song.

[Excerpt from “I’m Just Ken” plays]

But the odds-on favorite for the whole category is “What Was I Made For?” by Billie Eilish O’Connell and Finneas O’Connell.

It’s a very touching and emotional song. It has already won two Grammys: Song of the Year, and “Best Song Written for Visual Medium”. The song won a Golden Globe. Here is a brief excerpt from the music video by Billy Eilish. Check out the link to the full video in the description. It’s a very touching video itself.

[Excerpt from “What Was I Made For?” plays]

“Barbie” received 5 BAFTA nominations. There were 9 Golden Globe Nominations and it won the Globe for “Cinematic and Box Office Achievement” whatever that means. Robbie, Gosling, the ensemble cast, and stunt ensembles have received SAG nominations.

Overall IMDb lists 417 nominations and 167 wins to date.

With an estimated budget of $100 million, released in July it has earned over $600 million in the US and Canada and $1.445 billion worldwide. [Note: This makes Gerwig the first female director to break the $1 billion glass ceiling.]

It is still showing in theaters and is available for streaming on Max and available for purchase or rental on Amazon and YouTube.

Note that on Max streaming there is a special version that includes an American Sign Language interpreter superimposed in the lower right corner of the screen in addition to the usual closed captions. If you watch it on Max, I recommend you view that version to inflate those viewing numbers and encourage Max and other streaming services to provide such versions. I did not find the interpreter distracting.

In previous episodes, I said I was only able to see 9 of the 10 Best Picture Nominated films. Good news… “The Zone of Interest” is now available for digital download rental or purchase so I have now seen all 10 films plus four other films that were nominated for acting or screenplay awards but were not listed for Best Picture. I’m going to try to get three more episodes before the Oscars are awarded on March 10. I’ve not been able to get them out on time on Monday but we are going to go full speed ahead. I will try to get these episodes out between now and the Oscars.

Stay tuned after my typical closing for a spoiler-filled description of the opening scene of Barbie which made me laugh so hard I cried.

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, I want to talk about the opening scene but I didn’t want to spoil it in the main section of the review. However, I just discovered that the opening scene I’m about to talk about was spoiled in a teaser trailer that was released before the film. If you’ve not seen that trailer only continue if you’ve seen “Barbie” or don’t care if it’s spoiled.

The film opens with Helen Mirren doing a voiceover narration…

Narrator: Since the beginning of time… since the first little girl ever existed, there have been dolls.

But they were always baby dolls thus putting the girls in the role of mother. The scene shows about half a dozen girls aged 4 or 5 years old sitting on a rocky terrain outdoors playing with baby dolls, strollers, teacups, and plastic dishes.

That stark scenery along with the phrase “since the beginning of time” immediately told me this was a reference to the opening “Dawn of Man” sequence of the classic Stanley Kubrick film “2001: A Space Odyssey.” In case you are unfamiliar with that sequence, it shows a bunch of prehuman apelike creatures struggling to survive in a harsh rocky desert environment. Suddenly a giant dark gray monolith appears in their midst. One of them cautiously approaches the slab and touches it. It emits a strange sound. Suddenly the creatures have gained great intelligence. They discover how to use tools. Specifically, one of them picks up a long bone from a carcass and begins swinging it as a club. He discovers it makes him powerful and he begins violently smashing a pile of bones sending bone shards flying in every direction. He then tosses the bone into the air triumphantly and we get a crossfade to the year 2001 and a shot of an orbiting satellite. Mankind has transformed from primitive tools like a bone club to the sophisticated technology of space travel.

Back to “Barbie”… The narrator says that this baby doll and mother will play continues until…” Then we get the iconic music “Also Sprach Zarathustra” from “2001”. We cut to a 10-foot-tall Barbie doll that suddenly appears on the landscape in the same way that the monolith appeared in “2001”. Or rather Margo Robbie as Barbie.

The girls cautiously approach Barbie as the music continues. When they touch her, a strange buzz sound emanates.

Then we get a close-up of one of the girls holding her baby doll with two hands by the doll’s feet.

It was at that instant that I said to myself, “Oh my God… If she starts bashing that doll on the rocks and busting up the plastic dishes I’m going to lose it.”

Just as I expected… The little girl begins swinging in a baby doll and violently smashing it into the ground crushing her plastic dishes and the skulls of the other porcelain dolls sending debris flying everywhere. She then flings the doll into the air and we get a crossfade to the Barbie logo.

I was laughing so hard I couldn’t breathe. I had to pause the movie and dry my eyes before I could continue. I cannot remember the last time I laughed so hard at a film.

If you’re not a mega fan of “2001: A Space Odyssey” then you probably did not laugh as hard as I did. But I hope you did watch the movie before you read this and I hope you enjoyed it at least half as much as I did.

As I explained, I found out much later that this 2001 spoof appeared in a teaser trailer way before the movie opened. Several people on YouTube have created side-by-side views of the “Barbie” trailer and the opening scenes of 2001. However, these mashups are based on the trailer which is a shorter sequence than appears in the actual film. The sequence in the film is and the girls smashing the baby dolls are much more violent. I would try to make my own side-by-side comparison based on the film but I would probably get a copyright violation for it. Perhaps someone else will dare to do so.

I’ve provided a link to the “Barbie” trailer as well as one of the better side-by-side comparisons between it and “2001”. You really need to see the full beginning of the movie to really appreciate it. [Late update: I found a YouTube clip of the full opening. See the links.]

Tune in next week for more movie reviews as we continue Contemplating Life. Fly safe everyone.

Contemplating Life – Episode 55 – “Oscar 2024: Alien Relationships”

This week we continue with our look at the 10 films nominated for Oscar in the Best Picture Category. On the menu, this week is a pair of films I called “Alien Relationships”. Okay… That is clickbait. They are not about little green men. We have a pair of foreign language films which technically makes them alien to us in the US.

Links of Interest

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hi, this is Chris Young, and welcome to episode 55 of Contemplating Life– Oscar Edition

This week we continue with our look at the 10 films nominated for Oscar in the Best Picture Category. On the menu, this week is a pair of films I called “Alien Relationships”. Okay… That is clickbait. They are not about little green men. We have a pair of foreign language films which technically makes them alien to us in the US.

One of these films I greatly enjoyed. The other one wasn’t bad but I’m not excited about it.

Let’s start with the so-so film and then finish strong.

“Past Lives” is a Korean film about a girl named Na Young and her childhood friend Hae Sung. The story begins in South Korea when the pair are about 11 or 12 years old. Their friendship is about to grow into a budding romance when Na Young’s family decides to immigrate to Canada. Na Young takes the English name Nora. Hae Sung is deeply disappointed to lose his friend. We see brief scenes of Nora arriving in Canada and struggling to fit in at school in this strange new country.

We then fast forward 12 years Nora is now in New York City studying to be a playwright. She comes from a creative family. Her father was a filmmaker and her mother an artist. One day, she decides to start looking up old friends from Korea as she is reminiscing with her mother. She asks, “What was the name of that boy I had a crush on? We went on one date.” Her mother reminds her it was Hae Sung. A quick search reveals that the boy had posted a message on a Facebook page about her father’s films saying that he was looking for the filmmaker’s daughter Na Young.

Hae Sung is now serving in the South Korean army because they have mandatory military service for young men. Nora decides to contact him and they begin a long-distance online relationship which grows rapidly into something quite significant.

Nora is tied up in rehearsals for her play. When Hae Sung completes his military service he enters college to study engineering. Given the time difference between New York and Seoul, their online meetings are often at the wee hours of the night. Eventually, Nora decides they need to take a break from their online video chats. She said she can’t concentrate on her work because she’s constantly thinking about looking up flight schedules to Korea. His studies are suffering as well but it is her decision to pause the relationship.

Once again, Hae Sung feels abandoned by the woman he loves. He accepts her decision only reluctantly.

Shortly thereafter, she attends an artist’s residency program in a rural location where she meets a young American writer named Arthur.

The movie again jumps 12 years and Nora is married to Arthur. We learn little about their life together until late in the movie.

The last half of the movie shows us when Hae Sung travels to New York to visit his now-married old girlfriend. As Nora and her husband are anticipating the visit from her old friend she explains a bit of Korean philosophy to Arthur. She says, “There is a word in Korean. In-Yun. It means “providence” or “fate”. But it’s specifically about relationships between people. I think it comes from Buddhism and reincarnation. It’s an In-Yun if two strangers even walk by each other in the street and their clothes accidentally brush. Because it means there must have been something between them in their past lives. If two people get married, they say it’s because there have been 8,000 layers of In-Yun over 8,000 lifetimes.”

The question the film poses is, “With which of the men in her life does she have the strongest In-Yun?” Is she destined to be with Arthur or with Hae Sung? How much In-Yun did she have with either of these men in a past life or is this just the first of many lives she will live with one or the other of them?

When Hae Sung arrives, he and Nora wander around New York City sightseeing and reminiscing for a couple of days. She then comes home and talks about the experience with her husband and we begin to learn more about their relationship. Arthur notes that this would make a great story in which he was the evil white husband who kept her from her destiny with her childhood sweetheart. She laughs it off but we doubt the strength of her relationship with her husband as we learn more about their history.

I enjoyed the movie but I am not sure it is Oscar-caliber. I found the pace to be extremely slow.

Greta Lee plays the adult Nora. Previously, I very much enjoyed her work as TV executive Stella Bak in the Apple TV+ series “The Morning Show”. Hae Sung is played by Teo Yoo who I have not seen before and his IMDb credits don’t include anything you probably ever saw.

Interestingly enough although both are of Korean descent, Lee was born in the US, and Teo Yoo was born in Germany. He studied at the Lee Strasburg Institute in New York and then moved to Seoul in 2009.

The performances were adequate but nothing extraordinary. I thought that the 40-year-old Greta Lee’s portrayal of the 20-something-year-old version of Nora showed some great acting skills but compared to Lee’s outstanding work in “The Morning Show” overall her performance in this film did not impress me. In interviews both Lee and Teo Yoo have raved about the opportunity to play such characters but it just didn’t do much for me. I suppose if there is any nomination with which I could agree it might be for the screenplay but that is a weak endorsement.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s a nice little story of unrequited love and a marginally interesting exploration of the idea of fate when it comes to relationships.

Those of you who are familiar with my autobiographical episodes of this podcast know about my relationship of unrequited love with my childhood sweetheart Rosie. That includes a reunion with her many years after we parted ways after high school. At that reunion, I got to meet her husband. So there are many parallels between this story and my own life. Yet, I did not feel it triggered any emotions in me. Perhaps I never grew to care much about the characters. I didn’t have the feeling that they were telling “my story” despite the parallels.

I was however moved by the final scene of the film but I can’t tell you how or why without spoiling the ending. At the very end of this episode, I will put a brief epilogue explaining my reaction to the final scene. It will include a huge spoiler warning in front of it in case you want to skip it.

In addition to the Best Picture nomination, Korean-born writer-director Celine Song is nominated for Best Original Screenplay Oscar. She has also been nominated by the Directors Guild for Outstanding Achievement in Directing a First Time Feature Film. Her only other credit on IMDb is as a staff writer for the fantasy series “The Wheel of Time.”

IMDb lists 197 nominations and 68 wins including three BAFTA nominations for Best Film Not in the English Language, Screenplay, and Lead Actor for Teo Yoo.

Also, five Golden Globe nominations for, Best Drama, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Non-English Film, and Greta Lee for Lead Actress in a Drama.

The film opened in June 2023 and has earned nearly $11 million in the US and Canada and over $23 million worldwide.

Is currently available for streaming on Paramount+ with Showtime and available for rent or purchase on Amazon and YouTube.

* * *

Our second film this week is the French film “Anatomy of a Fall”. German actress Sandra Hüller plays a successful novelist named Sandra Voyter. She is married to an unsuccessful writer named Samuel Theis played by Samuel Maleski. I don’t know if it’s a coincidence that the actors share the first names of their characters or if the part was written for them or what. They have an 11-year-old son Daniel who is visually impaired.

Early in the film, Daniel finds his father has fallen from a third-story attic window to his death. The question is, did he fall accidentally? Was this a suicide in which he jumped? Or did Sandra push him out the window?

After some meetings with her lawyer and interviews by the police, the film jumps one year later to a trial in which she is charged with the murder of her husband. The majority of the film is a courtroom drama in which we try to form our own opinion as to what really happened.

The visually impaired boy is the only witness to events and his recollection has varied between interviews with investigators.

Through the testimony in the courtroom, we gradually come to understand the deeply troubled marriage. Sandra is German but had agreed to live in France even though she is not happy there. Samuel is frustrated by his own lack of success and jealous of his wife’s success. One of her most successful books is based on an undeveloped idea that Samuel had. She testified that he agreed to let her develop the story but when it was a big success, it only furthered his sense of failure.

Samuel blames himself for their son’s visual impairment. It was caused by an accident a few years ago. He was supposed to pick up his son after school but forgot. Samuel sent the babysitter to pick up the boy late and as the boy ran to meet her, he was struck by a car. There is tension because Samuel blames himself for the accident. Sandra blamed him but claims to have gotten over it. It is unclear how much the boy blames his father for his condition.

In Samuel’s unsuccessful attempts to come up with a winning story idea, he decided to begin making audio recordings of his everyday life hoping to find inspiration. Sandra was aware of some of these recordings but not aware of a very key recording that was made a few days before his death. Samuel recorded a bitter argument between the two of them unbeknownst to her. The recording was played in open court.

As the audio recording was being played in court, the film shows us the scene as it actually occurred right up until the point when the argument became physical. It then switches back to the courtroom where you can only hear what happened but not actually see the truth. You can hear items crashing and the sound of a physical struggle. We only have Sandra’s testimony as to what was going on during the crashing sounds.

I thought that the scene depicted during the playing of the audio recording was one of the most realistic and believable portrayals I had ever seen of a domestic argument. It was not the usual over-the-top melodramatic shouting match that you typically see depicted in film or TV. It was a pointed conversation between people in a deeply troubled marriage trying to understand each other’s position.

That scene was so well-written that it is the major reason why this film is my favorite screenplay of the year. The rest of the story is quite compelling and well-written as well.

The dialogue is a combination of English and French with English subtitles. In the home, she and her husband spoke English because her French was poor and his German was poor. In the courtroom, the proceedings take place in French however Sandra eventually insists on speaking English and using an interpreter.

I was fascinated by the significantly different courtroom procedures used in France. It is vastly different from what we are accustomed to in American and British courtroom dramas. When a witness is on the stand, the prosecutor and the defense have the opportunity to turn to the defendant and begin questioning them about what the witness just said. The defendant can immediately rebut testimony.

Both the prosecution and defense are given great leeway to expound their theory of the case while questioning a witness. To the extent that American dramas reflect American courtrooms, normally such exposition would be met with an objection, “Is there a question in that statement?” Only once during the proceedings did the judge admonish the defense attorney to “Save it for your closing arguments.” American court proceedings seem to be totally limited to a question-and-answer format except for the opening and closing statements yet in this courtroom, the attorneys had much leeway to argue their case.

I have no idea how accurate was this depiction of French courtroom procedure. Nor do I know how accurate American TV and film dramas depict our actual courtroom procedures. My only experience of real courtroom proceedings was the hours I wasted watching the O.J. Simpson trial which could hardly be construed as an ordinary proceeding.

