Cinemorphosis

Category: TV and Movies

  • The Business Model of Suffering and Abuse on Reality TV

    The Business Model of Suffering and Abuse on Reality TV

    We were discussing their current essay assignment: an excavation of cruelty masquerading as inspiration in the TV show The Biggest Loser. The facts alone read like satire written by a misanthrope: contestants more than 200 pounds overweight were pushed through eight-hour training days, incinerating close to 8,000 calories while being rationed roughly 800. Add caffeine pills, a chorus of screaming trainers, and the steady drip of public humiliation, and you have less a fitness program than a stress test for organ failure. That none of the contestants died feels less like good management and more like statistical luck. That millions watched—enthusiastically—says something unflattering about us.

    I show them Fit for Life documentary, which functions as a kind of aftermath report. Former contestants speak with the clarity that only distance provides. They describe trauma, yes, but also something more complicated: the show gave them structure, purpose, a narrative. It brutalized them and, perversely, steadied them. Most gained the weight back. Some now lean on GLP-1 drugs, their appetites chemically negotiated into submission. But all of them remember the same thing—the mercilessness was not incidental; it was the engine.

    I asked my students why I had assigned this essay. What, exactly, were they supposed to uncover?

    At the micro level, we peeled back the familiar myths. The cult of self-discipline—so comforting in its simplicity—lets us ignore biology, environment, and the sheer stubbornness of appetite. Bodies become symbols: power or failure, virtue or laziness, depending on who’s looking. We noted the obvious but rarely confronted statistic—most Americans are overweight—and the uncomfortable reality that GLP-1 drugs may be the only intervention that consistently works at scale.

    Then the room shifted. One student volunteered that she was on a GLP-1. The first weeks were a gauntlet of nausea and vomiting, but now the drug—Mounjaro—had quieted her hunger to a whisper. Thirty pounds gone in two months. Another student offered a counterpoint that landed harder: her father had been one of the exceptions. The drug didn’t help him lose weight. It helped him lose kidney function. As she spoke, she mentioned he was now on dialysis. The room absorbed that in silence. Miracle and risk, side by side, no clean narrative available.

    So we zoomed out.

    To design a show that courts physical danger and guarantees humiliation—for ratings, for merchandise, for the grotesque satisfaction of watching someone crack—is not an accident. It’s a business model. That’s the first kind of evil: deliberate, calculated, fully aware. Cynical evil. The producers know exactly what they’re doing. They understand the cruelty, and they monetize it.

    The second kind is quieter and more common. It belongs to the audience. Viewers sense the moral problem—on some level they know this is exploitation—but they file that knowledge away so it won’t interfere with their evening entertainment. They watch, they flinch, they keep watching. Call it willed ignorance. A cultivated habit of not asking questions that might ruin the pleasure.

    I told them, half-serious but not really joking, that if we were ranking things, cynical evil is a ten. Willed-ignorant evil sits comfortably at a seven—less flamboyant, more pervasive.

    Something clicked. The word evil—unfashionable, blunt, almost embarrassing in academic settings—cut through the fog. The discussion woke up. Students leaned in, argued, confessed discomfort, revised their positions in real time. The assignment stopped being an exercise and became a lens.

    That was the moment worth noticing. Sometimes you have to pull the camera back. Stop pretending the essay is about structure and sources and let students see the larger architecture: what the topic reveals about us, what it demands we confront, and why it matters that we do.

  • Tragedy Laundering in the Age of Vibes

    Tragedy Laundering in the Age of Vibes

    Shirley Li takes aim at what she calls the CliffNotes treatment of classic films—works shaved down, sweetened up, and repackaged for audiences who want the aura of culture without the burden of confronting it. Shakespeare, once a blood-soaked anatomist of ambition and ruin, now gets rinsed through the aesthetic of Taylor Swift. In this new register, tragedy doesn’t end in death; it stalls just long enough for a handsome savior to materialize on cue. Consider “The Fate of Ophelia,” where despair is airbrushed into rescue, and consequence dissolves into a soft-focus finale. The title lingered with me because I’d joked to my students a month earlier that I’d heard the song on Coffee House and found it embarrassingly overwrought—an avalanche of sentiment masquerading as profundity.

