Cinemorphosis

Category: TV and Movies

  • Deli Boys on Hulu is out; Adolescence on Netflix is in

    Deli Boys on Hulu is out; Adolescence on Netflix is in

    A friend recommended Deli Boys on Hulu, a crime comedy about two Pakistani brothers who inherit their father’s underground empire, fronted by a chain of liquor stores. On paper, this should have been an instant win: the actors are likable, the absurdity flows in generous doses, the style is confident, and the episodes are short and snappy—like a cousin of Barry, one of my favorite comedies of the past decade.

    And yet, something felt off. Four episodes in, I kept turning to my wife and muttering, “I should love this. Why don’t I?”

    Then it hit me: Deli Boys is Barry without the bite. It’s a second-generation clone—talented cast, crisp pacing, solid comic timing—but missing the animating spirit that made its influences great. Worse, it feels dated, an imitation of better shows rather than a fresh take on the crime-comedy genre. Without a real thematic core, it’s just another slick, highly-stylized caper that goes down easy but leaves no lasting impression.

    So, with a mixture of relief and mild disappointment, my wife and I pulled the plug. Instead, we’re shifting gears to Adolescence on Netflix, a show critics are buzzing about—including The Watch podcast’s Chris Ryan and Andy Greenwald: a brutal four-part series about a thirteen-year-old accused of murdering a classmate. A tough watch, no doubt, but at least it promises substance beneath the style. And hey, it’s only four episodes—might as well see what all the fuss is about.

  • The Forgotten Song of Misfit Island: My Long, Bitter Feud with Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer

    The Forgotten Song of Misfit Island: My Long, Bitter Feud with Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer

    The most exhausting piece I have ever composed—the one that wrings my soul dry after playing its three relentless movements—is called “The Forgotten Song of Misfit Island.” This sonata, a labor of love and obsession spanning forty years, began as something else entirely: my childhood fury at the televised nightmare known as Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.

    Like millions of children before me, I was supposed to cherish this 1964 Christmas special as a heartwarming tale of holiday spirit and triumphant underdogs. Instead, I watched it with horrified disbelief, my small, traumatized brain barely able to process the cruelty inflicted upon the most tragic figures in holiday television: the Misfit Toys.

    These weren’t just defective playthings with minor quirks. They were abandoned children, exiled to an arctic hellscape, sentenced to a slow death on a barren glacier. They were ill-equipped for survival, dressed in flimsy rags with no food, no warmth, no shelter from the Abominable Snowman, a giant carnivorous beast stomping the ice sheets with the inevitability of fate itself. Who knows how long they had suffered? Years? Decades? An eternity? And for what crime? Simply being different. The authorities of Christmas had spoken: an ostrich-riding cowboy, a Charlie-in-the-Box, and a melancholy doll were abominations, unfit for the joys of holiday consumerism.

    Defenders of Rudolph will no doubt remind me of the “joyous rescue” at the film’s climax, when Santa Claus swoops in to distribute the Misfit Toys to “good homes.” But let’s examine that so-called rescue. These toys, who had only survived through their deep bond and shared trauma, are now forcibly separated and flung into random households. Santa, in his infinite wisdom, has decided that what these emotionally shattered creatures need is total isolation from the only community that has ever accepted them.

    Santa Claus, the supposed symbol of holiday cheer, is, in fact, an unapologetic tyrant—a man who exploits child labor, forces elves into unregulated factory work, and belittles an aspiring dentist for daring to dream beyond toy-making. My paleontologist friend, Dr. Zachary J. Rasgon, once pointed out another moment of unhinged brutality: the scene where Yukon Cornelius casually yanks out every tooth from the mouth of an endangered hominid—and we’re all supposed to be a-okay with that.

    For over fifty years, this grim portrait of abuse and forced assimilation has been celebrated as a beloved Christmas tradition. And yet, I alone seem to recognize its horrors. I have made my case countless times, but the world continues to revere Rudolph as an “iconic” holiday classic. My protestations fall on deaf ears, branding me as something of a misfit myself.

    And so, I have learned to let go of my rage. Or, at least, I have tried.

    Turning Rage into Music

    As a child, unable to rewrite history, I began rewriting Rudolph. I imagined the Misfit Toys as restless insomniacs, huddled together for warmth, singing a song to ease their suffering. It was a song born of necessity—a celestial hymn of comfort, a melody so powerful that it could momentarily trick them into believing they were loved.

    But in my revised ending, their exile ends only to bring a new torment. Ripped away from each other and cast into separate homes, the toys struggle to recall the song that once gave them solace. They catch fragments of it in dreams, in whispers on the wind, but the full melody is lost to them. The song—the very essence of their shared survival—could only exist when they were together.

    The only solution? A reunion.

    In the version that played in my head for years, an older, wiser, and absurdly wealthy Rudolph, finally understanding the true cruelty of Santa’s decree, takes it upon himself to find and reunite the Misfit Toys. He brings them to a sprawling Tuscan villa, where they can feast under the warm Mediterranean sun and, at long last, remember the song in its full glory. The world hears their melody once more, and it becomes legendary—a song of defiance, resilience, and enduring love.

    This imaginary song, the one that saved the Misfit Toys from oblivion, became the foundation for my most demanding piano composition. It took decades—forty years of reworking, revising, and searching for the perfect sequence of notes.

    A Lifelong Symphony of Misfits

    Even now, I cannot shake my affinity for misfits. My mind is overrun with them: Sidney the Elephant, Kermit the Frog, Tooter Turtle, Beaver Cleaver, Kwai Chang Caine (a.k.a. Grasshopper), Mr. Peabody, George of the Jungle, Milton the Monster. They, too, deserve their own melodies, their own compositions, their own forgotten songs.

    Until I write those songs, I will imagine them all gathered together, sipping wine in that Tuscan vineyard, basking in the company of Rudolph and his long-lost misfit family. And in that imagined paradise, I, too, find a place to belong.

  • Gilded Cages and Bourbon Hangovers: The Tragicomedy of Southern Charm

    Gilded Cages and Bourbon Hangovers: The Tragicomedy of Southern Charm

    Gilded Cages and Bourbon Hangovers: The Tragicomedy of Southern Charm

    There’s an old saying: declaw a cat, and it can’t survive in the wild. But what happens when the cat doesn’t want to leave its velvet-cushioned cage? Welcome to Southern Charm, a reality show that parades a peculiar species—the overgrown man-child, trapped by privilege, mediocrity, and the reassuring hum of an ever-flowing bourbon decanter.

    These men, ranging from their thirties to their fifties, are not so much participants in life as they are well-dressed relics, embalmed in their own vices. Work is an abstract concept, something dabbled in between brunches and boat parties. Women are recreational pastimes, sampled and discarded like seasonal cocktails. And the ultimate validation? The cooing, slurred approval of their doting mothers, who, in between vodka tonics, assure their progeny that they are, indeed, true Southern gentlemen.

    But Southern Charm isn’t just about individual arrested development—it’s about a collective one. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the show’s occasional detours into the grotesque theater of old-money delusion. Take, for example, the time disgraced politician Thomas Ravenel dined with his father, Arthur, a former U.S. Representative. Over lunch, Arthur casually revealed his habit of quickly getting rid of five-dollar bills because Abraham Lincoln’s face still irks him. That’s right—Lincoln, the president who ended slavery, remains a personal affront to this withered artifact of the antebellum South.

    If I had to sum up Southern Charm in a single word, it would be imprisonment. These men are locked in a gilded purgatory, shackled by tradition, vice, and a desperate fear of anything beyond their insular Charleston bubble. They know their world is suffocating, yet they can’t—or won’t—leave it. And that’s what makes Southern Charm such a mesmerizing trainwreck: watching these men wriggle and rationalize, making their slow-motion deal with the devil, one bourbon at a time.

  • The Pitt: A Baptism by Fire in Plato’s Cave

    The Pitt: A Baptism by Fire in Plato’s Cave

    The Pitt is less a hospital drama and more a relentless, fluorescent-lit purgatory where bodies materialize and vanish like restless spirits. It is Plato’s Cave with a heart monitor, a place where suffering is both immediate and endless, and where every decision carries the weight of life and death. At the center of this beautiful chaos stands Robby, played with raw, bruising complexity by Noah Wyle. Robby doesn’t just run the ER—he absorbs it. His darting, anxious eyes scan the ward like a battlefield general, cataloging the wounded, the dying, and the barely surviving.