Throughout the film, as my opinion wavered back and forth as to Sandra’s guilt or innocence, I was worried that the film would end with us not knowing what really happened. For now, I will say I was initially satisfied with the ending but upon further review, I had some doubts. I won’t explain that because it would spoil too much. See the spoilers section at the end of this episode only if you have seen the film.

None of the cast were familiar to me. Their credits are all French and German films Sandra Hüller gives an outstanding performance which has earned her lead actress nominations for both Oscar and Golden Globes. Note that she also stars in the nominated film “The Zone of Interest” but that is the one film that I’ve not yet been able to see. I’m really looking forward to her performance there even though it did not receive any acting nominations. I’m a bit surprised she did not receive a SAG nomination.

In addition to the Best Picture nomination, writer-director Justine Triet is nominated as Best Director and along with co-author Arthur Harari is nominated for Best Original Screenplay. The film has earned 7 BAFTA nominations. The film was awarded the prestigious Palme d’Or which is the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival. The boy’s service dog was also awarded the Palme Dog at Cannes – seriously that sounds like a joke I made up but there really is such an award. Who knew? It also has an Oscar nomination for Film Editing for which I have no opinion. IMDb lists 191 total nominations and 66 wins.

It opened in August in France and October in the US. On an estimated budget of $6.6 million, it has earned $4.5 million in the US and Canada and nearly $28 million worldwide.

This was my second favorite nominated film this year and tied with “American Fiction” for my favorite screenplay. I highly recommend it. It is still being shown in theaters and is available to rent or purchase on Amazon Prime and YouTube.

Next week, I will review the hit film Barbie and another film closely related to it. Guess what… I’m not talking about Oppenheimer! Tune in next week to find out. Stay tuned after my typical acknowledgments and closing remarks for some spoiler-filled comments about this week’s films.

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, here we go with the spoilers. Do not proceed unless you’ve seen the movie or don’t care if the endings are spoiled.

I said that “Past Lives” should have resonated with me more because I was much like Hae Sung who had an ongoing crush on his junior high school sweetheart Rosie. Like Hae Sung, many years after Rosie and I parted ways I had the opportunity to see her again and to meet her new husband. There was only one part of that parallel to my life that touched me emotionally. At the end of the film, Nora bids farewell to her visiting childhood friend, walks back to her apartment, hugs her husband, and begins sobbing uncontrollably.

If you’ve heard my Episode 22 in which I read my award-winning story “The Reunion” you will know that after bidding farewell to Rosie, her husband, and the school where we spent our teen years, I cried all the way home. But I never thought about what Rosie’s reaction might have been. I wondered if she went home, hugged her husband, and cried as well.

Let’s talk about the ending of “Anatomy of a Fall.” The boy Daniel returns to the witness stand after hearing of all the turmoil between his parents which was played out in open court. Among the things he discovered was that Sandra claimed that at one point, she had found Samuel unconscious and he had vomited up a large amount of aspirin which she claimed was a failed suicide attempt. This bolstered her claim that the fall from the third-story window was a successful suicide attempt and she did not murder her husband.

The boy recalled that his dog got sick at about that time and had to be taken to the vet. He concluded that the dog had eaten some of his father’s vomit before Sandra discovered him unconscious. The boy deliberately gave his dog an overdose of aspirin to see if it reacted the same way. It did. This led him to conclude that his father really had attempted suicide. There was still the possibility however that Sandra had given Samuel the overdose.

The boy then relates a story about a conversation he had with his father on the way to the vet with the dog. The father was explaining that the dog had been loyal and served him well but he needed to prepare for the fact that someday the dog would no longer be with him. It was obvious to us the audience and to Daniel that Samuel was really talking about the day when his father would no longer be there. Daniel concluded that his father was preparing him for the day when he might be successful in his suicide attempt.

Based on Daniel’s testimony, the jury believed it and acquitted Sandra.

I was pleasantly surprised that the ending was unambiguous. At least I felt that way for a time.

Shortly after seeing the film, I read a review by Adam-Troy Castro who is a famous science fiction and horror author. He publishes a brief movie review on his free Patreon page every day. His review of the film convinced me to rethink the ending and now I’m not so sure my initial assessment was correct.

When Daniel and his mother are reunited after the trial, it is an awkward reunion. One might have expected that Sandra would thank her son for “telling the truth”. But that did not happen. It leaves you wondering. Did Daniel make up the story about his father trying to prepare him for the day when he would be gone? Did he lie to save his mother? If he did lie, was it simply to avoid the loss of both parents? Was he sympathetic to her that she suffered an unhappy marriage? Did Daniel blame his father for his blindness?

That kind of ambiguity which can at one moment make you believe one version of events and then again make you doubt them indicates a very cleverly crafted piece of writing.

It would’ve been disappointing if the film simply left you hanging without an opinion one way or the other of what really happened. But this clever bit of storytelling gave you a simple explanation but hinted that there might be a different conclusion. So I was not at all disappointed by the ambiguity. Rather, I was intrigued by it.

Okay. that’s it for our spoiler cast. See you next week as we continue Contemplating Life. Fly safe everyone.

Contemplating Life – Episode 54 – “Oscar 2024: Grumpy Academics”

This week we kick off my second annual review of the 10 films nominated for Best Picture Oscars. The films this year seem to connect in pairs. This week we explore a category I call “Grumpy Academics” which consists of the films “The Holdovers” and “American Fiction.” Although you can listen to the podcast, I recommend the YouTube version to see the clips from the trailers that I have included.

Links of Interest

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hi, This is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 54 of Contemplating Life – Oscar edition.

It’s time to kick off my second annual review of the 10 films nominated for Best Picture Oscars.

Last year out of the 10 films nominated for Best Picture there were 3 that I didn’t care for at all and one that I could take or leave. One of the films that I disliked was the winner “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” I understood what the movie was trying to do and I understood why some people liked it. In the end, I never cared for the characters as much as I should have. There were some emotional payoffs at the end of the movie but I didn’t think it was worth the wait. After reading my review, one friend of mine who agreed with me described the movie as a “hot mess.” That pretty much sums up my opinion of it.

I also didn’t care for the war movie “All Quiet on the Western Front” or the movie “Triangle of Sadness.” I understood why “The Banshees of Inisherin” was nominated and I thought it had some amazing performances but I was quite neutral on the film itself.

As I’m writing this, I’ve only seen 9 out of the 10 nominated films and I’m pleased to say that I feel 8 of them were very much Oscar-worthy. There was nothing wrong with the other one but I found it only marginally interesting. I’m not sure it’s Oscar-caliber. From what I’ve heard about the remaining film I’ve not yet seen, I have high hopes for it. I’m optimistic that I will get to see it before I finish all of these reviews. So, overall in my opinion it’s already a much better year than last year. I’m looking forward to sharing them with you.

Looking over these 10 films I’ve discovered that they could be grouped in pairs. There are two biopics of famous people. There are two films about grumpy, unlikable, intellectual academics who are trying to break out of their shell. We have two films that give us insights into cultures with which we may have little familiarity. There are two films about women who start as the fantasy ideals of men but who come into their own like a robot emerging into sentience to become fully self-actualized and independent beings.

Although two of the films were huge box office successes, we don’t have the typical popcorn-eating, big-budget, action films like we had last year with Avatar 2 and Top Gun 2. Incidentally, none of these films are sequels and only one has the potential to become part of a franchise which incidentally I hope it doesn’t..

Last year I jammed 10 films into three episodes making several of the episodes quite long. We have a tiny bit more room in the schedule this year so I’m thinking there will be at least four or perhaps five episodes. If I have time, we will include some brief looks at the nominated performances in films that did not earn Best Picture nominations. The Oscars will be awarded on Sunday, March 10, 2024.

Although my reviews tend to include fairly significant plot summaries, trust me, I will not spoil major plot twists. I will include box office numbers that are current as of my writing of the script as reported by IMDb. That website also lists nominations and wins of other awards but most of them are so obscure you never heard of them. I will point out major awards as appropriate.

In this episode, we are going to look at two films in a pairing I call “Grumpy Academics”.

First on our agenda is “The Holdovers”. Paul Giamatti stars as Paul Hunham. He is a history teacher at a boy’s boarding school somewhere in New England in 1970. All but five of the boys will be going home for Christmas break. These five holdovers have to stay behind because their parents are otherwise occupied and the boys cannot go home. Hunham is given the unenviable task of being their guardian for two weeks.

He teaches a class in ancient civilizations at the prestigious Barton Academy where he is equally hated by his students and faculty. That includes the headmaster who was once one of Hunham’s students at Barton. Hunham is also an alum. He is constantly trying to get everyone, his boss included, to live up to the high standards and principles of the Barton Academy as established by its founder his mentor the late Dr. Greene.

Hunham is constantly mocked by students and staff and given the nickname “walleye” because he does indeed have a wandering lazy eye.

He is forced into this babysitting task against his will not only because he is disliked by everyone but also because he recently refused to give an unearned passing grade to the son of a rich donor to the institution.

In addition to Hunham and the five boys, we are introduced to Mary Lamb the cafeteria manager who will stay behind to prepare meals for them. Mary is grieving the loss of her son who was recently killed in Vietnam. The son had attended Barton. Mary couldn’t afford to send him to college which would have earned him a potentially life-saving draft deferment. This dilemma was typical for many young men of modest means, especially African-Americans.

Although we are never told so, it’s easy to assume her son was only able to attend this expensive private school based on some sort of employee discount. We are left to our imagination as to what it was like for a poor African-American student to try to fit in at a prestigious private school which was mostly rich white kids.

Initially, there were only supposed to be four students holding over for the holiday but it was pretty obvious that one of the older students named Angus Tully would be held over as well. He bragged that he had big plans to go to St. Kits in the Caribbean with his mother and her new husband. The film spent too much time focusing on his character early on if he was going to disappear from the story along with hundreds of other students. So, it is no surprise to the audience when his mother calls at the last minute to tell him he will not be joining them. The vacation is going to be a honeymoon for her and his new stepdad.

This was just one of several plot points which come as no surprise. As we get to learn more about the five boys, they all seem to be thinly drawn stereotypes caught in a “Breakfast Club” remake. While there are a few other rather unoriginal tropes throughout the film, it is by far a much better story than it initially appears.

Here is a minor spoiler. After a few days of dealing with the five boys, one of them arranges to have his father’s staff pick him up in a helicopter and take him on a ski trip for the remainder of Christmas break. They obtain permission from the parents of three of the other younger boys to join him. Angus’ mother cannot be reached to obtain permission for him to join them because she is too busy enjoying her honeymoon. This leaves him as the only boy stranded with the old curmudgeon.

So, by about 20 minutes into the story, we realize it’s going to be a character exploration of Hunham, Angus, and Mary. There is a janitor on the premises but he doesn’t show up often or contribute significantly to the story.

These three diverse characters who are essentially castaways trapped in the empty institution are forced to get along with one another and to reveal themselves in ways they didn’t particularly care to. Mary attempts to work through her grief while trying to be a peacemaker between the boy and the crotchety old man.

To escape the drudgery of their existence, they take a trip into the nearby town for dinner where they discover that the headmaster’s secretary Miss Crane has a part-time job as a waitress in the pub. She helps them diffuse a confrontation with a townie who despises the Barton Boys. There are hints of chemistry between the waitress and the teacher yet he is too shy to pursue a relationship. Miss Crane invites all three of them to a Christmas Eve party but it does not go well.

Mary tries to suggest that the teacher do something nice for the boy on Christmas Day but his feeble attempts to do so fall flat. When he asks the boy what he really wants, the boy declares they should take a trip to Boston. Hunham is persuaded to agree on the premise that it falls under his prerogative to do so as an academic field trip. The three of them travel to Boston together where Mary visits her pregnant sister and the guys go on adventures together mostly in museums.

Again, this road trip which reveals deeper secrets held by the characters is not a very original idea for a story. But there are sufficient twists and turns that it is an enjoyable fresh take on an old trope.

This film is one of several this year in which the cinematography and style of the film is a re-creation or perhaps an homage to the time period in which the film is set. The trailer has the style typical of films of the early 1970s. It opens with an MPAA R-rating card identical to what you would have seen in a film of that era. This is followed by logos for Universal Studios, Focus Features, and Miramax which are throwbacks to the ones you would’ve seen in 1970. I viewed the film as a digital download but these opening logos featured film scratches as well as pops and crackles in the soundtrack typical of a well-worn print of a film.

Although the movie was shot using modern digital cameras, director Alexander Payne and cinematographer Elgil Bryld have gone to great pains to make it look as though it was shot on 35mm film in 1970. It even has a mono soundtrack with the high-end frequencies cut off at about 8kHz. Bryld said they were trying to make it look as though someone found some old film cans in a garage. These effects throughout the film are not as blatant as they are in the opening credits, but there is still much about the cinematography that evokes that era. Is a subtle psychological manipulation that helps the audience buy into the setting.

We will see the same phenomenon in another Oscar-nominated film later.

Giamatti gives a magnificent performance under the direction of Alexander Payne who had previously worked together on the film “Sideways.”

Giamatti has already won the Golden Globe for Best Lead Actor in a Musical or Comedy and is nominated for Best Actor Oscar both of which are well deserved. Note that the Golden Globes have separate categories for Drama versus Musical or Comedy so the competition is much tighter in an open Best Actor category at the Oscars. He doesn’t have a chance against stiff dramatic competition. He would be my third choice but don’t take that as a slight because I very much enjoyed the performance.

Mary is portrayed by Da’vine Joy Randolph who has already earned a Supporting Actress Golden Globe and is nominated for Supporting Actress Oscar again very much deserved. I also enjoy her performances as Detective Williams in the Hulu series “Only Murders in the Building” but she was otherwise unknown to me. Her credits include a Tony nomination in 2012 and she is also appearing as Mahalia Jackson in this year’s film “Rustin”. Right now I would list her as my second favorite supporting actress this year but I have not yet seen all of the other nominees. She has stiff competition.

Angus Tully is played by newcomer Dominic Sessa who holds his own against veteran actor Giamatti in his first film. Carrie Preston is quite charming as Miss Crane. You may recognize her from her role as quirky lawyer Elsbeth Tascioni in the TV series “The Good Wife” and its spinoff series “The Good Fight.” She also appeared as waitress Arlene in over 80 episodes of the HBO vampire series “True Blood.”

In addition to the Best Picture Nomination, David Hemingson is nominated for his Original Screenplay and is a close second for me in that category. It might seem strange that this was one of my favorite screenplays of the year given that I have been pointing out all the unoriginal or unsurprising aspects of the story. But it truly is an interesting and fresh take on some old ideas. There were plot points I didn’t see coming and I haven’t spoiled for you here. Giamatti’s dialogue is cleverly written and he is a richly drawn character as is Mary even if some of the minor characters are somewhat stereotypical.

The film is also nominated for Film Editing for which I have no opinion. I would’ve thought it might have gotten a cinematography nomination for creating its retro look from a digital source. But it wasn’t nominated in that category.

It doesn’t have a chance for Best Picture against very stiff competition but I would rank it as my fourth favorite of the 10 nominated films. It is well worth your time.

IMDb lists 195 award nominations and 107 wins so far. Again, they list a lot of obscure awards. Among them are nominations for Alexander Payne from the Directors Guild, SAG Nominations for Giamatti and Randolph as well as 7 BAFTA nominations.

I could not find an estimated budget for the film. Since its opening in late October ‘23, it has earned over $30 million worldwide and nearly 20 million in the US. Is still showing in some theaters and is currently streaming on Peacock as well as available for rent or purchase from Amazon Prime and YouTube.

