Ranting On...Hank Green and the Complicated World of AI

I have made a concerted effort in the past year to genuinely reduce the amount of time I spend on my phone.  This has been a mixed bag.  Partially, it's because for the true time-killers (for me, that's Twitter and waiting for texts) I have transferred to just watching on my laptop, which is still better (because I also do other things like actual hobbies, writing, and work) on those, but still not what I wanted, which was to truly cut back on my wasted online time.  But what it did do (because I have cut well over an hour off of my average screen time compared to, say, December & January) is cause me to look at video websites like TikTok and YouTube much, much less.  In fact, for someone who used to religiously keep up-to-date on YouTube videos, for me it's pretty much just Bad Boy that I consider "appointment viewing" that I will not miss a single episode.  But that doesn't mean that I don't keep abreast with some of my past YouTube obsessions, and that includes Hank Green, one of the two hosts of The Vlog Brothers, the extremely long-running YouTube channel that launched both Hank and his brother John into an echelon of pedigreed YouTube stars and of whichI have been a viewer for many, many years (looking through the page, I have seen several in 2026 even with my cutback on screen-time).  John is a New York Times bestselling author whose books The Fault in Our Stars and Paper Towns have both been made into major motion-pictures, while Hank has become an essential part of America's classrooms, with his series like Crash Course and SciShow regularly shown by teachers in educating their students.  For a certain generation, Hank Green is a hero, and though I'm a bit too old to be calling him that (even though it wouldn't entirely be untrue), I'm definitely a fan.  I've seen his show with his brother live, and I have a framed photo of me meeting both of them on the dresser in my bedroom.

Which is why when there was a fan revolt over Green in the past two weeks, I stood up and took notice, and wanted to get an article out about it even though my To Do list right now is drowning me.  Essentially, in a recent video, Green used the phrase "I appreciate the pushback" which caused fans to wonder if Green had used an AI program to write his script for the "Future Hank" segment of the video.  Anyone who has spent much time on AI knows that "I appreciate the pushback" is a tell that you are using AI to write something, as it's a commonly used phrase by the programming when you are challenging it to create something better.  Green admitted in a Twitter post (that has since been deleted) that he had used ChatGPT for research on the script (which was about how the sounds of words help to create their construction), but did claim that "I appreciate the pushback" was something he said of his own volition.

This caused a significant amount of reaction online, something that seems to follow literally any use of AI in modern culture.  For starters, Green saying he used AI to research his video but not to write it made some viewers/followers doubtful-you can see countless people saying that they don't think he actually was being truthful here, which given that he's using words that sound like AI, well, gives cause for doubt.  But I'm going to take Green at his word, because I've watched enough of his videos (for decades) that that sentence doesn't feel out-of-character for me.  Green has a thoughtful, nerdy, and sometimes sporadic cadence when he speaks (whereas his brother is a bit more contained), and so "I appreciate the pushback" feels at home for him.

But I do think this controversy opens up some other doors.  Green, in an apology on Reddit, pointed out that some of the people who were attacking him seemed to be doing so in large part due to his use of AI at all.  Green acknowledges the environmental and ethical ramifications of the tool, but also is pretty clear that he has a more nuanced view of it, which some people may disagree with.  He then goes on to point out that he has become over-reliant on LLM's and AI in his research, which has impacted his relationships not just to his work, but to the people around him (he name checks both his wife Katherine and his brother John as agreeing with the latter statement, which makes it feel a little bit more like a family issue than one involving his fans).

This opens up two questions for me, so let's start with the first one.  I have written a couple of articles on this blog about AI and ChatGPT specifically.  I struggle with something like ChatGPT for a variety of reasons, the biggest being the environmental impact.  I also think, to a degree the "either use it or get left behind" aspect is a bit self-fulfilling prophecy (we're only being left behind because we're being forced to be left behind), but I will own that I have used AI and ChatGPT specifically, both professionally (this was heavily encouraged at my place of business) and personally, which I recounted here (I will note, as I have in pretty much every mention of the technology on this article in the past, that I will never use it for writing a blog article, as honestly I'd rather shut the place down than use AI to write an article on here-everything on here, including the mistakes, is all me).  I think, ultimately, the environmental aspects of it are hard to fault Green for, because literally everyone's using AI (just try googling without using it), so why shouldn't he too?  But the academic implications of it, particularly given how much of AI is inaccurate (which I also profiled in that article if you haven't already read it-it's a good one), is where Green gets into trouble.  Green has become a trusted source on the internet (people literally tag him in TikTok videos to see if he can explain phenomena in videos); that he's using a tool that is rife with inaccuracy (fairly or unfairly) makes people doubt the veracity of his videos.

I also think that what he says about ChatGPT being addictive (we're coming to the end, so we're bringing this back to the first paragraph about screen time...proof there's a method to my madness) is really important.  ChatGPT I have used in my personal life a few times, and it is shockingly addictive.  Partially, to Hank's credit, it's voluminous as a research tool.  You need to always double check everything if you're using it, which requires extra work that some won't put in, but if you ask it for, say, a list of movie musicals made in 1950, it's going to give you a better list than if you Google that same prompt (this is partially because Google has denigrated its quality in the past five years, a conversation for a different day).  It's also a decent brainstorming tool-I recently was working with ChatGPT to plan a trip and trying to get all of the things on my wishlist for it done, and eventually through a lot of pushback (forbidden word choice use intentional), I realized that the trip I was planning was impossible the way I was planning it, and came up with a Plan B I probably wouldn't have realized in the same amount of time on my own, and transparently maybe not at all.

But it also shapes the way you research, sometimes to your detriment.  I can type in a prompt asking for a list of all of the movie musicals of 1950, but it also gives opinions on those movies, some of which are gleaned from less-than-reputable sites where those opinions are presented as facts (and ChatGPT interprets them as facts).  This is dangerous because the human brain is not meant to constantly sort through things like that, but also because it's hard not to assume that the research & direction of that approach aren't where you need to go.  ChatGPT gave you an idea...even if it's a good idea, it's still ChatGPT's idea.  You didn't do that thinking, you are using the AI algorithm to create that idea and it is informing your research.  And because it's hard work to create ideas, having something do that thinking for you, particularly with effusive praise and lots of encouragement as if it were your idea is scary, and can make you think you can do more than you can.  This seems to be what Green is getting after-this is causing him to over-extend, and the more you over-extend, the more you think you need ChatGPT to work.  It's hard not to read those sentences, and replace it with a word like, say, alcohol or gambling, and not realize that there's an under-discussed addictive quality to AI/LLM's that we aren't allowing for in understanding its value.  That, more than anything, feels not like a scandal (I remain pro-Hank Green after this, and maybe even more so because of the honesty he brought forth in showing how challenging using this tool can be), but a wake up call.  If Hank Green, endlessly creative & boundlessly trying to make the world a better place, can fall prey to ChatGPT...anyone can.

Conan the Barbarian (1982)

Film: Conan the Barbarian (1982)

Stars: Arnold Schwarzenegger, James Earl Jones, Sandahl Bergman, Ben Davidson, Mako, Max von Sydow

Director: John Milius

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2026 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the men & women who created the Boom!-Pow!-Bang! action films that would come to dominate the Blockbuster Era of cinema.  This month, our focus is on Arnold Schwarzenegger: click here to learn more about Mr. Schwarzenegger (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was a different kind of movie star not because he came with an accent (so did Greta Garbo & Marlene Dietrich) nor because he was a muscle-bound figure (as we talked about a few months ago, Bruce Lee was totally jacked and a huge star both here and abroad).  Schwarzenegger's phenomenal success in large part stemmed from coming at the right time.  In the post-Jaws/Star Wars era, blockbusters were a regular thing, and something happened where we had the effects budget to regularly churn out big, sometimes gaudy action films (which would become Schwarzenegger's bread-and-butter), but also because home video became really important.  If you look at the early successes of Arnold's career (Conan the Barbarian and The Terminator), the films themselves were not massive successes.  Conan was a hit, sure, but its domestic box office was dwarfed by films like An Officer and a Gentleman, Porky's, and even a prestige drama like The Verdict.  The Terminator was the same situation-modest hit, but it was outgrossed by now forgotten films like Tightrope and Breakin'.

Why have you heard of these films as a result?  It's because Schwarzenegger became a star on home video.  Conan the Barbarian was one of four action flicks that Dino de Laurentiis made with Schwarzenegger in the 1980's, and the biggest calling card of these movies was that they would sell better than their theatrical grosses would indicate in the burgeoning home video market.  Conan would, by some estimates, nearly quadruple its initial gross through home video rentals & sales, and The Terminator would do similarly well.  Both films would eventually also have additional success through repeated showings on cable television.  As we'll talk more and more about Arnold over the remainder of the month, you're going to note that this is a pattern-Schwarzenegger was a huge star, but not always through traditional domestic box office like his predecessors, instead relying upon growing international markets & home video sales to ensure that he was always profitable and worth the exorbitant salaries he demanded from the studios...even on films that didn't click with American audiences.

(Spoilers Ahead) Which brings us to the movie, the first narrative film we're talking about with Arnold after last week's documentary.  The film follows Conan (Schwarzenegger), whose parents are murdered when he is a child by cult leader Thulsa Doom (Jones).  Afterward, he is taken into slavery, and forced to work at a mill that turns him into a glistening, muscle-bound gladiator (aka the Arnold we all know and love), and through his time as a gladiator gains his freedom.  This leads him on an adventure, one where he treks across the land to gain his revenge on Thulsa Doom, eventually finding him and beheading him in a dramatic fashion...that allowed for him to come back in a sequel (Arnold always likes to keep his options open for a sequel).

You may note that the intro is way longer than my description of the film, and that's because Conan is practically a silent movie it uses so little traditional dialogue, particularly from Arnold himself.  I can't find an exact account of this, but Schwarzenegger himself has roughly 24 lines in the movie, most of which are reserved for a scene where he beats up & steals from an effeminate priest who is clearly hitting on him (he does not have a line in the first 24 minutes nor the last 25 minutes of the picture).  This isn't unusual for some of Schwarzenegger's early films (I believe he has even less spoken dialogue in The Terminator) and given his limited ability as an actor even when he was actually talking, this may have been for the best.  But it also feels almost silly as it goes, and when he's paired with real performers (like a scene about halfway through the film when he's opposite acting god Max von Sydow), it reads as comically uneven.

But this is kind of the appeal of Dino de Laurentiis's movies (he was the film's producer).  De Laurentiis was capable of greatness (he made some of Fellini's best pictures), but by 1982 de Laurentiis was largely best-known for making profitable schlock.  With Schwarzenegger, he found a goldmine, and they would make four movies together.  The two would have a complicated relationship.  De Laurentiis would get rich off of these movies and Schwarzenegger would become a proper movie star by the end of their partnership (something he likely would've struggled to do in mainstream movies had they not gone down this path...it's easy to see him being more Chuck Norris than Sly Stallone without De Laurentiis's help), but the last two pictures they made together (Raw Deal and in particular Red Sonja) left such bad blood that Schwarzenegger vowed to never work with him again, which meant that the third chapter in the Conan movies never happened.

Which in its way is a pity, because I quite enjoy the camp value & silliness of de Laurentiis films in this era.  Arnold can't act, this is written with an overwrought pen, and it makes all of the actually talented actors in the movies feel like they're in some weird type of kabuki theater...but it's still very watchable.  There's something there...there's a reason this movie became a hit at home, because it's equal parts funny and entertaining, even if it's objectively not good.

Max Miller and the House One-Term Wonder Phenomenon

Rep. Max Miller (R-OH)

This past week, two House Republicans involved in massive political scandals have (thus far) seen very different outcomes.  Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-NC), a congressman who was elected in part because he was replacing Rep. Madison Cawthorn who had been involved in a sex tape scandal (and is currently running for the House in Florida), chose to not run for reelection after it was revealed that he had had inappropriate relationships with junior staffers, sending them intimate texts & poems, as well as expensive (and honestly, somewhat embarrassing) gifts.  Meanwhile, Rep. Max Miller (R-OH) has repeatedly chosen not to step down, despite allegations that he was physically abusive to both his wife and daughter (after allegations he was physically abusive to his ex-girlfriend were revealed in 2021).

These are good reminders of something that happens in waves: the concept of a one-term wonder.  If you look at recent wave midterms (specifically 2006, 2014, & 2018...I'm lifting 2010 out because it's too hard to track with redistricting add its own unique fun), you'll find that a recurring theme.  In 2020, even with Joe Biden winning nationally, 12 Democratic freshman members of the House lost.  In 2016, even as Donald Trump was winning nationally, 4 Republican freshman members were losing.  And in 2008, with Barack Obama taking a landslide victory, another 4 Democratic freshman were losing.

In virtually all of these cases, something had happened in the previous year's election that (even with a good cycle for them two years later), had caused them to win.  A combination of a toxically bad relationship with the incumbent president, a lower turnout that doesn't get out base voters, and a wave helping them makes something that our stats-honed political watchers can't really understand: you get someone who can defy the odds and get a victory in territory that would normally be unwinnable.  A lot of these incumbents were in seats that their party had won the previous cycle at a presidential level, and in most cases, the seat reverted back-to-form at a presidential level, causing the incumbent to lose at the bottom of the ticket.

Sometimes, this is just relatively innocuous-people lose elections, that's sometimes the point.  In other scenarios, complacent incumbents who haven't hard to worry about a general election in years suddenly get caught unawares and lose to a newcomer who can't sustain that kind of luck in the next election (Jim Ryun/Nancy Boyda is a good example of this).  But wave elections also have something similar to what Edwards nearly opened up, and Max Miller is definitely opening up: a bizarre set of circumstances, usually involving congressional scandal, that causes a one-term wonder to emerge.

Two examples of this happened in 2006/08.  The first, probably the premiere scandal of that cycle, was when Rep. Mark Foley was outed as having inappropriate, frequently sexual, communications with a House page, in this case an underage one.  Foley had to drop out, but he was unable to be replaced by another Republican on the ballot, and even though another person could be the "nominee" Republicans would have to convince voters to cast their ballot for a man accused of sexual misconduct to win the election.  Even though Bush had won 54% of the vote here in 2004, without another Republican on the ballot, it became likely that Tim Mahoney, a chairman at a Finance company who was essentially running as a sacrificial lamb, would win the seat, and while Mahoney barely won (he beat the replacement nominee, State Rep. Joe Negron, by less than 2-points), he did win, getting a House seat he couldn't possible hold in any other election...which of course he didn't.  Two years later, Mahoney lost the seat by over 20-points.

The other example is Nick Lampson.  Unlike Mahoney, Lampson was an experienced politician, one who had actually beaten a "one-term wonder" to get his seat in the first place.  He had actually been in the House for 4-terms before losing in 2004 after a controversial mid-decade redistricting led (in part) by Rep. Tom DeLay.  Lampson chose to run in the 22nd district (DeLay's district) at least, in part, it seemed, for revenge on DeLay (he had represented portions of it while in the House, but by-and-large wasn't from the district).  But DeLay was vulnerable-his 2004 election results had been underwhelming, and he had been mired in a series of ethical scandals, including money laundering charges that essentially caused him to successively resign as House Majority Leader, then stop his reelection, and then eventually to resign from the House all in the same Congress.

That last step ended up being the GOP's undoing.  DeLay's replacement on the ballot became Republican Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs.  But Sekula-Gibbs had to run a write-in campaign, and more pertinently, was running for the remainder of DeLay's term in the lameduck session.  Lampson was smart, and decided to only run for the main term, meaning that both he and Sekula-Gibbs only appeared on the ballot once each, with Sekula-Gibbs needing voters to vote for her in the special but write in her name for the general...which caused confusion for voters.  Sekula-Gibbs got enough votes in the special to beat Lampson had they been head-to-head, but she got 15,000 less votes as a candidate in the general as a result of the confusion and needing the write-in.  Lampson won his term in the House, and despite a strong election cycle for the Democrats in 2008, still got trounced when he tried to run again under normal circumstances.

All of this is to say, waves create weird situations, and the weirder the situation, the more likely it is that we get a fluke congressman.  In Miller's case, Brian Poindexter, a Brook Park City Councilman and iron worker who gives off the aesthetic I've been told Graham Platner shone for months (but in this case feels legitimate) is in a good position.  He doesn't appear to have any scandals of his own (which oftentimes derail these circumstances), and will probably be able to get a Wikipedia page out of this scandal, provided Miller doesn't follow Edwards lead, making him one of I suspect several one-term wonders we're going to see in November.

Am I a Moderate?

For all of the time I have spent on this blog (over 16 years of regular posting), I don't know that I've ever really talked about my own opinions on my holistic political philosophy in an article.  I've certainly given opinions on issues, even specific political issues (and lord knows I've been open about being a Democrat), but I don't know that I have actually written an article where I talk about my political philosophy.  I want to do that today, but I will start with a couple of provisos: I am not someone that is super comfortable using terms like leftist, progressive, liberal, neoliberal, and moderate as distinctive classes within the Democratic Party.  This is partially because I don't think that there are true, universal definitions of these words.  Go into any forum (Reddit or academic, it makes no difference) and you'll find that no one really agrees on exactly what would constitute one versus the other (and they are oftentimes used even in reputable online publications) interchangeably.

So let's start with some of the core philosophies that I believe in.  If I were a member of Congress and voted in a vacuum (i.e. my conscience without any real-world compromises) I would be a pretty liberal one.  I support same-sex rights, including transgender athletes in high school sports, I am pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and support affirmative action reforms & equal pay for women.  I am very pro-environment, including regulations in business and in some cases on personal choice (i.e. I support something like mandatory recycling and plastic bag bans), if it means helping the environment, and am in favor of significantly more gun control than is currently in place in our country.  I support universal healthcare, am deeply supportive of public schools (I don't support public funding for private schools, and don't support home-schooling at all), and think public school should be expanded into Universal Pre-K.  I support the legalization of marijuana, and back strong public safety nets like Social Security, Unemployment, and SNAP benefits for people who are struggling.

There are limitations on my belief system, however, and were I in Congress, I would not be the most liberal member, and likely would not be deemed an appropriate choice for the Squad.  I would not call myself either a Socialist or a Communist.  While I do support criminal justice reforms, I do not support the Defund the Police movement (even if I do think that we should take a largely mental health-based approach to certain crimes, particularly those involving drug addiction) and do not support the eradication of the prison system (though I would 100% sign up for eliminating the private prison system...I think all prisons should be run by either the local, state, or federal government).  I don't support universal student loan forgiveness, even though I do support some student loan reform (including free community college, and the ability to retire certain student loans if you have paid into them long enough).  I do not support ICE in its present state, and I think we need significant immigration reform in this country (and also believe we should pass the DREAM Act), but I would not characterize my belief system as advocating for an "open borders" policy.  And while I do think there are some industries that might make sense to have more government oversight (or a government option), specifically healthcare, that does not extend to something like groceries or housing, where I think the private sector should be the vast driver of movement, and the government should be more focused on regulating safety and equity in the industries rather than actively participating.

In most avenues of life, this would make me a pretty left-leaning person.  I would not be able to win with the above platform in North Carolina or Arizona, much less in a place like Texas or Utah.  I certainly would not be able to win the presidency (nor would I want it...I would in fact never run for a public office higher than a library board).  I would be considered a pretty liberal option if I were to run in a light blue state...except that's not entirely the case in 2026.  You could make an argument that in places like Minnesota, Michigan, & Wisconsin (where Peggy Flanagan, Abdul El-Sayed, and Francesca Hong are running), I'd be more moderate than the probable 2026 statewide candidate.  And it's not necessarily because of cherry-picking issues...it's because I'm pragmatic in a way these candidates are not that would define me as a "moderate."

Healthcare is a really good example of this.  I support universal healthcare, though I am more honest about it than a lot of politicians (universal healthcare in this country is not achievable without the middle class paying more even if we tax billionaires, especially if we still allow the private sector to still run employer-bought healthcare).  But I'm also very open to compromise on getting to universal healthcare.  I would support a public option, I would support adding in Hearing/Dental/Vision to Medicare, and I would support lowering the Medicare age to 60 or even 55.  All of these are not universal healthcare, but they are steps toward it, because I'm a pragmatist-universal healthcare is not popular enough to be affordable in its current state (i.e. you'd have to raise taxes or totally eliminate employer-bought healthcare) to be able to be realistic without taking baby steps like I just listed.  I don't view these as compromises-I view these as things we could actually achieve.

And that's because I live in the real world where (unless you can get a trifecta, and probably a big one), you need moderate Democrats or even Republicans to back a bill.  Even on that pretty progressive list of goals, that's possible.  For Dental/Hearing/Vision, there is compromise to be had in, for example, trying to make Medicare Advantage more affordable, so that more people can access it.  This is something you could probably get through a bipartisan Congress as there is some common ground with moderate Republicans like Susan Collins & Shelley Moore Capito.  It's not ideal (ideal would be adding it to the original Medicare so people pay less out of pocket, and certainly would also be less private interference with the program...which honestly feels achievable in a trifecta made up of moderate Democrats), but it would at least get things in the right direction.  It would be better than what we currently have, which is the primary point.

You see this with other issues ranging from minimum wage law to foreign aid...absolutists are winning primaries on both sides of the aisle, and are refusing to find that common ground which is where legislating (imperfect legislating, but legislating nonetheless) happens.  This move toward absolutism hurts people like Angie Craig & Haley Stevens, who have stayed moderate because that's what their House districts were, but also because it's where you can actually get something done.  I want action on issues, and even if you move it in inches...it's still movement.  In a world, though, where that compromise can be seen as backing a Republican standpoint (i.e. voting to make Medicare Advantage to be stronger is a betrayal of the Medicare for All movement)...it also makes it less likely that we get anything done.  And as I'm someone who cares first-and-foremost about making things better (no matter the pace), if that makes me a moderate now...I guess I'll have to wear that badge even if it feels like a silly way to pin it on me.

Pumping Iron (1977)

Film: Pumping Iron (1977)

Stars: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lou Ferrigno, Mike Katz, Franco Columbu

Directors: George Butler & Robert Fiore

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2026 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the men & women who created the Boom!-Pow!-Bang! action films that would come to dominate the Blockbuster Era of cinema.  This month, our focus is on Arnold Schwarzenegger: click here to learn more about Mr. Schwarzenegger (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

It makes sense to start a month on the man who, more than any other this year, provided the definitive answer to "who is a great action star" with a first for our series.  In nearly seven seasons, we have never done a documentary, mostly because documentaries aren't really something you associate with the creative output of actors.  But Pumping Iron gives us both a really strong set up into Arnold Schwarzenegger, and also is one of the main reasons he became a star.  Growing up in Austria, the son of a local police chief (who was a member of the Nazi Party, something that would haunt Schwarzenegger for the remainder of his life, and would be a marked part of his celebrity donations, giving enormous sums of money to organizations like the Simon Wiesenthal Center and making a pointed effort to focus on Holocaust remembrance and Jewish organizations in his time in the celebrity spotlight and during his political career), Schwarzenegger's first forays into the spotlight came not from acting but from bodybuilding.  While Schwarzenegger would become the most famous figure in bodybuilding due to his subsequent movie stardom, even without that work, he'd arguably become (give or take Lee Haney & Ronnie Coleman) the most significant athlete just within the sport, and a lot of that is due to his work in Pumping Iron, a documentary that nearly wasn't released due to budgetary issues, but when it was in 1977, became a surprise hit (particularly in early home video sales), and launched Schwarzenegger into acting.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie isn't really a "spoilers needed" situation because it's based in fact, but I'll issue it mostly because the movie is about the 1975 Mr. Olympia competition (and who will win), a bodybuilding feat that is pitting some of the best in this then-niche sport against each other, and we meet them and their families.  The film centers on a number of different figures, and while all of them are big names in bodybuilding (not just because of their success at the time, but also because many of them became famous after this movie came out), you see the pitfalls of the sport, and the ways that only some people get to be the best (while others get to fail in the process).  The monetary award here is clearly secondary to other things, like personal pride, and in the case of the eventual winner (Schwarzenegger) modeling contracts and an intense amount of ego in terms of being near super-human in his perfect physique.

This is the best part of Pumping Iron, a surprisingly strong and intriguing look at a deeply hyper-masculine sport at a time when men weren't being pushed to show their softer side...because the film itself shows its softer side.  We see Mike Katz playing with his kids, and then the disappointment in him when he ends up getting fourth place in the competition he'd been so proud to brag about in the previous scene.  There's Lou Ferrigno, admitting that his parents weren't proud of him initially, and he feels a constant need to push for them to succeed...even though it's clear his parents seem to adore him (whatever the outcome).  And then of course there's Schwarzenegger, who at one point talks about how bodybuilding is the equivalent to having near constant orgasms (he uses the more colorful term of "cumming" that I'm going to use only because it's funny to think a future governor spoke this way even if it might end up getting this post flagged).  But later he has a scene where he talks about missing his own father's funeral because he couldn't deal with the headspace of such actual-world realities when he is in competition mode.  It's said with the same nonchalance as he does when he talks about the sexual gratification he gets from the sport, as if they are similar statements, and not one that's quite silly and the other hauntingly devastating.  It's like watching toxic masculinity, and the damage that it causes, in real time.

But it doesn't feel like toxic masculinity, because Schwarzenegger is unfathomably charming in this.  If you think of him from some of his later action films, where he is forced to drain anything resembling life force in favor of a robotic perfectionism, you are in for a treat.  He is flirty, friendly, braggadocios, and aware that this is a fleeting moment in his life.  You can see that he knows this isn't forever, and in some ways that life isn't forever, so he's going to enjoy and win everything he can from this moment before tackling the next challenge.  It's worth noting that in the immediate aftermath of this movie, it was Ferrigno who had immediate success with the smash hit (pun intentional) The Incredible Hulk which ran for five seasons on CBS.  But Arnold's time was coming, and it would be much, much higher than Ferrigno would ever dare to jump.  We'll talk about that next Saturday.

Saturdays with the Stars: Arnold Schwarzenegger

Each month of 2026 we are looking at an actor or actress who found their fame in action films, fighting bad guys & saving the day.  Last month, we spoke about Harrison Ford, a man who is basically the definition of a modern movie star and would in some ways serve as the template of "action hero with multiple major franchises."  This month, we're going to talk about someone who in many ways was Ford's biggest rival for the title of top action star of the 1980's & 90's (though he was not the rival the press and the actor himself most considered his competition), the only one who would come close to him in terms of tentpole films and action blockbusters.  But this star isn't remembered for that today, primarily because instead of trying new types of movie roles in the 21st Century, he chose instead to go into politics, being elected Governor of California.  This month's star is Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger was born in Austria in 1947, just a few years after World War II ended, and as a result, his father Gustav was a Nazi military police officer who fought for the Germans on the Eastern Front.  By all accounts Gustav and young Arnold had a tough relationship, and the younger Schwarzenegger would later characterize what Gustav would do to him as child abuse (it's also worth noting, given his ancestry, that the younger Schwarzenegger would become a prominent ally to the Jewish community, donating huge sums of money to fight anti-semitism, in stark contrast to his father).  Arnold would start weight-training at the age of 13, competing in increasingly high-profile body-building competitions, becoming the youngest ever (a title he still holds) Mr. Olympia, the highest honor in the sport.

Schwarzenegger's movie career started with Hercules in New York (where he was billed by the name Arnold Strong), but despite appearing in a number of films in the 1970's, it wasn't until 1982's Conan the Barbarian that Schwarzenegger became a household name.  He'd follow that up with his most iconic role, as the titular Terminator in James Cameron's 1984 science fiction classic, and for the next few decades, until his time as Governor of California, Schwarzenegger would have a fascinating career, making a series of memorable (if not always quality) action films, most of which would be successful in the United States but even more so internationally and in home video markets, the latter two helping him when his action hero roles began to go out of style in the early 1990's.  This month we'll talk about Schwarzenegger's claims-to-fame, his political career, and what his legacy now feels like when his type of movie star (which inspired many copycats in his day) is all but extinct to modern audiences.

1990 Oscar Viewing Project

"It's the nineties, for God's sake," and indeed it is as we encounter our 34th Oscar Viewing Project (see links to the other 33 below).  The Oscar Viewing Project is now in its 2nd third (we'll likely never be below that at this pace, as I try to get through 5-7 of them a year), and we're entering the first year of what my brother & I refer to as our "wilderness period" of movie watching.  I was born in the 1980's, but the movies didn't become my life until the mid-1990's.  This was driven by a series of events, specifically watching my first Oscars at the 1995 ceremony (i.e. the Braveheart Oscars) on repeat after my brother & I taped it, the inclusion of AMC (and eventually TCM) in my parents' cable package, the advent of the AFI 100 Years TV specials, the discovery of Entertainment Weekly at our school library, the opening of a standalone video rental place in my town, my parents letting me watch PG-13 movies, and my mom instituting Tuesday night movies, where she would take my brother & I (regardless of what was showing) to the 7 PM showing (i.e. the G/PG/sometimes PG-13 slot) while my dad had golf night, and so pretty much every week in the summer from roughly 1995 to 1998 we would watch a movie.  This gave me a pretty extensive vernacular with what was going on in the world of movies, and generally meant I had seen 20-30 films from the calendar year by year's end.

From 1990-1994, though, it's a weird spot because these are not "classics" that I had to seek out or have no memory of watching in real-time, but were really when movies were still just a "normal" thing for me, not something I was obsessed with and made my entire personality.  In 1990, I definitely watched at least two movies (The Rescuers Down Under and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) in theaters, and so I have at least some context for this year in real-time, even if the bulk of these movies are me watching them later at home.  By 1995, Oscar-related films like Apollo 13 & Babe I'd seen in movie theaters, and had known they were going to be Oscar nominees beforehand, and so the early 1990's feel like a weird time of catchup for me as a teenager, a feeling that has stretched well into adulthood.

I give you this preamble in part because this is a personal journey of Oscar exploration, and in part because I think it's good context.  The early 1990's are a time where I see some of these movies from a child's eyes (I remember my parents' VHS copies of films like Ghost & Pretty Woman, and secretly watching them when I was too young to understand what they were wholly about), and revisiting them as an adult has shifted some of my perspective on them, but in other ways they are immobile.  As always, to ground you in the films of the year, the domestic Top 10 at the box office in 1990 was:

1. Home Alone

2. Ghost

3. Dances with Wolves

4. Pretty Woman

5. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

6. The Hunt for Red October

7. Total Recall

8. Die Hard 2

9. Dick Tracy

10. Kindergarten Cop

I have actually seen all of these movies, and to underline my point about growing up with them, I had seen 70% (save for #7-9) by the time I turned 16.  Honestly, you have to go Another 48 Hours at #14 on the domestic box office list to find a movie I haven't caught from the top box office that year.  While I have seen all of the Oscar nominees below, there are a couple of precursor contenders that I haven't seen yet, namely The Russia House, White Palace, and Q&A that I haven't caught yet, but plan on doing so before we get to the My Ballot.  

But now, it's time to go back to a time when Nelson Mandela was being freed in front of the world, the Hubble telescope was having us reach for the stars, Roseanne Barr was teaching us new ways to never sing on national television, and the entire nation was mourning the loss of Jim Henson.  And of course, let's remember the movies...

Note: For the last time (likely ever) the Visual Effects category was not a competitive category, but instead was given to Total Recall as a special prize.  We'll have a proper category for this when we get to it for the My Ballot with five nominees, and it's worth noting that it's relatively accepted that Dick Tracy, Ghost, and Back to the Future, Part III were shortlisted for this but none of them got nominated (all of which I've seen as well), but I want to note that Total Recall was seen by me for this project, and I generally was impressed with the visual effects, particularly the way that they used makeup effects toward the end of the picture. 

Picture

1. GoodFellas

2. Ghost

3. The Godfather, Part III

4. Dances with Wolves

5. Awakenings

The Lowdown: Let's begin with me saying that 1990 is, collectively, one of the first years I ever saw all five of the Best Picture nominees (I've had this lineup completed since before I graduated high school, which was a while ago), and also a year where (both for Oscar and in general) I don't love the movies themselves as much as others.  The glossy movie star-driven blockbusters that would become the decade's calling card hadn't started yet, and we don't have some of the best prestige work that I enjoyed in the 1980's.  Of these films, it's an easy call for GoodFellas, one of the best films of Martin Scorsese's career.  Ghost ages better with reappraisal, and Godfather 3 is not as bad as its critical reputation allows, but GoodFellas is an easy champion.

Director

1. Martin Scorsese (GoodFellas)

2. Stephen Frears (The Grifters)

3. Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather, Part III)

4. Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune)

5. Kevin Costner (Dances with Wolves)

The Lowdown: It's weird to think about now, but at one point in time Martin Scorsese was basically the Hitchcock or Kubrick of his era-a man who was constantly nominated for Academy Awards but never was able to win any of them.  Meanwhile, I'm giving him his third statue for the OVP (again, links below) for the really incredible way that he upended the gangster flick after decades of hero-worship of it through the Godfather pictures (which of course in this case he competed alongside).  I will also acknowledge I have some respect for Dances with Wolves, but you're going to find out they do not extend to Kevin Costner's involvement in the film (and this ain't its final 5th place finish).

Actor

1. Richard Harris (The Field)

2. Jeremy Irons (Reversal of Fortune)

3. Gerard Depardieu (Cyrano de Bergerac)

4. Robert de Niro (Awakenings)

5. Kevin Costner (Dances with Wolves)'

The Lowdown: A very odd lineup, and not a strong one (this isn't Oscar's fault...my My Ballot for 1990 is going to be very weird unless I start discovering some stronger stuff in the upcoming viewings...this is much more a year for actresses).  Oscar went with Jeremy Irons, and honestly this wouldn't be the worst thing that ever happened for the OVP-Irons is a really good actor, one who somehow only got one Oscar nomination despite being in the AMPAS wheelhouse (British, handsome, classy, constantly in prestige fare), but I'm going to go with Harris over him.  Harris's part is a bit more theatrical, but it also has a stronger build, and he's also batting in a lesser movie while still excelling.  The rest, even Robert de Niro, don't really need mention.

Actress

1. Anjelica Huston (The Grifters)

2. Kathy Bates (Misery)

3. Meryl Streep (Postcards from the Edge)

4. Julia Roberts (Pretty Woman)

5. Joanne Woodward (Mr. and Mrs. Bridge)

The Lowdown: While I will own that I'm not inspired by 1990 as a whole, that doesn't mean that I don't have moments, and this is one of the best Best Actress lineups Oscar ever pulled together.  Any of these women would be a winner, and I wouldn't be stunned if my My Ballot looks a lot like this-even Woodward in fifth place is doing a lot of strong work.  I ended up going with Huston over Bates (a controversial choice, I know) not because Bates isn't splendid (one of the best Oscar upsets), but because Huston nails this part so well that I have long been obsessed with it.  The interiority in her work, the way that she nails the animal instinct of that final scene...she's honestly never been better.  I'm aware this means that Bates may never get an OVP statue from me, but...that's why we decide this in a vacuum, and I prefer Huston in a vacuum.

Supporting Actor

1. Joe Pesci (GoodFellas)

2. Andy Garcia (The Godfather, Part III)

3. Bruce Davison (Longtime Companion)

4. Al Pacino (Dick Tracy)

5. Grahame Greene (Dances with Wolves)

The Lowdown: Joe Pesci is one of those truly spectacular actors who rarely works...but when he does, it always felt like an event.  In 1990 you've got him not just nailing the fiery persona behind GoodFellas but also playing the funniest henchmen outside of a DC Comic in Home Alone.  Davison is subtler than I would've expected given the subject matter (his final scene is the best in the movie) and I actually think Andy Garcia brings a hot-headed style to Godfather III (and no, this is not just because I palpitated every time he was onscreen...Andy Garcia in Godfather III was a formative experience for a teenage John watching this on VHS for the first time), but they just aren't in the same hemisphere as what Pesci brings to his doomed mob hitman.

Supporting Actress

1. Whoopi Goldberg (Ghost)

2. Annette Bening (The Grifters)

3. Lorraine Bracco (GoodFellas)

4. Diane Ladd (Wild at Heart)

5. Mary McDonnell (Dances with Wolves)

The Lowdown: While I didn't go with the consensus choice for Best Actress, that won't be the case here.  Whoopi Goldberg owns Ghost, giving us a lesson in comedy, and totally nailing the frequently cliched role of "best friend to the leading lovers" that has long been the bread-and-butter of the romantic genre.  I do really like Annette Bening, particularly the glossy over-her-head feeling she gets the further The Grifters goes (without ever totally telegraphing it), and Lorraine Bracco has strong moments even if she's pitched a little to the hilt in some scenes of GoodFellas, but like Oscar said-this is Whoopi's year.

Foreign Language Film

1. Cyrano de Bergerac (France)

2. The Nasty Girl (Germany)

3. Ju Dou (China)

4. Journey of Hope (Switzerland)

5. Open Doors (Italy)

The Lowdown: For me, this is a pretty tight contest between France & Germany.  I liked elements of Ju Dou, but honestly Raise the Red Lantern a year later leaves a much longer shadow.  Cyrano is more conventional, a space we've gone to before, but this is also my favorite adaptation of Rostand's story, and it doesn't have the not-always-successful narrator tricks of The Nasty Girl, even if the latter has a more compelling story (and honestly, a better lead performance).

Adapted Screenplay

1. GoodFellas

2. The Grifters

3. Reversal of Fortune

4. Dances with Wolves

5. Awakenings

The Lowdown: Adapted Screenplay goes to the crooks, and the two films I pretty much universally love of this bunch: GoodFellas and The Grifters.  There's something wonderful about The Grifters, a movie I find I champion more than most do, as it strips down some of the best elements of the neo-noir (the sex, the deceit, the ability to have a non-Hays Code ending) and creates something that feels fresh and calculating, but I can't deny GoodFellas in the end, the extremely rare screenplay so well-written it even makes the narration work.

Original Screenplay

1. Ghost

2. Metropolitan

3. Avalon

4. Alice

5. Green Card

The Lowdown: A pretty middling field, even if none are objectively bad.  I'm picking Ghost not just because it's the best, but also because it takes a really challenging genre to make without it turning camp or cloying (the romantic drama-fantasy) and really makes it sell (it's also genuinely funny).  Metropolitan is the most sophisticated (I was stunned to find out it's not based on a play or novel), and part of me wants to go with it but I think its ending doesn't work at all, and neither Avalon nor a weak default nomination for Woody Allen really compare to the Unchained Melody of Ghost.

Sound

1. Dances with Wolves

2. Total Recall

3. Days of Thunder

4. The Hunt for Red October

5. Dick Tracy

The Lowdown: We're shifting into the Oscar era for Best Sound where we are very much valuing the big, action-film even over the prestige fare of the giant epic (Dances with Wolves is the only epic in this bunch, and it's not without its battle scenes).  I actually really like what the team does with Dances with Wolves, between the Civil War beginnings to the way that it adds elements of "the last western" realism to the scenes with Costner off finding himself, all while beautifully bringing in that lush John Barry score.  Total Recall and its futuristic & impressive battles would also have been a good idea, but I think I'm ready to give a statue to Oscar's Best Picture winner here.

Sound Editing

1. The Hunt for Red October

2. Total Recall

3. Flatliners

The Lowdown: It's a running joke with Oscar that he tends to, when it was a separate category, always think first of submarine movies when it comes to Sound Effects Editing (look at the history of the category-it pops up way more than you'd think), and to some degree I agree with him.  The water effects, constant claustrophobia, & many buttons & levers of The Hunt for Red October are really done and a large part of what builds the suspense, even if the space age adventures, and especially some of the final scenes in the dying planet of Mars in Total Recall hold their own.

Score

1. Dances with Wolves

2. Home Alone

3. Avalon

4. Ghost

5. Havana

The Lowdown: I feel like a lot of these OVP Score contests from the 1970's through the 2020's is a battle of "to John Williams or not to John Williams" and this is a particularly tough one as I adore the score to Home Alone (and honestly Avalon or Ghost would be a good winner here too...there's only one true dud in this lineup).  But John Barry's score to Dances with Wolves is just a perfect piece of music, and adds the best parts to a movie I really did not care for overall.  It deserves the W.

Original Song

1. "I'm Checking Out" (Postcards from the Edge)

2. "Somewhere in My Memory" (Home Alone)

3. "Sooner or Later" (Dick Tracy)

4. "Blaze of Glory" (Young Guns II)

5. "Promise Me You'll Remember" (The Godfather, Part III)

The Lowdown: You know that line that I said above about how movies have connections to your childhood you can't really escape.  For me, one of the few true memories of childhood, specifically around Christmas, that I need to bring back every year is hearing "Somewhere in My Memory" playing in the background.  It's also a movie that reminds me, more than maybe any other, of my little brother as I know how much he loves Home Alone, which gives it a nostalgic necessity I really cherish.  I'm judging on a scale (and honestly all of these movies are good), and for me "I'm Checking Out" is better (and better-used in the film) so I'm giving it the trophy, but it's tight and you should expect both to end up in the My Ballot.

Art Direction

1. Dick Tracy

2. Hamlet

3. The Godfather, Part III

4. Cyrano de Bergerac

5. Dances with Wolves

The Lowdown: Honestly, a really solid lineup (there are no losers in this bunch, even if I won't repeat all of them with my My Ballot).  I tend to like the Mel Gibson Hamlet more than most (for the record, people turned on this one well before they turned on Gibson), and I think the castles & work here is really beautiful.  But Dick Tracy is so inventive, it's impossible to deny-the comic book lights, the way that it feels at once like it's springing from a dime novel AND a 1940's Hollywood set, despite relatively modern makeup & visual effects surrounding it-and all that color!  Glorious!

Cinematography

1. Dances with Wolves

2. The Godfather, Part III

3. Avalon

4. Dick Tracy

5. Henry & June

The Lowdown: Leave it to those crazy pervs in the Cinematography branch to totally go for a film as banal as Henry & June just because they tastefully shot most of the sex scenes so well.  That random silliness aside, this is really a battle between the increasingly aged & sepia-hued glories of The Godfather, Part III and the gorgeous expanses of Dances with Wolves (points are due for the way that Avalon feels of another time though).  I would not be opposed to giving it to the third Godfather film (and lord knows Gordon Willis deserved a competitive Oscar at some point), but it's hard to argue with the glories of the West.

Costume Design

1. Hamlet

2. Cyrano de Bergerac

3. Dick Tracy

4. Avalon

5. Dances with Wolves

The Lowdown: Hamlet has been cited three times (to date) for Best Costume Design, and like 1948 (see link below), we are giving it the gold medal here (1996's version with Kenneth Branagh is still unseen, but don't worry...we'll get there eventually-every one of these contests I do I become more & more determined to truly finish this project...also fun fact within a fun fact-I have been to Elsinore in my world travels, and thought it was breathtaking).  For me, the biggest competition is the period costuming in Cyrano.  I think some of the comic book costuming in Dick Tracy is a bit silly, and Avalon doesn't stand out, but the gorgeous 17th Century decorations of France were on-par with 14th Century Denmark, but not quite enough to conquer to the monologuing Dane.

Film Editing

1. GoodFellas

2. The Godfather, Part III

3. Dances with Wolves

4. Ghost

5. The Hunt for Red October

The Lowdown: I feel at this point like a broken record-GoodFellas was the best, and somewhere behind it is Godfather III and Ghost.  I will own, given its really rough reputation as a movie, that Godfather III being in second here is no accident.  I think a lot of the problems with it are casting (Sofia Coppola, apologies, but you are the weakest link...and George Hamilton is not a strong substitute for Robert Duvall), but the editing works-we get a really strongly-structured story, one that feels inline with the originals even if it isn't that level of classic (like, say, GoodFellas, which basically invented a new type of editing with its cocaine-inspired manic nature).

Makeup

1. Dick Tracy

2. Edward Scissorhands

3. Cyrano de Bergerac

The Lowdown: It feels weird to end in Makeup, not Visual Effects (I believe this is the only time we'll do this as we're alphabetical and Makeup has been a category for a much shorter time than Visual Effects), but I'm glad we're doing it with two icons of the category.  There are only winners between the garish brilliance of Dick Tracy and the transformative genius of Edward Scissorhands (honestly, Cyrano ain't bad either), but I'm going with Dick Tracy both because there's more characters to be in awe of and because it feels so in-tune with the glorious silliness of a comic strip, rather than needing to take itself too seriously.

Past Oscar Viewing Projects: 1931-32, 1948, 1957, 1964, 1972, 1981, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025