    Robby is an enigma—both maternal and paternal, a protector and a disciplinarian. His underlings fear and revere him in equal measure. His bedside manner shifts unpredictably: one moment a wellspring of compassion, the next a storm of exasperation. He can soothe, scold, or shatter, but his presence is undeniable. At times, he seems on the verge of simultaneously breaking down, lashing out, and achieving enlightenment. He is less of a boss and more of a priest, a confessor of secrets, a reluctant oracle whose wisdom carries the weight of his own flaws. In a world where suffering is currency, his counsel is invaluable precisely because he is not perfect—he is simply the one who endures.

    At the heart of The Pitt is fatigue—not just the bone-deep exhaustion of long shifts and too many bodies, but the existential fatigue of staring into a bottomless abyss of suffering and death. How does Robby keep going? How does he drag himself out of the wreckage of his own depletion and continue to fight for those who can’t fight for themselves? He is not just the hospital’s flawed hero—he is its high priest, a force of nature holding together new doctors, overwhelmed nurses, and the terrified patients who see him as their last hope.

    But The Pitt doesn’t just immerse us in Robby’s world—it traps us inside it. Like the flickering shadows in Plato’s Cave, the hospital’s chaos and claustrophobia force us to confront the very nature of entertainment. Watching the ER through Robby’s weary, battle-worn eyes becomes more than just storytelling—it is a disorienting reminder of how fragile, how fleeting, and how utterly real the world outside the screen truly is.

  • Selling Out, Buying In: The Savage Brilliance of Matt LeBlanc in Episodes

    Selling Out, Buying In: The Savage Brilliance of Matt LeBlanc in Episodes

    Originally unleashed on Showtime in 2011, Episodes ran for five seasons of razor-sharp satire, skewering the soulless machinery of Hollywood with a precision so brutal it felt like watching a vivisection—if vivisections were hilarious. It remains one of my all-time favorite comedies, a savage yet oddly affectionate takedown of the industry’s relentless appetite for mediocrity.

    The setup is fiendishly simple: Sean and Beverly Lincoln, a charmingly acerbic British writing duo, are lured to Los Angeles with promises of creative control and prestige. What they get instead is an artistic hostage situation. Their critically beloved, whip-smart series is promptly shoved through the Hollywood meat grinder, emerging as an insipid, laugh-tracked monstrosity. Worse, they are forced to resurrect the career of Matt LeBlanc, who plays a delightfully monstrous version of himself—a washed-up sitcom relic clinging to his former Friends glory.

    LeBlanc, padding around in a haze of regret, is a masterclass in self-loathing charisma. He’s paunchier, jowlier, and carries the heavy-lidded exhaustion of a man who has realized, too late, that charm has an expiration date. The sad creases around his eyes whisper, How come the world doesn’t love me the way it used to? He’s a man-child accustomed to zero boundaries, collateral damage in his wake—including an estranged wife and an industry that has moved on. His interactions with the Lincolns are electric: he resents their moral standards, mocks their dignity, and yet, slowly, insidiously, starts craving their approval like a lost toddler looking for parental validation.

    The Lincolns, meanwhile, aren’t just losing creative control—they’re losing themselves. Forced to dumb down their art while simultaneously parenting an emotionally stunted former sitcom star, they begin to absorb some of LeBlanc’s gleeful nihilism, just as he, in turn, starts to thaw under their reluctant affection. The show’s central tension becomes a delicious question: Who will corrupt whom first? By the end, they’ve all been irrevocably changed, bound by a bizarre, dysfunctional, and strangely touching camaraderie.

    LeBlanc’s slow, grudging evolution is nothing short of a masterpiece. Stephen Mangan and Tamsin Greig, as Sean and Beverly, deliver a spectacular performance of unrelenting exasperation, their bewildered expressions a constant gauge of Hollywood’s never-ending barrage of crassness. The result is a show so brilliant, so deftly written, that watching it once wasn’t enough—I devoured it twice, only to appreciate it even more the second time around. Beneath its cynical wit and industry grotesquerie, Episodes is ultimately about the absurd yet undeniable bonds that form when people are forced to suffer together. And in that suffering, something close to love—however warped—takes shape.

  • Mr. Peabody Was My Role Model

    Mr. Peabody Was My Role Model

    In my early teens in the 1970s, I toured the waterbed revolution like a true believer. Friends, neighbors—everyone seemed to have one, and after test-driving these vinyl oceans, I became convinced that a waterbed would deliver me into a life of unimaginable luxury, decadent pleasure, and deep, undisturbed sleep. Reality had other plans.

    I badgered my parents into buying me one, fully expecting a nirvana of relaxation. Instead, I got a glorified swamp. The temperature was either scalding lava or Arctic frost, the thin vinyl leaked like a punctured raft, and the whole thing smelled like a frog orgy in a Louisiana bayou. Worse, any movement triggered an equal and opposite reaction, as if I were engaged in battle with some unseen aquatic force.

    The final insult? A biblical flood. One morning, my leaking disaster destroyed the floorboards, turning my bedroom into a post-hurricane FEMA zone. My dreams of floating into the future of sleep innovation had instead capsized, and I was left with the cold, hard truth: the quest for the ultimate bed would have to begin anew.

    Of course, I couldn’t let this tragedy go undocumented. Some people move on—I, on the other hand, have a compulsion to turn every misadventure into a cautionary tale.

    I blame my childhood TV habits. I was obsessed with The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, particularly the history lessons from Mr. Peabody and Sherman. With their time-traveling escapades, they examined history through Mr. Peabody’s smug brilliance, making sense of human folly. I can picture them now, entering their time machine, visiting me as my waterbed catastrophe unfolds, and filing the entire debacle under “Lessons in Bad Decision-Making.”

    For me, this is what writing is—a time machine, a way to travel through memory, make sense of chaos, and leave behind an indelible mark. It’s a compulsion, an illness, a disease.

    Trying to understand this affliction, I turned to Anne Lamott for rehabilitation. Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life is mercifully free of false hope. A veteran of countless writing workshops, Lamott tells her students the truth: writing will not bring peace, joy, or serenity. Instead, their lives will be a mess—ruin, hysteria, bad skin, unsightly tics, financial catastrophe—but not peace of mind.

    And yet, she urges them to embrace the suffering, because to suffer for writing is a privilege—a sign that they have “finally arrived.”

    Translation: Writing isn’t a craft. It’s a storm you never escape from, a bad investment you refuse to cut loose, a waterbed that just won’t stop leaking—but you keep lying on it anyway.

    To take up writing is to choose obsession—to engage with ideas, people, and the world with an intensity otherwise unattainable. The alternative? A life of flatline existence, tranquilized and convalescent, a kind of slow-motion death. Writing is a self-inflicted challenge, a constant state of creative warfare, but that’s the point. You’ve chosen a mission as high-stakes as Vikings raiding distant shores because you’re not content to sedate yourself with the comfort of a reliable, unchallenging routine. 

    Yes, you can walk away, consume food, entertainment, and dopamine-rich distractions, and let your mind dissolve into cultural sludge. But the price of that escape is worse than the struggle—an existence marked by vapidity, emptiness, and a soul-draining sense of futility.

    I was reminded of this during a conversation with a Trader Joe’s cashier about her twenty-four-year-old daughter. At nineteen, the girl dropped out of college during COVID and never returned. Now she works at a dispensary, detached and listless, selling products to customers just as zoned out as she is. A perfect circle of disengagement.

    Writing is the opposite: an act of defiance against entropy—a way to make discoveries, clarify the chaos, and refine that clarity into a persona and a voice that matters. Once you get a taste of this life, there is no going back.

    Lamott puts it best: writing is like milking a cow—”the milk is so rich and delicious, and the cow is so glad you did it.” Her goal is not just to teach writing but to make sure that once you’ve milked the cow, you’ll never want to stop.

    I never wanted to stop. Writing isn’t the problem—staying in my lane is.

    I don’t want to burden my wife, friends, or unsuspecting literary agents with yet another unreadable novel, churned out from a delusional obsession, an addiction, a brain warp induced by too many readings of A Confederacy of Dunces. Some might say I should write for therapy, keep a journal for mental hygiene, treating my office like a literary spa where I purge the toxins from my overactive brain.

    That’s not how I operate.

    Writing only feels real if I imagine other people reading it. To write only for myself feels repulsive, deranged—what philosophers call solipsism, where the self becomes the only reality. If I’m the only audience, then I might as well be shouting into a void, a lunatic locked in a room, talking to no one but his own reflection.

    And yet, there’s something almost hopeful in my need for an audience. Strip away the ego factor, and what remains is connection—the belief that words should travel, that they should land inside someone else’s head and stir something awake. For all my curmudgeonly tendencies, I’m no misanthrope. In my darkest moments, I still believe that deep human connections—through writing, music, and art—prove that we haven’t entirely given up on each other.

    I think of George Carlin, who, for all his nihilistic rants, never hid in a cave. He famously said that being born is like getting a front-row ticket to the freak show—but instead of watching in silence, he grabbed a mic and talked about it for hours.

    I can’t write for no one. The thrill of writing is imagining that someone, somewhere, is reading.

    Last night, I listened to Dvořák’s Sixth Symphony on the radio, and it felt electric. Had I streamed it alone, the experience would have been diminished—background noise rather than something shared. Knowing that thousands of others were listening at the same moment made the music more alive, more urgent.

    I can’t tell if this compulsion to share my stories is a normal human impulse or the delusion of a narcissist. I want people to know about my misadventures, my catastrophes, my brief flirtations with transcendence. I want people to see history the way I saw it, the way I lived it. I believe in marking things down for posterity, but I also suspect that if I don’t immortalize my past in print, it might evaporate into the void like it never happened at all.

    Lurking beneath all this is a deeper fear—that something essential to our humanity is slipping away. So I climb into Mr. Peabody’s time machine and set the dial to the summers of 1975 through 1979, when my family and a small army of friends made the annual pilgrimage to Pt. Reyes Beach. Johnson’s Oyster Farm was our temple, and its truck beds overflowed with what seemed like an infinite supply of oysters. From noon to sunset, we ate like gods in exile—barbecued oysters drowning in garlic butter and Tabasco, bottomless baskets of garlic bread, and colossal slabs of moist chocolate cake.

    Ignoring the ominous great white shark warnings, we punctuated our feasting with reckless dives into the waves, emerging from the ocean with our pecs glistening in the sunlight, ready for another round of oysters. In the summer of ’78, I decided not to ride home with my parents. Instead, I hitched a ride in the back of a stranger’s truck, surrounded by a ragtag group of new acquaintances—full-bellied, sun-dazed, and staring up at the stars with our glazed lizard eyes, swapping wild stories like ancient mariners.

    And here’s the thing: nobody took a single picture. There were no selfies, no curated posts to induce FOMO, no frantic attempts to manufacture nostalgia in real time. We were too deep inside the moment to think about how it might look on a screen later. Today, we don’t experience moments—we package them for consumption.

    And maybe that’s why I can’t not write about it. I can’t store my stories in some damp, echoing cave, streaming them to an audience of one. I need them broadcasted, carried on the airwaves, felt in real time by others.

    My disease is incurable.

  • FORCING MYSELF TO WATCH SUCCESSION

    FORCING MYSELF TO WATCH SUCCESSION

    I forced myself to finish the last season of Succession, a venomous spectacle of rich siblings ripping each other to shreds. Succession is the best critically-acclaimed show I couldn’t stand to watch. Not just disliked—hated. Watching it was excruciating, like willingly stepping on a Lego over and over again. The plot? Thin and stagnant, a slow-motion shark tank of sociopaths jockeying for the top spot in their dad’s empire. They rose and fell not from strategy but as if some capricious god was rolling dice behind the scenes. Shame and truth were foreign concepts to them. These weren’t mere narcissists; they were full-blown solipsists, their self-absorption so relentless it crushed any hope for real plot twists. Their behavior was less cunning and more clockwork: predictable, joyless, inevitable.

    And yet, I endured. I forced myself to watch this spectacle of feral appetites clashing like crocodiles over a wildebeest carcass. Why? Because Succession felt like a forbidden window into a gilded world where humanity’s worst impulses roamed free, unchecked by the civilizing guardrails the rest of us adhere to (if only because we can’t afford not to). The show wasn’t just a car crash—it was a multicar pileup filmed in slow motion, designed to scratch our voyeuristic itch.

    In the end, Succession is a mirror held up to the grotesque, the rich and shameless shriveling into their own private hells without a flicker of self-awareness. It feeds our appetite for schadenfreude, letting us revel in their misery while secretly thanking the heavens that our own lives, for all their flaws, don’t include daily battles for dominance over a media conglomerate—or the soul-crushing emptiness that comes with it.

  • INTERROGATING THE ALTER EGO OF RACHEL BLOOM IN CRAZY EX-GIRLFRIEND

    INTERROGATING THE ALTER EGO OF RACHEL BLOOM IN CRAZY EX-GIRLFRIEND

    Rachel Bloom weaponizes her alter ego, Rebecca Bunch, to dissect her neuroses with surgical precision, laying bare her obsessions, compulsions, and complete disregard for boundaries. Rebecca isn’t just self-destructive—she’s a human wrecking ball, alienating friends, terrifying acquaintances, and steamrolling her own well-being with reckless abandon. And yet, despite all the chaos, she remains irresistibly lovable, armed with good intentions and a heart too big for her own good.

    Rebecca is a whip-smart New York attorney drowning in success-induced existential despair when fate—or perhaps something more deranged—intervenes. A chance sighting of her old summer camp crush, Josh Chan, sends her into a tailspin of romantic delusion. Suddenly, the only logical course of action isn’t therapy, self-reflection, or even a stiff drink—it’s packing up her entire life and moving to West Covina, California, in pursuit of a man who barely remembers her. What follows is less a fairytale romance and more an operatic descent into obsession, complete with full-blown musical numbers choreographed straight from the fevered depths of her subconscious.

    Once in West Covina, Rebecca lands in a delightfully dysfunctional law firm, where her brilliance is only matched by her ability to make everyone around her deeply uncomfortable. She barrels through life like a caffeinated hurricane, terrifying innocent bystanders with her intellect and intensity, all while chasing an idea of love that exists only in her own head. The show’s most poignant relationship, however, isn’t a romantic one—it’s her friendship with Paula, a sharp-witted, no-nonsense co-worker and mother who, in many ways, fills the maternal void in Rebecca’s life. Paula, trapped in the drudgery of domesticity, finds a thrilling (and slightly concerning) outlet in Rebecca’s increasingly unhinged escapades, turning their dynamic into the show’s emotional anchor.

    At its best, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend thrives on this friendship, an odd yet deeply affecting bond between two women clinging to each other for meaning and validation. But by season four, the show stumbles, bogged down by meandering storylines and an inexplicable reluctance to lean into its greatest strength—Rebecca and Paula’s relationship. The final season drags like an overlong curtain call, but even its missteps can’t erase the brilliance of what came before. At its core, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend is an incisive, darkly hilarious exploration of self-sabotage, redemption, and the uphill battle of getting out of your own way.

  • DON’T GET TRAPPED IN A FLINTSTONES BACKGROUND LOOP

    DON’T GET TRAPPED IN A FLINTSTONES BACKGROUND LOOP

    In Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder, Arnold Schwarzenegger observes that bodybuilding is not merely a means toward self-improvement of the body. It opens other doors as well in business and other enterprises. I found that Arnold was right: My teenage years of toiling in the gym and amassing muscles finally paid off in 1979 when, at the tender age of seventeen, I landed the coveted position of bouncer at Maverick’s Disco in San Ramon, California. I was rolling in dough, earning a whopping ten cents over the minimum wage at three dollars an hour, while enjoying the luxurious perks of free soft drinks and peanuts. My nights were spent amidst a sea of polyester pantsuits and hairdos so heavily sprayed they constituted a legitimate fire hazard. I thought I had hit the jackpot, killing two birds with one stone: raking in the cash while strolling around the teenage disco, flexing my lats, and mingling with an endless parade of beautiful women. However, my dreams of disco glory were dashed when I encountered a cruel concept I’d later learn about in my college Abnormal Psychology class: the anhedonic response. This phenomenon numbs the brain to repeated stimulation, leading to a state of anhedonia, where happiness and pleasure are but distant memories. Thinking about anhedonia took me back to the moment when I stopped enjoying my beloved cartoon, The Flintstones. One day, as Fred and Barney drove their caveman car down the highway, I noticed the background—a series of trees, boulders, and buildings—repeating over and over. This revelation shattered the show’s illusion of reality, much like seeing how the sausage is made. Watching The Flintstones was never the same again. Maverick’s Disco was my Flintstones moment. Night after night, I watched customers flood the club with faces lit up with high expectations of excitement, glamour, and romantic connections. By closing time, those same faces were glazed over, tired, and disappointed. Yet, like clockwork, they returned the next weekend, ready to repeat the cycle. My life at the disco had become the monotonous wraparound background of The Flintstones. It was a sign that I needed to quit. Like Arnold Schwarzenegger, I needed to break out of a limited situation, spread my wings, and fly. 

  • EATING THE UNCLE NORMAN WAY

    EATING THE UNCLE NORMAN WAY

    Every morning during my teenage years, I’d stagger out of bed and make my daily plea to the heavens: “God, please grant me the confidence and self-assuredness to ask a woman on a date without suffering from a full-blown cerebral explosion.” And every morning, God’s response was as subtle as a sledgehammer to the forehead: “You’re essentially a walking emotional landfill, a neurotic mess doomed to wander the planet bereft of charm, romantic grace, and any semblance of healthy relationships. Get used to it, buddy.” And thus commenced my legendary odyssey in the land of perpetual non-dating.

    This was not the grand design I had envisioned. No, the blueprint was to be a suave bachelor, just like my childhood idol, Uncle Norman from The Courtship of Eddie’s Father. At the ripe age of eight, I watched in awe as Uncle Norman demonstrated his revolutionary kitchen hack: why bother with dishes when you can devour an entire head of lettuce while standing over the sink? He proclaimed, “This way, you avoid cleanup, dishes, and the pesky inconvenience of sitting at a table.” In that glorious moment, I was struck with a revelation so profound it reshaped my entire existence. The Uncle Norman Method, as I would grandiosely dub it, became my life’s guiding principle, my personal beacon of satisfaction, and the defining factor of my existence for decades.

    Channeling my inner Uncle Norman, I envisioned a life of unparalleled convenience. My bed would be perpetually unmade because who needs sheets when you have a trusty sleeping bag? I’d never waste time watering plants—plastic ones were far superior. Cooking? Please. Cereal, toast, bananas, and yogurt would sustain me in perpetuity. My job would be conveniently located within a five-mile radius of my house, and my romantic escapades would be strictly zip code-based. Laundry? My washing machine’s drum would double as my hamper, and I’d simply press Start when it reached capacity. Fashion coordination? Not a concern, as all my clothes would be in sleek, omnipresent black. My linen closet would be repurposed to stash protein bars, because who needs linens anyway?

    I’d execute my grocery shopping like a stealthy ninja, hitting Trader Joe’s at the crack of dawn to dodge crowds, while avoiding those colossal supermarkets that felt like traversing a grid of football fields. 

    Embracing the Uncle Norman Way wasn’t just a new approach to dining; it was a radical overhaul of my entire lifestyle. The world would bow before the sheer efficiency and unadulterated convenience of my new existence, and I would remain eternally satisfied, basking in the glory of my splendidly uncomplicated life.

    Of course, it didn’t take long for my delusion to expand into a literary empire—or at least, that was the plan. The world, I was convinced, desperately needed The Uncle Norman Way, my magnum opus on streamlining life’s most tedious inconveniences. It would be part manifesto, part self-help guide, and part fever dream of a man who had spent far too much time contemplating the finer points of lettuce consumption over a sink. Each chapter would tackle a crucial element of existence, from the philosophy of single-pot cooking (aka, eating directly from the saucepan) to the art of strategic sock re-wearing to extend laundry cycles. I even envisioned a deluxe edition featuring tear-out coupons for discounted plastic plants, a fold-out map of the most efficient grocery store layouts, and, for true devotees, a companion workbook to track their progress toward the ultimate goal: Maximum Laziness with Minimum Effort™.

    Naturally, I imagined its meteoric rise to cultural dominance. Talk show hosts would marvel at my ingenuity, college professors would weave my wisdom into philosophy courses, and minimalists would declare me their messiah. Young bachelors, overwhelmed by the burden of societal expectations, would turn to my book in their darkest hour, finding solace in the knowledge that they, too, could abandon the tyranny of dishware and lean fully into sink-based eating. The revolution would be televised, one head of lettuce at a time.