* * *

Our second film this week is also the story of a somewhat sad intellectual academic who faces struggles and both his work and personal life.

“American Fiction” stars Jeffrey Wright as Thelonious Ellison who has had some success writing novels and is teaching a college literature course in the present day. He is struggling to sell his latest work because publishers claim that as an African-American author, his work isn’t “black enough”.

In the opening scene, he is teaching a course on American literature in the South. A white girl in his class was offended that they were studying a book with the N-word in the title. He declares to the girl, “I got over it. You can too.” She files a complaint against him which is apparently just the latest of many complaints. He is forced to take a sabbatical.

In an early scene in the film, he goes into a bookstore and asks a 20-something-year-old white salesclerk if they have any books by Thelonious Ellison. The young man looks at his tablet and then leads him to a bookshelf labeled “African-American Studies.” Ellison asks,

Ellison: Wait a minute. Why are these books here?

Clerk: Uh… I’m not sure. I would imagine that this author Ellison is – black.

Ellison: That’s me. Ellison… He is me. And he and I are black.

Clerk: Oh Bingo (smiling)

Ellison: No bingo Ned. These books have nothing to do with African-American Studies. They are just literature. The blackest thing about this one is the ink.

Clerk: (nervously) I don’t decide what section the books go in. No one here does. That’s how chain stores work.

Ellison then gathers up the dozen or so copies of his three books and proceeds to march them over to the general fiction section where they belong.

Thelonious, who goes by the nickname Monk, no doubt because of the famed jazz musician Thelonious Monk, is frustrated that his sympathetic agent cannot find a publisher for his latest work. Meanwhile, he is outraged over the success of a book written by an African-American academic woman named Sinatra Golden. Her bestseller titled “We’s Lives in Da Ghetto” is filled with stereotypes of poor black people who talk a kind of jive talk street language that is so exaggerated it is offensive to him.

Golden: (Speaking to a crowd at a book convention) What really struck me was that too few books were about my people. Where are our stories? Where is our representation?

Moderator: Would you give us the pleasure of reading an excerpt?

Golden: (Reading from the book as Ellison looks on from the back of the room) “Yo… Sharondan! Girl, you be pregnant again? If I is, Ray Ray gonna be a real father this time around.” (The convention audience cheers and gives a standing ovation.)

To retaliate, he writes a ghetto book about a drug dealer who grew up poor, murdered his father, and is an exaggerated stereotype of a ghetto black man. The working title of the book is “My Pafology” spelled P.A.F.O.L.G.O.Y. He writes under the pseudonym Stagg R. Leigh. He instructs his agent to submit it to publishers as a joke and much to their surprise a publisher snaps it up. His given a massive advance and a lucrative deal for the movie rights. When the publisher wants to meet the author, he has to create a new persona. He refuses to meet in person because he claims to be a wanted criminal. He only speaks to them over da phone.

In an attempt to get out of this farce, he does everything he can to try to ruin the deal including insisting that the title of the book be changed to the single word “Fuck”. Much to his surprise, his white publisher reluctantly agrees.

The satire of white people’s opinion of what black culture is all about makes it hysterically funny and ironic. It also is a stinging indictment of the publishing world which is anxious to prove its commitment to diversity while exploiting stereotypes.

However, that’s not the only story being told. It is a deeply personal and poignant exploration of a troubled soul. Monk struggles in his romantic relationships. He has a difficult relationship with his gay brother. His mother is declining with dementia. He suffers other personal losses I won’t spoil. He is frustrated that his own serious work is rejected but this piece of sellout trash he has created is a huge success. He is becoming everything he hates.

These two storylines are brilliantly woven together by writer-director Cord Jefferson. Jefferson has been nominated by the Directors Guild for an outstanding first film. There is one shot in the film that I thought was one of the most brilliant shot compositions I’ve seen in a long time. It’s a simple shot of someone’s feet that tells an entire story like an excellently crafted piece of flash fiction. You will know it when you see it. Jefferson’s screenplay, based on the novel by Percival Everett, is nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar.

In addition to the Best Picture Oscar nomination, it was also nominated for a Golden Globe in the Best Musical or Comedy. Jeffrey Wright, who is known for his typical supporting roles steps up to the challenge of portraying this complex lead character with a conflicted life. The performance has earned him a Best Actor Oscar nomination as well as a nomination for a Golden Globe Actor in a Musical or Comedy.

He is joined by a talented ensemble cast that includes Sterling K. Brown as his brother earning him a Supporting Actor Oscar Nomination. Also, Tracy Ellis Ross is his sister. Leslie Uggams as his mother, Erika Alexander as his girlfriend, Issa Rae as rival author Sinatra Goldman, and John Ortiz as his agent all turn in memorable performances. Even minor characters such as his mother’s caregiver and her boyfriend a town police officer add charm and wit to the effort.

Wright and Brown as well as the entire ensemble have earned SAG nominations.

IMDb lists 162 nominations and 52 wins. The film opened in December and has earned just over $12 million. It is currently available only in theaters.

Jeffrey Wright could be a long shot for Best Actor but probably will lose to Cillian Murphy in Oppenheimer or Bradley Cooper in Maestro.

I would put it in a tie for best screenplay with Anatomy of a Fall and would rank it about fifth place for my favorite movie of the year. I highly recommend it.

Next week, we will take a look at two foreign-language films. One of them I thought was just okay. The other one kept me glued to the screen wondering what was going to happen next. It featured one of my favorite screenplays of the year and some amazing performances. So, be sure to check that out.

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

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

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

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

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

Contemplating Life – Episode 53 – “What Makes Movies Special”

This week we conclude a two-part special that traces my entire history as a movie fan. In this episode, we focus on my obsession with 3D, IMAX, and the evolution of special effects. I recommend you watch the YouTube version because I’ve included lots of movie clips.

Links of Interest

Films Mentioned in this Episode

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Coming soon

Contemplating Life – Episode 52 – “The First Picture Show”

This week we begin a two-part episode recounting my history as a movie buff. In this episode, we cover the drive-in movie era as well as early widescreen film formats such as Cinerama. Note there are lots of movie clips in the YouTube version of this week’s podcast so you might want to watch it on YouTube.

Links of Interest

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hi, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 52 of Contemplating Life.

I recently saw an interview with MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow talking about her new book titled “Prequel”. It’s about Nazi influence in the US government during World War II. Her colleague Chris Hayes asked her how she got into the topic. She said she had planned to do a book about present-day anti-Semitism but after researching its roots she ended up back in the late 1930s and 1940s. She said she suffers from a condition where every story she tells she wants to begin with, “An asteroid hit the earth and then the dinosaurs died, and then…”

I suffer from the same condition. When I tell a story, I always want to start at the beginning. For me, context is everything. You’ve already seen that in previous episodes. For example, I couldn’t tell my history of attending IUPUI without telling the history of IUPUI itself.

In last week’s episode, I talked about my ongoing struggles to be able to get out into a theater to see movies. It took everything I had to not start the story with, “The first movie I ever saw was…”

However, I can no longer resist the urge to scratch that itch. So rather than continue speculating about when I will see my last picture show, this week let’s go to the beginning and talk about the first picture show. This episode is about my history with the movies as far back as I can remember. My history as a movie buff is going to take more than one episode to cover in the kind of excruciating detail that I like to tell stories. So this is the first of a two-part story.

I will put my disclaimer up front this time. Last week I misremembered the order in which I’d seen some films over 40 years ago. Now we are going to go back 60+ years so I make no guarantees about the accuracy of this narrative.

I don’t know what was the first movie I ever saw, but I’m confident it was at the Lafayette Road Drive-in Theater. The drive-in sat in a 19-acre triangular lot bounded by 38th St., Lafayette Road, and Georgetown Road. It opened in August 1953 before I was born in July ‘55. It closed in 1982 when it was demolished and a strip mall was constructed there.

My earliest memories of the venue date back to when I was perhaps 3 or 4 years old. In those days, W. 38th St. was just two lanes. There were no streetlights, fast food places, or shopping centers. Lafayette Square Mall just north and east of Lafayette Road wasn’t constructed until 1968. I also seem to recall that the 38th St. bridge over White River was not yet constructed in my early days of visiting the drive-in so 38th St. was not yet the major east-west thoroughfare that it is today.

The nearest homes were perhaps two blocks away with the rear of the homes facing the drive-in. There may have been a small wooded area blocking their view of the screen. But as the area became more developed and the trees were turned down, residents complained when the theater started showing R-rated movies. They said that their children could look out their bedroom windows and see naked women on the screen.

I remember there was a small playground in the front near the screen with swings and slides for the kids to play on before the feature started. One of the swings had a baby seat that had a backrest, armrests, a bar across the front, and a strap that would go between your legs to keep you from sliding out. On at least one occasion my mom was able to get me into the seat. It was the first and only time I was ever to play on a swing set. I also have a memory of going back a second time and insisting that I get to play on the swing but I had outgrown the seat and we could not get my legs underneath the crossbar in the front.

In my quest to recall the first movie I ever saw, I’ve racked my brain and I’ve done lots of research on IMDb. My most likely candidate is “The 7th Voyage of Sinbad” featuring stop-motion animation by legendary animator Ray Harryhausen. According to IMDb, Sinbad was released in December 1958. That would’ve made me three and a half years old.

My family moved into the Eagledale neighborhood just seven blocks south of the drive-in in May 1959. I always presumed we didn’t go to that drive-in before moving into the neighborhood. Then again, even at our previous home on West 34th St. near White River and the canal, the Lafayette Road Drive-In would have been the closest to our home.

I have very few memories of living in that old house on 34th St. but I suppose a cool movie like that would have made a sufficient impression on me that I remember it at that young age. I wondered if perhaps I was thinking of a different Ray Harryhausen classic such as “Jason and the Argonauts” which was released in 1963. We probably saw both of these films but I’m fairly certain we did see Sinbad because it featured a battle with the legendary monster Cyclops and I definitely remember seeing that film at the drive-in.

I’m not ready to claim that this was the absolute first film I ever saw because I also have a vague memory that perhaps we saw a trailer for that film and my dad said, “Wow, we definitely needed to come back to see that one.” Then again, I could be remembering a trailer for “Jason and the Argonauts.”

While we are talking about Harryhausen films I am absolutely positive we saw “The Valley of Gwangi” in the summer of 1969. That film featured a bunch of cowboys who discovered a lost valley filled with dinosaurs. They capture one, bring it back to civilization, and put it in a circus where it kills a circus elephant and several innocent people. We had my five-year-old sister Carol with us. She wasn’t scared of the dinosaur. Quite the contrary, when they killed the dinosaur in the end, she cried. We tried to explain to her he was a very bad dinosaur who killed lots of people. She didn’t care. They didn’t need to kill it. I recently asked her if she remembered the incident. She said she didn’t have any direct memory of the movie but she has heard us tell that story for many years so that’s how she knows the story.

I’m about 90% sure we also saw the 1959 Charlton Heston version of Ben-Hur at the drive-in. It seems strange however that that film was released in November and Sinbad was released in December. I find it a bit improbable that we would go to the drive-in in the middle of winter. I have a vague memory that we did go to the drive-in in cold weather and that they would provide you with a small electric space heater that you could plug into your cigarette lighter rather than run your motor with the heat on. Unsure of that memory, I posted a message on a Facebook group called “Grew up in Eagledale” to see if anyone else had more certain memories of the Lafayette Road Drive-in. One person confirmed that she remembered that they would provide you with a heater and another confirmed that the drive-in was open year-round. Furthermore, just because IMDb reports when the movie was released, it’s quite likely that it went to indoor theaters first and drive-ins might not have shown it until summer. So I really don’t know when I saw these films.

In 1960, my dad bought a 1959 Plymouth. He was able to make the down payment on the car because we won $1000 in a Knights of Columbus raffle that we used to put in $1 each week. It was one of those cars which were typical of the time period with huge fins on the rear fenders. It had a large sloping rear window. See the YouTube version of this podcast for a photo of a similar car.

When we would go to the drive-in it was typically a double feature. I would be allowed to watch the first movie but they would put me in the back of the car on a shelf above the rear seat underneath that large window. I was supposed to try to sleep during the second movie and many times I did. But mostly I would lie on that shelf underneath the glass dome and stare at the stars and wonder how they worked.

I have distinct memories of asking my dad, “If the stars are suns just like our sun only really far away, and if the sun and the stars are in outer space, how can they burn when there is no air up there?” He didn’t have an answer but I vowed to figure it out one day. It was the start of my fascination with science, especially astronomy, and I trace it all back to staring out the window of the 59 Plymouth at the Lafayette Road Drive-in.

I can’t remember all of the films I saw at the Lafayette Road Drive-in but there are three that I remember quite distinctly because I bootleged them. Of course, this was long before you could buy your own video camera. So, I couldn’t bootleg the film itself but I could bootleg the soundtrack. For my eighth birthday in July 1963, I got a small reel-to-reel tape recorder with 3-inch reels. This was before the widespread use of cassette recorders.

In June 1964, I took my tape recorder to the drive-in with me to see “Mary Poppins”. By this time, we had traded in the old Plymouth for a Chevy Corvair Greenbrier Van which allowed me to sit in my wheelchair. I had a lap tray that sat across the armrests of my wheelchair and I set the tape recorder on my tray. I put the microphone up near the drive-in movie speaker. The quality of the tape recorder, the cheap microphone, and the horrible sound quality of the drive-in movie speaker produced a really bad recording but I didn’t care. I had a free recording of every song in Mary Poppins. A friend of mine had the soundtrack album but I claimed that my recording was superior because it included sound effects that were not in his album. For example when Mary is singing “A Spoon Full of Sugar” she is magically putting away the children’s clothes and toys. In my recording, you could hear the dresser drawers opening and closing

A month later, I also recorded everything from the Beatles film “A Hard Days Night” as well as a year later when I recorded the soundtrack from the Beatles film “Help!”. These three tapes were my prize possessions at the time. I have no idea what ever happened to them. Sometime in the early 70s, I got my first cassette recorder with a built-in AM/FM radio. I would use it to bootleg the latest hit songs off of WNAP-FM. [Echo FX] “The Wrath of the Buzzard!”

Although it was just mono and not stereo, the quality of recording off of FM was pretty good. I don’t recall bootlegging the soundtrack of any other films except those three but then again there weren’t many musicals that interested me in those days.

I talked to my sister Carol about her earliest memories of the movies and she recalled seeing “The Sound of Music” at an indoor theater but I think she went with my grandmother as I never saw that film until it made it to TV and I’m not certain I’ve ever seen it all the way through.

The first movie I ever saw at an indoor theater was in early 1964. The Marion County Muscular Dystrophy Foundation hosted an event where all the families were invited to the Indiana Theater at 140 W. Washington St. downtown. We saw the film “How the West Was Won” in Cinerama format.

Cinerama was sort of the 1950s and 60s version of IMAX. It was shot using three separate 35mm cameras that slightly overlapped. The outer two cameras were crisscrossed such that the right-hand camera pointed left and the left-hand camera pointed right. It was also projected the same way using 3 standard 35mm projectors which projected onto a large curved screen with a 146° viewing angle. It also featured seven-channel surround sound with five speakers spread behind the screen and 2 speakers in the rear corners of the theater. The sound was recorded on magnetic tape rather than optically recorded as were most soundtracks of the day.