    Hollywood, never one to miss a profitable dilution, has joined the exercise. Emerald Fennell’s take on Wuthering Heights and Maggie Gyllenhaal’s reworking of Bride of Frankenstein into The Bride! arrive pre-softened, their rough edges filed down to avoid drawing blood. The originals demanded something of the audience—patience, discomfort, moral stamina. The remakes offer a tour: quick, glossy, and politely unchallenging.

    Li names the trend with surgical accuracy: “the rise of CliffNotes Cinema—watered-down transformations that offer glossy but thin summaries of the originals and strip away the challenging material that helped turn them into cultural mainstays in the first place.” That sentence does the autopsy. What’s left after the procedure is a body that looks intact from a distance but has been emptied of organs.

    Should we be alarmed? Yes, because the sweetness isn’t accidental; it’s diagnostic. These remakes signal a culture inching toward infantilization—hungry for reassurance, allergic to ambiguity, and convinced that gravity can be outsourced to wardrobe. Give the audience a fairy tale that flatters its appetites, but dress it in canonical clothing so it can pretend it just attended a seminar. Call this Tragedy Laundering: the conversion of moral difficulty into marketable comfort, where death becomes a scheduling inconvenience and ambiguity a branding problem.

    A culture marinated in TikTok loops, cute-animal dopamine, and the immaculate emotional arcs of Taylor Swift’s pop maximalism will predictably resist the adult weather systems of the classics. It wants its cod liver oil chased with honey—and increasingly, it wants the honey first, the oil omitted. The result is a literature of safety: all vibe, no verdict; all sheen, no sting.

  • The Sovereign Appetite: How Wealth Devours the Soul

    The Sovereign Appetite: How Wealth Devours the Soul

    In “What I Learned About Billionaires at Jeff Bezos’s Private Retreat,” filmmaker Noah Hawley dissects the moral corrosion that accompanies extreme wealth—a corrosion fueled not by scarcity but by excess. The old adage comes to mind: the more you feed the demon, the hungrier it gets. Only now the demon eats without consequence, outside the jurisdiction of any moral law. The rules that bind ordinary people—limits, restraint, accountability—simply dissolve. In their place emerges what can only be called the Sovereign Appetite Doctrine: an unspoken creed in which desire, once backed by sufficient capital, becomes its own justification, rendering restraint unnecessary and morality negotiable.

    Hawley’s invitation to a 2018 Bezos retreat in Santa Barbara offered a front-row seat to this phenomenon. What he encountered was not insight but spectacle: a carousel of TED Talk-style presentations untethered from any coherent theme, a parade of ideas without consequence or urgency. These talks did not enlighten so much as signal—a kind of intellectual flex, as obligatory to the setting as Wagyu skewers and caviar. Surrounded by this polished emptiness, Hawley found himself asking the only honest question available: “Why am I here?”

    The retreat itself bordered on the absurd. His wife slipped on wet grass and broke her wrist; he and his children contracted hand, foot, and mouth disease, their faces erupting in red blisters. It was less a summit of visionaries than a fever dream of excess, where discomfort and decadence coexisted without irony.

    Bezos, at the time, still seemed to believe in performance. Clad in a tight T-shirt, laughing a little too hard, projecting a curated affability, he appeared invested in being seen as morally intact. There was effort in the act—a sense that the audience still mattered. He had not yet fully surrendered to the Sovereign Appetite Doctrine.

    But, as Hawley notes, that restraint has since evaporated. Today, figures like Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk no longer perform for approval. They have crossed into something colder and more insulated. In Hawley’s words, “They float in a sensory-deprivation tank the size of the planet, in which their actions are only ever judged by themselves.”

    Here lies the true seduction of wealth. It is not the acquisition of luxury goods but the eerie power of living in a world where everything is “effectively free.” Loss—the very mechanism that gives life weight—disappears. When nothing can be meaningfully lost, nothing can be meaningfully gained. Stakes vanish. Experience flattens. Life becomes curiously hollow, a theater without tension. This is the Infinite Buffer Effect: wealth so vast it absorbs every setback, neutralizing consequence and draining life of narrative shape.

    And yet, this emotional flattening coincides with a grotesque expansion of power. The wealthy, insulated from consequence, begin to experience a counterfeit omnipotence. They act without friction and, in doing so, lose the ability to perceive others as real. As Hawley writes, “If everything is free and nothing matters, then the world and other people exist only to be acted upon, if they are acknowledged at all.”

    At this point, they no longer inhabit the same moral universe as the rest of us. Cause and effect no longer apply in any meaningful way. They have become full converts to the Sovereign Appetite Doctrine.

    The word that clarifies this condition is solipsism—not as an abstract philosophy but as a lived reality. The world contracts until only the self remains vivid. Everything else fades into backdrop. Hawley shows how extreme wealth accelerates this contraction. When “everything is free and nothing matters,” the presence of other people—their inner lives, their suffering—loses its immediacy. Power without resistance breeds a dangerous illusion: that one’s actions carry no moral weight. Others become instruments, props, scenery. Empathy atrophies. Reality itself begins to feel negotiable. The self expands to fill the entire field of meaning, mistaking insulation for sovereignty.

    Hawley closes by contrasting today’s ultra-wealthy with the robber barons of the Gilded Age. However ruthless, those earlier figures “engaged with the world around them.” Today’s elite, by contrast, drift above it, severed from consequence, history, and meaning. They suffer from what Hawley calls “a disassociation from the reality of cause and effect, from meaning, and history.”

    This is not freedom but its grotesque parody—a form of plutocratic dissociation in which the individual floats outside shared reality, unbound not only from constraint but from significance itself.

    It is no accident that Hawley, the creator behind Fargo, can render this psychological landscape with such precision. He has long been fascinated by characters who drift beyond moral gravity. Here, he turns that same lens on the most powerful figures in our world—and what he reveals is not triumph, but a slow and chilling disappearance of the human.

  • Essay Prompt: The Seduction of a Frictionless Life

    Essay Prompt: The Seduction of a Frictionless Life

    In this assignment, you will examine how a life engineered for maximum convenience and instant gratification can lead not to fulfillment, but to misery, emotional flattening, and a diminished sense of humanity.

    To develop your analysis, you will work with two texts:

    • “Our Longing for Inconvenience” by Hanif Abdurraqib
    • Twilight Zone episode “A Nice Place to Visit”

    Both works explore the dangerous allure of a frictionless existence—one in which effort, struggle, and delay are removed in favor of ease and immediate satisfaction.

    Your Task

    Write a 1,000-word argumentative essay that develops a clear, original thesis responding to the following central question:

    How do these two works show that a frictionless life seduces us into surrendering our humanity, and why does this surrender ultimately lead to dissatisfaction or misery?

    Required Elements

    Your essay must include:

    1. A Strong Thesis

    • Make a specific, arguable claim about frictionless living
    • Avoid summary; take a position
    • Your thesis should address:
      • seduction (why we want convenience)
      • consequence (what it costs us)

    2. Comparative Analysis

    • Analyze both sources in depth
    • Show how they converge and/or diverge in their critique
    • Use specific examples:
      • Abdurraqib’s concept of convenience and authenticity
      • The protagonist’s experience in The Twilight Zone episode

    3. Conceptual Focus

    Your essay must engage at least two of the following ideas:

    • Dehumanization
    • Emotional flattening
    • Loss of meaning or purpose
    • Passive consumption vs. active engagement
    • The illusion of happiness

    4. Evidence and Commentary

    • Integrate specific references from both works
    • Explain how each example supports your argument
    • Avoid plot summary—focus on interpretation

    5. Counterargument and Rebuttal

    • Acknowledge a reasonable opposing view:
      (e.g., convenience improves quality of life)
    • Refute it with clear reasoning and evidence

    Writing Expectations

    • Length: 1,000 words
    • Tone: Analytical, precise, and assertive
    • Avoid clichés and vague generalizations
    • Prioritize clarity, specificity, and strong prose

  • Frank Sinatra Sings the Epistles

    Frank Sinatra Sings the Epistles

    Adam Gopnik, in “St. Paul Remade Human History. How Did He Do It?”, answers a parlor question—who matters most?—with a man who never met Jesus in the flesh and still managed to run the table. Paul, Gopnik says, is “the Most Unforgettable Character It Ever Met,” which is one way of saying he took a minor Jewish sect and scaled it into a two-millennia franchise. Not bad for a writer whose archive could fit in a carry-on.

    The record is thin and, at points, suspicious. Of thirteen letters, only seven pass the authenticity test; the rest look like fan fiction with good handwriting. The Acts of the Apostles reads less like sober history than like a travelogue pitched to Roman investors—Romans good, Jews troublesome, Christians reassuringly adjacent to Rome. It also airbrushes the argument between Paul and James, Jesus’s brother, into a polite agreement, because nothing ruins a new religion like founders who won’t share a table.

    Then comes the Roman catastrophe—the Jewish War, the Temple reduced to memory—and the scramble among sects to survive. Paul does more than survive; he pivots. He takes a local messianic movement and repackages it for export: portable, universal, and politically legible. The man who pulls off this trick also carries the best origin story in religious literature—a blinding encounter on the road to Damascus that converts a persecutor into a salesman with divine backing. If you were storyboarding a faith, you’d keep that scene.

    The letters themselves are a mood swing with footnotes. Paul boasts like a prizefighter and then calls himself “the least of the apostles.” He commands, cajoles, contradicts, confesses. He is competitive enough to crown himself and humble enough to kneel in the same paragraph. He admits a “thorn in the flesh”—a chronic deficit he can’t shake—and then turns it into a credential. He advises missionary pragmatism with the line that could double as a consulting slogan: be all things to all people. The man can pivot.

    Gopnik’s most useful correction is cinematic. Don’t picture Paul as a monk scratching doctrine by candlelight. Picture him as an action lead—shipwrecks, jailbreaks, debates that feel like bar fights in Greek. He travels, argues, survives. He makes the faith mobile—“almost single-handedly,” Gopnik writes—while the original disciples eye him like a franchisee who’s rewriting the menu. It’s the kind of role that once tempted Frank Capra to imagine a film starring Frank Sinatra—Old Blue Eyes as the apostle who sang a religion into the world.

    What Paul omits is as telling as what he proclaims. He is strangely quiet about Jesus’s earthly biography—the family, the miracles, the Nativity tableau that later Christianity will frame and hang in every living room. Gopnik suggests the omission is a feature, not a bug. Keep the myth foregrounded and the particulars backstage, and your message travels better. If you doubt it, look at how newer movements grow: the story glows brighter when the details stay conveniently out of focus.

    Then there’s the thornier matter of Paul’s rhetoric about Jews. After the Holocaust, readers have worked hard to domesticate him into a universalist who welcomes everyone to the table. Gopnik reminds us that some passages resist that makeover, cursing the old covenant with language that doesn’t sit politely at interfaith dinners. The effort to sanitize Paul tells you as much about us as it does about him.

    Scholars, understandably, keep trying on different Pauls. There’s the Roman Paul, smoothing edges for empire; the Hellenistic Paul, speaking in a philosophical key; the Jewish Paul, wrestling with a tradition he both extends and overturns. You can find these costumes neatly hung in Paul Within Paganism, edited by Chantziantoniou, Frederiksen, and Young. Try them all on; none quite fits.

    One thread, however, doesn’t fray: Paul’s apocalyptic urgency. The end is near—soon enough to matter, soon enough to act. Whether he believed it literally or deployed it rhetorically is the kind of question historians love and time refuses to answer. Urgency, after all, is useful even when it’s wrong.

    Gopnik’s final warning is against turning Paul into a greeting card. Yes, he writes the line about love that weddings can’t resist. He also draws hard boundaries with a zeal that would make a modern brand manager blush. Christianity spreads not just on the strength of its compassion but on the clarity of its lines. Inclusion, it turns out, travels well when it knows exactly what it excludes.

    Paul refuses to settle into a single portrait. He is the contradiction that works—the salesman who believes, the believer who markets, the penitent who boasts. If Capra had made that Sinatra film, it might have been the truest version: a man with a voice big enough to carry a room, and a restlessness big enough to carry a religion. Love, sung loud enough, can sound like doctrine. And doctrine, delivered with enough conviction, can change the world.

  • The Dos and Don’ts of Being Flabbergasted

    The Dos and Don’ts of Being Flabbergasted

    If I had to pick my favorite word from the English language, it would be flabbergasted. It’s officially a word for a state of shock or astonishment, but as I’ve heard it used over the years, there are some important caveats. Usually people are not flabbergasted by a tragedy like an earthquake or a remarkable display of cruelty. The word is usually reserved to describe a human failing that goes beyond the realm of normal expectations. This failing could be surprising because of the specific skillset and character of the person who surprised us. Or the failing could simply be so large on scale that regardless of the person’s character, we are left flabbergasted. 

    Another use of flabbergasting is when a person commits a moral inconsistency that contradicts their spoken beliefs so that the irony behind their hypocrisy is simply flabbergasting. It is somewhat flabbergasting to me, for example, that many of us love dogs and cats so much but we compartmentalize so that we eat cows and pigs, savoring these dishes, while being blissfully unaware of our inconsistency. 

    Another use of flabbergasting is when we witness someone’s obtuseness that is so lame that it strains our credulity. For example, I called Kaiser to get an appointment to discuss switching a prescription because my current one had left me extremely exhausted for twelve hours. I told the member services rep my symptoms, but assured her I was fine. The incident was five days ago. I had been working out intensely every day since then and felt fine. As if not hearing a word I said, she seemed to be reading from a script: “Do you have shortness of breath? Can you stand on your own?” Flabbergasted, I interrupted her. “As I just told you, I am physically fine. I am exercising with great intensity, and I feel great.” I wanted to add, “Please put down your script and listen to what I actually have to say.” I was flabbergasted.

    One of the appeals of the word flabbergasted is that it seems made up of the words flab and blubber to create the hybrid “flabber,” which I love because “flabber” jiggles and vibrates like the elephantine upper arms of the cafeteria ladies of my youth. Such jiggling and vibration is part of the body’s paroxysms that occur when one is flabbergasted.

    If I had a rock band, I would call it Flabbergasted. If I were to have a nom de plume, it would be Flabber Gasted. 

    I suspect that to be in a flabbergasted state can be dangerously addictive. I’m thinking of Tom Colicchio, one of the principals of the reality show Top Chef. I have a theory as to the one reason above all others the show is successful. It’s Tom Colicchio’s flabbergasted face when he cannot believe how crappy the food is that was prepared for him by one of the world-class chefs. No other judge can make such a severe expression. I don’t know if Colicchio is authentically flabbergasted or if his facial contortions are performative for the ratings. What I do know is that his flabbergasted expression has begun to chafe at me. For many seasons, I took his expression for granted, but after he started taking GLP-1s and losing forty pounds, his flabbergasted TV face looks more extreme. He has eaten a dish that is so egregious that he is in a state of shock and strained credulity. He can’t believe anyone, let alone a successful chef, could make such an abomination. The implication is that surely he could never be so incompetent. And this is where I get annoyed. These chefs have been taken out of their environment, they are working in time constraints, and are working with remarkable pressure from the competition, the TV apparatus, and the judges. That they could stumble or let anxiety get the best of them is completely understandable and is not a situation that calls for being flabbergasted. Therefore, Colicchio’s is out of line. He is disrespecting good, talented people, and I take offense to it. I am flabbergasted.  

  • Leanmaxxing and the New Fantasy of Frictionless Medicine

    Leanmaxxing and the New Fantasy of Frictionless Medicine

    As a boy watching Star Trek, I was transfixed by the Tricorder–that tidy slab of certainty doctors waved over a body the way a priest might wave incense over a mystery. No scalpels, no tubes, no anxious waiting rooms with their stale magazines and fluorescent despair. A quick scan, a soft chirp, and the problem surrendered. The body, usually so coy and uncooperative, became a readable document–its secrets itemized, its fate clarified. It was medicine without friction, diagnosis without drama. In that universe, ignorance lasted seconds.

    For decades, the Tricorder sat where all good fantasies sit: just out of reach, gleaming with impossible efficiency. But reality has a way of cheating. The future did not arrive as a handheld scanner; it arrived as chemistry–specifically, a class of drugs that seems to negotiate directly with the body’s most stubborn impulses. If the Tricorder promised instant knowledge, GLP-1 drugs promise something more unnerving: the quiet rewriting of appetite, metabolism, and behavior from the inside out.

    In her New York Times essay “The Great Ozempic Experiment,” Julia Belluz catalogs the early returns, and they read less like a drug profile than a wish list that forgot to edit itself. Yes, there’s weight loss–the headline act–but the understudies keep stealing the show: concussion recovery, addiction dampening, relief from menopause symptoms, long COVID, alopecia, inflammation, arthritis, IBS, anxiety, brain fog. The list grows with the confidence of a rumor that keeps being confirmed. By the time you finish reading, you suspect the drug might also fix your credit score.

    The catch, for now, is almost comically modest: nausea and paperwork. The body may revolt briefly; the insurance company may revolt permanently. Yet demand surges, fueled by users who report not just slimmer bodies but upgraded lives–better mood, sharper focus, revived social calendars, improved fertility. It’s less a medication than a lifestyle intervention with a prescription pad.

    Clinicians, watching this unfold, have begun to reach for a new framework–the “root-cause” theory–because the old boxes no longer hold. These drugs don’t respect the tidy borders between endocrine, cardiovascular, and neurological disease; they trespass, improve, and move on. Even more disorienting, benefits appear in patients who don’t lose weight at all: better heart, liver, and kidney function, as if the drug were quietly tuning systems we didn’t know were connected.

    And here is where the story turns from miracle to question mark. As GLP-1 use spreads–along with the culture’s sudden enthusiasm for “leanmaxxing”–we risk trading one distortion for another: the cartoon body, now achieved pharmacologically rather than cosmetically. It is far too early to crown these drugs the real-world Tricorder, and just as premature to condemn them as a Faustian bargain. Like AI, they are moving faster than our ability to narrate them. We are watching a technology outrun our categories, and the only honest response, for now, is attention without prophecy.

  • “Marty Supreme” Is a Rebuttal to Liquid Modernity

    “Marty Supreme” Is a Rebuttal to Liquid Modernity

    I sat through the 2.5-hour sprawl of Marty Supreme with a mix of fascination and dread, the way you watch a man juggle lit matches in a room full of gasoline. It doesn’t take long to diagnose Marty Mauser: no self-awareness, no boundaries, no governor on his appetites. Once you see that, the plot stops being a mystery and becomes a countdown. He treats his life–and everyone else’s–as expendable material in the service of his ego. Chaos isn’t an accident; it’s the operating system. The film runs on a kind of psychological determinism: remove self-knowledge and restraint, and watch the dominoes fall. The difficulty, of course, is that Marty is repulsive in the precise way the movie needs him to be. Some viewers refuse the bargain—why spend hours with a moral vacancy? I’d argue that’s the point. Like Uncut Gems, where Howard Ratner detonates his own life in slow motion, or Boogie Nights, where Dirk Diggler mistakes appetite for identity, this film belongs to a category I’d call the Chaos Agent Antihero: a person so unmoored from self-scrutiny that he turns every room into a hazard zone.

    It’s easy to dismiss these films as nihilistic—two hours of bad decisions dressed up as entertainment, but that reading is too lazy by half. Beneath the wreckage is a stern, almost old-fashioned argument about limits: the necessity of boundaries, the discipline of saying no, the unglamorous virtue of constraint. In that sense, the Chaos Agent Antihero is a rebuttal to what Zygmunt Bauman called liquid modernity—the condition in which everything solid dissolves into options. Careers become gigs, relationships become arrangements, identities become costumes you change between scenes. The promise is freedom; the invoice is fragmentation. In that fluid world, a man like Marty isn’t liberated; he’s uncontained. Without structure, he doesn’t discover himself; he disperses.

    Follow that logic to its end and you get the customary finish for men like Howard Ratner and Dirk Diggler: ugly, terminal, and instructive precisely because it refuses redemption. Marty Supreme flirts with a different exit. Fatherhood appears like a last-ditch intervention, a chance to trade improvisation for obligation, appetite for responsibility. You sense the film asking whether a man can accept the humiliating truth of limits and, in doing so, become something sturdier than a bundle of impulses. The alternative–the radical individualist with no brakes–isn’t freedom. It’s a long fall with excellent lighting.

  • Purple Toothbrushes and Other Acts of Quiet Genius

    Purple Toothbrushes and Other Acts of Quiet Genius

    I have a student who makes the rest of the room recalibrate. Her essays arrive fully formed—sharp, unshowy, and quietly devastating—and in discussion she does what most people only pretend to do: she thinks out loud with precision. If airtime were currency, she’d hold a majority stake. And the remarkable part is that no one resents it. The other students lean in. They listen. At eighteen, she carries herself with a kind of early-onset professorial clarity, but without the usual symptoms—no grandstanding, no ornamental jargon, no whiff of performance. Just a mind doing its work in public.

    Yesterday she told the class she’s neurodivergent. It landed without ceremony. No one froze, no one fumbled for a response. She simply kept going, threading her way back into our discussion of cruelty as entertainment in The Biggest Loser, dissecting it with the same steady intelligence she brings to everything. The label didn’t explain her; it just named the angle of her vision.

    Later that day, I watched Sheng Wang: Purple on Netflix and had a familiar thought within five minutes: here is another mind that refuses to see the world the way the rest of us have agreed to see it. Sheng Wang doesn’t manufacture jokes so much as he exposes the wiring. He takes the banal—the humble toothbrush aisle—and turns it into a referendum on identity. Faced with a rainbow of options, he chooses purple, not because it cleans better, but because it confers a temporary aura of purpose, as if pigment could rescue a life drifting toward mediocrity. It’s ridiculous, which is why it’s true.

    Wang, born in Taiwan and raised in Houston, delivers all this with a soft Southern cadence that suggests a Baptist sermon delivered by a man who wandered in from a parallel universe. He glides across the stage in flowing purple clothes and white sneakers, looking like a kindly prophet of low-stakes revelation. The dissonance works. His demeanor—gentle, unhurried, almost disarmingly sincere—feels less like an act and more like a refusal to harden into one. You don’t watch him perform; you eavesdrop on how he thinks.

    That’s the throughline between my student and Wang. The best comedians aren’t joke machines; they’re cartographers of attention. They map the ordinary at strange angles and invite you to follow. Sometimes they surface thoughts you didn’t know you had—your private negotiations with a toothbrush color, your quiet horror as a friend’s child demolishes a bowl of expensive berries with the appetite of a small animal. Sometimes the thoughts are entirely their own, but the vantage point is so exact you recognize yourself anyway.

    A good comedian, like a good student, doesn’t just entertain or impress. He builds a small porch between minds. You sit there for a while, listening, and realize you’re not being dazzled—you’re being let in. That’s rarer, and far more valuable, than a punchline.

  • Freedom in a Thong: The Theater of Letting It All Hang Out

    Freedom in a Thong: The Theater of Letting It All Hang Out

    Yesterday I watched the final episode of HBO’s Neighbors, and it delivered a character who refuses to be ignored: Danny Smiechowski, seventy-two, sunburned into leather, hair cascading past his shoulders, and dressed—if that’s the word—in a fluorescent yellow-green thong that assaults the eye like a traffic cone with delusions of grandeur. He conducts his workouts in his front yard, a one-man parade of defiance, and reacts to criticism the way a cornered animal does—snarling one minute, weeping the next.

    To his neighbors and the churchgoers across the street, decency means restraint, a baseline agreement about how to occupy public space without turning it into a spectacle. To Danny, decency is the opposite: the right to strip away all constraints, to declare the body sovereign territory. His creed echoes a distant era—the hazy, incense-soaked optimism of the early 1970s, when “freedom” often meant discarding clothing along with inhibition and calling it enlightenment.

    Danny believes the world has failed him by refusing to catch up. He swings between belligerent bravado and wounded self-pity, neither of which strengthens his argument. The result is less a philosophy than a performance—loud, erratic, and increasingly lonely.

    Exiled in spirit from his San Diego suburb, he seeks refuge in Eden, a Florida nudist enclave populated largely by fellow Boomers who seem preserved in amber from the Age of Aquarius. It’s a place where retired engineers and former professionals shed not only their clothes but their timelines, reliving a moment when rebellion felt like revelation. Add cheap wine, a little chemical haze, and a game of naked water polo, and you have a community convinced it has outsmarted the system.

    At the colony’s karaoke bar—equal parts nostalgia lounge and social experiment—Danny encounters a young woman with the clarity of someone who has no illusions about the transaction she’s proposing. She wants a sponsor, not a soulmate. Danny, eager for validation, obliges: shoes, dinner, the usual gestures of misplaced hope. She exits with efficiency. He is left with the bill and a deflated sense of destiny.

    Back in San Diego, Danny does what any committed ideologue would do—he builds his own Eden in his backyard, a private republic of one, governed by the constitution of his own stubbornness.

    The episode raises a question that refuses to stay trivial: why do some people feel compelled to be naked as a permanent state, not an occasional choice? Nostalgia plays a role. For many in that generation, nudity carries the residue of a time when breaking rules felt like breaking through. To be unclothed was to signal membership in a select tribe—the enlightened, the unshackled, the ones who had slipped past the guards of convention.

    There’s also a theatrical element. Just as children dress as superheroes to feel invincible, adults can costume themselves as liberated sensualists. The wardrobe is minimal, but the identity is elaborate. It promises transformation without requiring much beyond attitude.

    And yet, beneath the surface, something feels off. At Eden, I saw intelligent, accomplished people—engineers, inventors, individuals who had clearly mastered complex systems. One man, surrounded by photos of extraterrestrials, warned of a creature called Draconian poised to devour humanity. He seemed to believe that rejecting society’s norms—walking naked within the colony’s borders—offered a kind of existential protection. It was as if the abandonment of convention could ward off forces far larger than decorum.

    That’s the paradox. These people are not fools. Many are thoughtful, even admirable in their way. But the lifestyle strikes me less as freedom and more as a carefully maintained illusion—a soft-focus rebellion that never quite matures into anything durable.

    I can observe it with curiosity, even a touch of amusement. But I can’t inhabit it. To me, freedom isn’t the absence of clothing or the indulgence of every impulse. It’s something quieter, less theatrical. What I saw in Eden felt less like liberation and more like a well-rehearsed fantasy—Peter Pan with a pension plan, still refusing to land.