Podcasts about taste buds

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

Are Taste Buds Born or Built?Do we choose what we like—or were we wired for it from thestart?In this episode of Talk of the Tavern, Travis, Andrea, Ed, and Kevin dig into the question of taste: are food preferences genetic, cultural, or shaped by something else entirely?From picky eaters to acquired tastes, the crew explores howbiology, upbringing, and experience all collide on your plate. Why do some people love bitter foods while others can't stand them? And how much of “taste” is actually learned over time?So grab a drink, try something new (or don't), and join usfor a conversation about flavor, preference, and whether your taste buds are really yours—or just along for the ride.What's on Tap?

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

Movie of the Year: 1971The Last Picture ShowRevisiting The Last Picture ShowIn this episode of Movie of the Year: 1971, Ryan, Mike, and Greg revisit The Last Picture Show, Peter Bogdanovich's landmark film about youth, loneliness, and a fading Texas town.Released in 1971, the film helped define the early New Hollywood era, blending classical Hollywood craftsmanship with a more modern emotional realism. From its black-and-white cinematography to its quiet performances, this portrait of small-town America remains one of the most discussed films of its decade.Peter Bogdanovich and a Changing American CinemaDirector Peter Bogdanovich approached the film as both a tribute to classic cinema and a break from it. Drawing on older storytelling traditions while embracing the moral ambiguity of the 1970s, he created a work that feels suspended between eras.The Taste Buds explore how Bogdanovich's direction captures the melancholy of a town in decline and how his cinephile instincts shape the movie's visual language. In doing so, the film becomes a bridge between old Hollywood nostalgia and the more personal filmmaking that defined the decade.For more on Bogdanovich's influence, see the American Film Institute:https://www.afi.comLove and Sex in The Last Picture ShowOne of the film's most enduring elements is its honest portrayal of intimacy. Love and sex are not romanticized; they are awkward, transactional, vulnerable, and deeply human.Ryan, Mike, and Greg examine how the characters navigate desire and disappointment. Whether it's teenage experimentation or adult loneliness, relationships in this story reveal more about isolation than fulfillment. That emotional candor is part of why the movie still resonates today.For historical background and cast details, visit Turner Classic Movies:https://www.tcm.comThe Generational Gap and a Fading TownAt its core, this 1971 drama is about transition. Older characters cling to memory and routine, while younger ones struggle to imagine their future beyond the town's limits.The panel discusses how the generational divide shapes the narrative, turning a coming-of-age story into a meditation on cultural change. The closing of the town's movie theater becomes symbolic—a quiet acknowledgment that an era is ending.IP Freely: Star Wars Meets 1971This episode also debuts a new segment called IP Freely, where the panel imagines modern franchise films directed by filmmakers working in 1971. The Taste Buds pitch hypothetical Star Wars entries through the stylistic lens of early-70s auteurs.The exercise highlights just how dramatically cinematic tone and scale have shifted since this film's release.Rushmore: 1971 It GirlTo close the show, Ryan, Mike, and Greg assemble a Mount Rushmore of the 1971 It Girl, celebrating the performers who defined the year's screen presence and cultural energy.Why The Last Picture Show Still MattersMore than five decades later, The Last Picture Show remains essential viewing. Its exploration of youth, longing, and generational change captures a moment when American cinema was reinventing itself.This episode revisits the film not just as a classic of 1971, but as a living text that continues to influence how audiences understand small-town storytelling and emotional realism.FAQWhat is The Last Picture Show about?It follows teenagers and adults in a declining Texas town, exploring love, loneliness, and generational transition.Who directed The Last Picture Show?Peter Bogdanovich directed the 1971 film.Why is it important?It helped define the early New Hollywood movement and won multiple Academy Awards.Is it based on a novel?Yes, it is adapted from Larry McMurtry's novel.

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.

The Indonesian Diaspora Network (IDN) of Victoria will host Diaspora Fair 2026 on February 7. And why is this event so special? - Jaringan Diaspora Indonesia (IDN) Victoria akan menyelenggarakan Diaspora Fair 2026 pada tanggal 7 Februari. Dan mengapa acara ini begitu istimewa?

On this episode of Taste Buds with Deb, host Debra Eckerling speaks with Chef Jeff Strauss, the creative force behind Oy Bar and Jeff's Table, about his journey from Hollywood comedy writer to LA food innovator.   "I have cooked with joy and passion and love for most of my life," he says.   For more than 30 years, Strauss worked as a writer and producer on shows like Friends, Dream On, and Reba, all while quietly nurturing a lifelong love of cooking and bringing people together through food. Encouraged by his wife, who was also in the biz, he finally took the leap , opening Jeff's Table in 2019 and Oy Bar in 2022.   Jeff Strauss talks about his Jewish and food-lover roots and chef origin story. He also dives into his deep appreciation of global flavors - and how they inform his cuisine, his love of Los Angeles' multicultural food scene, and his philosophy that "food is a way that cultures speak to each other, even when sometimes the cultures themselves won't talk." The chef also shares his recipe for Emergency Jewish Deli Dill Pickles, which you can find at JewishJournal.com/podcasts.   Learn more at OyBarLA.com and JeffsTableLA.com, and follow @OyBarLA and @Jeffs___Table on Instagram. For more from Taste Buds, subscribe on iTunes and YouTube, and follow @TheDEBMethod on social media.

Joining me on the Born To Talk Radio Show podcast is Debra Eckerling. Meet Debra Eckerling. Debra Eckerling is the book proposal expert and strategist, as well as an author, and podcaster. She helps thought leaders clarify their message. While at the same time she helps them elevate their platforms, and craft winning nonfiction book proposals. Thus getting the attention of agents and publishers. Debra Eckerling is also the creator of The DEB Method for goal-setting simplified.  She is author of Your Goal Guide (IPPY Silver Medal, Self-Help) and 52 Secrets for Goal-Setting and Goal-Getting; and host of GoalChat, Taste Buds with Deb (LA Press Club SoCal Journalism Awards, 1st Place), and the Book Proposal Podcast. Debra has spoken for TEDx, Innovation Women, Wellcoaches, Writer’s Digest, the LA County Bar Association Lawyer Well-Being Project, and more. Deb’s Takeaways. “My goal for this conversation is for listeners to walk away feeling clear, confident, and empowered. Whether they're thinking about writing a book or tackling any big goal. All they need is to take a “hop” of faith  It doesn’t even have to be a leap. Goals do not have to be complicated or overwhelming. With the right structure, realistic goals, and a step-by-step approach, progress becomes probable. Clarity and intention can turn ideas into action.”   In Closing. You will learn about ways to help you reach your goals and not lose momentum in the process.  The Deb Method is Goal Setting Simplified. You will hear about small steps you can take this week if you want to move closer to publishing a book. Get ready! Thank you Deb for sharing your story with us.  Conversations + Connections = Community Making the world a better place.  One Story at a time.  What's Your Story? I want to share it!     Marsha@borntotalkradioshow.com Facebook Instagram LinkedIn Twitter

On this episode of Taste Buds with Deb, host Debra Eckerling speaks with matchmaker, dating coach, and TV writer Jaydi Samuels Kuba, author of "Your Last First Date: Secrets from a Hollywood Matchmaker."   Food, dating, and Jewish tradition are all connected. They compliment each other. There's a right and wrong way to choose venues and food for first dates; like finding someone's perfect match, there's an art and craft to it.     For Kuba, matchmaking was a natural progression for her personality; it leaned into her love for connecting people to what - or who - they need.   "I always would help people find new friends, find new jobs, find a roommate, whatever people were searching for in their life," she explains. "As I started getting older, and there was more of a need around me, whether it was friends … co coworkers or colleagues looking for love, I just … started matching people in that way."    Kuba was working as a TV writer for "Family Guy" when she started her matchmaking side hustle, which turned into a full-blown business and passion. It's also how she met her husband, who she matched five times before they started dating. Her book, which she began working on during the writers strike, started as a "how to" before her publisher suggested she changed to a narrative style. In it, she gives dating advice to the characters in the book; info anyone reading can learn from.    Jaydi Samuels Kuba shares her matchmaking journey, what she hopes readers will get out of "Your Last First Date," and lots of dating advice, especially as it relates to restaurants and food recs. She also talks about her bubbe's beloved Jewmaican beef patties recipe, which you can find at JewishJournal.com/podcasts.   Learn more about Jaydi Samuels Kuba at LJMatchmaking.com, follow @MatchMadeinHollywood on Instagram and  TikTok, listen to the My podcast: Match Made in Hollywood podcast, and get a copy of "Your Last First Date" at your favorite place to buy books.   For more from Taste Buds, subscribe on iTunes and YouTube, and follow @TheDEBMethod on social media.

Today's conversation is about faith, honesty, healing, and what it looks like to rebuild your life and identity after walking through something deeply painful. Our guest is Jami Nato, a popular author, speaker, and entrepreneur (and Kansas City mom!) known for her relatable, humorous, faith-based reflections on family, marriage, and personal growth.  In today's episode, Jami talks about her family and how she first began sharing her life and perspective publicly, how her faith shifted through the hardest seasons, and what it really looked like to do the hard, personal work of forgiveness. We'll also talk about her decision to step away from a familiar church environment to find a new way of connecting with God, what she believes faith communities can still offer, and how all of these experiences shape her writing and her book. About Jami Nato: Jami has become a voice of honesty and hope, sharing lessons on forgiveness, purpose, and authenticity through her blog, social media, and her book This Must Be the Place. She lives in the Kansas City area with her husband, and their four kids-often sharing the beautifully “messy” parts of real life with humor and grace. What We're Loving In Kansas City Time To Sign Up For Summer Camps! Sarah is here with a PSA to all moms that January and February is the time to get your kids signed up for summer camps! She has her eye on Tastebuds cooking camps and Snapology this year but will also be consulting the ever-helpful KCMC Summer Camp Guide you can find here! Snow Day Sledding Snow day season is here! If you are feeling adventurous and wanting to check out a new sledding spot, check out our super helpful guide to all the best places in KC! Your kids will thank you! Connect with Megan and Sarah We would love to hear from you! Send us an e-mail or find us on Instagram or Facebook!      

Movie of the Year: Best of the Year 2025The MixtapeThe 2025 Mixtape as a Time CapsuleEvery year leaves behind more than movies — it leaves a sound.In this episode of Movie of the Year, the Taste Buds come together to create the 2025 Mixtape, a curated playlist designed to capture what the year felt like through music. Rather than ranking songs or chasing chart placement, the panel builds a living soundtrack that reflects the moods, moments, and cultural undercurrents of 2025.The goal of the 2025 Mixtape isn't consensus.It's memory.What the 2025 Mixtape Is (and Is Not)The 2025 Mixtape isn't about declaring “the best songs of the year” in isolation. It's about sequencing, contrast, and flow — how songs interact when placed side by side, how energy builds or collapses, and how a playlist can tell a story.This episode explores questions like:What song opens the year?Where does the emotional peak land?When does the mixtape need to slow down?And what track closes the door on 2025?The playlist is treated as a narrative, not a ranking.Choosing Songs That Define 2025As selections are made, the panel debates what qualifies a song for inclusion on the 2025 Mixtape. Is it cultural impact? Longevity? Personal obsession? Or the ability to instantly transport listeners back to a specific moment in the year?The conversation weighs:singles versus deep cutsmainstream hits versus discoveriessongs that grew over time versus immediate standoutsTogether, the picks form a portrait of how music functioned in daily life throughout 2025.Genre, Mood, and the Shape of the YearOne of the episode's central tensions is the extent to which the musical landscape of 2025 is truly diverse. The 2025 Mixtape moves across genres, tones, and emotional registers, reflecting a year that resisted easy categorization.The discussion touches on:pop's evolving extremeship-hop's shifting centerIndie music's changing rolegenre-blurring experimentationand songs that moved from background noise to personal anthemsThe result is a playlist that mirrors the year's complexity rather than flattening it.Flow Matters: Sequencing the 2025 MixtapeMore than any single song, sequencing becomes the battleground. A great track can still feel wrong if it breaks momentum or disrupts the mood. The panel debates transitions, tonal shifts, and the extent to which a listener can handle emotional whiplash.This is where the episode gets deeply nerdy — and deeply satisfying.The 2025 Mixtape isn't just assembled.It's designed.Why the 2025 Mixtape MattersYears blur together.Playlists don't.The 2025 Mixtape