Although there were some areas at the far edges of the theater where there were no seats and you could sit in your wheelchair, it wasn’t a very good viewing angle especially considering the curvature of the screen. Rather than sit with the other kids in wheelchairs on the side of the theater, my dad lifted me out of my wheelchair and I sat in a regular theater seat between Mom and Dad in the middle of the theater for a good view.

Watching a film on such a huge screen indoors with high-quality surround sound was an amazing experience compared to what I was accustomed to at the drive-in. There was a dark red curtain in front of the screen when you entered the theater. When the lights went down, the curtain would open to reveal the gigantic curved Cinerama screen. The film began with an overture of music. IMDb reports the runtime was two hours 44 minutes which was huge in those days. So much so, that there was an intermission and more music to introduce the second half.

I remember intermission music included the Civil War-era song “When Johnny Comes Marching Home”. I was so enveloped by the surround sound I started singing along in that embarrassing way that one sings out loud with headphones on and you don’t realize people can hear you. My dad had to tell me to shut up and just listen to the music.

Especially memorable were the scenes of a raft going down the rapids of a river partially breaking apart as well as a buffalo stampede that goes right over the cameras. I think that initial experience with Cinerama planted a seed that makes me such a huge fan of IMAX today.

Like IMAX, the first films shot in Cinerama format were documentaries and 5 such films were made from 1952 through 1958. Only two regular feature films were ever shot in the three-strip Cinerama format: “The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm” and “How The West Was Won” both released in 1962.

Filmmakers discovered was difficult to compose a scene using the three-camera process because any objects close to the cameras would be distorted if they went across the seams where the cameras overlapped their field of view. Although they took steps to try to hide the overlap, it was still visible in films. Documentary three-strip Cinerama films were shot and projected at 26 frames per second but the feature films were shot at the standard 24 frames per second.

Cinerama had a camera aspect ratio of 2.59:1. That means that the width of the image was 2.59 times its height. However, when projected, they often slightly cropped the top and bottom of the image to hide some distortion anomalies giving a projected aspect ratio of 2.65:1. For comparison, HDTD today uses a 16 x 9 aspect ratio which comes out to 1.77:1.

The three-camera Cinerama format was later replaced with systems called Ultra Panavision 70 and Super Panavision 70 both of which were shot on 65mm film to produce 70mm prints. Some of these films were marketed as Cinerama even though they didn’t use the original three-camera process because they still used the curved Cinerama screen. The river raft scene in “How The West Was Won” was shot in the single-camera Ultra Panavision 70 and then transferred to three-strip Cinerama.

Ultra Panavision 70 has an aspect ratio of 2.76:1 which was wider than three-strip Cinerama. It used anamorphic lenses to compress the aspect ratio during filming and then uncompress it during projection. Among notable films shot in Ultra Panavision 70 but marketed as “shown in Cinerama” were: “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World” (1963) (which I saw at the drive-in), ”The Greatest Story Ever Told” (1965), and “Battle of the Bulge” (1965).

Probably the most famous and most effective use of the wide, wide screen of Ultra Panavision 70 was“Ben-Hur” (1959) with its iconic chariot race. It was never marketed as Cinerama. As previously mentioned, I saw it at the drive-in presumably from a 35mm print. The most recent Ultra Panavision 70 film was Quentin Tarantino’s 2015 film “The Hateful Eight”. He used 65mm film and cameras to produce 70mm prints. He paid extra to help theaters show the film in Ultra Panavision 70mm format wherever possible.

Several recent films have been shot using Ultra Panavision 70 lenses on digital cameras such as “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” (2016), “Avengers: Infinity War” (2018), and “Avengers: Endgame” (2019) all of which I saw in modern digital theaters.

Another similar format is Super Panavision 70. It uses spherical lenses to create an aspect ratio of 2.20:1. Down 20 as that Among notable films shot in Super Panavision 70 and marketed as Cinerama were “Grand Prix” (1966) (which I saw in the drive-in), “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968), and “Ice Station Zebra” (1968). Many other notable films were shot in this format but were not marketed as Cinerama because they were projected onto flat screens.

When Ultra or Super Panavision films were shown in Cinerama theaters using a single projector, they had to use special optics on the projectors to get them to conform to the highly curved Cinerama screens.

I saw “Ice Station Zebra” with my parents at the Indiana Theater in Cinerama again as a guest of the Muscular Dystrophy Foundation. I begged my parents to take me to see “2001: A Space Odyssey” in Cinerama but from some things they had heard about it, I think they thought it was perhaps too adult for me. I didn’t see 2001 until it was shown on TV many years later. Then it was rereleased to theaters and I was able to see it in a small 2-screen theater in the Speedway shopping center. It was described as Super Panavision 70 format but my guess is it was probably a 35mm print. I was always disappointed I never got to see it on a huge screen but at least seeing that one version in the theater was better than the TV versions I had seen which used pan and scan to fit the widescreen image onto a 4:3 standard definition TV screen.

Years later when seeing these films on TV, I never could understand why you could see the vertical seams dividing the Cinerama image into three parts on “How The West Was Won” yet you cannot see the seams on “Ice Station Zebra” and “2001: A Space Odyssey”. It wasn’t until I began researching this episode that I learned that only 2 Cinerama feature films were actually shot in the three-strip format and the others were shot with a single camera and projected with a single projector onto the curved Cinerama screens. That finally explains a lifelong mystery of why there never were any seams in these other so-called Cinerama movies.

See the links in the description to Wikipedia articles on all of these formats and other similar formats of the era such as Todd-AO. These articles include more extensive lists of famous films which were shot and shown in these widescreen formats.

Before we leave the drive-in movie era completely, we have to talk about the 1969 film “Winning” starring Paul Newman, Joanne Woodward, and Robert Wagner. Newman and Wagner played racecar drivers who were rivals. Much of the film was shot on location at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway just a couple of miles south of the Lafayette Road Drive-in. My entire family has been lifelong fans of the Indy 500 so this was a must-see film. It included actual race footage of crashes from the 1966 Indy 500 and other races.

If that wasn’t enough to make the film important in my moviegoing history, it’s also the first film I ever saw that had a sex scene. Well… Sort of a sex scene. The film was rated “M” for mature audiences. Today probably it would rate PG-13 at worst and perhaps only PG. Newman and Woodward who were married in real life played a married couple. In the film, she has an affair with Wagner. There is a scene shot in the Speedway Motel where Newman walks in on Wagner in bed with Woodward.

Wagner was on top of Woodward in bed but they were under the covers and there was no nudity involved. Even though I was 14 years old I was still quite uneducated about such things and it prompted me to ask, “What were they doing?” I don’t quite recall what sort of evasive answer my parents gave me.

The last movie I ever saw at a drive-in was not at Lafayette Road but was at the Tibbs Drive-in which is the only drive-in movie still in operation in Indianapolis. I went with some of the guys in the neighborhood. It was the 1970 Roger Corman gangster film “Bloody Mama”. Corman is known as the King of B movies. The film starred Shelley Winters as real-life gangster Ma Barker and a then-unknown 27-year-old actor you might ever heard of. His name was… Robert De Niro. Do we know him? Yeah.

Not only was it a bloody gory gangster movie, but Ma Barker routinely had sex with her adult sons and their friends. The sons would argue over whose turn it was the spend the night with Mama. None of them wanted to do it.

I’ll never forget one line from the movie. When one of the Barker boys played by De Niro overdosed and died, mama was hysterical she shouted out to her son Herman who was out alligator hunting with a Tommy gun. “Your brother’s dead. It was that dope he put in his arm.” Herman Barker played by Don Stroud calmly replies, “Just bury him deep. There’s a lot of animals around here.” Typical Roger Corman B-movie fair. Some people consider it a cult classic.

This episode is getting quite long so I think this is a good place to split it. In the next week’s episode, I will recount more of my history of enjoying movies. We will focus on the evolution of special effects which have always fascinated me. Most of the times that I have purchased DVDs of films it was not typically because I planned to watch them over and over again but so I could see the “making of” features that explained how the special effects were created and this into the director’s commentary.

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.

Many thanks to my financial supporters. Your support pays for the writing seminar I attend and other things. But most of all it shows how much you care and appreciate what I’m doing. 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 find this podcast. Tell me your stories about the first movies you ever saw or take a nostalgic look back at your driving experiences.

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

Contemplating Life – Episode 51 – “The Last Picture Show”

This week we explore the transitions I’ve had to go through in my life as it relates to my ability to get out into the world and do ordinary things like enjoying a movie with my friends. It’s based on an essay I wrote for my writing seminar. Note there are lots of movie clips in the YouTube version of this week’s podcast so you might want to watch it on YouTube.

Links of interest

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

NOTE: This video may be blocked in some countries because I used a tiny bit too much of a copyrighted film. It should be visible in the US so set your VPN accordingly or listen to the audio on any of my podcast platforms such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, etc.

Shooting Script

Hi, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 51 of Contemplating Life.

I planned to get back to the stories about my college days at IUPUI. But this is movie awards season. The Golden Globes will have already been awarded by the time you see this. Oscar nominations come out January 27 (not the 17th as I said in the video) and the Oscars will be awarded March 10. I hope to be able to see all of the Best Picture-nominated films and review them here as I did last year. I’ve already started watching some of the contenders. To prepare for my Oscar reviews, I want to spend an episode or two talking about what movies mean to me.

Today’s episode is based on an essay I wrote for my writing seminar. We were told to write about a character in transition. I chose to write about the various transitions I’ve had to go through in dealing with my disability and the effect it has had on my independence and my ability to enjoy entertainment. My writing instructor, award-winning sci-fi author David Gerrold, had high praise for this essay and several of my fellow students had nice words about it so I hope you enjoy it as much as they did.

Recently, on the Friday between Christmas and New Year’s, I went to the movies with my friends Rich and Kathy Logan. We saw “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom”. It was pretty good but after a while, all of the superhero movies tend to feel alike. It was worth the trip to the theater and I really enjoyed the 3D but overall it probably wasn’t that great of a movie.

I guess that for most of you, going out to your local Cineplex and catching a film with your friends is something you take for granted. For me, I can’t do that. Every time I go to the movies, somewhere in the back of my mind is the idea that it might be my last time. I’m not talking about my own mortality here. Someday, we’ll all see our last picture show. We know not the day nor the hour when that will happen.

I’m talking about my ability to get out of the house and see a movie in a theater. There’s something special about seeing movies on the big screen with multi-channel digital surround sound, especially in IMAX or IMAX 3D. As the IMAX marketing phrase says, “Watch a movie or be a part of one.” Movies have the capability of transporting me to places, real or fantastic, that I could not go otherwise. It’s wonderful that we have access to so much entertainment via cable and streaming but nothing replaces the magic that happens when you see a film in a theater with a crowd of people. The reason that such an event is so precious to me is that on more than one occasion, it felt like it might be the last time I ever had that opportunity.

I’ll never forget the day back in 1979 when I had such an experience.

It wasn’t the last movie I would ever see in my life, but it was the last movie I would ever see in a theater by myself. For such a significant milestone, it should have been something great and memorable. It wasn’t. It was the comedy farce “The In-Laws” starring Peter Falk and Alan Arkin.

I was about a month short of my 24th birthday. A few months prior, I had to quit my job as a computer programmer for the Indiana University Department of Medical Genetics. My disability had worsened to the point where I could no longer work a full-time job. After two weeks in the hospital recovering from congestive heart failure and several months home in bed I was finally getting out into the world again.

Going to the mall to see a movie on my own was something I’d done dozens of times since I was a teenager. My parents would drop me off, I would see the film, and they would pick me up when it was over. Getting out of the house to the movies was my celebration that things were finally getting back to normal.

In those days, they didn’t have stadium seating in movie theaters like we do today. The floor transitioned from a gentle slope near the front to a steeper slope at the back. There were no areas designed specifically for people in wheelchairs. I had to sit in the aisle which meant that people often ran into me in the dark. It was uncomfortable to sit on the sloping floor so I always sat near the front where the slope was less severe.

About halfway through the movie, I started to slump slightly in my wheelchair. I could feel myself getting more and more uncomfortable. I feared I would slump over sideways, my hand would slip off my wheelchair joystick controls, and I would be unable to get it back again. I would be stranded there. There were very few people in the theater and they were all sitting behind me. So, when the movie was over, no one would be walking by and I could easily get their attention and ask for help. They probably would all have left not knowing that I was stuck there. I didn’t look forward to the idea that I was going to have to yell for help when the movie was over.

I was filled with anger and frustration. I thought that after recovering from heart failure I was back to normal but this was in no way normal for me.

I had to try to get my wheelchair onto level ground. I was already sitting very near the front because the slope of the floor was less severe but it wasn’t enough. I turned my wheelchair around and drove up the steep slope of the theater aisle. It took everything I had to maintain control as the aisle steepened on the way up. There was a level area at the top near the door. I thought perhaps if I sat there, I would be safe.

It took everything I had to get up the steep slope without my hand slipping off of the joystick or my head flopping backwards but somehow I made it to level ground. At last, I would be able to watch the rest of the film.

But after a few minutes, I felt myself continuing to slump over. I finally gave up. I drove my wheelchair to the theater door, pushed it open with my footrest, and drove out to the lobby of the theater in the mall. There was still about a half-hour left in the movie but I didn’t care anymore.

I sat there quietly with tears streaming down my face until my dad arrived to pick me up. I was so weak I couldn’t drive my wheelchair anymore and he had to disengage the motors and push the wheelchair himself.

By the next day, I had recovered enough that I could continue to drive my wheelchair around the house but I knew that I would never be safe to be out in the world on my own again.

It wasn’t just the end of seeing movies by myself. It was the end of the most independent era of my life as a disabled person. I’d gone to college and had a full-time job. My dad would drop me off at work or school and I would be on my own all day long.

In my college years, during the summer I would drive my wheelchair all over the neighborhood in a routine that I dubbed “The Grand Tour.” I would travel about six blocks to the local branch library and check out the latest Scientific American or a sci-fi book. Then I would drive a half-mile down 34th St. to the Burger Chef for lunch. I would go across the street from there to the drugstore, pick up a magazine or comic book, maybe a candy bar, and return home.

Each year during May, mom would drop me off at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and I would spend the whole day at the track watching cars practice. I’d tour the garage area, and talk to mechanics and drivers.

All of these expressions of my independence came to a crashing halt at that stupid little movie that evening in late June 1979.

It wasn’t long after that that I lost the ability to feed myself. I could no longer type on my computer keyboard. Driving my wheelchair around my house even on level ground with no bumps became difficult.

I sank into a deep depression. I asked myself, “Where is that well-adjusted handicapped person I used to know named Chris Young?” The answer was obvious, he died when I lost the ability to use my arms effectively.

After sulking for many days, I did what I had always done… I found a way to adapt.

I discovered that if I propped my elbow up on the armrest of my wheelchair and stood up my computer keyboard on an easel so that the keys were facing me. I could use a long pencil or a wooden dowl rod to poke at the keys on the keyboard. We wired small pushbuttons into the Shift and Control keys on the keyboard. I would type with my right hand and work the buttons in my left hand.

I also discovered that if I held this typing stick in my mouth, and held the other end in my hand, it would steady my right hand on the wheelchair joystick. In some respects, I was using the mouth stick to push my hand which in turn pushed the joystick. That gave me the ability to get around the house or to go outside if it was on smooth ground. But I wasn’t able to go anywhere alone anymore.

