Podcasts about taste buds

Movie of the Year: 2006The Departed (feat Adam Kempenaar!)Inside The Departed Podcast EpisodeWelcome to The Departed podcast episode of Movie of the Year: 2006, where the Taste Buds take on Martin Scorsese's Boston crime epic. Ryan, Mike, and Greg welcome Filmspotting co-host Adam Kempenaar to the panel. Together, they dig into a film about cops, crooks, and the men who raise them. Moreover, the conversation covers fatherhood, gender, and the rough racial politics of Scorsese's South Boston. Additionally, the crew delivers a Career Retrospective on Leonardo DiCaprio, the jittery star at the film's center. Ultimately, the episode asks whether this Best Picture winner still earns its reputation twenty years later.New to the season? Start with our Movie of the Year 2006 intro episode, then catch up on the full 2006 bracket reveal.About the Film: The Departed (2006)The Departed opened in theaters on October 6, 2006. Martin Scorsese directed, and William Monahan wrote the screenplay. Specifically, Monahan adapted the 2002 Hong Kong thriller Infernal Affairs. The story follows two moles working on opposite sides of the law. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Billy Costigan, an undercover cop inside the Irish mob. Meanwhile, Matt Damon plays Colin Sullivan, a mob plant rising through the Massachusetts State Police. Jack Nicholson rules over both men as crime boss Frank Costello. Notably, the supporting cast includes Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, Vera Farmiga, Alec Baldwin, and Ray Winstone.The film became a major critical and commercial hit, earning more than $290 million worldwide. In addition, it won four Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay. Scorsese finally won Best Director after five earlier nominations. Thelma Schoonmaker also took home Best Film Editing. Roger Ebert gave the film four stars in his original RogerEbert.com review. For full cast and crew credits, visit The Departed on IMDb.Guest Panelist: Adam KempenaarAdam Kempenaar co-founded Filmspotting, one of the longest-running film podcasts in the medium. He launched the show in March 2005 with Sam Van Hallgren. Since 2012, he has co-hosted alongside Josh Larsen. Filmspotting has now passed 1,000 episodes and has also aired on WBEZ in Chicago. Furthermore, Kempenaar teaches at the University of Iowa, where his courses cover film criticism, sports and cinema, and podcasting. He is also a longtime member of the Chicago Film Critics Association. Additionally, he consults on marketing and content for the Chicago International Film Festival. For twenty years, he also led marketing and content for the Chicago Blackhawks. In 2025, he and Larsen celebrated two decades of the show with the first Filmspotting Fest in Chicago. Notably, Filmspotting was barely a year old when The Departed opened. That timing gives Adam a rare firsthand view of the 2006 film conversation. Find his reviews, Top 5 lists, and Sacred Cow episodes at filmspotting.net.Father Figures on The Departed PodcastFathers haunt every corner of The Departed. Costello grooms young Colin Sullivan from childhood, handing him groceries and shaping his loyalty. By contrast, Billy Costigan grows up with a dead father and a family split between Southie and the North Shore. Captain Queenan, played by Martin Sheen, becomes the steady parent Billy never had. Consequently, Queenan's death lands as the emotional turning point of the film. Meanwhile, Sullivan chases approval from every authority figure around him, from Costello to Ellerby. The film even closes on an open paternity question surrounding Madolyn's pregnancy.The panel digs into how Monahan's script treats the police and the mob as rival families. In practice, both institutions recruit sons, reward obedience, and punish betrayal. Above all, the Taste Buds and Adam ask which surrogate father does the most damage.Gender and Masculinity in The DepartedThe Departed is a crowded film about men performing toughness. Cops trade insults about each other's mothers, sexuality, and manhood. Costello, meanwhile, treats women as property and punchlines. Against that backdrop, Vera Farmiga's Madolyn stands nearly alone as a major female character. Interestingly, Monahan built her from two separate women in Infernal Affairs, one for each mole. As a result, she becomes the hinge between Billy and Colin.That choice raises real questions for the panel. Is Madolyn a fully realized character, or a device that links the two leads? Additionally, the crew considers how Sullivan's private failures mirror his fractured identity. The conversation also weighs whether Scorsese critiques this macho culture or simply enjoys it.Boston, Race, and Tribalism: The Departed 2006 Podcast DebateScorsese sets his story in South Boston, a neighborhood with a fraught racial history. Costello opens the film with a monologue about the Irish, the Italians, and Black Bostonians. Throughout the film, characters toss slurs as casually as they throw punches. Nevertheless, the panel debates what the film actually says about that bigotry.On one hand, the dialogue captures the tribal loyalties behind decades of city tension, including the 1970s busing crisis. On the other hand, some viewers argue the film treats ethnic insults as local color rather than subject. Furthermore, Costello's crew and the state police both run on in-group loyalty and suspicion of outsiders. Therefore, that tribalism powers the entire mole plot. The Taste Buds and Adam ask whether the film interrogates Boston's prejudices or leans on them for authenticity.Career Retrospective: Leonardo DiCaprioThis episode also features a Career Retrospective on Leonardo DiCaprio. The Departed marked his third collaboration with Scorsese, following Gangs of New York and The Aviator. Notably, 2006 was a banner year for him, and Blood Diamond earned him a Best Actor nomination that season. His early work stretches from This Boy's Life and What's Eating Gilbert Grape to Titanic. Later highlights include Catch Me If You Can, Inception, Django Unchained, and The Wolf of Wall Street.DiCaprio finally won the Best Actor Oscar for The Revenant. Since then, he has worked again with Quentin Tarantino, Scorsese, and Paul Thomas Anderson. In total, he has made six feature films with Scorsese. The panel walks through the full filmography, from child actor to elder statesman. However, you will have to listen to hear how the Taste Buds and Adam rank his work.Why The Departed Still MattersThe Departed endures as the film that finally won Scorsese his Oscar. Moreover, it proved a Hollywood remake of a Hong Kong crime film could stand on its own. Its double-agent structure still echoes through crime thrillers and prestige television. Additionally, its performances remain endlessly quotable, especially Wahlberg's profane Sergeant Dignam. Alongside Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone, it helped define the Boston crime cycle of the 2000s. Ultimately, the film still sparks arguments about Scorsese's best work. Those arguments make it perfect bracket material for Movie of the Year: 2006.Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Movie of the Year 2006: Intro Part 1The Movies of 2006 Bracket Reveal2006 Mixtape Part IBrowse every Movie of the Year episodeFAQ: The Departed Podcast and FilmWhat is The Departed podcast episode about?This Movie of the Year: 2006 episode features the Taste Buds and guest Adam Kempenaar discussing Martin Scorsese's The Departed. Topics include father figures, gender, and the film's portrait of race in Boston. The episode also includes a Leonardo DiCaprio Career Retrospective.What is The Departed about?The Departed follows two moles in Boston. Billy Costigan goes undercover inside Frank Costello's Irish mob. Meanwhile, Colin Sullivan secretly works for Costello inside the Massachusetts State Police. Each man races to expose the other first.Who directed The Departed?Martin Scorsese directed The Departed. William Monahan wrote the screenplay, and the film won Scorsese his first Academy Award for Best Director.Is The Departed based on a true story?No, the plot comes from the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs. However, Jack Nicholson's Frank Costello draws loose inspiration from real Boston gangster Whitey Bulger.Did The Departed win Best Picture?Yes. The Departed won Best Picture at the 79th Academy Awards. It also

Movie of the Year: 2006Children of MenThe Children of Men Podcast from Movie of the YearThe Children of Men podcast episode of Movie of the Year takes the Taste Buds to the end of the world. Ryan, Mike, and Greg dive into Alfonso Cuarón's 2006 dystopian thriller. The film imagines a Britain where no child has been born in eighteen years. Furthermore, it turns that bleak premise into one of the most gripping chase movies of the decade. This week, the panel breaks down Cuarón's camerawork and the uneasy bond between Theo and Nigel. Meanwhile, they ask how close the film's future really feels. Additionally, the episode brings two games to the table. Notably, this entry in the 2006 bracket packs plenty of argument into one grim, gorgeous movie.What's in This EpisodeAbout Children of Men (2006)Cuarón and CameraworkTheo and NigelThe Future Is NowI Never Metacritic I Didn't LikeDream Blunt RotationWhy Children of Men Still MattersRelated EpisodesFAQAbout Children of Men (2006)Children of Men is a 2006 dystopian thriller co-written and directed by Alfonso Cuarón. The screenplay adapts P. D. James's 1992 novel The Children of Men. The story unfolds in 2027, after nearly two decades of global infertility. Clive Owen stars as Theo Faron, a burned-out former activist who now works a government desk job. His ex-wife Julian, played by Julianne Moore, pulls him into a dangerous mission. Specifically, she needs transit papers for Kee, a young refugee with a secret. Kee is pregnant, and nobody has seen a pregnancy in years. Theo must escort her across a collapsing Britain to a mysterious group called the Human Project.The supporting cast includes Michael Caine, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Pam Ferris, Charlie Hunnam, Danny Huston, and Peter Mullan. Universal released the film in the UK in September 2006 and in the US on Christmas Day. However, it failed to earn back its reported $76 million budget at the box office. Critics responded far more warmly. Roger Ebert gave it a four-star review and praised its convincing performances. Moreover, the film earned three Academy Award nominations, for Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, and Film Editing. You can explore the full cast and crew on IMDb.Cuarón and Camerawork: The Children of Men Podcast Goes LongFew films of 2006 look anything like Children of Men. Cuarón and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki built the movie around long, unbroken takes. As a result, the camera rarely lets the audience look away. The Taste Buds start with the famous car ambush. That sequence plays out almost entirely inside a moving vehicle as attackers swarm the road. Notably, the crew used a custom Doggicam rig built into a modified Fiat Multipla. The camera could glide between passengers while a stunt driver steered from a hidden position. In practice, visual effects artists stitched several takes into what looks like one seamless shot.Then comes the battle in the Bexhill refugee camp. Theo runs through gunfire, rubble, and tanks while the camera stays glued to him. At one point, fake blood splatters across the lens. Cuarón reportedly called cut, but the chaos drowned him out. Consequently, the take continued, and the accidental blood stayed in the film. In this Children of Men podcast conversation, the panel asks a key question. Do these long takes deepen the story, or do they show off? Furthermore, we discuss how this style carried into Lubezki's later work on Gravity and The Revenant. Ultimately, the camerawork makes 2027 feel like live news footage.Theo and Nigel: Two Cousins at the End of the WorldTheo and Nigel share one short scene, yet it lingers long after the credits. Desperate for transit papers, Theo visits his powerful cousin. Danny Huston plays Nigel, a government official who runs the Ark of the Arts. The program collects the world's masterpieces while the rest of civilization burns. For instance, Michelangelo's David stands inside, and Picasso's Guernica hangs beside the dining table. Meanwhile, an inflatable pig floats above Battersea Power Station outside, a nod to Pink Floyd's Animals.The Taste Buds dig into what separates these two men. Everyone in this world has reasons to give up. Theo lost his young son Dylan to a flu pandemic, and grief hollowed him out. By contrast, Nigel copes by hoarding beauty behind locked doors. His teenage son sits at the table, absorbed in a handheld device and barely present. Theo asks his cousin how he keeps going when no one will be left to see the art. Nigel's answer amounts to a shrug. Therefore, the scene frames a central debate. Is Nigel's shelter for culture an act of hope or pure denial? Additionally, we ask whether Theo's real journey starts at that table. Above all, this pairing shows two ways to face the end: comfort or courage.The Future Is Now: A Children of Men 2006 Podcast Look at 2027Here is a sobering detail. Children of Men takes place in November 2027, which now sits barely a year away. When the film premiered in 2006, that date felt comfortably distant. However, the film turned twenty this month, and its future has nearly arrived. The Taste Buds take stock of what Cuarón imagined and what the real world delivered.The film's Britain is a police state built on fear. Soldiers round up refugees and hold them in cages. Public screens urge citizens to report illegal immigrants. Additionally, a bomb tears through a London coffee shop in the opening scene. News reports claim that every other nation has collapsed. Cuarón deliberately avoided sleek, futuristic design. Instead, he filled 2027 with worn-out cars, aging billboards, and familiar technology. As a result, the world feels less like science fiction and more like next week.Critics have tied the film to real events for two decades. Specifically, writers have linked it to refugee crises, border debates, and falling birth rates. Meanwhile, the panel weighs which predictions landed and which missed the mark. We also compare it to earlier screen dystopias, including the one in our A Clockwork Orange episode from the 1971 season. Ultimately, this segment asks why a twenty-year-old movie still feels like a warning.I Never Metacritic I Didn't LikeOur recurring game returns for another round of arguing with the critics. In I Never Metacritic I Didn't Like, the Taste Buds pull up a film's critical profile on Metacritic. Then we put that consensus on trial against our own reactions. Children of Men arrived with strong reviews and plenty of year-end praise. Notably, a few critics still found its politics underdeveloped. So the panel tests whether those high marks hold up twenty years later. Listen to the episode to hear how the critical record fares under Taste Buds cross-examination.Dream Blunt Rotation: Who Would You Party With from Children of Men?Dream Blunt Rotation asks a simple question. Which...

A swollen taste bud is driving Pepper nuts and he can't help but focus on it. It leads to a discussion about remedies and he's shocked to discover what everyone keeps saying. Do you tweeze your taste buds? Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Pastor Kris Duerksen | Why Good People Disagree (Part 3) | Moral "Taste Buds"

The Casino Royale Podcast: Bond Starts OverWelcome to the Casino Royale podcast episode from Movie of the Year: 2006. This week, the Taste Buds sit down at the high-stakes table with Daniel Craig's first mission as 007. Ryan, Mike, and Greg break down why a 53-year-old spy novel became the freshest action movie of 2006. Furthermore, they ask a bigger question. Can a franchise that old truly reinvent itself, or does it just change tuxedos?Casino Royale arrived at a strange moment for Bond. The Pierce Brosnan era had ended with invisible cars and digital tidal waves. Meanwhile, Jason Bourne was proving audiences wanted bruises instead of gadgets. Consequently, the producers went back to the very first Ian Fleming novel and started from zero. The result is a film that still shapes the Movie of the Year conversation about what a reboot should be.About the FilmCasino Royale is the 21st official James Bond film and the first to star Daniel Craig. Martin Campbell directed from a screenplay by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis. The story adapts Ian Fleming's 1953 debut novel, the only major Fleming book the official series had never filmed.The plot follows a newly promoted Bond as he earns his double-0 status. After a chase through a Madagascar construction site and a bombing attempt in Miami, he tracks the money to Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen). Le Chiffre is a banker for terrorists who has lost his clients' funds. To recover them, he stages a poker tournament at the Casino Royale in Montenegro. MI6 sends Bond to beat him, alongside treasury agent Vesper Lynd (Eva Green). Judi Dench returns as M, and Jeffrey Wright debuts as Felix Leiter.Casino Royale opened in November 2006 and ran 144 minutes, the longest Bond film at that point. Critics embraced it almost immediately. Roger Ebert, catching up on the film in 2007, awarded it four stars and praised its return to visual clarity. Additionally, the film earned a BAFTA nomination for Craig and grossed roughly $600 million worldwide. More details are available on the film's IMDb page.This Casino Royale podcast episode covers all of that history before the debate begins. New to the season? Start with the 2006 season introduction to hear how the Taste Buds set up the year.A New Bond: Daniel Craig Takes the TuxedoThe first topic on this Casino Royale 2006 podcast is the man himself. When Eon announced Daniel Craig in October 2005, the reaction was ugly. Fans launched protest websites over his blond hair and blunt features. Notably, some tabloids reported that he could not drive a manual car. By contrast, the film opened to some of the best reviews in franchise history.The Taste Buds dig into what Craig actually changed. His Bond bleeds, sweats, and makes mistakes. Above all, he seems dangerous in a way that Brosnan's polished agent never did. The black-and-white cold open tells us everything in two minutes. Specifically, we watch Bond earn his first two kills, and one of them is a brutal bathroom fight rather than a clean shot.The episode also asks whether the film is a reboot, a prequel, or something stranger. Judi Dench carries over as M, so the continuity is deliberately loose. Ultimately, the hosts debate whether that looseness helps or hurts. The famous swimwear shot gets its due, too. Craig rising from the ocean flips the Ursula Andress beach moment from Dr. No, and the film knows it.Vesper Lynd and the Bond Girls of Casino RoyaleEva Green's Vesper Lynd is the emotional engine of the film. Consequently, this section of the Casino Royale podcast spends real time on her. Vesper is not a conquest. She is a treasury accountant who matches Bond insult for insult on the train to Montenegro. Moreover, she is the only person in the film who forces him to show weakness.The hosts compare Vesper to the women who came before her. Caterina Murino's Solange fills the more traditional Bond girl role, and the film treats her fate with unusual seriousness. In practice, that contrast is the point. Casino Royale keeps the old glamour but refuses to let it be weightless.The shower scene is the key example. Bond finds Vesper shaking on the bathroom floor after the stairwell fight, still in her evening gown. Rather than seduce her, he sits down in the water beside her. Nevertheless, the film never turns soft. The Venice finale delivers one of the coldest endings in the entire series. Eva Green won the BAFTA Rising Star Award in 2007, and the Taste Buds argue she earned it.Martin Campbell, Parkour, and PokerThe third topic on the Casino Royale podcast is the director. Martin Campbell had already saved Bond once. GoldenEye (1995) launched the Brosnan era after a six-year gap. Therefore, bringing him back in 2006 was a statement of intent. The hosts discuss what a Campbell action scene looks like. His camera holds still. His geography is clear. In addition, his stunts are real, which mattered enormously after Die Another Day.The Madagascar chase is the proof. Sébastien Foucan, one of the founders of parkour and free running, plays the bomber Mollaka. He flows over the construction site like water. Bond, however, just crashes through walls. That difference is characterization through stunt work. As a result, the sequence became the most imitated action scene of the decade.Then there is the poker. Fleming's novel used baccarat, but the film switched to Texas hold'em at the height of the poker boom. Specifically, the producers wanted a game audiences actually understood. The hosts break down how the tournament works as a three-act drama inside the larger movie. Bond loses, gets poisoned, nearly dies in the parking lot, and returns to the table. Meanwhile, the stairwell fight and the poisoning keep the stakes physical. The Aston Martin DBS crash even set a Guinness World Record for cannon rolls.State of the Franchise: Bond in 2006Every season, the Taste Buds step back and check the health of a major series. This time, the Casino Royale 2006 podcast State of the Franchise segment looks at 007 on the eve of Casino Royale. Die Another Day (2002) made money but embarrassed longtime fans. Meanwhile, The Bourne Identity (2002) and Batman Begins (2005) showed that audiences would reward a gritty restart.The hosts trace the corporate side as well. MGM finally secured the rights to the Casino Royale title in 1999 after decades of legal tangles. Furthermore, Sony's purchase of MGM in 2005 brought new studio money and a new marketing push. The segment asks a simple question. In 2006, was Bond a franchise in crisis or a franchise in transition? Notably, the answer shapes how the film should be judged. Listen to the episode to hear where each host lands.For a wider look at how 2006 blockbusters stacked up, revisit the bracket reveal episode.Casino Royale 2006 Podcast TriviaThe Trivia segment puts the hosts' Bond knowledge on the line. Some sample questions from this week:Which actor played James Bond on American television in 1954, in the very first Casino Royale adaptation?Which Czech spa town stood in for Montenegro during production?Which rock frontman recorded the theme song "You Know My Name"?Which luxury villa on Lake Como appears as the recovery clinic near the end of the film?How many Bond films had Martin Campbell directed before Casino Royale?Answers, arguments, and at least one wrong guess are all on the episode. Additionally, the hosts settle an old debate about the 1967 David Niven spoof and whether it counts.Why Casino Royale Still MattersNearly two decades later, Casino Royale remains the template for franchise reinvention. Every studio that has rebooted a hero since has borrowed from it. Specifically, the film proved that audiences will accept a stripped-down origin story if the character still feels dangerous. The Craig era ended with No Time to Die in 2021, and the series has yet to replace him. Consequently, the search for a new Bond keeps sending fans back to this film.It also matters within the 2006 bracket, which is why this Casino Royale podcast episode runs long. Few blockbusters of that year combine craft, star power, and genuine emotion so completely. However, the Taste Buds never hand out free passes. Whether Casino Royale advances or falls is a surprise reserved for the audio. For more from the season, add the 2006 Mixtape to your queue.Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Enjoyed the Casino Royale podcast? These earlier 2006 episodes set the table.Movie of the Year 2006: Intro Part 1Movies of 2006: Bracket Reveal2006 Mixtape Part I

Movie of the Year: 2006Stranger Than FictionStranger than Fiction Podcast: Harold Crick Hears a NarratorThis week's Stranger than Fiction podcast episode asks a simple question: what happens when a comedy star stops being funny on purpose? In 2006, Will Ferrell stepped away from Ron Burgundy and Ricky Bobby to play Harold Crick, an IRS auditor who hears a British novelist narrating his life. Consequently, the Taste Buds had a lot to untangle. Ryan, Mike, and Greg welcome Cecilia Dillon and Rafiq Taylor of the Tubi or Not Tubi podcast to the panel. Together, the five of them debate Ferrell's restraint, the film's shaky romance, and its clever games with authorship. Above all, they ask whether Marc Forster's fable deserves a deep bracket run in the 2006 Movie of the Year bracket.About the FilmHarold Crick lives by the numbers. He counts his toothbrush strokes, times his walk to the bus, and audits taxpayers with quiet precision. One Wednesday, however, a voice starts describing his every move. The voice belongs to Karen Eiffel, played by Emma Thompson, a celebrated novelist with a decade-long case of writer's block. Her books always end with the hero's death. Harold, therefore, has a problem.Zach Helm wrote the screenplay, and Marc Forster directed after Finding Neverland and before Quantum of Solace. Dustin Hoffman plays Professor Jules Hilbert, a literature scholar who helps Harold figure out whether he lives in a comedy or a tragedy. Maggie Gyllenhaal plays Ana Pascal, a baker Harold is auditing, and Queen Latifah plays Eiffel's publisher-assigned assistant. Notably, Helm named nearly every character after a scientist or mathematician, from Francis Crick to David Hilbert. You can read the full production history on Wikipedia. Roger Ebert called the film a fable in the mode of Eric Rohmer in his original 2006 review. Additional cast and crew details live on IMDb.Guest Panelists: Cecilia Dillon and Rafiq Taylor of Tubi or Not TubiCeci Dillon and Rafiq Taylor host Tubi or Not Tubi, a podcast devoted to the strange, forgotten, and occasionally brilliant films buried in Tubi's free streaming library. Their show launched in 2020 and has now run for more than six seasons. In practice, that means hundreds of movies nobody else would watch so that you do not have to. Their catalog ranges from micro-budget Tubi Originals to cult favorites like Hundreds of Beavers, and they have interviewed filmmakers such as Coherence director James Ward Byrkit. Ceci and Rafiq bring quick wit and a real affection for overlooked cinema, which makes them ideal guests for a Stranger than Fiction podcast conversation. After all, this is a movie about a character who fears he is a footnote in someone else's story. Moreover, both hosts know the 2006 landscape well, and they arrive ready to argue.Harold and Will: Ferrell Plays It StraightThe first topic tackles the elephant in the room. Will Ferrell built a career on volume, chaos, and grown men screaming in their underwear. Here, by contrast, he speaks softly, stands still, and lets Emma Thompson's voiceover do the shouting. The panel asks whether this is a great performance or simply a great casting trick. Mike argues that Ferrell's comic instincts never fully disappear. Instead, they hide in small gestures, like the way Harold holds a guitar or stares at a plate of cookies. Greg wonders whether the film needs Ferrell at all, or whether any capable dramatic actor could play Harold. Meanwhile, Ceci and Rafiq weigh Harold against other 2006 comedians going straight. The panel also compares this turn with Ferrell's later dramatic work in Everything Must Go. Ultimately, the question is whether audiences ever separate Harold from Will, and whether they should.Romance or Not? Harold and AnaSecond, the panel puts the love story on trial. Ana Pascal is an anarchist baker who deliberately underpays her taxes. Harold is the man sent to audit her. In the film, she softens, he blossoms, and cookies solve most of their problems. However, does the relationship earn its screen time? Ryan questions whether Ana exists as a person or merely as a reward for Harold's growth. Rafiq points to the "flours" joke as evidence that the movie knows exactly how corny it is being. Additionally, the group debates Maggie Gyllenhaal's performance, which some critics praised and others found underwritten. Is this a romance, a comedy with a romance attached, or a fable that uses love as a plot device? The Taste Buds do not fully agree. As a result, the segment becomes one of the livelier arguments of the 2006 season.The Metanarrative: Who Is Writing Harold?The third topic digs into the film's biggest idea. Karen Eiffel is writing Harold, but who is writing Karen? The movie never explains how a fictional character came to walk the streets of Chicago. Instead, it treats the premise as a given and moves on to questions of responsibility. Professor Hilbert insists that the book must end as written, because the ending is a masterpiece. Harold, understandably, disagrees. Specifically, the panel examines whether the film is a story about authorship, mortality, or the ethics of art. Ceci draws connections to Charlie Kaufman, whose Adaptation covered similar ground four years earlier. Greg pushes back, arguing that Forster's film is warmer and less cynical. The panel also discusses the on-screen graphics that visualize Harold's counting, and how they reinforce the idea of a life reduced to data. Therefore, this Stranger than Fiction podcast segment doubles as a mini seminar on narrative theory, minus the tuition.Rushmore: The Music of 2006The Rushmore segment returns, and this week the mountain honors the music of 2006. Each panelist nominates the faces that defined the year's sound. Fittingly, Stranger than Fiction itself leans on music, with Spoon's Britt Daniel co-composing the score alongside Brian Reitzell. The year also gave us landmark albums across hip-hop, indie rock, and pop, and the panel argues over which artists earned a permanent place on the monument. Nevertheless, the final four faces stay a secret until you listen. Expect disagreement, at least one deep cut, and a debate about whether soundtrack contributions count.2006 ProstarsFinally, the panel plays 2006 Prostars. In this segment, the Taste Buds and their guests assemble a team of the year's standout performers, the people who showed up in 2006 and simply dominated. Some picks come from the Stranger than Fiction cast, since Emma Thompson, Dustin Hoffman, and Maggie Gyllenhaal all had busy years. Others reach across the full 2006 bracket. In addition, the group debates what makes someone a Prostar rather than merely a good actor having a good year. The roster stays under wraps here, so press play to hear who made the cut.Why Stranger than Fiction Still MattersTwenty years on, Stranger than Fiction still feels like a small miracle of tone. It could have been a gimmick. Instead, it became a gentle argument for paying attention to ordinary life. The film also marked a turning point for Will Ferrell, proving that he could carry a story without a single shouted punchline. Furthermore, its questions about authorship and control have only grown more relevant. We now live surrounded by algorithms narrating our choices back to us. Harold's panic at hearing his own life described feels less like fantasy every year. Consequently, this Stranger than Fiction podcast episode arrives at a good moment. Whether the film survives the bracket is another matter, and the Taste Buds have plenty to say about it. Listen to the episode, then let us know whether Harold Crick deserves to advance.Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Movie of the Year 2006 Intro, Part 1The 2006 Bracket Reveal2006 Mixtape, Part ILittle Miss SunshineAll Movie of the Year episodesFAQ: Stranger than Fiction Podcast and FilmWhat is this Stranger than Fiction podcast episode about?The Taste Buds and guests Cecilia Dillon and Rafiq Taylor debate Will Ferrell's dramatic turn, the Harold and Ana romance, and the film's metanarrative. The episode also features the Rushmore and 2006 Prostars segments.What is Stranger than Fiction about?IRS auditor Harold Crick begins hearing a novelist narrate his life. When the narrator announces his imminent death, he sets out to change the ending.Who directed Stranger than Fiction?Marc Forster directed the film...

For nearly 25 years, Leonard Louviere has been one of the most familiar faces in Lafayette's restaurant community, serving as general manager and an investor in Zea Rotisserie & Bar. But Leonard's story in hospitality began long before Zea opened its doors in Lafayette. In this episode of Discover Lafayette, Leonard joins Jan Swift to share his journey from working in restaurants, bars and hotels while attending USL, to spending 15 years overseeing food and beverage operations at the Cajundome, and ultimately taking a leap of faith that would shape the next chapter of his life. This is a special edition of Discover Lafayette in partnership with Lafayette Travel and Eat Lafayette. We thank them for their support! “I ended up loving working in restaurants,” Leonard recalled of his college years. “The people I worked with, we worked hard. We were paying our way through everything, including school, and it was always in me to do that.” From the Cajundome to Zea After graduating from USL, Leonard briefly went into construction, building a few spec houses, but he knew food and beverage was where he belonged. The newly built Cajundome offered that opportunity. Leonard initially applied for an assistant food and beverage position and was invited to work one night as something of an audition. Several people were being considered. By the end of the week, management told him, “Nobody worked like you. We want you to come and do this.” That one-night opportunity turned into a 15-year career at the Cajundome, where Leonard eventually became food and beverage director. His next chapter began at a restaurant industry show in Chicago, where Bryan McLain, owner of Louisiana Market, introduced Leonard to the men behind the Taste Buds: Gary Darling, Greg Reggio and Hans Limburg. The longtime friends and business partners had created Semolina and were developing a newer concept, Zea. McLain had a Lafayette building. The Taste Buds had the restaurant concept. Leonard had deep roots in Lafayette, restaurant experience, and the desire to invest and work. Within about a week, they decided to make it happen. Leonard didn’t just take a management position. He invested his life savings in the Lafayette restaurant. “I was scared,” he admits. But nearly 25 years later, that leap of faith has more than paid off. The “Magic” of the Zea Menu So how does Leonard describe Zea’s food? It isn’t easily placed into one category. The menu reflects influences from around the world, but Leonard says there are Southern flavors and seasonings woven throughout, whether it’s the Thai ribs, Asian almond shrimp or corn grits. And four dishes stand above the rest. “The magic. It's Thai ribs, corn grits, Asian almond shrimp, spinach salad.” “We can’t make recipes that incredible again,” Leonard says. “We’ll never lose those four.” Consistency is critical to Zea’s success. Recipes are followed precisely, from the ingredients and proportions in the spinach salad to the preparation of every entrée. Kitchen employees are trained to meet exact specifications because a guest should receive the same dish each time they visit. Interestingly, Leonard readily admits that he doesn’t cook. What he does know how to do is hire people who are better than he is at what they do. He points to longtime kitchen manager Heath Lemoine, who has been with him for 24 years, and a management team whose members have worked together for more than two decades. “I hire people better than me,” Leonard says. “It is the reason I have succeeded.” Building a Culture Where People Stay Long-term employees can be unusual in the restaurant industry, but at Zea Lafayette, Leonard’s management team has remained remarkably stable. “We truly do love each other, without a doubt,” he says. That doesn’t mean a busy restaurant isn’t intense. It is. But Leonard draws a clear distinction between the urgency surrounding food and service and the way employees treat one another. Respect remains paramount. When hiring, Leonard says character and personality often matter more than experience. “You have to be a nice person. You have to want to deal with the public.” Employees need a sense of urgency, an understanding of teamwork, and a genuine desire to serve others. When something goes wrong with a guest, Leonard doesn’t want employees explaining or making excuses. He wants them asking a simple question: “How can I fix this?” Leonard believes everyone would benefit from working as a restaurant server for six months. Why? Because serving teaches you how demanding it can be to work with the public, how to put someone else’s needs first, and what hospitality really means. “I’m a servant. I invested my life savings, I’ve done well, but that’s all I am. I serve people. That’s it.” A Long-Awaited Transformation For nearly a decade, Leonard pushed his partners to make a major investment in the Lafayette Zea. He wanted a larger, more functional bar and a restaurant that felt fresh, comfortable and exciting. Eventually, his partners agreed, and architect Kirby Pécot helped create the dramatic renovation and expansion that guests see today. The bar was moved to the front and greatly expanded, additional seating and private dining areas were created, and acoustic panels were installed to reduce noise and make conversation easier. Leonard says the multimillion-dollar investment has delivered exactly what he believed it would: sales have increased by approximately 25 percent since the expansion. The Lafayette restaurant now employs about 150 people, up from approximately 95 before the expansion, and receives roughly 70 employment applications each week. The expansion also gives Zea more flexibility for gatherings and private events. Leonard says the restaurant has spaces capable of accommodating everything from small groups of 12 to larger events of 50 or 60 people. Creating Good Employees What is the most difficult part of running a restaurant today? Leonard didn’t say finding employees. He said, “Helping employees develop self-esteem.” His goal is to help people become proud of their work, recognize their own value and learn to do the right thing even when no one is watching. “Our one and only job is to create self-esteem for our employees.” Leonard uses a simple example in employee orientation. If he walks through the parking lot at midnight and sees trash, he picks it up because it will still be there tomorrow if he doesn’t. “Do the right thing even when no one is looking,” he tells his team. He encourages employees to learn additional positions, work harder and become more valuable so they can advance to shift leader, part-time manager and beyond. It is a philosophy that turns the conventional restaurant-industry complaint about finding good employees on its head. Leonard is focused on creating good employees by giving them an environment in which they can grow. Hospitality Extends Beyond the Restaurant Leonard’s commitment to serving others doesn’t end when he leaves Zea. For approximately 24 years, he has supported Hospice of Acadiana, including hosting a Good Friday crawfish boil at his home that most recently drew about 225 people and raised approximately $8,000 for Hospice. He also volunteers each Tuesday in Hospice of Acadiana’s Food with Love kitchen, working alongside Kent Zeringue and other volunteers to prepare approximately 750 meals for hospice patients. Delivery volunteers then bring those meals directly to patients. “I like to gather people together and do things,” Leonard says. That is true in his personal life as well. He loves entertaining at his home, eating out at local restaurants, listening to live music, dancing and especially zydeco. “I love a good zydeco band and I love a place to go and dance, without a doubt.” His love for gathering people together may be the thread connecting everything Leonard Louviere does, from his backyard to his volunteer work to a bustling dining room at Zea. “You Have to Love Every Aspect of It” For anyone dreaming of opening a restaurant, Leonard offers a dose of reality. Loving to cook isn’t enough. “You have to love every aspect of it,” he says. That means schedules, employees, long nights, teamwork, criticism, financial pressures and the intense first months of a new restaurant. Adequate capital is essential, as is experience actually working in hospitality. Most importantly, Leonard says, you need a team. “You have to hire people better than you that can do a lot of things because you can’t do it all.” After decades in the hospitality business, Leonard Louvierre still works nights and weekends, still eats Zea’s food, still walks the dining room checking on guests, and still sees himself first and foremost as someone there to serve. (Photo by Robin May.) And perhaps that explains why Zea has become more than simply a successful Lafayette restaurant. Under Leonard’s leadership, it has become a gathering place where generations of Acadiana families return, employees build careers, and hospitality is rooted in something remarkably simple: “Be kind. Treat people with respect. Do the right thing when no one is looking. And take care of the people who walk through your door.” For more information and to order their delicious food, visit https://zearestaurants.com/location/lafayette/.

