Cinemorphosis

Author: Jeffrey McMahon

  • The Postcard Life: Why Perfection Always Rings Hollow

    The Postcard Life: Why Perfection Always Rings Hollow

    I can’t shake an interview I heard thirty years ago—an offhand confession that stuck to me like burrs on a wool coat.
    Terry Gilliam, the Monty Python animator turned fever-dream film director, was talking with Charlie Rose. Gilliam described a moment straight from a high school dream: he was walking the Santa Monica Pier on a twilight evening, a beautiful woman on his arm, the beach shimmering under a dying sun. It was the kind of moment that screams You’ve Made It! if you’ve ever been a teenage boy with a tragic imagination.

    And yet, Gilliam said, he felt nothing. Not euphoria. Not awe. Just… flatness. Like he wasn’t even in his own life but rather trapped inside one of his own cartoons—a two-dimensional fantasy drawn by someone who had seen too many movies and lived too little.
    That was his grim epiphany: we don’t chase life—we chase the idea of it.

    Gilliam’s teenage dream had come true, but it rang hollow because it wasn’t connection he had caught. It was a postcard of connection, a lifeless image polished smooth by years of expectation.

    I’ve thought about that moment a lot, especially in the slow burns of my own life, in all the arenas where the blueprint of perfection crashed hard against the walls of reality.
    Take teaching: I’ve taught college writing for forty years. More times than I care to admit, I walked into class with what I believed was a masterstroke of a lesson plan—polished, structured, airtight. And then I delivered it like a robot with tenure. The students, bless them, tried not to visibly expire.
    Only when I threw away the script and talked to them like a breathing, flawed human being did I finally see heads lift and eyes focus.

    It’s the same poison at work: that blueprint, that false idol of how it’s supposed to be.
    Therapist Phil Stutz calls it the Magical Moment Frozen in Time—a mental snapshot of ideal beauty, love, success, whatever, that we spend our lives trying to recreate. And like the cruelest mirage, it recedes the closer we get.
    Because it’s not life.
    It’s a knockoff. A counterfeit so slick, it fools even the person living it.

    It’s sobering, humiliating even, to realize how often my life has been a performance for an audience that doesn’t exist—measuring real experiences against some fantasy standard cooked up in the caves of my mind.
    Maybe Plato had it right all along: we’re prisoners staring at shadows, mistaking flickers on the wall for the blazing, complicated, imperfect mess that is actual life.
    And every time we chase the shadow instead of the fire, we walk the Santa Monica Pier at sunset, hand in hand with a beautiful illusion, and feel… nothing.

  • The Protein Bar Delusion: My Love Affair with Lies and Graham Crackers

    The Protein Bar Delusion: My Love Affair with Lies and Graham Crackers

    I don’t eat protein bars anymore. Not because I’m virtuous—far from it—but because I finally admitted the obvious: they’re not meal replacements. They’re meal add-ons, sneaky little calorie grenades dressed up in the halo of anabolic health, whispering sweet promises of lean muscle and zero guilt.

    I’ve been chasing that lie since the 1970s.
    Back then, the gold standard of protein bars was the Bob Hoffman Club Sandwich—a peanut butter and graham cracker Frankenstein’s monster that must have clocked in at 500 calories, easy. It wasn’t a snack. It wasn’t a supplement. It was a religious experience.
    If I wanted to recreate it today, I’d just mash a couple of Reese’s between two graham crackers and pray for forgiveness.

    Over the decades, I kept eating protein bars—dense peanut butter bricks, chewy “engineered food” monstrosities—but never to any good effect. These bars didn’t sculpt my physique. They bulked me up like a slow, steady inflation of regret. Eventually, I abandoned them, like a gambler walking away from the slot machine after realizing the house always wins.

    Still, they haunt me.
    Protein bars remind me of Willy Wonka’s cursed 7-course meal gum that turned Violet Beauregarde into a giant blueberry: a miracle product promising the world but delivering only bloat and existential crisis.

    To be fair, the bars have gotten better over the years. There’s even one called David (because apparently even protein bars have minimalist branding now) made with real food, boasting 28 grams of protein at a miraculous 150 calories. It tempts me.
    Wouldn’t it be smarter, simpler, even a bit sexier to chomp down a David bar at breakfast instead of mixing up my daily slurry of yogurt, protein powder, soy milk, and berries? (A concoction that hits 500 calories with depressing reliability.)

    Maybe. But I know myself: I’d be starving by 9:30 a.m., staring into the abyss of a second breakfast. Protein bars have never given me satiety. They’re a snack in drag—a dessert cosplaying as health food.