Shortly after that last solo trip to the movies, Dad and I went to the movies together. We saw one of my favorite cheesy disaster films of all time “The Cassandra Crossing.” It featured an ensemble cast that included Sophia Loren, Richard Harris, Burt Lancaster, Lee Strasburg, Ava Gardner, Martin Sheen, and O.J. Simpson. A group of people on a European passenger train were infected with a deadly virus. Fearing that the infection would spread, no country would allow them to stop. Officials eventually routed the train onto a bridge over a deep gorge called the Cassondra Crossing where they planned to blow up the bridge and kill everyone on board. The special-effects miniatures of the train crashing into the canyon were spectacular. Dad and I both loved the movie.

Shortly after that Dad and I saw “Apocalypse Now”. Not only was I getting to season good cheesy action movies, I also got to see some quality filmmaking and it brought Dad and me even closer together to share these kinds of films.

I’m blessed by other friends and family who have taken me to see countless movies over the years and they still do so to this day.

Over the years, I’ve had to make more and more adjustments as my ability has diminished further. Eventually, I could no longer type on my computer at all. Fortunately, voice control software was developed that allows me to dictate into a computer and have complete control of all of its functions. If you’d asked me back in the 70s when I first began studying programming if computers would ever understand speech accurately, I would’ve said never in my lifetime. But for decades now voice recognition has been my only means of computer access.

Seven years ago I lost the ability to drive my wheelchair completely, but I got a new wheelchair with new controls. A tiny joystick is mounted on a collar that fits around my neck and I can push the controls with my lips. I also use that joystick as a mouse on my computer. I strap my head onto my headrest so that it stays firmly in place and I am much more mobile than I was when I was trying to control the joystick with my hand. I can now ride over bumpy ground safely. I still don’t go anywhere unaccompanied.

In December 2016 I had to have a trach installed in my throat. Periodically I need to have it suctioned. I don’t go anywhere without my suctioning machine. At first, I was reluctant to ask friends to go to the movies with me because they would have to operate the suction machine if I needed it. It wasn’t anything beyond their capability but I didn’t want them to have to be a nursemaid to me.

The first movie I saw after I had my trach was in March 2017 when I went with my friends Rich and Kathy Logan to see the Marvel Comics movie “Logan”. It featured Hugh Jackman in his last film in which he played Wolverine. I had a history of seeing Logan movies with the Logans. The first film we saw together was “Logan’s Run” back when we were at IUPUI together. More on that story another day. Anyway, for this movie we brought my dad along in case I needed to be suctioned. Rich, Kathy, and I enjoyed it but he hated the movie. Again, I worried that my moviegoing days were numbered. Trying to find a movie that my dad and my friends would all enjoy was going to be a challenge.

After that, I finally got the courage to ask my friends if they could do my suctioning. My most loyal friend Rich said, “We were wondering when you were going to get around to asking. Of course, we can do it. We’ve been adapting to your disability along with you for decades now. This is just the next phase.”

Because my stamina continues to fade gradually, I wasn’t certain I could ever go to a concert again but since I got my trach, I’ve seen some of my favorite acts including memorable concerts of Peter Frampton, The Trans-Siberian Orchestra, Steve Miller Band, The Who, and Sting thanks to my sister Carol who accompanies me. Carol and I also catch a couple of hockey games each year. Although, we try to go to afternoon games because I have a hard time staying up late.

These days, I’m still able to get out to the movies with friends and family but I pick and choose them carefully. I go for the big blockbusters in IMAX and/or 3D. If I’m willing to risk COVID, flu, RSV, and God knows what else being out in public as well as the strain on my ever-diminishing stamina, it had better be something big and spectacular. I have seen Dune, Avatar 2 twice, and Oppenheimer in 70 mm filmed IMAX. Rich, Kathy, and I have seen every Star Wars film together over the years in the theater sometimes multiple times as well as most of the major Marvel and DC movies. This latest visit to see Aquaman 2 was just the next in a long series of such films.

My life has been a constant struggle to keep up with my ever-changing ability. I’ve had to reinvent myself and my activities multiple times over the past 68 years. And I will keep adapting until I can adapt no more.

One of my good friends who went by the nickname Buz, who was a fellow Christian, once told me he couldn’t wait until we meet someday in heaven and I could run up to him and give him a big hug. I told him, “Buz, I don’t see myself walking in heaven. For me, heaven is a place where I’m disabled but it doesn’t matter anymore. To the extent that you, my other friends, and my family try to give me as normal a life as possible, you make Heaven on Earth for me.” Much to my surprise, I’ve outlived Buz. When I make that final transformation to the next phase of my existence, I’ll roll up to Buz in my heavenly wheelchair and give him a big “I told you so.”

And I’ll see my parents again and Dad and I will talk about how cool it was when that train crashed into the Cassandra Crossing that first time he took me back to the movies after I couldn’t go by myself anymore.

Until then, I have lots more movies to see. I’ve not yet seen my last picture show.

Okay, this is me about a week later after I originally recorded this. I’ve been working on editing all of the video clips of the movies into the YouTube version of the podcast. I realized something awful.

The whole thing is a lie.

Well, not the whole thing. Just the part about “The Cassandra Crossing”. When I looked up the trailer for the movie and looked it up on the IMDb website, I found out that “The Cassandra Crossing” was in 1976 three years before “The In-laws” in 1979. However, “Apocalypse Now” was indeed in 79, and now that I think about it, it really was the first film I with my dad after I quit going by myself. Dad and I did see “The Cassandra Crossing” in 76 and it was indeed one of our favorite films but it just wasn’t the first one after I quit going by myself. But as they said in the classic film “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance”, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” Dad and I watching that train wreck was legendary. So what if the timeline really doesn’t work out?

One more quick confession… I never have seen the 1971 Peter Bogdanovich film “The Last Picture Show”. So, certainly that part of the podcast is true I’ve not yet seen “The Last Picture Show” either figuratively or literally.

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.

Many thanks to my financial supporters. Your support pays for the writing seminar I attend and other things. But most of all it shows how much you care and appreciate what I’m doing. 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 find this podcast.

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

Contemplating Life – Episode 50 – “It’s Not Social Media’s Fault”

This week I go off on a political rant that was inspired by a Facebook post I saw recently. My basic thesis is don’t blame the messenger for the message.

Links of Interest

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hi, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 50 of Contemplating Life.

Happy New Year to all of you. It’s good to be back after my holiday break. We left off last year with a political rant on Christmas Eve and I have one more rant before we get back to our regularly scheduled topics.

I’ve been interacting with people online since before the Internet was invented. My life online dates back to CompuServe in 1981. I’ve been thrilled to see the explosion of the Internet since then and the way it has become such an integral part of nearly everyone’s life. I saw the potential for online interaction way back in the 80s. Even in those early days, it was the best of times and the worst of times. The opportunity for interaction with people around the world was phenomenal. I’ve made lifelong friends online some of whom I’ve never met in person. But I also have seen the worst of people come out protected by the semi-anonymity that comes with online interaction.

What we now call “social media” is merely a tool. It is a medium through which people interact. It has become a scapegoat for much of what’s wrong with public discourse these days. In the early days of the Internet, you had to be a computer geek to even get online in the first place. In those early days, someone wisely commented, “When the Internet is easy enough for any idiot to use then the Internet will be filled with idiots.” That prophecy has come true a thousandfold or more.

I’ve never felt that platforms like Twitter/X, Facebook, and others deserved so much of the blame for the evil that takes place online. I blame the users themselves. I blame the inability of huge numbers of people who are incapable of engaging in critical thinking. I blame a herd mentality that encourages its followers to mindlessly repost propaganda.

I blame our education system for failing to educate people on how to think critically. I blame them for not teaching social studies or civics as it was once called so that they understand how our government works and operates or at least how it was designed to operate. I blame science education for not giving people a basic understanding not of scientific facts but of an appreciation for how scientific exploration and scientific discourse work.

Blaming social media platforms is similar to blaming a road for a traffic accident. Now to be fair, some roads are poorly designed, and that leads to accidents. But it doesn’t account for every traffic accident. In the same way, there are design flaws in social media that are responsible in part for the evil that occurs. But there are many more “accidents” that are not attributable to design error whether it’s on the road or online.

I recently saw a post on my Facebook feed from a friend of a friend. It’s someone I barely know. I won’t identify them because I don’t want to single them out for ridicule. I cite this message merely as an example to illustrate how I believe social media is abused and the lack of responsibility shown by users who are too quick to repost a message without fully understanding the consequences of what they have done.

Here is the post exactly as I found it. I have not corrected any grammar or punctuation in my online transcript of this podcast. You can see the actual message with identifying portions redacted on the YouTube version of today’s podcast.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

“Someone once told me you have to choose which hill you die on: Get ready to fill out your reports on me, ‘cause I’m going to vent here. Frankly I expect some “unfriending” to happen and that is fine too.

“I believe we all have the right to worship as we please, but I also know that our country, the United States of America, was founded on Christian principles. I believe we should be proud of our country. A quote is a quote. It should not be amended or watered down.

“The news media should not be afraid to use the “Love of Christ” part. Why they state, “Because, using the words Christ or God might offend someone!” Well, now it’s my turn to be offended!

“I’m offended that the news media would edit it out. Offended that Christians are being asked to tread lightly, so as not to offend someone of another religion. This man “Jesus,” God with us!! He loved us, loved the world, and gave his life for the sins of all people. Those who “believe in Him, and accept Him as their personal Savior, will have everlasting life!!!”

“This Founding Principle is actually embedded in our Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Why would the left lopsided media continue to edit this truth?!

“I hope every Christian or every person that believes in God who is NOT OFFENDED will copy this and paste it to their status…“If we ever forget that we’re one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.” ~Ronald Reagan.

“*Before you say it, I already know that a lot of you will say I don’t know how to copy & paste.* It’s easy… hold your finger on this post when the word copy appears, just touch it, then go to your home page and where it says “what’s on your mind”, touch it and hold your finger where you would start writing your comment and touch “paste”.

“If we continue to do nothing as not to offend anyone else, we will eventually be offended out of the constitution and out of a country!”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Let me start by saying it took great willpower to not respond directly to that post. However, there is so much in it that is illustrative of what’s wrong with online media today that I cannot resist this comment podcast. Let’s take it one issue at a time. The opening paragraph states…

“Someone once told me you have to choose which hill you die on: Get ready to fill out your reports on me, ‘cause I’m going to vent here. Frankly I expect some “unfriending” to happen and that is fine too.”

That sounds like something I could write. If you’ve been following this podcast from the beginning, you’ve seen me take some rather controversial issues against the way the disability community fights ableism. Although I don’t particularly want to offend anyone, if someone is offended by the truth or by my expression of my opinions I’m not going to let that stop me. So the post starts off in a way that defends free speech and controversial opinions which is a topic that should resonate with most people. It’s drawing you in saying, “We believe in the same things.”

It goes on to say…

“I believe we all have the right to worship as we please, “

Again, a factual statement with which I hope most Americans would agree and embrace but that’s only the first half of the sentence. It continues…

“…but I also know that our country, the United States of America, was founded on Christian principles.”

Okay… If this was a court of law and I was a lawyer, I would object on the grounds that it “assumes facts not in evidence.” That is an objection that I could make repeatedly throughout this analysis. If it is true that most if not all of our so-called Founding Fathers were indeed men of Christian backgrounds. Many such as George Washington believed that religion and morality go hand-in-hand and religious belief was a necessary component of moral decision-making. We can see some Christian values such as personal freedom, justice, and care for the common good embodied in our founding documents. But they are not exclusively Christian. Other religions believe in those same things.

However, I don’t recall any of our Founding Fathers specifically insisting on one particular set of beliefs. Quite the contrary. They did not intend the country to be a Christian theocracy. The First Amendment to the Constitution begins with the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This principle is commonly referred to as “Separation of Church and State.” So when some respects, to say that we are a Christian nation is unconstitutional and arguably un-American.

I always thought it interesting that the First of the Ten Commandments prohibits us from worshiping false gods and the First Amendment to the Constitution protects us from being forced to worship other gods. Thus, freedom to worship or not worship as one chooses is fundamental to Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and to our political beliefs. So I suppose in some respects, that argues that we are based upon religious principles but not necessarily a specific religion.

The post then continues with an inarguable agreeable sentence, “I believe we should be proud of our country.” If you suppose that you can be proud of your country even when it doesn’t always behave in ways you wished it would, there is nothing objectionable there. But here’s where things go off the rail. It says…

“A quote is a quote. It should not be amended or watered down. The news media should not be afraid to use the ‘Love of Christ’ part. Why they state, ‘Because, using the words Christ or God might offend someone!’ Well, now it’s my turn to be offended!”

Oh boy… There are so many things wrong with that paragraph it’s going to take us a while to break them all down. Apparently, the original author of this post is objecting to some statement they saw in “the media” that they believe was edited to remove religious content. They never state what it was that was quoted or how it was misquoted. Note these are not the words of the person who posted the message. This message has been cut and pasted God knows how many times. Perhaps it was in reply to some other message that gave it some context. Perhaps there was a link to an article that described some form of censorship or editing to which the original author objected. Because it is a mindless cut-and-paste statement, we have no idea what the person is actually talking about.

While our Pledge of Allegiance, unfortunately, includes the words “under God” (which were added later by the way, and not part of the original text), and our money states “in God we trust” all of which is arguably unconstitutional, I don’t know anywhere that the phrase “Love of Christ” is routinely used in any otherwise arguably secular context. So we never know exactly what it is that this original author was objecting to. Exactly where, when, and how did this unnamed media horrifically edit out the words “Love of Christ”? We don’t know. The result is, that you cannot create any counterarguments to such a nonspecific claim. Nor can you agree with the claim should you choose to do so because the claim is so vague.

At one point in my life, I was seriously agnostic if not downright atheist so I understand the atheist perspective reasonably well. I’ve heard many speeches and seen videos of people who were radically atheists and who were offended by the promotion of religion. My favorite atheist is political comedian Bill Maher. As radically anti-religion as he is, I don’t think he reaches the level where he wants all religion purged from public discourse. He thinks that faith in a supernatural deity is irrationally ridiculous but the mere mention of God doesn’t particularly offend him.

For the most part, people who are opposed to religion typically believe that you can believe whatever you want to under two conditions. First, do no harm. Second, don’t try to impose your beliefs on anyone. Beyond that, you can believe whatever bat shit crazy things you want to believe.

This post is a typical expression of the concept that there is a war against religion going on in our country. While there are many people highly critical of religion as practiced today, the idea that there is a huge conspiracy that is anti-religious or anti-Christmas or anti-Easter or other such claims is based on extremely weak evidence. The war against faith is pretty much the creation of the religious right for whatever agenda they have God only knows. I suppose it’s because they know that they can feed on people’s fears.

There is a war against misinformation, denial of freedom, and against hypocrisy. When people of faith claim to be loving people who have concern for their fellow human beings but will espouse beliefs and policies that are harmful to others so as you do not respect their rights as human beings then we have a problem. If you do that in the name of religion, you’re going to get people bashing your religion. For me, I don’t care what your religious beliefs are. I care what you do to hurt other people in the name of religion.

One of the Ten Commandments says you should not use the name of the Lord in vain. While most people interpret that to mean a prohibition against swearing or using God as an expletive, for me it is always meant, “Don’t call yourself a Christian or a person of God and then behave otherwise.” Doing so harms the entire faith community and allows critics to say, “Well… if that’s what it means to be Christian or any other faith, then count me out.” Hypocrisy causes irreparable damage to the brand. There is no war against religion. There is a war against hypocrisy and the imposition of your will upon others in the name of religion.

Anyway, moving on what else does this crazy post have to say?

