Podcasts about captain renault

CASABLANCA In World War II Casablanca, Rick Blaine runs the city's hottest nightspot. Cynical and solitary, he comes into possession of two valuable letters of transit. When a Nazi Major arrives, the opportunistic Captain Renault goes out of his way to appease him, even detaining Czech underground leader Victor Laszlo who shows up with Rick's former love, Ilsa. Bitter over Ilsa's betrayal in Paris, Rick is conflicted, but when he learns her reasons, they plot to escape together using the letters of transit—though their plan may not unfold as expected. Craig and Alan discuss the great Humphrey Bogart, timeless stories, our favorite past episodes and the all time classic “Casablanca” on this 400th episode of Matinee Heroes! Show Notes 1:19 Craig and Alan look back at 400 episodes. 12:21 Craig and Alan discuss "Casablanca" 37:53 Recasting 50:52 Double Feature  55:10 Final Thoughts  59:13 A preview of next week's episode "Arachnophobia" Next week, we start our annual Matinee Villains month with a creep fest "Arachnophobia" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2EZkRcw3LA

Over the course of these podcasts, I have mentioned several times that I first became interested in personal growth around the time that the Beatles went to India to study meditation in February of 1968. My interest wasn't particularly deep. The only thing deep about me at the time was how deeply I was being influenced by the world around me, and I basically mirrored every move the Beatles made. They said that meditation was great, so I thought I'd check it out. My search didn't go very far. Just far enough to understand that I didn't understand anything about anything to do with it.  And I had no real interest in it either. But that changed as the next few years went by in a flash. One thing I haven't mentioned about those days is that at one point I began taking random, but detailed notes on anything that I came across that helped to expand my inner awareness, even in the smallest of ways. I never stopped this notetaking process and I never threw any of it out, either. That began half a century ago so, as you can imagine, I have an enormous amount of material stored away in my office. As I was recently considering what to do with all of it, an interesting idea occurred to me that involved our podcast series. But before I tell you the idea, first let me tell you a fascinating story that I once heard that served as a significant inspiration for me to begin making notes in the first place. It's the story about how the ending of the movie, Casablanca came to be, and once you hear it, I'm sure you'll understand how all these strings tie together.           So, it started back in my college days. As I mentioned in an earlier episode, in my junior year, I had spent a full semester working as an intern on Capitol Hill, with my major in Government and Public Administration. But by the end of the semester, my experiences on the hill led me to conclude that the world of politics was not one that I wanted to set up shop in. Maybe it was just what was going on in the country during the late sixties, as extreme societal turbulence violently eradicated any semblance of normality. But from my perspective the hill seemed like one big snake pit, constantly churning through never-ending rounds  of ego-based struggles for money and power.           After considering a few different options, I finally decided to change my major to American Literature. For some unknown reason, the idea of possibly becoming a writer seemed to hold a much bigger draw for me, not that I had any talent or experience in the field. Now that I have been working at it for several decades, I can hypothesize with some degree of certainty that at least I've gained a modicum of experience.           Anyway, around that time, I came upon an interview with Julius Epstein who, along with his identical twin brother Phillip, had written the movie, Casablanca. I, like millions of other motion picture enthusiasts, had always been a major fan of that film, ever since I first saw it in a film club in high school. And being a would-be writer, anything a successful author had to say about the craft of writing was naturally interesting to me. But in this interview, Julie Epstein began describing an element of the making of the movie that I had never heard before and it really got my attention. According to him, as screenwriters, he and his brother had never been able to come up with an ending to the story and they still didn't have one even when shooting began.           If you've never seen it, on a basic level, it's a bittersweet story about a love triangle and throughout the piece, you never know which of the two men the woman will end up with. But its classic ending reveals the fact that it also has profoundly noble themes as well, one of which is the critical importance of performing individual duty. Rick Blaine, played by Humphrey Bogart, ultimately sacrifices his love for Ilsa Lund, portrayed by Ingrid Bergman, for the greater good. Ilsa's husband, Victor Laszlo, is a renowned Czech resistance leader, and he needs her support to continue his vital work in his uphill battle against the Nazis. Rick finally recognizes the significance of Victor's mission and the importance of Ilsa's role in it. In the final scenes of the movie, even though he is clear that Ilsa would rather stay with him, Rick puts his personal feelings aside and helps her escape with Victor, understanding that their mission is far more important than any of their own personal feelings. As he puts it, “Ilsa, I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.”           