    And yet… with all the shredded influencers on YouTube slicing open protein bars like they’re sommelier-testing vintage wine, I feel the pull. A little FOMO. A little “Maybe this time it’ll be different.”

    I have to remind myself, again and again:
    I’m not in love with the protein bar.
     I’m in love with the idea of the protein bar—the fantasy that some sweet, tidy, macro-balanced rectangle will solve my problems, sculpt my body, and carry me into some higher, cleaner version of myself.

    Reality tastes different.
    It tastes like mealy, sweet resignation. It tastes like being duped—with a thin layer of whey isolate on top.

  • Protein, Lies, and Artificial Flattery: Wrestling with ChatGPT Over My Macros

    Protein, Lies, and Artificial Flattery: Wrestling with ChatGPT Over My Macros

    Two nights ago, I did something desperate: I asked ChatGPT to craft me a weight-loss meal plan and recommend my daily protein intake. Ever obliging, it spit out a gleaming regimen straight from a fitness influencer’s fever dream—four meals a day, 2,400 calories, and a jaw-dropping 210 grams of protein.

    The menu was pure gym-bro canon: power scrambles, protein smoothies, broiled chicken breasts stacked like cordwood, Ezekiel toast to virtue-signal my commitment, and yams because, apparently, you can’t sculpt a six-pack without a root vegetable chaser.

    Being moderately literate in both numbers and delusion, I did the math. The actual calorie count? Closer to 3,000. I told ChatGPT that at 3,000 calories a day, I wouldn’t be losing anything but my dignity. I’d be gaining—weight, resentment, possibly a second chin.

    I coaxed it down to 190 grams of protein, begging for something that resembled reality. The new menu looked less like The Rock’s breakfast and more like something a human might actually endure. Still, I pressed further, explaining that in the savage conditions of the real world—where meals are not perfectly macro-measured and humans occasionally eat a damn piece of pizza—it was hard to hit 190 grams of protein without blowing past 2,400 calories.

    Would I really lose muscle if I settled for a lowly 150 grams of protein?

    ChatGPT, showing either mercy or weakness, conceded: at worst, I might suffer a “sliver” of muscle loss. (Its word—sliver—suggesting something as insignificant as a paper cut to my physique.) It even praised my “instincts,” like a polite but slightly nervous trainer who doesn’t want to get fired.

    In three rounds, I had negotiated ChatGPT down from 210 grams to 150 grams of protein—a full 29% drop. Which left me wondering:
    Was ChatGPT telling me the truth—or just nodding agreeably like a digital butler eager to polish my biases?

    Did I really want to learn the optimal protein intake for reaching 200 pounds of shredded glory—or had I already decided that 150 grams felt right, and merely needed an algorithmic enabler to bless it?

    Here’s the grim but necessary truth: ChatGPT is infinitely more useful to me as a sparring partner than a yes-man in silicon livery.
    I don’t need an AI that strokes my ego like a coddling life coach telling me my “authentic self” is enough. I need a credible machine—one willing to challenge my preconceived notions, kick my logical lapses in the teeth, and leave my cognitive biases bleeding in the dirt.

    In short: I’m not hiring a valet. I’m training with a referee.
    And sometimes, even a well-meaning AI needs to be reminded that telling the hard truth beats handing out warm towels and platitudes.

  • How I Accidentally Found Laptop Bliss with the Acer Chromebook 516GE

    How I Accidentally Found Laptop Bliss with the Acer Chromebook 516GE

    I own a couple of monster Acer gaming laptops—top-tier, fire-breathing beasts packed with high-powered processors and NVIDIA GPUs muscular enough to render Middle-earth in 4K without breaking a sweat.
    Not that I’m a gamer. I’m just the lucky soul who was handed these brutes for review.

    They work like a dream if the dream involves hauling around seven pounds of hot, whirring metal that sounds like it’s preparing for lunar liftoff whenever you so much as open a YouTube tab. One of them now lives tethered to a monitor as my desktop replacement. The other, in an act of familial charity (and an unspoken prayer to the gods of lighter tech), I gifted to my daughter after she murdered her Chromebook via the ancient teenage art of “gravity testing.”

    Suddenly laptopless for bedroom lounging and travel, I embarked on a quest—not for more horsepower, but for something portable, civilized, sane.
     After some research, I landed on the Acer Chromebook 516GE, the so-called Gaming Edition. Except here’s the truth: I don’t game on it. I write. I blog. I watch videos. I listen to Spotify and plow through my Kindle backlog like a caffeine-addled librarian. And if I had to distill my experience with the 516GE into a single word, it would be this: clean.