“I’m offended that the news media would edit it out.”

Yet again, we have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. Who edited what? It continues…

“Offended that Christians are being asked to tread lightly, so as not to offend someone of another religion.”

Now we get somewhere. We are drawing the line between us and them. It’s not about suppressing religion in general. It’s really about my religion versus your religion. The author is complaining about religious intolerance. I could agree with that. That’s the seductive thing about such a post. You could agree with just about every other line. Pride in the country. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Religious tolerance. All things I could be on board with.

But in between those agreeable things are getting vague accusations of unfounded atrocities. Next, we get a statement of Christian belief. If one is Christian, there is nothing particularly objectionable about the following paragraph.

“This man ‘Jesus,’ God with us!! He loved us, loved the world, and gave his life for the sins of all people. Those who ‘believe in Him, and accept Him as their personal Savior, will have everlasting life!!!’”

It’s a valid expression of Christian theology and belief. Unless you are so religiously intolerant that someone would say such a thing or hold such a belief then there isn’t much to object to. There is an implication that anyone who is not Christian but is of some other faith is damned to hell so I suppose that could be objectionable.

Personally, I happen to believe salvation does come from the sacrifice of Christ but it is open to even those who do not believe assuming they live a decent, moral life. I think a lot of Christians are going to be surprised at the number of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and atheists who end up in heaven. To a certain extent, the Catholic Church agrees with me stating in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 846 and following, that decent people who, through no fault of their own, have not accepted the Gospel can be saved. I tend to interpret the phrase “through no fault of their own” quite loosely. If you are turned off by the hypocrisy of people of faith that’s not on you it’s on us. It’s our failure as a faith community to not accurately present the Gospel in a way that is attractive to others.

The phrase “accept Him as their personal Savior” is decidedly a Protestant phrase that a Catholic would be unlikely to use even though they believe in Jesus. We could get into a theological debate of faith versus works as a distinction between Protestant and Catholic theology. For our purposes, we will just say that it reveals a Protestant bias that could be considered anti-Catholic but only to the most sensitive person.

Now we come to a fun one. The post continues…

“This Founding Principle is actually embedded in our Declaration of Independence: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.’”

Oh boy… Here we go. They have accurately quoted the Declaration of Independence. While it is one of our most cherished founding documents, it is not the Constitution nor is it a law. My issue with using this statement as an argument that we are a Christian nation or rather founded on Christian principles is I don’t see the word Jesus anywhere in that sentence.

What if you are Muslim and believe that you are created by Allah? What if you are Jewish and believe that you were created by Yahweh? Okay, Allah is simply the Arabic name for what others might call “God the Father” as is Yahweh the Hebrew name for that same deity. In Trinitarian Christian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. I have heard it argued that when Muslims worship Allah and Jews worship Yahweh they are unbeknownst to them worshiping Jesus because Yahweh, Allah, and God the Father are just different names the same thing, and Jesus is united with the Father and the Holy Spirit. It’s not a bad theological argument. Probably offensive to Muslims and Jews but I get their point.

So even if you are calling your “Creator” by a different name, you could be talking about the same thing but that does not equate to this being a uniquely Christian statement. I don’t have sufficient knowledge of other non-Abrahamic faiths to see how the word “Creator” could or could not tie into the Christian concept of God the Father.

But let’s look at atheists. Ask an atheist, “Who is your Creator? Or how were you created?” On a personal level, the obvious answer is their fuckin’ parents – literally. But if we’re going to talk about the creation of the human race as a whole, then you get into abiogenesis, evolution, natural selection, and a whole bunch other of science regarding the origin of all life.

Regardless of the atheists’ definition of Creator, from a strictly secular, nonreligious perspective the phrase “endowed by their Creator with… rights” simply means that as a human being these rights are birthrights. They are inherent in the human condition regardless of who or what created you by what means you were created. The word “inalienable” means that it is not a right of citizenship of a particular nation but it is a right that is inherent in all people.

So the supposition that our country was founded on the principle that we have inalienable birthrights does not in any way shape or form prove that we are a Christian nation or founded upon uniquely Christian principles. Quite the contrary, the concept of inalienable rights is decidedly non-religious. Even if you could argue that Thomas Jefferson who wrote the first draft of the Declaration, or the committee that edited his draft, or the Continental Congress who amended and ratified that document were primarily Christian that doesn’t make us necessarily founded on Christian principles. And then there is little question of how Christian was Thomas Jefferson considering that he owned slaves and fathered children by them. The same could be said about other of our founding fathers who were slaveholders, misogynists, and not exactly bastions of social justice for all particularly Native Americans. That’s a different issue we won’t explore.

I have no problem with one’s religious beliefs being the basis of their morality or the use of religious principles in guiding one’s politics given the caveats that I mentioned previously in that: 1) it doesn’t harm anyone and 2) you don’t force those beliefs upon anyone. However, there is a big difference between being guided by your faith and creating a Christian theocracy.

In the November 8, 2023, Republican presidential debate, candidate Tim Scott talked about the need to restore faith in God. He mentioned that Abraham Lincoln quoted Scripture when he said, “A house divided used itself cannot stand.” He noted that Ronald Reagan described America as “the city on the hill.” which was also scriptural. But these quotes were using scriptural phrases in a way that was more philosophical than theological. There isn’t anything uniquely Christian about the idea that internal division leads to destruction or that being an example to the world of how to live is an ideal to which we should aspire. I have no problem with either of those quotes.

Scott then went on to say and this is a direct quote…

“It’s restoring faith, restoring our Christian values that will help this nation once again become the ‘City on the Hill’. When Ronald Reagan talked about the ‘City on the Hill’, he was quoting Matthew 5. When Pres. Lincoln talked about ‘a house divided’ that was Mark. Our founding documents speak to the importance of a faith foundation.

“You don’t have to be a Christian for America to work for you but America does not work without a faith-filled Judeo-Christian foundation. I would be the president helps us restore faith in God, faith in each other, and faith in our future.

“Without that focus, none of the issues, the policies matter. We have to get back to being a nation that is in fact the city on the hill.”

In other words, I’m building a theocracy regardless of issues and policies. Heathens are welcome to live here but Christians rule. In this context, “city on the hill” doesn’t just mean a beacon of democracy or freedom… it means a Christian nation. It means a theocracy in which nonbelievers are tolerated yet marginalized.

Fortunately, Tim Scott dropped out of the race the day after that debate. Businessman candidate Vivek Ramaswamy also made strong statements about faith-based governance that were quite alarming. I’ve linked a video of the debate in the description and it is queued up to Senator Scott’s comments so you can see them in their complete context.

Let’s get back to our original post. In the same paragraph where they quoted the Declaration of Independence, they concluded…

“Why would the left lopsided media continue to edit this truth?!”

Sigh… We still don’t know what the fuck this entire rant is referring to. We now know it’s an alleged left-leaning media but that’s relative. Sure it could be MSNBC which is decidedly left. What about NBC itself or CNN which I would consider fairly centrist and reasonably unbiased? These days, there are extreme alt-right media outlets these days that are trying to outdo Fox News now that Fox is occasionally critical of Trump. Relative to those media sources and websites, Fox News could be considered left-lopsided. Again, we still don’t know what was edited that the author found objectionable.

Next comes the most insidious part of the whole thing. The thing that makes such a post viral. Let’s talk for a minute about the word “viral”. A virus is a nonliving biological entity that depends upon a host to reproduce it and pass it along. It infects the host and damages it in the process. I think the word “viral” is especially appropriate in describing such a post. We get a call to copy and paste the text verbatim. Specifically, it says…

“I hope every Christian or every person that believes in God who is NOT OFFENDED will copy this and paste this to their status.”

Okay, file that under, “That doesn’t mean what you think it means.” Or at least it’s vague which is par for the course in this post. If you believe in God you should repost. That’s simple enough but then it qualifies it by saying “Who is not offended”. It says specifically it should be reposted by “every person who believes in God who is not offended.” You mean you’re not offended by talking about God or you are not offended by the alleged censorship. It should say, “If you believe in God and ARE offended by censorship then repost.” Or at least I think that’s what they are trying to say. Who knows?

They then offer a quote from Ronald Reagan. I looked it up. He really did say this at an ecumenical prayer breakfast in Dallas Texas in 1984.

“If we ever forget that we’re one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.”

I’ve linked a YouTube video of the speech in the description. He makes a reasonably well-researched case for the idea that we were founded by people who believed in God and that these men considered faith to be inextricably tied to morality and thus essential to moral governing. He is very specific however not preferring one faith over another. This is an ecumenical gathering of people from a variety of faiths and not necessarily exclusively Christian. He quite correctly accuses people who are adamant about religious tolerance of being intolerant themselves. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he had to say. He believed way back in 1984 that there was a war on religion. I still think it is a war against hypocrisy and against the imposition of beliefs on nonbelievers. I disagree with the idea that you cannot have morality without religion.

The author of the original post is so insistent that you repost this message verbatim that they give you explicit instructions on how to do so. It says…

“Before you say it, I already know that a lot of you will say I don’t know how to copy & paste. It’s easy… hold your finger on this post when the word copy appears, just touch it, then go to your home page and where it says ‘what’s on your mind’, touch it and hold your finger where you would start writing your comment and touch ‘paste’”.

Believe it or not, I have problems with that paragraph. It means that the author is specifically targeting people who are not technologically knowledgeable. It is exploiting people who are not tech-savvy and encouraging them to repost something without thinking about it too much. I don’t mean to imply that people who lack technical skills are necessarily ignorant or incapable of critical thought. I know some brilliant people who can’t operate a computer. But the converse might be true. If you are not skilled at critical thinking or logical arguments, it is more likely that you are not tech-savvy.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a Chris Young rant if we didn’t bring disability into the argument somewhere, right? The instructions on how to repost specifically presume you are using a touchscreen device and not using Facebook via a webpage. If I were physically capable of doing so, putting my finger on the screen of a non-touchscreen device does me no good whatsoever. It doesn’t tell me how to cut and paste using a mouse and keyboard. Many disabled people can’t operate a touchscreen device so the assumption that you’re using one and that you’re capable of putting your finger on one is inherently ablest!

Okay, I can’t say that with a straight face. I’m being nitpicky and accusing people of ableism where there probably isn’t any. I’m usually critical of that. But if I’m going to attack someone for an ignorant post, I’m going to give it to them with everything I’ve got in my arsenal… including ableism.

There are alternative ways to repost a message. You can click on “Share” and it will be posted to your timeline. But there’s a problem with that. That means that your readers can see the original author. It means that a reader could go back to that author and challenge their assertions or their sources. It would allow you to ask the author “What the fuck are you talking about?” By suggesting that you should cut and paste the message rather than simply share a link, it insulates the author from such feedback or criticism and it makes it look more like these are your words, not someone else’s.

In fact, unlike some such cut-and-paste requests, this one doesn’t say “I copied this from a friend and you should too.” It implies that the person I’m reading was the original author and they are asking me to cut and paste. If the original author really believes what they wrote, they shouldn’t be afraid to sign their name to it. They could still ask, “If you agree with me, Joe Smith, then feel free to forward this or quote me and give me credit for my brilliant statement with which you agree.” But that is not what happens. They want to remain anonymous and coerce you into cutting and pasting and making the words your own.

The final sentence is…

“If we continue to do nothing as not to offend anyone else, we will eventually be offended out of the constitution and out of a country!”

Again, I’m not sure if that sentence is completely clear or if it means what they think it means. It gets a little bit caught up in double negatives and questionable grammar.

In general, I agree with the sentiment that people are too easily offended these days. I was raised on the proverb, “Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me.” An alternative version was, “Words can never hurt me.”

While I agree that words have power and that such power can do damage, in general, I think people are way too easily offended these days. If you lie about someone or try to discredit them or ruin their reputation or misrepresent their position in a way that is indeed harmful… that is something different. An excellent example of that is the election workers in Georgia who had their lives destroyed by lies that they rigged the election. Fortunately, a jury agreed that they had been harmed and awarded them $146 million in damages. But words that simply offend… such offense only has as much power as we allow it. If someone says something intended to offend me, I say, “Fuck ‘em. They don’t know what they’re talking about. I’m not going to waste my energy on them.”

I have no problems with social media. I follow people on Twitter/X who keep me up-to-date on space exploration. I follow a few of my favorite race drivers in both IndyCar and NASCAR. I’ve never engaged in political discourse on Twitter. I follow news sources that I trust on Twitter. I’ve never gotten a single argument.

I use Facebook to keep in touch with friends and family around the world some of whom I’ve never met in person. Some who I’ve known for more than 50 years and I have been able to reconnect via Facebook when I thought they were lost to me. I belong to nearly a dozen disability-related groups where I interact with other disabled people and we support one another with information and encouragement. I belong to four Facebook groups related to assistive technology. I take an online writing seminar and interact with other writers through Facebook. I belong to a Facebook group about science fiction where we engage in civil and thoughtful discussion about the genre. I subscribe to over 100 YouTube channels that provide me with information and entertainment.

Social media is what you make of it. You don’t have to engage in rancid arguments. You don’t have to be friends with anyone whose opinions you find abhorrent. There are mechanisms to block people that you don’t care to read.

Social media is blamed for being a venue for hate speech and incitement to violence. Would you blame the mailman for delivering such things in the mail? Would you blame the street corner if someone stood there and shouted such things? People say that social media has a responsibility to police its content. It is estimated that there are 2.9 billion active Facebook users. That is 36.7% of the population of Earth. It is physically impossible to monitor all of that content.

Who do you want to decide what is or is not acceptable? Zuckerberg? Musk? Trump? Besos? I refuse to hold social media companies accountable for the content that they don’t create. But you say, “They created the algorithms that promote such horrible speech.” But what drives the algorithms? You do. The algorithms are designed to give you the content that you have demonstrated you want to see. Does that reinforce the fact that many people live inside a bubble and are not open to alternate opinions? Yes, it does. But they choose to live in those bubbles. They choose to get their news from only one source. They choose to reject any criticism of their preconceived notions. They refuse to engage in critical thinking or are incapable of doing so. I have my favorite news sources but I don’t believe everything they say. I insist that they back up their claims and make reasoned, logical arguments. It’s not Facebook’s fault that some people don’t do that. I have my favorite politicians whose views closely match my own but I’m not afraid of speaking out when I disagree with them.

If you agree with me don’t cut-and-paste the transcript from this podcast. Share the link. Give me both the credit and the blame for what I wrote. Include comments on the parts that you agree or disagree with. Include a reasoned argument about where I’m wrong. Post links to your source information. Engage in civil discourse and critical thinking. Don’t take my word for anything. Think for yourself.

Haha… That reminds me of this scene from Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian”.

– – – – – – – –

Brian: No, no. Please. Please, please listen. I’ve got one or two things to say.

Crowd (in perfect unison during each sentence in the scene): Tell us! Tell us both of them!

Brian: Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You are all individuals.

Crowd in unison: Yes, we are all individuals!

Brian: You are all different.

Crowd in unison: Yes, we are all different!

Loan man in the crowd: I’m not.

Other man: Shhh.

Brian: You’ve all got to work in for yourselves.

Crowd in unison: Yes, we’ve got to work it out for ourselves!

Brian: Exactly.

Crowd in unison: Tell us more!

Brian: No! That’s the point! Don’t let anyone tell you what to do!

– – – –

Your creator, natural or supernatural, gave you a brain. Use it. You are capable of reason. You are capable of discerning truth from lies. And respect those who do the same. Speak out against hypocrisy and lies. Respect people of faith whether you have no faith or have a different faith. That is the American way.

As always, I like I say after one of my rants…

“Hey, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.”

Next week we return to our regularly scheduled podcasts.

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 in this for money. Still, every little bit helps.

Many thanks to my financial supporters. I can’t tell you how much it means to me but it shows how much you care. That means more than I could ever 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.

Don’t cut and paste! Share the link. Blame me for my message. Don’t take it as your own.

I just want more people to be able to hear my stories in my opinions.

All of my back episodes are available and I encourage you to check them out. Please leave comments, criticisms, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast.

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

Contemplating Life – Episode 49 – “You Have No Right to Vote for President”

Although I had planned to take a break until after the first of the year recent events have caused me to produce this episode which I will be releasing to both the public and my Patreon supporters simultaneously because it is quite timely and I believe very important. Check out this political rant that raises an issue that should be important to all Americans.

Links of Interest

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hi, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 49 of Contemplating Life.

I had planned to take a break after episode 48 to relax over the holidays and to get caught up on other items. But I was inspired to write this episode and I’m releasing it to both Patreon and the public on Christmas Day as my gift to you. Also, this episode must be timely. I’m still going to take a break and I will return after the first of the year with new episodes.

On December 21, 2023, I did something I had never done before. I’m embarrassed to admit that I have never done it. It was long overdue. It’s something that I recommend all Americans do if they care about their country. I’m embarrassed because I consider myself politically active, knowledgeable, and passionate especially about elections. I’ve served as a lobbyist in the Indiana General Assembly and helped to secure the passage of a bill that made it easier for disabled people to vote. So I was long overdue to do this. What did I do?

On December 21, 2023, I read the Constitution of the United States.

I’ve never done it before. I had probably read parts of it in various social studies classes in high school and college. I read parts of it for my own enlightenment and as research for blogs, Facebook posts, and other political rants.

This time, I read the whole thing front to back: The preamble, all 7 articles, and all 27 amendments.

I should have done it 23 years ago because I learned something disturbing in December 2020. Something that I knew on a subliminal level but never really sunk in until that moment.

In December 2020, the nation was in constitutional turmoil over the 2020 Presidential Election between Al Gore and George W. Bush. It came down to Florida. Whoever won Florida, would become the 43rd President of the United States. There were multiple recounts in various Florida counties and numerous lawsuits. I was glued to the TV for weeks watching NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and possibly other networks’ extensive coverage of the events.

During oral arguments in one of the court cases, I heard something that greatly upset me. I recollected that it was in the oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court but I found transcripts of the arguments in the famous Bush v. Gore case and the thing I remember is not in there. It must’ve been in one of the Florida state or county cases.

The statement was made, “There is no constitutional right to presidential suffrage.”

In case you are unfamiliar with the term, “suffrage“ has nothing to do with suffering, rather it means the right to cast a vote In a political election.

Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it guarantee that you get to vote for president nor do you have a constitutional right to have your vote counted if you do vote.

If you know anything about our presidential elections, you know that it is an indirect election. Although names such as Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Hillary Clinton appear on the ballot, you are actually voting for Electors to the Electoral College. I found a sample ballot from Indiana for the 2020 election. In the section for “President and Vice President of the United States,” it says, “A ballot cast for the named candidates for President and Vice President of the United States is considered a ballot cast for the slate of presidential electors and alternate presidential electors nominated by that political party or independent candidate.”

You are voting for a group of representatives to the Electoral College. You may vote on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November but the actual election for president takes place but the electors choose the president on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The votes are then counted on January 6.

While these dates are established by law, the Electoral College system comes from Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2 of the Constitution. It states, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

You are voting for people you probably never heard of. You are trusting them to vote for the person who wins the majority of the votes in your state or district. Their names are nowhere on the ballot. You would have to look them up somewhere. I couldn’t tell you who were the electors from my state in any of the presidential elections in which I voted. I had to look them up on Wikipedia.

In 2020 Indiana went for Trump and I only recognized one out of the 11 names – Edwin Simcox who was a former Republican Indiana Secretary of State. Recall that you can’t be a current officeholder. Wait a minute… As I was editing this I noticed that other people on the list were current officeholders. Perhaps they were allowed because it was not a federal office. I don’t know. Simcox was also an Elector in 2016. In 2012, Indiana went for Republican Mitt Romney and I recognized the name of former governor Eric Holcomb. I thought if I went back to 2008 in which Indiana went for Obama I might recognize more names since I’m a Democrat but I didn’t recognize any of them.

The important part of that section of the Constitution is the phrase “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” That means that each state can choose its electors by any means it wants. Currently, Indiana awards all 11 of its electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote in the state as do most states. But historically the method has varied greatly from state to state and to some extent it still does.

With the Constitution took effect in 1789, the at-large popular vote winner-take-all method began with Pennsylvania and Maryland. That same year, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Delaware used a district plan by popular vote. However, in five other states, the state legislatures chose their electors with no voter input. They were Connecticut, Georgia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and South Carolina. Notably, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island did not participate in the election. New York’s legislature deadlocked and abstained. North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution.

By 1800, Virginia and Rhode Island voted at large; Kentucky, Maryland, and North Carolina voted popularly by district; and eleven states voted by the state legislature.

Beginning in 1804 there was a definite trend towards the winner-take-all system for statewide popular vote.

By 1832, only South Carolina legislatively chose its electors and abandoned the method after 1860. Maryland was the only state using a district plan, and from 1836 district plans fell out of use until the 20th century, though Michigan used a district plan for 1892 only. States using popular vote by district have included ten states from all regions of the country. Since 1836, statewide winner-take-all popular voting for electors has been an almost universal practice.

Currently, Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since 1996) use a district plan, with two at-large electors assigned to support the winner of the statewide popular vote.

I’ve always felt that the winner-take-all method of allocating electors was unfair because I’m a Democrat in a predominantly Republican state. Consider this… during my lifetime, my home state of Indiana has gone for 15 Republicans and only 2 Democrats. Since I was able to vote beginning in 1976 Indiana has voted for Republicans 11 times and Democrats only once.

Specifically, in my lifetime Indiana has voted for Eisenhower (1956), Nixon (1960), Johnson (1964), and Nixon (1968, 1972), Ford (1976), Reagan (1980, 1984), Bush 41 (1988, 1992), Dole (1996), Bush 43 (2000, 2004), Obama (2008), Romney (2012), and Trump (2016, 2020).

Indiana voted for the winners in 11 out of 17 presidential elections in my lifetime. Only in 2008 when Obama won did my vote actually contribute to the eventual winner.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore won the popular vote but not the electoral vote. The Supreme Court halted all of the recounts because they said that the varied recount methods used by different counties violated equal protection under the law. That’s a decision that even some conservative Republicans thought was poorly decided even though it handed the presidency to their guy.

At the time, many pundits said, “This shows you just how much every vote matters.” Bullshit! Nothing could’ve been further from the truth. If we had a direct election of the president, my votes for Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would have contributed to their wins. But because I live in a predominantly Republican state, my vote has contributed to the eventual outcome only once.

I believed that after the 2000 election debacle, there would be a big push to amend the Constitution and get rid of the Electoral College altogether but there was barely a whisper suggesting that should happen.

After Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 but won the Electoral vote, I again expected Democrats to push to abolish the Electoral College. While there were some rumblings along those lines, there was no major movement to attempt to do that. Twice now, Democrat candidates in my lifetime who have won the popular vote have lost the electoral vote.

There have been multiple attempts to reform or repeal the electoral college system one of which is proposed by Indiana Sen. Birch Bayh who we talked about in a previous episode of this podcast. See the Wikipedia article I have linked which describes many of those efforts.

I think they are reluctant to change the system because it means you would have to campaign in all 50 states. With the current system, we have a certain number of states that are solidly blue Democrat and others that are solidly red Republican so you only have to focus on the so-called purple states that could go either way.

The bottom line is, here in Indiana, my vote doesn’t count. If you are Republican in a predominantly Democrat state such as New York, Massachusetts, or California your vote doesn’t count either.

But the most disturbing part is that the way the Constitution is written, your vote doesn’t have to count anytime anywhere regardless of which party you prefer or which party dominates your state.

You have no constitutional right to vote for president.

While each of the 50 states currently holds elections to determine who the electors will be, there is no guarantee that those electors will actually vote for who they said they were pledged to vote for. These are so-called “Faithless Electors”

According to Wikipedia, in 59 elections, 165 electors did not cast their votes for president or vice president as prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those:

  • 71 electors changed their votes because the candidate to whom they were pledged died before the electoral ballot. That’s understandable.
  • 1 elector chose to abstain from voting for any candidate.
  • 93 were changed typically by the elector’s personal preference, although there have been some instances where the change may have been caused by an honest mistake. For example, one elector wrote down John Edwards for president when he was running for vice president. He also misspelled Edwards’s name.

See the Wikipedia article on faithless electors linked in the description for details.

In 2016, some suggested that the responsible thing for the Republican electors to do was to ignore that Trump had secured enough electoral votes and that they should go rogue and pick a different candidate for the good of the country and the Republican Party. Of course, most of these suggestions were being made by Democrats.

Although that was a partisan suggestion, it wasn’t entirely out of line. The original idea behind the Electoral College was that the uneducated masses should not be trusted with such an important decision. Instead, you would choose learned men to make that decision for you. This would insulate us from a populist candidate who could persuade the average voter but who was otherwise unqualified to hold the office.

According to Wikipedia, as of 2020, 33 states and the District of Columbia have laws that require electors to vote for the candidates for whom they pledged to vote, though in half of these jurisdictions, there is no enforcement mechanism. In 14 states, votes contrary to the pledge are voided and the respective electors are replaced, and in two of these states they may also be fined. Three other states impose a penalty on faithless electors but still count their votes as cast.

In July 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that states could penalize faithless electors yet it did not outlaw faithless electors. It is constitutionally valid for any of the winning electors to vote for whomever they want for president or to abstain from voting altogether.

One of the reasons I bring up this entire topic is that many states are enacting laws that make it difficult for people to vote. Also, some proposals would allow states to throw out an entire election if it didn’t go in favor of the ruling state party’s candidate. If you live in a state with a Republican-controlled legislature and governor but somehow the Democrat candidate wins the popular vote in that state, they could throw out the election and appoint electors for the Republican candidate. And to be fair, the opposite can happen. If the Republican candidate wins a Democrat-controlled state, Theoretically they could throw out those results and submit Democrat electors. Honestly, that is much less likely to happen on the Democrat side than it is on the Republican side. Then again, if Trump wins in 2024, God only knows what Democrats might do to prevent him from returning to office.

Of particular importance are the state Secretaries of State who are typically in charge of elections. For example, Trump tried to persuade the Georgia Republican Secretary of State to “find him” more votes. The Republican official refused to cooperate or give in to that pressure. Trump is currently under indictment in Georgia for attempting to subvert the Georgia presidential election results.

One of the reasons I decided I should read the entire Constitution is that on the day before, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump was ineligible to be president because he participated in an insurrection against the United States culminating in the events of January 6, 2021. This is based on the 14th Amendment Section 3 which states…

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

This amendment was passed after the Civil War to prevent former Confederate officials from holding office.

The New York Times reports lawsuits in 16 states have been filed to attempt to stop Trump from being on the ballot based on the 14th Amendment prohibition against insurrectionists. I provided a link to a website that is tracking these cases.

Some of the cases have been dismissed because the 14th Amendment doesn’t specifically list the president. It mentions senators, representatives, electors, those who “hold any office, civil or military” and who have taken an oath as a member of Congress or as “an officer of the United States to support the Constitution.”

The lower court in Colorado had ruled that because the president was not specifically listed it did not apply to him. It specifically lists senators, representatives, and electors but it does list “officer of the United States”. The Colorado Supreme Court decision says that obviously, the president is an officer because the Constitution refers to the office of president 25 times. In contrast, Congresspersons are not officers, they are members. So that is why they, and electors who cannot be officers, are listed specifically.

The case will undoubtedly be appealed to the US Supreme Court. From what I hear, the Colorado decision was extremely well-crafted in a manner that the Conservative justices should appreciate. They have frequently argued that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted in a way that the words mean what they say and that you should use the meaning of the words as they were understood when the article was drafted. The Colorado decision does exactly that even citing dictionaries published at the time it was written post-Civil War. The decision also cites the various debates that went on during the adoption of the amendment in an attempt to understand the original intent of the amendment.

My guess as a nonexpert is that the Supreme Court decision will boil down to whether or not they believe Trump’s activities constituted “insurrection”. Yet the Colorado decision notes that when the amendment has been applied previously, it did not require that the subject actually be convicted of a crime. As to the question of whether or not his speech at the Ellipse rally constituted the incitement of a riot, the Colorado decision cites Trump’s refusal to call off his supporters as well as praising them for their actions as giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the Constitution. His refusal to bring in the National Guard also constituted support to the insurrectionists. So even if he didn’t personally participate in the insurrection, his activities to organize the event and his inaction to stop the event count under the 14th Amendment according to the Colorado court.

Critics of the Colorado decision say an unelected judiciary is robbing the voters of their ability to vote for the candidate of their choice. The counterargument is that this ineligibility provision is no different than the requirement that the president must be at least 35 years of age and a natural-born citizen of the United States. The 14th Amendment was ratified by the elected Congress and the state legislatures at the time. It is as much of the Constitution as any other provision. We the people chose these rules. If you don’t like it, repeal the 14th Amendment.

Whatever happens in the weeks ahead or has happened by the time you hear this podcast, it is clear we are on the verge of a major constitutional crisis the likes of which we have never seen in our entire history.

The current system is inherently unfair. Many have argued that it was designed to give inordinate power to smaller states in an attempt to preserve slavery as an institution.

The bottom line is, that the Constitution does NOT guarantee your ability to vote for president and could be taken away from you at the whim of either party. At the drop of a hat, your state could decide to go back to the system where the state legislature appoints electors possibly even after the election had taken place. Such an action would be perfectly constitutional. Historically it was done before and it could be done again.

I’ve not heard any candidates from either party for any major office such as president, vice president, or Congress call for the repeal of the current Electoral College system. No matter what your political affiliation is, if you value your vote, you should speak up and demand that the Constitution be amended to allow for the direct election of the president.

That is a lengthy and difficult process. In the interim, you should be calling for your state to allocate its electors on a district-by-district basis. There is a historical precedent for that and it is within the state’s power to do so. Changing to a district-by-district allocation of electoral votes would mean that in a predominantly Democrat urban district in Indiana where I live in an otherwise Republican state, my vote would count. And that in a rural district of a mostly Democrat state, it is more likely that Republican votes would count. Allocating electoral votes based on districts is not as fair as a direct election but it is at least a step in the right direction. It’s a step that Maine and Nebraska have already taken.

By the way, while reading the Constitution, I found other interesting provisions of which I was unaware. Perhaps in a future episode, we will review some of those.

One final thought about the Constitution. Let’s consider the words of the preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It’s popular to complain about the government as if it were some separate entity. But the first three words of the preamble say at all. “We the people”. We are the government. We elect our representatives and we must hold them accountable to do what’s right for the country. If we don’t like it, vote them out. If we don’t like the Constitution, amend it. So consider the phrase “In order to form a more perfect union.” We have always recognized that our form of government is imperfect. However, a representative democracy is still the best form of government. While it might be nice to have a powerful leader group of leaders who had absolute authority to “fix everything” that would put us at their mercy. Democracy is the only form of government that can guarantee your rights because YOU are the government. No one rules you. That is unless you let them. You have to be politically aware, think critically, think for yourself, respect others, and join together to solve our problems. If the government doesn’t work. It’s our fault because the government is constituted by we the people.

After all of my political rants, I like to quote political comedian Dennis Miller as he used to include his weekly HBO program.

“Hey, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.”

You have a very Merry Christmas and a blessed and safe new year.

When I return after a break, I have one more political rant about social media and then we return to our regularly scheduled podcasts where I reminisce about my college days. I finally got deeper into computer programming classes and developed new friendships that have lasted for decades.

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.

Many thanks to my financial supporters. Your support pays for the writing seminar I attend and other things. But most of all it shows how much you care and appreciate what I’m doing. 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 find this podcast.

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

Contemplating Life – Episode 48 – “You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away”

This week we continue my nostalgic look back at my college days. We talk about my third semester at the downtown campus where I met a woman who was the first able-bodied woman I ever dated.

Links of Interest

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hi, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 48 of Contemplating Life.

This week we continue my nostalgic look back at my college days especially my third semester at IUPUI and the first woman I ever dated who wasn’t in a wheelchair.

We left last week’s episode on a bit of a cliffhanger telling you about meeting a woman who was the first able woman I ever dated, the first person in college I dated, and a relationship that lasted for decades. If you haven’t seen that episode I suggest you go back and see it first. There are some things that I set up there that pay off in this episode.

I mentioned that we met in the Hideaway Cafeteria in the basement of the Blake Street Library. I would journey there every day after sociology class. I had no trouble getting someone to open the front door to the library or pushing the button on the elevator to get to the basement. The Hideaway was a real cafeteria with cafeteria trays in a food service line offering a variety of choices at a decent price. This was unlike the 38th St. K-building lunchroom with nothing but vending machines. I didn’t seem to have any difficulty finding someone who would grab a tray for me and walk through the line with me.

I think it was about the second or third week of the semester when I was assisted by a rather short full-figured woman with long black hair. Most people just carried the tray to a table for me and then went on their way. She offered to sit down with me for lunch and explained that we were in sociology class together. There were over 30 people in the class and I hadn’t noticed her. Of course, I wore the same color wheelchair every day so I was quite familiar to her.

I learned that her name was Ella Vinci (as in Leonardo da) but she went by Ellie. She was a couple of years older than me. Reasonably attractive but not as hot as some women Himat the downtown campus. From that day forward we had lunch together almost every day.

She was very outgoing and quite kind to me. We would have long discussions about the topics in our Social Problems class. She was quite liberal politically and a crusader for social justice and women’s rights issues. Being of Sicilian descent she was also Roman Catholic. Although I was drifting away from the church at the time, I had not yet left the Catholic Church. So I considered her faith a plus.

As a psychology major, it was obvious she cared about people and was very sensitive towards their feelings. In her spare time, she volunteered to answer a suicide prevention hotline. By helping me with my lunch tray each day, she made sure I got fries with that. It took everything I had not to jump to the conclusion that she was “the one” I’d been waiting for.

I can’t say that I actually fell in love with her but I was quite attracted to her I certainly felt that the relationship was off to a great start and had lots of potential.

Soon after we started hanging out for lunch, we were joined by another of our sociology classmates – a guy named Bill. I don’t recall his last name. He was a tall lanky fellow who was extremely socially awkward. He revealed that he struggled with epilepsy which he kept mostly under control with medication. Because of his condition, he couldn’t get a driver’s license. He talked about how difficult that was during high school. Nobody wants to date a guy who can’t drive and who has the potential to fall down in fits of convulsions at any moment. Naturally, he was teased and bullied throughout his life for his condition. I could commiserate with him about the inability to drive and the adverse effect it had on my high school social life.

One day when Bill wasn’t around, Ellie sat down with me visibly troubled. “I’ve got to talk to you about Bill. I don’t know what to do. He wants me to meet his parents.”

“Do you mean like just introduce you as ‘my friend from school’ or ‘MEET the Parents?’”

“He means ‘meet the parents’ as in he wants to introduce them to his future wife.”

She went on to explain that the entire extent of their relationship outside our usual three-person lunch date was that one day when it was raining, she took him home to his apartment rather than having him wait on the bus in the rain. They ordered some pizza and either watched TV or put on some music I don’t recall. They sat next to each other on his sofa and at one point he put his arm around her and tried to grab her breast. She rejected the advance and he apologized. From that lone encounter and our shared lunches, he was already making wedding plans.

I listened attentively and tried not to show what I was feeling inside. A single sentence was screaming inside my head. That sentence was the proverbial, “There but for the grace of God go I.”

When she concluded her story and asked my advice I began explaining to her that Bill’s epilepsy was a disability. The social effects of it were not significantly different from what I had experienced. I explained to her that it takes willpower and ambition to believe that you are lovable. You operate under the assumption that if anyone was going to take you seriously as a boyfriend it would be a very rare thing. So there is pressure to make the absolute most out of even the smallest opportunity.

I don’t think I had yet thought of the joke about falling in love because the girl at McDonald’s asked if you wanted fries but I explained the dynamics behind such a situation. I told her that she was probably the first girl in his entire life who had ever shown him ANY kindness whatsoever. And so he had to jump at the situation full force and push it to extreme expectations.

The entire time I was “speculating” about what was going on inside his head, I was in fact talking about myself. I just kept thinking over and over again how terrifyingly close I had been to making a fool of myself the way he had.

Let me be clear. I hadn’t yet fallen in love with her. However, I was actively pursuing a course of action in which I sincerely hoped that someday she would meet my parents in that way. So although I had been keeping a level head and an appropriate perspective about my relationship with Ellie, the similarities to Bill terrified me.

She was amazed at the depth of insight that I had into his personality and she better understood what had happened. She had no idea that those insights were mostly based on my own feelings.

After our conversation, she spoke to Bill and made it clear to him she had zero interest. I don’t think the three of us were together again after that. I did see him once one-on-one and he explained he felt he had failed with Ellie because he had tried to put moves on her on his first date. I didn’t bother explaining to him that it wasn’t a date and furthermore, his issues went beyond that. If he wanted to believe that version of events, I wasn’t going to try to dissuade him from it.

Ellie later heard that Bill had a girlfriend. This one didn’t hesitate to take him to bed or so he claimed. The troubling thing was, that his new girlfriend was some sort of religious fanatic who didn’t believe in medicine and was persuading him to stop taking his anti-epilepsy drugs. That really concerned us both because, despite the issues, we liked the guy. We never learned what happened after that.

The consequence of this entire situation was it sealed my friendship with her. We grew much closer and eventually, I found the courage to ask her on a date. We went out at least three times and I think we got together at my house on at least one other occasion or I may just remember things we did after a date. We are talking about events 49 years ago.

Our first date was for dinner and we saw the movie “Jaws”. She had seen it before but wanted to see it again. The only time I was really scared during the movie was when Richard Dreyfus was inspecting the abandoned boat underwater and looked into the hole in the side of the boat. A dead guy’s head pops out of the hole with his eyeball hanging out. I flinched along with the entire audience but even more so because at that instant, she grabbed my arm. I said, “You did that just to scare me. You’ve seen the movie before. You knew what was going to happen.” She insisted that even though she knew what was coming, it made her jump, and grabbing me was a reflex. Yeah really.

We also went to dinner and then saw the movie version of the rock opera “Tommy” by the Who. Unfortunately, I had some bad chicken at dinner and was a bit nauseous by the end of the movie so we didn’t hang out long afterward.

We also went to see “The Godfather Part 2”. She said it was about her people because she was from a Sicilian background. Not that she had any mob connections. She was shocked at the scene when Kay told Michael that she didn’t have a miscarriage but it was an abortion. She said that was huge. Being Catholic myself and my mother being staunchly pro-life I knew actually what she meant but Ellie seemed to be especially affected by the scene.

I have distinct memories of sitting with her in my room listening to records. We speculated about the meaning of the lyrics to “Still… You Turn Me On” from the Emerson, Lake, and Palmer album “Brain Salad Surgery.” What did it mean when he said “Someone get me a ladder?” She thought perhaps, “so I can reach you.” I thought it was an interesting insight I never forgot.

Our most memorable date was when she invited me to my first hockey game. It was an Indianapolis Racers game at Market Square Arena. Now, I’ve already told you what a sweet and sensitive woman she was. But I have not said that she was soft-spoken as well. We had a very gentle personality. Except at a hockey game. At a hockey game, an entirely different personality emerged. It was quite common for a fistfight to break out at such a game. This was in the days before helmets were mandatory so the fights were particularly nasty. It was a minor league team though it seemed they allowed the fights to go on a little longer than perhaps the NHL would today. There’s an old joke, I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out. This was one of those games. She would scream and yell and cheer at the fights. She would also yell at the referees and didn’t hesitate to hurl expletives. I looked at her like, “Okay, who are you and what did you do with Ellie?”

I have often described her as the woman who taught me a deep appreciation of violence on ice.

She didn’t make it easy for me to keep my perspective on our relationship. At one point, she took a vacation to Puerto Rico with a girlfriend or a relative I don’t recall which. When she returned home she went on and on about how beautiful it was and speculated perhaps someday we would go there together. She seemed completely oblivious to the challenges that would involve. It’s one thing to accept me without regard to my disability but it was quite another thing to act as though there were no real obstacles between us. The statement was so unrealistic it was painful for me. I could have interpreted it to mean she would do absolutely anything necessary for us to be together. But fortunately, I recognized it for what it was. She really had no realistic concept of what day-to-day life would be with me under normal circumstances let alone taking an exotic vacation together.

I told my dad about the conversation and he was concerned I was developing unrealistic expectations. He said that I needed to keep my perspective. He said, “You can have a really nice time with her but you have to understand the challenges you face in a relationship.” I explained to him quite the contrary that I was not getting carried away because I was realizing how unrealistic she was about what life would be like with me. She was one who wasn’t keeping perspective. I went on to explain the struggle I faced because finding anyone who would take ANY interest in me would be extremely rare. I tried to explain to him the pressure I felt to make the very best of every opportunity because I didn’t think I would get a lot of chances. He then quoted the old adage, “Girls are like streetcars. If you miss one, another one comes along in a few minutes.”

“But dad… There are no more streetcars.”

“Okay, smart ass… Then buses. It’s just an old expression.”

“An expression I’ve heard before. But ask yourself, how many of those streetcars or buses are wheelchair accessible? That’s pretty rare. I feel like I have to catch every accessible bus I can. It’s just that this bus driver thinks she can take me to Puerto Rico and I know she can’t.”

When I said, “How many of the buses are wheelchair accessible?” Dad then understood what I was saying.

She brought me a souvenir from Puerto Rico – a small brown handmade bud vase. She had placed in the vase a small sprig of artificial Lily of the Valley flowers she had doused with her favorite perfume. I swear I could still smell that perfume on the plastic flowers years later. I don’t know what it was but it was distinctly her. I recall one day going into the library waiting on the elevator and I thought I smelled her perfume. I looked around the room and she was sitting at a table several feet away.

When I returned to the 38th St. campus for my fourth semester, we didn’t see much of each other anymore. I would occasionally see her downtown and I think she took one class at 38th St. We remained friends but didn’t go out anymore and didn’t see much of one another.

In 1976, Ellie took a bus trip to New Hampshire to campaign door-to-door for Indiana Senator Birch Bayh in his bid for the Democratic nomination for President. He was one of the most liberal politicians Indiana has ever seen. He was known for his work for equal rights, the ERA, the author of Title IX, and a whole host of other liberal causes. I encourage you to read the linked Wikipedia article about him. After finishing third in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts he dropped out of the race. Jimmy Carter became the Democrat nominee and the 39th president. Bayh continued to be an influential senator until he was defeated in 1980 by Dan Quayle who benefited from the Republican landslide that year.

On that trip to New Hampshire, Ellie met a guy, fell in love, and they were married. I was invited to the wedding and attended. At the reception afterward, she gave me a big hug and gave me a small sprig of the lily of the valley flowers from her wedding bouquet. I took it home and put it in the vase with the plastic flowers. It sat on a bookshelf in my bedroom for decades. I’m not sure what happened to it. It’s not there now.

She obtained a Master’s degree and went to work as a family counselor for an organization called Catholic Charities. She and her husband were extremely active in the church. I think perhaps they had become members of a secular Franciscan order. I think she had at least one perhaps two daughters.

I ran into her once or twice at archdiocesan events and we occasionally spoke by phone. Many years after we were in college together, I took the opportunity to tell her why I had so much insight into what Bill was feeling. I confessed it was because, to a much lesser degree, I was not different from him. I said I was grateful that I had not gotten out of control as had Bill. And I was grateful for the years of friendship that we had because I had been able to keep a proper perspective. I never did tell her how upset I had been when she suggested we could run off to Puerto Rico for a vacation together. It’s

One time I called her for advice when a friend of mine needed a family lawyer for a custody issue. I thought perhaps having worked in family counseling she could recommend someone. It was then that I learned she was divorced. That really surprised me considering how devoutly Catholic she was and how difficult it is to be a divorced Catholic.

Seven years ago just as I was recovering from getting my trach installed I discovered her on Facebook. She had just returned from a vacation in Rome with her daughters. We resumed our friendship online but she had radically changed since I had seen her last.

You won’t believe this but now she was a Trump supporter.

That’s why I want you to read the Wikipedia article about Senator Bayh. You could not find two people at farther opposite ends of the political spectrum than those two. I can only speculate that her staunch Catholicism led her to be radically antiabortion and thus Republican despite the conservative positions that were diametrically opposed to all of the social justice and feminist issues she supported in her college days.

I treated her kindly online and we reminisced about the good old days but I completely avoided any political discussions with her. I knew we could never be really close again. It’s not that I couldn’t love a conservative. But I can’t respect anyone who supports irrationality like a Trump supporter. I’m guessing it was about halfway through the Trump administration that she announced she was quitting Facebook. She couldn’t handle the toxicity. Perhaps she couldn’t deal with the reality that Trump was such an irrational, misguided, narcissistic, incompetent idiot. I don’t know.

She certainly wasn’t the woman I knew in college and I miss her, the original her, very much.

I had wasted my relationship with Rosie throughout high school because I constantly lamented that it wasn’t a romance and I never appreciated Rosie’s friendship the way I should have until it was too late. That lesson bore fruit in my relationship with Ellie in that I could enjoy our friendship even though it wasn’t a romance. And thanks to that sad guy Bill, I avoided making a fool of myself by pushing too hard to try to make something happen that wasn’t there. I learned not just to allow the friendship to happen but to be fulfilled completely by that friendship rather than seeing it solely as a stepping stone to something else. It was a lesson that served me well in every other relationship I’ve had with women for the rest of my life.

At age 68, with little or no social life beyond online friends, my chances of finding romance are smaller than ever. That doesn’t mean I’ve given up. I still see and enjoy friendships with women and cherish what I have while keeping my perspective on the difficulties that would be involved in a relationship.

As mentioned previously, I’m going to take a break for a few weeks to catch up on some other projects. In early January I will return with a political rant about Facebook and other social media. Then we will resume my look back at my college days. Look for Oscar movie reviews in February and March and then we will probably explore the first job I ever had.

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.

Many thanks to my financial supporters. Your support pays for the writing seminar I attend and other things. But most of all it shows how much you care and appreciate what I’m doing. 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 find this podcast.

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