This incredibly climactic ending is truly a piece of cinematic history and I was a deep admirer of it, but I never knew until listening to Epstein that the ending wasn't written or even decided upon until the shooting was well under way. And then, in the interview, he went on to tell the story of how he and his brother came up with the ending. To me, it was a remarkable tale and it stuck to me to this day because it speaks volumes about the role that instinct plays in our intelligence.           He said that as writers he and his brother would routinely write down any notes that struck them about anything at all., It didn't matter if the idea had no context or relationship to anything they were working on. In fact, the ones that seemed to come to them completely out of the blue, often ended up being the most usefully creative ones in the long run. And that was especially true when it came to writing dialogue. He said this form of note taking was a well-known method of the craft and they had been doing it for their entire careers.                       Then he shifted back to talking about the difficulties they had run into in coming up with the ending of Casablanca. They just couldn't decide if Ilsa should go with Victor to America or stay with Rick in Casablanca. And as shooting continued, this lack of an ending had become a real problem for everyone involved in the film, especially the actors and the director.           As the pressure continued to mount, they started rummaging through their huge file of random ideas and at one point, they found a line of dialogue that stopped them dead in their tracks. The line was, “Round up the usual suspects.”                 They had no real recollection of when or how it was written. They just knew it was a great line, and given the gripping drama of the story line, they instinctively knew that if it was used in the right way, at the right time, it could really take the movie to a whole different level. By the way, no one involved with picture at that time thought that it was going to be any good at all. They all thought it seemed destined to be a flop.             They started to try to figure out where to use this terrific line. The first question was - who could say it? It quickly became clear that the only character who could deliver it was the police captain, Captain Renault, played by Claude Rains.  But what would lead him to speak that line? Well, it might be great if he spoke it after somebody killed somebody. Then they thought, “Who would the audience most like to see killed?” Again, it became obvious fairly quickly that the audience would love to see the villain killed. The villain was Major Strasser, a high-ranking Nazi officer. Now the big question came up - who should kill him? They considered all the key players and Humphrey Bogart's character was far and away the favorite. Ultimately, he was the central hero of the plot and it's always most satisfying when the hero defeats the villain. So, when should he kill him? Suddenly the resolution of the ending began to emerge. The most dramatic time would be if the Major tried to stop Victor and Ilsa from escaping and Rick eliminates him, opening the way for them to escape. And with all these plot elements in place, it only made sense for Rick to remain in Casablanca and become pals with Captain Renault, who had used that great line to save his life. The film was released in early 1943 and despite the premonition of doom and gloom that pervaded the cast and crew during the filming, it quickly gained significant approval. But over the years that followed, the ending became one of the most renowned and respected in Hollywood history and catapulted the film into movie immortality. And eighty years later, it is still one of the most beloved movies of all time. And hearing that the ending wasn't the result of a planned-out strategy but was reverse-engineered from a random line of dialogue really impressed me. I don't remember whether it was a conscious or an unconscious decision about it, but I found myself making notes about anything and everything related to personal growth that impressed me, and as I said, I never threw any of it away.           Now, let's go back to the idea that occurred to me regarding all this personal growth material I have in my files. So far, in preparing these podcasts, I generally pick out one central them for an episode and weave the entire episode around that theme. At this point, we've produced over eighty episodes and they have all followed this format.           But as I was looking over all of this material I have collected it hit me that while a lot of it is extremely valuable, it may not be a large enough topic to build a complete episode around. And then I thought that it might be a great idea to develop a different format. Rather than building a whole episode around one particular theme, maybe I should just present the ideas without thinking about developing a context at all. Maybe I should just present them to you and you can just take them in and see where they may lead you.           So, I am going to incorporate this creative free-flow format into the next few episodes and see what happens. Again, these will not be teachings of any kind, just some intriguing ideas you might like to consider. They will still be coming from Ancient Wisdom through to modern neuroscience, along with personal experiences and observations that have been particularly helpful to me.           If you just relax and let them come into your consciousness, it's quite possible that they may bring you some interesting and maybe even enlightening realizations. You might even play with the concepts in a reverse engineering, “Casablanca” ending kind of a way, where you let one idea lead to another. Maybe you'll experience your own “Round up the usual suspects” effect. With inner growth, you never know where you may uncover your next masterpiece of wisdom.           So, we'll begin the new format in the next episode. As always, keep your eyes, mind and heart open and lets get together in the next one.

“HERE'S LOOKING AT YOU, KID.”On this episode of Retro Grade Podcast, we talk about one of the “greatest films of all time,” 1942's Casablanca, directed by Michael Curtiz, starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman and Claude Rains. What makes this film so good? Is it still that good 80 years later? Is this movie just for movie nerds, or does this film still resonate with audiences today?Since we both have a background of studying film in college, we are both familiar with Casablanca, both having sought it out after hearing it was one of the “best movies ever made.” Although it was in black and white, 4:3 aspect ratio, and filled to the brim with cheesy 1940's dialogue, of all the films typically regarded as the best, Casablanca remains incredibly relatable and accessible to this day!We talk about the legendary performances of Bogart and Bergman. Bogart, adding an emotional layer to an otherwise tough guy, no-nonsense actor and Bergman making us feel for a character that may have not had the most depth on the script. However, the script itself wasn't too shabby either. There is something very charming about hearing characters speak in Classic Hollywood, where even (mostly) antagonistic characters like Claude Rains' Captain Renault, add a delightful presence that makes you forget he's playing a terrible person.We take you back to the era of self-censored Hollywood, governed by the Production Code. How films were only allowed to portray marriage positively, crime always had to pay, and people of other nations were to be portrayed “fairly.' The latter may not sound like a bad thing, but it doesn't look so good when it also applies to Nazi's. We talk about why a film with a love triangle with Nazi villains was so significant, and how the code was used to determine not only the content of films, but also the films that were even allowed to be made.This is a good one, and we learned a lot of cool stuff about film history. If that sounds boring to you, we promise you, after 72 episodes we made this FUN!Music is from Triune Digital and audio clips pulled from movies we will be reviewing in other episodes.Artwork by @jannelle_o

Here's looking at you, Old Souls. Danny and Speedy are giddy to celebrate the 80th anniversary of Danny's favorite movie, "Casablanca." They explore the many still-beloved aspects, like Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman's performances and Captain Renault's best quips. However, they also dive into the now confusing components, like Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman's age difference and Captain Renault's vague brand of corruption. They also tackle the idea of this movie actually coming out during World War II, the fear of having braces in the 1930s, and if this movie could be remade today. Plus, Danny really loved the vibe of "Glass Onion" and its Old Soul-soundtrack. As always, If you have comments, questions, or personal misheard-lyric stories, you can send them to IfYoureAnOldSoul@gmail.com.

