0:03 - Introduction to Juror No. 2
1:17 - The Movie's Financial Fiasco
5:23 - Contrived Character Arcs
8:25 - Sympathy for the Devil
16:07 - The Role of Alcoholism
26:09 - The Weight of Conscience
30:28 - Missed Opportunities in Characterization
39:20 - The Plot's Cleverness vs. Execution
50:17 - Final Thoughts on the Film
53:48 - Conclusion and Farewell
In this episode, we're diving deep into the movie "Juror No. 2," directed by Clint Eastwood, as part of our ongoing exploration of cinematic narratives. We open with a light-hearted banter about how our unexpected review came about, likening ourselves to theater performers at the mercy of a surprising payment arrangement. The film, which we initially thought would be a sequel, has intrigued us enough to dissect its themes, characters, and plot mechanics.
We unravel the peculiar dynamics at play in a legal drama that unfolds rapidly, especially noting that the trial completes in roughly 25 minutes. There's an analytical lens cast over Clint Eastwood's directing style, which has often been characterized by a stoic approach where actors are left to their own interpretations. This particular theme continues as we dissect the film's protagonist—a recovering alcoholic who seems to dodge the depths of emotional struggle. The efforts to establish the stark contrast between his past life and renaissance are amusingly critiqued, pointing out how he's been shunted into a hero's role despite a tumultuous history.
The discussion shifts gears as we grapple with character development. Our protagonist is painted as not only the well-meaning individual but also as a symbol of deeply ingrained societal issues, where past misdeeds and transformations are glossed over. A significant portion of our critique revolves around the film's tendency to invoke sympathy for morally ambiguous characters, ignoring the weight of their past actions. The layers of complexity—as seen in the defendant's character, a tattooed gang member—create a murky moral landscape where viewers are encouraged to sympathize with characters who arguably do not deserve it based on their actions.
As the plot develops, we encounter the notion of whether people can truly change and how that sentiment is manipulated within the storytelling. We delve into the psychological ramifications for an individual poised to condemn another man to prison, potentially for a crime he committed himself, unnervingly juxtaposed against his supposed newfound integrity. The stark questions about societal responsibility and personal conscience are reframed through humor and skepticism, drawing attention to the inherent contradictions the film portrays.
Throughout our conversation, we focus on the mechanics of storytelling and the necessity of ensuring character arcs that resonate with viewers. Unfortunately, we all agree that "Juror No. 2" misses this target significantly. It's dissected as being more about narrative architecture than emotional depth, as our characters fail to evolve or elicit genuine investment from the audience. We highlight how emotional stakes are often undermined by flat performances and lackluster writing, making it difficult even to root for characters who should theoretically elicit empathy, as the storytelling becomes a hollow experience.
With the film's climax and conclusion drawing near, we express frustration at the lack of resolution and the protagonist's inexplicable choice to confess to his crime after navigating a minefield of moral dilemmas. This leads us to question the very fabric of the story and its directorial choices. The culmination turns out to be almost a cynical twist, subverting the journey we were led to believe was essential.
We notice the undercurrents of philosophical discourse absent in mainstream conversations around morality, which further disenfranchises the characters we are meant to connect with. As we wrap up our discussion, we find ourselves relieved to relive the exploration of these themes without feeling compelled to indulge in the film itself, concluding that while the premise is intriguing, the execution leaves much to be desired. Ultimately, we guide our listeners through the evident pitfalls within the cinematic experience of "Juror No. 2," inviting them to reflect on what drives cinematic storytelling and emotional investment, reminding them that characters' truthfulness and depth are paramount for engagement.
[0:00] Okay, so we've got, we are prostitutes of the theater.
[0:04] Because somebody, we didn't know we were going to get paid, but somebody really wanted us to do a review of Juror No. 2, which I was convinced was a sequel. I don't know. I just did such a good intro. Oh, sorry, go ahead. Spotlight. Freedomanians, we are back at it again with a movie review of Juror No. 2. We are yappers. I'm so good at this Beautiful I should really just take over the podcast at this point What does it want to rename it to? Oh Divine Divine Yappers Divine Yappers Sorry it's not Freedomanians You're now Divine Yappers, Freedomaniacs So the reason that Izzy's doing the intro is Jared's wife won without visible cheating Let's just say without visible cheating She won at Uno She did a crazy victory dance That's not I don't follow that. What's the name of that tiny hippo? What? Mokbong? Mookbang? You know, the tiny hippo that's all over social media? I've literally no idea. She did a victory dance involving Mookbang, or the tiny hippo that's all over. It was really quite something. We should have had that as the intro, come to think of it. But anyway, so she decided who did the intro.
[1:18] She pointed at Izzy, and Izzy pulled from the very depths of her being, florid language of beauty and perfection. There was swearing.
[1:27] Okay, so we saw the movie Juror No. 2, which incomprehensibly cost $35 million, to make and has grossed so far $21.3 or something like that. Ooh, skill issue. Skill issue. Y'all saw. So directed by Clint Eastwood, who's a famous actor from I don't know, the 18th century or something at this point. The man isn't. He's a ghoul. He's like, what? 94 or something like that. He's famous for not giving direction. Like, nobody knows whether they do a good or a bad job in a Clint Eastwood movie because he's just like, yeah, that's good, or that's a cut, or whatever it is, right? So it is a weird kind of legal drama insofar as normally legal dramas, like they span the whole time of the movie, but this one, the trial was over in like 25 minutes, right? Well, my question is like, what are they going to do if there's a sequel? Go on. Because the title's already number two. Right, right. Mambo number five. That's another song. What if they did it out of order? The sequel is juror number one. And then if they did a third one, they could just some random number juror number 13. Well, there's this whole series of movies back in the 80s and 90s called about this guy, dumb guy called Ernest. OK, so, you know, whatever, whatever. So juror two goes to jail. Juror two goes to jail.
[2:44] All right. So this movie drove me a little batty because it seemed so contrived. So, for instance, the juror was a raging alcoholic, right? Like seriously insane alcoholic, right? But now he's a great guy, you know, with a loving wife who's going to have a baby. Now, he needed to be an alcoholic for reasons we get into. Like plot-wise, he needed to be an alcoholic. So it kind of drives me nuts when they need someone to be an alcoholic and then they make him the greatest guy in the known universe that you totally sympathize with. It's like. I don't know if you all have known any alcoholics. Ah. I mean, but if you've ever known an alcoholic, they're wretched people.
[3:32] Manipulative, destructive. And even if he's like, well, I've quit. Okay. So how old would we say this guy was? Izzy, what would you say? 32. 32? Okay. So a guy's been a raging alcoholic probably since his mid-teens, right? So let's say 15, 17 years. He quit a year ago. Was it? No, I think he said he was four years sober. Was he four years sober? But he was tempted. Yeah, as we'll get into. Okay, so he's four years sober. Okay, so he drank from like, I don't know, 15 to 28. Let's make it 16. 16. I'm kidding. So it's Izzy who just turned 16. Trollery maintains. Although, I mean, for me, I mean 15, but no, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Just the rubbing alcohol you can find at home. I drink mouthwash. So let's say 15 to 28, that's 13 years of rampant, raging alcoholism, right? Now that's going to be somebody with some severe... Uh psychosocial problems relationship problems he's not going to have learned how to deal with his demons he's not going to learn how to get this wonderful wife that he gets and all of that like super pretty and and and loving and and so how he has to be both the worst guy in the world in that he was a raging alcoholic for many years and he also has to be the best guy in the world but he's six three well, is he's height thing is a whole other okay make the case the counselor good cheekbones good cheekbones blue eyes yeah clean jaw yeah well manicured good hair giraffe.
[4:59] So, look, I mean, it really doesn't matter what he's done. I've never felt more noble. He's 6'3". He's 6'3". And clearly rich because that was a nice house. We don't know what he does, do we? Yes. No, he's a journalist. Oh, sorry, yeah. Magazine writers make a lot of money. And he's corrupt. So you got literally everything in one package. A bad boy who's 6'3", but great hair. Yeah, the only thing is, like, I don't think he's ever grown a single beard hair in his life.
[5:23] I think he strained Like he had constipation And managed to pop a few mustache hairs Like one Yeah it was not good It was not ideal But all I'm saying is He really doesn't have to be a good person So you've got this guy Who's a terrible guy Who then has to become a wonderful guy Because lord knows People who are alcoholics And ex-alcoholics Have super big consciences Right so he's got all of that Right that's number one Number two The guy who's on trial For murder.
[5:52] Is a tattooed, aggressive, violent... Gangbanger. Gang, drug dealer to children, but he has to be a great guy too. Yeah. Because otherwise you'd be like, throw this guy in jail. He's going to get popped for something. He's already dealt drugs to kids. He deserves to be in jail. But you have to want the bad guy, the guy who's accused to not go to jail, and you have to really care for the ex-alcoholic that he not go to jail because he's going to be a dad and it just kind of drove me crazy this opposite stuff is just right it just messes with your head because it reprograms people to think oh yeah some guy was an alcoholic for 13 years he'd be a great dad some guy was a did he hit his wife or or did the girlfriend or whatever like the good woman she actually well it's one's one person's telling of it she hits him but he never but he's yelling at her and also he seemed to sweep that beer, the beer glass off the table. There was a certain level. Well, every testimony was different. Right. He went up, he's like, I did this. And then when the other lady went up, she was like, he did that. But when they actually showed the images, it was aggressive versus non-aggressive between each one, which was cool.
[7:02] Yes. Yeah. So, but he definitely was a thug, right? He was a criminal, a violent guy, but you're supposed to be rooting for him. Now, this rooting for the violent guys is really terrible because what happens is then people get let out of jail. People, they don't go to jail. And then, you know, like 90% of crimes or 10% of the people just doing it over and over again. Oh, but he's changed. He's a good guy. How tall was he? Was he okay to not go to jail this year? Which one? The thug, the guy who was on trial. He looks more like buff than tall. Does that count? Yeah, he has a buff. Okay, excellent. Maybe a few tattoos. No, but say the having the sympathy for the devil stuff drives me crazy. Yeah. Because if this guy's been a gang, It's just a gangbanger, drug dealer, sold drugs to kids, and we know that from the black juror guy, which we'll get to later. So these guys are terrible, terrible human beings.
[7:53] You know, alcoholics, he's driven drunk countless times, which is put enormously in children, women, moms, dads, everyone at risk. Yep. He's probably when he was a drug dealer or drug user, probably violent with women. He had this absolutely trash relationship with this woman. It was entirely based upon vanity and looks like just an absolutely terrible human being. But you have to root for him because the actor played him like, I don't know if he was a complete sociopath. He's just getting up there and like, oh, but I've changed. I'm so much better. But they have to play it for sympathy.
[8:26] And so it felt so contrived. Oh, and also the politician with a very strong conscience who just, you know, who's going to work to overturn her entire legal case that she's gone through, you know, because of the stuff. Because politicians are great people. Yeah, lots of people. They just have a deep hunger for justice. Yeah, lots of DAs who unjustly convict people are often working round the clock to undo if they have even the slightest suspicion. Like, it was just so unreal in the extreme that it drove me a little baddie. So anyway, that's sort of my thoughts. But tell me what you guys are thinking.
[9:03] Well, okay. So another thing that, in the vein of what you're sharing there, that's kind of baddie, is that both of these people, the juror and this Mr. Bad Guy who's on the stand, The accused. Yeah, they changed. So the accused, according to the narrative of the story, ostensibly, this is like, yeah, I was a bad guy, but I've been living a different life. I'm a different man now. Well, because he's in prison.
[9:27] For his argument or his case, he's like, no, he had changed before that. He had been changing. He was dating this woman. He was in this trash relationship with this woman who was so immature that she'd walk home in the rain rather than have any kind of – because she wanted to move in. He basically had a stalker. Sorry to interrupt. but the woman wanted to move in with him he was hesitant about it and she was aggressive so aggressive storms off thumbs him in the chest so he's in a trash relationship he goes to prison and he comes out a pure angel no no it's but according to the narrative of the story he was like changed prior to that he had been saying he wasn't doing the like criminal gangbanger stuff prior that his plane ostensibly and i mean that makes sense to tell the stories like you want to sympathize with him to some degree and say like okay he's done a lot of horrible things but he didn't do this you know can we prosecute him for this now and so you know there's this guy who changes for no reason no claim no no come to jesus no it's because it's no philosophy no i called my you know my neighborhood philosopher and got some you know feedback uh but same for joy number two all right now there's this this idea that like he may he meets this wonderful woman and she gives him a chance and that's his you like his out to change but like this is one snap wait the blunt woman who he had a terrible relationship. No, no, no. I'm talking about the juror. Oh, the juror. Okay. Sorry. Yeah. Juror number two. Yeah.
[10:46] Ostensibly, he's the same kind of person, but we're seeing situation where he's a changed man, free will and all. There's no explanation. There's no like deeper process beyond he meets this woman. She gives him a chance. And so he just all of a sudden changes, turns his life. So that's what you want to do. You want to say to women, find a raging alcoholic, and just give him a chance and he'll be a great guy. And give him a baby too oh my god just wretched wretched yeah i i'm not sure i had something uh just now the thought was something like there's not really a person you can identify with as like a decent normal person only by suspending judgment yeah yeah well just taking people at face value like like i can't i can't stick myself in juror number two's shoes if i think about it for too long because i have to have this history of all this garbage and behavior behind me you know it's It's like, you can imagine like, well, what if I did something unawares and managed to, you know, I am, was the trigger for what this guy was accused of. Yeah, yeah. But that requires all this other stuff to have been true. Right. And it's like, that would never happen to me. So, so, and this is, so this is the problem. And I would never be falsely accused because that other guy was a piece of trash. Right. So, so this is one of the problems with movies, right?
[11:59] So, and this is true of TV shows too. So in movies and TV shows, you see someone commit the crime.
[12:06] Now, again, prior to video cameras and all this kind of stuff, never happened, right? So these are all people describing what happened, but you see what happened in the actual movie, right? You know, it's the juror number two. So just very, very briefly, there's a couple of spoilers here, but first sort of very briefly, this guy, the accused guy has a fight with his trash girlfriend. She storms off and walks home in the dark with no light no reflective clothing in the rain right high heels high heels right so then the her boyfriend goes to find her or starts heading in that direction realizes she's not gonna listen to him turns around and goes home right but then she ends up being found dead on the side of a like fallen down a side of a bridge an overpass or something like that and it turns out the juror number two who's the ex-alcoholic was in the bar tempted because his wife had a miscarriage, tempted to drink. He didn't drink. He drove. He hit someone or he hit something. He wasn't sure what. He stops and checks. He sees a damage on his bumper. He looks around, looks over, but it's too dark at night to see. He sees a deer crossing. Yeah. Then he sees a deer crossing sign. It's like, oh, I must've hit a deer. That's a shame, but whatever. Right. And then he goes on. Then he's called to jury duty. And he realizes over the course of the trial, the beginning of the trial, that it was him who hit this woman, not the guy who's being accused, right? So that's sort of the backstory. Now we see, we see what actually happened.
[13:33] That does not happen in life as a whole. So someone says, like, let's say there's some girl, right? And you date some girl. And then she says, oh, my ex, he started off totally great, totally normal. We had a great relationship for a couple of months. Then he just kind of went nuts, became a stalker, blah, blah, blah, right? Now you don't have, in a movie, you see what actually happened, but you never have that when people are telling their stories.
[13:58] If your name is in fact James. So there's this idea that there's this objective view. It's almost like the God view, right? That there's this objective view. So, but you have no, so he says, I wasn't drinking, right? This is why he has to be an alcoholic, right? So he's got a sponsor, Keith Sutherland, being grim and gravel voiced for once in his career. So Keith Sutherland is his sponsor in AA.
[14:22] And he goes to Keith Sutherland and says, hey man, I give you a buck, you know attorney client privilege i think i might hit this woman right i thought it was a deer came home and he says were you drinking he says no i swear to god i wasn't drinking and why were you at a bar well yeah you were at a bar you ordered a drink and no jury in the world is going to believe you weren't drinking right because otherwise he would have just said oh my gosh that was me i thought i hit a deer blah blah blah but because you're an alcoholic you were at a bar everyone's going to assume you were drinking yeah now we know that not quote know that he wasn't drinking right because the movie says that he gets up he doesn't drink right yep but we wouldn't know that in the real world in the real world you only have what people tell you you don't have god mode looking at the fangs so this is what i mean when i say it was so manipulative right i think it would have been better if they never showed him like getting the drink and not doing it they should have left that up for audience discretion but if they do that then yeah we We spend all our time arguing, did he have the drink or didn't he? And then we don't get to what does happen. Well, they don't really care if you think, if you spend your time arguing about what does or doesn't happen because at the end, they left us hanging with arguing.
[15:35] So like if they're gonna do that i think they should commit to it they should what is he lock in lock in so this guard mode stuff it took me an embarrassing amount of time in my teens and 20s to realize that most people just don't tell you the truth about their lives so this guy's gonna say i didn't drink man of course he's gonna say he's an alcoholic he's he's got 13 straight years of pathological lying, which is what alcoholics do. He's probably stolen from people. He's gotten into bar fights.
[16:07] He's cheated on people. He's spread STDs. He's done all these terrible things because he's a raging alcoholic. But we have this objective God view where we now, we have to sympathize with this guy because he said he didn't drink. Now, as easy to point, if he said he didn't drink, but we didn't know, we would lose sympathy for him. Yeah right so that is this this god mode stuff i was in a play when i was in theater school called rashomon which is about a husband a newlywed and his wife going through the forest and they get set upon by a bandit right and when the bandit tells the story the husband is begging for his life and pleading and he takes off with the woman right his wife when the husband tells the story he stands down the the bandit and beats him up and his wife is like oh you're such a hero right? And the wife, I can't remember what she does, but something heroic, she beats up. So everyone has their own version of the story. We're very tempted by this God mode thing.
[17:01] Very tempted by the gut. I mean, look at January 6th, right? We got all this video, right? And people cannot, even with all this video, thousands of hours of video, people can't say what happened, right? People like, look at the fine people hoax, right? People have it on video and they cannot agree. Even if you have it on video, people cannot agree with what happened. None of the stuff that happened that night is on video, except for them, somebody took a video of them at the bar, right? Where the other guy, the drinker, I thought he was going to show up in the background. Me i was hoping he would yeah but that that didn't happen so somehow that he was missed in in the bar, footage and so on right so even even if you get god mode people massively disagree do you remember trump was dumping out the koi food yeah right and everyone's like it's so disrespectful but it was actually the japanese the japanese prime minister who did it first and trump was just following him but if they cut that out it looks like he's overfeeding the silly stuff like that right yeah or or me you know i mean if you if you've done any kind of public stuff that's even remotely controversial you realize that it's so wild to me like i was on twitter the other day looking at this 5.6 million view people saying like hey why did Stef got deplatformed he seemed pretty milquetoast or whatever right and then people are like he was the best guy ever he was the worst guy ever you know like you can see if you've been at all prominent and at all controversial you realize It's just how that nobody has, very few people have any kind of objective view of you. So, except for the positive people.
[18:29] That's totally objective. Totally objective. Absolutely. So, I don't like this in, you have to always make your information off incomplete. You have to make your decisions off incomplete information, right? And so, I felt it was very manipulative in that we knew for sure he didn't drink, which nobody can know for sure, right? If he says he didn't drink, why would I believe him? I mean, his wife barely believed him. I don't know if she actually believed him or not. She just accepted that he said he didn't. Right. Because what other choice does she have? Yeah. Yeah, I mean, she's about ready to have his kid. Yeah, she has to.
[19:05] Yeah. But in that situation, like we haven't mentioned this yet, but like with the accident itself, he reported the damage, but he reported on a completely different road so that to draw his wife away from realizing that he had been at the bar. Right. Yeah. You know, so he was already lying there, even though it was to protect his wife. But I mean, there's always an excuse. Yeah. Right. So this idea that we can get to the truth behind what people say. Yeah. I mean, I also know this from listening to my mother and my father talk about their relationship and divorce. It's like, it's not even the same planet, man.
[19:38] Not even the same planet. And there's no video footage. And even if there is a video footage, people will completely disagree. right January 6th they said oh well they unlocked the doors and let them in no no it was a violent insurrection it's like well why were there no weapons oh right so this idea that we can just look objectively if you have that you wouldn't need to trial so the trial is because we have incomplete information but the movie kind of cheats because they give you complete information and that that bothers me a little bit also okay let's get into some of the technicals which is okay so this woman was hit by a car when spiraling over the bridge and then rains down on rocks and dies right at some point right now the coroner says yeah that's pretty much like being hit with a blunt instrument yeah not even a bit yeah like i'm no coroner but that can't but i watched a little bit of psych right like that cannot like it's not it's really not it's not a car being hit by a car, it's not being hit in your head with a blunt instrument. Yeah. Right?
[20:42] What did the med student say? The med student, there's a med student on the jury who looks at the... Oh, the two clavicles have broken the shoulders, right? Yeah, she's like, this looks like someone got hit in the back by a very strong force. And she's like, oh, yeah, car accident. And that was Basil of the Asian experts, right? She's not even a coroner. She's a third-year med student. Right. So, like... But she's Asian, so... Yeah, yeah. She basically is. No, but so was the coroner, wasn't he? Oh, you're right. Yes, you're absolutely right. A little Japan-Korea combat. there was a point at some i forget who was talking to the da or maybe it was the defense council talking to the da the da elect or whatever because you shoot the politician running for office prosecutor there we go something about the coroner having done five autopsies that day i don't know if it's a large number or not but they made it sound large so like the coroner like skimmed over something in one day yeah if it's an eight-hour work day that's really not a lot, if you're considering a possible murder case. Yeah, yeah. Unless four of them, if determining the cause of death is that they would be decapitated or something like that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, but even then you'll want to know what weapon did it. Right. Stuff like that. So I didn't believe that the coroner was unable to determine the difference between being hit by a car and spiraling over a bridge. I mean, if it was like a government. Yeah, yeah. Well, it was, right? Well, it's also a government employee. Yeah. But that did not seem very...
[22:03] I just know this because I read a lot of books and when they're like a lot of murder mystery kind of things. And whenever there's a murder, I always look up the facts. What happens if X happens to a person? How long does it take? You remain conscious. Oh, right. Like a lot of movies will have it. You get shot in like the arm or something and bleed out. Bleed out. Or you're completely fine the next day and you're lifting stuff. Like it's either one. It's like you have to lose like five liters of blood or something to actually die or pass out from blood loss.
[22:34] Movies are really, really inaccurate because of this. Or movies and shows. I mean, and this is a big one. I think they could have done the setup a lot better. Like they could have had, they just could have had something done differently. I think with the whole setup for the death, that would have made it a lot more believable. Because for me, I get upset over technical problems in movies. A lot of the emotional and character decisions, unless it's some of the character decisions made in the movie Avatar, as an example, where it's really obvious that nobody in their right mind would do something that stupid. But in movies like this, it's like, yeah, I can kind of see why you do this. Yeah, I can kind of see why you do that. But when it comes to technical stuff, there's no, yeah, I can kind of see it. It's like, either it looks like it or it doesn't. Either it is or it isn't. When it comes to technical stuff, that's my big nitpick with movies. Okay that's like the rules of reality in the movie right like yeah right yeah yeah the premises of, yeah because when it's emotional you can never say nobody would do that because you don't know what's going through their head right right okay but emotionally there's some stuff that people would never do so it's getting good yeah but again there can always be some.
[23:44] But you do if you're going to make an exception you have to make it sort of believable so come over the reason you can't just like the the main character now we sort of had this discussion during the movie what's the responsibility of the writer or the actor or the director yeah so again my limited experience directing plays and being in plays is that the actor has to be the advocate for the character so if i was playing the main guy we realized this took place over how long do we think like a murder trial can be long because the due date was the 20 it was october 25th and And he gets called a juridude before that, but it doesn't end until well beyond there. Like they're, it's like into.
[24:22] I would say it's at least a couple of weeks. Yeah. They have, they have, do they go to deliberations or they're still doing the trial and they say happy Halloween? No, that's deliberations is happy Halloween, I believe. Yeah. So, so yeah, right. A couple of weeks at least. Yeah. Probably closer to four to six if it's a complicated mode of trial, but at least a couple of weeks, right? Yeah. So let's just say it's three weeks. So this guy, after a couple of days in the trial, he realizes that he is the one who caused the woman's death. So now he's got murder. He killed or homicide let's say because it was accidental he caused her death but it was not intentional right so he's realized he's taken a life he's got a wife who's got a who's pregnant, and and then he realizes after he talks to his sponsor that he could be facing 30 years in jail or he's got to send an innocent quote innocent drug dealer or whatever to jail right, so you really can't pile more stress on a human being because oh and then he's aiming for a mistrial, right? Which means that he can be tried again, right? The bad guy or the supposed bad guy. So he realizes that the mistrial won't work because his lawyer says to him, nope, there has to be a conviction or there has to be an acquittal, right? So it's one or the other. So he is got to convince everyone to vote the guy guilty because he can't get everyone to vote for acquittal, right? He tries. He tries. There are a couple of holdouts and one guy especially just like, No matter what, I am putting this guy down. Right. You know, I'm certain he did it.
[25:51] So he's got just about the most stress that you could possibly have on a human being, assuming he has a conscience. You know, that's an important thing, right? Yeah. If he doesn't have a conscience, he'd be like, whew, thank God, you know, this guy's going to take the fall, not me, and I'm going to sail on with my life and never give him another thought because that happens a lot.
[26:09] Right. You know, criminals or cops sometimes, or criminals will frame someone else and they will go on with their lives, the criminals, someone else goes to jail, and they're like, well, thank God, not me, right? And they just go on with their lives. So this guy has a conscience, otherwise there would be no tension, right? He'd be like, oh, thank God this guy's taking the fall, I'm going back to my family, right? He wouldn't be puking his guts out the first day. He wouldn't be puking his hoe. He's a sensitive guy with a conscience facing the fact that he- Six three. Okay. I'm sorry. He's facing the fact that he killed a woman, facing the fact that he's either going to go to jail for 30 years, or he's going to send an innocent man to jail for 30 years. That's massive stress over a couple of weeks.
[26:51] If he's got a conscience, the first thing that's going to be affected is his sleep. And he just seemed to have this same sort of semi-blank Ken Cupid doll thing going on throughout the whole movie. He was pretty blank fake. Yeah, and he did have an alpha look too, I'm sure.
[27:06] So he did have this a little bit blank, a little bit monotone. And you can say, well, that's the director or whatever. But the actor should have been pushing for that and saying, look, if I put myself in that situation, I'm not sleeping. And if he's not sleeping, he's going to get erratic. Maybe the director's sociopath. Well, yeah, it's a whole other question. Or sociopath whatever it was.
[27:26] So the character needed more of an arc. He needed to be more tortured. But isn't that the writing? Well. The direction, I guess, could be like put makeup on or don't sleep. Well, just tell him, deliver these lines like you're kind of haunted and haggard. Yeah, this guy doesn't do crap for line delivery. He's just like, yeah. Yeah, he just, and there was only one point where he really showed any stress and that's when his wife caught him on something. He can do kind of like a haunted look, you know, for a moment, but he's like, no, this sustained dragon. What did the audition was? Was it just like stare? Oh, yeah. You know, the part he got right was that moment where he realizes that it could have been him. He played that pretty well. Yeah. Trying to keep it together, trying to keep it going. That was really good. I feel like I would have reacted the exact same way. He did very decent for that moment, but that was the same kind of like anytime it was stress or so, he went right back to that place every time, all the time. And like Stef said, he was never withered. He was never emotionally drained and taken down to his body. Like, you see him, like, you've got to, you lose an HP over time. You lose a constitution point, you know, because of the loss of sleep. Now, this guy who, again, raging alcoholic for at least a decade, probably more. And alcoholics often use alcohol to deal with stress and anxiety, right? So a lot of times it's social anxiety. They don't know what to say. They don't know how to be.
[28:43] But when they drink they're more fun right so or they feel they lose their self-consciousness and so on right so the fact that over the course of this absolutely horrible ghastly brutal trial where this guy is having his entire life turned upside down and facing 30 years in prison he never once indicates any desire for a drink yeah you'd think i thought he would go back to the bar and drink or something or something like that but he had no recurrence of temptation even though alcohol is almost always a stress management and it's under the worst stress how is this worse sorry how is this not nearly as bad as a miscarriage like okay obviously that's, depressing and all right like i'm sorry that sucks but.
[29:26] They never even existed. Like, they were, they never even got born. Like, I'm sorry, I get sad, and I guess, especially if you've been having problems for a long time, but I can totally get being upset and being sad for some time, right? Yeah. But the prospect of leaving the wife and your literal, physical child this time, you actually have a baby who's about to be born. Yeah. That one, unless it's stillborn, unless it's something like that, right? But you literally have, like, It's not going to be a miscarriage at this point. And a wife and you have like your entire life to possibly behind bars for the rest of your life because he said it could be a life sentence. Yeah. And he's like, hmm. Yeah, this isn't great. Yeah. I guess I'm going to have to figure something out. And he has zero temptation to like do anything. But no, you see a miscarriage is like easily 10,000 times worse. Yeah. That's a great, great point. That is a great point. I hadn't thought of that. That's fantastic.
[30:28] So this is where, to me, I've always been interested in character arcs. To me, the whole point of a story, like if you think of the present, right? Rachel at the beginning, Rachel at the end, right? So to me, the character arc is what matters, how life and decisions and choices change you, right? And he just seemed to be kind of monotone throughout the whole thing. And the same thing I felt was true of just about everybody. Everybody But he was just kind of the same at the beginning, the middle, and the end. The only one who had a bit of a character arc would be the defense attorney.
[31:02] The darkhead guy? No. Oh, you mean the prosecutor. Oh, crap. Yeah, prosecutor. Prosecutor, right. But she was still, it was barely anything. Like her personality didn't change. Her motives changed. That's it. And it's funny because she will, this is the very famous actress, Toni Collette. She played the mom in Sixth Sense, which was a very warm-hearted character. And she played this one very cold. No? In the Sixth Sense? that's my memory of it no.
[31:24] So, but she plays this one very cold and serpent-eyed and, you know, like frozen-faced and all of that. Very girl boss machine woman. Yeah, yeah, girl boss cyborg machine woman, like something out of Battlestar Galactica. So she's just a really good actress as far as that goes, although she didn't get very much to work with as far as. So the character, to me, is important. I also thought that the defense attorney was absolute trash. Like so remember the guy the guy the guy who lives the eyewitness right it's like through the rain in the dark you know and and he doesn't bring up like hey can you see that well at night because when i looked at my do you have a prescription have you ever seen cousin vinny my cousin my cousin vinny apparently that's very famous with uh lawyers it really is accurate it is right so when the audience who's not a lawyer is screaming at the tv like he can't see he's an old guy does he have glasses it's raining yeah so so if you're that bad as an attorney what do you do how do you grab well now he is a public defender no no i get that but then play him as an idiot but then play him as an idiot but the actor didn't even say the actor didn't play it's funny if he was like don't don't know like really really dumb dropping his papers and i can't find my glasses they're on top of his head i don't know just like again this guy gives no direction so we can't blame a single thing on the director.
[32:51] So, like, if there's bad acting or bad characters, that's on the writers and the actors. Yeah, it's like, because, you know, they spent about $35 million to make this movie. You know, spend, I don't know, spend a couple hundred bucks for a psychologist to review the script and say, you know, here's what would happen in this situation. Here's what would happen in this situation. I mean, this is worse than war, because at least with war, you can shoot and fight and run. You know, this is like, you've got to convince everyone to lie.
[33:17] No, honestly, sorry to interrupt. but aside from paying the actors to act props could be like 10 000 max because like yeah yeah there's some blood obviously clothing and stuff but people could just bring their own personal wardrobes you could save money on that but then there's like maybe to save money of rental you could just build like a mini courtroom or not mini courtroom but like the not maybe not the courtroom because that would be way more but like the jury table and stuff and then read the courtroom for a day or something like that like it could literally be so cheap aside from the actors and i didn't recognize any big names so like now jk simmons uh keeping his shirt on for once in a movie he's the guy from red one oh yeah that's the only one then yeah he was jk simmons i'm sure that tony collette is she's not a movie star star but she's a certainly competent actor but they weren't paying like massive fees for like brad pitt or something like that so yeah so the fact that the defender did not even bring up some of the most obvious stuff you know which is too cross like to say, did he do five autopsies? How many autopsies did you do that day? You know, how do you know it wasn't a hit and run? Like just the most obvious stuff. So the fact that the attorney was played as competent and an equal to the prosecutor, the defense attorney, but the audience was screaming at the screen, like, how could you miss this is the most obvious thing known to man, right? To say that, like, I was sitting there thinking like the guy threw rain at night, old eyes, it's not even lit, right?
[34:39] And he thinks he sees a guy with a beard who's exactly that guy. Well, he points out this guy. He's like, I saw that man. And how many feet away? How many hundreds of feet? And then say, how did you know it was him? Well, the cop showed me a photo. Did they show you any other photos? You know, just that kind of stuff, right? Yeah. Well, say five photos, put them up and say, which one did you see? He's not going to know.
[35:00] Right. So the fact that the defense attorney was so bad, but then that was necessary, right? So they needed to have the guy credibly convicted, which means that the defense attorney had to be absolute trash head, like just one of the worst. It should have been played that way. It should have been played that way because the guy was played as a, you know, competent, nice guy who was kind of. I would have found it funny if the guy, like the criminal guy who was wrongly convicted was up there and was saying the points that the defender or the public defender didn't make. Like that has learned when he was up there and he was like don't forget man this guy he can't even see how's he gonna recognize me up there like that would have been funny because it would have made the guy look really dumb it would have exaggerated it well and it seemed just when it seems like.
[35:42] Maybe like in just terms like reviewing the script reviewing script as written before it actually gets to you know casting everything else you find something like that which is just obviously just kind of an obvious problem yeah right it's an obvious problem for the defense you know unless they actually put a lot more information then the defense's case becomes stronger which makes it harder to convict yep right and so his job becomes kind of easier in a way because he can acquit the guy yeah you know so it's like well you know review review that stuff and you don't have hot you don't have eyewitness why was it in there in the first place well so this is the challenge for me is that somebody has a good idea like wow wouldn't it be cool if the juror was actually the guy who committed the crime yeah i remember reading an old story a short story about that but anyway so then you say that's a cool idea yeah wouldn't it be cool if, and then what you do is you put all of the pieces together to make that work without any consideration of the actual people involved, the humanity of the people involved.
[36:38] It's like you're assembling a Lego thing or putting together some clock, I need this piece to work here and I need this piece to work here, without any particular focus on the actual human beings go through your little plot machinery. Now, I'm not strong on plot as a writer, so I focus, I'm always battling between plot, theme, message, and humanity. Because the characters, for me, they're always advocating for themselves and say, well, I want to do this. And I'm always battling with them to try, you got to follow the story. Screw the story. This is what I want to do, right? And so there's, didn't, I didn't get any, this was so over-controlled. This was like some philosophically empty Ayn Rand over-control. Well, the characters have to do this and we're going to make it ironic because of this. And then we got the guy, you need to get conviction because of the eyewitness. Very clockwork. Very clockwork. And so I found it kind of soulless. Like when the guy was playing with his daughter i'm like okay but you're just a hollow-hearted guy who's now killed someone and quote got away with it i don't care i think that his wife is an idiot for not noticing any of this stuff and just like oh well i get so they had to make her pregnant so that that the stakes were higher for her and it's like well she needs to be pregnant to make the stakes higher for her and it's like okay but then if she's a pregnant if she's a woman who gets involved with and and has a kid with a guy who's a we don't know how long it was after he'd quit drinking, right?
[37:57] That they got together, right? I think it was that she met him. Well, they met each other while he was on community service for his... Yeah, he was serving community service at the school. DUI, right? Correct. Yeah, he was reading to kids or something like that. He was teaching the kids how to write. That's right, that's what it was. So yeah, she met him in his community service. Yeah. And he stopped drinking after that, at that point, presumably, or whatever. And then, you know... And we don't know how long that had been before. I thought it was, well, I don't know if that was four years from there or what, but his AA token, I think, I remember four years, I could be wrong. I think from my recall, yeah, his AA token was four years. He's like, that's four years, you know? Yeah. I'm going to just see if there's just anything in here. And this is part of the whole, like, people can change conversation. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. But yeah, no, I remember that part of the story where, you know, they met on his community service. So then saying to women, oh, you should totally have kids with a recovering alcohol alcoholic who's been drunk for his adult life and as a writer.
[38:58] God help you, right? So have a kid with a guy who's 6'3 and good looking, right? As long as he's 6'3 and good looking, you can overlook the fact that he's a raging alcoholic who's just reformed and he's doing his probation or his community service for DUI. And it's just like, oh my gosh, monstrous.
[39:21] So yeah, I thought it was a clever plot, but the real challenge is to get the plot together with the actual motives of the actual people. And this guy, you know, he needed to look more haggard over the course of the trial. The other guy is in prison and he needs to look worse and, and, and, and less, like either more buff or less or skinnier, because that's what happens in prison, right? You either get more buff because you go to the gym all the time or you get skinny because you're too stressed or whatever, right? I did not even know, I didn't, I was looking, you know, there's always this thing in movies where the guy gets the guilty verdict, the criminal, the quote criminal, the accused gets the guilty verdict or the innocent verdict. Yeah. And you're looking for a reaction. I get nothing from this guy. Oh yeah. He was just. Nothing. Okay. Eggs, milk, butter. What else do I.
[40:06] Oh i guess i've sentenced to life in prison anyway so that just kind of drove me cigarettes yeah well and and so that kind of drove me a little bit nuts so i i think that it was a clever idea, kind of empty the people were just props for the the quote story and oh and and the the neil degrasse tyson looking guy no right wanted to mention that so you know the black woman was like i want to get on my kids you know that kind of thing right i don't care it's like you know with lynching and all of that you'd think you'd be kind of sensitive about just throwing someone in prison because you want to get home yep and then this is sort of the impossibility of some of the race relations that go on in america i guess most places right it's just like so the black guy, who seemed you know decent you know whatever middle class kind of guy right so then it turns out that the black guy had a brother who was in a gang and selling was sold drugs to or something like something i don't remember it but you know yeah and and the the the white guy is like oh i'm sorry i didn't know it's like yeah you didn't know it's like so so now because you don't assume that the black guys got some criminal family member who was what was he shot by someone in that gang he died from the drugs from that gang something like that so yeah the accused guy was in a gang because of the neck tattoos and and the gang caused the death of this guy's little brother or something like that right yeah so the black guy is like really angry at the white guy for We're not assuming that the black guy's family is full of criminals.
[41:33] Right. And it's like, okay, so what now? What are we supposed to do? Yeah. I mean, if I assume that your family is full of criminals, that's really terrible. If I don't assume that your family is full of criminals, that's really terrible. And it's like, this really does not help people be comfortable with each other. Anyway, it just kind of drove me a little bit nuts. How dare you not assume that my brother was a drug addict? This is after he basically mimes out Dobie White guy for the drug. Oh yeah, he was kind of, I just wanna get home. I just wanna be out there and say I did right by that young man, and he's like, you don't really care.
[42:06] Yes that's the black guy was accusing him the black guy was accusing juror number two like our main character because when he says in the initial the start of the the the the juror jury deliberation juror number two everyone else is like guilty guilty guilty guilty and he's like oh hold up you know we need we're talking about a man's life we need to think about this and the black guy's like oh you don't really care you just want to sleep well at night like oh i did right by that young man yeah so it's okay to like act out you you someone with a conscience so that's bad anyway that just just uh and that seemed uh i hate to sort of say racist or anything like that because that's such an overused term but it did seem a little bit like okay so the black guy a black guy and the and the and the black woman really really want to rush to judgment just throw someone in prison so they can get this over with i'm like and then they start mocking and attacking the guy who's got a conscience and wants to slow things down to make sure you get it right.
[42:58] I don't know it just didn't seem quite it was interesting yeah it was interesting and and just another one of these you can't win like you can't win right so i i thought that was that's kind of tragic so i i you know the story's clever story's clever i mean you can't really say much about the scenery very little music but the ending you know i honestly i didn't care i didn't care so the ending is the prosecutor shows up you know on the guy's door and then the movie just ends right yep and is she gonna say i'm not gonna pursue you or is she gonna say i'm gonna pursue you I assume it was, I'm going to pursue you. Yeah. We assume at that point, to my mind, that she's going to prosecute him. So throughout the, towards the end of the movie, we can see that the DA is putting it together, what actually happened. And then it was actually juror number two that did it. And she's bound in this conflict of, should she act on it or not? Yeah. And they have a meeting where, like, in not so many words, you know, he's giving her the reasons why she shouldn't. Juror number two is giving so many reasons why she should not pursue it. Like, what if he's a good man with a family and you're pursuing this is just going to destroy a life needlessly.
[44:07] And then she doesn't act on it at that moment. And so for the moment, then we later in another scene see him playing with his baby girl. And that's when there's the knock at the door. Yeah. So we think like, okay, well, he got away with it. And then, yeah, there's a knock at the door and the DA opens up. So then I have to assume at that point she's changed her mind. Yeah, yeah. She's going to come after him. Yeah. And he has this conversation. It starts off kind of cryptic and then it gets very not cryptic. After the trial, he comes and watches the sentencing, right, of the convicted guy, right, and sentenced to life in prison. So then he's out sitting on the on the bench and then the prosecutor comes out right the tom cruise guy the juror number two he he's sitting on the bench and then they basically have a conversation where he says yeah pretty much i i'm responsible and it's like why would you say that she's gonna be recording well yeah first yeah so so the idea this is from an old movie wall street and it's happened a bunch of times it's like you know i've been recording this whole thing and now with a cell phone it's like you don't even you wired up you just have your cell phone they record everything right yeah so the fact that he went through all of this all of this to make sure he didn't get convicted of anything and then confessing to the da makes the entire movie completely pointless.
[45:20] Completely and totally pointless because she kind of gets him because of the car records the repairs and all that kind of stuff right she kind of gets as a suspicion and so so but he she doesn't have any proof and does she want to do the whole thing again if he's going to deny everything and his wife is going to give him an alibi, whatever it is, right? Yeah. So the whole movie is all of the hoops he's got to jump through to stay out of prison. And then he's like, or after I've succeeded in that, I could just confess to the DA or the prosecutor. And I'm like, so there was no point to any of this. Like not even a bit, right? Look at all the crazy loops and machinations I have to go through to stay out of prison so at the end of the movie, I can confess to the crime. It's like he's never heard of if they find new evidence, they can reopen a case. Yeah. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right so i that's like that is a real thing he would be like i have no idea what you're talking about you know i i'm i just i wanted to see this through like first of all don't go right but he has to but but again for the plot he has to go right and and his wife you know would say where are you going so is he now lying to his wife he said i'm going to like i well he's like he's at that point it's out in the open between the two of them yeah he's like you know i basically put this guy away for you know for life the least i can do is go to his sentencing well and what would she say as a wife she would say like absolutely.
[46:40] Not we did not go through all of this like he's a bad guy she would say you know he's he fine yeah like i mean so oh no he can't be part of his gang and sell more drugs to kids or whatever was going on with him right so she would say like but he's like she's like yeah off you go here we go pat off you go yeah you go hang around that that prosecutor and all of that right so it kind of drove me nuts because the whole point of the movie was like all the twists and turns and crazy stuff he had to go through to make sure that the other guy went to prison and then he shows up but she has to do right he shows up because it's part of the plot right yeah and so he shows up his wife doesn't say over my dead body are you going that you you you set no foot near anywhere of this ever again right yeah but she's like oh off you go i packed your lunch a long one because you'll need it for 30 years and then he's sitting on the bench and he basically just confesses to the prosecutor and it's like so the entire two hours was pointless pointless exterminate oh my gosh no that that felt like again that's just part of the well wouldn't it be cool if and you know what they've got these things it's a bunch of writers or like there's one writer but he's probably wouldn't it be cool if oh yeah we're gonna he's gonna go and then she's gonna have this conversation and and and it's just like oh but but you know have some sympathy for the audience that's invested their time in the story and don't make the entire story pointless by having him confess at the end basically it's like having it on the dream oh yeah yeah yeah or or it's it's it's like well you know but he's so guilty he ends up having to confess.
[48:07] Right right like he's so he's so guilty that he ends up having to confess it's.
[48:12] Like okay but we didn't see any of that wrestle too much over the course of the.
[48:16] Yeah and and you know what's what's really good is is we know if you're going to give the audience the view into what's really happening we need to get a couple of winks right so we need to see We need to see, we know what he's really upset about. Which is he's exhausted and he's under all this stress, but he appears to be really unhinged in a way. And the other people are like, gee, I wonder what's going on, but we know what's going on, right? So in Hamlet, it's that Hamlet sets up this play to trap the king.
[48:42] And we know what's going on, but the king doesn't. And it's believable that he doesn't, right? So those layers were just not built in. And I mean, Clint Eastwood is a bit of a mechanical director that way. He does more stuff, a plot and story, and it wouldn't be cool if rather than the actual humanity stuff. But yeah, you needed someone who was good with that character arc because, man, that just wasn't a thing. So it's like, okay, so he goes to prison. And he's going to go to prison now also for not just homicide, but also for subverting the entire legal process, right? And being a juror and not coming and saying, I got to recuse myself because I got a conflict. Like, he's just, he's toast, right? Yeah. And then I'm like, okay, so the bad guy who was a crime guy, gangbanger, as you say, who sold drugs to young people, okay, or his gang did, so he gets out of prison. Am I supposed to feel good about that? Nope. So this guy who got away scot-free and then went back and confessed, he goes to prison. Am I supposed to feel bad about that? Oh, no, the ex-alcoholic who killed someone isn't going to be around to be a dad. Oh, no. So I don't care. And do I care that the woman who had the terrible choice in fathers loses a guy because he goes and confesses? Like, I don't care about any of them. Please give me someone to root for. That's all I can do for. Please give me someone to root for. It reminds me of a micro soapbox I was about to get on in the beginning of this review. And all of these things, all the movies reviewed, a lot of the conversation we had, like, what goes on in the world, like Elon Musk on Twitter and all these things.
[50:10] Philosophy is sorely missing from all of these conversations. Morality and philosophy. It's nowhere to be found.
[50:18] Nope so all right anything else that you wanted to mention i've got nothing you oh no you so well i have the question of like would you recommend for one to go watch this movie because i personally would not you would want yeah i would i would not because i i found it just a complete empty experience you know i mean i was trying to root for people i was trying to find the good in someone and I just couldn't. I didn't believe the gangbanger who said, but I'm a nice guy now. Fair. I didn't believe him. I didn't believe that the guy was going to be a good dad after being, at his point, after being an alcoholic for so long. I thought that the woman was a complete idiot to settle down with this kind of guy. She's a teacher. And she's a teacher, as you would point out. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So did I care about the DA? I didn't care about the prosecutor. Did I think that the doofus Italian guy who was the defender was like, I just didn't care about anyone. And it was, so it was a clever idea, but I thought it was just so badly executed as a whole and such a sort of hollow emotional experience that I think the only thing, the only good things ever get come out of this is this review. Yeah. I do have one sort of thing. It sort of goes back to basically what you were saying. There were times where I thought like, and it's just one of those, it wouldn't be cool if probably ideas.
[51:35] I thought there, there were times where they flirted with this notion of like 12 angry men yeah which i thought was like that would have been interesting but they only sort of came approach and then he just turned to whore away from it for the rest of the story piece that they wanted to put together and it in that way it's not satisfying well the other unsatisfying thing was there was this whole speech where he convinces everyone to vote guilty that was the whole climax of the movie that doesn't even happen on screen right he spends most of the movie and getting up to like half of the jury to say the guy's innocent, realizes he can't go to get the full for the whole full way yeah switches switches gears yeah But we don't find out. We see none of it. We only find out later. And he's not even at the reading of the verdict, right? He's like missing from the box. Right. Yeah. And I'm not sure what that was all about either.
[52:19] Do you not have to be there because she asked, did everyone agree to this? Fair, yeah. But she's asking the foreperson who I think speaks on his behalf. But yeah, he wasn't there. I'm not sure if that was explained or if I missed something or I was so roiling. Because his baby was just born. Oh, that's right. Maybe that was what it was. Yeah. So I would say no. I didn't really believe anyone involved, the motivations and the humanity. I think now that you've heard the review, you don't really need to watch the movie. The movie was about a cool concept for a story, and you just heard the cool concept of the story, so I don't think it's worth it. Yeah, they janked up executing that concept. Yeah.
[52:54] I only care about the people in movies. I really only care about the people. It's kind of like in life. I only care about the people, the stuff, and the cleverness and the circumstances. I don't really care. And also, I just know enough about human nature to know that there was nobody I was rooting for except maybe the deer. I appreciate that. The deer. You convinced me because initially I was like, you know, it posed an interesting enough question. I think it's worth watching. But when you point out the fact that they built this up and it just negated the whole thing, I'm like, oh, yeah, you know what? You're right. And that is really holy. And nobody noticed this. I mean, these are professional storytellers. Just nobody noticed this kind of stuff. We have the same questions around Homestead. All right. Well, thanks, everyone. Freedomand.com slash donate to help out the show. Thank you, Izzy, for your stirring introduction. Anytime. And apparently if you're 6'3", okay, never mind. I'm kidding about that, by the way. Of course. I'm just, it's a joke. No, you also have to be wealthy. All right.
[53:49] It's 6'2". 6'2". That's the minimum. All right. Freedomain.com slash the night. Thanks everyone so much. Bye. Bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
