Skip to main content

Ted Lasso, Chicago Seven, and Sandwiches

Join actor and Hollywood screenwriter, Rob Gibbs, and Sweet Tea’s Artistic Director, Jeremy Fiebig, on this After Hours podcast episode as they discuss their current TV obsessions — Ted Lasso and Aaron Sorkin’s The Trial of the Chicago Seven. Oh, and sandwiches.
Welcome to the Sweet Tea Shakespeare Hours, where we spend time well by spending it together. Think of the Hours as a way to pass the time around a common table of ideas. We’re a community seeking to delight in story, song, and stagecraft even as we confront a world of change and challenge.
You can find our whole catalogue here.
The Hours are only possible because of regular support from our monthly sustainers and patrons. Please consider making a monthly pledge on Patreon. With options beginning at just $5, and plenty of great perks, you’ll find a great way to join the STS family. You can always contact the Sweet Tea Shakespeare Hours at
JOIN our Facebook community here.
The show is produced by Claire Martin and Jeremy Fiebig and edited by Ashanti Bennett. Jen Pommerenke and Julie Schaefer also assisted with this episode.
Consider following us on social media: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch
This project is supported by the Arts Council in part by contributions from businesses and individuals, and through grants from the City of Fayetteville, Cumberland County and the North Carolina Arts Council, a division of the Department of Natural & Cultural Resources.

0 (0s):
We are here to tell you about one of our sponsors anchor. If you haven’t heard about Anchor, you should know it’s the easiest way to make a podcast. We are using it even now to make this very podcast. Let me explain why Anchor is so great. First of all, there’s a Shakespeare connection. There is a very famous Anchor pub, just a stones throw away from Shakespeare’s Globe in London. Next to you should know that Anchor is free. There are a creation tools that allow you to record and edit your podcast, right from your phone or computer. And we’ve done both today. Anchor we’ll distribute your podcast for you hassle-free so it can be heard automatically on Spotify, Apple podcasts, and many more platforms where your listeners will find it.

0 (43s):
You can make money from your podcast through Anchor with no minimum listenership, it’s everything you need to make a podcast all in one place it’s super easy, and we could not recommend it more highly to get Anchor download the free Anchor app or go to to get started.

1 (60s):
<inaudible> hello and welcome to The Sweet Tea Shakespeare Hours where we spend time. Well, by spending it together, we’re so glad you’re here. Sweet Tea Shakespeare is a theater and music company based in North Carolina that seeks to gather diverse communities around a common table to delight in story song and stagecraft. This podcast is kinda like our digital campfire, a place where we can come together to share ideas and tell stories. Our podcast has four distinct ways of gathering and sharing those ideas and stories.

1 (1m 41s):
You’re currently listening to After. Hours a series of candid discussions about politics and pop culture, and occasionally their intersections with Shakespeare. For the best listening experience, we recommend a stiff drink or a strong cup of coffee. So grab your favorite late night beverage and settle in. Things are about to get in trouble. Hello? Hello to you, sir. How are ya? All right. A happy St. Crispin’s day. It is St. Crispin’s day. I watched the Kenneth Breno speech this morning to get you in the mood. Yes. I usually have some friend posting it.

1 (2m 22s):
I always forget that it’s Saint Crispin’s de and I’m always reminded because someone, someone I know in Shakespeare world, Pop’s on something right. Here you go. So we get out there and show your scars to your kids. Folks at Saint Crispin’s day, they for a scar show in its right and make it in front of the French. It’s my face. My favorite pastime actually, it’s like my fourth favorite pastime, but that’s okay. It’s it’s the one thing I have in common with a Republicans, I guess

2 (3m 1s):
Oh I suppose st. Crispin’s day is not specifically created to make fun of the French. It’s really just a press and Shakespeare land. What, what is Schaefer? What is Saint Crispin’s day? I mean, it’s a celebration of Saint Crispin, right? Yeah. Where do you do? I really should know this.

0 (3m 24s):
He was, he was a martyr. I think this is going to be embarrassing when they play it I’ll have to do an editorial note.

2 (3m 35s):
We both, we both have, so it was like surely in our, in our studies are Shakespeare when deconstructing this. At some point we, we looked at what Saint Crispin was all about for the crispy, crispy and crispy and Shaun their go by. I do know the speech. Oh, wow. This is, I know,

0 (4m 6s):
You know, the English are really good at a Aeros. Yeah. And, and, and they won a big battle on this day. Yeah.

2 (4m 15s):
It just feels like some significant self ownership here, right. At the top of a podcast. Yeah. That’s all we need to know. Right here.

0 (4m 28s):
Are you for that? We were talking about things. We know something slightly more about today. You know, we’re, we’re talking about two things on, on a streaming television and a some Sandwiches.

2 (4m 43s):
Yeah, that’s right. We’re gonna begin by talking about The a television series. Ted Lasso, Ted, Lasso available for your viewing pleasure on Apple TV. Plus I feel it

0 (5m 3s):
Like I was the last person in America to become acquainted with this show. And I’m glad I did,

2 (5m 12s):
You know, I don’t think you are actually, it’s been out for a little while, but it seems like you’re kinda right at the moment where this show is beginning to really serve us in terms of public consciousness it’s been kicking around. But all of a sudden, as far as the zeitgeists goes, everybody seems to be keying into it all at once here on site.

0 (5m 34s):
I heard of it and I was like, yeah, I’ll probably put that on it. At some point in the thing that pushed me over the top actually was Bernay Brown had like <inaudible> and a couple others on her podcast. I was like, it’s interesting. I can do this. Bernay Brown says it’s, it’s good. I trust her.

2 (5m 54s):
Well, it’s an interesting show. It weirdly subversive for the moment and it’s way because of how nice it is. It’s like, that’s kind of, The the interesting thing about it for those of you who don’t know. Well, let’s backtrack a little bit and I get to that and we’ll talk about what Ted Lasso is. It is a, a sit-com good old 30 minutes. They come to those single camera, not multi-camera meaning that it looks like a film instead of on a studio stage with a live studio audience, which it does not have about

3 (6m 33s):
An American football

2 (6m 35s):
Coach, who is the coach of a, a, a minor college program in with the state shockers. Here you go. And who is hired after a successful season, a at the university works four to a coach, a British football soccer for us on washed Americans team

3 (7m 7s):
In, in Britain.

2 (7m 10s):
And, you know, in their, I forget the way that they, and it’s a premier league, which is their highest sort of, you know, it’s a major, it’s a major professional soccer franchise and he’s hired to be their coach without knowing anything about soccer at all. A he is a, a sort of a, you know, Midwestern slash Southern coated American guy, a guy who, you know, is it a superficially of the kind of person who you would imagine would be a football coach in terms of knowing all of the things that a football coach would know and a sort of it, it’s clearly kind of a fish out of water type story.

2 (7m 56s):
That’s what it’s a purported to be, where you come to find out very quickly. This is not a spoiler it’s revealed within minutes. So the first episode is that he has been hired by the team’s owner, specifically to ruin the franchise to tank it. She has recently divorced from a S I, a guy who is a very wealthy, British Mann, who is sort of coated to be a little bit like a Rupert Murdoch type. In some ways they both seem to be in media circles and whatnot, and in an extremely acrimonious divorce, because he cheated on her publicly.