Movie of the Year: 2006The Action Figure Draft, Part IIThe 2006 Action Figures Part 2 Draft ContinuesThe Taste Buds return for the second half of their 2006 action figures part 2 episode, continuing the character selection debate that defined Part 1. This special segment doubles down on the fun of distilling an entire year's worth of cinema into miniature collectible form — and the picks get even more contentious. As the action figures from 2006 draft progresses deeper into each host's selections, the trade-offs between franchise loyalty, character design, and cultural impact become sharper and more entertaining.How the Draft WorksFor those joining mid-series, the action figure draft is a curated exercise in taste-making. The Taste Buds take turns selecting which film characters from 2006 they'd want immortalized as collectible figures. Each pick reflects both personal preference and the broader cultural weight of the films themselves. Moreover, the selection process forces hosts to articulate why certain characters resonate — whether through iconic design, memorability, or sheer cultural dominance. In practice, this means later rounds reveal unexpected allegiances and blind spots.The tension in Part 2 emerges from the dwindling pool of obvious choices. Consequently, picks become more idiosyncratic, and the banter gets sharper. Additionally, hosts must defend choices that might seem obscure to casual listeners, which often leads to the episode's funniest moments. The draft format, ultimately, is less about cinema criticism and more about personal mythology — what each host chose to represent 2006 in their own collection.Characters, Franchises, and Fan Favorites in 2006 Action FiguresPart 2 showcases the breadth of 2006's character work across genres. From action stars to supporting players, the range of selections demonstrates how varied the year's film landscape truly was. The Taste Buds navigate the space between obvious A-list characters and deeper cuts that only serious film fans would recognize. This balance keeps the segment engaging for both casual listeners and dedicated cinephiles. IMDb's comprehensive filmography for 2006 reveals just how many significant characters were introduced that year.Furthermore, the draft highlights how character design — from costume to practical effects to performance — shapes a film's lasting legacy. Characters that translate well to figurine form often become touchstones in pop culture memory. By contrast, some of 2006's most acclaimed performances are harder to immortalize in plastic, which creates an interesting friction between critical acclaim and collectibility. Notably, this friction is precisely what makes the 2006 action figures draft fun to listen to. Action figures have a rich history as cultural artifacts that preserve cinematic memory across decades.Why the Action Figure Draft Still MattersThe action figure draft, while playful, reveals something genuine about how we remember films. It forces a conversation about which moments and characters define a year — not from a critical distance, but from a place of personal attachment. The draft isn't about ranking films; it's about ranking characters, which is a fundamentally different and often more revealing exercise. In essence, the Taste Buds are building a cultural snapshot of 2006 through the figures they choose.Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Action Figure Draft Part 12006 Intro Part 12006 Bracket RevealMovie of the Year Podcast ArchiveFAQ: 2006 Action Figures Part 2What is the Action Figure Draft?The Action Figure Draft is a special segment of Movie of the Year where the Taste Buds take turns selecting which film characters from a given year they'd want immortalized as collectible action figures. It's a playful but revealing exercise in taste-making and cultural memory.Do I need to listen to Part 1 first?Yes, Part 1 establishes the draft's rules and covers the first round of selections. Part 2 continues from where that episode left off, so listeners will get more out of it having heard the setup and early picks.What makes a good action figure character?The Taste Buds consider multiple factors: iconic costume design, memorability, franchise appeal, and the character's cultural impact. Some picks prioritize instantly recognizable silhouettes, while others reward performances or characters with deeper cult followings.Are the hosts serious about their picks?Yes and no. While the selections are genuinely thoughtful and reveal real preferences, the tone is playful. The hosts defend their choices with humor and insight, making the draft entertaining to listen to even if you disagree with every pick.How does the draft format change the conversation about 2006 films?Instead of ranking films by critical merit, the draft focuses on individual characters and moments. This shifts the conversation away from "best film" and toward "most memorable character," which often surfaces different and more personal insights.Can I predict which characters will be picked?Part 1 covers the obvious frontrunners, but Part 2 gets into deeper cuts and more idiosyncratic selections. Later rounds reveal each host's blind spots and unexpected allegiances, making the later picks harder to predict.Why do action figures matter to film discourse?Action figures are a cultural barometer. Which characters get immortalized in plastic often tells us which moments and performances shape how we remember a year. The draft is a fun way to explore that question — what do we actually hold onto from cinema?

Movie of the Year: 2006The Action Figure DraftThe Challenge: Drafting 2006 Action FiguresDrafting 2006 action figures puts a unique spin on the Movie of the Year podcast format. Rather than debating which film deserves the crown, the Taste Buds face a different challenge: assembling the ultimate action figure collection from a single year. The draft requires each panelist to select figures across six distinct categories: a wizard, a fighter, a cleric, a bard, a playset, and a vehicle. This episode blends nostalgia with strategy, forcing the hosts to think critically about what made 2006 action figures memorable.The format mirrors the bracket-style competition that defines Movie of the Year, but the stakes feel more playful. Additionally, the draft structure demands quick thinking and creative justification. Furthermore, each selection reveals something about the chooser's pop culture priorities and childhood memories.About This Draft EpisodeThe action figure draft emerged as a natural evolution of the MOTY format. Rather than selecting films, the panel turns its attention to the plastic heroes and villains that decorated collectors' shelves in 2006. Movie of the Year uses debate and argumentation to crown champions, and the action figure draft applies the same rigor to toys. Specifically, the draft forces panelists to make strategic picks, defend their choices, and navigate the inherent tension between nostalgia and objective quality.2006 action figures represent a particular cultural moment. The year saw releases across multiple franchises, from superhero lines to fantasy collectibles. Notably, the action figure market in 2006 reflected both established toy lines and emerging collector communities. Additionally, the draft category breakdown (wizard, fighter, cleric, bard, playset, vehicle) creates natural tension, since exceptional figures exist in every category. Consequently, difficult choices become inevitable.Guest Panelist: TaylorTaylor brings extensive experience to the MOTY table as a regular panelist across multiple seasons. Prior to joining the Movie of the Year rotation, Taylor hosted the PopFilter superhero podcast, where the show explored comic book adaptations with the same critical rigor applied to film. Taylor's background in superhero discourse makes this action figure draft particularly fitting, given the prevalence of superhero figures in 2006 collections. Furthermore, Taylor's perspective on character design and narrative arc translates directly to evaluating which action figures merit selection in a competitive draft format.Guest Panelist: NateNate brings fresh energy to the panel as the host of Debut Buddies, a podcast exploring first impressions and entry points to beloved franchises. This sensibility proves valuable in an action figure draft, where nostalgia and first-time experiences collide. Nate's podcast work focuses on understanding why certain properties resonate with audiences at their moment of introduction. Additionally, Nate's experience discussing collectibles and fan culture across episodes of Debut Buddies positions the panelist well to articulate the cultural significance of 2006 action figures. Consequently, Nate's selections reflect both personal enthusiasm and broader cultural commentary.The Draft Categories ExplainedThe six-category format creates a balanced draft structure. Each category demands different types of excellence, ensuring no single franchise dominates all selections. The wizard category rewards figures with fantasy credentials or magical accessories. Meanwhile, the fighter category prioritizes dynamic sculpts and detailed articulation. The cleric category highlights figures designed for healing or spiritual roles. The bard category celebrates characters known for charm, performance, or charisma.Placesets and vehicles round out the draft. A standout playset can define an entire collection, offering rich world-building and multiple character integration points. Vehicles, meanwhile, serve dual purposes: they function as impressive display pieces and provide practical storage for smaller figures. Furthermore, both categories push panelists to think beyond single-character selections. Therefore, strategic panelists often save these final picks for surprise value.Why This Draft Format Still MattersAction figure drafts celebrate toys as cultural artifacts worth serious debate. The format acknowledges that action figures were never mere children's toys; they represent artistic achievement, design innovation, and fandom expression. By applying the Movie of the Year framework to collectibles, the podcast validates pop culture objects that collectors have defended for decades. Moreover, the draft creates space for nostalgia without dismissing critical analysis.The 2006 action figure market occupies a specific historical position. The year exists in a liminal space between analog and digital toy culture. Additionally, 2006 represents a moment when adult collecting had achieved mainstream legitimacy. Consequently, the figures released that year carry weight beyond simple nostalgia. Furthermore, examining which 2006 action figures merit selection reveals much about evolving standards in toy design, packaging, and character representation.Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Movie of the Year: 2006 Podcast Intro – Start your 2006 journey with the season setupMovies of 2006 Bracket Reveal – Discover the full tournament structure2006 Mixtape Part I – Explore films that didn't crack the main bracketMovie of the Year Archives – Browse all seasons and episodesFAQ: Action Figure Draft Podcast and 2006 CollectiblesWhat is the Movie of the Year action figure draft about?The action figure draft applies the Movie of the Year tournament format to toy collecting. Rather than debating films, the Taste Buds select action figures across six categories: wizard, fighter, cleric, bard, playset, and vehicle. Each panelist makes strategic picks, defends their choices, and competes for the title of best overall collection. The episode combines nostalgia with competitive analysis, exploring why certain figures from 2006 deserve consideration as collectibles worth defending.What made 2006 a significant year for action figures?2006 represented a peak moment for toy collecting. The year saw sophisticated figure releases across multiple franchises, from superhero lines to fantasy properties. Additionally, adult collecting had achieved mainstream acceptance by 2006, meaning toy companies invested in higher-quality sculpts and articulation. Furthermore, the figures released that year benefited from advanced manufacturing techniques while maintaining handcrafted design sensibilities. Consequently, 2006 action figures occupy a unique cultural position as genuinely excellent toys.Why are the draft categories split between characters and objects?The six-category system ensures balanced competition. Character categories (wizard, fighter, cleric, bard) reward figures with strong design and character definition. Object categories (playset, vehicle) prevent single-franchise domination and force panelists to think strategically about display value and practical considerations. This mix creates tension throughout the draft, since exceptional options exist in every category. Therefore, no single panelist can monopolize excellence across all selections.What defines a strong action figure?Excellent action figures balance multiple qualities. Articulation allows dynamic posing, while sculpt detail rewards close examination. Paint application separates fine figures from mass-produced alternatives. Additionally, character accuracy matters; figures should capture essential traits of their subjects. Furthermore, accessories expand possibilities, from weapons to alternate heads. Above all, great figures inspire collectors to display them proudly and handle them repeatedly. Consequently, the draft rewards figures that succeed across these dimensions.How does the action figure draft compare to Movie of the Year bracket episodes?Both formats apply competitive debate to pop culture objects. Movie of the Year bracket episodes determine which film deserves recognition within a specific year. The action figure draft adapts this structure to collectibles, asking which figures merit selection within category constraints. Additionally, both formats privilege entertaining discussion over predetermined outcomes. Furthermore, both celebrate deep fandom engagement and critical thinking about cultural products. Notably, the action figure draft adds a playful dimension, since figures encourage physical interaction and collection aesthetics beyond what films can offer.What should listeners expect from this two-part draft?Part One introduces the draft format, the panelists, and the strategy. The Taste Buds will work through early selections, revealing their priorities and defending their picks. Expect passionate arguments, surprising choices, and nostalgic references to 2006 toy releases. Additionally, Taylor and Nate will bring distinct perspectives shaped by their respective podcasting backgrounds. Furthermore, the episode balances competitive intensity

Movie of the Year: 2006VolverThe Volver Podcast Episode Enters the BracketThe Volver podcast episode brings Pedro Almodóvar's beloved ghost story into the full Movie of the Year 2006 bracket. This week, Greg and Mike hold down the fort while Ryan sits this one out. Fortunately, they have serious backup. New Yorker television critic Inkoo Kang joins the panel to talk grief, ghosts, and the women of La Mancha. Together, they ask whether Almodóvar's warmest film has what it takes to survive the tournament.The conversation covers the film's supernatural heart, its unforgettable women, and its thoroughly rotten men. Additionally, the crew builds a Mount Rushmore of It Girls and runs through The Five. As always, the bracket outcome stays a secret here. Consequently, you will need to listen to find out how Volver fares.About the FilmVolver is a 2006 Spanish comedy-drama written and directed by Pedro Almodóvar. Penélope Cruz stars as Raimunda, a working-class mother in Madrid whose life unravels after a sudden death at home. Meanwhile, her sister Sole discovers that their late mother Irene, played by Carmen Maura, may have returned from the grave. The film is set partly in La Mancha, the windswept region where Almodóvar grew up.Volver premiered at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival, where it won Best Screenplay. Notably, its six lead actresses shared the Best Actress prize, an almost unheard-of collective honor. Cruz later earned an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress, a landmark for Spanish-language performances. Roger Ebert gave the film four stars and named it among his four-star movies of 2006. You can find full details on the film's cast and awards at IMDb.The 2006 field is stacked with heavyweights. Volver joins previous entries like The Prestige, Little Miss Sunshine, and Borat in the fight for the crown.Guest Panelist: Inkoo KangInkoo Kang is the television critic at The New Yorker, where she has covered TV since 2022. Before that, she served as a TV critic at The Washington Post and The Hollywood Reporter. Her byline has also appeared at Slate, MTV News, The Village Voice, and TheWrap over a career spanning more than a decade. In practice, that résumé makes her one of the sharpest working critics on storytelling, performance, and cultural memory. Her perspective on Almodóvar's women makes this Volver podcast conversation essential listening.Ghosts and Grief on the Volver PodcastVolver treats death with a shrug and grief with a casserole. The Taste Buds dig into how Almodóvar builds a ghost story without a single scare. Irene's return plays as domestic comedy first and emotional reckoning second. However, the laughs never cheapen the loss underneath them.Inkoo, Greg, and Mike explore how the film's La Mancha setting shapes its view of mortality. The village women tend graves like gardens and speak of the dead like neighbors. As a result, the supernatural feels less like fantasy and more like tradition. The panel asks whether that matter-of-fact approach to death is exactly why the film hits so hard. Ultimately, Volver argues that the dead stay with us because we keep setting a place for them.Mothers, Daughters, and Sisters on the Volver PodcastEvery meaningful relationship in Volver runs between women. Raimunda and her daughter Paula protect each other through the film's darkest turn. Sole and Raimunda circle each other with the friction only sisters manage. Above all, Irene's return forces three generations to confront secrets that shaped them all.The panel unpacks how Almodóvar stages forgiveness as the film's true climax. Specifically, they discuss the confessions between mother and daughter that reframe everything before them. Inkoo brings a critic's eye to Cruz's performance, which anchors the whole ensemble. Moreover, the group considers how the film honors caretaking as heroic labor. Cooking, cleaning, and burying become acts of love here, not background noise.Ugh, Dudes: The Men of VolverThe men of Volver are a rogues' gallery of predators, cheats, and dead weight. Consequently, the Volver podcast panel dedicates a full segment to asking a simple question. Why does Almodóvar write men this way, and what does their awfulness reveal?The panel argues that the film's male characters function as weather, not people. They cause damage, and then the women clean up after the storm. By contrast, the women get every ounce of the film's interiority and warmth. The crew debates whether this imbalance is a flaw or the entire point. Nevertheless, everyone agrees on one thing. The dudes in this movie? Ugh.Rushmore: It GirlsPenélope Cruz became a global It Girl on the strength of this performance. Therefore, the crew carves a Mount Rushmore of It Girls in her honor. Greg, Mike, and Inkoo each argue for the four faces that defined It Girl status across eras. The picks range from obvious icons to deep-cut favorites, and the debate gets appropriately heated. Listen to the episode to hear which four faces make the mountain.The Five on This Week's Volver PodcastThe episode also features The Five, a recurring segment built on movie archetypes. The panel receives five iconic character types and must argue for the 2006 star who best embodies each one. This week's archetypes are a murderers' row: Scout Finch, Batman, Ripley, Robin Hood, and Frankenstein's Monster.Consequently, the debate ranges across the entire 2006 landscape. Who carries Scout's wide-eyed moral clarity? Which star wears Batman's brooding armor? Moreover, who earns Ripley's steel, Robin Hood's roguish charm, or the Monster's tragic misunderstood soul? Greg, Mike, and Inkoo each make their cases, and the picks get delightfully contentious. The answers stay spoiler-free here, so hit play to hear who claims each archetype.Why Volver Still MattersVolver endures because it treats ordinary women's lives as the stuff of grand cinema. Twenty years later, its blend of melodrama, comedy, and ghost story still feels singular. Cruz's Oscar-nominated turn opened doors for Spanish-language performances in Hollywood's biggest categories. Furthermore, the film cemented Almodóvar's late-career run as one of world cinema's great streaks.The Volver podcast conversation makes the case that the film's warmth is its weapon. Plenty of movies mine grief for devastation. By contrast, Volver mines grief for connection, and that choice keeps audiences returning. The title means "to return" in Spanish, after all. Great films do exactly that.Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Movies of 2006: Intro Part 12006 Bracket Reveal and Sweet 16Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story2006 Mixtape Part I2006 Mixtape Part IIBrickThe Puffy ChairThe Devil Wears PradaLittle Miss SunshineThe PrestigeBoratAll Movie of the Year episodesFAQ: Volver Podcast and FilmWhat is the Volver podcast episode about?In this Volver podcast episode, Greg and Mike from Movie of the Year discuss Pedro Almodóvar's 2006 film with guest critic Inkoo Kang. Topics include ghosts and grief, the film's women, its terrible men, a Mount Rushmore of It Girls, and The Five.What is Volver about?Volver follows Raimunda, a Madrid mother played by Penélope Cruz, as she covers up a death at home. Meanwhile, her late mother apparently returns from the grave to settle unfinished business with her daughters.Who directed Volver?Pedro Almodóvar wrote and directed Volver. The Spanish filmmaker set the story partly in La Mancha, the region where he grew up.What does Volver mean?Volver means "to return" in Spanish. The title comes from a classic tango and...

Movie of the Year: 2006Little Miss Sunshine (feat. Don Shanahan from Every Movie Has a Lesson!)Little Miss Sunshine Podcast: The Hoovers Hit the BracketThe Little Miss Sunshine podcast episode has arrived, and the Taste Buds are packing into the VW bus. This week, Movie of the Year puts one of 2006's biggest indie success stories through the tournament. Ryan, Mike, and Greg welcome film critic Don Shanahan to help judge the Hoover family's run at the crown. Together, the panel digs into the family dynamics, the unforgettable ending, the film's surprising philosophical streak, and the husband-and-wife directing team behind it all. Additionally, the crew squares off in a round of Trivia and builds a fashion-themed Rushmore. Can a sunny yellow bus carry this movie deep into the 2006 bracket? Push, hop in, and find out.About the FilmLittle Miss Sunshine follows the Hoover family on an 800-mile road trip from Albuquerque to Redondo Beach. Seven-year-old Olive has qualified for the Little Miss Sunshine beauty pageant, and the whole dysfunctional clan piles into a failing Volkswagen bus to get her there. The passenger list includes a failed motivational speaker, a suicidal Proust scholar, a Nietzsche-obsessed teen who refuses to speak, a heroin-snorting grandpa, and one very determined mom. Directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris from Michael Arndt's screenplay, the film premiered at Sundance in January 2006. It became a box office sensation, grossing over $101 million on an $8 million budget. Moreover, it earned four Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture. Alan Arkin won Best Supporting Actor, and Arndt took home Best Original Screenplay. RogerEbert.com called it a gentle family satire in the tradition of the countercultural comedies of the 1970s. Now the film faces its toughest challenge yet: the Movie of the Year 2006 bracket.Guest Panelist: Don ShanahanThe Taste Buds welcome film critic Don Shanahan to the panel. Don is a Chicago-based, Rotten Tomatoes-approved critic and the founder of the long-running review site Every Movie Has a Lesson. He also serves as Editor-in-Chief and Content Supervisor of the film department at Film Obsessive. Furthermore, Don co-hosts the Cinephile Hissy Fit Podcast on the Ruminations Radio Network. A school teacher by day, he writes his reviews with life lessons in mind, from the serious to the farcical. Don is a director and co-founder of the Chicago Indie Critics and a voting member of the Critics Choice Association and the Online Film Critics Society. Consequently, few guests arrive better equipped to grade a movie about winners, losers, and everything in between.The Hoover Family at the Heart of the Little Miss Sunshine PodcastEvery great road movie needs great passengers, and this one has six. The panel starts with the family itself. Richard preaches his nine-step winning program while his own career collapses. Sheryl holds everyone together with fried chicken and sheer will. Frank arrives fresh from a suicide attempt, and Dwayne has taken a vow of silence until he becomes a fighter pilot. Meanwhile, Grandpa coaches Olive's pageant routine with methods no pageant has ever approved. The Little Miss Sunshine podcast crew debates what makes this dysfunction feel so real. Notably, the film establishes the entire family in one legendary twenty-minute dinner scene. The Taste Buds and Don break down how each Hoover carries a private definition of failure. Ultimately, the group asks the big question: is this the best movie family of 2006?Breaking Down the Ending on the Little Miss Sunshine 2006 PodcastYou know the scene. Olive takes the stage at the pageant, "Super Freak" drops, and the movie explodes. The panel dedicates a full segment to one of the most famous endings of the decade. By contrast with the polished pageant contestants, Olive's routine is pure chaos, and the family's response is pure love. The Hoovers stop trying to win and start dancing. Don and the Taste Buds debate whether the finale earns its catharsis or leans on shock value. In addition, the crew discusses how the ending flips the film's winners-and-losers thesis on its head. Does the dance number seal the film's bracket run, or does it divide the panel? The episode holds nothing back.Nietzsche, Proust, and the Philosophy of LosingFew crowd-pleasers smuggle in this much philosophy. Dwayne worships Nietzsche and wears his contempt for conformity on his sleeve, or at least on his t-shirt. Frank, meanwhile, claims the title of preeminent Proust scholar in America. The panel unpacks why Michael Arndt built his comedy on these two thinkers. Frank's hospital-parking-lot speech about suffering becomes the film's secret thesis: the years of struggle are the years that make us. However, the movie never turns into a lecture. Instead, it hides its ideas inside gas station stops and highway breakdowns. The crew debates whether the philosophy holds up or simply decorates the road trip. Specifically, they ask what Nietzsche would think of a nine-step program for winning.The Directors: Jonathan Dayton and Valerie FarisHusband-and-wife team Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris spent decades directing music videos before this debut feature. Their work with bands like The Smashing Pumpkins and R.E.M. sharpened an eye for visual storytelling on tight budgets. As a result, Little Miss Sunshine looks sun-bleached, precise, and effortlessly funny. The panel examines how the duo directs comedy through reaction shots rather than punchlines. The famous bus-pushing sequence becomes a masterclass in physical comedy and ensemble blocking. Additionally, the group traces the pair's later career through Ruby Sparks and Battle of the Sexes. Why did two music video veterans wait so long for a second film? The panel has theories, and some of them are even kind.TriviaNo Movie of the Year episode is complete without Trivia. The Taste Buds and Don test each other on all things Little Miss Sunshine. Production history, casting near-misses, pageant facts, and VW bus mechanics are all fair game. The film's six-year development saga and its record-setting Sundance sale provide plenty of ammunition. Who takes the crown this week? Listen and find out.Rushmore: FashionThis week's Rushmore segment tackles fashion. Each panelist carves their personal Mount Rushmore of movie fashion into the mountainside. Little Miss Sunshine gives the category a strong starting point. Olive's oversized glasses and red cowboy boots, Dwayne's brutal statement tees, and Richard's aggressively beige wardrobe all deserve consideration. Nevertheless, the panel ranges across all of film history for their picks. Expect passionate defenses, questionable taste, and at least one choice that starts an argument.Why Little Miss Sunshine Still MattersTwenty years later, Little Miss Sunshine remains the gold standard for the crowd-pleasing indie. It proved a tiny comedy could outgross blockbusters and crash the Best Picture race. Furthermore, its skepticism about hustle culture and toxic winning has only grown more relevant. Richard's nine steps sound like half the internet in 2026. The film also launched Abigail Breslin, revived Alan Arkin, and showed the world Steve Carell could break hearts. Above all, it argues that losing together beats winning alone. That message keeps the Little Miss Sunshine podcast conversation alive two decades after the bus first rolled. For more from the season, check out the Movie of the Year 2006 intro episode and the 2006 Mixtape.Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Movie of the Year 2006: Intro Part 1Movies of 2006: Bracket Reveal and Sweet 16Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story2006 Mixtape Part IAll Movie of the Year EpisodesFAQ: Little Miss Sunshine Podcast and FilmWhat is the Little Miss Sunshine podcast episode about?The Taste Buds and guest critic Don Shanahan judge Little Miss Sunshine in the Movie of the Year 2006 bracket. Topics include the Hoover family, the ending, the film's philosophy, and directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris.What is Little Miss Sunshine about?A dysfunctional family drives a broken-down VW bus from New Mexico to California so young Olive can compete in a beauty pageant. Along the way, every member confronts their own definition of failure.Who directed Little Miss Sunshine?Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris directed the film. The married duo made their feature debut after a celebrated career in music videos.Who wrote Little Miss...

Movie of the Year: 2006The Devil Wears Prada (feat. Katie Walsh!)The Devil Wears Prada Podcast Episode: Fashion, Power, and the Best of 2006Welcome to The Devil Wears Prada podcast episode from Movie of the Year: 2006. This week, the Taste Buds enter the gleaming offices of Runway magazine. Furthermore, they bring backup. Film critic Katie Walsh joins Mike, Greg, and Ryan to decide whether David Frankel's fashion-world comedy can survive the 2006 bracket. Along the way, the panel debates feminism in the workplace, the myth of the suffering artist, and the eternal question of Andy's terrible friends. Additionally, the episode features a full Anne Hathaway Career Retrospective bracket. Consequently, this one runs deep on both style and substance.About the FilmThe Devil Wears Prada arrived in the summer of 2006 and promptly stole it. Director David Frankel adapted Lauren Weisberger's bestselling novel about a young journalist grinding through an impossible job. Anne Hathaway stars as Andy Sachs, an aspiring writer who lands a position at Runway magazine. Her boss is Miranda Priestly, the most feared editor in fashion, played by Meryl Streep in an Oscar-nominated performance. Moreover, Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci deliver career-launching supporting turns. The film earned over $300 million worldwide and near-universal acclaim. Notably, Roger Ebert praised Streep's icy, understated Miranda as the engine of the whole picture. For more background, the Wikipedia entry on The Devil Wears Prada covers its production and legacy in detail. The film now faces its toughest challenge yet: the Movie of the Year 2006 bracket.Guest Panelist: Katie WalshThe Devil Wears Prada 2006 podcast episode welcomes a genuine authority to the panel. Katie Walsh is a Los Angeles-based film critic who reviews weekly releases for the Tribune News Service and the Los Angeles Times. Additionally, she serves as Vice President of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. Her writing has appeared in GQ, Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, Vulture, Slate, and The Playlist. She co-hosted the podcast Miami Nice and has guest-hosted Switchblade Sisters. Furthermore, she frequently appears on KCRW's Press Play and has taught film criticism at Chapman University's Dodge College of Film and Media Arts. In practice, that means the Taste Buds must actually defend their takes this week. Someone in the room knows what she is talking about.Feminism and the WorkplaceIs Miranda Priestly a feminist icon or a cautionary tale? The panel digs into how the film frames women, power, and ambition. Miranda runs an empire, yet the film punishes her with a collapsing marriage. Meanwhile, Andy gets scolded by nearly everyone for taking her job seriously. The episode asks whether the movie critiques workplace sexism or accidentally reproduces it. Notably, Katie Walsh brings a critic's perspective to how 2006 audiences read Miranda versus how we read her now. Two decades of think pieces have flipped the film's villain into its hero. Ultimately, the panel debates whether that reversal says more about the movie or about us.Can Art Only Come from Suffering?Andy suffers for a job she claims to hate, all in service of her writing dreams. Consequently, the Taste Buds tackle a bigger question: does great art require misery? The film suggests that paying dues at Runway makes Andy a better journalist. However, it also shows the cost. She loses friends, a boyfriend, and nearly herself. The panel weighs the romantic myth of the starving artist against the reality of creative work. By contrast, some of the best art comes from stability, support, and cerulean-blue sweaters chosen by someone else. Above all, this segment asks what we actually owe our ambitions.Andy's Friends: The Worst People in FashionEvery rewatch of The Devil Wears Prada produces the same realization: Andy's friends are monsters. They mock her job, demand free designer swag, and play keep-away with her work phone. Meanwhile, her boyfriend Nate pouts because she missed his birthday party for her career. Therefore, the panel litigates the great question of the film's second act. Are these people grounding Andy in reality, or are they sabotaging her? Specifically, the group ranks the friends from least to most insufferable. Nevertheless, at least one Taste Bud attempts a defense of Nate. It does not go well.Anne Hathaway Career Retrospective: The BracketSpecial segment time. The Devil Wears Prada podcast crew builds a full bracket to determine Anne Hathaway's most iconic role. The field spans her entire career. The Princess Diaries, Brokeback Mountain, Rachel Getting Married, Les Misérables, The Dark Knight Rises, and Interstellar all enter the arena. Additionally, deep cuts and dark horses make surprise appearances. Seeding arguments get heated. Upsets happen. As a result, friendships within the panel are tested. Does Andy Sachs herself take the crown, or does an Oscar-winning turn steal it? You will have to listen to find out. Check Anne Hathaway's full filmography on IMDb and play along at home.Why The Devil Wears Prada Still MattersTwenty years later, The Devil Wears Prada refuses to fade. The film remains a Rosetta Stone for conversations about work, ambition, and the price of excellence. Miranda's cerulean monologue is still the definitive speech about how culture actually functions. Moreover, the movie launched Emily Blunt, redefined Anne Hathaway, and gave Meryl Streep one of her signature roles. A 2026 sequel proved the appetite never left. In addition, the film's questions have only grown sharper in the era of hustle culture and quiet quitting. Is Miranda a monster or simply held to a different standard? Ultimately, that debate keeps the film alive, and it makes for a fierce competitor in the Movie of the Year 2006 tournament.Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Catch up on the season so far, from the 2006 season introduction to the music that defined the year:Movie of the Year 2006: Intro Part 1The 2006 Bracket Reveal: Meet the Sweet 16Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull StoryThe 2006 Mixtape, Part IAll Movie of the Year episodesFAQ: The Devil Wears Prada Podcast and FilmWhat is this episode of The Devil Wears Prada podcast about?The Taste Buds and critic Katie Walsh debate whether The Devil Wears Prada deserves to advance in the Movie of the Year 2006 bracket. Topics include workplace feminism, art and suffering, Andy's awful friends, and a full Anne Hathaway career bracket.What is The Devil Wears Prada about?Aspiring journalist Andy Sachs takes a job assisting Miranda Priestly, the tyrannical editor of Runway magazine. Consequently, Andy must decide how much of herself she will trade for success.Who directed The Devil Wears Prada?David Frankel directed the film. He later directed Marley & Me and worked extensively on Sex and the City. Aline Brosh McKenna wrote the screenplay from Lauren Weisberger's novel.Who stars in The Devil Wears Prada?Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt, and Stanley Tucci lead the cast. Streep earned an Academy Award nomination for playing Miranda Priestly.More Questions About The Devil Wears PradaIs Miranda Priestly based on Anna Wintour?Widely, yes. Author Lauren Weisberger worked as an assistant to Vogue editor Anna Wintour, and Miranda is broadly understood as her fictional counterpart. However, Streep has said she modeled the performance on powerful men she knew rather than on Wintour.Who is the guest on this episode?Film critic Katie Walsh joins the panel. She reviews films for the Tribune News Service and the Los Angeles Times and serves as Vice President of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association.What is the Anne Hathaway Career Retrospective?It is a bracket-style special segment. The panel seeds Anne Hathaway's most famous roles against each other and votes round by round until one iconic performance remains.Why does The Devil Wears Prada still matter?The film remains the defining movie about ambition, mentorship, and toxic workplaces. Moreover, its cultural conversation keeps evolving, as the 2026 sequel proved.

Nutrition Nugget! Bite-sized bonus episodes offer tips, tricks and approachable science. This week, Jenn is talking about Clear Protein Soda. Are you looking for a bubbly, refreshing way to hit your daily protein targets, or is the wellness industry just trying to pack protein into things that do not need it? When a friend asked Jenn about the latest trend of clear protein sparkling waters, she had to dive deep into the nutrition label to see if these drinks are truly “clearly” superior or just another clever marketing gimmick. On the one hand, you get 20 grams of high-quality whey isolate with zero sugar, making it an easy option for a quick snack. On the other hand, could the intense alternative sweeteners be sabotaging your taste buds and keeping you hooked on sweet flavors? Is this carbonated shortcut a brilliant addition to your health routine, or are you better off chewing your protein and sticking to plain club soda? Like what you're hearing? Be sure to check out the full-length episodes of new releases every Wednesday. Have an idea for a nutrition nugget? Submit it here: https://asaladwithasideoffries.com/index.php/contact/RESOURCES:Become a Happy Healthy Hub MemberJenn's Free Menu PlanA Salad With a Side of FriesA Salad With A Side Of Fries MerchA Salad With a Side of Fries InstagramKEYWORDS: Jenn Trepeck, Nutrition Nugget, Salad With A Side Of Fries, Health Tips, Wellness Tips, Protein Water, Clear Protein Soda, Clean Simple Eats, Protein Seltzer, Whey Protein Isolate, Grass Fed Whey, Sparkling Water, Nutrition Nugget, Weight Loss, Wellness Podcast, Jenn Trepeck, Healthy Beverages, Protein Supplements, Postpartum Depression, Ingredient Standards, Third Party Tested, Zero Sugar, Low Lactose, Stevia Leaf Extract, Cherry Lime Flavor, Nutrition Facts, Advanced Recovery, Filtered Water, Malic Acid, Citric Acid, Tartaric Acid, Reb M, Sweetener Alternatives, Protein Snack, Liquid Consistency, Food Cravings, Healthy Eating, Diet Myths, Sugar Free Soda, Functional Drinks, Protein Intake, Taste Buds, Sweet Flavor Addiction, Dietary Choices, Health Reset, Protein Source, Is Clear Protein Soda Healthy, Clean Simple Eats Protein Soda Review

Movie of the Year: 2006The Puffy ChairThe Puffy Chair Podcast Hits the RoadThe Puffy Chair podcast episode sends the Taste Buds on a road trip through the Duplass brothers' scrappy 2006 breakout. Ryan, Mike, and Greg buckle up to decide whether this mumblecore landmark deserves a deep run in the Movie of the Year 2006 bracket. Moreover, they bring serious backup this week. Critic and author Keith Phipps joins the panel to help unpack a movie made for the price of a used car. Together, the group digs into fragile relationships, DIY filmmaking, and one very symbolic recliner. Can a $15,000 indie outmuscle the blockbusters of 2006? Press play and ride along.About the FilmThe Puffy Chair follows Josh, a struggling New York booking agent played by Mark Duplass. Josh wins an eBay auction for a burgundy recliner that matches the one his dad owned years ago. Consequently, he plans a road trip to deliver the chair as a birthday gift. His girlfriend Emily, played by Katie Aselton, comes along for the ride. His free-spirited brother Rhett, played by Rhett Wilkins, joins them on the way. Naturally, the trip tests every relationship in the van.Jay Duplass directed the film, which he created with his brother Mark. The brothers shot it for roughly $15,000 borrowed from their parents, and the cast earned $100 a day. The movie premiered at Sundance in January 2005 and later won the Audience Award at South by Southwest. Roadside Attractions and Netflix released it theatrically on June 2, 2006. As a result, it qualifies for our 2006 bracket, and it arrives with real critical pedigree. Check the full credits at IMDb and the reviews roundup at Metacritic. New to the season? Start with our Movie of the Year 2006 introduction.Guest Panelist: Keith PhippsKeith Phipps brings nearly three decades of film criticism to the panel this week. He joined The A.V. Club in 1997 and became its editor in 2004, helping build it into a cultural institution. Later, he co-founded the beloved film site The Dissolve and served as editorial director for film and TV at Uproxx. His byline has appeared in Rolling Stone, Slate, GQ, Vulture, and The New York Times, among many others. Currently, he writes The Reveal, a film newsletter he created with longtime collaborator Scott Tobias. He also co-hosts The Next Picture Show, a biweekly podcast in the Filmspotting family that pairs classic films with modern successors. Additionally, Phipps wrote the acclaimed book Age of Cage: Four Decades of Hollywood Through One Singular Career, an NPR Books We Love selection. Few guests know indie film history better, so the Taste Buds put him straight to work.Josh and Emily (and Rhett)Every road movie needs passengers, and this one packs the van with tension. The panel starts with Josh and Emily, a couple fluent in baby talk but allergic to honest conversation. Their relationship anchors the film, and the podcast crew debates whether Josh ranks among 2006's most frustrating boyfriends. Emily wants commitment and emotional validation. Josh wants to deliver a chair and dodge every hard question along the way. Meanwhile, Rhett climbs aboard and scrambles the whole dynamic. His impulsive romanticism works as comic relief, yet it also lights the fuse under Josh and Emily's slow-motion breakup. Keith Phipps helps the Taste Buds weigh how the improvised performances make these fights feel painfully real. Ultimately, the group asks a simple question. Do we root for this couple, or do we root for the exits?Filmmaking Style on The Puffy Chair 2006 PodcastStyle takes center stage in the second discussion topic. The Duplass brothers shot with handheld cameras, natural light, and a whole lot of improvisation. Critics soon filed the film under mumblecore, a label built on low budgets, naturalistic dialogue, and twentysomething malaise. However, the panel debates whether that label helps or flattens the movie. The Puffy Chair podcast crew also examines the famous snap zooms, the cramped framing, and the brothers' choice to cast their actual parents. Furthermore, Phipps places the film within the mid-2000s indie boom that he covered firsthand as a critic. The $15,000 budget becomes a character in itself. Does the rough look create intimacy, or does it simply look cheap? Notably, the panel connects this DIY approach to the music of the era covered in our 2006 Mixtape Part I.The ChairWhat about the recliner itself? The chair works as the film's MacGuffin, its symbol, and arguably its best supporting player. Josh buys it because it resembles the chair from his childhood living room. Therefore, the purchase says less about his dad and more about Josh's own nostalgia. The panel unpacks what the chair represents: arrested development, misplaced sentimentality, and the gap between a grand gesture and genuine care. Along the journey, the chair suffers indignities that mirror the crumbling relationships around it. By contrast, the film's quietest moments reveal what an honest gift might have looked like. The Taste Buds and Keith Phipps debate whether the chair earns its title billing. No spoilers here, though. The chair's final fate stays a surprise for listeners.Genre BlastThe episode also features a Genre Blast segment, a PopFilter favorite. The Taste Buds zoom out from the film and blast through its genre lineage. Is The Puffy Chair a road movie, a romantic comedy, a breakup drama, or the founding text of mumblecore? Each label carries its own history, and the panel traces them all. Specifically, the crew connects the film to decades of American road pictures and indie relationship stories. Keith Phipps adds critical context from his years covering the movement's rise and fall. Listen to the full episode to hear where the genre conversation lands.Why The Puffy Chair Still MattersTwenty years later, this tiny film casts a surprisingly long shadow. The Duplass brothers parlayed it into a remarkable career spanning Cyrus, Safety Not Guaranteed, Togetherness, and Room 104. Mark Duplass and Katie Aselton became one of indie film's great creative couples. Meanwhile, the movie's distribution deal made history of its own. Netflix co-released it theatrically in 2006, an early experiment that hinted at the streaming future to come. The mumblecore movement it helped launch reshaped American independent film and influenced a generation of DIY creators. Above all, The Puffy Chair podcast conversation proves the film still sparks real debate. Its questions about commitment, communication, and growing up have not aged a day. The AFI Catalog preserves the film's place in the historical record. Our bracket will decide its place in 2006.Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Movie of the Year: 2006 Intro Part 1Movies of 2006 Bracket Reveal and Sweet 16Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story2006 Mixtape Part IAll Movie of the Year EpisodesFAQ: The Puffy Chair Podcast and FilmWhat is The Puffy Chair podcast episode about?The Puffy Chair podcast episode features the Taste Buds and guest Keith Phipps evaluating the Duplass brothers' 2006 film for the Movie of the Year bracket. Topics include the Josh and Emily relationship, the film's mumblecore style, the symbolism of the chair, and a Genre Blast segment.What is The Puffy Chair about?The film follows Josh, who wins an eBay auction for a recliner matching his dad's old chair. He road-trips to deliver it as a birthday gift, joined by his girlfriend Emily and his brother Rhett. Consequently, the journey exposes every crack in their relationships.Who directed The Puffy Chair?Jay Duplass directed the film, which he made with his brother Mark Duplass, who wrote, produced, and starred. Many sources credit the brothers as a filmmaking team, and the movie launched their careers.Who stars in The Puffy Chair?Mark Duplass stars as Josh, Katie Aselton plays Emily, and Rhett Wilkins plays Rhett. Notably, the Duplass brothers' real parents appear as Josh's parents.Is The Puffy Chair a mumblecore movie?Yes, critics widely consider it a founding film of the mumblecore movement. Its low budget, improvised dialogue, and naturalistic performances defined the style. However, the Duplass brothers have expressed mixed feelings about the label, a tension the episode explores.How much did The Puffy Chair cost to make?The

Movie of the Year: 2006Mixtape, Part IIThe 2006 Mixtape Part 2 Podcast Finishes the PlaylistThe 2006 Mixtape Part 2 podcast picks up exactly where Part I left off. The full five person panel returns to finish what they started: a definitive, collectively built playlist of the best songs of 2006. Ryan, Mike, and Greg, the Taste Buds behind Movie of the Year, are once again joined by guests Nate Ragolia and Taylor Wilhite. Consequently, the debates get sharper as the remaining playlist slots get scarcer.Part I established the ground rules and the early picks. Now, in Part 2, the panel faces the harder half of the job. The obvious anthems are gone. Therefore, every remaining selection demands a real argument, a defense of taste, and a willingness to absorb four rounds of pushback.How the 2006 Mixtape Podcast Format WorksThe Mixtape episodes mark a deliberate departure from the standard Movie of the Year format. Normally, the show runs films through a bracket, as it did in the 2006 bracket reveal. The Mixtape works differently. Each panelist adds one song per round to a shared playlist. There are no eliminations and no head to head matchups. Instead, the tension comes from scarcity and pride.Every pick claims a slot that another panelist wanted. Moreover, every pick invites immediate judgment from the rest of the table. The format rewards conviction above all. A safe choice earns shrugs. A bold choice, defended well, earns respect. In practice, the round-robin structure turns a simple playlist into a portrait of five distinct musical sensibilities colliding in real time.Guest Panelists: Nate Ragolia and Taylor WilhiteNate Ragolia returns for the second half of the Mixtape. Nate co-hosts Debut Buddies, a podcast dedicated to firsts of all kinds, and he has authored three published books. His background as a writer and critic gives his picks analytical weight. Additionally, he arrives with the confidence of someone who has already survived one full round of Taste Bud scrutiny in Part I.Taylor Wilhite also returns to complete the panel. Taylor is a former PopFilter mainstay whose appearances are now rare, which gives the Mixtape episodes a sense of occasion. Longtime listeners know his taste and his willingness to fight for it. Together, the two guests expand the show's usual trio into a five voice ensemble. As a result, the playlist reflects a far wider slice of 2006 than any single host could deliver.The Music of 2006, RevisitedThe year 2006 offered an unusually rich field for a project like this. Pop radio belonged to Justin Timberlake, Beyonce, and Rihanna. Meanwhile, Gnarls Barkley's Crazy became an inescapable cultural event. Emo and pop-punk hit a commercial peak, hip-hop delivered landmark records, and indie rock crossed over to mainstream ears. The full sweep of the year is documented at Wikipedia's 2006 in music page, and it is staggering in retrospect.Movie of the Year usually spends its energy on cinema, the kind of work chronicled at RogerEbert.com. However, the Mixtape episodes prove the same critical instincts apply to music. The panel treats each song the way the show treats films like Brick or Tristram Shandy: with curiosity, skepticism, and a genuine desire to figure out what holds up twenty years later.Completing the PlaylistPart 2 covers the closing rounds of the mixtape. The panel works through the final picks, and the stakes rise with every turn. Notably, the late rounds force each panelist to confront what the playlist still lacks. Does it need another ballad? Another guitar record? Another undeniable radio smash? Each answer reshapes the final product.The completed tracklist stays a surprise until you press play. No spoilers here. Nevertheless, expect passionate defenses, at least one pick that baffles the room, and the special satisfaction of hearing a playlist snap into its final form. By the end, the panel delivers a mixtape that could only exist through this exact collision of five sensibilities.Why the 2006 Mixtape Part 2 Podcast Still MattersThe 2006 Mixtape Part 2 podcast completes the season's most distinctive experiment. The Movie of the Year season began with the 2006 intro episode and a field of 128 films. The Mixtape widens that lens. It argues that a year of culture includes its soundtrack, and that the songs of 2006 shaped memory just as powerfully as its movies did.Above all, the episode captures why list making endures as a critical exercise. A playlist forces choices, and choices reveal values. Ultimately, the 2006 Mixtape Part 2 podcast delivers both a finished tracklist and a spirited argument about what deserves to last. Subscribe, listen to both parts, and then build your own version. Yours will differ, and that is exactly the point.Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 20062006 Mixtape, Part IMovie of the Year: 2006 Intro, Part 1Movies of 2006: Bracket Reveal and Sweet 16Tristram Shandy: Movie of the Year 2006Brick: Movie of the Year 2006Browse All Movie of the Year EpisodesFAQ: 2006 Mixtape Part 2 PodcastAbout the EpisodeWhat is the 2006 Mixtape Part 2 podcast about?The 2006 Mixtape Part 2 podcast is the concluding half of a special Movie of the Year episode. The five person panel of Ryan, Mike, Greg, Nate Ragolia, and Taylor Wilhite finishes building a collective playlist of the best songs of 2006, one pick at a time.Do I need to listen to Part I first?Listening to Part I first is recommended. Part I establishes the format, introduces the panel, and covers the opening rounds. Part 2 continues directly from that point and completes the tracklist.Who are the guests on the 2006 Mixtape Part 2 podcast?Nate Ragolia and Taylor Wilhite return for Part 2. Nate Ragolia co-hosts the Debut Buddies podcast and has authored three published books. Taylor Wilhite is a former PopFilter regular who now makes occasional guest appearances.About the Mixtape and the MusicHow does the Mixtape format work on Movie of the Year?Each panelist takes turns adding one song per round to a shared 2006 playlist. There is no bracket and no eliminations. Every pick must survive the scrutiny of four other panelists with strong opinions about the music of 2006.What songs are on the 2006 mixtape?The full tracklist stays a surprise until you hear the episodes. The picks span pop, hip-hop, indie rock, R&B, and the emo and pop-punk wave that defined 2006 radio. Listen to both parts to hear every selection and the arguments behind them.Who are the Taste Buds?The Taste Buds are Ryan, Mike, and Greg, the three core hosts of Movie of the Year on the PopFilter network. Each season they run a bracket style competition to crown the best film of a single year. The current season covers 2006.What were the biggest songs of 2006?2006 produced era defining hits like Gnarls Barkley's Crazy, Justin Timberlake's SexyBack, and Beyonce's Irreplaceable. The year also marked a commercial peak for emo and pop-punk. The Mixtape episodes dig into which songs actually deserve playlist immortality.Where can I listen to the 2006 Mixtape Part 2 podcast?You can stream the episode right on this page using the player above. Movie of the Year is also available on all major podcast platforms through the PopFilter network.

Himalayan salt or table salt? The real issue isn't the shaker—it's processed food overload. Learn how to use spices to boost flavor and health. #SaltFacts #FlavorWithSpices #ProcessedFood

Hilchot Basar Bechalav Part 9: Can I rely on my taste buds, to know if I'm fleishigs?

Movie of the Year: 2006Slither The Slither Podcast Brings Body Horror to the 2006 BracketThe Slither podcast episode unleashes the first true horror movie on our Movie of the Year 2006 bracket. After opening the season with Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story, the Taste Buds trade metafiction for meteorites. Consequently, things get slimy fast. Ryan, Mike, and Greg welcome producer and festival programmer Drea Clark to dig into James Gunn's gleefully gross directorial debut. Together, the panel asks whether a movie full of alien slugs deserves a deep run in the bracket. Above all, they ask whether Slither has more on its mind than exploding deer and tentacled husbands.About the FilmSlither is a 2006 science fiction horror comedy written and directed by James Gunn. A meteorite crashes outside the small town of Wheelsy, South Carolina, carrying an alien parasite. The parasite infects wealthy local Grant Grant, played with squirming brilliance by Michael Rooker. Soon, Grant transforms into a tentacled monster, and slug-like creatures spread through the town. Meanwhile, police chief Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillion) and Grant's wife Starla (Elizabeth Banks) try to stop the invasion.Universal released the film on March 31, 2006. Notably, it flopped at the box office, grossing under $13 million against a $15 million budget. However, critics largely embraced it. Roger Ebert praised its Troma-loving spirit in his RogerEbert.com review, and the film became a cult favorite on home video. In addition, it launched the directing career that eventually gave us Guardians of the Galaxy and the new DC Universe.Guest Panelist: Drea ClarkThis week the Taste Buds welcome Drea Clark, a true film industry polymath. Drea co-hosts Maximum Film! on the Maximum Fun network, the long-running movie podcast she shares with film critic Alonso Duralde. Furthermore, her credentials behind the scenes run deep. She has served on the Sundance Film Festival programming team, led narrative feature programming at Slamdance for over a decade, spent ten years with the LA Film Festival, and curated Geena Davis's Bentonville Film Festival. As a producer, her features include The Last Time You Had Fun, Lake Los Angeles, and No Light and No Land Anywhere, the latter executive produced by Miranda July. In short, few guests are better equipped to judge a scrappy genre debut from a first time director.James Gunn as a First-Time FilmmakerBefore Slither, James Gunn was a writer with a strange resume. He cut his teeth at Troma on Tromeo and Juliet, then wrote the live action Scooby-Doo movies and the 2004 Dawn of the Dead remake. Consequently, Slither arrived as his first chance to direct his own material. The panel debates what the film reveals about Gunn as a filmmaker. Specifically, they trace the DNA that later shows up in Guardians of the Galaxy, The Suicide Squad, and Superman. The needle drops, the found family of misfits, and the sincere heart under the gross-out gags all start here. Moreover, Drea brings a programmer's eye to the question of how debut features signal a career to come.Sex and Violence on the Slither 2006 PodcastSlither earns its R rating with enthusiasm. The Taste Buds tackle how the film weaponizes both sex and violence, often in the same scene. Grant's infection plays like a grotesque infidelity story, and the alien's reproductive plans push body horror into genuinely uncomfortable territory. However, the violence stays cartoonish enough to keep the comedy alive. The panel asks where Gunn draws that line, and whether the bathtub scene, the barn scene, and that infamous bursting body still shock today. Ultimately, the conversation lands on a bigger question. Does the film use its excess for a purpose, or is the excess the point?Is Slither an Allegory?Every great monster movie smuggles in a meaning, or so the theory goes. Therefore, the panel puts Slither on the couch. Is the film an allegory for toxic marriage, with Grant's transformation literalizing a controlling husband? Is it about small town conformity, as a hive mind absorbs an entire community? By contrast, maybe Gunn simply loves slugs and explosions, and the search for subtext misses the joke. Drea, Ryan, Mike, and Greg each stake out a position. Nevertheless, the debate keeps circling back to Starla, whose arc gives the film its surprising emotional weight.TriviaNo Movie of the Year episode is complete without Trivia. This week's round digs into Slither's production and its B-movie family tree. Expect questions about the practical effects, the casting, and the film's connections to Troma legend Lloyd Kaufman, who cameos in the movie. Additionally, the segment tests whether the panel can untangle Slither from the movies it lovingly rips off, including Night of the Creeps and Shivers. Play along and see if you can outscore the Taste Buds.Dream Blunt RotationNew season, new games. In Dream Blunt Rotation, the panel assembles the ultimate smoke circle from the world of Slither. Which characters make the cut, and which get left outside the garage? Mayor Jack MacReady seems like a chaotic invite, while Bill Pardy might be the chillest hang in Wheelsy. Meanwhile, the conversation drifts toward the cast and crew themselves. Listen to find out who earns a spot in the rotation and whose vibes get vetoed.Awards and RecommendationsThe episode closes with Awards and Recommendations, the segment where the Taste Buds hand out honors to the film's cast, crew, and creatures. Nominees this week range from Michael Rooker's fearless physical performance to the effects team behind the slugs. As a result, expect passionate cases and at least one baffling pick. The winners stay a surprise, so you will have to listen for the results. Afterward, the panel shares recommendations for what to watch next if Slither leaves you hungry for more horror comedy.Why Slither Still MattersTwenty years later, Slither looks like a turning point hiding in plain sight. It kept practical creature effects alive at a moment when Hollywood was abandoning them. Furthermore, it proved that horror comedy could carry real emotion, a balance Gunn has chased ever since. The film's box office failure also tells a story about 2006 itself, a year when audiences ignored a future superstar director. In practice, the Slither podcast episode asks the question this whole season exists to answer. Does cult status and influence make a movie a contender for the best film of 2006? Listen and judge for yourself.Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Movie of the Year: 2006 — Intro, Part 1Movies of 2006: The Bracket RevealTristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull StoryAll Movie of the Year episodesFAQ: Slither Podcast and FilmWhat is this episode of the Slither podcast about?Ryan, Mike, and Greg debate whether James Gunn's Slither deserves to advance in the Movie of the Year 2006 bracket. Guest panelist Drea Clark joins to discuss Gunn's debut, the film's sex and violence, and its possible allegories.What is Slither (2006) about?An alien parasite crash-lands near the small town of Wheelsy, South Carolina, and infects a wealthy local named Grant Grant. He mutates into a tentacled monster while slug-like creatures take over the town. A police chief and Grant's wife fight to stop the invasion.Who directed Slither?James Gunn wrote and directed Slither as his feature directorial debut. He later directed the Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy and now co-runs DC Studios.Who stars in Slither?The cast includes Nathan Fillion, Elizabeth Banks, Michael Rooker, Gregg Henry, and Tania Saulnier, with a small role for Jenna Fischer. Full credits are on IMDb.More Questions from the Slither 2006 PodcastWas Slither a box office success?No. The film grossed under $13 million against a $15 million budget. However, strong reviews and home video sales turned it into a cult classic.Is Slither a remake?No, but it wears its influences proudly. Gunn openly drew on Night of the Creeps, Shivers, The Blob, and the Troma catalog, where he started his career.Who is the guest on this episode?Drea Clark, producer, festival programmer, and co-host of the Maximum Film! podcast on Maximum Fun.Why does Slither still matter?It launched James Gunn's directing career, championed practical effects, and perfected the horror comedy tone that countless films have imitated since. The Slither podcast episode makes the full case.

Movie of the Year: 2006Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull StoryThe Tristram Shandy Podcast Opens the 2006 BracketThe Tristram Shandy podcast episode kicks off our brand new 2006 bracket on Movie of the Year. After crowning our way through 1971, the Taste Buds turn to a fresh film year. Moreover, we start with one of the strangest comedies of the decade. Michael Winterbottom's Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story is a film about making a film of an unfilmable book. Consequently, it makes a perfect launch title for a show that loves movies about movies. In this episode, Ryan, Mike, and Greg dig into metafiction, gender, and the prickly chemistry between Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon. Additionally, two new segments make their debut. Above all, we want to set the tone for a wild 2006 season.About the FilmLaurence Sterne published The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman in nine volumes between 1759 and 1767. The novel is famous for being playful, digressive, and nearly impossible to adapt. Notably, the narrator barely manages to get himself born across hundreds of pages. Winterbottom and his team turned that problem into the whole joke. As a result, the movie follows a fictional crew trying to film the book. Steve Coogan plays a vain version of himself, plus Tristram and his father, Walter. Meanwhile, Rob Brydon plays a needling version of himself and Uncle Toby. The screenplay carries the pseudonym "Martin Hardy," although Frank Cottrell-Boyce actually wrote it. Furthermore, the cast includes Keeley Hawes, Shirley Henderson, Dylan Moran, Naomie Harris, Kelly Macdonald, and Jeremy Northam. Gillian Anderson and Stephen Fry also appear as heightened versions of themselves. You can read more at Wikipedia or the original Roger Ebert review.This is the first film episode of our 2006 season. To explore the wider bracket project, visit the Movie of the Year archive. If you enjoy this Tristram Shandy podcast deep dive, our A Clockwork Orange episode from the 1971 run pairs nicely with this conversation about cinematic form.Want to hear how the season began? Start with our 2006 season intro, then dig into the 2006 bracket reveal before this episode.Metafiction and the Unfilmable NovelMetafiction sits at the center of our first discussion. Sterne wrote a novel that constantly reminds you it is a novel. Similarly, Winterbottom built a movie that keeps reminding you it is a movie. The crew breaks the fourth wall, argues about the script, and screens its own dailies. Therefore, the film becomes a hall of mirrors about storytelling itself. The Taste Buds ask a simple question. How do you adapt a book that mocks the idea of adaptation? Furthermore, we trace the lineage from Sterne to modern self-aware comedies. Films like Adaptation and Day for Night come up as obvious cousins. Ultimately, we argue that Winterbottom found the only honest solution. He filmed the failure instead of the book. Consequently, the movie respects Sterne by refusing to tame him.The Battle of the Sexes on ScreenNext, we turn to gender and how the film portrays men and women. The male characters chase status, sex, and screen time with comic desperation. Coogan, in particular, frets about his shoe lifts and his billing. Meanwhile, the women in the film often hold the real power. Kelly Macdonald plays Jenny, who grounds Coogan with calm clarity. Naomie Harris plays Jennie, a production assistant who runs circles around the panicking men. Gillian Anderson arrives late and instantly reshapes the production. By contrast, the men flail and posture. So the Taste Buds debate a thorny point. Does the movie satirize male ego, or does it quietly indulge it? Additionally, we weigh how the battle of the sexes plays inside an 18th-century story. The novel and the film both poke fun at male pride. As a result, the gender comedy spans two very different centuries.Coogan and Brydon Anchor the Tristram Shandy PodcastAbove all, the Coogan and Brydon double act drives this Tristram Shandy podcast conversation. The two comedians play exaggerated, petty versions of themselves. Their rivalry over billing, teeth, and impressions fuels the funniest scenes. Notably, this dynamic later powered the beloved series The Trip. The Taste Buds dig into why their friction feels so real. Brydon needles, Coogan bristles, and the comedy snaps into focus. Furthermore, we discuss how improvisation shapes their banter. The closing Al Pacino impression duel becomes a highlight. Meanwhile, we ask whether the pair actually like each other on screen. The answer stays gloriously unclear. Consequently, their chemistry gives a chilly intellectual film a warm, human pulse.Rushmore: The Mount Rushmore of 2006 TelevisionOur Rushmore segment asks each host to carve a Mount Rushmore of 2006 television. The year was loaded with future classics. For instance, The Wire aired its acclaimed fourth season. Meanwhile, The Office, 30 Rock, and Friday Night Lights were all finding their feet. Additionally, prestige newcomers like Dexter and Heroes premiered to big buzz. The hosts each pick four shows and defend their choices. Naturally, the debate gets heated fast. Listen to the episode to hear which four faces each Taste Bud sets in stone.I Never Metacritic I Didn't LikeThis episode debuts a brand new game called "I Never Metacritic I Didn't Like." The premise is simple and a little dangerous. We pull up a film's Metacritic profile and put the critical consensus on trial. Specifically, we test whether the aggregate score matches our own gut reactions. Tristram Shandy earned strong reviews from critics on release. However, strong scores do not always survive a Taste Buds cross-examination. Therefore, the game lets us argue with the wider critical record in real time. Expect this segment to return throughout the 2006 season. Above all, it gives us a structured excuse to fight about numbers.Why Tristram Shandy Still MattersTristram Shandy still matters because it cracked a problem that had defeated everyone before it. Winterbottom proved you can film an unfilmable book by filming the attempt. Moreover, the movie launched a now-legendary comic partnership. The Coogan and Brydon collaboration grew into The Trip and its many sequels. Additionally, the film remains a sharp, funny lesson in adaptation. Film students and Sterne scholars both still cite it today. Ultimately, the Tristram Shandy 2006 podcast discussion shows why this small comedy punches far above its weight. Notably, it kicks our 2006 bracket off with brains and mischief.Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006The 2006 season is just getting started, so this list will grow each week. For now, revisit the episodes that set up the bracket, plus a favorite from our 1971 run.Movie of the Year 2006: Season IntroThe 2006 Bracket RevealMovie of the Year archiveThe Last Picture Show (1971)FAQ: Tristram Shandy Podcast and FilmWhat is this Tristram Shandy podcast episode about?In this episode, Ryan, Mike, and Greg launch the 2006 bracket by breaking down Michael Winterbottom's comedy. They cover metafiction, gender, the Coogan and Brydon dynamic, and two new segments.What is the movie Tristram Shandy about?The film follows a crew trying to adapt an unfilmable 18th-century novel. As they struggle, the actors' egos and offscreen lives take over the production.Who directed Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story?Michael Winterbottom directed the film. Frank Cottrell-Boyce wrote the screenplay under the pseudonym "Martin Hardy."Is Tristram Shandy based on a book?Yes. Laurence Sterne wrote The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman across nine volumes between 1759 and 1767. You can read more on Wikipedia.Do Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon play themselves?Yes, mostly. Both actors play exaggerated, fictional versions of themselves, and they also play characters in the film within the film. See the full cast on IMDb.Is Tristram Shandy connected to The Trip?Yes, in spirit. This film first paired Coogan and Brydon with Winterbottom, and that chemistry...

Miquita Oliver and Zawe Ashton answer your questions about taste.Next week, we want to hear your questions about BOUNDARIES. Please send us a voice note on WhatsApp: 08000 30 40 90. Or, if you like, send us an email: missme@bbc.co.uk.This episode contains very strong language and adult themes. Credits: Producer: Natalie Jamieson Technical Producer: Oliver Geraghty Assistant Producer: Caillin McDaid Production Coordinator: Rose Wilcox Executive Producer: Dino Sofos Commissioning Producer for BBC: Jake Williams Commissioners: Dylan Haskins & Lorraine Okuefuna Miss Me? is a Persephonica production for BBC Sounds

We sit down with Stephanie Hansen – cookbook author, TV host of Taste Buds with Stephanie, and author of the novel The Moon Tavern – to explore what it means to age well, work with purpose, and own your value in midlife and beyond. In this candid conversation, we cover: Perimenopause, menopause, and why they're determined the next generation of women will have better information Stephanie's winding path through radio, entrepreneurship, cookbooks, and fiction How travel and food in Croatia shaped The Moon Tavern Stephanie's core mantra: no one really knows what they're doing – they're just doing it Navigating the emotions of turning 65 You'll walk away inspired to start where you are, say your dreams out loud, and curate a third chapter that feels full of flavor, purpose, and possibility. Our Non Profit Spotlight is Every Meal _ Katie Harms: katie@katieharms.com, www.katieharms.com Lisa Rubin: lisa@wardrobeconsulting.net, www.wardrobeconsulting.net . Follow Us On: Instagram | LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube Please take a moment to rate our podcast wherever you are reading or listening to this! Thank you! We are thankful to our sponsors Jester Concepts (owner of Rustica Bakery) and Beem St. Louis Park. Click here: Complimentary Session at beem

Movie of the Year: 2006The Sweet 16 RevealedThe Best Movies of 2006 Enter the BracketThis episode puts the movies of 2006 on the clock, as Ryan, Mike, and Greg reveal which 16 titles advance to the bracket season. The Taste Buds have spent weeks wrestling with a starting field of 64 films, and the cuts have been real. The debates ahead will be worth every minute.Getting from 64 films to 16 requires real conviction. Every cut involves films with legitimate credentials, passionate defenders, and strong arguments in their favor. Consequently, this episode does more than announce a list. It reflects a set of choices the Taste Buds are prepared to defend all season long.About Movie of the YearMovie of the Year is a PopFilter podcast built around one question: what was the best film of a given year? Ryan, Mike, and Greg select a year, assemble a 64-film bracket, and argue their way to a champion. The format rewards deep cinematic knowledge, honest disagreement, and a willingness to change your mind when the argument demands it.The show has built a catalog of bracket seasons that reward both longtime listeners and newcomers. Each season has its own personality, shaped by the films in contention and the friction those films generate in debate. The 2006 season carries that tradition forward with a year that has only gotten more interesting with time.2006: A Year Worth Arguing AboutFew years in recent memory offer the range that 2006 does. Prestige dramas, international films, genre pictures, and independent features all had strong years, and the critical consensus at the time did not always hold up. Some films that dominated awards conversation look different now. Meanwhile, others that were overlooked at release have since built lasting reputations.Roger Ebert captured the energy of 2006 well. His review of The Departed reflected a year when ambitious filmmaking found real audiences, and when the line between commercial and prestige cinema blurred in productive ways. Additionally, 2006 produced genuine disagreement between critics and general audiences, which is exactly the kind of tension that makes a bracket season compelling.The Taste Buds considered films across every genre and profile when building the 64-film field. Notably, some titles with strong critical support did not survive the early cuts, while others with devoted fanbases made a stronger case than expected. That tension runs through every round of the bracket.How the Movies of 2006 Bracket WorksThe bracket is central to what makes Movie of the Year function as a podcast. The Taste Buds begin with 64 films, then work through rounds of debate until one film stands alone. Each episode focuses on a specific matchup or group of films, with Ryan, Mike, and Greg arguing for and against each contender.The Sweet 16 revealed in this episode seeds the season ahead. From there, head-to-head matchups determine which films advance through the Elite Eight, the Final Four, and ultimately the championship. However, seeding does not guarantee anything. A well-argued case can always change the outcome, and upsets are part of the format.For listeners new to the show, this episode therefore serves as an ideal starting point. The Taste Buds make each debate accessible and entertaining, regardless of how familiar you are with any individual film.The Road to the Sweet 16Cutting 64 films to 16 means making hard calls. The Taste Buds apply consistent criteria across every cut: rewatchability, cultural staying power, craft, and genuine argument value within the bracket. A film that cannot generate a compelling debate does not serve the season well, regardless of its pedigree.Above all, the goal is a Sweet 16 that produces great arguments. A bracket full of obvious consensus picks would make for a dull season. Consequently, the Taste Buds deliberately include films that create friction, titles where reasonable and informed people genuinely disagree about their value and legacy.Some of the 16 films advancing will surprise listeners. Others will feel inevitable. The full reveal happens in this episode, and the reasoning behind each selection is part of what makes debating the movies of 2006 so worthwhile from start to finish.A Starting Field Built for DebateThe 64-film field the Taste Buds assembled for 2006 reflects the full range of what the year produced. Genre range mattered in the curation process. So did the desire to include films that cut against consensus and force the bracket to reckon with less comfortable choices. Specifically, the films that survive into the Sweet 16 represent a cross-section of 2006 that rewards close attention and strong opinions.Why the Movies of 2006 Still MatterThe Movie of the Year podcast treats film debate as something worth doing seriously. The 2006 season carries that forward with a year whose critical reputation has shifted meaningfully since its release. Films that seemed certain to endure have faded. Others that barely registered in awards conversation have grown into genuine touchstones.The bracket format demands accountability that casual film lists do not. When you argue for a film head-to-head against another specific film, you have to articulate why you believe what you believe. Furthermore, you have to hold that position under pressure from two other opinionated co-hosts who may disagree entirely.Specifically, 2006 sits at a cultural inflection point. Studio filmmaking, independent cinema, and international film all competed for serious critical attention that year, and the market rewarded each in different ways. The season will reflect that range, and the debates will run deep. The movies of 2006 have a lot left to say, and this season is where they say it.Related Episodes from Movie of the YearMovie of the Year — Full Episode ArchiveThe Last Picture Show — Movie of the Year: 1971A Clockwork Orange — Movie of the Year: 1971The French Connection — Movie of the Year: 1971Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory — Movie of the Year: 1971Note: Add 2006 episode URLs to this list as they are published.FAQ: Movies of 2006 and the Bracket RevealAbout the Episode and the ShowWhat is this movie's 2006 podcast episode about?Ryan, Mike, and Greg reveal the 16 films advancing to the 2006 bracket season. They narrow a starting field of 64 films down to the Sweet 16, setting up the full season of head-to-head debates ahead.What is Movie of the Year?Movie of the Year is a PopFilter podcast where hosts Ryan, Mike, and Greg debate and rank films from a single year using a bracket format. Each season covers one year of cinema and ends with one film crowned champion.Who hosts Movie of the Year?The show is hosted by Ryan, Mike, and Greg, collectively known as the Taste Buds, on the PopFilter podcast network. Each host brings a distinct critical perspective to every debate.How does the Movie of the Year bracket work?The Taste Buds begin each season with 64 films from the chosen year. Through debate-style episodes, films compete head-to-head until one film is crowned Movie of the Year. The Sweet 16, Elite Eight, Final Four, and championship rounds each produce their own episodes.About the 2006 SeasonWhy is 2006 a significant year in film history?2006 produced a strong and varied field of films across genres and profiles. Prestige dramas, international cinema, genre filmmaking, and independent features all had notable years, making 2006 an ideal year for bracket debate.How did the Taste Buds select the 64-film starting field?The Taste Buds curated the field based on critical reception, cultural staying power, rewatchability, and argument value within the bracket format. The goal was a field that represents the full range of 2006, including some selections that will surprise listeners.Where can I listen to Movie of the Year?Movie of the Year is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and wherever you listen to podcasts. Full episodes and archives are also available at popfilter.co.What films made the 2006 Movie of the Year Sweet 16?The 16 films advancing to the bracket are revealed in this episode. Listen to find out which films survived and how the Taste Buds justify every selection.

Movie of the Year: 2006A New Season Begins The Movies of 2006 Podcast Begins: 128 Films Enter the BracketThe movies of 2006 podcast is officially underway, and the Taste Buds are ready to take on one of the richest film years of the 21st century. Ryan, Mike, and Greg kick off the 2006 season on PopFilter by introducing the year, explaining the bracket structure, and beginning the first round of eliminations. Furthermore, Part 1 of the intro sets the tone for a season packed with genuine heavyweights, unlikely contenders, and some of the most debated films of the decade.2006 delivered a field that refuses to cooperate with easy rankings. The Departed sits alongside Pan's Labyrinth, Children of Men, and Little Miss Sunshine in the same calendar year. Additionally, Casino Royale, The Prestige, Babel, Borat, and Idiocracy all arrived in 2006, representing wildly different visions of what cinema can accomplish. The Taste Buds have their work cut out for them.About the 2006 Film Year2006 stands as one of the most celebrated film years of the decade. Martin Scorsese's The Departed swept the Academy Awards, winning Best Picture and earning Scorsese his first Oscar for Best Director. Meanwhile, Guillermo del Toro delivered Pan's Labyrinth, a Spanish-language dark fantasy that works equally as a fairy tale and a historical horror. Alfonso Cuarón's Children of Men earned near-universal acclaim for its singular, one-take-heavy vision of a dying civilization.The box office reflected 2006's breadth. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest topped the global charts. Casino Royale relaunched the Bond franchise with Daniel Craig in his debut as 007. Cars kept Pixar's winning streak intact. Moreover, the comedies were just as crowded: Borat, Talladega Nights, Idiocracy, and Clerks II each built devoted audiences. Consequently, building a bracket from this year means making choices that will draw genuine disagreement from all directions.International cinema contributed heavily to 2006's depth. Alejandro González Iñárritu's Babel earned seven Academy Award nominations after competing at Cannes. Pedro Almodóvar's Volver brought Penélope Cruz one of her most celebrated screen performances. The year also produced major releases from Darren Aronofsky (The Fountain), Sofia Coppola (Marie Antoinette), Christopher Nolan (The Prestige), and Mel Gibson (Apocalypto). In practice, few years in recent memory offer this density of debate-worthy titles across this many genres. The movies of 2006 represent a year when every corner of the industry produced something worth arguing about.How the Movie of the Year Bracket WorksMovie of the Year uses a bracket format borrowed from sports tournaments. The Taste Buds seed 128 films from a given year and match them head-to-head across multiple rounds until one earns the title of best of the year. The movies of 2006 provide an especially deep pool to draw from. Each round cuts the field in half: 128 to 64, 64 to 32, 32 to the Sweet 16, and on through the Elite Eight, Final Four, and championship. Notably, the bracket covers the full range of the year — prestige titles, genre pictures, comedies, blockbusters, and deep cuts all compete on equal footing.The seeding and matchups drive the conversation. A high-seeded favorite facing a scrappy underdog often produces the most spirited debates, because the Taste Buds evaluate every film on its own terms. No film earns an automatic pass based on reputation alone. A beloved blockbuster can fall in round one. A smaller film can advance much further than anyone expects. Therefore, the bracket functions as a pressure test for every assumption the hosts carry into the season.The format also distinguishes Movie of the Year from a standard best-of list. The hosts cannot simply rank their favorites and close the debate. Instead, they defend each pick against a direct opponent, round after round. Above all, the bracket produces arguments that a list never could, because every vote carries immediate consequences. To see what this process looks like across a full season, the Movie of the Year archive includes complete coverage of every year the Taste Buds have tackled, including the recently completed 1971 season.The 2006 First Round: Inside the Movies of 2006 Podcast BracketThe first round of the 2006 season pits 64 matchups against one another and cuts the field in half. Part 1 of the intro covers the opening set of battles, with Part 2 completing the round. Even the quickest first-round decisions carry weight, because an early upset can remove a major contender long before the serious rounds begin.2006 gives the hosts no shortage of compelling first-round scenarios. High-profile releases like Superman Returns, X-Men: The Last Stand, and Blood Diamond arrive as recognizable titles but face real scrutiny on merit. Films like Half Nelson, Brick, and Thank You for Smoking represent the indie side of the year with strong critical backing. Moreover, the international titles — Pan's Labyrinth, Volver, Perfume: The Story of a Murderer — introduce a different set of criteria into the matchups entirely.The documentary field adds another dimension. An Inconvenient Truth became one of 2006's most discussed releases and earned Al Gore an Academy Award. Jesus Camp generated controversy and critical notice in equal measure. Additionally, the horror entries, the prestige dramas like United 93 and The Good Shepherd, and the awards-season crowding all create pressure across the bracket from the opening round. Roger Ebert's four-star review of The Departed captures the critical consensus around 2006's most decorated film. Nevertheless, the first round is only the beginning.Why 2006 Still Matters2006 represents a pivotal moment in 21st-century cinema. The year demonstrated that prestige filmmaking and mass entertainment could share a single calendar without one displacing the other. The Departed and Pan's Labyrinth both belong to 2006. Borat and Children of Men arrived the same year. That range matters because the best film years do not produce one kind of great film — they produce many kinds simultaneously.Moreover, 2006 produced titles that have only grown in cultural stature since their release. Idiocracy arrived with little fanfare and now functions as a widely cited cultural reference point. Children of Men drew modest theatrical audiences and currently ranks among the most admired films of the decade in retrospective criticism. The Prestige built a devoted following that continues to generate debate about its structure and its final image. Additionally, Casino Royale remains the gold standard for modern Bond films nearly two decades later.The movies of 2006 podcast gives these films a structured arena to compete. That structure reveals something a ranked list cannot: which films hold up under sustained comparison, which reputations survive direct opposition, and which consensus picks turn out to be more fragile than they appear. 2006 deserves this treatment. The Taste Buds are the right crew to find out which film earns the crown.Related Episodes from Movie of the YearMovie of the Year — Full Episode ArchiveThe Last Picture Show — Movie of the Year: 1971A Clockwork Orange — Movie of the Year: 1971More 2006 episode pages will be linked here as the season progresses.FAQ: Movies of 2006 Podcast and Film YearWhat is the movies of 2006 podcast intro episode about? This episode launches the 2006 season of Movie of the Year on PopFilter. Ryan, Mike, and Greg introduce the 2006 film year, explain the bracket format, and work through Part 1 of the first round, taking the field from 128 films down toward 64.How does the Movie of the Year bracket format work? Movie of the Year seeds 128 films from a given year into a tournament-style bracket. Films compete head-to-head across multiple rounds — from 128 to 64, then 32, the Sweet 16, Elite Eight, Final Four, and championship — until one film earns the title of best of the year. The format produces arguments that a simple ranked list cannot, because every vote has immediate consequences.What films are in the 2006 Movie of the Year bracket? The 2006 bracket includes 128 films from across the year: prestige dramas like The Departed, Babel, and Letters from Iwo Jima; international titles like Pan's Labyrinth and Volver; genre films like Children of Men and The Prestige; comedies like Borat, Idiocracy, and Little Miss Sunshine; and blockbusters like Casino Royale and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.What won Best Picture for the 2006 film year? The Departed, directed by Martin Scorsese, won the Academy Award for Best Picture at the 79th Academy Awards in 2007. The film also earned Scorsese his first Best Director Oscar. However, Oscar history and the Movie of the Year bracket determine their...

Movie of the Year: 1971The Finale, Part IIThe 1971 Film Finale Podcast: One Champion RemainsThe 1971 film finale podcast brings the Taste Buds' most ambitious bracket season to its definitive conclusion. Ryan, Mike, and Greg have debated, dismissed, and championed their way through a remarkable field — and now eight films remain. In this episode, four Elite Eight matchups collapse into a single champion, and five major awards close out the season before the final verdict arrives.Furthermore, this finale caps a season that has included some of the most provocative, challenging, and enduring films ever made. From Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange to William Friedkin's The French Connection, the 1971 bracket has consistently rewarded listeners willing to sit with difficult, boundary-pushing work. The season also covered Straw Dogs, Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song, and Dirty Harry — each one generating strong arguments before falling short of the Elite Eight.Additionally, five competitive award categories — Best Sex, Best Violence, Musical Moment, Best Actor, and Best Actress — draw nominees from across the full season. Consequently, this episode stands as the richest and most content-dense installment of the year.ContentsThe Elite Eight MatchupsThe 1971 AwardsWhy the 1971 Film Finale Podcast Still MattersRelated EpisodesFAQThe Elite Eight MatchupsEight films enter. One leaves as the 1971 champion. The Taste Buds structured the Elite Eight around four head-to-head matchups, and each one forces a different kind of critical argument.A Clockwork Orange vs. The DevilsTwo of the year's most transgressive films meet in the first matchup. A Clockwork Orange arrived as a season-long frontrunner — a Kubrick film operating at the height of his formal powers, one that the Taste Buds covered in depth on their dedicated episode. Ken Russell's The Devils, meanwhile, delivers a fever dream of religious hysteria and state violence that stands as one of the most divisive films the Taste Buds have discussed all season. Moreover, this matchup poses a pointed question: which film earns its provocation more honestly? Both demand something from the viewer. However, only one advances.Harold and Maude vs. McCabe and Mrs. MillerHarold and Maude represents the season's most warmly beloved film — a dark comedy about love, death, and radical living that generated some of the most enthusiastic podcast discussion of the year. By contrast, Robert Altman's McCabe and Mrs. Miller offers a revisionist Western suffused with melancholy and moral exhaustion, its beauty inseparable from its grief. Both films carry passionate advocates among the Taste Buds. Consequently, this matchup ranks among the tightest and most personal bracket debates of the entire season. Above all, it asks whether warmth or ache makes the stronger lasting impression.Wanda vs. The ConformistBarbara Loden's Wanda — a micro-budget American independent masterwork — faces Bernardo Bertolucci's The Conformist, a visually ravishing Italian political drama. Notably, both films center on characters adrift in systems designed to diminish them. Nevertheless, they arrive at very different emotional endpoints: Wanda drifts, the Conformist spirals. The Taste Buds' arguments in this matchup reveal as much about their own critical values as about the films themselves. In practice, this is the bracket's most purely cinephile debate.The French Connection vs. The Last Picture ShowThe bracket's most commercially dominant film — The French Connection, winner of five Academy Awards including Best Picture — faces Peter Bogdanovich's elegiac The Last Picture Show. In practice, this matchup pits Hollywood's muscular genre filmmaking against its more introspective New Wave ambitions. As a result, the debate cuts to the heart of what 1971 cinema actually achieved. Gene Hackman's Popeye Doyle and the dusty streets of Anarene, Texas, represent two entirely different ideas of what a great film should do — and the Taste Buds have strong opinions on which idea wins.The 1971 AwardsBefore the bracket champion is named, the Taste Buds present five awards covering the full sweep of the season. This Movie of the Year 1971 podcast segment features each host nominating the moments they found most memorable, daring, or essential — and the resulting field spans an extraordinary range of films and tones.Best SexThe nominees range from the tender to the violent to the surreal, drawing from three different films and three distinct registers of human sexuality.Jacy and Abilene — The Last Picture ShowThe Pool Party — The Last Picture ShowThe Rape of Christ — The DevilsThe Sex Duel with the Biker Gang — Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss SongYoung Sweetback and the Sex Worker — Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss SongBest ViolenceThe nominees span the full tonal range of 1971 action filmmaking — from Dirty Harry's iconic bank robbery standoff to the slow, aching finality of McCabe dying alone in the snow.The Car Chase — The French ConnectionHarry Foils a Bank Robbery — Dirty HarryThe Kid Kills the Cowboy — McCabe and Mrs. MillerThe Ludovico Technique — A Clockwork OrangeMcCabe Dies Alone in the Snow — McCabe and Mrs. MillerMusical MomentThe nominees here demonstrate just how varied 1971's soundtrack was — Cat Stevens, Beethoven, and Gene Wilder all make the shortlist.Maude Sings "If You Want to Sing Out, Sing Out" — Harold and MaudeOpening Funeral March — A Clockwork Orange"Pure Imagination" — Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory"Singin' in the Rain" — A Clockwork OrangeThe Tango — The ConformistBest Actor The five nominees represent the full range of 1971 male performance — from Hackman's coiled rage to Wilder's heartbreaking wonder. Additionally, this category generated some of the most contested debates in the entire 1971 film podcast season.Warren Beatty — McCabe and Mrs. MillerGene Hackman — The French ConnectionOliver Reed — The DevilsJean-Louis Trintignant — The ConformistGene Wilder —

This episode of The Rizzuto Show starts with what might genuinely be one of the greatest confidence scams ever attempted: a French professor allegedly invents an entire prestigious academic award, buys himself a medal, gathers actual respected intellectuals, and somehow convinces everyone he's basically the LeBron James of language studies. Honestly? Kind of inspirational. The gang immediately realizes that most awards are basically made up anyway, which quickly escalates into creating fake international honors like “The Grand Cross of the Order of the Toasted Ravioli.” Because if you say anything confidently enough with enough gold trim attached to it, people will apparently clap.From there, the show takes a hard left directly into psychological warfare after King Scott introduces one of the most cursed “Would You Rather?” questions in show history: permanent Cheeto fingers… or taste buds in your butt. Yes. Really. The discussion somehow gets worse when Rafe introduces the horrifying concept of “the second tasting,” permanently ruining food, digestion, and probably several listeners' lunch breaks. It's the kind of conversation that could only happen on a daily comedy show powered entirely by sleep deprivation, bad decisions, and unchecked access to microphones.Rafe's E-Memoriam segment also delivers pure chaos this week. The crew says goodbye to Ask Jeeves, the once-beloved internet butler who politely helped people search embarrassing questions before Google became the all-knowing digital overlord living inside everyone's phones. The nostalgia spiral includes Geocities, LimeWire, Rotten Dot Com, terrible internet decisions, and the realization that the early internet somehow survived entirely on flashing skull gifs and confusion.Meanwhile, Rafe continues his quest toward honorary membership in the Blackfoot Nation, which now involves fingerprinting, Canadian bureaucracy, Wayne Gretzky references, and an unexpectedly spiritual trip to a UPS Store kiosk. What should have been a simple government process becomes an epic fantasy journey involving sacred scanners, sweaty palms, and “Hakuna Moscato” novelty packing tape. It's impossible to explain properly because this daily comedy show exists in a dimension where every normal story mutates into folklore by segment three.The episode wraps with real RIPs including Alex Ligertwood from Santana and media giant Ted Turner, proving The Rizzuto Show can somehow balance heartfelt moments alongside conversations about whether your butthole could identify ranch seasoning.If you love comedy podcasts, funny stories, weird news, sarcastic humor, pop culture commentary, St. Louis radio chaos, and hearing grown adults emotionally unravel in real time, this episode delivers everything you could possibly want from a daily comedy show… and several things you absolutely did not ask for.Follow The Rizzuto Show → linktr.ee/rizzshow for more from your favorite daily comedy show.Connect with The Rizzuto Show Comedy Podcast online → 1057thepoint.com/RizzShowHear The Rizz Show daily on the radio at 105.7 The Point | Hubbard Radio in St. Louis, MO.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Movie of the Year: 1971The Finale, Part IIThe 1971 Film Bracket Podcast Reaches the Elite EightThis 1971 film bracket podcast returns with its most dramatic episode yet. Ryan, Mike, and Greg — the Taste Buds — work through the bottom half of the Sweet 16, producing four matchups that nobody saw coming. Furthermore, the episode hands out two major awards: Comedic Performance and Biggest Shithead. The results set the stage for Part III, where the Elite Eight will be whittled down to a single 1971 champion.If you missed Part I of the finale, start there first. The bracket has been full of upsets throughout the season. Consequently, no outcome here should be taken for granted.The Sweet 16: Bottom Half of the 1971 Film BracketThe bottom half of the 1971 Sweet 16 is stacked. These four matchups pit some of the most beloved and argued-over films in the entire bracket against one another. Moreover, the range of cinema on display — from Hollywood blockbusters to European art films to New Hollywood grit — illustrates exactly why 1971 is one of the most fertile film years ever put to a bracket.The Taste Buds debate each matchup using their standard evaluative framework: craft, cultural impact, rewatchability, and gut feeling. Above all, they trust their instincts — and their instincts have produced surprises at every turn this season. Tune in to find out which four films advance to the Elite Eight.Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory vs. WandaThis matchup pits one of cinema's most beloved fantasies against one of its most criminally underseen gems. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory needs little introduction — Gene Wilder's performance alone has kept it in the cultural conversation for over fifty years. Nevertheless, Wanda is no pushover. Barbara Loden's Wanda (1971) is a raw, naturalistic landmark of American independent cinema, and its inclusion in the bracket has been a point of pride for whoever seeded it.This is a clash of tone, scale, and intention. One film is a spectacle engineered for maximum delight. The other strips cinema down to its bones. However, the Taste Buds must pick one — and the pick will tell you something about where their tastes landed by the time the 1971 season reached its final stretch.The French Connection vs. Brian's SongTwo films that defined what mainstream American cinema could do with raw emotional and procedural intensity. The French Connection won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1971. It features one of the most celebrated car chases in film history and a career-defining performance from Gene Hackman as the relentless, morally compromised Popeye Doyle. Additionally, William Friedkin's direction remains a masterclass in gritty, kinetic storytelling.Brian's Song, meanwhile, hit American living rooms as a TV movie and destroyed everyone who watched it. The story of Gale Sayers and Brian Piccolo remains one of the most emotionally devastating sports films ever made. Notably, the Taste Buds covered both films earlier this season — so this rematch in the 1971 film bracket carries the weight of all those prior arguments.The Last Picture Show vs. KluteTwo of New Hollywood's most enduring films square off here, and neither one will go quietly. The Last Picture Show is Peter Bogdanovich's elegiac black-and-white portrait of a dying Texas town — a film the American Film Institute has called one of the greatest ever made. Furthermore, its ensemble cast, including Jeff Bridges, Cybill Shepherd, Cloris Leachman, and Ben Johnson, delivers some of the finest performances in the bracket.Klute, however, has Jane Fonda. Her performance as Bree Daniels earned her the first of her two Academy Awards, and it remains one of the most psychologically intricate portrayals of a woman in crisis in American cinema. Alan J. Pakula's direction is coiled and paranoid in all the right ways. Consequently, this matchup may be the most difficult call in the entire bracket.The Conformist vs. The Panic in Needle ParkThe final Sweet 16 matchup is the most arthouse of the four — and arguably the most fascinating. Bernardo Bertolucci's The Conformist is a landmark of European cinema. Vittorio Storaro's cinematography is among the most studied in film school history, and the film's meditation on fascism, identity, and moral cowardice has only grown richer with time. You can read more about the film at Roger Ebert's review on RogerEbert.com.The Panic in Needle Park, by contrast, is bracingly American — a gritty, unglamorous portrait of heroin addiction on the streets of New York. It introduced Al Pacino to mainstream audiences. Moreover, Jerry Schatzberg's unflinching direction makes the film feel almost documentary in its honesty. These two films represent opposite ends of world cinema in 1971, and the Taste Buds must choose one.Award: Best Comedic Performance — 1971 Film Bracket PodcastThe Taste Buds hand out individual performance awards throughout the season, and the Comedic Performance category drew a fascinating and eclectic field of nominees. The 1971 bracket is not short on laughs — from the anarchic fantasy of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory to the dark comedy of Harold and Maude. Furthermore, the nominees represent a range of comic registers, from broad physical performance to pitch-black wit.The nominees are:David Battley — Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (Mike's pick)Julie Dawn Cole — Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (Greg's pick)Bud Cort — Harold and Maude (Mike's pick)Michael Gothard — The Devils (Ryan's pick)Gene Wilder — Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (Greg's pick)David Battley's turn as the hapless Mr. Turkentine in Willy Wonka is a masterwork of bewildered reaction comedy. Julie Dawn Cole's Veruca Salt is a full-throttle comic creation — spoiled, relentless, and somehow sympathetic. Additionally, Bud Cort's Harold is a genuinely difficult comic achievement: deadpan to the point of catatonia, yet somehow enormously warm.Michael Gothard's Father Barre in The Devils is Ryan's wild-card choice — a performance of manic, committed intensity that functions as dark comedy whether or not Ken Russell intended it. Meanwhile, Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka remains one of cinema's great comic performances — menacing, whimsical, and deeply strange all at once. The winner is waiting for you in the episode.Award: Biggest Shithead of 1971One of the Taste Buds' most beloved recurring awards, the Biggest Shithead category recognizes the most memorably awful person — or entity — in the bracket. Notably, this award rewards commitment. Nominees do not simply do bad things. They do bad things with style, conviction, and a complete lack of self-awareness.The nominees are:Baron de Laubardemont — The Devils (Greg's pick)The Lady at Snakearama — Duel (Ryan's pick)The Motorcycle Cop — Harold and Maude (Greg's pick)Mr. Deltoid — A Clockwork Orange (Mike's pick)Veruca Salt — Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (Mike's pick)Baron de Laubardemont, the cold bureaucratic villain of The Devils, brings state-sanctioned cruelty to the category. The Lady at Snakearama from Duel is Ryan's inspired choice — a brief but indelible portrait of someone who simply should not be in this movie. Furthermore, Harold and Maude's Motorcycle Cop is a monument to institutional pettiness.Mr. Deltoid from A Clockwork Orange is a sweaty, oleaginous masterpiece of ineffectual authority — Mike's nomination is well-argued. Veruca Salt, however, may be the category's most pure entry: a child who has elevated wanting things to an art form. The winner, as always, is in the episode.Why This 1971 Film Bracket Podcast Still MattersThe Sweet 16 is where bracket tournaments reveal their true character. By this stage, the obvious candidates are mostly gone. What remains are the films that survived not on reputation alone but on genuine argument. Moreover, the bottom half of the 1971 Sweet 16 contains some of the season's most debated films — which means every matchup result carries real emotional weight.The year 1971 is one of the most remarkable in cinema history. New Hollywood was hitting its stride. European art cinema was pushing form to its limits. Genre filmmaking was getting stranger, darker, and more personal. Consequently, any bracket drawn from this year produces matchups that feel genuinely impossible to call. The Taste Buds do not pretend otherwise — they argue, they agonize, and they vote.Part III is coming. The Elite Eight will determine the Movie of the Year: 1971 champion. Above all, this episode is the last chance to see which films survive before the final reckoning. Subscribe to PopFilter and follow along — the 1971 film...

00:01:15 Intro00:05:15 Ascension: LOTR00:07:45 Straight to LOTR Stuff00:11:30 Intro to Harder Games00:17:15 Round Up Error00:20:30 New Contest00:21:30 Taste Buds00:37:30 Portal Games00:38:45 Frenzy Falls00:44:30 Rising Cultures01:04:00 Miniature Market01:05:15 Got Five00:11:15 E-Win Desk01:15:45 SWU Report Out Whether you're in the mood for the high-stakes chaos of a spilling pool, the grand strategy of rising civilizations, or the quiet tension of a deduction puzzle, we got it covered in this lineup of games for this episode. First up is Frenzy Falls where players play cards face-down into “Pools,” trying to raise the water level. Once a pool hits a value of 10, it “spills over.” The player with the most influence in that pool at that exact moment snags the points. Rising Cultures is next on the table and this asymmetric “Civ-in-a-box” experience is designed specifically for two players. You pick from four civilizations either Rome, Egypt, Persia, or the Abbasid Caliphate. The thing we love in this game is the multi-use cards: every card in your hand can be used for resources, military power, building structures, or deploying leaders. You have to decide which path is worth sacrificing the others in order to gain victory over your opponent. Since each civilization has its own unique deck, the game feels completely different every time you swap roles. It's a tight, 45-minute battle of wits. Finally, we got a game that shows the strengths and weaknesses of the RDTN crew. You have five tiles on a rack facing away from you. You can see everyone else's tiles, but not your own. By asking questions like “Where would this tile fit in my sequence?” or “Do I have a tile with this many dots?”, you narrow down the possibilities. The tension is high because you can guess at any time, but if you're wrong once, you're out. It's incredibly satisfying when the logic finally clicks and you can confidently shout, “Got Five!”, which I never got to experience Thanks for listening and don't forget about the contest over in the Discord server. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Movie of the Year: 1971The Finale, Part IThe Movie of the Year 1971 Podcast Reaches Its ReckoningThe Movie of the Year 1971 podcast has arrived at its moment of reckoning. Ryan, Mike, and Greg — the Taste Buds — open the three-part finale with a full awards ceremony, a frank assessment of what 1971 means to cinema history, and the first wave of bracket eliminations. Sixteen films entered this season. Not all of them survive Part 1.This is a different kind of episode. There is no single film to defend or dissect. Instead, the Taste Buds are doing something harder: accounting for an entire year, making choices that cannot be unmade, and sending some of the finest films ever made home without a championship. The bracket is merciless. So, it turns out, is 1971.Part 2 continues the eliminations next week. Part 3 crowns the champion the week after. However, before any of that — the awards begin.About This Season: Sixteen Films, One ChampionThe Movie of the Year podcast runs a bracket-style competition each season, selecting the best film from a given year. This season, the Taste Buds covered sixteen films from across the full spectrum of 1971 cinema — studio blockbusters, guerrilla filmmaking, European art cinema, and Hollywood at its most unguarded. The field represents not just a great year in film, but an ongoing argument about what movies are for.The sixteen contenders are:A Clockwork Orange — Stanley KubrickSweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song — Melvin Van PeeblesThe Devils — Ken RussellDuel — Steven SpielbergHarold and Maude — Hal AshbyStraw Dogs — Sam PeckinpahDirty Harry — Don SiegelMcCabe & Mrs. Miller — Robert AltmanWilly Wonka and the Chocolate Factory — Mel StuartWanda — Barbara LodenThe Conformist — Bernardo BertolucciThe Panic in Needle Park — Jerry SchatzbergThe French Connection — William FriedkinBrian's Song — Buzz KulikThe Last Picture Show — Peter BogdanovichKlute — Alan J. PakulaFor every episode from this season, visit the Movie of the Year podcast archive on PopFilter.What Does 1971 Mean to the Movies?Before any film is eliminated, the Taste Buds take a step back and ask the question the whole season has been building toward: what does 1971 actually mean to the history of cinema?The short answer is that 1971 is the year movies stopped asking permission. The Production Code was dead, and New Hollywood was at full velocity. The studios were desperate. The filmmakers who had spent the late 1960s learning a new visual language were suddenly free to use it without restraint. Consequently, the films of 1971 are not polished products. They are arguments — about violence, about sexuality, about power, and about who gets to survive.Moreover, 1971 is uniquely international in its ambitions. Bertolucci's The Conformist brought a European grammar of fascism and desire to mainstream audiences. Meanwhile, Melvin Van Peebles made Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song entirely outside the studio system — financing it with his own money and changing the economics of Black independent filmmaking permanently. These were not films that happened alongside American culture. They actively reshaped it.Furthermore, the year produced an unusual number of films that resist a single reading. Dirty Harry is simultaneously a fascist power fantasy and a critique of one. Straw Dogs refuses to let its audience off the hook. The French Connection makes a hero out of a man who may not deserve the title. As a result, 1971 is defined not by its answers but by the quality of its questions.Above all, the Taste Buds argue that 1971 matters because it remains unresolved. These films are still being debated, still being taught, still being felt. That is the mark of a year that did something real — and the reason a bracket this competitive is so hard to close.Movie of the Year 1971 Podcast Awards: Best Supporting ActressThe first award of the finale is Best Supporting Actress. The nominees represent five performances that each, in their own way, stole scenes from films that were already remarkable. Notably, two nominees come from the same film — a testament to how fully The Last Picture Show populated its world with fully realized human beings.The nominees for Best Supporting Actress are:Ellen Burstyn — The Last Picture ShowCloris Leachman — The Last Picture ShowJulie Dawn Cole — Willy Wonka and the Chocolate FactoryVivian Pickles — Harold and MaudeStefania Sandrelli — The ConformistHistorically, the Academy nominated both Burstyn and Leachman at the 1972 Oscars — and Leachman won. However, the Taste Buds are not the Academy. Their winner reflects their own criteria, their own arguments, and a full season of watching these performances in context. Who walks away with the award? Listen to the episode to find out.Movie of the Year 1971 Podcast Awards: Best Supporting ActorThe second award is Best Supporting Actor — a category that reads, in 1971, like a catalog of actors doing the most demanding and least comfortable work of their careers. The nominees include debut-level performances and career-defining turns alike. The competition is, by any measure, extraordinary.The nominees for Best Supporting Actor are:Dudley Sutton — The DevilsMichael Gothard — The DevilsJeff Bridges — The Last Picture ShowBen Johnson — The Last Picture ShowGastone Moschin — The ConformistBen Johnson's Sam the Lion is among the most quietly devastating performances in American film — a man who embodies everything a dying town loved and then lost. Jeff Bridges, in his first major role, announced his entire career in a single film. Gastone Moschin made fascist complicity feel not monstrous but ordinary, which is considerably more frightening. The Devils, meanwhile, sent both its nominees into material that demanded everything an actor has. To find out who wins, listen to the episode.The Eliminations: The Bracket Does Not ForgiveThe awards are only half of Part 1 of the Movie of the Year 1971 podcast finale. The other half is the bracket — and the bracket is not sentimental. In this episode, the Taste Buds make the first wave of cuts. Films that have defined the conversation all season, films that generated genuine argument and genuine love, are sent home.This is the nature of the format. Nevertheless, that does not make it easy. 1971 is not a year with obvious fodder. Every film in this bracket earned its place. Consequently, every elimination in this finale is a real loss — and a real statement about what the Taste Buds believe cinema can do at its best.Which films survive? Which ones go home in Part 1? That, you will have to hear for yourself. Parts 2 and 3 continue the process — and by the end of the three-part finale, only one film from 1971 will be left standing.Why the Movie of the Year 1971 Podcast Finale MattersA season finale is never just a conclusion. It is an act of criticism — a declaration about what mattered, what lasted, and what deserves to be remembered. The Movie of the Year 1971 podcast finale is doing that work for one of the most important years in the history of film.Furthermore, the bracket format makes that work visible in a way that traditional film criticism rarely does. The Taste Buds cannot hedge. They cannot say everything is great and leave it there. They have to rank, eliminate, and ultimately choose. In doing so, they reveal something true about how they experience cinema — and they invite every listener to push back.Above all, this three-part finale is a love letter to a year that refused to behave. 1971 did not make comfortable films. It did not offer easy consolations. It asked audiences to look directly at things they would have preferred to avoid. The Taste Buds have been doing the same thing all season. Now, in three parts, they are going to decide which film did it best — and which one deserves to be called the Movie of the Year.Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 1971

Movie of the Year: 1971Straw Dogs (feat. Erik from the Cradle to the Grave pod!)The Straw Dogs Podcast: Peckinpah's Most Dangerous FilmThe Straw Dogs podcast episode of Movie of the Year confronts one of 1971's most debated, disturbing, and relentlessly provocative films — Sam Peckinpah's psychological siege thriller starring Dustin Hoffman and Susan George. Ryan, Mike, and Greg are joined by Erik Hanson of the Cradle to the Grave podcast. Together, they examine the film's violence, its contested rape scene, and the gender dynamics at the heart of Peckinpah's vision. Consequently, no other episode this season demands more from its hosts — or from its audience.Moreover, the 1971 film Straw Dogs arrived in remarkable company. A Clockwork Orange, Dirty Harry, and The French Connection all hit theaters the same year — forming a cluster of films that fundamentally altered what Hollywood was willing to show. Furthermore, Straw Dogs distinguished itself from all of them. Filmed entirely in a Cornish village, it replaced the city's noise with something quieter and more suffocating. Ultimately, it is a film that has never stopped demanding conversation — and that is exactly what the Taste Buds deliver.About the FilmSam Peckinpah directed Straw Dogs (1971), starring Dustin Hoffman as David Sumner, a mild-mannered American mathematician who relocates with his English wife Amy (Susan George) to her rural hometown in Cornwall. David hires local men to repair their farmhouse. Almost immediately, however, the couple faces escalating harassment, intimidation, and violence from the villagers — including Amy's former boyfriend Charlie (Del Henney).Peckinpah and screenwriter David Zelag Goodman adapted the film from Gordon M. Williams's 1969 novel The Siege of Trencher's Farm. Peckinpah famously dismissed the source material. The film builds to a harrowing siege in which David, pushed past every limit, defends his home with escalating brutality. Additionally, the title derives from the Tao Te Ching, which describes straw dogs as ceremonial objects — used briefly, then discarded without feeling. The Criterion Collection edition includes a discussion of this symbolism in its supplemental materials.Released theatrically in the UK in November 1971, the film earned a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Original Score. It was later issued as a Criterion Collection release featuring new critical scholarship. The British Film Institute also maintains an entry on the film. The British Board of Film Classification banned it for home video release for years after its UK theatrical run.Guest Panelist: Erik HansonJoining the Taste Buds for this Sam Peckinpah film discussion is Erik Hanson, the creator and host of Cradle to the Grave — a horror movie podcast built around a distinctive structural premise. Starting with 1971, his own birth year, Erik ranks and discusses his Top 10 horror films from every year of his life, covering each in depth with rotating guests. The show has developed a devoted following for Erik's knowledgeable, laid-back, and genuinely funny approach to the genre.In addition to podcasting, Erik is the author of Death Machine, a debut horror novel set in 1987 Northern California that reimagines the Zodiac Killer returning to terrorize a group of kids. Based in Sacramento, California, Erik is also a musician. His work across fiction and podcasting reflects a lifelong relationship with horror that goes well beyond fandom and into genuine craft. Notably, the fact that Cradle to the Grave begins precisely with 1971 makes Erik an especially fitting guest for a deep dive into one of that year's most unsettling films. You can pick up Death Machine on Amazon.Peckinpah and Violence: A Director Pushed to the EdgeBy 1971, Sam Peckinpah had already established himself as Hollywood's most uncompromising chronicler of violence. The Wild Bunch (1969) had rewritten the grammar of the Western, deploying slow-motion carnage in a way that made violence impossible to process cleanly. Straw Dogs, however, moved in a very different direction. Furthermore, Warner Bros. had effectively exiled Peckinpah from Hollywood following a chaotic falling out, which is why he filmed this Straw Dogs 1971 production entirely in England, far from his natural terrain.The violence in Straw Dogs is not operatic like The Wild Bunch. Instead, it is domestic, intimate, and deeply uncomfortable. Peckinpah builds menace through accumulation — small humiliations, loaded glances, minor intrusions — before releasing it all in the siege. Additionally, the film implicates the audience in David's rampage by making it feel, at least in the moment, cathartic. That troubling catharsis is entirely the point. As a result, the Straw Dogs podcast discussion centers on Peckinpah's central question: whether violence is ever truly civilized, or whether it simply waits beneath the surface of every man who believes he is better than it. Roger Ebert, writing for the Chicago Sun-Times in 1971, gave the film two stars and called it a film committed to the pornography of violence while laying on moral outrage with a shovel — a dissent worth hearing even for those who disagree.The Rape Scene: Context, Controversy, and CriticismNo discussion of Straw Dogs is complete without addressing its most contested sequence. Charlie, her former boyfriend, first assaults Amy — then a second attacker follows. What makes the scene so difficult to analyze is the way Peckinpah films the first assault. Many critics interpreted Amy's shifting emotional response during the rape as suggesting consent or complicity. That reading fueled decades of fierce feminist criticism of the Sam Peckinpah film.Moreover, the British Board of Film Classification rejected the film for home video release for years, specifically over this content. The studio cut the scene for the US release to secure an R rating. Susan George has spoken in interviews about her complex relationship to the role and the sequence. Notably, film scholar Linda Williams frames the film within the longer history of misogynistic representation in cinema. Her analysis appears in the Criterion Collection release. She argues that Straw Dogs belongs in conversation with works that are technically significant but ethically compromised. Consequently, the scene is not a matter of simple condemnation or simple defense. It is the central wound around which the entire film's meaning turns, and the Taste Buds treat it accordingly.David, Amy, and Gender in Straw Dogs 1971At its core, Straw Dogs is a film about masculinity in crisis. David Sumner is an intellectual — passive, avoidant, and seemingly incapable of the physical authority the Cornish village treats as natural male behavior. The film, however, refuses to position his bookishness as a virtue. Dustin Hoffman understood his character as a man who unconsciously provokes the violence around him — a pacifist whose repressed aggression the siege finally unlocks.Amy occupies an equally impossible position. The film's gaze codes her as provocative — bare feet, no bra, conspicuous in the village — while simultaneously punishing her for that very visibility. Nevertheless, Susan George's performance introduces ambiguity and depth that the script does not always earn on its own. The dynamic between David and Amy is as much a source of tension as the men gathering outside. They seem genuinely ill-suited and miscommunicate constantly. Above all, Straw Dogs asks what gender roles cost everyone involved. Specifically, the film suggests that masculinity, however dormant, will ultimately assert itself through violence. That is Peckinpah's most unsettling argument — and one that the A Clockwork Orange episode of Movie of the Year covers from a very different angle.Career Retrospective: Dustin HoffmanBy the time the Straw Dogs podcast era film was released in 1971, Dustin Hoffman had already fundamentally changed what a movie star could look like. His breakthrough in The Graduate (1967) — neurotic, unhandsome, deeply searching — made him a voice for a generation that distrusted certainty. Midnight Cowboy (1969) proved he could disappear entirely into character, earning his first Academy Award nomination. Little Big Man (1970) demonstrated his ability to age through an entire life on screen. Straw Dogs, therefore, marks something different in his catalog: not charm or pathos, but something colder and harder to forgive.Hoffman's Career After...

Host Richie Tevlin and Co-Host Evan Blum talk with PJ Johnson, the South Jersey native and Penn State graduate behind Traveling Tastebuds. Launched in 2020 to help local restaurants survive the pandemic, PJ's food review brand has grown to over 123,000 TikTok followers and millions of views, spotlighting the best eats across South Jersey and Philadelphia.   https://travelingtastebuds.org/ @TheTravelingTastebuds Socials: @TheTravelingTastebuds (Insta) @TheTravelingTastebuds (TikTok) _____________________________________________ THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS!: The Beer Accountant: https://www.paddymaccpa.com/brewerysolutions Patrick McDonald Email: pmcdonald@paddymaccpa.com 267-566-4077 - Licensed CPA Norris McLaughlin P.A. https://norrismclaughlin.com/ted-zeller Ted Zeller Email: tzeller@norris-law.com (484) 765-2220 - Liquor Attorney _______________________________________ EPISODE NOTES: Mentioned Breweries Victory Brewing - Downingtown, PA Tonewood Brewing - Barrington, NJ New Trail Brewing - Epi 41 - Williamsport, PA Sea Isle Spiked - Epi 81 - Sea Isle City, NJ Mentioned People Bobby Zwahlen - Creative Manager & Senior Designer at Victory Brewing Doug Ulrich - Epi 56 - @ChaseU Sports & Food Influencer Richard Grungo Jr. - Head of Grungo Law Michael Aloi - Attorney at Grungo Law Kyle Seip - Epi 61 - @CastIron_Kyle Nusret Gökçe - Aka. Salt Bae Jacob Fink - Epi 88 - @JacobDoesPhilly Food Influencer Jimmy Rollins - Philadelphia Phillies 'Hall of Famer' Jason Okdeh - Co-Owner & Chef of Farina Di Vita Bradley Cooper - Actor / Philadelphian Brett Meyer - Epi 81 - Co-Owner of Sea Isle Spiked Iced Tea Joe Romano - Co-Owner of Sea Isle Spiked Iced Tea Jeanie Romano - Co-Owner of Sea Isle Spiked Iced Tea David Wesolowski - @feedingtimetv Food Influencer Josh Moore - Epi 9 - @JoshEatsPhilly Food Influencer Other Mentions Visit Philadelphia - Epi 94 Philadelphia Flyers Buffalo Wild Wings Yelp Burger Barr - NJ Burger Shop Grungo Law - NJ Law Firm Denny's The Jug Handle Inn - NJ Dive Bar Dominics Tavern - NJ Dive Bar Pick's Irish Pub - NJ Bar Bryson's Pub - NJ Bar Barclay Prime - Philly Steakhouse Kid Rip's Tap & Tavern - NJ Bar Del Rossi's Cheesesteak & Pizza Co - Philly Pizzeria & Cheesesteak Restaurant Skinny Joey's Cheesesteaks - Philly Cheesesteak Restaurant Backyard Cravings - Philly Cheesesteak Restaurant Farina Di Vita - Philly Sandwich Shop Dalessandro's Steaks - Philly Cheesesteak Restaurant Angelo's Pizzeria - Philly Pizzeria & Cheesesteak Restaurant Pat's Steaks - Philly Cheesesteak Restaurant Geno's Steaks - Philly Cheesesteak Restaurant Steve's Prince of Steaks - Philly Cheesesteak Restaurant Cafe Carmela - Italian & Cheesesteak Restaurant Cockadoodle Dan's Wings & Steaks - NJ Cheesesteaks What We Drank? Sour Monkey Sour | 9.5% Victory Brewing Co. --------------------- Float School West Coast IPA | 6.4% | Simcoe & Chinook Space Cadet Beer _______________________________________   STAY CONNECTED: Instagram: ⁠⁠@brewedat⁠⁠ / ⁠⁠@thebrewedatpodcast⁠⁠ Tik Tok: ⁠⁠@brewedat ⁠⁠/ ⁠⁠@thebrewedatpodcast⁠⁠ YouTube: ⁠⁠@brewedat⁠⁠ / ⁠⁠@thebrewedatpodcast⁠ LinkedIn: ⁠BrewedAt Website: ⁠⁠www.brewedat.com

With the growing global appetite for Filipino flavours, ube is making its way into cafés, bakeries, and markets across different countries, including Australia. But as it gains attention, many still ask: how do you pronounce it, and what does it really taste like? - Mula sa mga café hanggang sa weekend markets, unti-unting nagiging pamilyar ang ube bilang flavour. Ngunit kasabay ng pagsikat nito sa ibang bansa, may kaakibat ding hamon: paano nga ba ipapaliwanag ang tamang pagbigkas sa ube at lasa nito sa mga hindi pa ito natitikman?

Movie of the Year: 1971Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss SongThe Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song PodcastThe Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song podcast brings Ryan, Mike, and Greg to one of 1971's most radical and uncompromising films. Melvin Van Peebles wrote, directed, produced, scored, edited, and starred in this landmark independent work — entirely outside the Hollywood system. The result is a film unlike any other in the bracket. Above all, it challenges every assumption about who gets to make movies, and why.This week, the Taste Buds dig into three major threads: the film as a revolutionary political act, its polarizing form and style, and its complex treatment of sex and gender. Furthermore, they induct a film into the PopFilter Hall of Fame and take on Recast the Podcast. It is a wide-ranging, debate-heavy episode from first minute to last. The Movie of the Year 1971 bracket has produced bold conversations — and this one may be the boldest yet.About the FilmSweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song follows Sweetback (Van Peebles), a Black sex-show performer raised in a brothel. When police use him as a convenient patsy, he fights back — killing two racist cops and becoming a fugitive. He runs south toward the Mexican border. Along the way, the Black community shelters him. Bikers, revolutionaries, and sex workers cross his path. Consequently, the film becomes less a conventional chase narrative and more an odyssey of Black survival and defiance.Van Peebles privately funded the film after walking away from a studio deal at Columbia Pictures. He served as one-man auteur across every department. The film opened in just two theaters in March 1971 — Detroit and Atlanta. Nevertheless, it broke box office records on opening night and went on to gross over $15 million. The MPAA assigned it an X rating. Van Peebles turned that into the defiant tagline: "Rated X by an all-white jury." The Black Panther Party declared it required viewing for all members.Learn more at the Wikipedia entry for Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song and the IMDb listing. The Criterion Collection has released a definitive edition of the film — explore it at Criterion.com. The American Film Institute has also recognized the film's landmark status — read the AFI Movie Club entry here.A Movie Revolution: Van Peebles and the Politics of IndependenceVan Peebles did not simply make a film — he staged a full act of defiance. Studio backing, the ratings system, and traditional distribution were all refused outright. Moreover, he financed part of the production by borrowing $50,000 from Bill Cosby, keeping total creative control throughout. The result was a film the industry could not co-opt, contain, or dismiss. For listeners of any Melvin Van Peebles podcast or documentary, the story of how this film got made is as remarkable as the film itself.The release strategy was equally radical. Van Peebles released the soundtrack before the film — an unusual move at the time — to build word-of-mouth in Black communities without spending money on traditional advertising. The score featured a very young Earth, Wind & Fire. By contrast, Hollywood in 1971 was still releasing social-problem films that sought respectability over truth. Sweetback rejected that approach entirely. Notably, its commercial success proved that Black-led, Black-financed films could find a massive audience without white institutional gatekeepers.Ryan, Mike, and Greg debate what Van Peebles' revolution actually accomplished. Was it the birth of a genuinely new Black cinema? Or did it also open the door for the blaxploitation genre — a category Hollywood quickly co-opted and stripped of its radical politics? Additionally, the Taste Buds ask whether the DIY model Van Peebles pioneered holds lessons for independent filmmakers working today. As a blaxploitation film podcast discussion, this episode goes deeper than genre classification — it asks what political filmmaking actually costs.Form, Style, and Watchability: A Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song Podcast Deep DiveThe film's style is not subtle. Van Peebles employs jagged jump cuts, kaleidoscopic superimpositions, and psychedelic sound design throughout. These choices feel closer to Jean-Luc Godard than to anything playing at an American theater in 1971. However, they also produce a film that polarizes audiences to this day. The Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song podcast tackles this polarization head-on.Some viewers find the style exhilarating — a sustained howl of rage rendered in pure cinematic form. Others find the loose structure and repetitive sequences frustrating. The Taste Buds confront this tension directly. Furthermore, they ask whether "watchability" is even the right standard for a film that never set out to be comfortable or conventional.The soundtrack adds another dimension entirely. Van Peebles composed and performed the score himself, with Earth, Wind & Fire providing the instrumental backing. The music pulses through the film like a second heartbeat. Consequently, sound and image work together to create a sensory experience unlike any other 1971 film in the bracket. Ryan, Mike, and Greg weigh in on whether Van Peebles' formal choices ultimately serve the film's political goals — or occasionally work against them.Sex, Gender, and ControversySweetback's sexuality is central to the film's identity. His sexual power is his primary weapon and his means of survival. Van Peebles frames this as a form of liberation — a radical Black body asserting itself against a system designed to destroy it. However, the film's treatment of women and of queer characters draws sharp criticism from contemporary audiences.Women in the film exist largely in relation to Sweetback's desires. The film includes graphic sexual content, some of it deeply uncomfortable by any modern standard. Moreover, the film's portrayal of lesbian characters is explicitly homophobic. The Taste Buds wrestle with how to hold these contradictions honestly. A film can be genuinely revolutionary and genuinely problematic at the same time. In fact, Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song may be the most complex example of that tension in the entire 1971 bracket.Additionally, the film's opening sequence — depicting a child's sexual initiation — has unsettled audiences for over fifty years. Van Peebles cast his own son Mario in the role. That decision raises serious ethical questions that Ryan, Mike, and Greg do not avoid. Ultimately, the conversation around sex and gender in this film is not a comfortable one — and that discomfort is precisely what makes it essential. This is one of the most challenging discussions in the 1971 film podcast series to date.PopFilter Hall of FameEach season of Movie of the Year, the Taste Buds set aside the bracket to recognize films that define an era. The PopFilter Hall of Fame is not about winning a head-to-head matchup. It honors the films that changed cinema itself — the ones that opened doors, broke rules, and made everything that came after possible.The Hall of Fame carries special weight in this episode. Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song raises the question of what "greatness" means for films that operate outside mainstream critical frameworks. A film does not need to be comfortable, polished, or widely loved to be important. The Hall of Fame exists precisely to honor that distinction. This week, the hosts make their cases for a 1971 inductee. Tune in to hear which film earns the honor — and whether all three Taste Buds can agree on the pick.Recast the PodcastIn Recast the Podcast, Ryan, Mike, and Greg take on one of cinema's great thought experiments. They choose a film and rebuild the cast from scratch — drawing on actors from any era, any genre, any corner of film history. Each host makes their picks. Then the debate begins.Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song presents a unique challenge for Recast the Podcast. The film was defined by Van Peebles' decision to cast himself. Sweetback's blank-faced, nearly wordless presence was a deliberate choice — not a performance in the conventional sense, but a statement. Who could step into that role today? Who has the gravity, the physicality, and the political weight to carry the film's central conceit? The Taste Buds bring their full range of cinematic knowledge to the question. Listen in to hear their picks, the reasoning behind each choice, and where the three hosts inevitably disagree.Why Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song Still MattersSweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song was never meant to be easy. Van Peebles built it as a provocation — a film that demanded a response. More than fifty years later, it still gets one. The film's influence runs through Spike Lee, John Singleton, Ava DuVernay, and virtually every Black filmmaker who followed. However, its importance is not only historical. The questions it raises about representation, power, and who controls the means of production are still urgent today.Furthermore, the film's DIY model anticipated the independent film movement by decades. Van Peebles proved that a filmmaker could retain complete creative control, bypass the studio system entirely, and still reach an enormous audience. That lesson has...

Episode 278

Welcome to "Dishing with Stephanie's Dish," the show where we dive into the stories of people passionate about food, family traditions, and the recipes that connect us all. I'm your host, Stephanie Hansen, and today, I'm thrilled to sit down with cookbook author Sarah Peterson, whose new book, Dish and Tell: Recipes from the Heart, celebrates the beauty of vintage family recipes and the memories shared around the table. Dish and Tell: Recipes from the Heart highlights celebrated dishes from Peterson's recipe box—and collects stories from other passionate home cooks who opened their kitchens to share their own tried-and-true recipes. Peterson takes readers along as she visits, cooks, and bakes with friends old and new to present a smorgasbord of family favorites. She serves up stories about the people behind the dishes and offers special tips and tricks from the keepers of these recipes.Whether you're an avid home cook, a lover of kitchen nostalgia, or just here for some culinary inspiration, get ready to hear heartfelt stories, tips on cookbook writing, and a delicious conversation that will leave you hungry for more!Original Episode Transcript Follows:Stephanie Hansen [00:00:02]:Hello, everybody, and welcome to the Dishing with Stephanie's Dish podcast, where we talk to people in the food space who are as obsessed about food as we are. And today we're talking to the cookbook author Sarah Peterson. She is the author of Dish and Tell Recipes from the Heart. I'm going to hold up her book so that you guys can see it. It looks so cute. It's pink. Sarah, I am really excited to talk to you because I don't normally get to know people sort of along the whole journey of them writing a book and then seeing it released into the world. But that did happen with you and I.Sarah Peterson [00:00:37]:Yes, it did. We've known each other a little while, or at least I've known you. I've followed your career, and so it's been really great to have you to consult with a little bit, and you've really been a mentor to me throughout this process.Stephanie Hansen [00:00:50]:Well, and I think for you, coming from the PR world, which was where your background was, and then taking it into a cookbook, I'm seeing so many, like, similarities of how you're approaching things, and I think it's just super smart, and I can't wait to talk to you. So can you just give the viewer, the listener, a little bit of backstory about the book and why you wrote it and why it's special to you?Sarah Peterson [00:01:17]:Yes.Stephanie Hansen [00:01:18]:So.Sarah Peterson [00:01:18]:So about five years ago, maybe more, I started thinking about what I wanted to do with my career. I'd been in PR a long time, telling other people's stories, writing in the voice of other people. I wanted to do something of my own. I had this love of everything vintage. I'm very nostalgic. I love any opportunity to, like, go back to my grandma's kitchens in my mind and, like, imagine them in their homes. And so this idea started brewing about, you know, what if I blogged about family recipes and shared some of these handwritten recipe cards, recipe boxes, my love of vintage. So I started with Instagram first, and I was posting a little bit, and then I.Sarah Peterson [00:02:00]:That kind of evolved into a blog, and that just really grew and grew, and it was just not my own family's recipes, but other people's families, too. Like, I started to just talk to my friends and my neighbors and ask them what are the recipes in their families that I've been handing down through the generations that are really close, you know, to their hearts, and started to share those stories on the blog and then thought, well, this could be a book. A book is daunting as you know, to write, but I had some encouragement from my dad and some other people and just pitched it to the Historical Society, and I'm just so grateful that they decided to publish it.Stephanie Hansen [00:02:37]:And what we're seeing in terms of trends for cookbooks is cookbooks that are AI proof, In other words, cookbooks that have a real narrative point of view on a story. And this book seems like it is exactly that and more. Did you feel uncomfortable or were you nervous about, like, being the keeper, the seed keeper, as it were, or the storykeeper of these stories and how you would translate them into an actual book?Sarah Peterson [00:03:07]:Yes. You mean for, like, other families? Yeah, absolutely. And I think what gave me maybe a little bit of confidence is that something that I had done in my career as a PR person and in one particular project for a client, I was tasked with shining the spotlight on small independent restaurants and the special role that they play in their communities. And so I had this chance to really interview them and tell their stories and talk about how they were making a difference in their communities. And so I was thinking about what I wanted to do with recipes and family stories, kind of drawing on that past experience of the storytelling, the type of storytelling I had done for restaurants and, like, small restaurant owners. And I think that helped give me some confidence. I think just seeing the difference it makes in someone's life, too, when they see a story printed about them. And I also love to shine the spotlight on, like, the underdogs.Sarah Peterson [00:04:03]:And I feel like home cooks don't get a lot of time in the sun, you know, So I wanted to do that. But, yeah, I do think there's a lot of responsibility you carry when you're telling somebody else's story. And it's not something I take lightly. So when I approach a story, I really, you know, lean on my journalistic background. I have a degree in journalism, try to get all the facts straight, run things by people, do fact checking, that kind of thing, too.Stephanie Hansen [00:04:33]:So you assembled all these stories and put them into a book along with your own family stories. And how has the book been received? Because it's really beautiful. It's super charming. There's lots of photos, recipe cards. It's very stylized in a sweet way.Sarah Peterson [00:04:51]:Thank you. I think it's been received really well. It's fun to see. Like, I've done a couple of events where people come up and they're just like, oh, this book is just so sweet. It reminds me of my grandma, and I can't wait to go look through her recipe box. That's like, the biggest compliment I can get. The Star Tribune editor, Nicole, she said she's the editor of Taste. She said it was like opening the book is like getting a big hug.Sarah Peterson [00:05:15]:And I think that's just so sweet, too. Like, I really wanted people to, of course, love the recipes and the stories, but I think, like, the imagery of vintage dishes, of recipe boxes, of grandmas and aprons, I mean, that's just like, so me. And I love all that, and I'm happy that other people seem to really love that as well.Stephanie Hansen [00:05:34]:I know it's hard to answer this question so soon after having the book come out, but this really does feel like it could continue on and be a series and continue to live on in your Instagram. Could even be like, audio, you know, version, or you could do television things with it because there's so much historical narrative in there. Has that occurred to you at all?Sarah Peterson [00:06:00]:Not so much yet. I mean, I'm trying to figure that all out now. Like, what do I want to do next? And I think, like, I would love to do more storytelling, more sharing of recipes, maybe more on my sub stack and my Instagram. But yeah, I mean, it could, there could be future editions of the book. But that's just so ambitious for me right now. Just kind of in the thick of it. Maybe I'll have to tap you for some more knowledge later on. But I mean, I do have, like, in talking to these families that I interviewed for the book, other stories would come up that they're, you know, other recipes.Sarah Peterson [00:06:34]:And certainly people that I've been meeting, doing events are telling me about their recipes. I had this woman come to see me at a book event at Kowalski's last weekend, and she brought her family cookbook that she had made, you know, just something that she had pieced together but was sharing with her family. And so it was really sweet, and I love seeing that, too. And I think, you know, sharing some of the recipes that other people share with me at events, but also talking about how they're recording their family recipes. Like, I think, if anything, I'd love to be an inspiration for other people or give people an inspiration to collect those recipes and show some of the formats that other families are using to share those with with their extended family.Stephanie Hansen [00:07:15]:As we talk about the nuts and bolts of making a cookbook, what was the hardest part for you in putting this book together?Sarah Peterson [00:07:25]:I think it was. It seemed so massive in the beginning, like, the organization of a cookbook. I've learned a lot in the process and, like, Have a rockin spreadsheet now. But that was very daunting in the beginning. Then I got into the thick of it, and I think toward the end, like, the editing. Oh, my gosh, that was really something because you don't know exactly when it's going to hit. Like, when are you going to have to look through this whole thing? Like, after. Even before it was in layout, like, just getting the manuscript and after the editor had done a first pass, and then you have to reread it all again, and you just have to, like, carve out a bunch of time and just get into it.Sarah Peterson [00:08:07]:And I thought that was really hard. It reminded me of being back in college when you're cramming for a final.Stephanie Hansen [00:08:11]:Yeah.Sarah Peterson [00:08:13]:So I didn't, like, love that. But, I mean, it's just part of the process.Stephanie Hansen [00:08:18]:Yeah. Because the manuscript comes back and you don't know when. And then all of a sudden, like, your entire life is put on hold for however long it takes you to get through it.Sarah Peterson [00:08:25]:And for me, it was like a summer weekend. Like, oh, okay. I guess I'm gonna just be doing this for the next two weekend. Yeah.Stephanie Hansen [00:08:33]:How did you feel about the photographing of the book? Because that can be a challenging part that stops people.Sarah Peterson [00:08:40]:I'm glad you asked about that because as you know, we have the same publisher. And it's really like, they were so great. They're like, sarah, just take photos like you're, you know, doing on your Instagram. These will be great. We'll make it work. Well, yes, but I just was, like, feeling I'm not a food stylist. You know, I do my thing and I take pictures in the moment when I'm making food, but I'm like, I don't know if these are cookbook worthy. And I do everything on my iPhone.Sarah Peterson [00:09:08]:I'm not gonna get a fancy camera. So as I got further along the process, pretty late in the process, I'm like, I just need some help, because I want somebody to help me get a really pretty shot for the COVID Help me shoot some of the things. Like, meat is so hard to take a pretty picture.Stephanie Hansen [00:09:24]:Yeah, for sure.Sarah Peterson [00:09:25]:Meatball. Or, you know, like, just. Oh. I was just really struggling, and I listened to your podcast and I know that you interviewed Rachel White of Set the Table Photography, who happens to be a food stylist as well. And I'd been following her on Instagram and really liked her style. So I reached out to her after hearing her on your podcast, and we met, and I just told her what I was doing. I said, I don't have a lot of money, but here's a few shots that I'd like to get. And she also took some headshots of me.Sarah Peterson [00:09:52]:But she came to my house for a few days, and we just banged out as much as we could. Not even like three full days. Like, two and a half days. I just was, like, cooking up a storm. We did headshots and lifestyle shots one morning, and then just a bunch of recipes and then, like, a bunch. A brunch spread one day, too.Stephanie Hansen [00:10:10]:So what that translated to me when looking at the book was we'll call them, like, some hero shots.Sarah Peterson [00:10:16]:Exactly.Stephanie Hansen [00:10:18]:That were. They were. It was funny because I couldn't necessarily tell when I was looking at the book, but I could see, like, just from the perspective of the stylized nature of the background and the more complete shot. Like, let's see if I can just find one that I can hold up.Sarah Peterson [00:10:44]:Yeah, A lot of the shots in, you know, the chapter intros.Stephanie Hansen [00:10:49]:Yeah, it's like, that one maybe.Sarah Peterson [00:10:52]:Yes, yes.Stephanie Hansen [00:10:53]:And I thought maybe that one.Sarah Peterson [00:10:56]:I took that one, actually. But I think just having Rachel, like, in. In the end, too, I was like, well, people are gonna. Is this gonna be weird to have a mix of really good professional pictures than my pictures? And then it was really important for me to have pictures that the families submitted, so candids and snapshots. And I know feature a lot of those in your cookbook, too. And I think those are so important, and I think they all came together. I hope so. Yeah, I did that one, too.Stephanie Hansen [00:11:28]:Oh, see, look at.Sarah Peterson [00:11:30]:I can't even tell if you look in the back. We credit which pages are definitely her pictures. But, you know, she did the COVIDStephanie Hansen [00:11:37]:shot, and that's this one. Yeah. No, I. I knew you had worked with her, but when I looked through the book, I thought I could tell, but I couldn't, so. Good for you.Sarah Peterson [00:11:49]:She helped me do the. The Dutch pancake.Stephanie Hansen [00:11:52]:Yep. Those are so hard to get because they deflate.Sarah Peterson [00:11:58]:I know. And the day that we did it, I just made the most gigantic one ever in my largest lodge skillet. And it worked. And, like, screaming in excitement that it came out so beautiful. And then it did deflate, but we made it look pretty with berries and powder. Powdered sugar. I did that one, too. That one.Sarah Peterson [00:12:16]:Handballs. But, like, she did these really pretty pictures of my recipe cards and recipe boxes, and she took pictures of me with my grandma's dishes. So she got a lot of shots, too, that obviously I Couldn't take because I was in them. Yeah, it was really nice. And I've been using her photos like crazy and all of my Instagram and marketing efforts, so I'm just so grateful that I had her. I wish I could have hired her for the whole thing. But I think, too, when you're making a cookbook, I don't know about you, but I like to eat what I make. And I'm, like, photographing it in the moment.Stephanie Hansen [00:12:49]:Yes.Sarah Peterson [00:12:50]:And I do like those kind of pictures too, so I'm really glad I have a mix.Stephanie Hansen [00:12:54]:I. I feel like, for me, if I'm not living that life or I'm not like, that is the life I live. So the intention is that it's happening in real time. I'm. I felt like this. Making this thing today, when I made it, this is what it looked like. This is how I ate it. This is how it.Stephanie Hansen [00:13:14]:The dishes I served it in. To me, that's what makes this food life fun. So when it becomes like a complete chore or a list or a job, that's when I find I don't like it as much.Sarah Peterson [00:13:26]:Right. And I do think that people resonate to real life pictures.Stephanie Hansen [00:13:31]:Yeah. We're lucky in that way, because if we would have been doing this during the fussy Instagram, first coming alive and everything being blown out white, beautiful shots,Sarah Peterson [00:13:42]:I don't know that we have to do that. And especially with AI now, you want things to look a little imperfect.Stephanie Hansen [00:13:47]:Tell me about how you scheduled your book tour and how you worked with your publishing company, because I feel like you're approaching it very methodically from a publicist standpoint, and I think that's helpful for cookbook writers.Sarah Peterson [00:14:05]:Well, I'm glad it appears so, because that is. That's been like a big surprise, like, book tour. Okay. I. You know, I didn't really know what to expect, and I've seen everything you've done, and you've done a phenomenal job. And I'm like, if I can do a fraction of what Stephanie does, that would be great. So really, right now, I'm in the thick of it. The book came out in February, but it was a little bit slow in getting events because I had a vacation and some other things planned.Sarah Peterson [00:14:33]:But then now, coming into April, I've got a lot more going on, and I've just been fielding requests that have come through the publisher or through my website, and I haven't said no to a lot. Although, know, like, there's things that come up, like speaking Opportunities. And I don't know that I'm there yet to do that kind of thing. So I'm just doing a mix of like, traditional book signings. The independent bookstores I absolutely love. I had a really sweet event in New at a bookstore called Luca. It was like, seriously, the set of the Gilmore Girls. It was so cute.Sarah Peterson [00:15:10]:That bookstore is amazing. And they had addition tell event where we talked about this. Like, how fun would it be to have people bring a recipe from their recipe box and we do a little recipe card swap. So we did that. And then they also made some of the dishes from the cookbook and we had like a potluck style event. So that was really sweet. So I think, you know, some of these events that come up are people that request them. Yeah, I do put on my PR hat and I'm like, well, how can we make this extra special and make it more an experience? And so I've been bringing.Sarah Peterson [00:15:42]:I've been hauling my grandma's china teacups to all these events filled with flowers. I gave you one places I use doilies made by my Aunt Jeannie. I bring pictures of the women in my family that I call the keepers that have been the keepers of our food traditions. So I sort of have this traveling roadshow.Stephanie Hansen [00:16:02]:A kid. Yeah.Sarah Peterson [00:16:04]:But in terms of the events that I'm doing, I've just. Whatever comes my way, I'm kind of doing. I am not like seeking out things. I will say, though I do love the independent bookstores are really fun. And then this week I have an event at Fickers up in Duluth, which is my home. You know, Duluth and Cloquet. So that will be really exciting to do something like that where they're making the food and I just, you know, come in and speak and mingle with people. That will be.Sarah Peterson [00:16:32]:That will be nice.Stephanie Hansen [00:16:34]:We have an or we have a Taste Buds with Stephanie episode coming up with you. I know Michelle is editing it right now, and it is where we made sandwich loaf. And you have the recipe and the techniques for sandwich loaf in your book. Can you just talk a little bit about why sandwich loaf is important to you?Sarah Peterson [00:16:57]:I would love to talk about sandwich loaf.Stephanie Hansen [00:17:00]:It was the funnest thing I've done.Sarah Peterson [00:17:03]:Sandwich loaf is something that I just. I just love it so much. And for people who don't know what it is, it's basically a layered sandwich that comes in a loaf. It looks really pretty, like almost like a wedding cake. And then you slice it so it's like layers. It's Bread with layers of tuna salad, egg salad, chicken salad, pimento cheese, whatever you want to put on the inside. And then it's all encased in cream cheese and decorated with. You can decorate it with, like, piped cream cheese that's tinted so it truly does look like a pretty cake.Sarah Peterson [00:17:35]:Or. My friend Tony and I like to do it with vegetables and herbs and just make little flowers and whimsical butterflies. So my passion for sandwich loaf started when I was probably growing up. It just showed up at, like, wedding showers, baby showers, graduations. And I always loved it. I mean, I loved how it tasted, and it was just kind of enamored by how charming it is. And then my friend Tony had it at her wedding, and we just. We.Sarah Peterson [00:18:01]:We share a bond over sandwich loaf. And part of it. She has an aunt that works at the Super One Deli up in Cloquet and made these things. And that's how we'd get them growing up. They're always ordered from the deli. They didn't make them. But Tony and I were like, we should. We should make one of these.Sarah Peterson [00:18:17]:You know, we can buy the. It's called Pullman bread. It's that long, rectangular bread. She's like, we can just order that from the deli and make our own sandwich loaf. And wouldn't this be fun? And I think we were probably influenced by Instagram seeing other kinds of decorated cakes.Stephanie Hansen [00:18:33]:Yeah.Sarah Peterson [00:18:33]:Pasture breads, where people are doing, like, fun, fun scenes. So we just started doing it a few years ago around Mother's Day. We've done it at her house. We've done it at my house, my parents house. And we'd share it with ladies in our life that we know would appreciate it. And we got such a great response. People that know sandwich loaf love it, and they're just so excited to get it. So we make, like, the big ones, then we'd cut them up and do little smaller ones, decorate them really cute and hand them out around town.Stephanie Hansen [00:19:03]:It was so fun to make that with you. I had seen sandwich loaf, but when Michelle, my producer, was like, hey, she wants to make a sandwich loaf. I was like, yeah, we can make whatever she wants to make. And then when I got there, I was like, oh, yeah, like, this is how we do it. And just making the pimento cheese and, you know, do you put tuna in? Because some people feel weird about fish. And then we had this. Do you have a salmon loaf? Like, do you have egg salad? Just such a blast making that. And I can't wait for us to show people what that's like on television.Stephanie Hansen [00:19:40]:This weekend it'll air Saturday at 8.30am it will launch on Instagram or, excuse me, it will launch on YouTube on Thursday and then it lives into perpetuity. And I'm sure they'll air it again. So it's nicely timed for your book. Thank goodness.Sarah Peterson [00:19:55]:And it's sandwich loaf season, I mean, in my world. So I'll be up in Duluth around Mother's Day and my friend Tony and I are planning to get together and make some. And it's just such a pretty spring thing and I think it would be great if people started serving them again at showers.Stephanie Hansen [00:20:08]:Yes, yes.Sarah Peterson [00:20:11]:Beautiful food item. And it's, it's tasty. You can customize it how you want. You know, you can make more than one if somebody doesn't like tuna or if you want to add some other salad. Yeah, I think it's going to be great. And it would be a fun group activity, wouldn't it, with your girlfriends?Stephanie Hansen [00:20:27]:Like. Yes.Sarah Peterson [00:20:28]:I love it because we just have fun decorating them together.Stephanie Hansen [00:20:31]:I also think it's a good multi generational thing, like for Mother's Day where, you know, you can have the kids, the grandkids, really, everyone can sort of get involved if they're, you know, I guess they have to be 10 or older probably. Unless they're. I mean, you see these little kids on Instagram making gourmet meals now. I don't know how that works. That wasn't.Sarah Peterson [00:20:51]:Well, you could make a peanut butter and jelly one. Like you could really modify the ingredients. I mean, that's not the way that I grew up with it, but it'd be fun to see what people do with it.Stephanie Hansen [00:21:00]:Yeah. And you could think you could frost it with peanut butter. Like that'd be pretty easy to do, actually.Sarah Peterson [00:21:04]:Yeah.Stephanie Hansen [00:21:05]:Or just frosting in and of itself and then have like a, a sweet with jam and kind of. That would be really good too. Or like a cream cheese buttercream for sure.Sarah Peterson [00:21:17]:And I just think it's so pretty when you cut into it too. Like it's pretty on its own when it's decorated in its loaf form. But when you slice into it, the picture of, you know, just how it looks when, when it's on the plate I think is really pretty.Stephanie Hansen [00:21:32]:I'm just gonna see if I can find it here so I can show it.Sarah Peterson [00:21:35]:Yeah, here's the. It looks kind of funny on the camera there.Stephanie Hansen [00:21:39]:Can you see it pull back a little bit? Yes, now I can. Yep. It looks great.Sarah Peterson [00:21:45]:That's like in its full, complete form. And then here it is sliced. And I like it on vintage luncheon plates that, you know, the kind our grandmas and our moms used years ago. And they have the little indentation for the coffee mug.Stephanie Hansen [00:22:01]:We just had Easter yesterday and my mother in law is 94, I think, and came for Easter dinner. And over the years she keeps giving me, you know, dishes and things that she's offloading, as it were, but I kept. I've kept stuff. And we used to have Easter all the time in Nebraska with her at her house there. So I made the Easter spread. I used her tablecloth, I used her silverware forks. I used these little paper mache bunnies that she used to put on the table that I still kept. And it was so sweet to see her come to the house yesterday and sit down and like recognize all this stuff that we had when Ellie was little and we would have Easter with her.Stephanie Hansen [00:22:46]:It was. I was so glad I kept it all. You know, it's kind of a pain, but I'm so glad I did.Sarah Peterson [00:22:51]:Oh, and you'll have that to enjoy for years. And what a great memory. I mean, and I bet Dolores was just tickled.Stephanie Hansen [00:22:56]:She was, she really, she. She really was. And the funny thing, I said, well, you know, that's your tablecloth. And she said, well, where are the napkins? And I didn't really remember that there were napkins because they were in a closet and probably in a box and I didn't unearth them. So I was like, oh, I have the napkins. I just didn't get them out. Like, you know, where are the napkins? All right, so we are going to feature you on the Taste Buds episode. It's a Dec.Stephanie Hansen [00:23:22]:Decades episode where we had to think of recipes that were important to us like through the decades. So sandwich loaf was one. Then I did a Chicken Marbella, which I don't know if you did any dinner parties in the 80s, but if you did, that was what everybody made into like probably the early 90s too.Sarah Peterson [00:23:44]:I can't wait to try that. I have not had that dish.Stephanie Hansen [00:23:47]:It is the simplest thing to make and it has a power punch of flavor. I always double the sauce just because I like it. Really saucy, but it sounds gross. And my producer was like, oh, wait, we're putting prunes in this. I was like, yeah, you just gotta trust me. It's gonna be really great. And then by the time it's all done, you have this really delicious Sauce and the cooked chicken and you can just throw it in one big pan or one big pot and then serve it right from the pot. So it's an easy dinner party.Sarah Peterson [00:24:19]:Dinner party, yeah. That sounds really good.Stephanie Hansen [00:24:22]:Do you have any, like 80s or 90s dishes that you. Not actual dishes, but things to make that you're like, oh, I. If I had to do a decades theme, what would you make?Sarah Peterson [00:24:32]:You know, let's see. So the 80s, I wasn't cooking too much, but I love.Stephanie Hansen [00:24:37]:Because you're so much younger than me.Sarah Peterson [00:24:38]:I'm not so much younger, but I was in that time of life where it was like high school. School.Stephanie Hansen [00:24:43]:Yep.Sarah Peterson [00:24:44]:Not doing a lot of entertaining or anything. I can't think of. I don't know if this is. I mean, we love Dorito. The taco salad with Doritos. I don't know if that's 80s or 90s, but like.Stephanie Hansen [00:24:56]:No, it's. I think it's 90s. And we actually talked about taco salads when we were trying to think about, like, what would be we. I couldn't think of anything of the 90s. And then my producer Michelle, like came up with a bunch of stuff. And taco salad was actually also mud pie.Sarah Peterson [00:25:14]:Yes.Stephanie Hansen [00:25:15]:So we ended up making a mud pie bar that was actually a recipe that my stepmom had. But, like, people were eating a lot of mud pie apparently in the 90s. And chocolate lava cakes.Sarah Peterson [00:25:27]:Oh my gosh. And chocolate lava cakes. Are they. They're back. I mean, I see they are back. My daughter Lucy is a big fan, so anytime we're out to eat, she's got to get a chocolate lava cake.Stephanie Hansen [00:25:36]:Have you ever made one?Sarah Peterson [00:25:38]:No, have you?Stephanie Hansen [00:25:39]:I have attempted it like three different times and it never works. I always get a delicious brownie but like getting that molten lava piece in the middle have not succeeded yet. So I didn't want to do that on camera because I was like, oh, I just don't know.Sarah Peterson [00:25:56]:So, yeah, in 90s dishes. I was just thinking of one thing that my mom has made throughout my life and is in the cookbook are Italian shells. So the big pasta shells. Yes, we ate them a lot in the 90s. We probably ate them definitely after. But just the big pasta shells loaded with Italian sausage, some torn up bread, a, you know, an egg base in there and some pasta sauce and cheese and then smothered with more sauce and cheese. That was like at every big occasion in my life.Stephanie Hansen [00:26:28]:I love it. So delicious. Well, Sarah, congratulations on the book. I'm happy to be on this journey with you, and I'm real proud of you. I think the book is beautiful, and I'm glad you're having so much success. And I can't wait till people see us make sandwich loaf on taste buds this weekend.Sarah Peterson [00:26:46]:Well, thank you. And I just have to thank you for everything, Stephanie. It's been so fun to watch your career and how you've evolved and. And done all these amazing things with your radio show, with your books, all your books and the TV show, too. It's been really fun to follow along.Stephanie Hansen [00:27:01]:Thanks. I. I had people that helped me along the way, so I feel like it's my obligation, but also my joy to help other people because, you know, I. There are things about being a freelance creator and freelance writer and cookbook writer that no one can answer for you unless they've done it. And, you know that first person that told you, like, how much they made and how long it took and what to expect for food costs and, like, those were really valuable lessons that I was so glad that I learned and that people gave me the real deal because I think that is part of, you know, some people write books for fame and fortune. Some people write them to document a historical time in their life or something that's important to them. And then some people just do it because they think it's fun. But all of it and getting, you know, the historical background about what it's going to cost and how long it's going to take, it's important information, I think, to learn before you set out on the journey.Sarah Peterson [00:28:01]:Right. And you're doing such a great service to find that information and share it with the world. So.Stephanie Hansen [00:28:07]:Yeah. And I think your story about the food stylist, too, like, people, you don't have to have a food stylist. Do the whole book. Like, you could have 10 shots or hero shots or the beginning of chapter shots. That's a great way to do.Sarah Peterson [00:28:19]:And just like spending that time with Rachel, too, for those two or three days, like, I just learned so much. So I've taken some of that experience and been able to piggyback on that and some of the photography and things that I'm doing now.Stephanie Hansen [00:28:33]:Yeah, she's really good at it. So I'm glad that Rachel was a resource for you. Her podcast, you can find it in the archives, too, of Dishing with Stephanie's Dish, because it's in there and it's a good one to listen to. So, Sarah, thanks for being with me today. Congratulations on the book. It is Dish and Tell. And where can people get the book and how do you want them toSarah Peterson [00:28:53]:follow you so they can find the book at, you know, online through the major retailers. And then if you're in the Twin Cities, it's at, like, Kowalski's and a lot of independent bookstores. It's even at Barnes and Noble. I went by and visited it this weekend at the Barnes and Noble in Roseville. I've been going around and seeing my book at different places. It's so exciting, and people can follow me. My website is vintagedishandtel.com. my social media handles are the same.Sarah Peterson [00:29:19]:Vintage, Dish and Tell. And then I have a sub stack too, which, if you can't find, just go to my website and you'll be able to link to it.Stephanie Hansen [00:29:26]:Has anyone told you that when you see your book in the wild, you're supposed to sign them?Sarah Peterson [00:29:31]:No, I've thought about that. Do you, like. Do you talk to the bookstore manager or the.Stephanie Hansen [00:29:38]:Sometimes I wouldn't. At a Barnes and Noble, I'd probably just do it. But there's a real rationale behind it, because booksellers can return books that don't sell. They can't return books that are signed.Sarah Peterson [00:29:50]:I'm gonna go sign every one I can find.Stephanie Hansen [00:29:52]:Yeah, I. Whenever I'm out and about, and if it's a small store, I will tell them, okay. But if I see it, I'm. I'll just. I go to the bookseller and I'm like, hey, I'm here and my book is here. Do you mind if I sign a couple? A lot of them have stickers and they'll put, you know, signed edition. But if I'm at, like, Barnes and Noble, I just sit there with my pen and sign them all.Sarah Peterson [00:30:11]:Oh, that's great. Yeah.Stephanie Hansen [00:30:12]:So make sure you sign them.Sarah Peterson [00:30:13]:Thanks for that. Hot tip.Stephanie Hansen [00:30:14]:Yeah, hot tip. Hot tip. All right, Sarah, thanks for joining me today.Sarah Peterson [00:30:18]:Thank you.Stephanie Hansen [00:30:18]:Okay, bye. Bye.Sarah Peterson [00:30:20]:Bye.Stephanie Hansen's @StephaniesDish Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit stephaniehansen.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome to "Dishing with Stephanie's Dish," the show where we dive into the stories of people passionate about food, family traditions, and the recipes that connect us all. I'm your host, Stephanie Hansen, and today, I'm thrilled to sit down with cookbook author Sarah Peterson, whose new book, Dish and Tell: Recipes from the Heart, celebrates the beauty of vintage family recipes and the memories shared around the table. Dish and Tell: Recipes from the Heart highlights celebrated dishes from Peterson's recipe box—and collects stories from other passionate home cooks who opened their kitchens to share their own tried-and-true recipes. Peterson takes readers along as she visits, cooks, and bakes with friends old and new to present a smorgasbord of family favorites. She serves up stories about the people behind the dishes and offers special tips and tricks from the keepers of these recipes.Whether you're an avid home cook, a lover of kitchen nostalgia, or just here for some culinary inspiration, get ready to hear heartfelt stories, tips on cookbook writing, and a delicious conversation that will leave you hungry for more!Original Episode Transcript Follows:Stephanie Hansen [00:00:02]:Hello, everybody, and welcome to the Dishing with Stephanie's Dish podcast, where we talk to people in the food space who are as obsessed about food as we are. And today we're talking to the cookbook author Sarah Peterson. She is the author of Dish and Tell Recipes from the Heart. I'm going to hold up her book so that you guys can see it. It looks so cute. It's pink. Sarah, I am really excited to talk to you because I don't normally get to know people sort of along the whole journey of them writing a book and then seeing it released into the world. But that did happen with you and I.Sarah Peterson [00:00:37]:Yes, it did. We've known each other a little while, or at least I've known you. I've followed your career, and so it's been really great to have you to consult with a little bit, and you've really been a mentor to me throughout this process.Stephanie Hansen [00:00:50]:Well, and I think for you, coming from the PR world, which was where your background was, and then taking it into a cookbook, I'm seeing so many, like, similarities of how you're approaching things, and I think it's just super smart, and I can't wait to talk to you. So can you just give the viewer, the listener, a little bit of backstory about the book and why you wrote it and why it's special to you?Sarah Peterson [00:01:17]:Yes.Stephanie Hansen [00:01:18]:So.Sarah Peterson [00:01:18]:So about five years ago, maybe more, I started thinking about what I wanted to do with my career. I'd been in PR a long time, telling other people's stories, writing in the voice of other people. I wanted to do something of my own. I had this love of everything vintage. I'm very nostalgic. I love any opportunity to, like, go back to my grandma's kitchens in my mind and, like, imagine them in their homes. And so this idea started brewing about, you know, what if I blogged about family recipes and shared some of these handwritten recipe cards, recipe boxes, my love of vintage. So I started with Instagram first, and I was posting a little bit, and then I.Sarah Peterson [00:02:00]:That kind of evolved into a blog, and that just really grew and grew, and it was just not my own family's recipes, but other people's families, too. Like, I started to just talk to my friends and my neighbors and ask them what are the recipes in their families that I've been handing down through the generations that are really close, you know, to their hearts, and started to share those stories on the blog and then thought, well, this could be a book. A book is daunting as you know, to write, but I had some encouragement from my dad and some other people and just pitched it to the Historical Society, and I'm just so grateful that they decided to publish it.Stephanie Hansen [00:02:37]:And what we're seeing in terms of trends for cookbooks is cookbooks that are AI proof, In other words, cookbooks that have a real narrative point of view on a story. And this book seems like it is exactly that and more. Did you feel uncomfortable or were you nervous about, like, being the keeper, the seed keeper, as it were, or the storykeeper of these stories and how you would translate them into an actual book?Sarah Peterson [00:03:07]:Yes. You mean for, like, other families? Yeah, absolutely. And I think what gave me maybe a little bit of confidence is that something that I had done in my career as a PR person and in one particular project for a client, I was tasked with shining the spotlight on small independent restaurants and the special role that they play in their communities. And so I had this chance to really interview them and tell their stories and talk about how they were making a difference in their communities. And so I was thinking about what I wanted to do with recipes and family stories, kind of drawing on that past experience of the storytelling, the type of storytelling I had done for restaurants and, like, small restaurant owners. And I think that helped give me some confidence. I think just seeing the difference it makes in someone's life, too, when they see a story printed about them. And I also love to shine the spotlight on, like, the underdogs.Sarah Peterson [00:04:03]:And I feel like home cooks don't get a lot of time in the sun, you know, So I wanted to do that. But, yeah, I do think there's a lot of responsibility you carry when you're telling somebody else's story. And it's not something I take lightly. So when I approach a story, I really, you know, lean on my journalistic background. I have a degree in journalism, try to get all the facts straight, run things by people, do fact checking, that kind of thing, too.Stephanie Hansen [00:04:33]:So you assembled all these stories and put them into a book along with your own family stories. And how has the book been received? Because it's really beautiful. It's super charming. There's lots of photos, recipe cards. It's very stylized in a sweet way.Sarah Peterson [00:04:51]:Thank you. I think it's been received really well. It's fun to see. Like, I've done a couple of events where people come up and they're just like, oh, this book is just so sweet. It reminds me of my grandma, and I can't wait to go look through her recipe box. That's like, the biggest compliment I can get. The Star Tribune editor, Nicole, she said she's the editor of Taste. She said it was like opening the book is like getting a big hug.Sarah Peterson [00:05:15]:And I think that's just so sweet, too. Like, I really wanted people to, of course, love the recipes and the stories, but I think, like, the imagery of vintage dishes, of recipe boxes, of grandmas and aprons, I mean, that's just like, so me. And I love all that, and I'm happy that other people seem to really love that as well.Stephanie Hansen [00:05:34]:I know it's hard to answer this question so soon after having the book come out, but this really does feel like it could continue on and be a series and continue to live on in your Instagram. Could even be like, audio, you know, version, or you could do television things with it because there's so much historical narrative in there. Has that occurred to you at all?Sarah Peterson [00:06:00]:Not so much yet. I mean, I'm trying to figure that all out now. Like, what do I want to do next? And I think, like, I would love to do more storytelling, more sharing of recipes, maybe more on my sub stack and my Instagram. But yeah, I mean, it could, there could be future editions of the book. But that's just so ambitious for me right now. Just kind of in the thick of it. Maybe I'll have to tap you for some more knowledge later on. But I mean, I do have, like, in talking to these families that I interviewed for the book, other stories would come up that they're, you know, other recipes.Sarah Peterson [00:06:34]:And certainly people that I've been meeting, doing events are telling me about their recipes. I had this woman come to see me at a book event at Kowalski's last weekend, and she brought her family cookbook that she had made, you know, just something that she had pieced together but was sharing with her family. And so it was really sweet, and I love seeing that, too. And I think, you know, sharing some of the recipes that other people share with me at events, but also talking about how they're recording their family recipes. Like, I think, if anything, I'd love to be an inspiration for other people or give people an inspiration to collect those recipes and show some of the formats that other families are using to share those with with their extended family.Stephanie Hansen [00:07:15]:As we talk about the nuts and bolts of making a cookbook, what was the hardest part for you in putting this book together?Sarah Peterson [00:07:25]:I think it was. It seemed so massive in the beginning, like, the organization of a cookbook. I've learned a lot in the process and, like, Have a rockin spreadsheet now. But that was very daunting in the beginning. Then I got into the thick of it, and I think toward the end, like, the editing. Oh, my gosh, that was really something because you don't know exactly when it's going to hit. Like, when are you going to have to look through this whole thing? Like, after. Even before it was in layout, like, just getting the manuscript and after the editor had done a first pass, and then you have to reread it all again, and you just have to, like, carve out a bunch of time and just get into it.Sarah Peterson [00:08:07]:And I thought that was really hard. It reminded me of being back in college when you're cramming for a final.Stephanie Hansen [00:08:11]:Yeah.Sarah Peterson [00:08:13]:So I didn't, like, love that. But, I mean, it's just part of the process.Stephanie Hansen [00:08:18]:Yeah. Because the manuscript comes back and you don't know when. And then all of a sudden, like, your entire life is put on hold for however long it takes you to get through it.Sarah Peterson [00:08:25]:And for me, it was like a summer weekend. Like, oh, okay. I guess I'm gonna just be doing this for the next two weekend. Yeah.Stephanie Hansen [00:08:33]:How did you feel about the photographing of the book? Because that can be a challenging part that stops people.Sarah Peterson [00:08:40]:I'm glad you asked about that because as you know, we have the same publisher. And it's really like, they were so great. They're like, sarah, just take photos like you're, you know, doing on your Instagram. These will be great. We'll make it work. Well, yes, but I just was, like, feeling I'm not a food stylist. You know, I do my thing and I take pictures in the moment when I'm making food, but I'm like, I don't know if these are cookbook worthy. And I do everything on my iPhone.Sarah Peterson [00:09:08]:I'm not gonna get a fancy camera. So as I got further along the process, pretty late in the process, I'm like, I just need some help, because I want somebody to help me get a really pretty shot for the COVID Help me shoot some of the things. Like, meat is so hard to take a pretty picture.Stephanie Hansen [00:09:24]:Yeah, for sure.Sarah Peterson [00:09:25]:Meatball. Or, you know, like, just. Oh. I was just really struggling, and I listened to your podcast and I know that you interviewed Rachel White of Set the Table Photography, who happens to be a food stylist as well. And I'd been following her on Instagram and really liked her style. So I reached out to her after hearing her on your podcast, and we met, and I just told her what I was doing. I said, I don't have a lot of money, but here's a few shots that I'd like to get. And she also took some headshots of me.Sarah Peterson [00:09:52]:But she came to my house for a few days, and we just banged out as much as we could. Not even like three full days. Like, two and a half days. I just was, like, cooking up a storm. We did headshots and lifestyle shots one morning, and then just a bunch of recipes and then, like, a bunch. A brunch spread one day, too.Stephanie Hansen [00:10:10]:So what that translated to me when looking at the book was we'll call them, like, some hero shots.Sarah Peterson [00:10:16]:Exactly.Stephanie Hansen [00:10:18]:That were. They were. It was funny because I couldn't necessarily tell when I was looking at the book, but I could see, like, just from the perspective of the stylized nature of the background and the more complete shot. Like, let's see if I can just find one that I can hold up.Sarah Peterson [00:10:44]:Yeah, A lot of the shots in, you know, the chapter intros.Stephanie Hansen [00:10:49]:Yeah, it's like, that one maybe.Sarah Peterson [00:10:52]:Yes, yes.Stephanie Hansen [00:10:53]:And I thought maybe that one.Sarah Peterson [00:10:56]:I took that one, actually. But I think just having Rachel, like, in. In the end, too, I was like, well, people are gonna. Is this gonna be weird to have a mix of really good professional pictures than my pictures? And then it was really important for me to have pictures that the families submitted, so candids and snapshots. And I know feature a lot of those in your cookbook, too. And I think those are so important, and I think they all came together. I hope so. Yeah, I did that one, too.Stephanie Hansen [00:11:28]:Oh, see, look at.Sarah Peterson [00:11:30]:I can't even tell if you look in the back. We credit which pages are definitely her pictures. But, you know, she did the COVIDStephanie Hansen [00:11:37]:shot, and that's this one. Yeah. No, I. I knew you had worked with her, but when I looked through the book, I thought I could tell, but I couldn't, so. Good for you.Sarah Peterson [00:11:49]:She helped me do the. The Dutch pancake.Stephanie Hansen [00:11:52]:Yep. Those are so hard to get because they deflate.Sarah Peterson [00:11:58]:I know. And the day that we did it, I just made the most gigantic one ever in my largest lodge skillet. And it worked. And, like, screaming in excitement that it came out so beautiful. And then it did deflate, but we made it look pretty with berries and powder. Powdered sugar. I did that one, too. That one.Sarah Peterson [00:12:16]:Handballs. But, like, she did these really pretty pictures of my recipe cards and recipe boxes, and she took pictures of me with my grandma's dishes. So she got a lot of shots, too, that obviously I Couldn't take because I was in them. Yeah, it was really nice. And I've been using her photos like crazy and all of my Instagram and marketing efforts, so I'm just so grateful that I had her. I wish I could have hired her for the whole thing. But I think, too, when you're making a cookbook, I don't know about you, but I like to eat what I make. And I'm, like, photographing it in the moment.Stephanie Hansen [00:12:49]:Yes.Sarah Peterson [00:12:50]:And I do like those kind of pictures too, so I'm really glad I have a mix.Stephanie Hansen [00:12:54]:I. I feel like, for me, if I'm not living that life or I'm not like, that is the life I live. So the intention is that it's happening in real time. I'm. I felt like this. Making this thing today, when I made it, this is what it looked like. This is how I ate it. This is how it.Stephanie Hansen [00:13:14]:The dishes I served it in. To me, that's what makes this food life fun. So when it becomes like a complete chore or a list or a job, that's when I find I don't like it as much.Sarah Peterson [00:13:26]:Right. And I do think that people resonate to real life pictures.Stephanie Hansen [00:13:31]:Yeah. We're lucky in that way, because if we would have been doing this during the fussy Instagram, first coming alive and everything being blown out white, beautiful shots,Sarah Peterson [00:13:42]:I don't know that we have to do that. And especially with AI now, you want things to look a little imperfect.Stephanie Hansen [00:13:47]:Tell me about how you scheduled your book tour and how you worked with your publishing company, because I feel like you're approaching it very methodically from a publicist standpoint, and I think that's helpful for cookbook writers.Sarah Peterson [00:14:05]:Well, I'm glad it appears so, because that is. That's been like a big surprise, like, book tour. Okay. I. You know, I didn't really know what to expect, and I've seen everything you've done, and you've done a phenomenal job. And I'm like, if I can do a fraction of what Stephanie does, that would be great. So really, right now, I'm in the thick of it. The book came out in February, but it was a little bit slow in getting events because I had a vacation and some other things planned.Sarah Peterson [00:14:33]:But then now, coming into April, I've got a lot more going on, and I've just been fielding requests that have come through the publisher or through my website, and I haven't said no to a lot. Although, know, like, there's things that come up, like speaking Opportunities. And I don't know that I'm there yet to do that kind of thing. So I'm just doing a mix of like, traditional book signings. The independent bookstores I absolutely love. I had a really sweet event in New at a bookstore called Luca. It was like, seriously, the set of the Gilmore Girls. It was so cute.Sarah Peterson [00:15:10]:That bookstore is amazing. And they had addition tell event where we talked about this. Like, how fun would it be to have people bring a recipe from their recipe box and we do a little recipe card swap. So we did that. And then they also made some of the dishes from the cookbook and we had like a potluck style event. So that was really sweet. So I think, you know, some of these events that come up are people that request them. Yeah, I do put on my PR hat and I'm like, well, how can we make this extra special and make it more an experience? And so I've been bringing.Sarah Peterson [00:15:42]:I've been hauling my grandma's china teacups to all these events filled with flowers. I gave you one places I use doilies made by my Aunt Jeannie. I bring pictures of the women in my family that I call the keepers that have been the keepers of our food traditions. So I sort of have this traveling roadshow.Stephanie Hansen [00:16:02]:A kid. Yeah.Sarah Peterson [00:16:04]:But in terms of the events that I'm doing, I've just. Whatever comes my way, I'm kind of doing. I am not like seeking out things. I will say, though I do love the independent bookstores are really fun. And then this week I have an event at Fickers up in Duluth, which is my home. You know, Duluth and Cloquet. So that will be really exciting to do something like that where they're making the food and I just, you know, come in and speak and mingle with people. That will be.Sarah Peterson [00:16:32]:That will be nice.Stephanie Hansen [00:16:34]:We have an or we have a Taste Buds with Stephanie episode coming up with you. I know Michelle is editing it right now, and it is where we made sandwich loaf. And you have the recipe and the techniques for sandwich loaf in your book. Can you just talk a little bit about why sandwich loaf is important to you?Sarah Peterson [00:16:57]:I would love to talk about sandwich loaf.Stephanie Hansen [00:17:00]:It was the funnest thing I've done.Sarah Peterson [00:17:03]:Sandwich loaf is something that I just. I just love it so much. And for people who don't know what it is, it's basically a layered sandwich that comes in a loaf. It looks really pretty, like almost like a wedding cake. And then you slice it so it's like layers. It's Bread with layers of tuna salad, egg salad, chicken salad, pimento cheese, whatever you want to put on the inside. And then it's all encased in cream cheese and decorated with. You can decorate it with, like, piped cream cheese that's tinted so it truly does look like a pretty cake.Sarah Peterson [00:17:35]:Or. My friend Tony and I like to do it with vegetables and herbs and just make little flowers and whimsical butterflies. So my passion for sandwich loaf started when I was probably growing up. It just showed up at, like, wedding showers, baby showers, graduations. And I always loved it. I mean, I loved how it tasted, and it was just kind of enamored by how charming it is. And then my friend Tony had it at her wedding, and we just. We.Sarah Peterson [00:18:01]:We share a bond over sandwich loaf. And part of it. She has an aunt that works at the Super One Deli up in Cloquet and made these things. And that's how we'd get them growing up. They're always ordered from the deli. They didn't make them. But Tony and I were like, we should. We should make one of these.Sarah Peterson [00:18:17]:You know, we can buy the. It's called Pullman bread. It's that long, rectangular bread. She's like, we can just order that from the deli and make our own sandwich loaf. And wouldn't this be fun? And I think we were probably influenced by Instagram seeing other kinds of decorated cakes.Stephanie Hansen [00:18:33]:Yeah.Sarah Peterson [00:18:33]:Pasture breads, where people are doing, like, fun, fun scenes. So we just started doing it a few years ago around Mother's Day. We've done it at her house. We've done it at my house, my parents house. And we'd share it with ladies in our life that we know would appreciate it. And we got such a great response. People that know sandwich loaf love it, and they're just so excited to get it. So we make, like, the big ones, then we'd cut them up and do little smaller ones, decorate them really cute and hand them out around town.Stephanie Hansen [00:19:03]:It was so fun to make that with you. I had seen sandwich loaf, but when Michelle, my producer, was like, hey, she wants to make a sandwich loaf. I was like, yeah, we can make whatever she wants to make. And then when I got there, I was like, oh, yeah, like, this is how we do it. And just making the pimento cheese and, you know, do you put tuna in? Because some people feel weird about fish. And then we had this. Do you have a salmon loaf? Like, do you have egg salad? Just such a blast making that. And I can't wait for us to show people what that's like on television.Stephanie Hansen [00:19:40]:This weekend it'll air Saturday at 8.30am it will launch on Instagram or, excuse me, it will launch on YouTube on Thursday and then it lives into perpetuity. And I'm sure they'll air it again. So it's nicely timed for your book. Thank goodness.Sarah Peterson [00:19:55]:And it's sandwich loaf season, I mean, in my world. So I'll be up in Duluth around Mother's Day and my friend Tony and I are planning to get together and make some. And it's just such a pretty spring thing and I think it would be great if people started serving them again at showers.Stephanie Hansen [00:20:08]:Yes, yes.Sarah Peterson [00:20:11]:Beautiful food item. And it's, it's tasty. You can customize it how you want. You know, you can make more than one if somebody doesn't like tuna or if you want to add some other salad. Yeah, I think it's going to be great. And it would be a fun group activity, wouldn't it, with your girlfriends?Stephanie Hansen [00:20:27]:Like. Yes.Sarah Peterson [00:20:28]:I love it because we just have fun decorating them together.Stephanie Hansen [00:20:31]:I also think it's a good multi generational thing, like for Mother's Day where, you know, you can have the kids, the grandkids, really, everyone can sort of get involved if they're, you know, I guess they have to be 10 or older probably. Unless they're. I mean, you see these little kids on Instagram making gourmet meals now. I don't know how that works. That wasn't.Sarah Peterson [00:20:51]:Well, you could make a peanut butter and jelly one. Like you could really modify the ingredients. I mean, that's not the way that I grew up with it, but it'd be fun to see what people do with it.Stephanie Hansen [00:21:00]:Yeah. And you could think you could frost it with peanut butter. Like that'd be pretty easy to do, actually.Sarah Peterson [00:21:04]:Yeah.Stephanie Hansen [00:21:05]:Or just frosting in and of itself and then have like a, a sweet with jam and kind of. That would be really good too. Or like a cream cheese buttercream for sure.Sarah Peterson [00:21:17]:And I just think it's so pretty when you cut into it too. Like it's pretty on its own when it's decorated in its loaf form. But when you slice into it, the picture of, you know, just how it looks when, when it's on the plate I think is really pretty.Stephanie Hansen [00:21:32]:I'm just gonna see if I can find it here so I can show it.Sarah Peterson [00:21:35]:Yeah, here's the. It looks kind of funny on the camera there.Stephanie Hansen [00:21:39]:Can you see it pull back a little bit? Yes, now I can. Yep. It looks great.Sarah Peterson [00:21:45]:That's like in its full, complete form. And then here it is sliced. And I like it on vintage luncheon plates that, you know, the kind our grandmas and our moms used years ago. And they have the little indentation for the coffee mug.Stephanie Hansen [00:22:01]:We just had Easter yesterday and my mother in law is 94, I think, and came for Easter dinner. And over the years she keeps giving me, you know, dishes and things that she's offloading, as it were, but I kept. I've kept stuff. And we used to have Easter all the time in Nebraska with her at her house there. So I made the Easter spread. I used her tablecloth, I used her silverware forks. I used these little paper mache bunnies that she used to put on the table that I still kept. And it was so sweet to see her come to the house yesterday and sit down and like recognize all this stuff that we had when Ellie was little and we would have Easter with her.Stephanie Hansen [00:22:46]:It was. I was so glad I kept it all. You know, it's kind of a pain, but I'm so glad I did.Sarah Peterson [00:22:51]:Oh, and you'll have that to enjoy for years. And what a great memory. I mean, and I bet Dolores was just tickled.Stephanie Hansen [00:22:56]:She was, she really, she. She really was. And the funny thing, I said, well, you know, that's your tablecloth. And she said, well, where are the napkins? And I didn't really remember that there were napkins because they were in a closet and probably in a box and I didn't unearth them. So I was like, oh, I have the napkins. I just didn't get them out. Like, you know, where are the napkins? All right, so we are going to feature you on the Taste Buds episode. It's a Dec.Stephanie Hansen [00:23:22]:Decades episode where we had to think of recipes that were important to us like through the decades. So sandwich loaf was one. Then I did a Chicken Marbella, which I don't know if you did any dinner parties in the 80s, but if you did, that was what everybody made into like probably the early 90s too.Sarah Peterson [00:23:44]:I can't wait to try that. I have not had that dish.Stephanie Hansen [00:23:47]:It is the simplest thing to make and it has a power punch of flavor. I always double the sauce just because I like it. Really saucy, but it sounds gross. And my producer was like, oh, wait, we're putting prunes in this. I was like, yeah, you just gotta trust me. It's gonna be really great. And then by the time it's all done, you have this really delicious Sauce and the cooked chicken and you can just throw it in one big pan or one big pot and then serve it right from the pot. So it's an easy dinner party.Sarah Peterson [00:24:19]:Dinner party, yeah. That sounds really good.Stephanie Hansen [00:24:22]:Do you have any, like 80s or 90s dishes that you. Not actual dishes, but things to make that you're like, oh, I. If I had to do a decades theme, what would you make?Sarah Peterson [00:24:32]:You know, let's see. So the 80s, I wasn't cooking too much, but I love.Stephanie Hansen [00:24:37]:Because you're so much younger than me.Sarah Peterson [00:24:38]:I'm not so much younger, but I was in that time of life where it was like high school. School.Stephanie Hansen [00:24:43]:Yep.Sarah Peterson [00:24:44]:Not doing a lot of entertaining or anything. I can't think of. I don't know if this is. I mean, we love Dorito. The taco salad with Doritos. I don't know if that's 80s or 90s, but like.Stephanie Hansen [00:24:56]:No, it's. I think it's 90s. And we actually talked about taco salads when we were trying to think about, like, what would be we. I couldn't think of anything of the 90s. And then my producer Michelle, like came up with a bunch of stuff. And taco salad was actually also mud pie.Sarah Peterson [00:25:14]:Yes.Stephanie Hansen [00:25:15]:So we ended up making a mud pie bar that was actually a recipe that my stepmom had. But, like, people were eating a lot of mud pie apparently in the 90s. And chocolate lava cakes.Sarah Peterson [00:25:27]:Oh my gosh. And chocolate lava cakes. Are they. They're back. I mean, I see they are back. My daughter Lucy is a big fan, so anytime we're out to eat, she's got to get a chocolate lava cake.Stephanie Hansen [00:25:36]:Have you ever made one?Sarah Peterson [00:25:38]:No, have you?Stephanie Hansen [00:25:39]:I have attempted it like three different times and it never works. I always get a delicious brownie but like getting that molten lava piece in the middle have not succeeded yet. So I didn't want to do that on camera because I was like, oh, I just don't know.Sarah Peterson [00:25:56]:So, yeah, in 90s dishes. I was just thinking of one thing that my mom has made throughout my life and is in the cookbook are Italian shells. So the big pasta shells. Yes, we ate them a lot in the 90s. We probably ate them definitely after. But just the big pasta shells loaded with Italian sausage, some torn up bread, a, you know, an egg base in there and some pasta sauce and cheese and then smothered with more sauce and cheese. That was like at every big occasion in my life.Stephanie Hansen [00:26:28]:I love it. So delicious. Well, Sarah, congratulations on the book. I'm happy to be on this journey with you, and I'm real proud of you. I think the book is beautiful, and I'm glad you're having so much success. And I can't wait till people see us make sandwich loaf on taste buds this weekend.Sarah Peterson [00:26:46]:Well, thank you. And I just have to thank you for everything, Stephanie. It's been so fun to watch your career and how you've evolved and. And done all these amazing things with your radio show, with your books, all your books and the TV show, too. It's been really fun to follow along.Stephanie Hansen [00:27:01]:Thanks. I. I had people that helped me along the way, so I feel like it's my obligation, but also my joy to help other people because, you know, I. There are things about being a freelance creator and freelance writer and cookbook writer that no one can answer for you unless they've done it. And, you know that first person that told you, like, how much they made and how long it took and what to expect for food costs and, like, those were really valuable lessons that I was so glad that I learned and that people gave me the real deal because I think that is part of, you know, some people write books for fame and fortune. Some people write them to document a historical time in their life or something that's important to them. And then some people just do it because they think it's fun. But all of it and getting, you know, the historical background about what it's going to cost and how long it's going to take, it's important information, I think, to learn before you set out on the journey.Sarah Peterson [00:28:01]:Right. And you're doing such a great service to find that information and share it with the world. So.Stephanie Hansen [00:28:07]:Yeah. And I think your story about the food stylist, too, like, people, you don't have to have a food stylist. Do the whole book. Like, you could have 10 shots or hero shots or the beginning of chapter shots. That's a great way to do.Sarah Peterson [00:28:19]:And just like spending that time with Rachel, too, for those two or three days, like, I just learned so much. So I've taken some of that experience and been able to piggyback on that and some of the photography and things that I'm doing now.Stephanie Hansen [00:28:33]:Yeah, she's really good at it. So I'm glad that Rachel was a resource for you. Her podcast, you can find it in the archives, too, of Dishing with Stephanie's Dish, because it's in there and it's a good one to listen to. So, Sarah, thanks for being with me today. Congratulations on the book. It is Dish and Tell. And where can people get the book and how do you want them toSarah Peterson [00:28:53]:follow you so they can find the book at, you know, online through the major retailers. And then if you're in the Twin Cities, it's at, like, Kowalski's and a lot of independent bookstores. It's even at Barnes and Noble. I went by and visited it this weekend at the Barnes and Noble in Roseville. I've been going around and seeing my book at different places. It's so exciting, and people can follow me. My website is vintagedishandtel.com. my social media handles are the same.Sarah Peterson [00:29:19]:Vintage, Dish and Tell. And then I have a sub stack too, which, if you can't find, just go to my website and you'll be able to link to it.Stephanie Hansen [00:29:26]:Has anyone told you that when you see your book in the wild, you're supposed to sign them?Sarah Peterson [00:29:31]:No, I've thought about that. Do you, like. Do you talk to the bookstore manager or the.Stephanie Hansen [00:29:38]:Sometimes I wouldn't. At a Barnes and Noble, I'd probably just do it. But there's a real rationale behind it, because booksellers can return books that don't sell. They can't return books that are signed.Sarah Peterson [00:29:50]:I'm gonna go sign every one I can find.Stephanie Hansen [00:29:52]:Yeah, I. Whenever I'm out and about, and if it's a small store, I will tell them, okay. But if I see it, I'm. I'll just. I go to the bookseller and I'm like, hey, I'm here and my book is here. Do you mind if I sign a couple? A lot of them have stickers and they'll put, you know, signed edition. But if I'm at, like, Barnes and Noble, I just sit there with my pen and sign them all.Sarah Peterson [00:30:11]:Oh, that's great. Yeah.Stephanie Hansen [00:30:12]:So make sure you sign them.Sarah Peterson [00:30:13]:Thanks for that. Hot tip.Stephanie Hansen [00:30:14]:Yeah, hot tip. Hot tip. All right, Sarah, thanks for joining me today.Sarah Peterson [00:30:18]:Thank you.Stephanie Hansen [00:30:18]:Okay, bye. Bye.Sarah Peterson [00:30:20]:Bye.Stephanie Hansen's @StephaniesDish Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit stephaniehansen.substack.com/subscribe

Movie of the Year: 1971Harold and Maude (feat. Van from the Gaymer Girls pod!)The Harold and Maude podcast episode is here — and the Taste Buds are diving deep into one of 1971's most subversive and life-affirming films. Hal Ashby's Harold and Maude (1971) has been a cult touchstone for over fifty years. This episode gives it the full PopFilter treatment. Ryan, Mike, and Greg welcome guest panelist Van Baumann from the Gaymer Girls podcast for a conversation about this singular film. It baffled studios, bombed at the box office, and somehow became a defining work of American cinema. Furthermore, this episode features a Rushmore segment on the most iconic May-December romances in movie history, plus a Shopping Spree. Consequently, this is one of the most spirited episodes of the Movie of the Year: 1971 series. About the Harold and Maude FilmDirected by Hal Ashby, Harold and Maude arrived in December 1971 as one of the most unusual films Paramount Pictures had ever released. The screenplay, written by Colin Higgins, began as his master's thesis at UCLA film school. It follows Harold Chasen (Bud Cort), a wealthy young man obsessed with death. Harold stages elaborate fake suicides to shock his emotionally absent mother. Moreover, he fills his days with funerals, hearses, and junkyards — searching for something authentic in a world of suffocating privilege. At one such funeral, he meets Maude (Ruth Gordon), a 79-year-old woman. Her boundless appetite for life stands in complete contrast to his morbid worldview. Above all, their unlikely friendship — and eventual romance — challenges every social convention the Hal Ashby 1971 film can find.The Harold and Maude film bombed on initial release. Critics were baffled, and audiences didn't know what to make of it. Nevertheless, it found its audience through midnight screenings and college campuses, eventually becoming one of cinema's defining 1971 cult classics. The Cat Stevens Harold and Maude soundtrack became inseparable from the film's identity. Notably, the Criterion Collection released a full restoration on Blu-ray in 2012. That cemented its status as a genuine classic. You can explore the full credits at its IMDb page. Guest Panelist: Van BaumannVan Baumann joins the Taste Buds for this Harold and Maude podcast episode. She co-hosts Gaymer Girls — a weekly podcast covering gaming, queer culture, and pop culture. Van and co-host Sana cover topics ranging from Baldur's Gate 3 to LGBTQ+ representation in gaming. Their wit and expertise extend to the cultural politics of the industry as well. Moreover, the show specializes in IP deep-dives for newcomers. Long-running franchises get broken down in ways that are accessible, funny, and genuinely informative.Van's perspective on the Harold and Maude film is a particularly fitting one. The 1971 cult classic resonates strongly with queer audiences for its anti-establishment energy and rejection of conventional romance. Additionally, her background in gaming culture and media criticism brings a fresh lens to Ashby's film. It is a perspective the Taste Buds couldn't provide on their own.Harold and Maude as Characters: An Unlikely Mirror in a Harold and Maude Podcast DiscussionAt the heart of the Harold and Maude film are two characters who could not appear more different on paper. Harold is young, wealthy, and surrounded by privilege — yet profoundly miserable. Maude is elderly and owns almost nothing. She has lived through extraordinary hardship. The film subtly implies she is a Holocaust survivor. However, both characters share a fundamental rejection of the life society has scripted for them. Harold's fake suicides are acts of rebellion against his mother's indifference. Meanwhile, Maude steals cars and uproots city trees without malice. She acts from a deep belief that the world belongs to everyone equally.Ruth Gordon's performance is magnetic. Gordon plays Maude not as a quirky old woman. Rather, she portrays someone who earned every ounce of joy through survival and deliberate choice. Bud Cort embodies Harold's blankness with quiet precision. His deadpan delivery makes every small shift in the character feel earned. Consequently, the chemistry between them feels less like a conventional romance and more like a transmission. Maude passes something essential to Harold before her time runs out. The Taste Buds and Van explore what makes these characters so enduring. Both discuss why the film still resonates more than fifty years later. Life and Philosophy: What the Harold and Maude 1971 Film Actually TeachesHarold and Maude is, at its core, a film about choosing to live. Specifically, it argues that joy is not something handed to you — it is something you practice, steal, nurture, and defend. Maude embodies this philosophy in every scene. She makes art and plays music with equal passion. Furthermore, she transplants a struggling tree from a concrete sidewalk to the open forest. She believes living things deserve better conditions than city concrete. Above all, she treats every encounter as an opportunity rather than an obligation.The Hal Ashby 1971 film engages with existentialism in a remarkably accessible way. It never lectures. Instead, it dramatizes the tension between Harold's death drive and Maude's life force. The audience feels the shift as the film progresses. In addition, Harold and Maude is bracingly anti-authoritarian — Harold's priest, his psychiatrist, and his militaristic uncle are all buffoons. Authority, Ashby and Higgins suggest, is part of what kills the spirit. Therefore, the film's philosophy is ultimately about sovereignty: the right to live, love, and die on your own terms. The Taste Buds unpack all of it across this Harold and Maude podcast episode.Legacy: How the Harold and Maude 1971 Podcast Goes Deep on a Cult IconFew films have had a stranger journey from flop to icon. The Harold and Maude film opened to near-universal bewilderment in 1971. Paramount barely knew how to market it. Nevertheless, word of mouth — particularly among countercultural and college audiences — kept it alive. By the late 1970s, it was a staple of midnight movie circuits. By the 1980s, it had influenced a generation of filmmakers. Notably, Wes Anderson has cited it as a key influence on his film Rushmore. Both films center on unlikely intergenerational bonds.Moreover, the 1971 cult classic has always commanded a substantial queer following. Its rejection of normative romance, its celebration of chosen family, and Maude's radical individuality have made it a touchstone for LGBTQ+ audiences for decades. Additionally, the Cat Stevens Harold and Maude soundtrack is among cinema's most celebrated. Stevens later converted to Islam and stepped back from this earlier work. Above all, Harold and Maude endures because it offers something rare: a film that insists life is worth living, and actually means it. For a bracket-style podcast covering the greatest films of 1971, this Hal Ashby film demands serious consideration.Rushmore: The Most Iconic May-December Romances in Movie HistoryIn this week's Rushmore segment, each panelist makes their case for the most iconic May-December romance in movie history. The prompt is inspired by the film itself — cinema's most famous age-gap romance. However, the Taste Buds range far beyond 1971 for their nominations. Furthermore, the debate gets heated fast as the panel navigates decades of Hollywood romance to crown their personal MVPs. Tune in to find out who made the cut — and whose picks got laughed out of the room.Shopping SpreeThe Taste Buds and Van also sit down for a Shopping Spree segment, one of PopFilter's beloved recurring features. Each participant brings a recommendation that pairs well with the episode's themes. Films, media, and cultural artifacts are all fair game. In addition, the segment is a chance for the panel to let their enthusiasms run free outside the main discussion. Notably, the Harold and Maude Shopping Spree delivers some particularly inspired picks. Listen in to find out what made the list.Why Harold and Maude Still MattersMore than fifty years after its release, the Harold and Maude film remains one of the most emotionally honest ever made. It refuses to sentimentalize death or romanticize youth. Instead, it argues that wisdom, joy, and love have no age limit. Choosing to be fully alive, it suggests, is the most radical act of all. Moreover, in an era of increasing conformity and algorithmic culture, Maude's anarchic embrace of experience feels more urgent than ever.The 1971 cult classic also matters as a document of its moment. 1971 was a year of profound cultural friction. The counterculture was fading, the Vietnam War continued, and a deep national anxiety had taken hold. Harold and Maude absorbed all of that tension and responded with something unexpected: grace. Consequently, it stands as one of 1971's most essential films and a worthy contender in PopFilter's Movie of the Year bracket. Additionally, Van Baumann's perspective adds a dimension the Taste Buds alone couldn't provide. This Harold and Maude podcast episode is a must-listen for fans of film and philosophy.Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 1971

This week, we get a taste of culinary offerings in ECI: Prabhu Krishnan welcomes us into Bayleaf Indian restaurant in Muncie; Jeff Clark and chef Jason Reynolds from the video series "A Taste for Whiskey" banter ahead of their educational appearance at Public Media Pours; and Cheryl Crowder (Muncie Downtown Development) and Lindsay Montgomery (Aerial Annex) preview a different beverage-themed event.We'll also take a detour Up North to hear about "Trout Lilies" with writer Ginny MacDonald.

Movie of the Year: 1971Dirty Harry (feat. Conor Kilpatrick from iFanboy!)The Dirty Harry podcast arrives this week on Movie of the Year: 1971, as the Taste Buds take on one of the most influential and contested crime films ever made. Don Siegel's thriller introduced the world to Inspector Harry Callahan — a San Francisco cop who operates on instinct, fury, and a very large handgun. Moreover, the film sparked a debate about justice, civil liberties, and the price of order that has never fully quieted. The Taste Buds are joined by Conor Kilpatrick of iFanboy for this Don Siegel Dirty Harry analysis, and they also cover 1971 ProStars and a special segment on the year in comic books.Episode Show Notes: What We CoverThis Dirty Harry 1971 film discussion covers a lot of ground. Below is a summary of the key talking points from the episode — a roadmap for listeners and a reference for anyone who wants to dig deeper after the fact.On Harry Callahan as a character: The panel opens by asking whether Harry is actually a hero or whether the film simply frames him as one. Conor argues that Eastwood's performance is so controlled and interior that the audience does the work of making Harry sympathetic — the film barely has to try. Ryan pushes back: Harry's righteousness is earned on screen because he is always right in his read of a situation, even when he is wrong in his methods. Mike lands somewhere in between, pointing out that Harry's body count by the end of the first film is genuinely troubling if you stop and count.On politics and the law: The Taste Buds spend significant time on Pauline Kael's famous "fascist" critique and whether it holds up. The consensus is that the film is more ambiguous than Kael allowed — but that the ambiguity is doing real work, and not always in a reassuring direction. The legal system in Dirty Harry is not just flawed; it is portrayed as an active obstacle to justice. That framing has consequences.On San Francisco: The panel discusses how Don Siegel uses the city as a visual argument — the geography of the chase scenes, the specific choice of Kezar Stadium as a set piece, and what it means to set this particular story in the city that had been the symbolic capital of American idealism just four years earlier.On 1971 in comics: Conor breaks down the Marvel vs. DC landscape of the year, the significance of the Spider-Man drug arc, and why Jack Kirby's Fourth World still does not get the mainstream recognition it deserves. Additionally, he and the Taste Buds find real thematic overlap between the comics and the film: both are grappling with institutions that have failed and individuals who step into the void.About the FilmDirty Harry (1971) was directed by Don Siegel and stars Clint Eastwood as Inspector Harry Callahan of the San Francisco Police Department. The film follows Callahan as he hunts the Scorpio Killer — a sadistic serial murderer loosely inspired by the real-life Zodiac Killer — while clashing repeatedly with a city bureaucracy unwilling to bend the rules. Harry has no such hesitation. Andrew Robinson plays Scorpio with chilling, unhinged intensity. The film's cat-and-mouse structure keeps the tension taut from its rooftop opening shot through its iconic waterfront finale.Furthermore, Dirty Harry arrived at a fraught cultural moment. Crime rates in major American cities were rising sharply. Public trust in government and police was eroding. Consequently, the film's portrait of a cop who gets results by any means necessary struck a powerful nerve. For more context alongside this Dirty Harry podcast, explore the full production history on the film's IMDb page.Produced by Warner Bros. and Malpaso Productions, the film features a propulsive score by Lalo Schifrin. Dirty Harry launched a five-film franchise and cemented Clint Eastwood as one of cinema's defining icons of controlled menace. It remains among the most debated American films of its era — a movie that means different things depending entirely on who is watching it. Listeners who enjoy this Dirty Harry podcast episode might also want to revisit our discussion of The French Connection, another 1971 film that wrestles with law enforcement, moral ambiguity, and the limits of the justice system.Guest Panelist: Conor Kilpatrick of iFanboyJoining the Taste Buds this week is Conor Kilpatrick, co-founder and longtime host at iFanboy — one of the most enduring comics media platforms on the internet. Conor co-founded iFanboy around 2000 alongside Josh Flanagan and Ron Richards, originally as a college email chain where friends traded weekly comic reviews. That chain became a website, then a podcast, then a 25-year institution in the comics world. Known as the "DC Guy" of iFanboy, Conor has spent decades explaining infinite Earths, multiple reboots, and the craft of visual storytelling with genuine enthusiasm and expertise. He brings that same depth of knowledge to the Dirty Harry podcast discussion this week.He is also the co-host of the Goodfellas Minute podcast and a co-founder of Great Northern Media. Moreover, his deep knowledge of 1971 comics makes him the ideal guest for this episode's special segment. His perspective on the cultural landscape of 1971 — what was happening in comics while Dirty Harry was in theaters — adds a dimension to this Dirty Harry 1971 film discussion that no other guest could bring. Welcome to Movie of the Year, Conor.Harry Callahan: The Dirty Harry Podcast's Central DebateHarry Callahan is one of American cinema's most complicated figures. On the surface, he is a blunt instrument — a man who solves problems with a .44 Magnum and withering silence. However, Siegel and Eastwood invest him with something far more ambiguous. Harry is genuinely competent, even brilliant, at what he does. The tragedy is that the system he serves refuses to reward competence over politics.Eastwood's performance is famously economical. He does not grandstand or seek sympathy. Notably, that restraint is precisely what makes Harry magnetic — audiences fill in the emotional gaps themselves, projecting onto a man who reveals almost nothing voluntarily. The Taste Buds discuss whether Harry reads as a hero, an antihero, or something the film itself cannot quite name. For contrast, consider how Gene Hackman's Popeye Doyle in The French Connection presents a similarly brutal cop — but one the film regards with considerably more irony.The "Do you feel lucky, punk?" monologue is among the most quoted speeches in 1970s cinema. Nevertheless, it is more than a catchphrase. It is a masterclass in character — Harry performing certainty he may not entirely feel, using psychology as a weapon when firepower is temporarily unavailable. Above all, it reveals a man who understands power in all its forms and deploys it with surgical precision.Politics, Justice, and the Law: A Don Siegel Dirty Harry AnalysisFew films from 1971 generated more critical controversy than Dirty Harry. Pauline Kael famously called it a fascist work of art in her widely-discussed review. Others defended it as a frank reckoning with a legal system too broken to protect its own citizens. Consequently, the film sits at the center of a political argument that has never fully resolved itself.The film's central tension is not, ultimately, between Harry and Scorpio. It is between Harry and the law itself. Time and again the legal system fails — releasing Scorpio on procedural grounds, blocking the investigation, prioritizing process over lives. Harry's response is to act outside those constraints entirely. Moreover, the film frames him as righteous for doing so, and that is precisely what troubled critics at the time.However, the Taste Buds push on this carefully. Does Dirty Harry endorse vigilantism, or does it simply portray it with unflinching honesty? The ending — Harry throwing his badge into the water — complicates any easy reading. Therefore, rather than celebrating his methods without reservation, the film may ultimately acknowledge that Harry's approach destroys him even as it saves others. This Don Siegel Dirty Harry analysis explores that tension without settling for easy answers. Listeners interested in how 1971 cinema handled political disillusionment should also visit our episode on A Clockwork Orange, which confronts similar questions from a radically different angle.San Francisco: A City in the WestSan Francisco is not merely a backdrop in Dirty Harry. It is a character. Don Siegel shoots the city with documentary precision — rooftops, construction sites, Kezar Stadium, winding streets, and the cold grey of the bay. As a result, San Francisco's geography becomes an extension of the film's moral landscape: beautiful, treacherous, and full of places the law cannot easily reach.The city of 1971 was in deep transition. The Summer of...

Chaz and AJ started the show talking about March Madness, and the UConn shot seen, heard and felt around the world. (0:00) In Dumb Ass News, AJ's tastebuds get pushed to the limit. After chemo and a clinical trial, AJ has lost his sense of taste, while retaining his sense of smell. Chaz and AJ brought in some strong flavors to test his reaction to wasabi, fermented fish and dog food. (8:58) Comedian Anthony Rodia was back on with Chaz and AJ this morning, to talk about the rough weekend he had enduring food poisoning. (23:04)

Movie of the Year: 1971Willy Wonka and the Chocolate FactoryWilly Wonka and the Chocolate Factory podcast fans, this one is for you. Ryan, Mike, and Greg are joined by special guest Matt Singer of ScreenCrush to revisit one of 1971's most beloved and most debated films on Movie of the Year. In addition, Mel Stuart's musical fantasy has frightened and delighted children and adults in equal measure for over fifty years. This episode also features Movie Trivia and a PopFilter Hall of Fame: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory induction.About the FilmRoald Dahl based the film on his 1964 novel Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The story follows young Charlie Bucket, who wins a golden ticket and tours the mysterious factory of the eccentric Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka. Notably, Dahl wrote the screenplay himself — and then disowned the finished film. He objected to the liberties the production took with his story and his vision for the character. As a result, that tension between author and adaptation makes this a particularly rich film to revisit.Before diving in, check out our recent episodes on The Last Picture Show, A Clockwork Orange, and The French Connection for more from the Movie of the Year 1971 series.Guest Panelist: Matt Singer of ScreenCrushMatt Singer joins the Taste Buds for this episode. He serves as editor and film critic at ScreenCrush and holds membership in the New York Film Critics Circle. Singer spent five years as the on-air host of IFC News on the Independent Film Channel. He has also contributed to CBS This Morning Saturday, Ebert Presents at the Movies, The Village Voice, and The Dissolve. Furthermore, he won a Webby Award for his work on IFC.com and authored Opposable Thumbs: How Siskel & Ebert Changed Movies Forever.Matt Singer's New Book: Funny BusinessHis latest book is Funny Business, out in October. It covers the comedy films of the 2000s — Old School, Zoolander, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Superbad, The Hangover, and more. Pre-order it now. Moreover, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory ranks among Singer's four all-time favorite films on Letterboxd. Consequently, this is not just any guest — Singer has thought deeply about this film for a very long time.Willy Wonka 1971 Podcast Discussion: Genre and ToneThe first major topic of this Willy Wonka 1971 podcast discussion is the question that has divided audiences since opening day: what kind of film is this, exactly? The studio marketed it as a children's musical fantasy. In practice, however, it delivers something far stranger and more unsettling. The boat tunnel sequence alone has scared generations of young viewers. Moreover, the tone shifts without warning from whimsical to genuinely threatening. Gene Wilder's performance keeps the audience perpetually off-balance throughout.Ryan, Mike, Greg, and Matt Singer dig into how Mel Stuart navigated the tension between studio ambitions and the source material. They also examine the complicated role of Roald Dahl as screenwriter — a man who shaped the film's darkest edges and then rejected the result. For more on the film's production history on IMDB, the details prove just as strange as the movie itself.What Gene Wilder Brings to Willy WonkaAbove all, the panel examines what Gene Wilder brings to the role that no other actor has replicated. His Wonka radiates warmth that sits one beat away from menace — and a menace that sits one beat away from warmth. No other performer has threaded that needle. For a full look at Wilder's career, therefore, visit his IMDB page.Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory: Kids vs. AdultsOne of the central questions of this episode is who Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory actually targets. On the surface, it presents itself as a children's film. In practice, though, it rewards adult viewing in ways that most children's films never attempt. The satire cuts deep, the darkness feels genuine, and Wonka makes much more sense to a viewer who no longer roots for Charlie as a pure hero.The panel explores the film through both lenses. As children, most of them fell for the candy and feared the tunnel. As adults, by contrast, they find something else entirely — a film about power, punishment, and the thin line between a visionary and a tyrant. Additionally, they discuss how the film shifts meaning depending on which version of yourself sits in the audience, and why that quality remains so rare.Capitalism, Conformity, and Other -Isms in Willy Wonka 1971Beneath the chocolate and the Oompa Loompas, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory has a great deal to say about the world. The children who fail Wonka's tests are not simply bad kids. Instead, they embody consumer culture, class anxiety, and parental failure. Augustus Gloop represents excess. Violet Beauregarde embodies competitive ambition. Veruca Salt carries unchecked privilege. Meanwhile, Mike Teavee absorbs media saturation. Each child faces punishment not for being a child, but for playing the role of a particular kind of adult in miniature.Ryan, Mike, Greg, and Matt Singer examine what the film says about capitalism, conformity, and the systems that shape children before they can question them. In addition, they take on the troubling labor politics of the Oompa Loompas — workers paid in cacao beans, housed inside their employer's factory, and sent out to deliver moral lectures on demand. It is a lot to unpack. Nevertheless, this episode unpacks all of it.For more critical context on the film's themes, visit RogerEbert.com.Movie Trivia: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory EditionThis episode features a special Movie Trivia segment. Did you know that Gene Wilder agreed to play Wonka only if the character could limp — so audiences could never fully trust him? Or that the chocolate river used real chocolate and cream, and quickly turned rancid on set? Or that Roald Dahl refused to authorize a sequel after the studio ignored his objections to the first film?As a result, the Taste Buds and Matt Singer test their full knowledge of the film. They cover casting history, behind-the-scenes stories, and the many ways the finished film diverged from Dahl's original vision. Even devoted fans will likely learn something new.PopFilter Hall of Fame: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate FactoryThis episode also features a PopFilter Hall of Fame: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory induction. The panel makes their case for which element of the film deserves permanent enshrinement — whether that is Gene Wilder's performance, a specific scene, a song, or something else entirely. Tune in to find out what makes the cut.Why the Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory Podcast Discussion Still MattersMore than fifty years after its release, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory stands as one of the most enduring and genuinely strange films in the American canon. It grows with you. Specifically, it means something different at seven, at seventeen, and at forty-seven. Few films can make that claim.Ultimately, this Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory podcast episode revisits the film not just as a 1971 classic, but as a living text that continues to reward close attention. With Matt Singer in the mix, expect sharp criticism, genuine passion, and at least one strong opinion about the Fizzy Lifting Drinks scene.Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 1971If you enjoyed this episode, check out the rest of the Movie of the Year 1971 series:The Last Picture Show — Bogdanovich, nostalgia, and a dying Texas townA Clockwork Orange — Kubrick, free will, and the limits of the stateThe French Connection — Friedkin,

This week's French Connection podcast episode covers one of the most thrilling and morally complicated films of 1971. Ryan, Mike, and Greg revisit The French Connection on Movie of the Year. William Friedkin's Best Picture winner changed what American cinema thought a hero could look like. In addition, this episode features a special Gene Hackman career retrospective.Released in 1971, the film follows New York City detective Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle — based on real NYPD detective Eddie Egan, with partner Sonny Grosso inspiring the character of Russo. Doyle pursues a massive heroin operation with little regard for the law or the people around him. As a result, the film won five Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor. It remains one of the defining films of the New Hollywood era.This Movie of the Year podcast episode is one of the most anticipated of the 1971 season. Before diving in, check out our recent episodes on The Last Picture Show and A Clockwork Orange.Joining the Taste Buds for this episode is special guest C. Craig Patterson A screenwriter, director, and filmmaker based in Los Angeles. An alum of Columbia University, NYU's Tisch School of the Arts, and USC's School of Cinematic Arts, Patterson brings serious cinematic credentials to the table. His short film Fathead won the Cannes Film Festival Best Student Short Award and earned an NAACP Image Award nomination. His scripts have been recognized by the Sundance Screenwriters Lab, The Black List, and the Academy's Nicholl Fellowship. Patterson also directed the critically acclaimed Roy Wood Jr. comedy special Imperfect Messenger for Paramount+. With projects currently in development at Paramount and Epic Games, he is one of the most exciting emerging filmmakers working today — and exactly the kind of guest who makes a film like The French Connection worth revisiting.The French Connection 1971 Podcast: Popeye Doyle — Hero, Antihero, or Something Worse?The central tension of this French Connection 1971 podcast discussion is what to make of Popeye Doyle. Gene Hackman plays him as a force of nature — relentless, racist, reckless, and completely compelling. He is not a good man, and he is barely a good cop. Nevertheless, the film frames his obsession as heroic, his instincts as genius, and his victory as worth celebrating.Ryan, Mike, and Greg dig into what Friedkin and screenwriter Ernest Tidyman were doing with Doyle. Is the film a critique of the kind of law enforcement he represents? Or is it simply in love with him? The answer is probably both. Ultimately, that ambiguity is what makes the character so difficult and so fascinating fifty years later.The Real Detectives Behind the StoryThe real detectives, Eddie Egan and Sonny Grosso, consulted on the film and even appear in small roles. Consequently, knowing the story is grounded in a real investigation makes Doyle's behavior harder to dismiss. These were not fictional excesses invented for dramatic effect, and the panel takes that seriously.Gene Hackman won the Academy Award for Best Actor for this role, beating out Peter Finch, Walter Matthau, George C. Scott, and Topol. Furthermore, it remains one of the most celebrated performances of the 1970s. The panel uses this episode to look back at Hackman's broader career and make the case for where he stands in the pantheon.For more on Gene Hackman's career, visit the Internet Movie Database.William Friedkin and the New Hollywood Crime FilmDirector William Friedkin approached The French Connection as a documentary-style thriller. He shot on location in New York City with handheld cameras and natural light, refusing to glamorize either the city or its characters. As a result, the film feels unlike almost anything else from 1971 — raw, kinetic, and deeply uncomfortable.The Taste Buds explore how Friedkin's direction shaped the film's identity. Most notably, the legendary car chase under the elevated train tracks in Brooklyn is widely considered one of the greatest action sequences ever filmed. Friedkin shot it on live New York City streets without fully stopping traffic, with a camera mounted to the front of the car. For critical analysis of the chase, the Criterion Collection offers essential reading.Friedkin After The French ConnectionJust two years later, Friedkin directed The Exorcist, cementing his place as one of the defining filmmakers of the decade. The panel discusses what the two films share and what The French Connection reveals about Friedkin's sensibility. In both cases, his camera feels like it is barely keeping up with reality — and that is entirely by design.For more on Friedkin's influence on American cinema, visit the American Film Institute.The French Connection Podcast Discussion: Justice and Its LimitsAt its core, The French Connection is about the gap between justice and the law. Popeye Doyle operates outside the rules, endangers civilians, shoots an unarmed man in the back, and ultimately fails to bring the main target to justice. Despite all of this, the film presents his pursuit not as tragedy but as the cost of doing business.Ryan, Mike, and Greg examine what the film says about the American justice system in 1971 — a moment of profound national disillusionment. Vietnam, the civil rights movement, and the early signs of Watergate were all in the air. Meanwhile, the "good guys" in this film are not good, the "bad guys" are not caught, and the audience is asked to root for the pursuit anyway.Race and Policing in The French ConnectionMoreover, the film's racial politics are impossible to ignore. Doyle's racism is presented as character texture rather than moral failing, and the film never fully grapples with the implications of the policing it depicts. That discomfort is an important part of the conversation this week.For historical context on the real case, visit the DEA's history of the French Connection.Gene Hackman Best Performances: A Career RetrospectiveThis episode includes a special segment on Gene Hackman's best performances. The Taste Buds make their case for the defining Hackman roles and debate his greatest work. In particular, they discuss what made him such an unusual screen presence: his everyman quality, his capacity for rage, and his refusal to tell the audience how to feel about his characters.His breakthrough came in Bonnie and Clyde in 1967, and his Oscar followed here in The French Connection. Subsequently, classics like The Conversation, Mississippi Burning, Unforgiven, and The Royal Tenenbaums cemented one of the most extraordinary bodies of work in American cinema. This segment celebrates an actor who never got quite enough credit for how good he really was.Why The French Connection 1971 Still MattersMore than fifty years later, The French Connection remains essential viewing. Beyond its technical achievements, it functions as a moral document — capturing a specific American mood: exhausted, suspicious, and uncertain about its own institutions.Ultimately, this French Connection podcast episode revisits the film as a living argument about power, obsession, and the stories we tell about law enforcement. It asks hard questions, and this episode doesn't let them off the hook.Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 1971If you enjoyed this episode, check out the rest of the Movie of the Year 1971 series:The Last Picture Show — Bogdanovich, nostalgia, and a dying Texas townA Clockwork Orange — Kubrick, free will, and the limits of the stateBrowse all Movie of the Year episodesFAQ: The French Connection Podcast and FilmWhat is The French Connection podcast episode about?Ryan, Mike, and Greg discuss William Friedkin's 1971 Best Picture winner. Topics include Popeye Doyle, Friedkin's direction, justice, and a Gene Hackman career retrospective.What is The French Connection about?It follows NYPD detective Popeye Doyle, based on real detective Eddie Egan, as he pursues a massive heroin smuggling operation using methods that are often illegal and always reckless.Who directed The French Connection?William Friedkin directed the 1971...

Today's Oddcast - Tastebuds of the People (Airdate 3/9/2026)   From peanut butter and mayonnaise sandwiches to salad dressing on pizza, we share tales of weird food preferences.   The Bob & Sheri Oddcast: Everything We Don’t, Can’t, Won’t, and Definitely Shouldn’t Do on the Show!

In this Huberman Lab Essentials episode, my guest is Dr. Charles Zuker, PhD, a professor of biochemistry, molecular biophysics and neuroscience at Columbia University and an Investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI). We explore taste perception and how the brain transforms chemical signals from food into distinct taste experiences. We discuss how these taste signals shape both conscious choices and unconscious behavior, as well as how food preferences can change over time. Additionally, we discuss gut–brain signaling and explain why sugar is especially powerful at driving cravings. Read the episode show notes at hubermanlab.com. Thank you to our sponsors AG1: https://drinkag1.com/huberman LMNT: https://drinklmnt.com/huberman Function: https://functionhealth.com/huberman Timestamps (00:00:00) Charles Zuker (00:00:20) Senses & Perception (00:02:29) Taste, 5 Taste Qualities & Dietary Needs (00:05:49) Taste vs Flavor (00:07:05) Sponsor: AG1 (00:07:56) Taste Buds; Bitter (00:09:45) Sweet vs Bitter, Sensory Perception from Tongue to Brain (00:12:47) Taste Plasticity & Changing Food Preferences (00:14:13) Taste Modulation; Salt (00:17:08) Sponsor: LMNT (00:18:41) Gut-Brain Signaling (00:23:14) Sugar Appetite & Gut-Brain Axis (00:27:42) Sponsor: Function (00:29:21) Artificial Sweeteners, Sugar Cravings (00:30:37) Taste & Essential Nutrients; Highly Processed Foods; Brain & Food Choices (00:34:11) Acknowledgements Disclaimer & Disclosures Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode of Taste Buds with Deb, host Debra Eckerling speaks with Pam Stein, founder of In Pam's Kitchen. Stein loves to experiment with flavors and textures. And there's no better time for it than creating fun hamentaschen for Purim.   "The traditional filling for hamantaschen is the poppy seed, because they were originally called… mohn," Stein explains. "Prune became the second [most popular flavor], because of the popularity of prunes at the time and the availability of them."   Modern times call for creativity in the kitchen. You could do anything with hamentaschen, sweet or savory - and in all different sizes. Stein's new flavors this year: bourbon chocolate chip pecan pie hamantaschen and tacotaschen.   No matter what your hamentaschen, the base is fundamentally the same. And you can add a glaze or toppings after it bakes.   "For the bourbon chocolate chip pecan pie… I also put some bourbon in the dough," she explains. "I topped the tacotaschen with a spicy corn salsa."   Pam Stein shares tons of hamentastchen tips, along with recipes for bourbon chocolate chip pecan pie hamantaschen and tacotaschen, which you can find at JewishJournal.com/podcasts. Happy Purim!   For more from Pam Stein, follow @InPamsKitchen on Instagram. For more from Taste Buds, subscribe on iTunes and YouTube, and follow @TheDEBMethod on social media.

Did you know that picky eating can sometimes be caused by the messages the bacteria in your gut are sending to your brain?So the CHILD isn't being a sugar monster…or making stubborn choices just to drive you crazy…their gut bugs are the sugar monsters and their brain has pruned too much!I learned so much from Elissa Arnheim in this interview, both the philosophical to feed MY brain and the practical—some of which I implemented that very day!Here are my favorite quotes:“Let's start with this: Our bodies are designed perfectly.”“If a child cuts out an entire category of healthy foods, it's a sign that something is wrong – and it's all figure-out-able and fixable.”“Step 1 for sugar monster kids: serve sauerkraut!”

On this episode of Taste Buds with Deb, host Debra Eckerling speaks with Elaine Hall, founder of The Miracle Project and contributor to "A Different Spirit: Creating Meaningful B'nai Mitzvah for Children with Disabilities."    The Miracle Project is a fully inclusive theatre, film and social program for neurodivergent, autistic, disabled and non-disabled individuals. "A Different Spirit" addresses creating a similar, but different type of community experience.    The book, compiled by Howard Blas and Ilana Trachtman, offers guidance around celebrating b'nai mitzvah for youth who experience the world differently. It brings together educators, parents, and advocates — including Hall — to share models of ceremonies that are creative, accessible, and personal.    "I had created one of the first b'nai mitzvah programs for autistic youth a number of years ago, called Nes Gadol, through Vista Del Mar," she explains. "My son, Neal, was the first bar mitzvah, so they asked me to share my ideas."    Celebrations are often built around food, but Hall believes they should also be built around awareness. When planning a b'nai mitzvah or any large gathering, she encourages families to think beyond tradition.    "Each child is different; each person is different," she says. "Tune into what that child wants and what makes them happy … If the child loves French fries … even though that may not be typical at a celebration, make sure there's French fries on that table."   Inclusion is not just something to recognize during February for Jewish Disability Awareness and Inclusion Month (JDAIM); it is something to practice all year long.    "To be inclusive is really natural," Hall says. "It takes 60 seconds to be open, willing, and curious."   Elaine Hall talks about "A Different Spirit," and offers her recommendations for inclusion and belonging for B'nai Mitzvah, as well as everyday gatherings, and living a life of harmony. She also shares her recipe for papaya boats, which you can find at JewishJournal.com/podcasts.    Learn more about Elaine Hall at TheMiracleProject.org, get a copy of "A Different Spirit" and/or contact CoachE@CoachEProductions.com. For more from Taste Buds, subscribe on iTunes and YouTube, and follow @TheDEBMethod on social media.

On this episode of Taste Buds with Deb, host Debra Eckerling speaks with Michelle Weissman Heston of Heston Cakes. A cake artist with a passion for designing, building, and presenting showstopping desserts, Heston says, "Ultimately, all cake … in my mind should be chocolate."   From hyper-realistic cakes shaped like sneakers, Big Macs, and lox and bagels to simple but dramatic Valentine's Day chocolate cakes, Michelle offers tips for adapting any recipe (yes, even box cake), mastering chocolate ganache, and decorating with intention. She also shares easy ideas for Valentine's flair — including candy-heart surprises baked right into the cake.   "It is my great passion to design, build, and present cakes," she says. "I love talking about cake, I like thinking about cake, and I really like eating cake."   Michelle Heston talks about how food has always been a common thread in her family, why dessert gets the spotlight, and why a truly special cake should tell a story — whether through flavor, filling, or over-the-top décor. She also shares her recipe for chocolate ganache, which you can find at JewishJournal.com/podcasts.   For more cake inspiration, follow @HestonCakes on Instagram. For more from Taste Buds, subscribe on iTunes and YouTube, and follow @TheDEBMethod on social media.

We are BACK, Taste Buds! We know you missed us.  Today, we have hospitality titan, Michelin Star collector and the DADDY of Myriad Restaurant Group, Drew Nieporent. His new memoir is out and in it, he spills proverbial tea, but we got him to dish with us a bit more. The BREW with Drew anyone?! What chef has the biggest ego, what restaurant does he wish was his, IS he feuding with Keith McNally? ALL this, while slagging Daniel Boulud, his favorite Beatles song and admitting he sneaks booze into restaurants. Holy hell, it's a good one. @drewnieporent Welcome to the irreverent & unfiltered world of PUT IT IN MY MOUTH, a podcast that fearlessly explores the underbelly of the hospitality industry. This female led podcast, by two lifelong bffs Lala & Judith, celebrates the journeys of industry insiders, details the all to typical setbacks and gets the listener insider access on what goes on behind closed kitchen doors. Join us for candid conversations about our biggest obsession, FOOD and the personalities behind it. We know every episode will leave you hungry for more. Mentions: @noburestaurants @communityws @stefano_secchi @sluttycheff @danielboulud @chefthomaskeller @jfeldmar @paulliebrandt @gordongram @jbastianich @simonkim @coqodaq @simonkimnyc @addanyc @keithmcnallynyc @fandfrestaurant @fandfpizzeria @dhmeyer @unapologeticfoodsnyc @avraestiatorio @eatingwithexperts @royalseafoodusa

SPONSORS: - Download Cash App Today: https://capl.onelink.me/vFut/6fv5azex #CashAppPod. Cash App is a financial services platform, not a bank. Banking services provided by Cash App's bank partner(s). Prepaid debit cards issued by Sutton Bank, Member FDIC. See terms and conditions at https://cash.app/legal/us/en-us/card-agreement. Discounts and promotions provided by Cash App, a Block, Inc. brand. Visit http://cash.app/legal/podcast for full disclosures. - Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at https://shopify.com/nottoday, all lowercase - Take advantage of Ridge's Biggest Sale of the Year and GET UP TO 47% Off by going to https://www.Ridge.com/NOTTODAY #ridgepod - Join the over 14 million all-time customers who have already saved and invested over $27 billion dollars with Acorns. Head to https://acorns.com/NOTTODAY or download the Acorns app to get started. This week, Rob Iler is joined by comedian and Impractical Jokers legend Sal Vulcano, stepping in for Jaime for the first time ever. What begins as a friendly chat about Taste Buds spirals into a hilarious, heartfelt deep-dive on friendship, family chaos, arguing like a New Yorker, and trying to be zen in middle age. Sal opens up about his new solo show Manush and the evolution of his comedy life, while Rob gets real about sobriety, growing up loud, and missing the insanity of home. Expect passionate food debates, therapy wisdom, and one of the funniest bread stories ever told. Have a question for Rob and Jamie? Reach out at nottodaypalpodcast@gmail.com Not Today, Pal Ep. 120 https://www.instagram.com/jamielynnsigler https://www.instagram.com/nottodaypalshow https://store.ymhstudios.com Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:03:04 - Taste Buds & The Art of the Argument 00:13:42 - No Matter What Happens, I Love You 00:25:57 - Another Argument With Joe DeRosa But With Bread 00:29:04 - The Fight That's Never About The Fight 00:37:02 - Garlic Bread vs. Garlic Knots (The Real Debate) 00:44:38 - Movies, Malls, & The Magic Of Jersey 00:56:06 - Accents & Showing Up At The Wrong Time 01:06:36 - Gift Certificate Date 01:11:57 - Impractical Jokers Story + Unlikeable People 01:19:29 - Embarrassing Issues 01:31:40 - Final Thoughts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sal Vulcano is a stand-up comic and the co-creator, star, and executive producer of the comedy show “Impractical Jokers." He's also the co-host of the podcasts “Hey Babe!” with Chris Distefano and “Taste Buds” with Joe DeRosa. Catch his latest special, “Terrified,” on HBO Max.www.salvulcanocomedy.comwww.youtube.com/@salvulcanoofficialhttps://www.hbomax.com/movies/sal-vulcano-terrified/587fe357-435e-449d-bf43-c5555fd1e009 Perplexity: Download the app or ask Perplexity anything at https://pplx.ai/rogan. Buy 1 Get 1 Free Trucker Hat with code ROGAN at happydad.com This video is sponsored by BetterHelp. Visit https://BetterHelp.com/JRE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices