Speaker 1: On the Beck dol Cast, the questions asked if movies
Speaker 1: have women in them? Are all their discussions just boyfriends
Speaker 1: and husbands? Do they have individualism? The patriarchy? Zef invest
Speaker 1: start changing it with the beck Del Cast. Hey, Jamie, Hey, Caitlin.
Speaker 1: Oh geez, we just woke up from being in a
Speaker 1: cryopod and society around us is terrible. But it always
Speaker 1: has been, so not anything different. But wait a second,
Speaker 1: it's probably the Well I'm only interested in pursuing this story.
Speaker 1: If it's the working class is fault, well you're in
Speaker 1: luck because if the one percent is implicated in this,
Speaker 1: I'm walking. Okay, well I'm walking today's movie. That's what
Speaker 1: it's about. So okay. Welcome to the Beach Dol Cast.
Speaker 1: My name is Jamie Loft, as my name is Caitlin Durante,
Speaker 1: and this is our show where we examine movies through
Speaker 1: an intersectional feminist lens, using the Bechel tests simply as
Speaker 1: a as a jumping off point. And this week you'll
Speaker 1: notice is we're releasing this the week of the fourth
Speaker 1: of July, uh national holiday that gets more and more
Speaker 1: ridiculous with each passing year. The only good thing about
Speaker 1: the fourth of July is Joey chestnut that has been
Speaker 1: canonically true for decades at this point now. So we've
Speaker 1: been talking about this making this episode for a while
Speaker 1: and trying to find, you know, kind of either we
Speaker 1: were between like, oh, we can find a really classically
Speaker 1: jingoistic movie to kind of cover in debunk, or we
Speaker 1: can try to find, you know, a famous American satire
Speaker 1: to cover for this week. And since we made that decision, uh,
Speaker 1: we've just been we've just been losing our rights, Miranda rights,
Speaker 1: don't know them, the right to an abortion gone. Just
Speaker 1: it's it's you know, if if you're listening to this,
Speaker 1: and even if you're not American, you're probably aware that
Speaker 1: it's it's particularly dystopian these past few weeks, years, decades,
Speaker 1: and so I feel like it's a particularly interesting time
Speaker 1: to take a look at the movie. So all that
Speaker 1: to say, I just think it's uh for preamble, we
Speaker 1: chose to cover this movie before the most recent avalanche
Speaker 1: of lost rights, and I feel like it coincidentally ends
Speaker 1: up being kind of an interesting discussion because we are
Speaker 1: covering the movie Idiocracy today, a movie that has been
Speaker 1: discussed a lot in the past, decade, and now that
Speaker 1: I've seen it, I don't understand why. But first we
Speaker 1: have some housekeeping to cover that being what the fuck
Speaker 1: is that Bettel Test you were talk about, Caitlin Rante,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you, Jamie loftis. It is a media metric
Speaker 1: created by Alison Becktel, sometimes called the Becktel Wallace Test,
Speaker 1: and there are many different versions of it. The one
Speaker 1: we use, we've we've put our little flourishes on the
Speaker 1: test over the years, and our version is two characters
Speaker 1: of a marginalized gender have to have names, they have
Speaker 1: to speak to each other, and their conversation has to
Speaker 1: be about something other than a man, and ideally that
Speaker 1: conversation is narratively relevant and narratively meaningful. So this this
Speaker 1: week is actually, you know, kind of a doozy as
Speaker 1: it pertains to that metric. It's interesting because we are
Speaker 1: also recording an episode about the Minions this week, and
Speaker 1: by the Minions technically Despicable Me. But I'm very excited
Speaker 1: for our Minions episode. But I was watching Idiocracy and
Speaker 1: Minions media because I you know, recovering, and this is
Speaker 1: a you know, tacit plug for the Matreon Patreon. Of
Speaker 1: course we are covering Despicable Me this month. And what
Speaker 1: I think is interesting watching Idiocracy and Minions media back
Speaker 1: to back kind of is you get two very different
Speaker 1: interpretations of what a society of bumbling men would look like.
Speaker 1: And Honey, I prefer the Minions every time because at least,
Speaker 1: oh about I'm about to it sucks because I really
Speaker 1: genuinely love the vast majority of my judge's work, but
Speaker 1: at least the Minions are making me laugh. You know.
Speaker 1: I can't say the same for Idiocracy. Minions hilarious. Idiocracy
Speaker 1: really was bumming me out in a wild way. Um So, anyways,
Speaker 1: this is our, this is our, this is I feel
Speaker 1: like a classic Bechtel cast at episode of taking something
Speaker 1: that everyone keeps saying is good and being like, actually
Speaker 1: actually be very good. But guess but you know what
Speaker 1: argue with the wall, We're right, Um that's there. That's
Speaker 1: what I want to tell to say to a lot
Speaker 1: of people. Um, but I will say and we'll get
Speaker 1: into this, but just is a little bit of a
Speaker 1: preface that, yeah, I see what this movie was going
Speaker 1: for and at the time I liked it. When I
Speaker 1: saw it in two thousand six as a college sophomore.
Speaker 1: But let's talk about it, so, like, what is your
Speaker 1: relationship with this? So I saw it when it came out,
Speaker 1: because it came out sometime in two thousand and six.
Speaker 1: I was in college at the time. I was already
Speaker 1: a huge Office Space fan. It was like one of
Speaker 1: my favorite movies at the time, so I was already
Speaker 1: team Mike Judge and I saw this movie. And at
Speaker 1: the time in the mid two thousand's when I when
Speaker 1: my critical thinking skills and comedic sensibilities and cultural sensibilities
Speaker 1: were not quite as sophisticated as they are today. I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's also like, don't be hard on yourself because this
Speaker 1: is like part of what's interesting about looking at this
Speaker 1: movie now is like how again, it's like, I don't
Speaker 1: think that this movie is uniquely pushing this kind of
Speaker 1: comedic point of view. I feel like this is this
Speaker 1: lines up really closely with like a lot of Bush
Speaker 1: era comedy. Is like that we all thought was funny
Speaker 1: at the time, right, or at least many of us
Speaker 1: A lot of people thought was funny. And then I
Speaker 1: also see I feel like this movie is a great
Speaker 1: example of how the kind of aggressive apathy of this
Speaker 1: style of comedy probably had, you know, not the biggest hand,
Speaker 1: not as big a hand as fucking villainous policy see
Speaker 1: and disenfranchise, But I do, I do see how you know,
Speaker 1: this brand of comedy in its day served to further
Speaker 1: polarize people in a way that I don't think was
Speaker 1: like really recognized at the time, because how why would
Speaker 1: it have been recognized the time? Right? Yeah, So all
Speaker 1: I say, don't be don't be hard in yourself. Everyone
Speaker 1: was loving this ship like it's true. It's true. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I I liked it at the time, but I didn't
Speaker 1: really engage with it after that first maybe one or
Speaker 1: two viewings in the mid two thousand's. But I'm excited
Speaker 1: to talk further. And again, just as a preface, I'll say,
Speaker 1: I see what the movie was going for looking at
Speaker 1: it through our lens. A lot of it, A lot
Speaker 1: of the satire, a lot of the attempted satire, maybe
Speaker 1: not executed very well, and maybe just throws a lot
Speaker 1: of groups of people under the bus. Anyway, Jamie, what
Speaker 1: is your relationship with this movie? Okay, so I am
Speaker 1: going to be harder in this movie because it feels
Speaker 1: uniquely designed to make me frustrated. Um, but okay, so
Speaker 1: I for context. I had not seen this movie before,
Speaker 1: but I have considered myself to be a Mic Judge
Speaker 1: fan since I was basically a kid. Like I was
Speaker 1: very I was kind of a latecomer to King of
Speaker 1: the Hill. But I've now seen a lot of King
Speaker 1: of the Hill, and I really love King of the Hill.
Speaker 1: Not an unpopular opinion at all. It's a great show.
Speaker 1: But I grew up with Beavis and butt Head. My
Speaker 1: dad was a huge Beavis and butt Head fad. We
Speaker 1: had it on a lot. Yeah, shout out. My key
Speaker 1: did refine my taste very young. It was all pee
Speaker 1: weee and Beavis and butt Head, and I'm eternally grateful
Speaker 1: for it. I've got Beavis and butt Head. March. I
Speaker 1: watched the new Paramount Plus movie the day it came out.
Speaker 1: It's good. I didn't even know that was a thing.
Speaker 1: Well I do work for Paramount, so I was like,
Speaker 1: I was reminded, But it's really good. And I had
Speaker 1: highly like all that to say. I watched all of
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley and I didn't even really like it. But
Speaker 1: I just feel like loyal to Mike Judge because I
Speaker 1: like his work. I like Office Space, like he's made
Speaker 1: so much amazing stuff and so, but I had never
Speaker 1: seen Idiocracy. All that to say, I went into this
Speaker 1: movie expecting to like it because I like Mike judges work.
Speaker 1: Really the only thing I knew like the basic premise
Speaker 1: of like it's a future American dystopia, and I also
Speaker 1: knew and I think that this is like I've kind
Speaker 1: of got like more stuff for this later on in
Speaker 1: the discussion. But I also feel like this movie just
Speaker 1: every couple of hours someone will tweet Idiocracy was a documentary,
Speaker 1: like it was their idea, Like that is literally tweeted
Speaker 1: every forty five seconds by someone who is like I'm
Speaker 1: a genius, and it's like, okay, first of all, i
Speaker 1: Q is bunk an issue this movie has that I
Speaker 1: have been studying for years. But anyways, part of what
Speaker 1: I love about Mike Judge's work is that he has
Speaker 1: this like way of showing characters whose like views are
Speaker 1: regressive and whose feel King of the Hill is the
Speaker 1: best example of it. But like who are like goofy
Speaker 1: people who you would disagree with that most people would
Speaker 1: disagree with, showing them with context and enough empathy that
Speaker 1: you're like, I understand how this person got here, and
Speaker 1: it feels like a more productive, empathetic piece of art.