On this episode of Taste Buds with Deb, host Debra Eckerling speaks with Hilary Sheinbaum, a journalist and the founder of GoingDry.co, a non-alcoholic (N.A.) events and menu curation company. She is also the author of "Going Dry: A Workbook: A Practical Guide to Drinking Less and Living More" and "The Dry Challenge: How to Lose the Booze for Dry January, Sober October, and Any Other Alcohol-Free Month."    Ten years ago, Sheinbaum participated in Dry January for the first time. She had no idea it would change her life!   "I made a very spontaneous, silly bet with one of my guy friends on New Year's Eve," Sheinbaum, who was working as a red carpet entertainment journalist at the time - and also wrote articles on beer, wine and spirits, explains.    The first one to take a sip of alcohol in January lost. Her friend lasted around three weeks, Sheinbaum made it through the entire month.    "That was New Year's Eve 2016, and here we are 10 years later, 10 dry Januarys later," she says. "I won a very expensive dinner at a Michelin star restaurant, but honestly the impact that it has had on my life for the past 10 years is worth so much more."   Hilary Sheinbaum talks about going dry: the reason, the trend, and the community aspects. She also talks about her origin story, sober curiosity, and her favorite non-alcoholic margarita recipe, which you can get at JewishJournal.com/podcasts.   "There is dry January, there is sober October; you can really go dry at any point in the year or for more than a month if you like," she says. "It's not about putting pressure on yourself to be [perfect], it's really about seeing how reducing alcohol in your life can make it better on a day-to-day basis."    Learn more at HilarySheinbaum.com and GoingDry.co. Follow @hilarywritesny and @goingdry.co on Instagram. 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 bagel-tarian Sam Silverman, founder and CEO of BagelUp and the creator of New York BagelFest.   "From the earliest memories that I have, bagels were always a part of our life, a part of our household," Silverman, who grew up in Worcester, Massachusetts, says. "When I moved to New York 10 years ago, and I had my first New York bagel, [I] realized that I'd been eating bagel-shaped bread my entire life."   This ignited his passion to explore New York through the lens of finding the best bagels. When he discovered New York didn't have a bagel festival, Silverman started BagelFest. This was seven years ago. And led to the launch of BagelUp.   "BagelUp is all about celebrating bagels, the culture and the people behind them," says Silverman, nicknamed "the New York bagel ambassador" by Utopia Bagels. "This food evokes such amazing nostalgia and comfort and feelings of joy and excitement, it's [easy] to find other people who feel [the same] way."   Sam Silverman shares his love of bagels, bagel history, and the origins of BagelUp and BagelFest. He also talks about his schmear hack, the secret to making good bagels, and his favorite bagel recipe, which you can find at https://JewishJournal.com/podcasts.   National Bagel Day is January 15. Happy Bagel Day to all who celebrate!   Learn more at BagelUp.com and BagelFest.com. Follow @bagelambassador on TikTok and Instagram, and connect with Sam on LinkedIn. For more from Taste Buds, subscribe on iTunes and YouTube, and follow @TheDEBMethod on social media.

On this episode of GoalChat, host Debra Eckerling celebrates the new year with returning guests Stacia Crawford of Stay Ready Media and business strategist/community builder Keith Spiro. This conversation is a behind the scenes look at all three of their goal-processes; how they face challenges, recalibrate, and set themselves up for success. The trio shared wins and challenges from last year, goals for this one, and three words for 2026 (hat tip to Chris Brogan), along with mantras for forward motion. Stacia's is "Go back to basics," Keith's is "Flexibility," and Deb's is "Spotlight." 2025 Wins - Keith: Streamlining his businesses into one website: KeithSpiro.com - Stacia: Leaning into being her own best client; she won two speaking contests with money - Deb: A building year with the launch of TheBookProposalExpert.com, Substack, and podcast; also the release of 52 Secrets, podcast award for Taste Buds, next book deal, and many client successes  2026 Goals - Stacia: Write book proposal and get a book deal; leaning toward the concept of minimalism, decluttering - Keith: Tangible creation in line with America's 250th anniversary; celebrating the 50th anniversary of realizing a dream - Deb: At least 4 initiatives/launches, including a new podcast and the release of Active Grandparenting 101 - written with grandfluencer Kristen Coffield - in the fall; get on an exercise schedule Gifted Goals - Deb: When you are stuck, clean something. Then cook something - Stacia: Enjoy a hobby - Keith: Create something Learn More About Stacia Crawford: StayReadyMedia.com Keith Spiro: KeithSpiro.com Debra Eckerling: TheDEBMethod.com/blog 52SecretsBook.com TheBookProposalExpert.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The 2025 Season Begins with the Oscar DraftMovie of the Year is back with a brand-new season, and there's no better way to kick things off than with our first-ever Oscar Draft 2025. Hosted by Cassie, this episode sees panelists Ryan, Mike, Greg, and Taylor engage in a deadly serious competition to predict which films will dominate awards season.Each drafter is tasked with assembling a roster of films they believe will rack up the most Academy Award nominations—across any and all categories—once Oscar morning finally arrives. It's prediction, strategy, taste, and fortune-telling rolled into one.The Taste Buds are back, and this time they're playing for keeps.Draft Rules: How the Oscar Draft 2025 WorksTo ensure fairness—and maximize tension—the draft follows a snake format, meaning the order reverses each round.Key Rules:Drafters select movies, not individuals or categoriesAny film is eligible—first half, festival darling, delayed release mystery, whateverNo two panelists can draft the same filmFive rounds totalThe winning team is the one whose final slate earns the most nominations when the Academy announces themEvery pick is a bet—on the movies themselves, their campaigns, their distributors, their word of mouth, and even the voters' unpredictable tastes.Prediction vs Taste: Two Ways to PlayOne wrinkle that defines the episode: panelists must decide what kind of drafter they want to be.Do you swing for awards-season favorites blessed with early buzz? Or gamble on late-breaking discoveries nobody else notices yet?Some draft with spreadsheets and precedent. Others reach for films they want to see recognized. Every strategy has holes—and every smart pick someone else was eyeing can change the entire board.Stakes, Tension, and Oscar BloodsportUnlike the usual Movie of the Year chaos, this one is deadly serious. No bit is too small, no argument too granular, and no accusation too petty.Ryan, Mike, Greg, and Taylor:block each other's pickssteal films out of sheer spiteargue over festival credibilitynegotiate control of the boardand, occasionally, wonder if they've made a catastrophic mistakeWith no immediate winner declared, the true victor won't be revealed until Oscar nominations are announced. Which makes the waiting—and the trash talk—that much sweeter.Bonus Conversation: The State of the 2025 RaceBetween picks, Cassie guides the panel through the critical questions that define this year's awards landscape, including:Are we preparing for a heavyweight Best Picture category?Does streaming still have power?Are studio campaign budgets shrinking—or...

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

Send Zorba a message!Dr. Zorba and Karl look at a new study that shows how much lead we are eating in our food. Zorba helps out a caller with acid reflux, and he walks us through his recipe for Giant Challah Bread. We also talk about antibiotic ointments, and how Covid affects your taste buds The Grammar Cops chime in, we hear a classic mom joke, and a listener posits where Zorba got his name.Support the showProduction, edit, and music by Karl Christenson Send your question to Dr. Zorba (he loves to help!): Phone: 608-492-9292 (call anytime) Email: askdoctorzorba@gmail.com Web: www.doctorzorba.org Stay well!

Send Zorba a message!Dr. Zorba and Karl look at a new study that shows how much lead we are eating in our food. Zorba helps out a caller with acid reflux, and he walks us through his recipe for Giant Challah Bread. We also talk about antibiotic ointments, and how Covid affects your taste buds The Grammar Cops chime in, we hear a classic mom joke, and a listener posits where Zorba got his name.Support the showProduction, edit, and music by Karl Christenson Send your question to Dr. Zorba (he loves to help!): Phone: 608-492-9292 (call anytime) Email: askdoctorzorba@gmail.com Web: www.doctorzorba.org Stay well!

This week, hosts Tom Zalatnai (@tomzalatnai) and Teffer Adjemian (@tefferbear) talk about the Jewish Festival of Lights, Hanukkah! We get into our favorite fried foods, alternate latke toppings, sufganiyot, and the joys of letting your food traditions come from a big blend of influences! Then, we use the Random Meal Generator to whip up a delicious Hanukkah dish using duck breast, blackberries, and couscous! BIG PATREON ANNOUNCEMENT: https://www.patreon.com/posts/december-update-145442817 #PodcastersFightHunger: tinyurl.com/fight-hunger WHOLE MILK ENJOYER SHIRT: https://podcavern.myspreadshop.ca/whole+milk+enjoyer+no+bad+food-A68505fa8c99f34694e92b43d?productType=812&sellable=XNqjzl4EdrFrpjd11LjD-812-7&appearance=1 MILK FAT GANG SHIRT: https://podcavern.myspreadshop.ca/milk+fat+gang+no+bad+food-A685062077514523c1dbf264e?productType=812&sellable=OL3yzAL2R7iJd9LEyD9y-812-7&appearance=1 Three of Cups Tea! https://www.etsy.com/shop/threeofcupsteas Subscribe to Teffer's Substack! https://substack.com/@tefferadjemian Support the show on Patreon! patreon.com/nobadfoodpod Contact us and keep up with everything we're doing over on Instagram @nobadfoodpod! Check out The Depot! www.depotmtl.org Want to be on the show? Tell us why! https://forms.gle/w2bfwcKSgDqJ2Dmy6 MERCH! www.podcavern.myspreadshop.ca Our logo is by David Flamm! Check out his work (and buy something from his shop!) at http://www.davidflammart.com/ Our theme music is "It Takes A Little Time" by Zack Ingles! You can (and should!) buy his music here: https://zackingles.bandcamp.com/ www.podcavern.com

00:01:40 Intro 00:05:30 Cost how much?! 00:10:15 SWU Local Tourny 00:15:15 Codenames Live 00:16:45 Taste Buds 00:20:45 Miniature Market 00:22:40 Ayar: Children of the Sun 00:53:15 Temple Code 00:58:45 Portal Games 00:59:45 Bretwalda 01:15:30 Baseball Card GM 01:23:00 Guild Wars Reforged Balancing everyday responsibilities with hobbies can be tricky, especially when medical appointments come into play. Dermatology visits, for example, often feel like interruptions in a busy schedule, but they're essential for maintaining long-term health. Whether it's a routine skin check or addressing a specific concern, these visits provide peace of mind and ensure that small issues don't become larger ones. But sometimes, as you will hear, we often are confused by the charges we receive during our visits. Don't get us wrong, these things are needed, but it is surprising just how things are billed. Recently, we played Ayar, a game that has some very enjoyable mechanics, some challenging choices to make, and straight forward gameplay. Then there is Temple Code which scratches a different itch, with its puzzle-like challenges and mind-numbing play that feels almost like deciphering ancient mysteries with friends. Then there's Bretwalda, a sweeping strategy game set in early medieval Britain. Its blend of area control and historical flavor makes every session feel like a grand contest of wits and could create lively discussions long after the board is packed away. APBA Baseball and Baseball Card GM both capture the thrill of America's pastime, but they do so in very different ways. APBA Baseball, which grew up playing, is a classic tabletop simulation that has been around for decades, using dice and player cards to recreate the strategy and drama of real games. Where APBA leans into simulation and tradition, Baseball Card GM emphasizes creativity and collection, turning the act of managing a team into a dynamic, customizable experience using real baseball cards. Together, they highlight two different but equally engaging ways to enjoy baseball beyond the ballpark. Thanks for listening and next episode will highlight another year of RDTN Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

In this episode, I'm joined by Ann Wiard, a Taste Buds Kitchen franchisee from Rhode Island, who turned her passion for food, education, and family experiences into a thriving business. She shares how she went from Executive Director of a soup kitchen to owning one of the most successful Taste Buds locations — earning 31% profit margins and out-earning her husband!We talk about family cooking classes, hilarious date-night stories, how she paid off her investment in 2.5 years, and why following the franchise system is the ultimate recipe for success.  ⏱️ Timestamps00:00 – Welcome to Eye on Franchising with Lance Graulich01:12 – Meet Ann Wiard, Taste Buds Kitchen franchisee from Rhode Island02:30 – Date nights, corporate events & “spicy” cooking stories05:12 – Why Taste Buds Kitchen is a family favorite07:48 – Teaching kids to love cooking (and eat broccoli tots!)10:30 – Ann's background: from soup kitchens to entrepreneurship12:00 – Why she chose Taste Buds Kitchen over 4,000 other franchises14:15 – Cooking camps, after-school programs & summer classes17:00 – How much does it cost to open a Taste Buds Kitchen?19:20 – Real numbers: $1.1M+ sales & 30% profit margins21:45 – Ann's journey to making $200K+ per year24:10 – How she paid off her investment in 2.5 years26:30 – Lessons learned: hire a general manager early28:00 – Why some franchisees fail (and how to avoid it)30:25 – Working with Taste Buds' founder Jessie & the leadership team32:40 – What kind of person thrives in this franchise34:20 – The secret ingredient: building a passionate team36:00 – Why Ann chose franchising instead of starting her own concept38:10 – Advice for anyone considering a franchise40:00 – Why talking to franchisees during validation is key42:00 – Final thoughts & how franchising changed Ann's life  

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