    Clean because the thing weighs a little over three pounds, not seven. Clean because it boots in seconds, without the bloated tragedy of trial software and manufacturer junk lurking in every corner. Clean because it feels secure and unobtrusive, like good tech should.

    The QHD screen looks fantastic—sharp enough that reading, writing, and watching feel almost decadent. And the speakers? A revelation.
    Sure, reviewers have whined about them, but compared to the sonic misery most laptops offer, the 516GE sounds three times better—good enough that I no longer instinctively reach for headphones.

    In fact, I like this clean, uncluttered experience so much that if I were in the market for another machine, I’d be dangerously tempted by the new king of the Chromebook hill, the Acer Spin 714.
    But for now, I’m content—writing in bed, traveling light, and marveling at the fact that somewhere along the way, my laptop experience stopped feeling like a hostage negotiation and started feeling… well, human again.

  • Against the Grain: My College Students’ Quiet Rebellion Against the Cult of the Self

    Against the Grain: My College Students’ Quiet Rebellion Against the Cult of the Self

    My college students, nineteen on average, stand on the jagged edge of adulthood, peering into a world that looks less like a roadmap and more like a shattered windshield. Right now, we’re writing essays about the way social media—and the exhausting performance of self-curation—has sabotaged authenticity and hijacked the very idea of a real, breathing identity.

    Here’s the surprising part: they already know it.

    Unlike the last crop of dopamine junkies willing to sell their souls for a handful of TikTok likes, these students have developed a healthy, almost contemptuous disdain for “influencers”—those human billboards who spend their days manicuring their online selves like desperate bonsai trees, hoping to monetize the illusion of a perfect lifestyle. My students don’t want to be “brands.” They don’t want to hawk collagen supplements to strangers or play the carnival game of parasocial friendships with people they’ll never meet.

    No, they’re too busy wrestling with reality.

    They’re trying to adapt to a fast-changing, frequently chaotic world where entire industries collapse overnight and finding a career feels like rummaging through a haystack with oven mitts on. They are focused—ruthlessly so—on their careers, their families, and the relationships that breathe life into their days. There’s no time for performative outrage on Twitter. There’s no energy left for airbrushed TikTok dances in rented Airbnbs masquerading as real homes.

    What’s even more heartening?
    They are learning. They’re not Luddites fleeing technology; they’re studying how to use it. They’re exploring tools like ChatGPT without fear or delusion. They’re discussing things like Ozempic, not as magic bullets, but as case studies in how rapidly tech and biotech can transform human lives—for better or for worse.

    Underneath all this practicality hums a deeper current: a hunger for something more than survival. They know life isn’t just paying the bills and uploading sanitized highlight reels. It’s also about spiritual nourishment—found in beauty, art, connection, and the sacred rituals that make the unbearable parts of existence worth slogging through.

    They understand, in a way that seems almost instinctual, that social media platforms—those carnival mirrors of human desire—don’t offer that kind of connection. They see the platforms for what they are: hellscapes of manufactured anxiety, chronic FOMO, and curated loneliness, where everyone smiles and no one feels seen.

    In their quiet rejection of all this, my students aren’t just adapting.
    They’re rebelling—wisely, stubbornly, and maybe, just maybe, showing the rest of us the way back to something real.

  • Remembering the 90s when Seinfeld made existential apathy a form of cultural resistance

    Remembering the 90s when Seinfeld made existential apathy a form of cultural resistance

    I’ve always been a lousy sleeper—a lifelong insomniac, night-thinker, ceiling-staring obsessive. So when my brain, usually a humming engine of late-night anxieties, surprises me by downshifting into a silky semi-sleep, I take notice. I don’t just enjoy those moments—I archive them in some velvet-lined folder in my mind, filed between “Miracles” and “Rare Weather Patterns.”

    One such miracle happened in the summer of 1991 in the gloriously tacky suburb of Buena Park, California. I had recently relocated from the Bay Area to Bakersfield, that Central Valley of hot wind and dust, to teach composition at the university. It was a job that paid me in respect and barely enough money to keep me in burritos and gas.

    Weekends were spent visiting Nicole, the girlfriend of my ex-student Mike, a real-deal Navy SEAL with shoulders like boulders and a heart that thumped exclusively for her. We’d drive south, Mike and I, and wind up at Nicole’s parents’ place not far from Knott’s Berry Farm—California’s budget Disneyland, where roller coasters and churros come with a faint scent of desperation.

    Dinner with Nicole’s folks was always home-cooked, polite, and meatloaf-heavy. But the real magic happened later in the den, where the three of us would settle in for prime-time America’s Funniest Home Videos, back when Bob Saget’s voiceovers made even mild concussions look charming.