2 (8m 43s):
She got the team, which is the thing he loves the most in life. Her ex-husband loved this, a middling premier league soccer team. And she wants to absolutely rounded to the ground and destroy in order to hurt him. That’s her objective. And that’s why she has hired this man who she believes is, is a doofus in the American who doesn’t know anything about soccer to, to a coach, to the team in order to ruin it. And the shell plays out from there. Everybody is very hostile to him. The fans don’t like them, the presses a, you know, hostile to him, the team itself, and the team members are hostile to him.

2 (9m 33s):
And he’s got to come in and deal with that. And the show is about how he does that over the course of the season. Interestingly, the show was taken from a series of commercials, like little interstitials that Jason Sudeikis did for NBC, ah, as a joke like Ted, Lasso a football coach, a, you know, coaching or a soccer team is a very one-note thing. It was funny, but it was surprising the idea that you would make a sitcom out of this, but the, a guy who sort of saw those commercials inside of a, Hey, let’s do a show, was bill Lawrence, who has had some very funny shows on the past.

2 (10m 15s):
He’s the creator and showrunner of scrubs back when it was on TV and also a After that Cougar town and his particular temperament and point of view, it sort of suffuses This in interesting ways where we can talk about it, but at that sort of the broad overview of what the show is, right? You got it. And so, yeah, it’s about this guy whose American is, can be come in to England, where everybody hates him to do this thing. Nobody thinks he can do, but he’s super positive and very, you know, very optimistic.

2 (10m 56s):
And he has the assistance of one other American who is a assistant coach, coach beard, who is a solid dude who knows about soccer, where it Ted Lasso does that. So anyway, that’s sort of a broad overview. What did you think about this show? Why do you like it so much? Jeremy

0 (11m 21s):
You say, you said earlier, why you thought the show was subversive and it is, and not in the ways that I think anyone signing on for it would expect it is continually subversive. It is a constantly surprising, and it does it in, in two main ways. The, the, the human way is that it, it perceives the opposite. It is, it is not. Mmm. It is about the, of sarcasm winning it’s about earnestness winning. It is about sweetness. It is about cuteness. It is about joy.

0 (12m 3s):
It is about forgiveness. It is about like the opposite of toxic male leadership is about friendship. It’s about all of those things. It is not saccharin it for the most part of me. And they were, there are parts of it that are a little sort of campy, but, but not, there are not in a way that is making fun of anyone really it’s, it’s just like people for the most part over the course of the season, trying to be good to other people. And so th th th so in the human way, I think it is surprising there because a lot of art and a lot of human beings these days are set up to, to move in the opposite direction.

0 (12m 48s):
The other thing I think it does because it’s doing all of those things is actually take all of the, the common sort of a romcom tropes, a sit-com

2 (12m 59s):
Cringe or, or cringe comedy sort of trouble.

0 (13m 1s):
And it just upends them. It reverses them. It does, it takes all of the tension. You think you’re going to be about that? I don’t know. I did something bad behind the scenes, and now I’ve got to, to own up to it. And it, it has, there is a generous response in the end of every single one of those things. It diffuses all of the sort of bitter human consequences that are attached to a lot of the choices you would see in another TV show. That was about the same thing. So I just think of it, it’s utterly surprising in those ways.

2 (13m 36s):
It is. And you would think that that would underlie a undermine the tension of the show, or, but it, but it doesn’t say there are other things and you know, where it finds that, but, but it is clearly a, you know, came in with this point of view and an agenda. And the fact that it isn’t saccharin is, is important. You know, the world Ted Lasso is this, you know, as a guy who is sort of is extremely corny in his persona, but the world in which he lives is, is a very real world. And, and the show does in an interesting way, sort of interrogate, what would it be like for a person who is like this, this sort of ridiculous man in some respects to actually exist.

2 (14m 29s):
And I, we don’t get a lot of explanation for why Ted is the way he is in this show, but it does in depth and interesting ways sort of interrogate what it is, how it, how a person like this would be perceived by others and what his, like, what some of his personal, you know, weaknesses would be in spite of that. And, you know, the thing that it’s doing is in it, it is it’s playing on your expectations as well. Now they’re just going to be the fight that they’re gonna have to deal with. Now, they’re just going to be the thing, and then it doesn’t come.

2 (15m 11s):
And then when it does come, it’s resolved in ways that are, are unexpected for like the human drama, the human interactions. It’s like, I’ve been portrayed by, you you’ve hurt me. You’ve done something. It, it resolves in ways or plays out in ways that are different than from what we’ve been conditioned to expect from. Like you say, you know, these sorts of sitcoms or, or whatever, where people get angry and selfish and, and whatnot, but the way they also play out, it feels very realistic. It’s like, Oh yeah, it could be this way. Or, you know, and, you know, I think Lawrence, what’s clearly true about like the creative team on this.

2 (15m 52s):
They’ve taken a perspective where it’s like a, you know, all comedy seem to be rooted in this idea that people are <inaudible> and an ugly and the small and nasty. And that’s true sometimes. And this show does portray that in, in realistic ways, but he says, but people are just as likely to respond in ways that are a human right and pine. And you know, that society rolls along because people find a way to resolve their issues and to work with each other. Right. And I think the real power of the show is that it is, you know, portrayal of people’s darkness in their cynicism, in their ugliness, in their pain and their nastiness.

2 (16m 42s):
It is all very real, but that the, Oh the influence of this one guy who chooses not to be that way and tries to make things, not that way. I can actually make a difference. One funny, subtle little thing here. It’s like, this is, you know, a show set in England and the, the breads have a much more sort of liberal use of cursing, you know, it, and then than Americans do. And th that particularly shows on TV and that, you know, there is, this show is just like chock full of, you know, British profile and in, in, in a way that is like, you know, distinctive, and Ted never swears in the entire series until like what’s in the last episode.

2 (17m 34s):
And it’s a joke when he does, because it is funny. Like they they’ve done that. And so it’s like sticking mr. Rogers into this very course, sort of a male you, but it never is making fun of him because of that as well. And the

0 (17m 50s):
Characters make fun of him, but to show never does it,

2 (17m 52s):
The show never does. Yeah. The characters make fun of him constantly, but the show is on the other side. And that’s a fascinating, I mean, and it does feel genuinely new and subversive. And this time where, you know, the, the expected thing is taken down a peg and let’s find out what darkness he really has inside

0 (18m 12s):
Him. And he does have darkness, but

2 (18m 14s):
Yeah. But then it doesn’t define him. Like, there’s an interesting moment late in the season where there’s a character who one of the, there is a character who’s, This a British man. Who’s a Indian of Indian extraction, a hu or India. And he might Hours, it might be a Pakistani, I guess. So I’m not certain he’s a anyway from sort of a, you know, in Asia, in a, the British understanding of Asia. I don’t know where it specifically, I guess, but he is, what, what, what, what is his function on the team when he gets there?

2 (18m 56s):
He’s like

0 (18m 57s):
The steward, like the locker room steward. Yeah.

2 (18m 60s):
Yeah. And, you know, get some drinks and sets up the, you know, make sure that they’re Gatorade and stuff like that. I mean, it would probably be a caterer, but, you know, but it, in front of the first episode, Ted begins to elevate him until he becomes an assistant coach essentially by the end of the season. And there is a moment when, you know, and Ted like just been constantly nice to him. And there’s this moment where he, for various reasons snapped at him and bites his head off, you know, and if this was a regular show, it would be like, Oh, well, this was the moment when the wedges there and we are going to play this whole thing out. And then it resolves in a way that is very different from what you would expect, but also feels totally normal.

2 (19m 44s):
And it really shines a lot. You know, we are in essence, it’s like, well, I’m sorry I did that. You know? And, and, and it, it, it really shines a light on how much sort of drama, like the, the interpersonal drama that feels sitcoms is really very false. Like, you know, the O and now we are angry at each other and we’re gonna have to work through this. And instead, it’s just like, know this, you know, this is what life is, and you can overcome, and like minor things like this, don’t have to become a massive world. And the things that are even big things, like, it’s hard to talk about this without spoiling it, but the relationship between Ted and his boss, Rebecca played by actress, Hannah, Waddington had a wedding.

2 (20m 34s):
Him is really fascinating. She is like, created to be a villain character in many respects. Like that’s how she’s coded at the beginning of this and the way that they slowly sort of unpeel her humanity and the way that she doesn’t relate to. Ted just on a sort of, I’m the bad guy, you’re the hero sort of a level that a lot of the stories get told on is a real triumph for the show. Like their relationship is really fascinating on this. And she’s a great actress. My forecasts at Truman. Yeah.

0 (21m 8s):
Olivia award-winning.

2 (21m 12s):
Yeah. Yeah. And it does this thing that happens on TV a lot, ah, where you happened to have somebody in your cast who like, has this amazing voice. They like find a, find a reason for her to bust it out at some point, you know,

0 (21m 27s):
And it’s delightful. Well, I just, so, so I think the show is, is prophetic in its greatness. And what I mean by that is that a culture for reasons we have talked about ad nauseum has, has invited itself into division into toxicity, into a sarcasm and citizens, cynicism as a default. And what I mean by prophetic is that this is a, it’s the kinda the first show in recent memory that is, that is doing the opposite is calling people. I think intentionally I’ve heard some of the interviews with, with the folks involved in, in making it in their intentions behind it, a way that is calling us to sort of a different kind of behavior.

0 (22m 16s):
That is the first, I think, post kind of a post-Trump post me to examination of like what behavior can look like when we treat people like full human beings and understand them as full human beings and is doing it in a lot of different ways. I mean, it’s, it’s showing you a kind of leadership that is not toxic masculinity. It is looking at positive male male relationships, which we don’t see a, like super frequently a, you did mention scrubs earlier. I mean, that’s a, that’s a TV show that explores that very well, many moons ago, but we don’t see that a lot.

0 (23m 2s):
And we don’t see characters apologizing to people and having it land except is like a big payoff maybe later on in, in a pill. That’s the thing you get them.

2 (23m 13s):
But only after you’ve gone through a massive strum and drank kind of on the way to it, right. And this, you know, I love this show really from the very beginning builds towards what you know is going to be the eventual revelation. And he, you know, if you know anything about the way that stories work, you know, eventually Ted is going to find out that he’s been brought to England under false pretenses. And that he’s really been played upon in a way that’s pretty horrific. If you break it down. I, I, you know, he has his own reasons for coming his family life.

2 (23m 53s):
And it was a sort of deteriorating and his relationship with his wife is on its last legs and part, because she finds is a constant positivity really to difficult to live with as the sort of suggestion or application. But, you know, he, he’s done a lot to go there and it’s appended his whole life. And you just know when he finds out there’s going to be some, it it’s the bomb that your waiting to go off. And when it does, it’s so surprising and interesting the way that it’s handled and the way that it’s dealt with on the show in a way that feels, and this is the thing about it is uplifting, but it’s also entirely earned.

2 (24m 39s):
And that’s the reason that the sacrum in sort of nature of that doesn’t, isn’t cloying, you know, it, it earns the, the things that feel good about it because it plays fair and it’s smart in, you know, the way that it treats its characters and you know, it, it, you, you looked at that and things, of course it, doesn’t, everything doesn’t have to be terrible all the time. Everything doesn’t always have to know, the story has this sort of implication that everything’s always going to get worse. You know what I mean? And to see a story where, you know, even though bad things are happening to the people, treat each other well and are human to each other in a way that feels credible is an amazingly, it feels really good.

2 (25m 29s):
You know, it’s, I mean, uplifting in a way that is you no, not at all sort of false or, or, or cheap or stupid, which is the problem with so much of art that tries to be uplifting is it doesn’t play fair, you know, and it doesn’t earn it. And this show does, and that’s an impressive achievement.

0 (25m 57s):
I have found watching this show, my mouth drops open tears, come to my eyes, w like my heart, like leaps out of my chest repeatedly. It is shocking in it, in, in what it’s able to achieve. And Oh is one of the great, you know, I think all good R is supposed to surprise us and shock us. And in all of that, and this does it in a way successfully, repeatedly in a direction that is opposite what we are used to.

2 (26m 30s):
Yeah. Yeah. It’s great. Another one other thing about it that I think it was maybe under a remark, but I, upon I lived in England when I was a kid and have occasion to spend a chunk of time there in the year, since periodically, you know, when I was in undergrad, I spend a semester there and, you know, Jeremy you and I spent a class there in grad school, umm, for a couple of months and, and I, you know, and so I, and so I became sort of interested in British media and, you know, from an early age involves, just kept tabs on it.

2 (27m 17s):
And it’s hard. It is hard to do the American in England show. Like sometimes they push too hard on it. Sometimes they just get Think usually they just push you hard. It’s like just not quite right. And this is honestly probably the best American living in England show I have ever seen. Hmm. You know, as, as a, as a genre or, you know, the way they play with people’s expectations and the way that they don’t fall into a lot of the stupid traps that those stories often go into, but also the very knowing sort of way that they play with cultural difference between America and, and England is, is just really sharp at a deft and a very impressive, it’s a, you know, it’s a really good show.

2 (28m 10s):
People should watch it.

1 (28m 14s):
This is probably a show that I will rewatch and rewatch and rewatch. Yeah. My household only does that with one other show, which is a new girl and, and I think this is going to be our second. And so

2 (28m 27s):
Well, it’s just that you would say the new girl does have some things in common with this show too, you know, which is to say like a positive sort of a, you know, an attempt to let people be nice is, and while also actually being funny, which is, you know, tough

1 (28m 47s):
Watch it, let us know what you think.

2 (28m 50s):
Yeah, for sure. Right.

1 (28m 52s):
And you can, you know, if you’re, if you’re a binger, you can get it done in a couple of nights. If you’re not a binger, it’ll, it’ll uplift your every few days when you can get to it is a really great

2 (29m 4s):

1 (29m 10s):
If you enjoy the work of Sweet Tea, Shakespeare the number one thing you can do is log on to Tea Shakespeare and make a monthly pledge. Those pledges start at $5 a month and they go up to $500. Actually, you can set whatever amount you want at certain levels. There are a great perks, including in-person tickets. And those include all digital access throughout the year. So if we have a streaming event, a streaming concert, that’s that normally we pay for

0 (29m 42s):
Patrons at the $20 level, just get in and they just get in. It’s a delightful, but that is the greatest way that you can show support to Sweet Tea Shakespeare and help us continue to do the work of this podcast. In so many of the other things that we do throughout the year, that’s Tea Shakespeare. Well, moving on, we’re talking about the Trial of the Chicago Seven, which is a new, a release on Netflix, a written and directed by Aaron Sorkin corrector, Jack cast.

0 (30m 31s):
And so Rob tell us more about this, a new Netflix film.

2 (30m 37s):
So the trial is Chicago Seven, as Jeremy said, written and directed by a writer of screen stage and television, Aaron Sorkin eye is a drama dissertation of the Trial of the a Chicago Seven as the title implies the Chicago Seven were a group of activists in a, the anti-war movement in 1968, who were essentially leaders of the demonstrators in Chicago, the summer of the, the democratic convention in Chicago.

2 (31m 23s):
They were there to influence the leaders of the convention and to make it known that they were against the war, mostly young people though. There are some notable exceptions to that and that those demonstrations, which happened over a number of days during the convention, and eventually erupted into a violent riot in which they were clashes on the streets between the police and the demonstrators and Seven well, there was a group that was known as the Chicago Seven and then there was an eighth person as well, who for a moment was a sort of tried with them, but then eventually was not for reasons that are interesting.

2 (32m 7s):
And the story it’s about the Trial of those people who were the leaders of various different, basically unaffiliated groups who were all their at the, at the protests and who the Nixon administration, when they came in to power, wanted to make an example of by a staging, what essentially was a federal show Trial in which they were going to use this little used statute, this obscure sort of statute to prosecute these people and get them locked up for 10 years.

2 (32m 47s):
What’s the intention. And so it’s about the Trial of those people. And what happened at the trial is wild. Like in real life, just setting aside the, the story of the movie is insane. What happened in really right for dramatization. And so Sorkin did it. I was originally approached by Steven Spielberg said, ah, in, in a meeting said, I want you to write this. I want to make this movie in the Spielberg was attached to direct for years. And then eventually sort of didn’t in Sorkin with his blessing. Did do it. The movie is a Dreamworks production. So you see steel, Spielberg’s a, you know, a connection to the studio that Spielberg still is an owner of a so he’s, you know, still is a connected to it in that respect though, he’s not an active producer on it.

2 (33m 42s):
And yeah, Sorkin eventually decided to direct it. And the cast is unbelievable that they got together for this thing. Like you have Eddie Redmayne, Sasha Baron Cohen,

0 (33m 58s):
You were so great. And I love it. Michael Keaton, Franklin Gela, Mark. Rylance Jeremy Strong. I mean it’s a whole day

2 (34m 7s):
And yeah. And then a bunch of care and yeah, yeah, yeah. Abdul Mateen. The second who has, you know, a sort of exploded NP in the public conversation in Watchmen this last year and then great character actors like John Carroll Lynch or Ben Shankman is just this murderer’s row of amazing performers all lined up. I think because they all, you know, the Aaron Sorkin, everybody wants to do a Sorkin script, right? I mean, his, he is a great writer of dialogue and can really attract top tier talent because of that.

2 (34m 56s):
So it’s a big fat movie. It was supposed to be in theaters, but because of COVID ended up on Netflix instead, I think it is playing in some theaters as well though. And it’s an interesting movie. What did you think of it?

0 (35m 13s):
So, you know, the world is not that I’m on immense Aaron Sorkin fan. I’ve been addicted to the man since the West wing. I know that not everyone agrees with me. Th th th there is some controversy there, but for me, he, he’s just the pace, just one of the smartest writers who’s ever lived, and he has a formula and it works, and it involves sort of rapid fire dialogue and a lot of callbacks as the, as an episode, or in this case, a movie moves forward.

0 (35m 57s):
It’s always coming back to the beginning. It has some really interesting things with structure and flashbacks, probably one of the strongest writer’s in that regard, in terms of connecting contemporary occurrences in his stories with past occurrences and bouncing back and forth, it was just really adept at it. He’s a, you see that I think is masterclass on that particular one is a social network. The,

2 (36m 26s):
He was also in Steve jobs. He does a sure.

0 (36m 28s):
Yeah. And it’s, it’s just good. And of course he’s, he’s good at, has sort of came up and made his name in a sort of a courtroom drama, a few good men. And here you have a sort of another chapter of that story, of course, recently, and famously he had to have adapted to kill a Mockingbird on Broadway M and it’s just him doing his best work in, in this case with about the best cast, or you could get a job and it’s, it’s, it’s re it’s just really good.

0 (37m 10s):
It happens to be timely,

2 (37m 15s):
A coincidence. It is a total

0 (37m 17s):
Coincidence. I mean, it, it, it speaking to the issues directly of the protests we’ve seen in the last few months, there is a direct one-to-one correlation. It feels incredibly. I mean, if you, if you took the Vietnam war content out of it and replaced it with, with a black lives matter or, or something closely related, it would be absolutely politically a current, there are a one-to-one ties between the Nixon administration and what they’re saying about the Nixon administration and the Trump administration. Now, there are a one-to-one ties between disparate activist groups and public reaction to them.

0 (37m 60s):
One-to-one ties between sort of corrupt corners of the, of the justice department and did judicial branch then and now, and it’s amazingly and saddening Lilly contemporary relevant.

2 (38m 19s):
Yeah. Is it? That is true. I mean, in some ways, if you replace the, the idea Antifa as the sort of a catch all for what really is a lot of disparate groups who are really directly connected to each other, and don’t have an center for the, you know, radical left, which is what they are, you know, call them. And then in the media, I mean, that’s it, and that’s essentially the same fight. And the movie does give you this a sort of bracing window into what the future could hold. You know, the prosecution’s really do a gear up in the way that they have been a purported to be planned for in the next administered, you know, the next four years.

2 (39m 9s):
Sure. Trump win and what’s striking about the, a, about the movie is, you know, just how sort of nakedly on the proceedings are. And I have to say there there’s, there’s a documentary that exists called Chicago Seven, which is we’re seeking out. That is just about the Trial as well. And honestly, if anything, this movie downplays and softens some of the real brutality and insanity that happened in that courtroom in ways that are interesting.

2 (39m 57s):
And I think connect to a Sorkin I to follow up on something that you say, you know, I love Aaron Sorkin too. I think that he is an amazing writer. And as somebody who does some writing, you know, I, I feel like I need to say Aaron, Sorkin’s a better writer than I am. Like, I know there’s just no question of that. Like I a really, really am impressed with him is a ridiculous thing to do. He’s, he’s a, he’s one of the only writers writers who exist too, is, you know, a brand unto himself, right?

2 (40m 40s):
How many writers can you think of who, if you hear that, it’s like just the writer, Oh, I’m going to see that there aren’t many of them, honestly, Aaron Sorkin’s one are the only ones and working contemporarily. And for good reason, he is a ridiculously talented guy having said that I do have mixed feelings about some of his work sometimes. And he has these interesting sort of qualities to his point of view and his politics, or are interesting in a specific way to that from project to project, don’t always work out, right.

2 (41m 21s):
I mean, what he’s great at is a dialog. Like you said, it, like we said, and B also dramatizing disagreements between friends and people are working on the same team in a shared, you know, a and a shared endeavor for an eye, like a reason that’s rooted in their beliefs, in their ideals like that. That really seems to be like his, his project in a lot of ways, like how people who are nominally on the same page with each other and on the same a, you know, pursuing the same thing ended up in a terrible, terrible fights, but in ways that are interesting, you know, and also male friendship.

2 (42m 4s):
Like this is a very male heavy show in terms of a, well, how many, like there are maybe two women who is in the entire movie who are characters in any real way. One is the receptionist at the, a LA offices were, you know, defending the Chicago Seven. And the other is a woman who you come to find out as an FBI agent and even they are limited somewhat. Right? So it, you know, the fact that he is sort of paternalistic in many ways is a big knock against him in the public discourse, which is maybe true.

2 (42m 50s):
There’s a story that it plays to that as well, because there just weren’t that many women involved in the situation, the only thing is always about it as politics. That’s interesting is that he is like super liberal, right? I mean, he’s the man who created the West wing, which has this sort of dream of the liberal presidency, but he’s liberal in a sort of Clinton Nasser triangulated sort of way, which has to say, he’s the liberal man who has a tremendous affection for conservatives. Well, he sees, he sees an ideal conservatism to, and once it to be a part of the AIDS kind of out of step with the moment, though, right?

2 (43m 34s):
Like with the politics at the moment in which this is sort of a doctrinaire left sort of approach to, to, or point of view that everyone’s supposed to have about conservatives is that they are fundamentally rotten and that, you know, and that’s what so much of this weird election year has been about, like the left being furious at a, at the emergence of Joe Biden and the people who’ve liked him. And then Joe Biden slow sort of trudge towards dominance right. In the polls. And he’s, you’re going to win or not the next couple of weeks.

2 (44m 16s):
But, you know, you could say Sorkin is, is very firmly a Biden guy, as opposed to a Bernie guy, right. In the parlance of the moment and to be a Biden guy is extremely uncool. So it’s interesting that this is a movie about that very division between Eddie Redmayne, his character, Tom Hayden, who is the, you know, if were the surrogate for that sort of centrist or, you know, we are trying to influence the mainstream a, you know, point of view of left activism against Sasha Baron. Cohen’s Abby Hoffman, who is, you know, not just left, but is also an anarchistic.

2 (44m 57s):
And also, you know, and where Hayden is very sincere and sort of sober in his arguments. Hoffman is a, is a clown. Self-consciously a clown, you know, and is trying to be funny for a reason. And so a lot of Sorkin project here in this film is really, you know, trying to understand the difference between these two men in their different points of view. And you know, him as a guy who is the sort of, you know, moderate in temperament, which Sorkin ultimately is a very liberal, moderate, I’m making an argument for Hoffman.

2 (45m 42s):
And it’s interesting to see how he does that in this film.

0 (45m 50s):
Well, and I think specifically, he, he is making, he’s calling out the problems of the centrism in the facts of this case. How, how is it such that Tom Hayden is actually probably the person directly responsible for, for the not probably he’s directly responsible for it? Yeah.

2 (46m 13s):
Well, in the, in the telling of this story, the reality is more complicated, but that’s

0 (46m 18s):
Well, it’s interesting. He, he, he goes in that way as I was watching it. I mean, I want to go back to the sort of contemporary connection. I mean, this is, this is, as you say, it’s the Biden Bernie thing. There are a lots of things that come up about contemporary politics for me, AOC and the, the sort of spectrum of, of liberal politics and, and what’s sort of a law like how they are fighting with each other, but also how the right views AOC vs Bernie versus Biden and in all of that and which ones are all of them.

0 (47m 0s):
Right. Right. And, and that, that, that I’m Alexandra Ocasio Cortez is, is the sort of new poison that if you get too much of her mixed in with the, the people who might otherwise be rational and reasonable and a somewhat of the center, then, then that spoils everything. And you’ve seen a lot of that in the political ads, in, in arguments of the right wing at the moment, but that’s what was coming up for me in it. And I think I’m the type to that, you know, the, the, the Bobby Seale story part of this and the Fred Hampton story, part of this, about how so in case you are

2 (47m 47s):
Bobby, Sheila and Fred Hampton, horrible members have a black pair. Yeah.

0 (47m 50s):
The black Panthers, Fred Hampton famously assassinated by the FBI

2 (47m 57s):
While the trial was going on.

0 (47m 58s):
And the, the, what comes up is all of that, all of that, a part of the storyline feels absolutely contemporary. And the, the sort of, I mean, it’s, it’s in the film, it’s, it’s symbolic metaphorical, uhm, in E it’s of white-washing. I mean, that’s what it is. They’re a white-washing of the political left to include Bobby seal. And it’s amazing to, I mean, it’s just like it could of happened yesterday.

2 (48m 37s):
Yeah. I, you know, it’s one of the really deft, I mean, it’s true. It, it happened, but the way that Sorkin grabs on to it, you know, and, and his dialogue and interactions really dramatizes it. Bobby seal, who was one of the members of the black Panther party who spoke at the rally at one of the rallies surrounding these events, came in to town, spoke to, you know, spend three hours in Chicago. One of which he spoke on stage, got food and then went home and was nowhere near the City when the real violence and stuff happened.

2 (49m 19s):
And, but they put him in as a member of the Trial. Well, they tried to make him one of the defendants in this Trial because they, they were afraid that the defense that the defendant says they were, would not be intimidating or scary enough. And that if they didn’t put a black Panther in there or a black man, that if it would not cause enough animus to convince them, and he was never represented by The a lawyer for the Chicago, Seven played by Mark Rylance in a very, very good performance.

2 (50m 0s):
And this, in this film, but was forced to attend court. And he continually tried to object saying that his counsel was not present and he was not represented by the lawyers there. And the judge played by played by Franklin Gela. Judge Julius was a, just refuse to acknowledge that he wasn’t represented through the entire thing until it resulted in, in Hampton. We’re not happy. A seal continually kept saying, I’m not, I don’t have a lawyer here.

2 (50m 42s):
I should not be tried with these men until they gagged him. And the film, the gagging actually is just this one thing that happens fairly quickly in real life. He was gagged for a month in court and forced to sit there bound and gagged while not being represented by anybody until finally. Mmm. Well, you can see the film until finally he was removed from the Trial and no longer Forrest to be in it anymore.

2 (51m 23s):
And what’s fascinating about it is like to see the ham-fisted like completely open way in which they were attempting to say, like, these are all of the same people. These are all of the same situation. You should hate them all like the same and you should be afraid of them all in the same way. It’s, it’s shocking to think that somebody attempted to do so in such a naked way. And it’s interesting to see the way that it really does parallel the attempts being made right now to say, I know you think that Joe Biden is Joe Biden, but really he’s not Joe Biden. He’s, he’s Alexandria, Ocasio, Cortez, and they’re both, you know, Antifa, which is a, you know, which is a terrorist group that like take, and this idea that it’s like, they’re all, all the same thing, you know, and just hammering at this like crazy frankly stupid sort of premise to try and make everybody swallow it.

2 (52m 19s):
And it’s like, it’s all happened before.

0 (52m 22s):
Yeah, I would just add, so this is a really good, it is. As you mentioned, it is getting a little bit of a theatrical release. I think it’s a, we’re likely to see it as a best picture, a nominee because of that. I have to say some of the performances are, are a stunningly good, which tells me a lot about Aaron Sorkin as a director that I did not know. One of the things that’s interesting is sort of what to see what different directors and projects will do with Sorkin’s work because obviously most of the Cultural memory is about part of what was done in the West wing.

0 (53m 3s):
This is a different way. It is doing it on the same things. This is a little bit of a different pace, particularly in, in the performance is it is not the fastest Sorkin you’ve ever seen in your life. It is not Westwind speed. It’s something less than that, but not as slow as Moneyball, not as fast as West wing is how I would it, and it was really interesting to see what, what Director is doing with their own work in terms of plays and performance and things like that. But he’s great about getting really, really great performances out of this cast. Eddie Redmayne is actually very impressive in, in a pretty, pretty well,

2 (53m 48s):
Well, he’s the straight man in the group and yet still finds interesting notes. There

0 (53m 53s):
It’s really, really impressive. Joseph Gordon Levitt. It does just fine. Mark Rylance blows the doors off to the place as does Franklin Gella at Franklin gel, a real like absolutely steals the peace it’s. He plays the judge, Julius Hoffman, who, who is a cartoon in real life. And in this movie is a cartoon and Franklin jello is just like a freaking magician. I mean, I love all his work. I loved them in the Americans. That’s the last thing I think I saw. I mean, and it’s, it’s, it’s subtle. It’s good. It’s it’s I wouldn’t say it’s three dimensional because the character is not that well it’s so, so great.

0 (54m 34s):
It’s so great. Yeah,

2 (54m 35s):
That’s the thing that’s crazy about that character is he’s ridiculous and he’s galling and upsetting in the film. And the truth is he is scaled back in this movie from the reality of what the guy actually did and was, he was even more ridiculous, an even more irrational. If you look at the transcripts for the court, as the funny thing that actually happened in this movie, there is a kind of, a lot of that where Sorkin, whether it, it was because its like, people just won’t buy what actually happened. It will, people will think I’m being ridiculous. Like actually sort of made the, the anarchy and some of the sow sort of comical that they appear to be scripted moments that happened in the courtroom.

2 (55m 21s):
He, he doesn’t include them. And interestingly, like with Abby Hoffman makes him just a little bit more cogent in this than he actually, you know, which isn’t to say that Hoffman wasn’t a cogent, but it’s, it’s like he scales them back. Like Andy scales a lot of what happened back because I think the actual reality of what happened would be just unbelievable. I agree with you circuits direction in light of the actors is great. I do wonder if Spielberg had directed this like visually I think it could have benefited from that a little bit and sort of an eye towards how to compose this in a way that might’ve made it pop a little bit more, but you know, Sorkin, I think in film really is it’s the place where, you know, film and on stage, this is medium.

2 (56m 13s):
He does amazingly well, his scripts are really incredible. And you know, Moneyball, like you mentioned a Steve jobs, the social network and this movie, they are really excellent Holmes. You know, I think it was TV where it can be more inconsistent. Like the West wing is this amazing piece of work. And that’s where I became a fan of his, I think studio 60 and the newsroom don’t resonate as much with me for variety of reasons. We should, we should talk about sort of a tough time on his own, maybe about those, but you know, the pre interesting reasons, but it, this is like really top tier stuff.

2 (57m 1s):
Is this worth checking it out?

4 (57m 10s):
Do you love the Arts? Do you love Sweet Tea Shakespeare then you should consider being a guest on one of our podcasts for more information, get in touch with that’s H O U R

2 (57m 31s):
Moving on to our final set, a segment here today, we are continuing our sandwich reviews today with the subway, Italian, B M a R T.

0 (57m 45s):
What does the BMT stand for? I don’t know bacon meat.

2 (57m 51s):
It is bacon. I don’t know what it is. It’s a problem with it. Yeah, it is off. And so I’ll, I’ll do it

0 (57m 60s):
My review here and then what we’ll get into it. So if you’re not following along, we have a scale that we use categories that we use. And so I’ll, I’ll go through my scores, my, my writeup, and then Rob we’ll do here is, and we’ll chat some more. So this is the Italian subway BMT flavor score three mouthfeel, one adjoining produce two bread, one meat to a joining sauces and condiments to Sandwiches aesthetic one complimentary items, zero contextual sleaze to appraisal of the cost to personalities night and to the sandwich, to the nature of the Sandwiches lingering.

0 (58m 44s):
And the memory is hero for a total of 18 points in a departure that didn’t matter at all from my usual reporting station in Fayetteville, North Carolina, while spending about four weeks in Marion, Indiana, while directing a production of Shakespeare a pair of Please. I visited the visited this small cities, only subway franchise stepped up to the glass in case meant and ordered. So it began a 10 minute ordeal in which I repeated myself slowly end and in English to fellow English speakers who could not understand me, who stopped my order two separate times to tend to, to other customers and to serve me a slimy sandwich.

0 (59m 24s):
Listen, despite what I’m saying here, I’m actually kind of a fan of subway and it’s many, many, many analogues in the culture when I say fan, but I like I can, I can, I can eat it. I don’t want to diminish what I think is Subway’s role in the culture. In many ways, subway has overtaken McDonald’s is the quintessential cheap American food place. And for good reason, in addition to putting healthiness at the forefront of its branding, which is an admirable and Nelson, a necessary thing in, in of itself, subway is the touchstone of the now handfuls of national and regional chains from potbellies to Quiznos, to Jimmy John’s, to Jersey Mike’s and many others.

0 (1h 0m 4s):
These establishment exist in part as a premium or at least a novelty takes on the subway model. But that’s not at all. If you like to poke LA Moe’s Qdoba mod pizza, or any of the other custom food chains, you Oh subway a slow clap because its insistence on personalization lead to those things in the greater market. And while I’m at it, that’s a pretty great reflection of America. As sub, as subway has been on the rise in the final third of the 20th century and first two decades of the 21st century individualism as expressed in fast food, the perception of freedom in a strip mall.

0 (1h 0m 45s):
But my experience was pretty freaking terrible. In this case, I ordered the BMT with tomato cucumber, black olive pepper, Mayo, and a dash of vinegar. It took me three times to actually get the olives. I got vinegar and oil instead of vinegar, my sandwich artist was distracted a couple more times taking a phone call and driveway orders. While in the middle of working on my sandwich, I had to repeat myself about things, which I hate. It makes me feel like this person isn’t paying attention. They aren’t, which is part of the problem. And maybe it’s because of this experience at the sandwich to me tasted like a slab of slimy, mildly flavored cold cuts with Manet’s my drink, a diet Coke tasted like Hi-C lemonade.

0 (1h 1m 28s):
And let me just say this subway. If you’re listening, you need more chip options. Okay. Thanks. Bye. In recent years, subway has raised its price is four from its famous once famous $5 a foot long and pulled back from it’s a novelty sandwich marketing and it’s locked into stale feeling accompaniments, Tom to get fresh subway.

2 (1h 1m 54s):
Ooh. So again, that is a key

0 (1h 1m 57s):
And that’s 18 out of 50 points from me

2 (1h 1m 59s):
At a 50 points for you. Alright, well I’ll get it into my review here. A subway, Italian BMT flavor. I give it seven points. Mouthfeel three adjoining produce two bread, one meat for adjoining sauces and condiments to Sandwiches aesthetic 2.5 complimentary items to points contextual sleaze, three appraisal of a cost for personalities nigh unto the sandwich. One nature of the Sandwiches lingering in the memory one for a total of 32.5 points. So big spread here.

2 (1h 2m 39s):
A subway is the band-aid of sub shops. The jello of hero purveyors, the Kleenex of hoagie joints, which is to say it is the default for fast food sub sandwich restaurants and its name has become synonymous with the generic product. Once upon a time summary or a sub was just one of many, somewhat obscure, regionally specific names for deli Sandwiches served on a long piece of French bread and asking for one outside of the upper Northeastern corridor of the United States would be met with blank stares, but to date well the name hoagie writer and hero are still unfamiliar. In many regions of the country. The pervasiveness of subway has made that particular a particular sandwich title.

2 (1h 3m 21s):
Ubiquitous. Everyone knows what a sub is because of subway. And even though they are still trying to escape the stink of their prominent former spokesperson, being a convicted pedophile, they don’t seem likely to be unseated from their position at the top. Anytime soon, when it comes to fast food restaurants, what does market dominance tell us about the quality of a given sandwich? Not much necessarily certain facts, a certainly a factor is other, Oh, sorry is certainly a factor is other than having the best product can contribute to a company’s success industry leader was slipping. McDonald’s big Mac performed atrociously in our rankings. And to be honest, I expected something similar from subway.

2 (1h 4m 3s):
The Italian sub category of this contest may be controversial for me because I’m kind of in the bag for another one of the competitors, which we’ll talk about it at another time and establishment that I patronize on occasion outside of my podcasts related duties. I approach to this evaluation with the snobbishness of a man who has a strong personal preference for a different sandwich. And my had, and in my head, the unfavorable generic alternative I compared it to was of course subway. Well, I was wrong. It turns out Subway’s position as America is preeminent sub sandwich place is in fact connected to the quality of the food it serves. And perhaps more importantly, how they serve it.

2 (1h 4m 45s):
I don’t want to oversell this. It is still just a pretty good sandwich, but it was better than I was conditioned to think it would be the subway I went to was the nice suburban neighborhood. And it had recently been remodeled along the sort of Starbuck’s adult contemporary line much at the same way. McDonald’s is a done nationwide from time to time here in a move that I can only compare to the rich, but uncool kid buy inexpensive pair of sneakers and the hopes that they will make other kids like him. On the other hand, it is all sort of desperate on the other. The clean sophisticated decor did make the place more appealing to me.

2 (1h 5m 28s):
Anyway, services find my sandwich. Artists was kind of Adobe dude evidence that it takes more than a superficial decor to really alter the soul of the place, but he got the job done. And here we come to the crux of the matter. Anyone can sell you a sandwich made quickly. They can even let you customize it by saying what you want at it. But subway real innovation was displaying the many possible ingredients and sandwich toppings right in front of you for you to choose as it’s being built. The many options for customization, along with the psychological effect of witnessing the construction of your sandwich in collaboration with its maker is a recipe for customer satisfaction. In this case, I’ve got the six inch of Italian BMT, salami pepperoni in Hamm on white bread, With provolone cheese and Mayo oil and vinegar and toast it again, nothing special, but it is satisfying to see your options in front of you and watched the sandwich I put together here, I’ve got a bag of salt and vinegar chips and a mug root beer and grab myself a seat.

2 (1h 6m 32s):
Again. This was pre COVID that this was reviewed just as an editorial. I love it here. So it didn’t affect it inside of the restaurant. What I’m not allowed to do that. Now the meat was flavorful and tooth. Some of the condiments we are just, what I wanted to read was fine. Coasting it, it made it better and paired nicely with the chips and the drink. I would do this again. I feel it’s worth noting that I definitely like this sandwich better than the Italian sub at Jersey. Mike’s. I can’t say at the meet a subway is qualitatively better than at Jersey Mike’s. I suspect that it is not, but the flavor was more intense. I also liked the bread better at subway, which is not to say that its great bread is in fact, I’d go so far as to say it is crappy bread.

2 (1h 7m 16s):
That nevertheless tastes pretty good. And there’s the rub of the sandwich is satisfying, but that as a Starbucks decor aside, I still felt like it is a decidedly downmarket affair, not so special. Subway is still subway and it’s not what I choose if I were being choosy, but the price is right. The deals are still pretty solid and the food tastes good. So under the right circumstances, I would choose it. Okay. So Jeremy you and I had very different experiences and a rankings here, but there you go with some actual, a tension here in our opinions.

0 (1h 7m 59s):
Yeah, I would. So I can’t remember the last time I went for a subway sandwich. I like the This review. I wrote, I mean, it’s been four years. I don’t know that I’ve been back to subway in four years. I think someone might’ve brought me a subway sandwich in four years. Yeah. But I don’t think I’ve ordered like willingly. Of course. Part of that is that for the last two years I’ve been mostly on keto. So, so bread and I don’t get along. I, as I say this, I think I’ve had a subway salad and it was just fine. But, but it, it’s not, it’s not, it’s not a place of choice and I, if I’m, if I’m going in the fast food route, I would much rather like I do find myself drifting towards a McDonald’s or someplace like that.

0 (1h 8m 48s):
If I’m going like the total sort of like fast food, fast food place. Right, right. And if I’m going for a sandwich or a custom food thing like that, I’m going up up the scale somewhat. So yeah. It’s just, it’s not for me.

2 (1h 9m 5s):
Well, you know the thing about subway, that’s interesting. And I mean, I allude to this in my rear view is it’s not a bad, like in terms of flavor. Like, and, and I think that that’s the real secret here to a McDonald’s or a subway. Two, one of these, a restaurant or KFC for instance, is another one that I think exists in this idea of these places that have really ubiquitous dominance all over the world. So like if you go to Saudi Arabia, you can get a subway sandwich. You know, if you go to places in Europe, you can find them, you know, and obviously all over America.

2 (1h 9m 51s):
And there is a reason that they’re popular and it’s not because the quality of the ingredients is like top-notch or whatever, but they have hit on something, a sort of consistency and a flavor that really works and has been in fact, chemically constructed to work in a way that people find it enjoyable. The comparison to Jersey Mike’s that I make in the review. And that, you know, we just talked about recently, I think it was instructed because if I was to be pushed, I suspect the ingredients are probably higher quality at Jersey.

2 (1h 10m 31s):
Mike’s like if we were, if there was some objective way of measuring that, that’s just a gut instinct. I don’t know that for a fact, but I will say there is a higher intensity of flavor at subway that may not be Natural in any way. Or do you know what I mean? They may not speak to the food actually being have a higher quality, but it is easier to eat. And that’s, what’s all, this is all about, right? These Sandwiches are about sort of triggering these chemical impulses and you know, triggering in a triggering an addiction response that I think they’re really good at well.

0 (1h 11m 11s):
And, and you, you, you bring in the, I think there’s been worked on, on this, but the, the smell of, of bread from subway triggers that response trigger, like that’s part of it’s. This is part of this marketing is like, let’s get the bread smell out there because that will draw folks in. And so when you say chemically constructed, I mean, you know, lots of bread smells good, but that’s, that’s specifically part of the marketing. Is that the idea that this is being made now for you, it’s fresh, all of that, its doing the things to your brain that gets you a locked in there. And that is not the same as, as the experience you have, when you go to say a higher end, a place like a, like a Chipotle.

0 (1h 11m 57s):
So there are no smells, you know, the bread place is sort of have that cornered in a way, for reasons having to do with their product, the Panera does it, the subway, does it not a lot of other places do. And even when you’re talking about some of these other sandwich joints, they’re not doing the same thing either. I mean it might smell broadly like Eastern, you walk in, but it’s not designed to sort of push that, that halfway down the airport and get your nose sort of chasing it like a subway sandwich

2 (1h 12m 28s):
Halfway down to the airport is right. But it really is like where subway lives. So it feels like in airports across the world, but yeah, no you’re right. And I think it extends even pass the bread. You know, the, the, the kitchens that they develop, these things in are really the sort of high-tech scientific marvels and the flavors there are carefully constructed. You know what I mean? It’s not like, Oh, this just happens to be what the pastrami tastes like or whatever. I don’t even know if they have pastrami there, but you know what I mean, it happens to be with the salami is here is like, no, they, you know, ad you know, a specific sort of smell compound like sense and you know, specific sort of flavor distillations into their mixes in order to achieve the specific flavors that they’re getting their, and you know, clearly something about it.

2 (1h 13m 22s):
It works otherwise they wouldn’t be a subway in every town in America. Right. It’s like, it feels like you can always get one of these things as well, because there is a, you know, consistency to it now is a good in some objective way, right. It probably not. Right. And also the fact that you are so sort of dependent on the, on the quality of the person who is making the sandwich for you is a potential problem here, you know, in a way that, you know, has everything to do with economics and the way that, you know, sort of the food industry and low wage workers are our are treated or what the expectations are of them are, which I actually think is, is an interesting discussion.

2 (1h 14m 20s):
That’ll that’ll come in to some of the places we’ll be talking about down the road. I think there are franchises that make a particular effort to like, or really say, OK, well not franchise businesses, companies that really I’m trying to cultivate staff. That’s pretty sharp. Someway in my experience, it’s not always from a Bennett. Yeah, it is not.

0 (1h 14m 48s):
I went to a central, a minimum wage.

2 (1h 14m 50s):
Yeah. Which is fascinating too, because it’s like, there’s a higher degree of, of, of sort of competence necessary to do some of this. Like in McDonald’s its like pull the thing is in the basket part of the basket, out of a thing, you take it out where the noise and then you’ll put the salt on it for 10 seconds. So there you have fries, you know, here it’s like, you really do have to like, you know, a whole bunch of different things. It’s like you were the one, put the thing here and do this, grab this chopped, you know? And it’s like, if anything, this is a place that could really benefit from some more skilled workers. And I’m not sure that they’re thinking about it in those terms.

2 (1h 15m 31s):
Well, I’m sure they are not.

5 (1h 15m 36s):
So I don’t know,

2 (1h 15m 38s):
Not that it’s hurting their bottom line. I mean obviously they found something that works for them. And I have to say like it’s a Testament to the fact that this is a successful company is, is that as I mentioned in my review, there is a place where in sort of living Joe commemorate, they are still associated with a man who was a horrendous pedophile that they made famous in the first place and his position from having been associated with them, allowed him to pursue these horrendous horrendous crimes. And they still came back from it.

0 (1h 16m 19s):
Yeah. Yeah. It’s a, well, it w it it’s amazing. ’cause like the association of one psychology and food are the, I mean you enjoy one thing because you feel, you feel a strongly or, or you’ve not been disrupted psychologically with the product and you’re right. Life. They’ve managed to mostly erase that. I mean, the joke is still there, but you can kind of recover it as a brand.

2 (1h 16m 53s):
Yeah. Right. It’s amazing. The funny thing about subway too, they just, the last thing and in Ireland, I don’t even have you seen this story? I don’t know. Ah, in Ireland of the news recently.

0 (1h 17m 3s):
Oh yeah. It’s not bread is right where

2 (1h 17m 5s):
They said in court. They can not say that they’re food is because it’s too sweet and they have to classify it as cake. So in Ireland here, subway, Sandwiches our meat cake.

1 (1h 17m 23s):

2 (1h 17m 23s):
Is this, it feels like this really trolling sort of ruling. It’s like Mike, who is the person who’ve made a point and I’m going to call it.

1 (1h 17m 37s):

2 (1h 17m 38s):
You got angry enough at sub way to turn this into literally a case. So I don’t know how they’re going to handle that. Maybe they’ll just do their cake Sandwiches in Ireland and kill it.

1 (1h 17m 51s):
I imagine they’ll change the recipe. I mean, I remember it was a, I think the government sued the may be because the, that it had to do with whether like food assistance money could we spent at subway and, and it wasn’t meeting the nutrition guidelines because there was so much sugar in the bread. So my suspicion is that the bread, the subway bread in Ireland will taste different from the subway bread everywhere else, because they want the food assistance money. And so they will, they will be changing that recipe. That’s my,

2 (1h 18m 26s):
Yeah. I wonder if their infrastructure can handle that, like having to make that many changes. I mean, I’m sure that they’ve got people trying to crunch the numbers on that right now. See how that goes

1 (1h 18m 39s):
And we shall see we’ll follow it Irish by the way. All right. Thank you my friend. Thank you. We’ll do it again soon on a few more later Tata for now. Bye-bye one quick word about the After Hours you know, sometimes I get into these conversations with Rob and I’m like, what does this have to do with Shakespeare? And the answer is sometimes directly not much. There’s not much that we talk about it has to do with Shakespeare, but I still think there’s value here because what we do when we deal with Shakespeare is look at an artist who is responding to his own culture, time, period, politics, popular music, other plays.

1 (1h 19m 30s):
And so After Hours, it may be the most different most out there thing we do. There is not a really strong Shakespeare or theater tie to what Rob and I talk about all the time, but I still think it’s valuable because when we’re looking at Shakespeare, we’re looking at an artist and how they responded to their world, to their culture, to their politics, to their entertainment. And so by Rob and I engaging in those kinds of conversations, I hope you can begin to see what artists are doing in responding to our own contemporary culture and begin to see the connections there. Sometimes we do have a direct tie to Shakespeare and that’s great. Sometimes we don’t and that’s great too.

1 (1h 20m 11s):
Another thing I would love for you to understand about After Hours is that the opinions expressed in it are the opinions of the individuals involved. If they don’t represent Sweet Tea Shakespeare you may hear things about politics or about your favorite film that you just violently disagree with. And I want you to know that that disagreement is Welcome Sweet Tea Shakespeare gathers people around a common table. Those people don’t have to agree. They don’t have to be cookie cutters. They don’t have to have the same interest. In fact, the conversations are richer and deeper when they do not. And so even if you find yourself disagreeing, vehemently with something that said in any one of our podcasts, but especially in after hours, take a deep breath, pull yourself up to the table and know that we value your contribution as well.

1 (1h 21m 3s):
We’ve always loved to hear from you. We always love to fold in your perspective and we want to do so in a healthy, productive way. So again, if you hear something that’s like, I don’t get this, this doesn’t seem too Shakespearian to me. That’s OK. We’re just artists sitting around a table, figuring out how to respond to the world. We’re glad you’re here for it.

Sweet Tea