Imbibe Cinema
A laudatory dialogue led by co-hosts Jonathan C. Legat and Tricia Legat, and joined by producer Michael Noens, as they share their admiration for a wide variety of films. Listeners are encouraged to watch the subject of discussion, grab yourself a delicious libation, and imbibe some great cinema.
This podcast is presented by Blue Whiskey Independent Film Festival, a not-for-profit arts organization that assembles character-driven independent film programming constructed by bold and innovative storytellers for the purposes of education, entertainment, and thought-provoking discussion.
Imbibe Cinema
Best of Enemies
The line between debate and theater has never been thinner than in the explosive 1968 televised confrontations between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr. This pivotal moment in American media history forever changed how we consume political discourse, transforming substantive argument into entertainment.
Join us as we explore this fascinating time capsule through Morgan Neville and Robert Gordon's 2015 documentary with our special "Debate Dual Delight" bourbon cocktail. In this episode, co-hosts Jonathan C. Legat and Tricia Legat, and producer Michael Noens discuss how these televised confrontations continue to influence the political landscape today.
Remember to imbibe responsibly! If you haven't seen "Best of Enemies," watch the film before you listen to the episode.
Subscribe to our podcast for more thought-provoking discussions where film and spirits come together to illuminate our shared cultural experience.
Looking for more episode content? Read the Episode Recap, including links to episode references and the ingredients for this episode's featured cocktail – now available on our website under Reviews & Articles.
To begin your Imbibe Cinema membership, visit imb.watch/membership.
Who dis New podcast. Please subscribe or follow us on all of your favorite podcast providers to get the new episodes as soon as we release them. Rate and or leave us a review to help our show reach that larger audience. You can also follow Imbibe Cinema on Facebook.
Speaker 3:Facebookies Boogie down.
Speaker 1:You can also imbibe. It's getting worse. Greetings and our salutations, and welcome to Imbibe Cinema. The Imbibe Cinema podcast is brought to you by the Blue Whiskey Independent Film Festival, otherwise known as BWIF. To learn more, visit BWIFFcom or visit BWIFFcom. In this episode we're going to be discussing the political debate documentary the Best of Enemies about the 1968 ABC convention coverage. The cocktail that we are imbibing is called the Debate Dual Delight. It has bourbon, lemon and lavender simple syrup. It is quite tasty. The recipe, as well as pictures, are available on our website, imbibesinemacom, and you might not be able to see it immediately, but both sides of this are covered in the Republican pin and the quote from Gore Vidal, which happened to be in my All About, All About Eve book, which, by the way, really good book If you really like the movie.
Speaker 4:If you don't like the movie or you've never seen the movie, well, go for you for reading the book. But still it was a weird thing, because I had never heard of Myra Breckenridge.
Speaker 1:Myra Breckenridge Right.
Speaker 4:So I had never heard of my rib Breckenridge Right, so I had never heard of that movie and I don't think I'd actually really heard of Gord Vidal until I saw this, or Buckley. I had no influence from the right or the left Right and I opened up this book that I have not read for a very long time.
Speaker 4:I was just trying to look something up, something that has nothing to do with this podcast, and in doing so, on the first page, there was a quote from Brian Ridge, from Gore Vidal, who did not write the All About Eve book. But it was just weird. It was like it was following me around all of a sudden.
Speaker 3:I'm curious what? Here's the quote Because in connection with. All About Eve. I find that fascinating.
Speaker 4:I might have caught a glimpse of the heart of the mystery from the rear, an unflattering angle which, paradoxically, has always excited me, possibly because it is in some way involved with my passion for backstage quote, unquote for observing what is magic from the unusual privileged angle. Now, obviously, that can be taken many ways and we will let you take it how you will.
Speaker 3:Yeah, had I not seen Best of Enemies I would have taken, this a very different way Right In the theatrical. Which makes me wonder if the person who put this in here has seen Myra Breckenridge and knows what.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 4:I think so, you think so. It's supposed to be satire right.
Speaker 3:Yes, shocking satire for its time.
Speaker 4:Yeah, so the debates are represented from somebody who's a conservative and somebody who's a liberal. One of the reasons I wanted you guys to see this and I was really taken aback by it was how debate is represented in our country and how these individuals, their relationship with each other was so just surprising.
Speaker 4:And also it's like this time capsule moment to go look at 1968. And in not in the ways that we're used to, because when you look at 1968, typically you're looking at the big history points of Bobby Kennedy, martin Luther King Jr, all the tragedy that occurred, vietnam, and like a different perspective of the Chicago Democratic Convention.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah.
Speaker 3:Oh, this one didn't go well. I've seen several films where you know, like I guess, most recently the Trial of the Chicago 7. And you know, you get really into that mess where this is from a media perspective, which is different.
Speaker 4:Right and also a little bit of backstage, because you're seeing what happened to ABC Right and how they got put in this position and how it is more what they came up with. It was more invention, of necessity, it was okay, everything is going wrong. There were only three networks NBC, cbs and ABC. And NBC and CBS are so good. You've got like Walter Cronkite and then the other guys which I can't remember their names, but it's like Brinkley they make me think of a water filter Like Hinkley and Schmidt, so we'll call them Hinkley and Schmidt for this.
Speaker 3:They're not Brinkley and Schmidt, brinkley and Schmidt.
Speaker 4:These are people who, like newsmen, who America trusts. And so ABC doesn't really have footing. It's having trouble. You know, abc is so far behind that it was third in the networks only because there weren't four.
Speaker 3:Which I found really surprising. I was like wait, wait, wait, disney was last. That doesn't add up right. But Disney didn't own ABC until 1995 or 96.
Speaker 4:Back before, like five people owned everything Right.
Speaker 3:Right. So that's why I was like wait, wait, wait. Why is Disney at the bottom? That doesn't add up right?
Speaker 4:No, they got money.
Speaker 3:ABC had all that Disney money.
Speaker 4:So my favorite behind the scenes is they show how their tent for the GOP convention collapsed and so you get to see how, like hey, it's beforehand everybody's kind of sitting there, and then the whole ceiling comes down. You're like, oh my God.
Speaker 3:And in retrospect, it's really kind of amazing how everything unfolds, when you look at how disastrous things are starting. Yes, are starting, and we can't turn this around. This is like the visual representation of everything is falling apart quite literally, it's embarrassing, and yet turns it around and powers through. It's almost better that everything collapsed and they were down to these bare bones, because really that backdrop was way better.
Speaker 4:Gave me a headache and I'm like and this was in black and white, I can't imagine if it was in color. Oh my God, there's too busy back there. Stop Too much. Too much America in the background. Tone it down, yeah.
Speaker 1:Now, this will be the first documentary podcast for us Brave new world. You can do a lot with independent films. They can really push an envelope that cannot always be pushed by studios or other agencies and those people who do not want certain envelopes to be pushed. So you know, one of the great things about independent documentaries, you know, is that as long as they do their level set best they should be able to present both sides and one of the topics we had wanted to discuss was the difference between documentary and propaganda.
Speaker 4:Right, because sometimes the way to digest it is to disguise it, to dress it up as a documentary, right? So it's like propaganda is no documentary in sheep's clothing. Yeah, no, that doesn't.
Speaker 1:We're gonna give you tons, tons of facts, but the facts that you are getting are very much skewed in a singular direction that the editor or the director, or whomever it might be right everything has, everything, has influence right, everybody has a perspective.
Speaker 4:Everybody has a way they see the world right, and when somebody has a very unique perspective or a very dramatic perspective and they make that their film, well, that's going to get butts in seats because people are like, whoa, this is something I never saw. The is that line where you're like are we sliding one way or another way too much, that we're not representing everyone. I know Michael Moore has gotten many critics saying that his films are propaganda, although, um, very entertaining, yeah, and informative, and also I do in my my, my, uh, my meter scale or how I judge propaganda.
Speaker 1:It's like oh, but you made fun of everybody, so I can't see who we're cheering for and and, honestly, that is one of the key factors. Again, you know, uh, I know just from q a's that we've done at the festival, uh, over many, many seasons at this point, that there's points where you know you find out how much footage has been collected for a documentary and it it amazes me the number of times that documentarians go into a particular film thinking that, hey, I'm gonna like go follow this group of people or this x, y or z story.
Speaker 1:This is the story and this is what's out and, oh yeah, by the time they actually see all the footage, the story has changed as to what they thought they were collecting and what. What the narrative is that they're going to not narrative, because it's a documentary regardless, it's yeah, the narrative, yes of the story, yes, right, and I mean everything's an ongoing narrative.
Speaker 4:You have to craft a beginning, middle and end, for it to be a film yeah otherwise it's just somebody you know, videoed your whole life. Yes, correct, and at some point there you go.
Speaker 1:but at some point, you know, once the the story has kind of revealed itself to I, I think, the filmmaker. It is a documentarian's job to try to hunt down the opposing, hunt down the antithesis to the story that they are finding, to see if they can reflect that. Now, at the same time, depending on where you're headed, you could get stonewalled by the people who don't want to tell the other side of that story and at that point that's not necessarily the documentarians fault, especially if they actually put in you know cards at the end that say this you know particular person was unavailable for comment approached X number of times and never you know wanted to speak in front of it.
Speaker 1:We got like this person and like that is at least an approach towards the documentary versus propaganda. But again, it's a fine line to tread.
Speaker 4:Right, and then you have like, as a viewer, you would have to then go have to fact check. Here's another one. When you talk about documentary propaganda, we usually think political, right, right. There are some shows on television that I posit to you. They're the ones that are like the UFO ones and the conspiracy.
Speaker 2:On the History Channel?
Speaker 4:Yeah, the 10 Secrets on the Hitler Channel. Everything goes back to Hitler, even in Rome. They somehow link it. There are a lot of these shows where you're like I see the same person being interviewed. Is this what you do for a living?
Speaker 3:you just go on these and be like, okay, so I'm going to talk about this I feel like this shouldn't be a controversial thing to say, but I feel like a true documentary filmmaker is, is like is a journalist and that is trying to capture a story and get both sides and should welcome and not challenge the side that they personally disagree with. Instead, be very thoughtful in asking the right questions and then be able to look at them side by side.
Speaker 4:That is exactly a neutral position. Shows both sides, but then lets the viewer make up their own mind.
Speaker 4:So that then links us to debate. Debate in its concept, the idea that we get up and we go okay, here are our opposing views on how we feel we can best serve whatever we're debating, and then the audience gets to go. Oh well, you have a good idea and you make a good point, but I agree with this person versus that person, yada, yada. But here, especially in this film, it lives up to the blood sport reputation. It is mudslinging at its finest. It's not about saying what you believe in, it's just tearing the other person down and making them look like a fool and you looking super cool.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I 1000% agree, you know. I mean, I think the big thing about good filmmaking is challenging the viewer's paradigm. A paradigm is only as good or only as strong as when it has been challenged. Good debate should challenge somebody's paradigm. These two gentlemen were meant to help Americans determine which direction the nation should head.
Speaker 4:And they're very smart, these two gentlemen who are just insulting each other like outright, and yet the way they react to each other, the smiles and the comebacks, it's almost like they've just taken out their gloves and they're just like smack on each other.
Speaker 3:I think that has a lot to do with their understanding of TV ahead of most other people. It would be interesting to know if it was a radio broadcast, if it would be the same, because they know they were on camera and so you can see in their face how upset they are, and yet they're doing it with a grin. It's like the more upset they are, the bigger the smile is. They're trying to compensate for how angry they are, and this this is like uh, I thought in my head naively.
Speaker 4:The debate was like more of an honest representation of like here are my beliefs, here are my bullet points.
Speaker 2:Oh, sure, yeah.
Speaker 4:And then you know and this is how I would address what's going on, or this is who I you know, if we're talking about this convention, here are the things that I would talk about Right, but they don't out. Right, but they don't, they just just sling mud at each other and they each represent an entire side, which is silly because they are so much alike.
Speaker 4:And the documentary does a really good job at at showing that the way they wrote, like the way they grew up, the way they were raised where they went to school and they're.
Speaker 3:I'm assuming it was like their memoirs, their writing about how they reacted to certain things, like how they almost realized, in a way, how similar they were on opposing ends.
Speaker 4:And they disliked each other more for it. Yes, but then there's like self-love, Like I think there's that other point is they are. These are two men who love themselves a lot. Well yeah, almost like how. How, how much of this hatred is a mutual attraction?
Speaker 1:We're going to take a few minutes to fill our glasses and get ready to do them by more after this.
Speaker 2:The blue whiskey independent film Festival exhibits short and feature-length motion pictures that utilize story elements in a new and exciting way. Our official selections are a carefully assembled blend of imaginative, sophisticated and full-bodied stories. This is what our name represents, with. Audiences expect to experience character-driven, independent cinema that is fueled by the filmmakers' passion for the art of visual storytelling. Filmmakers can expect an intimate festival experience where their personal story is valued as much as the one projected on the big screen.
Speaker 1:We were discussing the beginning of the end being, you know, this convention.
Speaker 4:Or people just trusting their news source to be the same information coming from any news source Correct, because that's a news source.
Speaker 1:And that was the Fairness Doctrine. It was a doctrine that mandated broadcast networks devote time to contrasting views of issues of public importance, and it was there from 1954. And by 1970s, the FCC called the doctrine the single most important requirement of operation in the public interest, and so, in 1985, the Reagan administration got rid of it, thought everybody didn't need to be told to behave properly.
Speaker 4:They just should, because they're gonna and nobody's gonna abuse that and and.
Speaker 1:Without that doctrine in place, we really see, I think, the fracturing that is the current media yeah, okay.
Speaker 4:So now we're going back to debate and how I've been trying to find a way to say how it's not fair and how it's just back and forth mudslinging. It is not in good faith.
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 4:Right, we're not trying to understand each other, we're not trying to change each other's minds. We're trying to eviscerate one another. And while that can be entertaining to watch, what good does it do? Right? And especially when it's like just rehashed and repackaged over and over and over again yeah, what does that give anyone?
Speaker 1:Here goes to my original statement of good debate. Should all make you challenge your paradigm. Make you challenge your paradigm, and a challenged paradigm is either strengthened by you know, your resolve and the fact that you, you know, even once challenged the facts don't make you change, or you do change your paradigm. The problem that we are encountering now is that people's silos are not actively challenging their paradigm. They are meant to enforce your paradigm on flimsy sand.
Speaker 4:Right, well, and then you've got the algorithm just telling you what you want to hear.
Speaker 1:The bubble is telling you exactly what you have already believed.
Speaker 4:The example that pops into my head when you say that this is where my brain goes. Follow me on this journey. Murder is wrong, Dexter. Well, I guess in some circumstances.
Speaker 1:I mean if he's murdering murderers.
Speaker 2:Right, like that's where my brain goes. This is like challenging my paradigm Okay.
Speaker 1:Dexter's practically law and order right.
Speaker 4:Without the doink, doink yeah doink doink.
Speaker 1:In the criminal justice system there's one group of person. He is a murderer of murderers and that's what makes him okay. Doink doink, it's a different joke, I don't know the theme. Do, do, do, do, do, do. Anyways, it's a different joke, I don't know. Yes, different points of view. So before the break we had been discussing debate in general and now we're kind of trying to get into that debate versus oh, versus theatrics or theatrics or so at the very end of this film.
Speaker 4:Uh, and if you haven't seen it, please see, see it. And if you, if you see it, watch all the way to the end.
Speaker 2:For my favorite part which is very in the credits.
Speaker 4:During the credits.
Speaker 3:This is a good reminder right. Just to say, because if you don't read our show notes before you listen to the episode, we will ruin things. So make sure you imbibe responsibly and watch the film before you listen.
Speaker 1:And when Trisha mentions this is her favorite part of the film and we mentioned that it is in the credits don't think that we're just saying that her favorite part is the end of the film, Just throwing that out there.
Speaker 4:It's a very intense film, it's fascinating, like I said earlier Time, capsule 1968. But what gets at the very end? You have comedy legend, journalist extraordinaire, america's most trusted news source, jon Stewart, and he says I thought you were going to say Jeremy Irons.
Speaker 3:Yes, comic legend Jeremy Irons, you know my work.
Speaker 4:It's a clip from something where he's talking about people debating and he says, yes, debate is great, but that's not what you guys do. This is theater, and that is the note. That's like the nail on the head is this is all theater and earlier you had talked about and when I say you audience, I'm talking to Michael you had talked about how, if, what, if this was radio, right, if these debates had been on radio, and how the difference is how they knew they were on television.
Speaker 2:And you can tell.
Speaker 4:So way back, follow me 1960.
Speaker 1:OK.
Speaker 4:When we have the first televised presidential debate.
Speaker 3:Oh yeah.
Speaker 4:Between Nixon and Kennedy. Oh yeah, said Kennedy won that debate. And then they talk about how Nixon lost that election, how a lot of it. They blamed the television because he wasn't as photogenic as his opponent.
Speaker 3:Well, he refused to wear makeup too, right?
Speaker 1:Yes, which, again in that televised debate, is what actually killed him and made him look dark, because he's sweating Right.
Speaker 4:It's because he's not buying into the theater, right.
Speaker 3:Right.
Speaker 4:And I'm not saying this is pro or anti yes, yep, of how much the camera does influence people without anything coming out of your mouth.
Speaker 4:Right, just what they're seeing, and in this movie, if everything's on mute Right In this movie especially, they can jab at each other. They have these back and forth where they say very smart, awful things. But they say these awful things to each other and they smile and you can tell that it's like nobody's losing their cool over it. And what gets everybody in the end is somebody loses their shit on camera and says things that they should not be saying on camera because they forget in the heat of the moment. Buckley gets pissed and he says stuff and then it's like, well, that's the the moment he lost, which then just reminds me of my grandpa and john's father, who evidently loved to play. Let's get which is we argue and I'm not picking a side that I believe is right, I'm just arguing until you get angry, then I win, and that's that's how we play and which is unhealthy. Thank, you.
Speaker 4:But at the same time we use our powers for good Do we, they have a podcast now. Yes, but yeah and then. And somebody who I think embodies that approach to debate is Stephen Colbert, from when he had the Colbert report. Yes bear rapport where it was like he does his homework, which is what vidal did in the first set, and buckley caught up when he realized right how behind he was, just because he typically doesn't evidently do the homework and he needed to. He needed to step up because he was on his opponent.
Speaker 1:Yeah well, I'd actually, I'd actually say counterpoint to that in the sheer fact that, uh, at least based on what I was yep, kind of oh, why did I throw?
Speaker 1:that jane you ignorant slut thank you well played um, one of the things that they talked about about buckley jr was the fact that on his show he essentially acted like colbert. He would call in leftist talking point people and just essentially make them look the fools. And when he was approached by ABC, abc asked who would you not want to? And his response was um yeah there was like something like uh, like an actual, like socialist or something like that A communist a full out communist or Gore Vidal.
Speaker 1:And so they're like cool, Gore Vidal it is. It seemed like he wasn't doing his research on Gore Vidal in that first episode. He was ready to talk about the convention.
Speaker 4:He was ill-prepared for where the topic went, not what the attack plan right, but I also think he probably isn't used to uh somebody who was on his level. Oh no, he was definitely not used to being able to phone it in and and just do circles around people, correct he's ready to dance, met somebody who was ready to wasn't even like wasn't going to play fair at all from the beginning, and I think that's true. I think Gort Vidal does not play fair from the beginning.
Speaker 3:Not that it's the same thing, but it did make me think of Colbert versus Bill O'Reilly.
Speaker 1:Papa Bill.
Speaker 4:Yeah, he would meet people backstage and he's like a lovely individual and he was like this is not who you're going to see, like I'm not that person, like this is, this is me, so we're, this is why we're meeting now, so I can talk to you as me, but that's not who's on stage with you. And people are like that's funny. And then they get on stage like oh God, he's right.
Speaker 3:No, that's not the same person. Yeah, um, yeah, again theatrics, the theatrics of it.
Speaker 4:Yeah, right you know you're, you're performing and, uh, conflict is definitely it. It's more intriguing, it leads more intriguing than anything else right now. Okay, so if you were to take a movie that explores the power of debate and speech and persuasion, do you have a movie off the top of your head? I'm throwing you in front of a bus because I can tell you. The one that I immediately think of is Thank you for Smoking.
Speaker 1:Okay, yeah.
Speaker 4:And that is because they're lobbyists, right. But again, it's all about a father and a son, and Aaron Eckhart is explaining debate and he talks about how. It's not about proving that I'm right. All I have to do is prove you wrong. I win Yep, and he does it with ice cream. It's like chocolate versus vanilla and he just eviscerates the kid.
Speaker 1:My brother was on the high school debate team. One of the things about it being is each team is given the topic. One team, whether they believe it in their humble beings or other, is given the pro, pro, and the other is given the the con. And like lawyers, yeah, like lawyer, and.
Speaker 4:And you are just meant to go and write out, right, what your debate is back to the team idea of it is like it is, it's, it's who's going to win this battle of words. And then we all kind of pick a side and, like in politics, whether you agree with them or not, there's somebody you disagree with more and then you kind of find one side. And I find that really interesting in this documentary, especially since these two men are very much alike and have very different opinions on things, but also they're two middle-aged white men who have very high education.
Speaker 2:Affluent yes.
Speaker 4:And it's like you don't really represent everybody.
Speaker 1:The vast majority of either constituency.
Speaker 4:The fact that, like Gore Vidal's sister, Sister-in-law is Jackie O.
Speaker 3:Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1:And then they stopped speaking because of bobby kennedy's yeah and and jackie going with bobby and saying you know, if you're, if you're gonna be a pompous, arrogant asshole, um and uh, against bobby I'm, you know, know, we're done, and again sister-in-law. So.
Speaker 4:Right, but like neither of these people are likable, and yet they're fascinating, fascinating. Right and then it's really interesting because you kind of see, because it was so long ago and you get to see this like what happened to their lives afterwards.
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 4:And the people they become when they're older. In fact fun fact, we were talking about the folks that made this film, morgan Neville and Robert Gordon Right. And they actually did an interview with Gore Vidal. I say Gore, and then I'm like wait Vidal.
Speaker 1:Vidal.
Speaker 4:Because otherwise we think a different one. Yeah, with Gore Vidal, and they didn't include it, and I think that's a really good thing not to, because I'm sure they didn't interview Buckley because he was dead, right. Yeah, it's an unfair perspective, and also another fun fact that I think you guys might be excited by. I read on the IMDB that Aaron Sorkin bought the rights to this film and is now doing a narrative about these two guys.
Speaker 3:oh, yeah, I'm very excited about that, I know I you know it's excited and terrified see, and you know it's funny that you said that, because you were asking about films that are great debates and I was like, well, I can think of the newsroom. But I was like, really, anything that Aaron Sorkin writes is usually a really great debate, even when it's not even political, like if you've ever seen Molly's Game.
Speaker 3:It's just, it's the way he writes his dialogue. Episodes of the West Wing are so fantastic because he welcomes right viewpoints. But anyway, I was starting to search, like, okay, what can I find? And a lot of them are courtroom films.
Speaker 4:Yeah right.
Speaker 3:Which makes a lot of sense. And there are a lot of really good ones the Trial of the Chicago 7, which I think was fantastic, my Cousin Vinny A Few Good Men Social Network. The Verdict 12 Angry Men To Kill a Mockingbird, philadelphia. Good Night and Good Luck.
Speaker 4:you mentioned yeah, and as I over break one thing that I thought was fun, that came up in like the best debate speeches in film was Clueless, Right, right and I was like but they are entertaining and she does make valid points. She does.
Speaker 3:It is such a smart movie really.
Speaker 4:For all our really educated listeners. Not that you're not smart, You're smart. You're so smart because you're listening and we appreciate it. Hey Mary, how's it going?
Speaker 1:Yeah, mary, can you double check. Are there any other like really good debate.
Speaker 4:Yeah, Mary, you want to send us a comment.
Speaker 1:I mean you can send us a comment, you just need to click that button and that will also let us know whether or not that button is working. Anyways, let's poke the bear. Oh my god, poking the bear. Alright, so find out what others think of this film.
Speaker 3:First up we have Filmmaker Magazine and they say I might be being oversensitive, but blandish docs like this one shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 4:Blandish. What does blandish mean? Define blandish Right because I'm just thinking like food, food, Like it's bland, like it's boring Coax, someone with kind words or flattery. Huh, Well, I have not been. I did not think that was the word. I'm learning something new.
Speaker 1:I would neither find neither of the words that either of the two gentlemen used to be kind.
Speaker 4:I don't think it's sugarcoating anything no.
Speaker 3:Slant Magazine says, by engaging celebrity worship rather than using these figures for deeper claims about media-dominated information cultures, Morgan and Neville reinforce circumstances they outwardly condemn.
Speaker 4:Ah, because they're using these guys as a form of entertainment to prove that entertaining people, uh, in this way doesn't help anyone. I find like they were just talking a little in circles there.
Speaker 3:I think that that's the the the point that they were trying to make right is that the circular nature of it almost like it's going to continue the problem which I don't think focusing on the problem, like showing what the problem is, should be the first step in addressing there is a problem.
Speaker 2:Well, yeah.
Speaker 1:Again, acceptance. They have a whole steps program and that is the first one.
Speaker 4:No, acceptance is not the first one, shh.
Speaker 1:We greatly appreciate all of our listeners for choosing this podcast supporting independent films and the Blue Whiskey Independent Film Festival. I'm Jonathan Sealegg, and thanks for imbibing with us Cheers.