In Podcast 10, Nixon's HUAC Subcommittee reacts skeptically to Hiss's new George Crosley story.  Hiss, like Captain Renault in Casablanca, is shocked, shocked that the Representatives would even think of taking the word of the Communist and traitor Chambers over that of a distinguished personage such as himself.  Representative Hebert suggests that Hiss return to his first, helpful and respectful attitude.  But Hiss blows him off — not a smart move with the only member of the Subcommittee who is of Hiss's Party.  Hiss then corroborates 90% of what Chambers had told the Subcommittee about his personal life 10-15 years earlier, including the prothonotary warbler and the hand operated windshield wipers on the old Ford.  Nixon, now almost certain that Hiss is lying, orders Stripling to arrange a face-to-face meeting of the two men in secret the next day, to the complete surprise of both of them.  Nixon wants to catch Hiss off guard and deny him more time to make his George Crosley tale fit the facts. Further Research Episode 10:  See references to Episode 9  Questions:  If you believe, as I do, that Hiss is guilty, what is he to do at this stage?  Do what he did — stick with the “innocent as the day is long” story (with the George Crosley variation) although it is obviously not convincing his current audience?  Do you think, as one of his acquaintances did, that if he were innocent he would have gotten angry before this?  If he had openly ‘lawyered up' at this stage and refused to answer any more questions, would it have saved him any of the later traumas he endured?  Or was he stuck with his original “innocent as the day is long” attitude?  Before President Clinton admitted lying about Ms. Lewinsky, has any public figure denied everything indignantly, then changed his story by admitting wrongdoing, and 'gotten away with it'?  It didn't work for Governor Cuomo.  What do you think of Representative Hebert telling Hiss ever so politely that HUAC is simply behaving as any competent investigator would?  What did Hebert want Hiss to do?  How stupid was Hiss to offend Hebert, the only member of his Party on the Subcommittee?  How much of Hiss's conduct at this stage is explained by his (in my opinion) arrogant belief that his IQ was so much higher than any of his interrogator's that he could bluff his way around them?  

Adam and Andy tackle one of the most beloved and critically lauded movies of all time, the incomparable Casablanca!  Humphrey Bogart is suave as Rick, Ingrid Bergman is beautiful as Ilsa, and Claude Rains lends wry wit as Captain Renault in this classic film.  Round up the usual suspects and play it, Sam!Show Notes:What We've Been Watching:Adam: The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded, The Matrix Revolutions, Camp Nowhere, Romancing the StoneAndy: The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View to A Kill, The Living Daylights, License to Kill, GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never DiesChapters:(~0:09) Introduction(~0:41) What We've Been Watching(~14:08) Featured Review(~31:35) Up Next(~32:00) ClosingExtras/Film's Quarantine StreamSubscribe if you'd want to see more episodes.Feel free to send us a question we can answer on the air to ReelShame@gmail.com or follow us on Instagram @ReelShame.

A year ago, the MIT Technology Review broke the news that a Chinese scientist used the gene-editing technology known as CRISPR to genetically modify human embryos. The scientific community called Dr. He's actions “profoundly disturbing” and “monstrous,” among other things. Their hypocritical response was reminiscent of a scene from “Casablanca,” where Captain Renault claimed to have been “shocked, shocked” that there was gambling on the premises. For starters, the claim that Dr. He succeeded in producing embryos “resistant to HIV, smallpox, and cholera,” was labeled “a deliberate falsehood” by Berkeley geneticist Fyodor Urnov. As it turns out, that was the least-troubling finding about Dr. He's experiments. Instead of reproducing the desired genetic variation, the Chinese team “[created] novel [genetic] edits whose effects are not clear.” By the way, “novel genetic edits” is code language for “mutation,” and I don't mean the kind that produced the X-Men. I mean “mutation” as in cancer and other illnesses. As the Guardian pointed out, “CRISPR remains an imperfect tool because it can lead to unwanted or ‘off-target' edits.” Even the Chinese government, not normally known for its concern over human suffering, cited the potential lethality of these mutations when it punished Dr. He for his unauthorized experiments. In a morally sane world, this kind of risk would prompt people to re-think the whole “playing god” worldview that is underlying gene-editing research. Of course, our world, especially when it comes to technology, is anything but morally sane. Even as they were denouncing Dr. He, other scientists were working toward the same goals, albeit more discreetly. In fact, they were using CRISPR themselves. And now there's news about a new gene-editing tool called “Prime Editing.” Besides free two-day shipping on most items, “Prime Editing” promises “to make it even easier to precisely and safely re-write genes.” The head of the team behind “Prime Editing” called it “a step — and potentially a significant step — towards this long-term aspiration of the field in which we are trying to be able to make just about any kind of DNA change that anyone wants at just about any site in the human genome.” Did you catch that? “Any kind of DNA change.” “Any site.” Hey, no god-like pretensions here. That line reminded me not of “Casablanca,” but a TV show called “The Expanse,” which is based on a series of novels by the same name. In it, researchers stumble upon alien genetic technology with seemingly god-like powers. Despite not understanding the technology, they insist on playing with it. Even after millions die, the existential threat to humanity becomes clear, and the original researchers are killed or imprisoned, the rest of humanity still can't resist trying to exploit the technology for their benefit. They scheme to get their hands on the technology themselves. It's tempting to call this whole situation with CRISPR and Prime Editing “life imitating art,” but I suspect it's other way around.  The authors of “The Expanse” seem to understand something about human nature many scientists don't: The temptation to become “the architects” of our own evolution is extremely hard to resist even when our knowledge is fragmentary and the consequences of our mistakes are staring us in the face. It's even true when the threat is potentially existential. As Chuck Colson often said, there is no limit to the human capacity to rationalize anything. Is there time to prevent a potential catastrophe? Yes. But unless we convince ourselves and others that “playing god” is a game we cannot win, and settle on living with limits on our knowledge, we should not be shocked at what follows, no matter how monstrous it seems.  

10 March 2019 First Sunday in Lent Luke 4:1-13 + Homily 20 Minutes 3 Seconds NOTE: Due to technical difficulties today's homily did not record. This is the homily from the First Sunday of Lent 2016 featuring the same text from Luke. Link to today's Readings: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/031019.cfm (New American Bible, Revised Edition) From the parish bulletin:    Lent is an invigorating time for truth. The Truth Himself spent forty days in the wilderness combating the Prince of Lies. He did it as our “champion.” A champion is more than someone who gets his face on a cereal box for having won contests. Go back to the thirteenth century and you will see that the word meant a combatant who fights on behalf of others.    Since humility is honesty, and the Sacrament of Reconciliation is the declaration and manifestation of humility, sacramental confession, preferably frequently in Lent, is at the heart of Lent. The ashes we wore on Wednesday are signs of that intention; otherwise, they are blemishes advertising a failure to live up to it.     If everyone told the truth these days, our culture would shatter, because it functions by deceit in countless forms. There are polite “white lies,” such as kind things said about the deceased. Dr. Johnson said, “In lapidary inscriptions a man is not upon oath.” But to lie before the bar of justice in order to deceive a human judge is perjury, and to lie before God is worse, because He “knows what is in the heart of man.”    One should not be scandalized when church leaders trim the truth. Since the Church is Satan’s chief enemy, he twists the Church’s weakest parts: fallible humans. This is why saints regularly pray to be saved from becoming the worst sinners, since their powerful virtues can be turned into equally powerful vices.    The deceits and willfulness of prelates and ecclesiastical bureaucrats are more contemptible because of the trust placed in them. But such faults are also easily understood, because these figures are central in Satan’s crosshairs. There is potential for cynicism because of the machinations of those who betray the faithful.  It is one thing to become cynical about human institutions, which is why there is sound counsel in words mistakenly attributed to Otto von Bismarck: “Laws, like sausages (Gesetze sind wie Würste) cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made.” It is more problematic when confronted with the intrigues of synods and prelates. Monsignor Ronald Knox thus explained why he hesitated about visiting Rome: “He who travels in the barque of St. Peter had better not look too closely into the engine room.”    David, himself a king, psalmed: “put not your trust in princes . . .” (Psalm 146:3). In our days, there are churchmen who feign surprise and even shock at the discovery of evil that they really had already known for a long time. They are prelatical imitators of the “Shock!” of Captain Renault in Casablanca when told of gambling in Rick’s club. Yet they are only mortal functionaries of the immortal Shepherd who prayed in His agony that we might be sanctified by the One whose “word is truth” (John 17:17).  

It sure was great to see a classic live up to its billing for once. This is just a fantastic movie, and -- BONUS -- there's a great and quite explicit gay romance driving the plot. Oh, sure, Humphrey Bogart's Rick is still getting over his summer camp fling with Ingrid Bergman's Ilsa, but once he clears out those emotions, Captain Renault is right there to whisk Rick off his feet. Austin and I enjoyed the looks, the lewks, and the loooooooks between all these dewy-eyed fashionistas. But it's Claude Rains who steals the show with his sassy, morally compromised, cheerful slimeball of a sex machine. With additional discussion of Bugs Bunny's gender. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

"Casablanca" - Endlessly quoted, residing on every list of the best films of all time, you might think that “Casablanca”—released 75 years ago—is overrated and played out. Nope! It’s a fun film with romance, snappy ironic dialogue, and a stunning cast. And it’s also a fascinating historical document, given that it was written before Pearl Harbor and produced in the early days of America’s involvement in World War II, when the end of the war was anything but a foregone conclusion. We discuss the magical letters of transit, Captain Renault’s jocular amorality, Victor Laszlo the speechifying drip, Ilsa’s piercing stare, Major Strasser’s favorite cereal, Sam’s implausible piano handwork, the Ken Cinema in San Diego, and how the war was like a rap battle. Host Jason Snell with Philip Michaels, Monty Ashley, Moisés Chiullan, Dan Moren and Dr. Drang.

This week we have a Bogie in our sights as we tear apart one of the most acclaimed movies in Hollywood history, "Casablanca." This 1942 film noir "masterpiece" tends to stirrup the emotions in critics, but we feel that it's time to put it out to pasture. Humphrey Bogart plays Rick Blaine, a broken-hearted nightclub owner who has given up on the world after being jilted by a woman he only knew for a week. Ingrid Bergman plays Ilsa, the prodigal lover who now needs Rick to help her husband escape Nazi peril. We wonder why this movie thinks it's totally fine to have one of its hero characters, Captain Renault, extort sex from fleeing refugees. We also question how fugitives on the run have such extensive wardrobes and we opine on the equine countenance of the film's star. Tell us what you think by chatting with us (@filmsnuff) on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, or by shooting us an email over at mailbag@filmsnuff.com. This episode is sponsored by FoBewTay. Visit our website at https://www.filmsnuff.com.

Dismissing Establishment obituaries for Donald Trump. The Bold Leadership Moments of Dances With Wolves. A withering critique of certain spineless members of the GOP -- with appropriate "Invertebrate Awards." A visit with Jan of "Colorado Women for Trump." A Spot of Second Debate Prep: Trump v. Hillary. Captain Renault of Casablanca still "shocked, shocked" by locker room talk. Notes on the "bawdy" Prime Minister Robert Walpole courtesy of Edmund Burke, Samuel Johnson and Lord Chesterfield.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the summer of 2016, the idea that an election could be "rigged" didn't really surprise anybody. At the same time, it also allowed Americans of all political stripes to act like Captain Renault and feign shock at the idea that American democracy could be so callously and easily manipulated. New Hampshire was the first of the Colonies to establish a government independent of the Crown and to establish its own state Constitution. In the Spring and Summer of 1788, New Hampshire has a unique opportunity. If she ratifies, she will become the Ninth Pillar, thus establishing the Constitution as the new government of The United States. But she also faces the same problem that South Carolina, Massachusetts, and other States have seen. That is, that the seaboard cities with their heavy mercantile class population support ratification, while the interior country folks are less enamored with the Constitution. New Hampshire's problem is that her seaboard is tiny and heavily outnumbered by the country folk. So... if you happen to be an ardent Federalist in New Hampshire in the Spring of 1788, what do you do? What do you do? Hmmm.....

In the summer of 2016, the idea that an election could be "rigged" didn't really surprise anybody. At the same time, it also allowed Americans of all political stripes to act like Captain Renault and feign shock at the idea that American democracy could be so callously and easily manipulated. New Hampshire was the first of the Colonies to establish a government independent of the Crown and to establish its own state Constitution. In the Spring and Summer of 1788, New Hampshire has a unique opportunity. If she ratifies, she will become the Ninth Pillar, thus establishing the Constitution as the new government of The United States. But she also faces the same problem that South Carolina, Massachusetts, and other States have seen. That is, that the seaboard cities with their heavy mercantile class population support ratification, while the interior country folks are less enamored with the Constitution. New Hampshire's problem is that her seaboard is tiny and heavily outnumbered by the country folk. So... if you happen to be an ardent Federalist in New Hampshire in the Spring of 1788, what do you do? What do you do? Hmmm.....

To about the same degree that Captain Renault was “shocked, just shocked” to find gambling going on Casablanca, that’s how shocked many of us are to find that politicians and business leaders lie to us.Whether it’s the latest candidate promising to make the world a better place, or Coca Cola offering the Real Thing,  the idea of marketing and even misrepresentation has been around before spin doctors, and long before  Don Draper.From the days on the Savanna when the caveman may have allowed his buddy to be eaten by a lion, because he coveted his woman, to the endless promise of the Apple Watch...we know we are often lied to.But does matter?  Isn’t the idea of a free society the ability to allow us to have the information to be informed, to make our own decisions?  And today, with creative destruction everywhere, when buyers know more about the price of a car than the salesman, when transpiration can be ordered and altered with the click of a mouse, aren't we better off?Talk radio host and author Ethan Bearman, whose new book is Liars & Whores: How Big Government and Big Business Are Working to Save Their Own Assets, Not Yours,is not so sure.My conversation with Ethan Bearman: 

During his tenure as a university lecturer, the novelist (and former football goalkeeper) Vladimir Nabokov instructed his students that the reader of literature needed three things: imagination, memory, and a dictionary. This advice applies as well for the reader of Gideon Haigh‘s essays on cricket, collected in Sphere of Influence: Writings on Cricket and Its Discontents (Victory Books, 2010). Certainly, Gideon taps the lexicon like no other sportswriter, peppering his columns with sibilance, hypertrophic, and phosphoresce (verb), and even nifty neologisms like gossipmongery and zeitgeistiest. The reader’s memory is stretched with cultural allusions that go beyond the standard sports commentator’s references to Will Ferrell movies or Saturday Night Live skits. The essays feature cameos by Dean Rusk, William O. Douglas, John Kenneth Galbraith, P.G. Wodehouse, and Captain Renault from Casablanca. And the imaginative reader will delight in metaphors and similes that conjure brilliant images: a bowler demolishes a wicket stump “like a dynamited chimney”; the excess of millions in contemporary cricket is compared to a saturnalia; and Sachin Tendulkar’s entry to the pitch has the same awe and drama as if he was being carried “on a bejeweled palanquin by dusky maidens amid the flourish of imperial trumpets.” But there is also substance behind the style. Gideon’s career began in business journalism, and many of his articles probe the financial side of cricket. He questions the direction that cricket’s commercialization is heading, and how it is fueling a profligacy of competitions and leagues and televised matches that is threatening to cannibalize the sport. There is much cause for discontent, from hyperbolic television commentary to WAG’s staking their place in the tabloids, and fans who do not follow cricket will find that many of Gideon’s critiques apply to their own sports as well. At the same time, Gideon is also a cricketer. As he makes clear throughout the interview, he has a profound love and respect for the game that comes from avidly playing it. He shows an appreciation for the skill of the masters in his comments on Tendulkar and Shane Warne. And he has hope for the future, despite the looming retirement of these icons and the current tumult in the sport, because it is a good game–perhaps even, as he says, the best game. But for all this pride in his favorite sport, Gideon also appreciates the compliment he’s received from readers, including this one, that he writes about cricket in a way that outsiders to the game can understand. Certainly, this ability to communicate cricket, even to non-cricket speakers, is apparent in our interview. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices