Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of
Speaker 1: My Heart Radio. Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind.
Speaker 1: Listener mail. My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick,
Speaker 1: and it's Monday. It's actually not Monday when we're recording this,
Speaker 1: but it's Monday for you, and we're ready to go.
Speaker 1: We got Carney the mail bought here, rob would you
Speaker 1: like to jump right in with this email from Samara? Sure?
Speaker 1: This one is an email responding to a Vault episode.
Speaker 1: So it's actually a response to an episode that published
Speaker 1: like the year prior, but it has to do with
Speaker 1: the Star Lac episode that we did. But we talked
Speaker 1: about the star Lac from Star Wars and some things
Speaker 1: in the natural world that that line up with it.
Speaker 1: So samaraw Right, Hello, Robert and Joe. I've only recently
Speaker 1: been introduced your wonderful podcast, and over the past year,
Speaker 1: the nexus at which my art, theology and science signaps
Speaker 1: is intersect has lit up like a Christmas tree. Your
Speaker 1: recent replay of the starlike episode was fabulous, but I
Speaker 1: was a little surprised you didn't deep dive into the
Speaker 1: conundrum that has confused and horrified me. Since childhood. How
Speaker 1: could a living organism with an average lifespan be kept
Speaker 1: alive long enough to endure the suffering of being slowly
Speaker 1: digested over a thousand years? I now wonder if I
Speaker 1: had taken this too literally, although a recent pandemic inspired
Speaker 1: reviewing of World War Z had me asking the same question.
Speaker 1: How could a zombie host organism remain without food for
Speaker 1: so long, or bleed out from injuries and simply not expire?
Speaker 1: Surely if the host stars or sustains oregon damage, the
Speaker 1: zombie does too. I'm aware of organisms such as tartar
Speaker 1: grades that are preternaturally resilient and long living, but I
Speaker 1: am yet to hear of mammals or any creature within
Speaker 1: the animal kingdom being held in suspended animation due to
Speaker 1: a virus. I am, however, very happy to put overthinking
Speaker 1: it to one side and enjoy all things unanswerable for
Speaker 1: the sheer entertainment value. Thanks for continuing to delve into
Speaker 1: the weirdness such robust research in a commitment to intrigue.
Speaker 1: Warmest regards tomorrow. Well, this is funny because I thought
Speaker 1: we did talk about this, but maybe we talked about
Speaker 1: it off Mike the confusion. I remember thinking when I
Speaker 1: when I was a kid, slowly digested over a thousand years.
Speaker 1: The implication is that somehow it makes you live for
Speaker 1: a thousand years. And I was like, well, what if
Speaker 1: we could harness the Sarlac technology, like whatever the Sarlac
Speaker 1: does to extend your lifespan, but without the digestion part. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I guess the different ways of interpreting it.
Speaker 1: You could say, well, okay, it's for one thing. You
Speaker 1: could say it's a legend. It's a local legend about
Speaker 1: an organism, so it doesn't actually digestive for a thousand years,
Speaker 1: though perhaps it's digestive system does take a long time. Um,
Speaker 1: but you're not gonna be alive through all of it.
Speaker 1: Or you could go in the other direction, you know,
Speaker 1: where it will feel like it takes a thousand years
Speaker 1: because it will be so painful. Again, I'm not sure
Speaker 1: whose testimony that is relying on. I mean, uh uh.
Speaker 1: I guess some people do make their way out. We
Speaker 1: know of at least one that did. But then again,
Speaker 1: it is Star Wars. It is a galaxy far far away,
Speaker 1: So perhaps there is some reason and some way that
Speaker 1: an organism is kept alive inside the you know, digestive
Speaker 1: process of this vast creature. Yeah, the star like uses
Speaker 1: the force to keep you alive for a thousand years
Speaker 1: while it digests you. Anyway, somebody follow up on that,
Speaker 1: get get one of those life extension gurus down down
Speaker 1: in there and see what's going on. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: it's what you said, is not impossible, right if if
Speaker 1: if you find um mendic glareans in all beings and
Speaker 1: it's just you know, the higher higher rates that produce uh,
Speaker 1: you know, four sensitive individuals, then I don't know, there
Speaker 1: could be something unique going on inside the star lac.
Speaker 1: You know, maybe if it swallows you and your force
Speaker 1: sensitive or maybe there's yeah, who knows, maybe there's some
Speaker 1: sort of um, you know, a process us by which uh,
Speaker 1: these tiny organisms are themselves digest in the digested in
Speaker 1: the starlac. I don't know. Okay, maybe we should go
Speaker 1: onto this next message that is also a straggler about
Speaker 1: an older episode. This was about the episode on Invented Words.
Speaker 1: This comes from Chris. Chris says, Hi, Robert and Joe,
Speaker 1: longtime listener from Australia. Here this is a bit of
Speaker 1: a throwback, but I wanted to contact you about your
Speaker 1: episode on Invented Words. In the episode, you suggested that
Speaker 1: the words selfie was merely the result of a creative
Speaker 1: Australian on the Internet. But I think there's more to
Speaker 1: it than that. In Australia, we regularly add on to
Speaker 1: the ends of words, either an E or an O.
Speaker 1: For example, tradespeople, plumbers, landscapers, et cetera are often referred
Speaker 1: to as trade e s. Taking a sick day is
Speaker 1: referred to as chucking a sick e uh, and executing
Speaker 1: a U turn while driving is refer two as doing
Speaker 1: a UEI. We have that last one, at least here
Speaker 1: in the United States. But then Chris goes on a
Speaker 1: cigarette or tea break is a smoke O, a rough
Speaker 1: or uncouth person is a darrow from derelict, and a
Speaker 1: service station or gas station is a servo. These are
Speaker 1: just a few examples among many many others. Sometimes it's
Speaker 1: most appropriate to add an O and other times an E.
Speaker 1: But I'm not a linguist, so I couldn't explain why.
Speaker 1: All I can say is that if I had to
Speaker 1: add to the end of the word self it would
Speaker 1: be with an E. So the invention of the selfie
Speaker 1: may actually just be the result of a language convention
Speaker 1: of spoken Australian English. Many thanks for all your great work,
Speaker 1: Chris PS. I'm currently working on a study of invertebrate
Speaker 1: and vegetation recovery after bush fire. It means lots of
Speaker 1: time spent on a microscope counting ants and sorting them
Speaker 1: into subfamilies. Uh. And I think he's referring to you here, Rob,
Speaker 1: your son may enjoy the sub family A mer MESSI
Speaker 1: an E I hope I said that right. It's M
Speaker 1: y R M E C I I in a big
Speaker 1: bloody mandibles. You can't go wrong, Chris. Oh yeah, that's
Speaker 1: right up his alley, superindo hands right now now, I
Speaker 1: thought we this is yet another one where I have
Speaker 1: a memory of us talking about this feature of Australian English,
Speaker 1: like the adding an e to the end of an
Speaker 1: e sound to the end of things. I think it's
Speaker 1: usually spelled with an I E. Chris did spell it
Speaker 1: that way in the email. Uh did this not come
Speaker 1: up in the episode? I don't remember. I remember I
Speaker 1: vaguely remember us doing this episode, and I remember there
Speaker 1: being some source or sources we were looking at that
Speaker 1: were doing that had examined the history of selfie and
Speaker 1: tried to find some sort of an answer for it,
Speaker 1: and and yeah it was somehow traced to Australia. But yeah,
Speaker 1: it's been a while since I listened to that one.
Speaker 1: I do remember thinking that the earliest written example of
Speaker 1: it anybody could find was an Internet comment, like a
Speaker 1: forum post is always an embarrassing origin for a word,
Speaker 1: but then again it makes sense that it would be
Speaker 1: be connected to this, just the the Australian usage um.
Speaker 1: This also reminds me of um. And this is not
Speaker 1: something that I think was a comment commentary on any
Speaker 1: actual uh, you know, linguistic or slang tendency, but just
Speaker 1: for the the style of writing the skit. Uh, there's
Speaker 1: the Key and Peel skit about action movies where the
Speaker 1: two chauffeurs talking about Liam Neeson movies and they refer
Speaker 1: to him as Liam Neeson's And I saw a bit
Speaker 1: with Key and People where they were talking about like
Speaker 1: the rule for writing the sketch for subsequent sketches was
Speaker 1: that you have an actor's name ends in an S,
Speaker 1: you take the S off and if it doesn't end
Speaker 1: in an S, you add the s. So thus you
Speaker 1: get like uh, Bruce Willie, Bruce Willie and Liam Neeson's, etcetera.
Speaker 1: It's funny how in reality we don't usually need to
Speaker 1: have the rules for language conventions like that spelled out.
Speaker 1: We just get it intuitively, you know, like he's talking
Speaker 1: about you just know it either ends in the E
Speaker 1: sound or the O sound. But you couldn't explain why. Yeah,
Speaker 1: generally these things just emerged that they're not constructed so much.
Speaker 1: Oh wait a minute, I know the earliest example that
Speaker 1: the broader world became aware of. Right, it's got to
Speaker 1: be throw a shrimp on the barbie. Barbie means barbecue,
Speaker 1: that's right. Yeah, all right, here's another one. This one
Speaker 1: comes to us from Jonathan on the subject of halos.
Speaker 1: Joan rob I was wondering if you ever came across
Speaker 1: this theory in your research of halos. I once read
Speaker 1: a suggestion that the concept originated in ancient times, when
Speaker 1: round plates were placed over the heads of statuary of
Speaker 1: important persons to protect them from being defiled by bird droppings.
Speaker 1: I love the possibility that such an ethereal symbol would
Speaker 1: have such a base origin. Uh, Jonathan. Our next piece
Speaker 1: of listener mail addresses this very idea, so hang tight,
Speaker 1: and they continue quickly regarding ours. I was reminded of
Speaker 1: an essay by Aldus Huxley where he asserts, at quote,
Speaker 1: brilliantly illuminated by peternatural light, inwardly glowing images of bright
Speaker 1: and purple color exist in the mind at large. Of course,
Speaker 1: that's a whole tangent, but it adds a slightly different
Speaker 1: view of why we may be so attracted by anything
Speaker 1: that seems to glow of itself best, Jonathan, Jonathan, I
Speaker 1: looked up the link you sent about about this essay
Speaker 1: by Huxley, So this actually comes from a summary and
Speaker 1: a review of Huxley by Paul Zucker, and I found
Speaker 1: the original, and so, yeah, he's talking about this book
Speaker 1: of Huxley's where Huxley is doing sort of a scientific
Speaker 1: read on art criticism that involves, of course, a lot
Speaker 1: of ideas about mysticism and psychedelic experiences and stuff like that. Um.
Speaker 1: But I also came across this interesting paragraph of of
Speaker 1: Zucker summarizing Huxley's ideas quote, the problem is actually whether
Speaker 1: men began to prize Jim's to grind pebbles because they
Speaker 1: wanted to reflect the other world as far as possible
Speaker 1: in their work, or described that other world in terms
Speaker 1: of jewels, etcetera, because they had experienced their beautifying effects
Speaker 1: in daily life. Is the transporting power of fireworks, of
Speaker 1: an illumination of all kinds of other glamorous spectacles and
Speaker 1: pageantries based on the feeling of an attenuated echo of
Speaker 1: the visionary world? Or does it merely represent a satisfaction
Speaker 1: of a visual sense? Huxley firmly believes in the first explanation.
Speaker 1: So they're in interrogating the idea of whether, like a
Speaker 1: glimmers of light and shiny objects, whether that is a
Speaker 1: sort of natural part of just what the brain does
Speaker 1: when it's having a mystical or psychedelic or visionary experience inwardly.
Speaker 1: And then do we seek out you know, gold and
Speaker 1: rubies because that recreates for our eyes the experiences that
Speaker 1: we have in our minds when we see visions, you know,
Speaker 1: just what emerges naturally from the neurons firing in the
Speaker 1: right way. Or is it that we have visions like
Speaker 1: that because we know that gold and jewels and the
Speaker 1: sun glint in that way in the real world. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a great contemplation. I mean, I guess one is
Speaker 1: tempted to take the middle ground and say that these
Speaker 1: these two things feed into each other, or at least
Speaker 1: that's my take. Okay. Anyway, this next message comes from
Speaker 1: Scott and it picks up on the first thing that
Speaker 1: Jonathan mentioned. Hi, Rob and Joe, longtime listener here with
Speaker 1: either a potential insight or at least an amusing digression
Speaker 1: on Halo's after listening to your part one episode there on.
Speaker 1: When I first went to the Parthenon Museum in Athens
Speaker 1: a few years ago, I read about how vertical holes
Speaker 1: in the back of the neck of many statues of
Speaker 1: divine beings supported a meniscus plural meniskoy, a crescent shaped
Speaker 1: metal piece hovering over the statue which functioned to keep
Speaker 1: birds from sitting on the head and pooping on it,
Speaker 1: at least according to a reference in the Birds by Aristophanes.
Speaker 1: And that's an ancient Greek satirical lay. Uh. There were
Speaker 1: indeed many such holes in statues on display, but apparently
Speaker 1: no surviving miniskoy, perhaps because later generations stole and melted
Speaker 1: down the metal for some other purpose. This fact startled
Speaker 1: me because it seemed there was an obvious connection with halos.
Speaker 1: What if Greek statues originally had miniskoy in order to
Speaker 1: protect their heads from bird poop, but this functional design
Speaker 1: gradually began to be associated with divinity, only later to
Speaker 1: enter painting and other forms. Of course, halos or other
Speaker 1: kinds of glows exist in iconographies of other cultures and
Speaker 1: perhaps predated miniskoy, but it is still possible that miniskoy
Speaker 1: influenced the history of halos and other artwork. There's controversy
Speaker 1: about miniskoy. At least one modern scholar doubts they even existed,
Speaker 1: and perhaps Aristophanes was making some kind of joke we
Speaker 1: can no longer quite understand, and Scott supplies a link here. Uh.
Speaker 1: It's also possible that miniskoy were intended to be supernatural
Speaker 1: halo and Aristophanes was joking about their function when he
Speaker 1: knew full well they weren't there to keep birds off
Speaker 1: the heads, or perhaps this was only a secondary, fortuitous function.
Speaker 1: But I remained surprised that, at least as far as
Speaker 1: I can tell, there is little or no discussion in
Speaker 1: the scholarly literature about the relationship between miniskoy and halos.
Speaker 1: Perhaps you can either find some and enlighten me, or
Speaker 1: by pointing to this gap in art history, encourage some
Speaker 1: of your listeners with the relevant skills to explore this connection. Scott, Well, Scott,
Speaker 1: this is a great email. Yeah, and a really great idea.
Speaker 1: We I did not come across this in my HALO
Speaker 1: research and uh and this is really interesting. It ra
Speaker 1: also raises a great question about, like, you know, the
Speaker 1: interpretation of comedy and satire from the past and from
Speaker 1: other cultures. You know, um, not that will necessarily be
Speaker 1: the case in the future. I guess there's just so
Speaker 1: much more material to go on. But but you know,
Speaker 1: if we were to play that game of saying, what
Speaker 1: if the future aliens or future civilizations were look back
Speaker 1: and they only had this one bit of stand up
Speaker 1: comedy to go on, or what if they had only
Speaker 1: thirty minutes of Monty Python sketches to go on in
Speaker 1: order to try and understand what what life and the
Speaker 1: twentieth century was like? You know, how would they begin
Speaker 1: to tease that apart? Because take take, for instance, say
Speaker 1: the Ministry of Funny Walks. You know, that is an
Speaker 1: outrageous example of it's an outrageous skit that is not
Speaker 1: representing anything that literally exists existed in the world, but
Speaker 1: it is a ridiculous satire of of some of the
Speaker 1: things that we do engage in, you know, both in
Speaker 1: terms of of you know, governmental offices and so forth,
Speaker 1: and then also you know ridiculous uh, you know, marching
Speaker 1: steps that are that are common in you know, various
Speaker 1: armed forces displays and so forth. Well, so there's another
Speaker 1: big issue with comedy. Uh, that's difficult to interpret across
Speaker 1: time because you can lose perspective across time as to
Speaker 1: what about it is supposed to be funny, even if
Speaker 1: you know it's supposed to be funny. I'm thinking, for example,
Speaker 1: of the Monty Python sketch about the dead parrot. Now,
Speaker 1: that's funny to us just because it is an absurd situation,
Speaker 1: and a lot of Monty Python skits are like that.
Speaker 1: They're not satirizing any particular thing that happens in the
Speaker 1: real world. It's just absurd. But you can imagine a
Speaker 1: future historian looking at that skit and saying, like, was
Speaker 1: this a problem in the twentieth century where there are
Speaker 1: many pet shops in Britain that we're selling people, dead
Speaker 1: pets and this is a this is a joke about
Speaker 1: how common this is? Yeah, or you know, I think
Speaker 1: we've talked about this before, um, you know, growing up
Speaker 1: watching Mystery Science Theater three thousand. I don't know if
Speaker 1: I've had this. I think we've had this conversation where
Speaker 1: there are jokes on MST three K that I've been
Speaker 1: laughing about my entire life, and I still don't necessarily
Speaker 1: know what they are about. In all cases, you know,
Speaker 1: there might be a reference to some sort of television
Speaker 1: show that the creators were familiar with because it was
Speaker 1: on TV, you know, when they were growing up. And uh,
Speaker 1: and so I don't specifically know the reference, but I
Speaker 1: know that it is funny, and I interpreted it is funny.
Speaker 1: This is something. Yeah, I can't remember what episode this
Speaker 1: came up in, but are This is still one of
Speaker 1: the most interesting things about humor to me, that something
Speaker 1: can be funny even if you don't get the joke.
Speaker 1: This was especially common I remember a lot when I
Speaker 1: was a kid, but it still happens sometimes, Like they
Speaker 1: say an actor in a movie looks like somebody, and
Speaker 1: then it's funny when you hear it, Like it makes
Speaker 1: you laugh, but you actually don't know who that other
Speaker 1: person is. Just something about the delivery was funny. Yeah,
Speaker 1: all right, let's move on to another one. This one
Speaker 1: comes to us from Joe Another Joe Uh. They write,
Speaker 1: thanks for the interesting podcast on Halo's. I love seeing
Speaker 1: the evolution of Halo's and art and the way they
Speaker 1: demonstrate the advancement in the understanding of light and how
Speaker 1: to depict it. Your discussion of halos and movies focused
Speaker 1: on more serious angel depictions, but I had a faint
Speaker 1: since memory of Halo is in lighter fair. I started
Speaker 1: by looking at the recent and magnificent good omens, but
Speaker 1: these business like angels lack true halos, although as Zerra
Speaker 1: Fail is occasionally shot to have an apparent halo for
Speaker 1: comedic effects so like lighting effects, and often wears white
Speaker 1: hats with a golden band. The angel Uriel also has
Speaker 1: a gold motif on his face, but it's not really
Speaker 1: a halo. And they're the and they're the only angel
Speaker 1: so decorated. Oh yeah, and I so um. Joe attached
Speaker 1: a few pictures for us to look at, and in
Speaker 1: the case of this character as Zero Fail, I haven't
Speaker 1: seen this show, so I don't know who these characters are,
Speaker 1: but Yeah shows that this character is often backlit and
Speaker 1: he has some like wispy white sideburns so that they
Speaker 1: very much catch the glow of the lighting from behind.
Speaker 1: This is the character played by Michael Sheen, the the
Speaker 1: always excellent Michael Sheen. I think I watched the first
Speaker 1: episode of this and it is quite good, but for
Speaker 1: some reason I didn't keep going with it. It's too
Speaker 1: much to watch. I mean, I generally love anything uh
Speaker 1: Terry Pratchett, any anything that his his creativity was involved in.
Speaker 1: Oh anyway that Joe continues here. Then I remembered the
Speaker 1: charming I dated film Angels in the Outfield, which that
Speaker 1: is good because my mind did not immediately go here.
Speaker 1: Joe rights the film has pure archetype angels robes, sandals, wings,
Speaker 1: and shimmering golden hoops about their heads. So there you
Speaker 1: have it, Halos in cinema. Joe included a link here
Speaker 1: for to a video. It's the scene in Angels in
Speaker 1: the Outfield. I haven't seen this movie since I was
Speaker 1: a kid, but I remember it very vividly. I think
Speaker 1: as a kid, Joseph Gordon loved in it. Am I wrong?
Speaker 1: About that. I think so. Yeah, there's a scene where
Speaker 1: one of the characters like catches a flyball. The plot
Speaker 1: of Angels in the Outfield is that there is a
Speaker 1: professional baseball team that's extremely bad, and a kid makes
Speaker 1: a wish to Heaven that they'll I guess that they
Speaker 1: could win win, or that they win the World Series
Speaker 1: or something like that, and then the angels down and
Speaker 1: they're like, yep, we will answer your prayers, which seems
Speaker 1: just utter abuse of supernatural powers. Oh wait, I don't
Speaker 1: think I you know when they when I read the title,
Speaker 1: I was confusing this with the what was it? Uh,
Speaker 1: if you build it, they will come movie. Oh you're
Speaker 1: thinking a Field of Dreams, Field of Dreams? Yeah, I
Speaker 1: had I had the too confused. I was thinking this
Speaker 1: must be the same film, but it's not. I thought
Speaker 1: you were maybe saying you were you were confusing it
Speaker 1: with air Bud. That'd be a good crossover. What if
Speaker 1: it's air Bud is a dog is a dog, but
Speaker 1: all dog go to heaven when they die. He comes
Speaker 1: back as an angel, an angel dog and help. I mean,
Speaker 1: these can all films can just be made into one,
Speaker 1: and they're probably probably be better for it. I was
Speaker 1: trying to think who plays the angels and angels in
Speaker 1: the outfield? I was thinking, can I mentally cast this movie,
Speaker 1: like I remember one is Christopher Lloyd? But beyond that,
Speaker 1: could I round out the cast of extra angels from
Speaker 1: my imagination alone without looking it up? I was thinking,
Speaker 1: was John Lovett's in there? Was there John Lovett's Seraphim?
Speaker 1: That seems right? Um, see, yeah, I'm looking at the
Speaker 1: cast now, and um it's confusing because there's the team
Speaker 1: is the angels as well, so it's hard to just
Speaker 1: really spot angels really quickly. Was Tony Danza an angel?
Speaker 1: He's the angel's picture, so I guess he's like a
Speaker 1: real I don't know if he's an actual heavenly Yeah.
Speaker 1: The only the only one that I'm noticing here that
Speaker 1: is definitely an angels, as I guess, Christopher Lloyd. He
Speaker 1: doesn't turn anyone into a pillar of salt in this
Speaker 1: or anything. Christopher Lloyd as the Angel of death. Oh wait, wait,
Speaker 1: there's more though that. There's more on this email from Joe.
Speaker 1: They continue. I also appreciated the story of whom Babo
Speaker 1: you shared in one episode. Your discussion of the Seven
Speaker 1: r has reminded me of a modern story that may
Speaker 1: have borrowed this archetype Marvels Thanos and his Infinity Stones
Speaker 1: powers which, when possessed, render invulnerability an enemy of the
Speaker 1: forces of good, until the hero seizes them by trickery
Speaker 1: and they are once again scattered across the cosmos. Also
Speaker 1: worth mentioning the freak see with which Ariola's are part
Speaker 1: of the design of superheroes are modern mythic figures. Thanks,
Speaker 1: as always for enlightening and engaging content, Joe, I have
Speaker 1: not seen the movies that have Thanos in them, But Rob,
Speaker 1: what do you know about Infinity Stones? Oh? Um, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I've I've seen those two movies, and yeah,
Speaker 1: Thanos Uh, Danos has a certain uh you know, ancient
Speaker 1: Sumerian um aura to him. I would say, yeah, and
Speaker 1: in a sense, yeah, I think I think there's a
Speaker 1: strong comparison to be made there. It wouldn't He wouldn't
Speaker 1: shock me if that was an intentional comparison, at least
Speaker 1: on the part of the the original architects of this
Speaker 1: character in the comic books. Oh interesting, So is there
Speaker 1: a moment where like like like Iron Man and Black
Speaker 1: Panther and they all have to go into the cedar
Speaker 1: forest or is it just did well yet? Now that
Speaker 1: you mentioned the showdown, the initial showdown with him, I
Speaker 1: think does take place in a forest. Um, we're on
Speaker 1: the edge of a forest, you know what. I think
Speaker 1: it takes place in um Waconda right now, So if
Speaker 1: I'm remembering it correctly, I've only seen it seen it
Speaker 1: the one time. Uh but yeah, yeah, Bombaba Thanos. There
Speaker 1: there may be something there. I'm sure this has been
Speaker 1: excruciating for all the Marvel fans who have seen these
Speaker 1: movies a bunch of times. In here just me talk
Speaker 1: about how I don't know anything about them, but now
Speaker 1: that there, it makes me want to look for more
Speaker 1: angel symbolism in these films, because, yeah, you think of
Speaker 1: a character like Vision on the the really interesting one
Speaker 1: division show. Um, there, there are definitely angelic properties to him,
Speaker 1: you know. So yeah, it makes sense. Okay, we got
Speaker 1: another email about angels and halos. This one comes from Hannah.
Speaker 1: She writes, Hi, Robert and Joe, just sending a quick
Speaker 1: message responding to your call for halo representation in genre movies.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure exactly how genre one might consider a
Speaker 1: surreal musical drama. But in All That Jazz nineteen seventy nine,
Speaker 1: the Angel of Death played by Jessica Lange, where is
Speaker 1: a hat with a wide, circular brim and a veil
Speaker 1: that is clearly supposed to evoke a halo in certain
Speaker 1: shots see below, and Rob, I've at touched a picture
Speaker 1: for you to look at. I believe she does remove
Speaker 1: it part way through, but it's been a while since
Speaker 1: I've seen it. Really great film, but pretty hard to watch,
Speaker 1: especially the parts with footage of real open heart surgery. Wow,
Speaker 1: I've never seen this one, though I do love Jessica Lang. Uh.
Speaker 1: Hannah goes on to say all the best and thanks
Speaker 1: as always for your awesome show. Hannah. Yeah, yeah, I've
Speaker 1: never seen All That Jazz either, but I've I mean,
Speaker 1: I've long been familiar with it by reputation being you know,
Speaker 1: Bob Fosse film and and uh having having old Roy
Speaker 1: there at the at the lead. So uh yeah, it's
Speaker 1: I don't know if I'll get around to seeing it
Speaker 1: in this lifetime, but but I might. Certainly. I would
Speaker 1: say that it is the mark of a potentially weird
Speaker 1: film if it is not a fantasy and an angel
Speaker 1: shows up, you know like that that alone is enough
Speaker 1: to get me interested in it. Um, so, uh yeah,
Speaker 1: I think I hope maybe I'll put it on the list.
Speaker 1: All right, here's another one. This one comes to us
Speaker 1: from I'm not sure who's from, but this is how
Speaker 1: it starts. So this is from Robert. Oh okay, that's
Speaker 1: what threw me off because I just glanced at and
Speaker 1: I saw a couple of rods. So we had a
Speaker 1: Joe email. I know we have a Robert email. These
Speaker 1: are not from ourselves that we're not patting our own
Speaker 1: listener mail episode. Um, this is from Robert. Hey, guys,
Speaker 1: I thought you might find this interesting. It doesn't explain
Speaker 1: halos in art, but it is about people glowing. There
Speaker 1: is a phenomenon called angels glow noticed during a Tennessee
Speaker 1: Civil War battle where some of the wounds begin to glow.
Speaker 1: The glowing ones tended to do better than the others.
Speaker 1: It was caused by a bioluminescent bacteria that produces an
Speaker 1: antibiotic compound. There is a Sawbones episode if you want
Speaker 1: to learn more without having to read regards Robert. I
Speaker 1: love not having to read. Uh actually, so I looked
Speaker 1: this up. I was entring. I never come across this
Speaker 1: before the quick plug. I haven't listened to it in
Speaker 1: a long time, but Sawbones is a great show. Um
Speaker 1: oh yeah, yeah, it's a lot of fun. It's like
Speaker 1: a comedy medical show that's like half expert advice and
Speaker 1: and half jokes and it's it's it's fun. Um. But anyway,
Speaker 1: I looked up this phenomenon you're talking about, the idea
Speaker 1: of angels glow, and I did find it referenced in
Speaker 1: some papers. I'm not sure if this is if this
Speaker 1: has been like really confirmed as the explanation for these reports,
Speaker 1: but it does appear to be possible. It seems like
Speaker 1: I think somehow around the Battle of Shiloh in the
Speaker 1: Civil War, there were these reports about wounds glowing, and
Speaker 1: so I found at least one paper published in Plos
Speaker 1: one by Geraldine Mulley at all called from Insect to
Speaker 1: Man photo or habbed Us sheds light on the emergence
Speaker 1: of human pathogenicity and photoor habbed Us, I guess is
Speaker 1: the name of the microbe in question here. But the
Speaker 1: authors write that discoveries about this race quote the intriguing
Speaker 1: possibility that phot habbed as skin lesions might actually glow
Speaker 1: in the dark if bacterial number were sufficient, in a
Speaker 1: similar manner to the angels glow phenomena experienced by wounded
Speaker 1: soldiers at the Battle of Shiloh during the American Civil War.
Speaker 1: So it looks like that that is a possibility. Do
Speaker 1: you think that the blood of creatures like the predator, uh,
Speaker 1: that it glows perhaps because there are phosphorescent bacteria in
Speaker 1: the blood? Amazing? Yes, possibly, yes, I'm gonna say, yes,
Speaker 1: that's a that's an indo symbion of the predator lives
Speaker 1: in the blood stream helps them, I don't know, do
Speaker 1: something metabolism and and that bacterium glows. Well, it would
Speaker 1: pay to have an excellent metabolism if you're gonna be
Speaker 1: dropping in on into other ecosystems and you know, without
Speaker 1: really wearing much in the way of a suit and
Speaker 1: then engaging in like brutal, bloody combat with other organisms,
Speaker 1: getting their blood all over you and having wounds opening
Speaker 1: to this environment would make sense. Wait, what was the
Speaker 1: idea we just talked about in a recent Oh, it
Speaker 1: was the one where the predators they're attracted to the
Speaker 1: heat of what they think is a is a war
Speaker 1: going on than it turns out as bitcoin mining, yeah,
Speaker 1: or people just gaming really hard. All right, here's a
Speaker 1: one last bit of listener Mailien comes to us from Jeffrey. Hello, gents,
Speaker 1: I love the show and just thought I would add
Speaker 1: a modern twist to the Santo episode of Weird House Cinema.
Speaker 1: As I recall, there was a luchad or character, the
Speaker 1: Silver Angel, in the FX series The Strain. The character
Speaker 1: played a retired uh Luke Luca movie star who battled
Speaker 1: vampires using brass knuckles made of silver and in the
Speaker 1: form of crosses. In the show, the luch door is
Speaker 1: working in an Indian restaurant until a real vampire outbreak
Speaker 1: drives him to come out of retirement Vampire WrestleMania. Just
Speaker 1: wanted to add a little trivia to a great episode.
Speaker 1: Thanks for all you do. Haven't you watched the show? Uh?
Speaker 1: We watched a bunch of it and then we ended
Speaker 1: up we kind of stopped around the time when this
Speaker 1: character was first introduced, so I've been wanting to pick
Speaker 1: it back up a again. I was enjoying it. I
Speaker 1: don't know why we stopped watching it. Um, but yeah,
Speaker 1: giving Giama de Toro weird Cool Vampires giant vampires. Um yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what my my issue was. Maybe it
Speaker 1: was it might bet have been one of these things.
Speaker 1: Where as with some of these modern shows, it can
Speaker 1: be really interesting, but if you if you drag it
Speaker 1: out for too many episodes, um, you know you you're
Speaker 1: gonna end up having some episodes that are less uh enthralling.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but but I I enjoyed a lot
Speaker 1: of what I saw in it, and every now and
Speaker 1: then I'm reminded that it's all out there. And then
Speaker 1: they finished the series and I should pick it up
Speaker 1: because I think also the final season or so gets
Speaker 1: like really post apocalyptic, and I've been curious to check
Speaker 1: that out but just haven't gotten around to it. I mean,
Speaker 1: I could really appreciate some some newer supernatural wrestling movies,
Speaker 1: but I think there are a few caveats there. First
Speaker 1: of all, I'd be afraid that if somebody made movies
Speaker 1: like Santo and the Treasure of Dracula today, they would
Speaker 1: be too juicy, they would be too tongue in cheek,
Speaker 1: too much winking and and not played straight enough to
Speaker 1: be as good as that movie is. And then second,
Speaker 1: I think, is there a star with comparable charisma to
Speaker 1: Santo today. I don't know, um, not that. I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: you could have the Rock battle Vampires, but it would
Speaker 1: be the Rock battling vampires, and you can you can
Speaker 1: kind of imagine how that would go. It would um,
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess some people would love it, but um,
Speaker 1: it's not what I'm looking for. I don't think they
Speaker 1: would do it straight forward enough to be as funny
Speaker 1: as it needs to be. They would try to make
Speaker 1: it funny and thus make it less funny. Yeah, so
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's um, it would be difficult, but
Speaker 1: it's possible. All things are possible. All right, Well, we're
Speaker 1: gonna go ahead and uh close the uh the mailbox here,
Speaker 1: but we'll be back next Monday with more listener mail.
Speaker 1: You know. We'll catch up on some of the listener
Speaker 1: mail we weren't able to get to in this one
Speaker 1: and address new listener mail. So hey, right in, respond
Speaker 1: to what we talked about here in this episode. Respond
Speaker 1: to recent episodes of Stuff to Blow Your Mind and
Speaker 1: Weird Cinema, the artifact, Everything's on the table. Give us
Speaker 1: your take on all of these topics, and we can
Speaker 1: recommend topics for the future. Uh, and when you do
Speaker 1: right in, just make sure you include your you know
Speaker 1: how you want to be referred to on the podcast.
Speaker 1: So if you're if you think you need to give
Speaker 1: us some help with the pronunciation of your name, uh,
Speaker 1: let us know that. Let us know what your pronouns
Speaker 1: are as well. And uh, yeah, we look forward to
Speaker 1: hearing from you. Oh yeah, it has come up several times.
Speaker 1: I should just say we're you have written in and
Speaker 1: given us two different names on on the email, one
Speaker 1: at the top and or it says like in one
Speaker 1: in the from field and one in the sign off line.
Speaker 1: I think we usually try to go by the sign
Speaker 1: off line, but to to reduce confusion, please if you
Speaker 1: have a preferred way to refer to you, whether that's name,
Speaker 1: pronunciation or pronounce all that is helpful. So yes, please, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it doesn't even need to be uh you know your
Speaker 1: real name or you know it can be a can
Speaker 1: be a pseudonym. It can be a different pseudonym each time.
Speaker 1: Everything's on the table. In the meantime, if you want
Speaker 1: to check out other episodes of Stuff to Blow your Mind,
Speaker 1: a Weird House, cinema, or the Artifact, you'll find all
Speaker 1: of it in the Stuff to Blow Your Mind podcast feed,
Speaker 1: and you will find that wherever you get your podcasts
Speaker 1: and if the platform allows you to do so. We
Speaker 1: just asked that you rate, review, and subscribe huge thanks
Speaker 1: as always to our excellent audio producer Seth Nicholas Johnson.
Speaker 1: If you would like to get in touch with us
Speaker 1: with feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest
Speaker 1: a topic for the future, or just to say hello,
Speaker 1: you can email us at contact at stuff to Blow
Speaker 1: your Mind dot com. Stuff to Blow Your Mind is
Speaker 1: production of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts my heart Radio,
Speaker 1: visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
Speaker 1: you listen to your favorite shows.