Cinemorphosis

Tag: love

  • Crying at the Sink: The Dishwashing Grammy Awards

    Crying at the Sink: The Dishwashing Grammy Awards

    Don’t ask me why, but there’s something about doing dishes after dinner that turns me into a soft-focus emotional wreck. Somewhere between the soap suds and the rinse cycle, I cue up Rickie Lee Jones’s “Living It Up”—one of my all-time favorite songs—and without fail, it punctures the heart like a stiletto dipped in nostalgia. Tonight, it brought on another weepy micro-moment, which means it’s time to officially give it The Most Likely to Make Me Cry from Too Much Beauty Award.

    This of course sent me spiraling into my own kitchen-sink Grammy ceremony, where I began handing out awards like a deranged emotional sommelier.

    • Todd Rundgren’s “Can We Still Be Friends” wins The Song That Makes You Recommit to Being a Half-Decent Human Being Award. It’s the sonic equivalent of an awkward apology after ruining Thanksgiving.
    • The Isley Brothers’ “Living for the Love of You” earns The Track Most Likely to Be Playing in Heaven When You Arrive Award—assuming heaven has good speakers and excellent taste.
    • Yes’s “And You and I” takes home The Sounds-Like-It-Was-Composed-by-Angels-on-a-Mountain-Top Award. I don’t know what dimension that song came from, but it wasn’t this one.
    • John Mayer’s “No Such Thing” is given The Makes You Happy to Be a Living, Breathing Fool Award. It’s that rare pop song that makes you want to fist-pump your own mediocrity.
    • The Sundays’ “You’re Not the Only One I Know” walks away with The Makes Sadness So Gorgeous You Forget to Be Upset Award. It’s a musical sigh pressed between lace and rain.

    I could keep going—my brain has a whole red carpet lined up—but I’ve got another episode of Sirens on Netflix to cry through. Turns out the best part of my day is a cross between dish soap, beautiful songs, and low-level existential unraveling. What a life.

  • Borderline Strauss Disorder: A Dream of Intellectual Despair

    Borderline Strauss Disorder: A Dream of Intellectual Despair

    Last night, around 2 a.m., just as Jonah Goldberg of The Remnant podcast was deep in philosophical flirtation with Yale’s Steven Smith over Leo Strauss, I passed out—headphones still in, brain still humming.

    And then the dream began.

    I found myself in my grandfather’s old house in San Pedro, a stuccoed mid-century bunker that always smelled faintly of pipe smoke and baked ziti. Inside the library—yes, he had a library—Goldberg and Smith were now with me, and the three of us were doing what all good podcasters and aging humanities majors dream of doing: pulling crumbly tomes off dusty shelves, quoting Epictetus, Hobbes, and Plato as if our curated selections might finally bring Western Civilization back from the brink.

    Each book we grabbed opened, magically, to the exact passage we were about to reference—as if we were wielding Philosopher’s Stones bound in cracked leather. This was not casual reading. It was apocalypse-proof intellectual spelunking.

    Then I noticed something troubling.

    Through the window, I saw a teenage blonde girl in a baby-blue station wagon idling at the curb. She looked like a cross between a cheerleader and a Bond villain’s niece—beautiful, yes, but with the dead-eyed calm of someone about to burn down your ideas with surgical precision. Turns out she was an operative, dispatched by some shadowy organization convinced that our late-night Straussian exegesis was a threat to human progress.

    Naturally, I sprinted outside, confronted her, and commandeered the station wagon—which, of course, was loaded with weapons. Jonah, ever the podcast professional, called “his people” to secure the contraband.

    But there was a cost.

    Simply standing too close to the weapons cache scrambled the circuitry of my brain. My synapses went sideways, and a mysterious doctor appeared—seemingly conjured from a BBC miniseries and a Jungian archetype—with a scroll. Not a Kindle, not a clipboard. A scroll.

    He began to read aloud. Stories, essays, fragments—some of it fiction, some of it possibly academic, none of it optional. He read in a solemn, droning cadence, pausing only to gesture that I join in. At times, we performed the text together like an absurd Socratic duet. This was not medicine. It was literary waterboarding.

    The treatment drew attention.

    Soon, Goldberg turned the whole ordeal into a dinner party. Somehow, he located several of my retired faculty colleagues and invited them, with their long-suffering wives, to my grandfather’s house. I wanted to talk to them—reconnect, reminisce—but the doctor stuck to me like a parasite with tenure. Wherever I went, he followed, reading, always reading.

    My colleagues grew irritated and drifted off one by one, muttering about boundaries and bad acoustics. I tried to hide in the bean bag room—yes, this house apparently had a bean bag room—but the doctor found me, unfurled his accursed scroll, and picked up where he left off.

    I realized, in that moment, I was trapped. Pinned inside a philosophical purgatory where the punishment wasn’t fire or ice, but relentless interpretation. Eternal footnotes. Bibliographic water torture. I would never leave. Not until I understood the real meaning of the text. Or until a full bladder awakened me.

    Thankfully, the latter came first.

  • Why I Don’t Read Happiness Essays (and Neither Should You)

    Why I Don’t Read Happiness Essays (and Neither Should You)

    Arthur Brooks is a best-selling author, a man of clear intellect, solid decency, and enough charm to disarm even a hardened cynic. I read one of his books, From Strength to Strength, which tackles the subject of happiness with insight, elegance, and more than a few glimmers of genuine wisdom. For a week or so, I even took his ideas seriously—pondering the slow fade of professional relevance, the shift from fluid to crystallized intelligence, and the noble art of growing old with grace.

    And then I moved on with my life.

    What I didn’t move on from, unfortunately, was the onslaught of Brooks’ happiness essays in The Atlantic. They appear like clockwork, regular as a multivitamin—each one another serving of cod liver oil ladled out with the same hopeful insistence: “Here, take this. It’s good for you.” The problem isn’t Arthur Brooks. It’s happiness itself. Or rather, happiness writing—that genre of glossy, over-smoothed, well-meaning counsel that now repels me like a therapy dog that won’t stop licking your face during a panic attack.

    Let me try to explain why.

    1. The Word “Happiness” Is Emotionally Bankrupt

    The term happiness is dead on arrival. It lands with the emotional resonance of a helium balloon tied to a mailbox. It evokes cotton candy, county fairs, and the faded joy of children playing cowboys and Indians—an aesthetic trapped in amber. It feels unserious, childish even. I can’t engage with it as a concept because it doesn’t belong in the adult vocabulary of meaning-making. It’s not that I reject the state of being happy—I’m just allergic to calling it that.

    2. It Feels Like Cod Liver Oil for the Soul

    Brooks’ essays show up with the regularity and charm of a concerned mother armed with a spoonful of something you didn’t ask for. I click through The Atlantic and there it is again: another gentle lecture on how to optimize my inner light. It’s no longer nourishment. It’s over-parenting via prose.

    3. Optimizing Happiness Is a Ridiculous Fantasy

    Some of Brooks’ formulas for increasing happiness start to feel like they were dreamed up by a retired actuary trying to convert existential dread into a spreadsheet. As if flourishing could be reduced to inputs and outputs. As if there’s a number on the dial you can crank up if you just follow the steps. It’s wellness-by-algorithm, joy-by-numbers. I’m not a stock portfolio. I’m a human being. And happiness doesn’t wear a Fitbit.

    4. Satire Has Already Broken the Spell

    Anthony Lane, in his New Yorker essay “Can Happiness Be Taught?,”
    dismantled this whole genre with surgical wit. Once you’ve read a masterful takedown of this kind of earnest life-coaching prose, it’s impossible to take it seriously again. Like seeing the zipper on a mascot costume, the magic disappears. You’re just watching a grown-up in a plush suit tell you to breathe and smile more.

    5. I Like Things That Exist in the World

    I’m interested in things with friction and form—things you can grip, build, question, deconstruct. Music. Technology. Communication tools. Exercise. Love. Psychological self-sabotage. You know, the good stuff. Happiness, as a subject, has all the density of vapor. It’s more slogan than substance, and when I see it trotted out as a destination, I start scanning for exits.

    6. It’s a Hot Tub Full of Bromides

    I have no interest in an adult ed class on happiness led by a relentlessly upbeat instructor talking about “mindfulness” and “centeredness” with the fixed grin of someone who has replaced coffee with optimism. I can already hear the buzzwords echoing off the whiteboard. These classes are group therapy in a coloring book—pastel platitudes spoon-fed to the emotionally dehydrated.

    7. It’s Not Self-Help. It’s Self-Surveillance

    Let’s be honest: a lot of happiness literature feels like a soft form of control. Smile more. Meditate. Adjust your attitude. If you’re not happy, it must be something you’re doing wrong. It’s capitalism’s way of gaslighting your suffering. Don’t look outward—don’t question the system, the politics, the institutions. Just recalibrate your “mindset.” In this sense, the language of happiness is more pacifier than pathfinder.

    So yes, Arthur Brooks writes well. He thinks clearly. He’s probably a better person than I am. But his essays on happiness make me recoil—not because they’re wrong, but because they speak a language I no longer trust. I don’t want to be managed, monitored, or optimized. I want to be awake. I want to be challenged. And if I’m lucky, I’ll get to experience the real stuff of life—anger, beauty, confusion, connection—not just a frictionless simulation of contentment.

    Happiness can keep smiling from the other side of the screen. I’ve got kettlebells to swing.

  • Echo-Chamber Fatigue: When Trusted Media Starts to Sound Like Static

    Echo-Chamber Fatigue: When Trusted Media Starts to Sound Like Static

    For years, I counted The Bulwark and The Atlantic among the few media outlets that seemed to keep their heads above water. Thoughtful, principled, and often sharp in their critique, they offered a sense of clarity during a time when the political center felt like it was collapsing under the weight of tribalism. I read The Atlantic with the same reverence people once reserved for the Sunday paper. I tuned into The Bulwark’s podcasts with eagerness, particularly the sparring matches and tag-team lamentations of Sarah Longwell and JVL.

    But lately, something’s shifted.

    I’ve been struggling to name the feeling exactly—disenchantment, disconnection, even a touch of annoyance. It’s not that they’ve suddenly started publishing bad takes (though no one’s immune to that). It’s more that I’ve come to feel like I’m listening to the same looped monologue. Their arguments are often cogent, yes, but increasingly predictable—a chorus of like-minded voices rehearsing the same concerns, circling the same drain.

    Call it echo-chamber fatigue.

    The Bulwark, once a clarion voice of principled conservatism and a fierce watchdog against authoritarianism, now often feels like a room full of smart people endlessly rehashing the same grim diagnosis: American democracy is circling the drain. The problem isn’t that they’re wrong—it’s that I already see the collapse unfolding in real time. Listening to it dissected again and again isn’t cathartic anymore. It’s just salt in the wound.

    The Atlantic, long celebrated for its intellectual breadth, increasingly feels like it’s scanning for moral alignment before publishing an idea. There’s little friction. Little surprise. Just a gentle stroking of reader confirmation bias.

    Meanwhile, I find myself gravitating to media that feels more alive—podcasts like The Gist with Mike Pesca, Blocked and Reported with Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal, The Fifth Column, Ink-Stained Wretches, and even The Remnant with Jonah Goldberg. These shows don’t always align with my politics—and that’s exactly the point. They’re not trying to usher me into ideological safety. They’re wrestling with absurdities across the spectrum. They’re skeptical. Curious. Sometimes contrarian. Always human.

    And that, I think, is the deeper issue: emotional resonance. The Bulwark and The Atlantic haven’t necessarily changed. I have. Or perhaps the times have. I need more than agreement—I need tension, exploration, contradiction. The intellectual monoculture, no matter how principled, starts to feel like a sedative after a while.

    I’ve even considered canceling my subscriptions. But there’s friction there, too: The Atlantic remains a useful classroom resource, and every now and then, The Bulwark sparks a genuinely engaging dialogue that reminds me why I once admired it so much.

    So I stay, for now. But I’ve moved my ears—and increasingly, my attention—toward media that still surprises me. That still thinks out loud, rather than reading from a polished script.

    I’m not rejecting thoughtful media. I’m just bored of watching it slowly turn into liturgy.

  • Love Is Dead. There’s an App for That

    Love Is Dead. There’s an App for That

    Once students begin outsourcing their thinking to AI for college essays, you have to ask—where does it end? Apparently, it doesn’t. I’ve already heard from students who use AI as their therapist, their life coach, their financial planner, their meal prep consultant, their fitness guru, and their cheerleader-in-residence. Why not outsource the last vestige of human complexity—romantic personality—while we’re at it?

    And yes, that’s happening too.

    There was a time—not long ago—when seduction required something resembling a soul. Charisma, emotional intelligence, maybe even a book recommendation or a decent metaphor. But today? All you need is an app and a gaping hole where your confidence should be. Ozempic has turned fitness into pharmacology. ChatGPT has made college admissions essays smoother than a TED Talk on Xanax. And now comes Rizz: the AI Cyrano de Bergerac for the romantically unfit.

    With Rizz, you don’t need game. You need preferences. Pick your persona like toppings at a froyo bar: cocky, brooding, funny-but-traumatized. Want to flirt like Oscar Wilde but look like Travis Kelce? Rizz will convert your digital flop sweat into a curated symphony of “hey, you up?” so poetic it practically gets tenure. No more existential dread over emojis. No more copy-pasting Tinder lines. Just feed your awkwardness into the cloud and receive, in return, a seductive hologram programmed to succeed.

    And it will succeed—wildly. Because nothing drives app downloads like the spectacle of charisma-challenged men suddenly romancing women they previously couldn’t make eye contact with. Even the naturally confident will fold, unable to compete with the sleek, data-driven flirtation engine that is Rizz. It’s not a fair fight. It’s a software update.

    But here’s the kicker: she’s using Rizz too. That witty back-and-forth you’ve been screenshotting for your group chat? Two bots flirting on your behalf while you both sit slack-jawed, scrolling through reality shows and wondering why you feel nothing. The entire courtship ritual has been reduced to a backend exchange between language models. Romance hasn’t merely died—it’s been beta-tested, A/B split, and replaced by a frictionless UX flow.

    Welcome to the algorithmic afterlife of love. The heart still wants what it wants. It just needs a login first.

  • Poseidon Can Wait: My Night at the Bodybuilder Carnival

    Poseidon Can Wait: My Night at the Bodybuilder Carnival

    About six months ago around my sixty-third birthday, I dreamed I was at a strange outdoor carnival—equal parts vintage bodybuilding expo and mythological sideshow. Imagine Venice Beach circa 1977 collided with a protein-scented Renaissance fair. Every booth was oiled, bronzed, and flexing. The air reeked of grilled meat and competitive ego.

    I found myself seated at a worn wooden picnic table across from none other than Frank Zane. Yes, the Frank Zane. He appeared cryogenically preserved—shimmering with coconut oil and the kind of disciplined grace that once made garage-dwelling teenagers across America pick up dumbbells in religious awe.

    Mid-bite into a hot dog (which I suspect he chewed with the calculated intensity of a surgeon), Zane leaned in and said, “I’m selling everything. Moving into a luxurious underwater mansion.” He said this with the calm gravity of a monk planning his final pilgrimage.

    No one questioned him. The idea of Frank Zane embracing Poseidon’s lifestyle apparently struck everyone but me as reasonable.

    I didn’t challenge him—this was a man who once ruled the pantheon of iron. But something felt off. Watching him trade barbells for barnacles stirred something protective in me. So I nodded and declared, with biblical authority, that he was one of the top three bodybuilders of all time.

    The crowd reacted like I had spoken in tongues. Gasps. Reverent murmurs. Zane glowed under the praise like a bronzed deity sunbathing in worship.

    Then, I leaned in.

    “Frank,” I said. “Maybe rethink the whole Poseidon thing.”

    “Why?”

    “Well,” I said, summoning the full absurdity of the dreamscape, “I’ve recently discovered—at 63—that I can throw a 100-mile-an-hour fastball.”

    Without delay, a 70-year-old French professor appeared, squatting behind a makeshift mound in catcher’s stance. I wound up and released pitch after blistering pitch, Zeus-style, slicing the air like divine vengeance.

    Zane’s eyes sparkled. His jaw dropped.

    “I can’t miss this,” he said. “Forget Atlantis. I’ll stay. I need to see you pitch.”

    Applause erupted. I had saved Frank Zane from a life of underwater exile. I had become the miracle.

    If the great psychologist Carl Jung were analyzing my dream, he might say this:

    “Frank Zane is not merely an icon of bodybuilding in this dream. He is the archetype of disciplined masculinity—the part of your psyche shaped by idol worship and heroic longing. His desire to retreat underwater speaks to the lure of fantasy, nostalgia, and detachment. But your fastball—that impossible, mythic feat at 63—is the dream’s axis of transformation. You are no longer the boy in awe of muscle-bound gods. You are the figure of agency, of miraculous reinvention. And the professor? He is the intellect, finally catching what the body has thrown.”

    “This dream isn’t a joke. It’s your soul’s comic book. Read it again. And then throw another pitch.”

  • Pillar of Salt: Why I Turned My Back on Bulk

    Pillar of Salt: Why I Turned My Back on Bulk

    As I trudged through the cavernous aisles of Costco, I felt less like a shopper and more like an explorer hacking through a consumerist rainforest with a mental machete. Everywhere I turned, industrial towers of peanut butter jars loomed like ancient ruins, and battalions of quinoa-based snack items assaulted me with their deceptive health halos. I wasn’t shopping—I was spelunking into the subconscious of the American appetite.

    Then came the Free Sample Fairies—syrupy-smiling heralds of indulgence—beckoning me toward thimble-sized offerings of strawberry smoothies, sushi rolls, and the inevitable ostrich jerky. It was a fever dream: a child’s fantasy of Eden where all cravings are granted instantly and without consequence. Except the consequences were vast, and they waited for me at home like angry creditors—an overflowing fridge, a groaning freezer, cupboards stuffed like hoarders’ closets. To make room for the new bounty, I had to speed-eat the old. Thus began the glutton’s loop: buying, bingeing, repenting, repeating. Costco wasn’t a store. It was an engine of expansion—of appetite, of girth, of existential despair.

    And I wept. Not just for myself but for my people. I wept because we worshipped this oversized temple of abundance as if our very worth hinged on how many gallons of mayonnaise we could carry home. We treated the act of bulk-buying like a civic virtue, a weekly pilgrimage that proved we were living the American Dream. But it wasn’t a dream. It was a performance. A flex. A suburban smoke screen designed to conceal the quiet desperation of too much, too often, too fast.

    So I returned home, hollow-eyed and bloated, and declared to my family that I could no longer continue this pilgrimage. Costco, I announced, was my personal Sodom—dangerous, seductive, and destined for dietary doom. I would henceforth shop only at Trader Joe’s: the humble monastery of portion control, the temple of restraint. My salvation, I told them, would be lined with frozen cauliflower gnocchi and 8-ounce jars of almond butter.

    My family wept. Not out of joy or agreement, but out of grief for the Costco bounty they would no longer see. No more colossal trays of croissants or five-pound bags of trail mix. I watched them mourn the death of excess. I saw it in their faces: longing for the Costco of yore. But I warned them—look back, and you become like Lot’s wife: bloated and salty.

    And then a miracle: They adapted. Slowly, painfully, they embraced the modesty of Trader Joe’s, portioned their expectations, and learned to live with less. They traded abundance for love, proving their devotion not with words but with fewer carbs. In their sacrifice, I found my strength.

    As I penned these reflections, a single tear rolled down my cheek. Whether it was sorrow, gratitude, or sodium withdrawal, I couldn’t say.

  • Moses Meets the App Store in My Descent to Hell

    Moses Meets the App Store in My Descent to Hell

    Five years ago, I had a dream that still clings to me like the stench of sulfur on an unwashed sinner. In it, I found myself suspended over a chasm so vast and foreboding it made Dante’s Inferno look like a weekend at Lake Tahoe. This wasn’t just your garden-variety pit of despair. No, this one was styled by some deranged horror set designer who clearly had unresolved issues with gravity and geometry. The rocks jutted out like they’d been forged in spite, sharp enough to slice light itself. Below me? Nothing but an infinite abyss—pitch black, indifferent, and curling with smoke as if Hell had sprung a leak.

    My right hand clutched a pulley system that seemed to have been engineered by Torquemada during a particularly creative phase. It squealed and groaned like it hated me personally. Each tug upward felt like hauling an anchor through molasses with a rotator cuff made of stale bread. My muscles howled, my fingers cramped into arthritic claws, and I could practically hear my body whispering, “Let’s just give up and fall dramatically.”

    Above me, a shaft of light flickered—not a beacon of salvation, but more like someone had dropped a flashlight into a well and forgot about it. It promised hope the way a gas station burrito promises nutrition: with cruel intent.

    Now here’s where the dream leaned hard into surrealism. In my left hand, I held a tablet—equal parts Moses and Steve Jobs. One moment it gleamed with digital sleekness, the next it was stone, chiseled with ancient script and glowing like radioactive guilt. It was a device caught in an existential crisis, flipping between iPad and Ten Commandments with the kind of indecision reserved for suburban dads browsing Netflix.

    On one side of this metaphysical gadget was a tableau of indulgence—a pulsating carousel of temptation: flesh, flames, laughter, madness. The orgy of excess, curated in high definition. On the other side? A searing Divine Light—pure, unblinking, and full of that holy judgmental glow that makes you instinctively cover your bits.

    As I strained upward—toward gray light, away from that unholy carnival—I had the sinking realization that I might not make it. My body was mutinying. My mind, riddled with indecision. And I knew, deep in my marrow, that if I let go, I’d drop—not just into the pit, but into a punchline told by angels over drinks: “Remember that guy who thought he could have both salvation and the sex party?”

    I hung there, torn between moral clarity and high-def carnality, between stone tablet and glowing screen, between self-destruction and self-delusion. And all I could do was pray that I’d wake up before gravity made the decision for me.

  • The Monster with a Tail: A Southern Gothic Confession

    The Monster with a Tail: A Southern Gothic Confession

    I’ve never forgotten the story one of my students told me in the fall of 1998. She was a re-entry student, a nurse in her early forties juggling UCLA coursework with night shifts at the hospital, and the kind of woman you remember: short, sturdy, bespectacled, with tired eyes that had seen too much and lips that knew how to tell a good story. Most afternoons after class, she’d linger and share dispatches from her Louisiana backwoods childhood or from the VIP wing of her hospital job—tales that ping-ponged between the hilarious and the horrifying.

    But one story chilled me to the marrow and stuck in my head like a burr under the skin. It wasn’t about celebrity patients or ER gore. It was about a monster.

    She and her cousin Carmen were unsupervised children raised in the heat-choked, school-optional outskirts of rural Louisiana. Left to their own devices, the two girls played what she called “mean games”—tormenting frogs and bugs, and doing other things she refused to describe. They were feral, wild, borderline Lord of the Flies with hair ribbons.

    And then came the visitor.

    It was an average swampy afternoon when he arrived. The girls were inside an old ramshackle house, probably scheming new atrocities, when the porch door creaked open and in walked a man. Except he wasn’t a man. He had a tail—thick, heavy, and grotesquely alive. It coiled behind him like a muscular question mark, flicking as he made his way into the living room. His body was matted with bristly fur. His voice was low, scratchy, and deeply wrong. He didn’t yell. He didn’t threaten. He spoke, calmly and with dreadful precision, cataloging every evil thing the girls had done to the frogs and insects. Every cruelty committed under the sweltering sun. He ended with a promise: Keep going, and I’ll recruit you.

    The thing sat in their house for three hours, its tail twitching as it detailed their future in hell’s internship program. The girls were petrified. When it finally left, slinking back into the thick air and cicada scream of Louisiana summer, they sat in silence. Eventually, Carmen whispered, “Did you see that?” My student nodded, mute.

    From that day on, they reformed. Sunday School. Prayer. Fear-based virtue. They never spoke of it again. But the thing had done its job.

    My student wasn’t a flake or a mystic. She was a veteran nurse—sharp, sane, and not prone to flights of fantasy. That’s what made it worse. She wasn’t selling me a ghost story. She was delivering testimony.

    To this day, I can’t shake the image: two children, alone in a creaky house, visited by a thing with a tail and an agenda. Whether it was a literal demon, a shared hallucination, or a supernatural PSA sent by the universe, I’ll never know. But I do know this: after that story, I never looked at childhood mischief—or Louisiana—in quite the same way again.

  • Marriage as a Three-Headed Beast: A Review of The Four Seasons

    Marriage as a Three-Headed Beast: A Review of The Four Seasons

    I’ve worshipped at the altar of Tina Fey’s comedic brilliance for decades, so when The Four Seasons popped up on my Netflix feed, I was dismayed. This didn’t smell like Fey’s usual ambrosia of wit and subversion—it reeked of midlife schlock. I swatted it away like a pop-up ad and went back to Black Mirror Season 7, content to wallow in algorithmic despair. But then the critics on Larry Mantle’s AirTalk (KPCC 89.3, for the culturally literate) described the show as “a good hang.” That faint praise intrigued me. My wife and I hit play, expecting light entertainment. What we got was a surprise: not only was it watchable, it became quietly addictive—then, unsettlingly, admirable.

    In eight breezy half-hours, The Four Seasons somehow captures the slow psychic erosion of long-term marriage with unsettling accuracy. Tina Fey and Will Forte play Kate and Jack, a couple who seem… fine. Functional. Even affectionate. Until the cracks begin to spread like hairline fractures on a windshield. By episode three, they’re in the car, both shouting expletives at the realization they need couples therapy. Not because they’re broken, but because their marriage has mutated into an ungovernable third organism—a beast with its own moods, tantrums, and existential despair. Therapy is no longer optional. It’s marital chemo.

    And so they go. They learn the rules: de-escalation, boundary-setting, “I” statements. The fights stop, which sounds good—until they stop talking altogether. What remains is a dried-out husk of a relationship, padded with therapy-speak and mutual avoidance. Every conversation is a minefield of affirmations and self-soothing clichés. They’ve traded rage for beige. No more screaming matches, but no more real connection either. They look like two grad students in a toxic group project, just trying to pass the semester without killing each other.

    Yet somehow, this truce counts as a win. The marriage is stable. Homeostasis, if not happiness. It’s better than divorce, which they watch unfold in their friends’ lives with morbid fascination. Their pal Nick leaves his wife for a younger woman named Ginny, who speaks in TikTok euphemisms and bathes him in fresh-eyed adoration. Nick is euphoric, weeping with gratitude like a man who’s just discovered fire. But Kate and Jack look at him the way you’d watch someone dancing on the deck of the Titanic. They’ll take their muted misery over the exhausting ecstasy of dating a woman who thinks Kenny Loggins is a type of sourdough. And who can blame them?