Speaker 1: And so I was just really surprised that like Idiocracy
Speaker 1: was so heartless in its views and it just like
Speaker 1: it just felt like a real I don't know. First
Speaker 1: of all, Idiocracy is not a documentary, you fucking dorks. Sorry,
Speaker 1: but like for us, of all, not an original thought.
Speaker 1: Second of all, not true. I don't know. I just
Speaker 1: have a lot of I didn't like the movie, and
Speaker 1: I was really bumped. I didn't like the movie from
Speaker 1: the first scene because of and you know, hashtag stream
Speaker 1: my urine mensa. But like, yeah, the fact that this movie,
Speaker 1: I mean, this movie, like it's weird, because I totally
Speaker 1: agree with you, Caitlin. I do think that it was
Speaker 1: coming from a good place, and I think for its
Speaker 1: time it is I don't know, for its time. I
Speaker 1: understand why it was considered to be like controversial satire,
Speaker 1: and I understand why people saw value in it, especially
Speaker 1: in the era that it came out in, which I
Speaker 1: mean this movie was being shot and eventually released in
Speaker 1: the middle of the George W. Bush administration, when it
Speaker 1: did seem like society was heading towards us place a
Speaker 1: certain place, and it's also like that wasn't wrong. I
Speaker 1: feel like it's it's whatever. My opinions aside. I think
Speaker 1: this is like a kind of a very very interesting
Speaker 1: movie to look at to see like what were center
Speaker 1: to left leaning people viewing the people around them like
Speaker 1: at this time. And I feel like this movie really
Speaker 1: because it's like we were both you know, I mean
Speaker 1: I I was, I definitely just you know, at this
Speaker 1: movie came out when I was like in middle school,
Speaker 1: so I didn't like hear about it at the time,
Speaker 1: but like we both two thousand and six, you know,
Speaker 1: we're we're senior citizens. We were there, and I do
Speaker 1: remember this a lot, and I would like even kind
Speaker 1: of group this. And I know that I'm not saying
Speaker 1: like the quality of jokes are the same across the board,
Speaker 1: but I would kind of group this in the like
Speaker 1: John Stewart Daily Show era of comedy, back when my
Speaker 1: aunt would fucking die for Bill Mara unfortunately kind of
Speaker 1: comedy of like kind of like god left leaning ish
Speaker 1: comedy of which there was a lot at this time,
Speaker 1: like even early Colbert Report. Even though I feel like
Speaker 1: it's kind of the best of all of it. But
Speaker 1: but you know what I mean, like it was a
Speaker 1: very specific moment in comedy and like satire, and it's
Speaker 1: interesting to look back on. I really didn't like this movie. Uh,
Speaker 1: let's talk more about it, shall we? Yeah? Okay, sorry
Speaker 1: for like going on. I just was. I was so shocked.
Speaker 1: It's so you know, like when you really love a
Speaker 1: creator and you have like a creepy little para social
Speaker 1: connection to them, and it's like, how dare I not
Speaker 1: like this? But I I again, I because it there
Speaker 1: was such a big gap between when I first saw
Speaker 1: it and now I had just forgotten about all the
Speaker 1: incredibly problematic jokes and humor, like let's tacitly endorse eugenics.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying like Judge was like actively recognizing that
Speaker 1: that is some people are just born inferior. That we
Speaker 1: get there, We'll get there. Let's talk about what happens
Speaker 1: in the movie because there and there are also were
Speaker 1: some like specific jokes that I laughed at. Some things work,
Speaker 1: Some of the commentary does work. A lot of it doesn't.
Speaker 1: Carl's Junior stuff worked for me, The Brondo stuff, Yeah,
Speaker 1: any kind of like commentary on capitalism and consumerism worked. Yes, Um, okay,
Speaker 1: here's what the story is about. The movie opens on
Speaker 1: voiceover discussing how as we entered we being society entered
Speaker 1: the century, human evolution was at a turning point where
Speaker 1: intelligent people quote unquote were reproducing less and quote unquote
Speaker 1: less intelligent people. And these quote unquotes are from me
Speaker 1: and not the movie. So the movie is saying intelligent
Speaker 1: people stopped producing as much, and less intelligent people were
Speaker 1: multiplying more than ever. Blood pressure is in peril. So
Speaker 1: this is this is how the movie is framing this.
Speaker 1: And we get like this whole montage where we meet
Speaker 1: these two couples. You know, one is more intelligent and
Speaker 1: they're coded a certain way. The other couple is you know,
Speaker 1: less intelligent quote unquote. They're coded a very particular way.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about it, but I mean it's literally like yeah,
Speaker 1: like grad school. I mean, not to put you in
Speaker 1: a box, but like, you know, people who have been
Speaker 1: to college multiple times versus like it's coded as like
Speaker 1: quote unquote trailer trash. Exactly. Yes, yes, yes, So we're
Speaker 1: we meet these characters and the whole thing is the
Speaker 1: characters who are coded poor are reproducing at a higher
Speaker 1: rate anyway. Then we meet Joe Bowers played by Luke Wilson.
Speaker 1: He is an army librarian who has been selected to
Speaker 1: be used as a human guinea pig for a military
Speaker 1: experiment in which soldiers will be frozen and then on
Speaker 1: frozen at a later date to be used for future
Speaker 1: wars or something. I'm not really sure, but it's like
Speaker 1: that Chris what was that? Dogshit Chris Pratt? Like Amazon
Speaker 1: Prime movie was like the Tomorrow War. He was he
Speaker 1: was being deep frozen for Chris Pratt, the Tomorrow War. Yes,
Speaker 1: what was that? I know what you're talking about. I
Speaker 1: didn't see it. Sorry, Sunny, Sunny. So Sunny's here right
Speaker 1: now and he is like looking at me, and I
Speaker 1: like we can communicate telepathically, and he is saying, you bitch.
Speaker 1: Comma Idiocracy is a documentary because well, yeah, I'm Sunny
Speaker 1: the dog fucking loves centrist. He won't back down. He
Speaker 1: won't back down. He's like, I tweeted it and I
Speaker 1: meant it. Sonny, you were wrong for that. Continue Okay.
Speaker 1: So Joe is selected for this experiment because he has
Speaker 1: no family, and he's also just extremely average across the spectrum.
Speaker 1: They have also selected a woman for this experiment, a
Speaker 1: sex worker named Rita played by my Rudolph, and the
Speaker 1: plan is to freeze them both for one year uh
Speaker 1: and then on freeze them. But Officer Collins, the guy
Speaker 1: who is leading this experiment, is fired and the project
Speaker 1: is completely forgotten about. So Joe and Rita stay frozen
Speaker 1: for five hundred years while oh no, while society around
Speaker 1: them descends into shambles. The cryopods that Joe and Rita
Speaker 1: were in ended up in a landfill, but a huge
Speaker 1: garbage avalanche shoots Joe's Paul Odd into the living room
Speaker 1: of Freedo played by Dax Shepherd. Kind of incredible. I
Speaker 1: don't have strong opinions on Dak Shepherd, but you're just like,
Speaker 1: but you see him in this role and you're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: that was good casting. Yes, look when we're not punching
Speaker 1: down because his his podcast is like nine times more
Speaker 1: popular than ours. So right, relax, good job, Dax. Freedo
Speaker 1: is watching a show about a guy who is just
Speaker 1: hit in the balls repeatedly to give you an idea
Speaker 1: of what entertainment and pop culture is like in this society.
Speaker 1: Five years later, So Joe wakes up. He's all disoriented,
Speaker 1: and Friedo tosses him out onto the streets, and Joe
Speaker 1: stumbles around town. He notices that society has crumbled into
Speaker 1: quote unquote idiocracy, where where the restaurant form really known
Speaker 1: as food ruckers is now called butt fuckers. Okay, try
Speaker 1: as I may. I can't not be like, Okay, I'm giggling.
Speaker 1: It's it's not a good joke. It's maybe the laziest
Speaker 1: joke of all time. And also because of the strong
Speaker 1: no homo energy to this movie, it feels but and
Speaker 1: then you're just also like, I mean, I just feel
Speaker 1: like you're given so little, so little things that I
Speaker 1: was laughing at. Yeah, I would say it's it's not
Speaker 1: a very good joke, and yet it's maybe one of
Speaker 1: the better jokes of this movie. Like to give you
Speaker 1: an idea, Yeah, that's what I like. I just I
Speaker 1: feel like the bar is on the floor, and because
Speaker 1: it's Mike Judge, the bar is like beneath the crust
Speaker 1: of the earth. Like you're just like, but you know whatever,
Speaker 1: I think that this is interesting in the frame of
Speaker 1: being reactionary. Common terry from two thousand six, We'll get
Speaker 1: to how Mike Judge engages with people's modern takes on
Speaker 1: idiocracy in a bit, because I think that's very interesting. Um, okay, okay,
Speaker 1: but so but fucker's As a restaurant, people mostly speak
Speaker 1: in unintelligible grunts. A green sports drink called Brondo comes
Speaker 1: out of water fountains instead of water. These are the
Speaker 1: things in society now. Joe doesn't feel well. He thinks
Speaker 1: he's hallucinating because of the drugs the army gave him,
Speaker 1: and he doesn't know that it's five years in the future.
Speaker 1: So he goes to a hospital five years of summer.
Speaker 1: That's that's how I'm going to start describing global warming summer.
Speaker 1: Mm I like it. No, no, no, not to be
Speaker 1: joked around about. But yet, what are we supposed to do? Okay?
Speaker 1: We laugh, so we don't cry, right, and we still cry,
Speaker 1: and we still later at night when we're alone. So
Speaker 1: Joe goes to a hospital and sees doctor Justin Long.
Speaker 1: Oh my god. We've covered so many movies in the
Speaker 1: like mid to late two thousand's where Justin Long like
Speaker 1: is just becoming of is becoming an influencer of his time. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I've come all the way around. I'm just like Justin
Speaker 1: Long kind of a cultural icon, whether I like it
Speaker 1: or not. I mean, I've seen the movie Tusk and
Speaker 1: it's the best movie ever made. Okay, I haven't seen
Speaker 1: the movie Touch, and that's my business. So Dr Justin
Speaker 1: Long realizes that Joe is unscannable because Joe doesn't have
Speaker 1: this like bar code tattoo that everyone in the future has.
Speaker 1: That was like one of the things that I was like, Okay,
Speaker 1: that's like it's an easy thing to guess at, but
Speaker 1: it's not. You know, yeah, that that worked for me.
Speaker 1: So this leads Joe to finally realize what year it
Speaker 1: is and that it's like five years in the future.
Speaker 1: They're both freaking out and Joe runs away and then
Speaker 1: gets arrested because he didn't pay his hospital bill. So
Speaker 1: he's taken to court where his court appointed lawyer, Friedo,
Speaker 1: the guy whose apartment Joe crashed into, defends him, but
Speaker 1: he does a terrible job. Joe tries to plead his
Speaker 1: case and explain the army experiment, but no one takes
Speaker 1: him seriously and he's found guilty. He is then given
Speaker 1: a tattoo like the bar code tattoo, and I D
Speaker 1: and then he's made to take i Q and aptitude tests.
Speaker 1: Kind of funny when he's called not sure, that as giggling, look,
Speaker 1: look it's still my judge jokes that was pretty good. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and they call him not sure. The whole movie pretty funny.
Speaker 1: So then he takes his tests and then he is
Speaker 1: sent to prison, but he's easily able to escape because
Speaker 1: he is smarter than everyone there. And he goes back
Speaker 1: to Frido house and he's like, hey, Friedo, has anyone
Speaker 1: invented time travel? And Friedo's like, yeah, there's this time
Speaker 1: machine and Joe is like, okay, you have to take
Speaker 1: me there, So they head toward the time machine mcguffin
Speaker 1: time machine right. Meanwhile, Rita has also become unfrozen and
Speaker 1: is roaming the streets. She's kind of like scamming a
Speaker 1: guy out of a bunch of money who is trying
Speaker 1: to pay for her sex work. Joe finds her and
Speaker 1: picks her up to take her to the time machine.
Speaker 1: To get there, they need to catch a shuttle from
Speaker 1: a huge costco, but the cops are chasing them because
Speaker 1: Joe escaped from prison, and they catch Joe before he's
Speaker 1: able to get on the shuttle. Quick quick interlude, Welcome
Speaker 1: to Costco, I love you funny, It's funny Yeah. And
Speaker 1: then the cops take Joe to the White House because
Speaker 1: the results of his i Q test caught the attention
Speaker 1: of the highest levels of the U. S. Government. Because
Speaker 1: it turns out Joe is now the smartest man in
Speaker 1: the world. So President Camacho played by Terry Crews, comes in.
Speaker 1: He hires Joe as Secretary of the Interior and announces
Speaker 1: that he's going to have Joe fix all of society's problems,
Speaker 1: like the failed economy and the dying crops. But Joe
Speaker 1: doesn't know what he's doing, and he's still trying to
Speaker 1: get to the time machine, so he has the other
Speaker 1: cabinet members bring Rita in, and then Joe and Rita
Speaker 1: try to run off, but then Joe notices that the
Speaker 1: crops are being watered with Brondo, that green sports drink stuff,
Speaker 1: and he tells everyone that they have to water the
Speaker 1: crops with water. But because this doesn't work immediately, and
Speaker 1: because switching to water means that a lot of people
Speaker 1: who work for the Brondo Corporation have lost their jobs,
Speaker 1: people are furious at Joe and he is sentenced to
Speaker 1: one night of rehabilitation, which is actually Joe being put
Speaker 1: in a gladiator style arena, like allowing the government to
Speaker 1: run you over with the truck, which again is like
Speaker 1: some of this entire works. That's funny when you see that,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not, I mean, but it is kind
Speaker 1: of when you see that bizarro like shredder monster truck
Speaker 1: run over that guy, he just turns into dust. Like
Speaker 1: it's kind of wild, and like all the all the
Speaker 1: monster trucks are shaped like dicks, and there's just a
Speaker 1: bunch of like dick and dildo jokes, and I'm like, sure, sure,
Speaker 1: why not? Sure? Why not? Meanwhile, Rita notices that the
Speaker 1: crops are starting to grow and Joe's plan is working,
Speaker 1: so she and Fredo rushed to the arena. Meanwhile, back
Speaker 1: in the arena, Joe manages to avoid being killed by
Speaker 1: the monster trucks and avoid being killed by this guy
Speaker 1: named Beef Supreme. A lot of very two thousand six
Speaker 1: special effects around at this yeah point in the movie. Yes,
Speaker 1: and then Rita and Friedo prove that the crops are
Speaker 1: growing are growing by broadcasting footage of the crops on
Speaker 1: the jumbo Tron so President Camacho pardons Joe and the
Speaker 1: day is saved. Rita decides to stay behind because she
Speaker 1: was offered a CEO job at Starbucks. So then she
Speaker 1: and Joe say goodbye, and then Joe is about to
Speaker 1: go off to the time machine, but it turns out
Speaker 1: that the time machine is actually just a theme park
Speaker 1: ride and not a real time machine cannot go back
Speaker 1: into I was disappointed for Joe in that moment. I
Speaker 1: was like, that genuinely sucks that you have to live here.
Speaker 1: He really does. So he accepts a job as vice
Speaker 1: president of the US. He eventually becomes president. He marries
Speaker 1: Rita and they have kids and they live happily ever
Speaker 1: after in a society that seems to continue to just
Speaker 1: descend further and further into shambles. So that was certainly something, Uh,
Speaker 1: shall we take a quick freak and have a panic
Speaker 1: attack and return. Let's do yeah, and we are back.
Speaker 1: Boy oh boy. I feel like, okay, I do want
Speaker 1: to start by kind of addressing the elephant in the room,
Speaker 1: which I feel like is I mean, I don't want
Speaker 1: to say like this movies for me, this movie's biggest failure,
Speaker 1: because I feel like that is like a broad statement
Speaker 1: like for sure, like its biggest like plot structural failure,
Speaker 1: which again and I've heard this so whenever brief context,
Speaker 1: beginning basically when Donald Trump's um, I don't know why
Speaker 1: full named him, they're like but like beginning when Donald
Speaker 1: Trump ever heard of him, he ruined our lives, um,
Speaker 1: but beginning when his candidacy became viable. I feel like
Speaker 1: that is when the idiocracy as a documentary idea sort
Speaker 1: of started coming, and even a little bit before that.
Speaker 1: But I think that the big, the big like resurgence
Speaker 1: of like idiocracy as a documentary came when Donald Trump
Speaker 1: became a viable candidate because a lot of people saw
Speaker 1: the Terry Crews character, who is a professional wrestler who
Speaker 1: became president, reflected in Donald Trump, who is a failed
Speaker 1: son reality star who became president. This completely ignoring the
Speaker 1: fact that we already had elected an actor to be
Speaker 1: one of our worst presidents in the nineteen eighties. But whatever,
Speaker 1: I guess we'll give it a pass. I wasn't around
Speaker 1: for the nineteen eighties, so I couldn't bitch about it. Um.
Speaker 1: In any case, fifteen was when this started to come up,
Speaker 1: So I was surprised when the central conceit of the movie.
Speaker 1: And again I've seen this has been more discussed in
Speaker 1: the past couple of years. Um, I want to shout
Speaker 1: out Sarah z incredible YouTuber and my bud who made
Speaker 1: a great video about this will link it in the description,
Speaker 1: who kind of unpacks us to a larger extent. But um, basically,
Speaker 1: what is at the core of this movie is the
Speaker 1: concept that your i Q determines your deservedness to reproduce
Speaker 1: and the idea that it's just very like essentialist and
Speaker 1: that like this movie, I feel like it's the biggest
Speaker 1: failure is it ignores, kind of, with the exception of corporations,
Speaker 1: every structural problem that exists and instead redirects that anger
Speaker 1: and resentment on poor people. And that is so like
Speaker 1: and it's like so many things and again it's like
Speaker 1: the corporate stuff is kind of exempt, which I think
Speaker 1: is an interesting reflection of like where the writer's minds
Speaker 1: were at at this time, because they recognize that, but
Speaker 1: they did not really like there's so many things that
Speaker 1: happened in this movie beginning with Okay, sorry, I'm just
Speaker 1: like already melting up. But like, let's talk about i
Speaker 1: Q first. Because that's where the movie starts. It implies
Speaker 1: in the opening sequence, a sequence that rivals Midsummer for
Speaker 1: opening sequences that make me want to just explode. What
Speaker 1: makes me want to reflect a recent experience of mine
Speaker 1: put Dr Brauner's on my vagina by mistake. Look, I
Speaker 1: did not know that that you are not supposed to
Speaker 1: do that. And what a horrifying lesson. Dr Brauner's on
Speaker 1: my one clitter is unbelievable. Unbelievable, that of acid. So
Speaker 1: I'm not laughing you. I'm just you're ready to laugh
Speaker 1: at me because I got into MENA and I did that,
Speaker 1: which is further proof that i Q is a false metric.
Speaker 1: You don't have to be smart and you don't even
Speaker 1: need to be able to read. The thing is like okay,
Speaker 1: but like okay, i Q is like it's implied in
Speaker 1: the opening sequence of this movie that people with lower
Speaker 1: i q s are the source of most societal ills.
Speaker 1: People with higher i q s are also being criticized here,
Speaker 1: but in a very different way. We're like people with
Speaker 1: higher i q s are being criticized for being so
Speaker 1: cautious that they refuse to reproduce. And I feel like
Speaker 1: both of these takes have aged very poorly, and the
Speaker 1: take towards people with lower i Q is much more harmful,
Speaker 1: but both of them are harmful, So I mean whatever,
Speaker 1: Like I've done a lot of research in the past
Speaker 1: about i Q and like I feel like it's pretty
Speaker 1: common knowledge at this point, but probably but was not
Speaker 1: common knowledge in two thousand and six that i Q
Speaker 1: is a deeply basically at this point useless metrics on
Speaker 1: every front. It was invented by this French guy named
Speaker 1: Alfred Bennet to basically like use in schools for kids
Speaker 1: who were like to track their progress every so often.
Speaker 1: The idea is that i Q is not permanent. It
Speaker 1: was a way of sort of evaluating how schools were doing.
Speaker 1: It wasn't a reflection on the individual. What it's heard
Speaker 1: in too was it was taken a hold by eugenicists,
Speaker 1: which are you know, like which is the school of
Speaker 1: thought that your intelligence can be determined by your gender,
Speaker 1: by your race, by your class, and that these are
Speaker 1: individual essentialist faults on people and have nothing to do
Speaker 1: with systemic stuff. And so it's just like without giving
Speaker 1: the history of eugenics, but like i Q has been
Speaker 1: weaponized against a number of marginalized communities Over the years,
Speaker 1: it's been particularly black people have have had i Q
Speaker 1: weaponized against them Black Americans specifically. There's a really famous
Speaker 1: book from the nineties called The Bell Curve that it
Speaker 1: was a very popular book that just argued white Americans
Speaker 1: are simply smarter and they should be Like it's a
Speaker 1: white supremacist text, but it was very popular. I mean
Speaker 1: it just it goes in all this stuff, like your
Speaker 1: skull shape determined whether you deserve to liver die it
Speaker 1: if you were anything but completely neurotypical, you are somehow
Speaker 1: less worthy to not just reproduce but live. So yeah,
Speaker 1: like it's it's just been used, it's been taken so
Speaker 1: wildly out of context from the reason it was created
Speaker 1: that it has literally it's not just marginalized and excluded people,
Speaker 1: it's killed people. And it's now just now becoming a
Speaker 1: more common knowledge thing and is like that is slowing,
Speaker 1: but it's not stopping. And so all that to say,
Speaker 1: I'm not implying that I think that Mike Judge knew
Speaker 1: the history of this and did it anyways, based on
Speaker 1: his other work, I want to give him the benefit
Speaker 1: of the doubt and say that this was kind of
Speaker 1: just like a lazy writing choice, but that as a
Speaker 1: base for your movie about the decline of society is
Speaker 1: just like just one of the worst takes you can have.
Speaker 1: Like it's kind of stunning, Lee Bad. Here's my sorry
Speaker 1: I'm feel about I don't apologize. I've made a podcast
Speaker 1: about it two years ago. I don't really want to
Speaker 1: talk about it more. But like it's a whole thing.
Speaker 1: It is a whole thing, and it's a horrible basis
Speaker 1: for a movie, like you said, because there is a
Speaker 1: way to make a satirical movie about uninformed and regressive
Speaker 1: ideology spreading and leading to the downfall of civilization. There's
Speaker 1: a way to do that that's thoughtful and effective as
Speaker 1: far as satire goes, and that doesn't demonize marginalized communities
Speaker 1: like people living in poverty, for example. But this movie
Speaker 1: doesn't do that because it's just making broad statements, like
Speaker 1: first of all, just that like some people are mart
Speaker 1: and other people are really stupid, and I'm trying to
Speaker 1: avoid like ablest language on this episode. It's I feel
Speaker 1: like it's going to be difficult because leans into it
Speaker 1: very hard. So it's it's doing that. It is also
Speaker 1: coding those people in very particular ways, where again the
Speaker 1: quote unquote smart sensible people are coded as being upper
Speaker 1: middle class wealthy. Again, there's like that couple in the
Speaker 1: opening sequence according to the university, but don't like to
Speaker 1: talk about it, I renounced my master's degree. Um. They
Speaker 1: that couple. According to IMDb, their character's names are yuppy
Speaker 1: husband and yuppy wife. So that just like gives you
Speaker 1: a sense which is like kind of funny because it's like,
Speaker 1: consider who is writing the movie. They would much more
Speaker 1: closely identify with the yuppie husband and yuppie wife than
Speaker 1: with the poor people. But they're still just like the trio.
Speaker 1: There's just a just like a complete void of empathy
Speaker 1: for anyone but Luke Wilson in this movie. And sorry
Speaker 1: to say his name, Like I was like saying a slur,
Speaker 1: but like I what, I just whatever, I just it
Speaker 1: just doesn't work for me. So so it's this coding
Speaker 1: where you know, it's like the smart sensible people are
Speaker 1: rich and the quote unquote unintelligent people who multiply rapidly
Speaker 1: are clearly coded as being poor. And again on IMDb,
Speaker 1: that couple in this like opening montage their character's names
Speaker 1: are trashy guy and slutty girl. There's a whole conversation
Speaker 1: that we'll have about like the way women are like
Speaker 1: disfranchised or not included at all, which which I will
Speaker 1: argue could be solid satire on a view of a
Speaker 1: dystopian future, but it doesn't seem like that is what
Speaker 1: they're doing. It's exactly. It is hard because this could
Speaker 1: easily be an episode that is like five hours long,
Speaker 1: and I don't want it because it's a short movie, mercifully,
Speaker 1: and we're trying to make episodes that are not longer
Speaker 1: longer than the movie. But this movie is hard because
Speaker 1: it's it's loaded with a lot of stuff. And so
Speaker 1: I think the main things and I would say that
Speaker 1: the people who are poor in the opening sequence, and
Speaker 1: basically most of the people from the future are coded
Speaker 1: in the same way to different degrees of aggression. So
Speaker 1: I'm just started talking about everybody there. But it was
Speaker 1: like bizarrely very American in that it's making all of
Speaker 1: these like bad quote choices seem like they are made
Speaker 1: completely by the individual and so that they can be
Speaker 1: held complete. And so that is like the way the
Speaker 1: systemic but it's like that ranges in so many different
Speaker 1: ways where it's like it's not addressed that poor people
Speaker 1: have less access to birth control, to sex education in
Speaker 1: two abortions if they want them, and in terms of religion,
Speaker 1: like tend to be rather religious communities, and so it's
Speaker 1: like huge elements that are completely wiped and it's just
Speaker 1: made to seem like, oh, well, no, they are just
Speaker 1: so chaotically horny that they cannot help but proliferate. Like
Speaker 1: it's just like it's so frustrating it is. It's like
Speaker 1: it's very I don't know, it's very two thousand six.
Speaker 1: And then when you fast forward to the future and
Speaker 1: then you see people who, first of all, I just
Speaker 1: am like, as a reality TV watcher, I object, and
Speaker 1: also I think that that again like ignores it's like, oh,
Speaker 1: people want to see people get kicked in the nuts, which,
Speaker 1: first of all, yes, none of your business. Second of all,
Speaker 1: does nothing to address why those programs appear and why
Speaker 1: they're the most easily accessible programs in the fucking country.
Speaker 1: And it's like you have to pay to watch the
Speaker 1: fucking Soprano or whatever, or like whatever the grad school
Speaker 1: crowd is watching, and so it doesn't address any of
Speaker 1: the systemic like why are these programs so popular? Could
Speaker 1: it be possibly because they are the most accessible programs,
Speaker 1: and that is not the fault of the people who
Speaker 1: cannot afford to pay for five hundred other channels. Like
Speaker 1: it's just it ignores things on every single level. And
Speaker 1: then we'll get to like fucking prisons and governments, like oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: we are just simply not smart enough to know how
Speaker 1: prisons work. And it's like, no, that's how prisons are
Speaker 1: designed to work. Like it just makes me. It just
Speaker 1: ignores that so many of these issues are by design
Speaker 1: and not out of individual failings from people that are
Speaker 1: being intentionally disenfranchised. That is the entire premise of them.
Speaker 1: Like that's the commentary this movie is making. And it's
Speaker 1: so backwards, because yeah, it's like you said, it just
Speaker 1: fails to recognize the lack of access and opportunities you
Speaker 1: experience when you live in poverty. It fails to recognize
Speaker 1: that poverty is a cruel cycle that is nearly impossible
Speaker 1: to escape because of things like capitalism and racism and
Speaker 1: able is m and all these other systemic issues. It
Speaker 1: fails to It suggests that again, like poor people multiply
Speaker 1: for fun and not because there are multiple structures designed
Speaker 1: to keep poor people poor so that their labor can
Speaker 1: be exploited by the ruling class. Like well, and then women,
Speaker 1: I mean, and it also like doubles down on and
Speaker 1: this feels slightly more intentional at least, but like women
Speaker 1: are sex objects only, and I feel like that's maybe
Speaker 1: a more arguable point because it feels like they're at
Speaker 1: least more consciously making that point and they're just not
Speaker 1: doing it very well. But like it's it just kind
Speaker 1: of on all fronts. It's just recasting systemic issues to
Speaker 1: be personal failings is just like the shittiest kind of
Speaker 1: satire for me. And it doesn't even mean that, like,
Speaker 1: you know, it's not to say that like individuals who
Speaker 1: are being actively marginalized and other can't hugely funk up.
Speaker 1: That's obviously true. We've all got parent but that's not
Speaker 1: But but that is not the rhetoric of this movie
Speaker 1: at all. It's like the systemic issues are not at
Speaker 1: the top of this movie. It's like people are just
Speaker 1: not smart enough to know better. It's a very two
Speaker 1: thousand and six way of looking at the world. So yes,
Speaker 1: instead of there being any of that recognition of systemic
Speaker 1: oppression and there being any thoughtful commentary on, you know,
Speaker 1: the capitalist machine and all of its repressive systems. Again,
Speaker 1: this movie just makes fun of poor people and relies
Speaker 1: on ablest language and homophobic slurs mostly for the humor
Speaker 1: of the movie. And it's like that sort of stuff
Speaker 1: is very like very two thousand and six, and I
Speaker 1: feel like it's mostly used for shock value. It just
Speaker 1: doesn't feel satirical remotely. And it's like, it's just like,
Speaker 1: can you believe that we're using these like slurs over
Speaker 1: and over and over and it's because poor people suck.
Speaker 1: You're just like I hate every part of this, Like
Speaker 1: what I hate every part of this. It's real crummy.
Speaker 1: Let's take a quick break and then come back for
Speaker 1: more discussion and we're back. So sorry, I yelled out
Speaker 1: a lot of my frustrations with this movie, I think
Speaker 1: in terms of the so we've talked a lot, but
Speaker 1: at this point, how the lower classes are made to
Speaker 1: seem like the source of all evil, which it okay,
Speaker 1: that is the place from which we're coming, but in
Speaker 1: the future, it seems like the issues that the writers
Speaker 1: have with poor people in two thousand five have become
Speaker 1: the entire culture, and so now people with all levels
Speaker 1: of money and power behave exactly like how two writers
Speaker 1: and two thousand and five, who were rich at the
Speaker 1: time of writing it perceived poor people. And again it's like, uh,
Speaker 1: I really like my John and I think that he's
Speaker 1: made great stuff before this and after, and this is
Speaker 1: just a really frustrating piece of work to look at.
Speaker 1: This was his flop era. I guess this was his
Speaker 1: flop era, but it was later. We'll get to this
Speaker 1: in second, like it was later spun to seem like
Speaker 1: his his his what's the opposite of flop? His masterpiece?
Speaker 1: And that's like because there were genuinely a lot his
Speaker 1: top era. Sorry I just thought of that his top era,
Speaker 1: but like because there were whatever, the history of this
Speaker 1: production was like it became a cult classic, like a
Speaker 1: lot of Mike Judge stuff because it was considered too
Speaker 1: offensive into like specific audience e to release widely, and
Speaker 1: so I feel like it it got this like you know,
Speaker 1: kind of like punk credibility before it even came out,
Speaker 1: because it was like, oh, this is the movie studios
Speaker 1: don't want to release. And I understand that element of
Speaker 1: like that is a really quick way to make a
Speaker 1: cult classic, especially from someone who's already made cult classics.
Speaker 1: But then you watch it and you're just like not
Speaker 1: to you know whatever, Like it's it's it's pointless to
Speaker 1: have an argument of like, I agree with the student
Speaker 1: you because I'm sure the reason the studio had for
Speaker 1: not wanting to release him widely I would not agree with.
Speaker 1: But I'm also like not upset that this wasn't the
Speaker 1: most popular movie in the world, because I don't want
Speaker 1: to like its politics are very dated anyways, fastward to
Speaker 1: the future. Everyone has the exact opinions of Eton Cohen
Speaker 1: and Mike Judge's opinion of poor people in two thousand
Speaker 1: and five. Okay, so what this does is, I feel
Speaker 1: like in the upper classes of the future, it further
Speaker 1: erases again with like the bizarre exception of corporations, which
Speaker 1: they seem very aware of, ignores everything else, examples being
Speaker 1: the House of Representation, where it's portrayed that the it's
Speaker 1: not that the American government is designed to oppress people,
Speaker 1: it's that the people in the American government are just
Speaker 1: not smart enough to know how to provide justice to people,
Speaker 1: which is again, basically no one was talking about this
Speaker 1: in two thousand six because it was like these two
Speaker 1: writers were considered to be on the cutting edge in
Speaker 1: two thousand six and they clearly didn't know. So again
Speaker 1: it's like, don't punish yourself in the past, but in
Speaker 1: the present moment, it's like, well that is not true,
Speaker 1: like they're it's intentional that they're taking our rights away,
Speaker 1: there is an end game in mind. It's not that
Speaker 1: they're not smart enough to know better, and that that
Speaker 1: same ethos is applied to the prison system, which is
Speaker 1: again egregious because it's like, Ben need us to tell
Speaker 1: you how implicitly and intentionally racist and classist the prison
Speaker 1: system is in the US. But again it's the way
Speaker 1: that it's portrayed is like, well, we don't know, we
Speaker 1: don't know any better, like we're just we're just we
Speaker 1: didn't get enough math classes, like to you're just like
Speaker 1: this is ridiculous. And the same applies to the way
Speaker 1: the police are. Like the police are of the three,
Speaker 1: I feel like at least they are shown as like
Speaker 1: absurdly violent and absurdly reactionary in a way that I
Speaker 1: would agree with. But again it's like portrayed, not because
Speaker 1: that is like endorsed and always has been in the
Speaker 1: in American policing. It's like it's because the individual people
Speaker 1: are so ridiculous and you're like no, but it's they
Speaker 1: are empowered to act that way. Like it's just there's
Speaker 1: no systemic criticism except for corporations, and so the corporation
Speaker 1: stuff weirdly, for the most part, for me, it works, Yeah,
Speaker 1: so I think, and that is best exemplified by the
Speaker 1: Brondo thing. But there's also like Carl's Jr. Is now
Speaker 1: running like child Protective Services, and I thought that was
Speaker 1: kind of funny, and the whole the drive thru has
Speaker 1: like a gas they can shoot in your face to
Speaker 1: like dissociate you, like that kind of stuff. I was like,
Speaker 1: I thought that that was like more effective and it
Speaker 1: felt very very intentional, like you were an unfit mother,
Speaker 1: your children will be repossessed by Carls Jr. Like that
Speaker 1: for two thousand six satire. That worked for me, right,
Speaker 1: But then there's other stuff where like you can go
Speaker 1: to Starbucks and get like an erotic massage, which felt
Speaker 1: like shamy of sex work. And there's the whole conversation
Speaker 1: to be had about that and also implies that the
Speaker 1: lower classes, or just like poor people in general, are
Speaker 1: again it like goes into what we were talking about earlier.
Speaker 1: I like the way the opening sequence divides classes is
Speaker 1: like people with more education and money not horny. People
Speaker 1: with less education and the money so horny they cannot
Speaker 1: help but have a trillion kids, which is again unfair
Speaker 1: to both parties. Like you know, we started like it's like,
Speaker 1: you know, people of all classes who are all manners
Speaker 1: of horny. Like it's so like obviously reductive of people
Speaker 1: like to say that your class determines how your are sexual,
Speaker 1: like how much you want to reproduce, Like it's just
Speaker 1: like it feels like silly to even say out loud
Speaker 1: because it's so ridiculous. And I feel like the future
Speaker 1: furthers that logic of like what Mike Judge and Eton
Speaker 1: Cohen thought of poor people in two thousand five, which
Speaker 1: is that they are like so uneducated that they cannot
Speaker 1: control themselves, which again you're just like pull that goes
Speaker 1: into the future of like, oh, they just are so
Speaker 1: horny they want they want hand jobs as star books.
Speaker 1: And it's like not only like you're saying that's shamey
Speaker 1: to sex work. But it's also just like reductive of
Speaker 1: poor people in the way that the movie is from
Speaker 1: moment one, Like it's just just reinforces that. Yeah. So
Speaker 1: so some of it works, some of it doesn't. But
Speaker 1: the Brondo thing I think works the best where there's
Speaker 1: voice over that I'll basically just like say verbatim here
Speaker 1: where it is said that water was considered a threat
Speaker 1: to Brondo's profit margin, so Brondo came to replace water everywhere,
Speaker 1: it's basically except for like in toilets it seems, which
Speaker 1: is also pretty funny. But the Brondo Corporation bought the
Speaker 1: f d A and then the FCC, enabling them to
Speaker 1: say do and sell anything they wanted, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: pretty I think a pretty effective commentary on the way
Speaker 1: that like corporate takeover is constantly happening in this country
Speaker 1: and how you know capitalism is going to be the
Speaker 1: death of assault. And then because the way it manifests
Speaker 1: in this movie is that they're watering crops with Brondo,
Speaker 1: which is full of electrolytes, which is basically just pumping
Speaker 1: salt into the ground where plants can no longer grow,
Speaker 1: and then it's leading to this dustpol where everyone's going
Speaker 1: to starve to death. So and I appreciate that it
Speaker 1: took the further step of like, even if you resolved
Speaker 1: that issue by using water, that would collapse the economy
Speaker 1: because of how the economy was built around one corporate entity,
Speaker 1: and like, yeah, that kind of like the corporate stuff
Speaker 1: worked really well, and it's it's just wild that they
Speaker 1: took that energy to specifically one sector. But again, I
Speaker 1: feel like that is very indicative of Bush era satire,
Speaker 1: where and I do think that George W. Bush, who
Speaker 1: is you don't need me to tell you he's a
Speaker 1: war criminal. He's a war criminal. But at the time,
Speaker 1: and even I remember my perception of him as a
Speaker 1: kid was that he was not smart, and so his
Speaker 1: decisions that were actively harming people in America and people
Speaker 1: outside of America. Certainly he started sucking wars, but it
Speaker 1: was because he couldn't say nucle hear correctly. It wasn't
Speaker 1: because of all these systemic issues. And so I feel
Speaker 1: like that is a lot of the logic and energy
Speaker 1: that this movie is drawing on is like how people
Speaker 1: perceived George W. Bush specifically at this time, which is
Speaker 1: like he is abusing people in and outside of his
Speaker 1: country because he doesn't know better, when the reality is
Speaker 1: he knew exactly what he was doing because he was
Speaker 1: a nepotism piece of ship who was continuing the war
Speaker 1: that his father started. And so it's like there is
Speaker 1: no question that like he do what he was doing,
Speaker 1: you know. But but it was But what the sat
Speaker 1: fire of the time focused on more was like it
Speaker 1: was it was just like kind of picking on Southern
Speaker 1: American of like, oh, I don't like how he says
Speaker 1: this word versus like he is continuing a war that
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with what he says it, like
Speaker 1: he knew what he was doing. Whatever. This is not
Speaker 1: a controversial opinion, Like, no, we're saying this here on
Speaker 1: the heready here first on the back podcast, beloved American
Speaker 1: President George W. Bush and beloved American painter while we're
Speaker 1: at it, um there. Obviously he's a piece of ship.
Speaker 1: But I just think that the way and he was
Speaker 1: he was considered a piece of ship by a large
Speaker 1: portion of the country throughout his presidency. But it was
Speaker 1: like the ways that people made fun of him that
Speaker 1: I feel like informed the direction of the satire of
Speaker 1: this movie. And it just feels like, while it's like
Speaker 1: the rage at him couldn't be more justified, the like
Speaker 1: the vantage why people are coming in at is like
Speaker 1: very misdirected. And I feel like we sort of had
Speaker 1: a resurgence of this a lot during the Trump presidency
Speaker 1: where it was and it's like, I'm sure we fucking
Speaker 1: engaged with us to something like we were certainly there.
Speaker 1: Like Trump is like not a smart person, I would say,
Speaker 1: very true, but does he know exactly what he's doing
Speaker 1: when he's perpetuating systemic issues A hundred and so it's
Speaker 1: like not the question of like I don't like this
Speaker 1: guy because he don't talk smart enough for me. It's
Speaker 1: like like, take a step back, and this movie doesn't
Speaker 1: take a step back except for Brando. It's so weird.
Speaker 1: It is so weird. So yes, the kind of biases
Speaker 1: that the movie is leaning into, as far as like
Speaker 1: being antipore, extends to other things such as setism and racism,
Speaker 1: because like I homophobia and homophobia, right, I think a
Speaker 1: lot of the characters who are you know, quote unquote
Speaker 1: idiots who are populating this idiocracy in the year five,
Speaker 1: are playing into again not only classist stereotypes, but racist
Speaker 1: stereotypes and sexist stereotypes, because a lot of the women
Speaker 1: that you see, not that there are many on screen,
Speaker 1: but the few women with speaking roles who are in
Speaker 1: this movie usually are characterized as bimbos, like the attorney
Speaker 1: general or like the women who are hanging around the president.
Speaker 1: They are like dressed provocatively and you know, just again
Speaker 1: this like quote slutty bimbo type and that is like
Speaker 1: again the filmmakers just bias against any sexually liberated woman
Speaker 1: or sex worker. And this is this is an element
Speaker 1: of the movie that I think could have worked, Like
Speaker 1: implying that the future of America is wildly sexist and
Speaker 1: hateful towards sex work is I don't even think a
Speaker 1: controversial take that is where the is currently headed. But unfortunately,
Speaker 1: the way the movie has written just seems to like say, like, yeah,
Speaker 1: this society treats women like bimbos who deserve no respect
Speaker 1: because that is what they because and like that is
Speaker 1: how they are behaving, and it seems like they have
Speaker 1: no cognizance of how they're being march. It just doesn't
Speaker 1: feel like it's satire, Like it just feels like doing
Speaker 1: the thing I feel like, especially with my Rudolph's character, like,
Speaker 1: so it's it's weird because I could see someone making
Speaker 1: the argument that, well, yeah, the care ters are using
Speaker 1: all this homophobic and ablest language because you know, that's
Speaker 1: what a devolved society would do, and that's the satire,
Speaker 1: that's the commentary. But you don't get to have that happened.
Speaker 1: And then I just feel like the commentary is and
Speaker 1: actually being made. I mean it's not and it's like
Speaker 1: I understand why they thought it was maybe, but it's
Speaker 1: also like a you're operating from like even the found
Speaker 1: the foundation of the premise is so flawed that it's
Speaker 1: like you can't really address specific issues based on the
Speaker 1: idea of like well, no one is smart enough to
Speaker 1: realize what they're doing. And it's like, well, how could
Speaker 1: you address any systemic issue if this movie does not
Speaker 1: recognize systemic issues as a concept, Like it just recognizes
Speaker 1: all systemic issues as as it applies to poor people.
Speaker 1: And then it's like, oh, well, women are treated as
Speaker 1: bimbos because there bimbos because and like Maya Rudolph is
Speaker 1: not like the other girls, but also she's kind of
Speaker 1: like the other girls. Okay, can we talk about my
Speaker 1: Rudolph's characters, because I I do appreciate that by the
Speaker 1: end of the movie, and I mean the end of
Speaker 1: the movie, she is more motivated. She rests, you know,
Speaker 1: in the terms of like classic special cast discussion, she
Speaker 1: saves the male protagonist of the movie. You know, like
Speaker 1: she is active in helping to resolve the conflict of
Speaker 1: the film, at least the one that ends up getting presented,
Speaker 1: because like half way through the movie, it's like, and
Speaker 1: now the conflict is crops and it's like, okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: but for most of the movie that isn't even the issue,
Speaker 1: So she becomes involved in what eventually ends up like
Speaker 1: you're just like becoming the issue of the movie. And
Speaker 1: it would have been interesting if that was the whole
Speaker 1: premise of the movie, because that was giving me Mary
Speaker 1: kay naturally passport to Paris vibes. Um. Okay, be guys
Speaker 1: as part at any point in this episode, you were
Speaker 1: wrong because that I was like, Okay, they more effectively
Speaker 1: resolved a national water crisis issue than anyone, Like I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm wanting to bring up a movie like don't look
Speaker 1: up as being more effective. I don't want to talk
Speaker 1: about don't look up because I didn't like it. I
Speaker 1: want to talk about Passport to Paris because I did,
Speaker 1: like I'm so sorry, and Mary Kidd and actually resolved
Speaker 1: France's water access issues in the and they got to
Speaker 1: kiss their crushes like perfect story. Could you, even in
Speaker 1: your entire life, say that, No, I can't. All I
Speaker 1: did was the Dr Brauner's directly under my vagina. I
Speaker 1: can't do what they do Dr Brando, Dr Brando's acidic
Speaker 1: waste onto my and it's it's he said, the injury
Speaker 1: with the doctor Broder's issue because the bottle is covered
Speaker 1: in words. And then I looked after after the throbbing
Speaker 1: had stopped, and I will say I was taking a
Speaker 1: shower with someone who I liked. Oh sexy. Oh, I
Speaker 1: mean speaking of horny ist time. We're all having a
Speaker 1: horny time when I when I say, when I tell
Speaker 1: you this was not recent. But anyways, I read the
Speaker 1: bottle hours later and the words, the warning I needed
Speaker 1: was there, but it was buried in like weird o garbage. Anyways,
Speaker 1: where was that? An idiocracy? Um could have been helpful.
Speaker 1: All that to say, like this movie, it starts to
Speaker 1: make a criticism, but then says like, well, but insert
Speaker 1: a press class here is basically like that anyways, So
Speaker 1: and then you're just I don't like, it's just bizarre.
Speaker 1: It does feel like I don't know I I And
Speaker 1: if you were older than us, which might not be
Speaker 1: possible we're quite old, um, but if you were older
Speaker 1: than us, feel free to wait in like my interpretation
Speaker 1: and a lot of his reflection because I was like
Speaker 1: when our kid throughout the bush years, but my interpretation
Speaker 1: of a lot of this just based on like I whatever,
Speaker 1: grew up watching John Stewart with my aunt, Like my
Speaker 1: aunt was very into this brand of comedy, and so
Speaker 1: that was primarily through her that I would see it.
Speaker 1: And it felt very like allied with Democrat senators and
Speaker 1: lawmakers in a way that is largely for a lot
Speaker 1: of leftists no longer true. Is like at this point,
Speaker 1: I feel like it's very I mean, it was like
Speaker 1: not that it wasn't known by people in the mid
Speaker 1: two thousands, but it is larger known now that like
Speaker 1: democrats measures and lawmakers are also largely fucking you over,
Speaker 1: but they're just like smiling while they do it. But
Speaker 1: at this time it felt like democrats or just generally
Speaker 1: center to left leaning politicians were not on the chopping
Speaker 1: block to be criticized. And that's because that it doesn't
Speaker 1: really come up like you do. I thought you got
Speaker 1: like a pretty effect of like Fox News early Fox
Speaker 1: News commentary here of like it's just like sexy naked
Speaker 1: people talking nonsense, which is like that's a lot of
Speaker 1: what Fox News is, and like it's it's not based
Speaker 1: in facts. It's very visual medium. Um. But you do
Speaker 1: not get the other side of that because I think
Speaker 1: at the time the writers of the movie would have
Speaker 1: agreed with like centrist propaganda MSNBC vibes, you know stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm de radicalizing my mommy from wowow Jill's working. No,
Speaker 1: it is working. She no longer brings out her MSNBC
Speaker 1: mom mug when I am visiting. I think she's starting
Speaker 1: to be embarrassed at it, and rightfully so she listens
Speaker 1: to the show. Hi Jill, Hi Jill. Um. I wanted
Speaker 1: to go back to read a real quick where so,
Speaker 1: as you said, she's absent for a large chunk of
Speaker 1: the movie, but then she does become active in the
Speaker 1: resolution and she helps to again resolve this like crop
Speaker 1: thing she has agency in those few scenes, but prior
Speaker 1: to that, she is almost indistinguishable from the other characters
Speaker 1: who are also supposed to be the quote unquote idiots,
Speaker 1: because she, for example, she cannot grasp the idea that
Speaker 1: her pimp, this guy named Upgrade, would be dead and
Speaker 1: would have died five years earlier, kind of thing, like
Speaker 1: she spent so much of the movie looking for this
Speaker 1: character that, Like, it's so frustrating because the movie, I think,
Speaker 1: to its credit, does introduce Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph
Speaker 1: as like characters with very different backgrounds who are of
Speaker 1: equal intelligence. That is why they're being selected first. And
Speaker 1: so to fast forward five years and have him be
Speaker 1: able to understand the fact that time has passed and
Speaker 1: her n to understand that is ridiculous. Doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: And it's also suggesting. I feel what's being stated here
Speaker 1: by the filmmakers is, well, of course she's not smart,
Speaker 1: she's a sex worker. Like it's just casting judgment on well, yeah,
Speaker 1: and it's like and also the only thing that's on
Speaker 1: her mind is her loyalty and or fear of her pimp.
Speaker 1: And it's like and and this like slowly disappears throughout
Speaker 1: the plot, but it's not motivated by anything, like it's
Speaker 1: just slowly or if it's motivated by anything, it's by
Speaker 1: the fact that she's developing a crush on Luke Wilson
Speaker 1: for no right. So that's the other thing where she
Speaker 1: becomes Joe's love interest. He poop because if a man
Speaker 1: and woman are the two leads of a movie, they
Speaker 1: legally have to get together. By the end you were
Speaker 1: alive and two five you have to get married. Heads
Speaker 1: have to fuck. Initially, they're just acquaintances because they're both
Speaker 1: participating in this experiment, and then when they're both in
Speaker 1: five they link back up. He's trying to basically rescue
Speaker 1: her and bring her along so that they can time
Speaker 1: travel when he thinks that's possible. I would say this,
Speaker 1: my favorite scene of this movie is when Joe is
Speaker 1: trying to makes sense of time travel. That was commentary
Speaker 1: on time travel narratives that I thought was the commentary.
Speaker 1: That was good. I like that a lot. This movie
Speaker 1: does have its moments which almost makes it more frustrating,
Speaker 1: and they're like I would keep like a solid seven
Speaker 1: minutes of this movie and then the rest is trash um.
Speaker 1: But yeah, so they link back up and they're they're
Speaker 1: trying to escape, and then things start to get flirty
Speaker 1: when they're at the White House, and well for it,
Speaker 1: before that, he has to pretend like they're going to
Speaker 1: have sex with each other so that they can actually
Speaker 1: go off and plan their escape. And that, to me,
Speaker 1: that worked because he's not actually trying to like exploit
Speaker 1: her or have sex with or anything like that. That
Speaker 1: didn't work for me because I felt like it was
Speaker 1: implied that he was inherently of like he's a good
Speaker 1: guy because he's not trying to assault her. You're like,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that it makes anything. They would be together, like, right,
Speaker 1: that doesn't justify why they end up together, right, I
Speaker 1: mean in terms of the plot, right, it makes sense.
Speaker 1: But then things do start to get flirty, like when
Speaker 1: they're at the White House and she's like, you know,
Speaker 1: you don't have to sleep on the floor, you can
Speaker 1: sleep in the bed with me, and he's like, and
Speaker 1: he so his whole thing, he never understands that she's
Speaker 1: a sex worker through the entire movie and possibly through
Speaker 1: their entire marriage question mark, and we don't clear. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he thinks that she's a painter, So maybe you could
Speaker 1: make the argument like, yeah, she's not smart enough to
Speaker 1: understand that her pimp has been dead for five centuries.
Speaker 1: He is not smart enough to notice that Rita is
Speaker 1: a sex worker. Question mark. None of it worked. I
Speaker 1: did just no. But eventually they get married and he
Speaker 1: and Rita becomes his first lady because he becomes president,
Speaker 1: and it's just like, of course this would happen in
Speaker 1: a movie from two thousand six where a man and
Speaker 1: a woman have to romantically end up together at the end.
Speaker 1: I think it would have been more I mean, there's
Speaker 1: so many more interesting ways to take that where it's
Speaker 1: like if you're the only to like, even if you
Speaker 1: are going from the fucking baseline weirdo eugenicis logic that
Speaker 1: this movie depends on to happen. I just feel it
Speaker 1: would be more fun to see two characters who are
Speaker 1: from the same era and are like considered intellectually superior,
Speaker 1: like in conflict with each other, which these two never are.
Speaker 1: They're never in conflict with each other. I understand that
Speaker 1: it's like they have a vested interest in banding together,
Speaker 1: but it's just like her character has never taken seriously
Speaker 1: enough to really develop any sort of side plot of
Speaker 1: her own, Like if you just like let go of
Speaker 1: the fact that, like if you just allowed her to
Speaker 1: understand where she was, things could have become so different,
Speaker 1: Like she could have allied with a different side of
Speaker 1: the fucking future conflict then Luke Wilson did. They could
Speaker 1: have been political rivals, they could have been like so
Speaker 1: many different things could have happened other than like she
Speaker 1: has no idea where she is, and then at the
Speaker 1: last second, she's like, I have a crush on you,
Speaker 1: Like that's like the most boring thing that could possibly happen.
Speaker 1: That said, Luke Wilson's character, like you're just implying, is
Speaker 1: also very boring and hard to root for, and he's
Speaker 1: like such a straight I mean, it's not Luke Wilson's fault,
Speaker 1: but it's like that character is such a straight man
Speaker 1: that you're like, who fucking cares right, gives a ship?
Speaker 1: This man is so boring. And then there's this like
Speaker 1: running joke where she is tricking this guy into giving
Speaker 1: her money on the promise that sometime in the future
Speaker 1: she will do something sexual with him, which just makes
Speaker 1: her seem kind of like deceitful, and I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't always saw honest. That didn't really bother me. I'm
Speaker 1: just like, yeah, I think Hanning a future man. I
Speaker 1: don't really care because she has to like survive. It
Speaker 1: only bothered me because I think that you could someone
Speaker 1: watching this might draw connection between because she's a sex worker, like, oh,
Speaker 1: like this is what sex workers do. They try to,
Speaker 1: like I don't know, cheat you out of your money,
Speaker 1: or they're dishonest or they're something like that. And that's
Speaker 1: what rubbed me the wrong way. Yeah, yeah, I feel
Speaker 1: like there's there's a few ways to come at that,
Speaker 1: because I was also like, well, she's money and this
Speaker 1: person is Um has money and she needs to survive.
Speaker 1: I wanted to quickly talk about how my judge talks
Speaker 1: about this movie now, and by now, I mean sort
Speaker 1: of like the way that in The Idiocracy is a
Speaker 1: documentary era, so the last eight years. So he said
Speaker 1: this in an interview with The Daily Beast. Let me
Speaker 1: just quickly trick the year on this. Okay, early Trump era, um,
Speaker 1: and this is him commenting on what then was already
Speaker 1: a very common idiocracy as a documentary tweet vibes God
Speaker 1: so boring. Okay, So he he says in quote three
Speaker 1: or four years ago, I started getting comments about it,
Speaker 1: people discovering it, and it just keeps building. Now every
Speaker 1: other Twitter comments I get is about Idiocracy and how
Speaker 1: the documentary. Now, at first I was thinking, yeah, that's
Speaker 1: nice to hear, but then very specific things like Carl's Jr.
Speaker 1: Announcing that they were going to have a completely robotic,
Speaker 1: non employee store, and that's Carl's Jr. In the movie.
Speaker 1: Then there's this thing called the Filatio Cafe in Switzerland
Speaker 1: where you get blow jobs with coffee, and we had
Speaker 1: the Starbucks thing in there. And then Donald Trump being
Speaker 1: in the WWF before and talking about his penis size.
Speaker 1: It's just one specific thing after another unquote. Now I
Speaker 1: will not argue with the like technical factual truth of
Speaker 1: what he's saying, but like I feel like the reason
Speaker 1: people say Idiocracy documentary has more to do with hyper
Speaker 1: specifics like that versus the foundation of the world that's
Speaker 1: built in the movie that has I would argue, little
Speaker 1: to nothing to do with what we are dealing with now.
Speaker 1: And also also, I mean to say, Ata said hilarious
Speaker 1: to think that we're going to exist in five years,
Speaker 1: but I kept having that thought. I'm like we're all
Speaker 1: going to be fucking dead. The environment will not sustain
Speaker 1: life because of how badly we've fucked it up. Awesome, Uh,
Speaker 1: but you know whatever, appreciate the optimism, um, but ultimately,
Speaker 1: you know, like I, I just think it's it's a
Speaker 1: bummer because I do appreciate the filmmaker that it's like.
Speaker 1: And I wonder if in the future he will push
Speaker 1: back on this very persistent idea because I feel like
Speaker 1: people are repeated, like I wouldn't really care as much
Speaker 1: if this was like a movie that no one saw
Speaker 1: in two thousand and six and people still like no
Speaker 1: one really saw it, because then you're just like, well,
Speaker 1: it's a victimist crime, you know. Like, but because people
Speaker 1: are continually pushed to this movie as an example of like,
Speaker 1: this is what's wrong with America, when I, when I
Speaker 1: just outside of the corporate criticism, was not getting a
Speaker 1: lot of what appears to actually be wrong, right, Like,
Speaker 1: just feels like an annoying, distracting, victim blamey approach to
Speaker 1: cultural criticism. And I wonder if and it's one thing,
Speaker 1: it's like, Okay, if you were a filmmaker in two
Speaker 1: thousand six, just reflect on that that's all you can
Speaker 1: really do at this point, and I would I would
Speaker 1: be interested to see if he ever kind of reflects
Speaker 1: on the criticism of yeah, because it's very frustrating to
Speaker 1: be living today in a society where period period, end
Speaker 1: of thought, no, but like our rights are actively being
Speaker 1: taken away. There's talk of how the Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: going to continue to keep taking away the right to
Speaker 1: get marriage, like like all this stuff. I was talking
Speaker 1: talking about this with my best friend recently about how
Speaker 1: like good news days from the past, like couple decades,
Speaker 1: it's only been good news days because it's just like, wow,
Speaker 1: this right that people should have had all along, finally
Speaker 1: is a right that people have officially it's been codified, right,
Speaker 1: So like, but then you've got your bad news days
Speaker 1: where it's like, oh, yeah, Roe v. Wade overturned and
Speaker 1: now abortion is criminalized and gay marriage might be criminalized,
Speaker 1: and you just like all these horrible things and um,
Speaker 1: what was my point? So it's just like so frustrating
Speaker 1: to like, I mean, and that's just the fucking tip
Speaker 1: of the iceberg, just like systemic racism and policing and
Speaker 1: all just every societal ill stuff that has never been
Speaker 1: like significantly legally challenged. Right, It's just like we're getting
Speaker 1: a lot of rights overturned, but there's also a lot
Speaker 1: of stuff that never even gotten Right, there's this a
Speaker 1: whole slew of like oppressive societal issues that we're dealing
Speaker 1: with every day. And then for people to compare that
Speaker 1: to this movie, which just blames poor people for the
Speaker 1: decline of civilization, it's very of the age. And I
Speaker 1: know that, like sometimes we get criticism for like examining
Speaker 1: older movies from a current lens, but I mean, even
Speaker 1: in the two thousand six lens, like this was very
Speaker 1: much Again, it's like we're not saying that this movie
Speaker 1: was unusual for its time. And I do vary strongly
Speaker 1: feel that like this type of comedy it's time. It's
Speaker 1: not whatever. There's like art isn't useless, it's not like
Speaker 1: but I do think that you can trace this era
Speaker 1: of satire's role in a kind of like unproductive energy
Speaker 1: with with people that a lot of people recognize and
Speaker 1: are like not engaging with. There's not a ton of
Speaker 1: like I feel like, I mean, even just like the
Speaker 1: fact that Bill Maher is the only person from this
Speaker 1: era that is still doing the same ship he was
Speaker 1: in two thousand six, and now most of his original
Speaker 1: viewers fucking hate him. So I feel like that, like
Speaker 1: he is the case study for like people don't like
Speaker 1: this anymore and the people who like this are like
Speaker 1: weirdo doubling down assholes, Like this type of comedy doesn't
Speaker 1: really exist anymore in a popular sense, but the fact
Speaker 1: that this was popular in its time does leave a legacy.
Speaker 1: And the way that like the comedy that we were doing,
Speaker 1: you know, five to ten years ago, in the comedy
Speaker 1: we're doing now will leave a legacy and it's not
Speaker 1: all going to be great, And it's like, you know,
Speaker 1: the older I get that where it's like you can't
Speaker 1: I mean, you can't take back your funck ups. All
Speaker 1: you can do is address and not endorse them. And
Speaker 1: it feels like that is kind of like what the
Speaker 1: filmmakers of this movie have done by not wishing back
Speaker 1: against the idiocracy as a documentary thing, right, Yeah, they're
Speaker 1: just kind of patting themselves on the back for being
Speaker 1: like awesome movie. I predicted a coffee shop that gives
Speaker 1: out blow jobs, which what's wrong with that anyway? Not
Speaker 1: an indicator of the downfall of society. Um, do you
Speaker 1: have anything else to talk about? No, I think this
Speaker 1: movie had its heart in the right place, but it
Speaker 1: like it just I really, I think it's aged extremely
Speaker 1: poorly and I don't like it at all. Agree and right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: Like we understand the cultural landscape informing the media and
Speaker 1: the satire at the time, and sometimes it does feel
Speaker 1: weird to criticize a movie that's a product of its
Speaker 1: environment from like almost two decades ago, but that's also
Speaker 1: our job. Anyway, The movie I don't think passes the
Speaker 1: Bechtel test. I don't think so either. I don't think
Speaker 1: women interact at any point, and if they do, I
Speaker 1: didn't notice it. But what about our nipple scale, in
Speaker 1: which we rate the movie zero to five nipples based
Speaker 1: on how does it do when looking at it through
Speaker 1: an intersectional feminist lens? And I would give this movie
Speaker 1: not good. I'll give it a half nipple because I
Speaker 1: do think it gets the kind of like capitalist consumersm
Speaker 1: commentary more right than anything else. But that should have
Speaker 1: been one of many things that gets acknowledged and commented on.
Speaker 1: The movie ignores and instead blames the downfall of society
Speaker 1: on poor people. Yeah, and that sucks so and then again,
Speaker 1: just like all of the the classist, the ablest, the racist,
Speaker 1: the sexist coding of the characters is really shitty. One
Speaker 1: half nipple. I'll give it to my Rudolph, whose talents
Speaker 1: in this movie are squandered, because she is far better
Speaker 1: than what this movie suggests. She's the best. Um, I'm
Speaker 1: going to give a zero because I didn't like it
Speaker 1: to piss me off, So I guess I have nothing
Speaker 1: else to say. I just like I do. I do
Speaker 1: agree that the corporate criticism is valid. There were jokes
Speaker 1: in this movie that made me laugh, Like, there are
Speaker 1: jokes in this movie that I'll probably return to. It
Speaker 1: would be like that was a funny thing. But it's
Speaker 1: just the premise of this movie is so frustrating to
Speaker 1: me that I and I have no nostalgic attachment to it.
Speaker 1: So I'm gonna give it zero. And so I have
Speaker 1: no nipples to give, and I, um, if anything to
Speaker 1: end not a positive, No, I do feel like you're like, oh,
Speaker 1: there is actually a huge market right now for effective satire. UM,
Speaker 1: and there's I think most of it is happening currently
Speaker 1: in TV. But there is a lot of good satire
Speaker 1: of American politics and American dystopia that are coming out.
Speaker 1: I do want to say that, like it's not that
Speaker 1: you know, idiocracy being like kind of shitty means that
Speaker 1: American satire is dead. It just means like this one
Speaker 1: aged very poorly, but the genre has continued. There's no
Speaker 1: you know, lack of inspiration to pull from, and it
Speaker 1: is a genre that is like kind of gone on,
Speaker 1: I think, to to develop and grow in a very
Speaker 1: interesting way. And also I think that satire has everything
Speaker 1: to do with the point of view of who's writing it,
Speaker 1: and so having more satire that is not written by
Speaker 1: already powerful straight says white Guys is always going to
Speaker 1: be a good thing, and that we have a lot
Speaker 1: more of that now and there's still obviously room for more.
Speaker 1: But I do think that this genre like is a
Speaker 1: very like satire, like good satire, and like timeless satire
Speaker 1: is like really really hard to do. Um true, because
Speaker 1: which is why this movie didn't do it. It worked
Speaker 1: at the time, it does not work work now. So
Speaker 1: zero nipples hated it. Um let's end the episode. Let's
Speaker 1: stop the fourth of July, just kidding, Abolish the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court of Shitty Country. Anyways, and watch z Way. I
Speaker 1: think Way is doing some of my favorites. She's doing
Speaker 1: some of the American satire right now. Yeah, like she's
Speaker 1: the best. Yeah. With with that in mind, satire historically
Speaker 1: does not age particularly well. This is not a personal
Speaker 1: attack or indictment on Mike Judge. This movie did not
Speaker 1: age well at all. I don't think it's any any
Speaker 1: longer really valuable satire to reflect on where America is at,
Speaker 1: and it probably wasn't at the time either, but that's
Speaker 1: kind of no one's business at this point because it's
Speaker 1: the future. So with that in mind, uh, we love you.
Speaker 1: Keep fighting, keep taking care of yourself, and we will
Speaker 1: be right there with you doing the same. The fourth
Speaker 1: of July is a waste of your time. But if
Speaker 1: you want a hot dog, bioll means get one. I
Speaker 1: think this episode comes out like three days after well
Speaker 1: then fuck you know there. Look, there's no wrong time
Speaker 1: to eat a hot dog, is what I'm saying. And
Speaker 1: so for the fourth of July too, have co opted
Speaker 1: hot dog culture in this way I think is a
Speaker 1: net negative. But you know whatever, all press is good
Speaker 1: press for for for the hot dog, of course, so
Speaker 1: you can follow us online at Bechtel Cast. On Instagram
Speaker 1: and Twitter. You can follow our Patreon ak Matreon at
Speaker 1: patreon dot com. Slash Bechtel Cast is currently Minions March
Speaker 1: A k A. What was the Gruella um Corrella Stevil?
Speaker 1: There's two options ends, Yeah, it's either grew la Stevel
Speaker 1: or Yeah, we're doing to Steve Corral movies. So we're
Speaker 1: doing forty year Old Virgin, a very very popular request.
Speaker 1: People wanted to hear us get upset about it and
Speaker 1: boy did wait and uh we're also doing a millions
Speaker 1: episode which is just I can't wait. Um, so go
Speaker 1: over there, and we have over a hundred bonus episodes
Speaker 1: to listen to, just me and Caitlin, shouldn't the ship
Speaker 1: having fun? And and also our March at t public
Speaker 1: dot com slash the Bectel Cast for all of your
Speaker 1: merchandising needs and otherwise, um yeah, take care of yourselves
Speaker 1: and what are your crops with toilet water exactly? Bye
Speaker 1: bye bye