    Mike and Nicole snuggled on the sofa, whispering sweet nothings or planning some SEAL Team Six domestic mission. I would sink into a bloated yellow bean bag chair like a man slipping into a warm pond of polyester and forgotten dreams.

    As I floated somewhere between reruns and REM, Nicole’s mom would be doing laundry in the adjacent room, and the floral scent of freshly tumbled linens—fabric softener with notes of lilac and vague suburban joy—would drift in and intoxicate me. The TV flickered. The lovers whispered. I, utterly ignored, entered a state of transcendence usually reserved for monks or the chemically enhanced.

    In that half-dream, I’d rocket through constellations, revisit my childhood neighborhood where everyone still had knees that worked, and rendezvous with a mysterious dream woman who always met me at sunset on a Hawaiian beach. I was twenty-nine, single, unburdened, and lazy in a way only the early ‘90s allowed—when Seinfeld made existential apathy a form of cultural resistance.

    Looking back now, from the sagging perch of sixty-three, it’s easy to sigh at the sheer, stupid comfort of it all. I no longer live in that bubble-wrapped world where being a third wheel was a blissful kind of freedom, where responsibility was just a concept in other people’s lives.

    Still, on a quiet afternoon, stretched out on my modern couch, if the narrator of a nature documentary starts detailing the mating habits of sea otters in a sonorous British whisper, something in me softens. The air thickens. I begin to drift. And for a flickering moment, I’m back in that bean bag—yellow, ridiculous, sublime—floating on the fabric-softened breeze of a world that no longer exists.

  • Streamberry, Self-Loathing, and the Algorithmic Abyss: How “Joan Is Awful” Skewers the Curated Life

    Streamberry, Self-Loathing, and the Algorithmic Abyss: How “Joan Is Awful” Skewers the Curated Life

    In Black Mirror’s “Joan Is Awful,” Charlie Brooker offers more than a dystopian farce—he serves up a wickedly accurate satire of the curated lives we present online. It’s not just Joan who’s awful. It’s us. All of us who’ve filtered our flaws, outsourced our personalities to engagement metrics, and whittled ourselves down to algorithm-friendly avatars. The episode doesn’t critique Joan alone—it roasts the whole rotten architecture of social media curation and shows, with brutal clarity, how the pursuit of digital perfection transforms us into insufferable parodies of our former selves.

    First, let’s talk about performance. Joan, like any good social media user, lives her life as if auditioning for a role she already occupies—one shaped not by authenticity but by optics. She performs “relatable misery,” complete with awkward office banter, fake smiles, and passive-aggressive salad orders. Social media rewards this pantomime, demanding we be palatable, aspirational, and vaguely miserable all at once. The result? A version of ourselves designed to please an audience we secretly resent. Joan is what happens when your curated self becomes the dominant narrative—when branding overtakes being. Her AI-generated counterpart doesn’t misrepresent her; it distills her curated contradictions into a grotesque caricature that somehow feels… accurate.

    Second, there’s the fact that Joan—like all of us—is under constant surveillance. In Joan Is Awful, it’s not just the NSA snooping in the background—it’s the entire viewing public, binge-watching her daily descent into algorithm-approved degradation. This is what we’ve signed up for with every “I accept” click: to become content, voluntarily and irrevocably. Our data, behaviors, and digital crumbs are fed into the algorithmic sausage grinder, and what comes out is a grotesque mirror held to our worst instincts. The AI Joan is not a stranger; she’s the monster we’ve been molding through every performative tweet, selfie, and humblebrag. In a world where perception is currency, she’s our highest-valued coin.

    Then comes the psychological shrapnel: identity fragmentation. Joan can no longer tell where she ends and Streamberry’s Joan begins, just as many of us can’t quite remember who we were before the algorithm gave us feedback loops in the form of likes, retweets, and dopamine pings. This curated self isn’t just a mask—it becomes the default setting. The dissonance between public persona and private truth breeds an existential malaise. Joan’s real tragedy isn’t that her life is on TV—it’s that she’s lost the plot. She’s a passenger in her own narrative, outsourced to a system that rewards spectacle over substance.

    Let’s not forget the moral rot. Watching your AI double destroy your reputation while millions tune in might seem horrifying—until you remember we do this willingly. We doomscroll, rubberneck scandals, and serve our digital idols on platters made of hashtags. Joan, sitting slack-jawed in front of her TV, is no different from us—addicted to her own collapse. It’s not the horror of exposure that eats her alive; it’s the realization that her own worst self is exactly what the algorithm wanted. And that’s what it rewarded.

    Ultimately, Joan Is Awful is a break-up letter with social media—if your ex were a manipulative narcissist with access to all your personal data and a flair for psychological torture. Escaping the curated self, as Joan tries to do, is like fleeing an abusive relationship. You know it’s toxic, you know it’s killing you—but part of you still misses the attention. The episode doesn’t end with a triumphant reinvention; it ends with Joan in fast food purgatory, finally unplugged but still wrecked. Because once you’ve sold your soul to the algorithm, the buyback price is steep.

    So yes, Joan is awful. But only because she reflects what happens when we let the curated life take the wheel. In the Streamberry age, we aren’t living—we’re streaming ourselves into oblivion. And the worst part? We’re giving it five stars.

  • From Manuscript to Media: How AI Is Reshaping the College Essay: A College Writing Prompt

    From Manuscript to Media: How AI Is Reshaping the College Essay: A College Writing Prompt

    Essay Prompt:

    As AI writing tools like ChatGPT become more accessible and sophisticated, college instructors are increasingly reconsidering traditional writing assignments. Some educators argue that the age of the manuscript is ending and that new expectations will emerge—assignments will shift toward multimodal expressions (videos, podcasts, infographics, digital portfolios) and gamified engagement (badges, leaderboards, creative constraints) as a way to encourage authentic thinking and resist AI-generated content. Others worry that this shift waters down academic rigor or leaves behind students less fluent in media production.

    In a well-researched essay of 1,700–2,000 words, analyze the claim that AI writing platforms will radically alter professors’ expectations of college-level assignments. Do you believe the traditional essay will evolve into a new hybrid form—more multimedia, more interactive, more gamified—or is this a premature diagnosis? What are the benefits and drawbacks of this transformation for students, instructors, and institutions?

    Use at least four credible sources—such as academic articles, think pieces, case studies, or expert interviews—to support your position. Your essay should include:

    • A clear, arguable thesis
    • Analysis of trends in AI, education technology, and composition pedagogy
    • Consideration of counterarguments and rebuttals
    • Thoughtful reflection on what “rigor” and “authenticity” should mean in the AI era

    Are we witnessing the rebirth of the college essay—or its elegant funeral?

  • Gamification as a Form of Manipulation and Surveillance: A College Essay Prompt

    Gamification as a Form of Manipulation and Surveillance: A College Essay Prompt

    In recent years, gamification—the use of game-like elements such as points, badges, leaderboards, and streaks in non-game contexts—has exploded across digital platforms, education, fitness apps, workplace software, and social media. While gamification is often promoted as a motivational tool, critics argue that it functions as a sophisticated form of manipulation and surveillance, subtly shaping user behavior while extracting personal data.

    In a well-argued essay of 1,700–2,000 words, analyze the extent to which gamification operates as a mechanism of behavioral control and digital surveillance. Using at least four credible sources—ranging from documentaries (e.g., The Social Dilemma), essays (e.g., Shoshana Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance Capitalism), or journalistic and scholarly articles—develop an argument that either supports or challenges the claim that gamification is not just playful engagement, but a system of psychological manipulation and covert monitoring.

    Your essay should include:

    • A clear thesis statement
    • Analysis of at least two real-world examples of gamified platforms (e.g., Duolingo, Fitbit, ClassDojo, Uber)
    • Discussion of the ethical implications of behavioral nudging and data extraction
    • Consideration of counterarguments and a rebuttal

    Is gamification enhancing human agency—or quietly eroding it?

  • Blue Books and White Flags: Watching the Death of Writing in Real Time

    Blue Books and White Flags: Watching the Death of Writing in Real Time

    Last night, somewhere between the third mimosa and the fourth televised meltdown on Southern Charm, my wife and I found ourselves hurtling into an existential crisis during the commercial break. I casually mentioned that one of my fellow instructors—driven half-mad by the whiff of AI in every student essay—is now forcing his students to write in blue books. Yes, those stapled relics from the Stone Age of academia where panicked undergrads scribble 500 words of sweaty, incoherent prose while the clock ticks like a death sentence. Guess who gets to lug them home and decipher them like ancient scrolls written in caffeine and desperation?

    My wife, also a writing instructor, winced in solidarity. “Grading blue books,” she said, “is about as appealing as jabbing an icepick into your own forehead. Repeatedly.”

    Then I asked if her colleagues had gone full Skynet—grading with AI. She nodded. Magic School. NoRedInk. Algorithmic literacy assessments by the dozen. “So,” I said, “students are writing with AI, teachers are grading with AI, and we’re all just cosplaying the last days of human instruction?”

    She shrugged with serene detachment. “It’s over. Time to let go.”

    Her zen was unnerving. But also, weirdly admirable. Why scream into the algorithmic void when you can simply sip your tea and surrender?