The Painful Truth of “Nobody Wants This” (2024) – Essay on Modern Relationships

(This post contains spoilers for season one and two.)

I have watched over 20,000 episodes of TV shows—countless hours in various languages, from French to Italian to English. I’ve watched the typical American hits, BBC shows, all kinds of TV series: sitcoms, dramas, anything and everything. I love it. I love fantasy, I love sci-fi, and I just love the narrative style of TV shows.

So when I saw the advertisement for the show Nobody Wants This (2024) starring Kristen Bell and Adam Brody, I immediately thought: yes, please—I’m invested.

The trailer is tricky because it hides the fact that this isn’t a conventional sitcom. The first season pulled me in. After being angry at the show during the second season, however, I think I finally realized what the show is really about. And I think most people have it wrong. In fact, the show might actually be much smarter than people give it credit for. What I want to explain in this essay is the message I believe the show is trying to convey. I haven’t really found many discussions about this online, so I thought I would write about it myself. I don’t know how many people this will reach, but I needed to get it out of my system. So here we go.

Right off the bat, the casting is incredible. I love everyone in this show. I also appreciate the nuance in the way the series explores a larger group in the United States that is often underrepresented unless there is some kind of deeper message attached to it. Faith is incredibly important to most people in the United States. I have taught American culture, and I have taught the ways in which history has shaped the world overall. Time and time again, religion remains a persistent force in defining how people behave and what they believe.

And here we are with an important character, the protagonist of the show, for whom faith is the number one priority. When you really think about it—and I have given lectures on this—in the United States you are very unlikely to be elected president unless you have some kind of religious affiliation. This is important. This is a huge topic. But a lot of people are thrown off by it.

For example, if a character in a TV show wears a cross around their neck, that’s generally considered normal. If they say they’re going to mass, that’s fine too. They don’t have to specify which church, where it is, or what state they’re in. But if someone says they’re Italian American, that already carries certain cultural connotations. If they say they’re Irish American, that also carries connotations. If someone is Latin American—of Spanish or Portuguese descent, whether they come from Colombia, Peru, or Mexico—it doesn’t matter. There is often an underlying religious background associated with that identity. In the United States, which has a very large population of people of Jewish descent, I honestly feel that we don’t see many discussions like the one this show attempts to have about faith.

For some people, faith is incredibly important. For a rabbi—like our main character Noah—it is absolutely central.

And questions of faith deserve to be debated in a much more thoughtful and serious way, because the United States still maintains a level of religious freedom that is quite unusual compared to many other parts of the world. Yes, you can see attacks on religion. Yes, you can see people using their faith to attack others as well. That’s a much bigger issue, and it’s not something we really have time to dive into here. It also isn’t particularly relevant to the TV show itself. What is important, however, is recognizing how deeply someone’s personality can be rooted in their faith. If they feel they cannot share that part of themselves—or if their partner doesn’t reciprocate the same level of interest or respect for it—that will inevitably lead to major problems in a relationship.

Then we have Joanne, the other protagonist, who has had her fair share of bad relationships, meeting a genuinely nice guy becomes incredibly important to her—someone she can truly connect with, someone she can vibe with, someone she can develop real feelings for. And you start to feel for these two people. They have very romantic scenes. They have the typical sitcom moments of “No, I choose you,” “No, you’re the most important thing,” “No, you are.” They exchange these beautiful declarations of love and commitment—about trying no matter what, trying even when it’s difficult to overcome certain obstacles, trying your best even when everything inside you—and everyone around you—is telling you that maybe you aren’t meant to be with this person.

And I’ll be honest: the first season felt very reminiscent of your typical romantic sitcom about people overcoming obstacles for love. But what happens after that?

What happens when love is not enough?

What happens when someone encounters problems that allude to the idea that people really don’t want this—exactly what the title suggests? Nobody wants to see their loved ones stuck in a relationship that may be filled with love, but where two people simply are not meant to be together. What happens then?

I was honestly very angry at this show because I was expecting a typical sitcom. I wanted romance. I wanted these two main characters to have incredible chemistry on screen. I wanted them to be so deeply in love that they restored my faith in humanity. But that’s not what I got. And I kept getting angrier and angrier.

Then I sat down with a friend and said, “Let’s talk about this show. What do you think about it?”

And for the first time, I realized something. I think the point of this show is not to portray a romantic sitcom fantasy. I think the point is to showcase a typical relationship in the 21st century. This show portrays something far more realistic: the countless people stuck in relationships that look perfectly fine on paper but are filled with underlying problems.

And I have seen so many friends go through exactly this situation so let’s break it down.

At first, Noah tells us that he is happy to have Joanne exactly as she is. He says he will refuse the job of becoming a rabbi. He will leave everything behind as long as they can be together. And this gesture is very sweet, but it is something that seems to just push of a larger problem. The second season arrives, and suddenly all the signs begin pointing to the same uncomfortable truth: these two people are not actually good for each other.

They love each other, which is wonderful. I honestly wish we lived in a world where love alone was enough. But it isn’t. And the reason this bothers me so much is because I keep seeing the same thing happen in real life.

I have watched friends go through the exact same situation. In fact, I have one friend in particular with whom I have had this exact conversation many times. Every time we sit down to talk about their relationship, I find myself making arguments for why they should probably separate. And every time, they push back.

They tell me their relationship is perfect. They tell me this is exactly where they should be. This is what they need. But then the next time we talk, when I suggest that maybe there is someone else who would be a better match for them, they suddenly say something completely different.

“Maybe that’s not who I’m supposed to be with.”

“Maybe I should try something else.”

“Maybe I should do this instead.”

And I find myself sitting there thinking: have you noticed that every time we talk about this, you say the exact opposite of what you said before? They usually laugh and say, “That must be annoying, isn’t it?”

But it’s not really about annoyance. I just wish they would figure out what they actually want. Because at the end of the day, what so many people are deeply afraid of is being single.

And I don’t understand why being alone—even for a short time—is so terrifying to people.

If you cannot sit alone with your own thoughts for five minutes, I honestly don’t think you should be in a relationship. And you probably shouldn’t have kids either. This is obviously a much bigger discussion, but honestly—don’t have kids if you cannot sit alone with your thoughts for five minutes. Because you know what involves a lot of quiet moments, patience, and reflection? Raising children.

And that’s when all the issues you never dealt with suddenly come back to confront you. When you’re holding a child in front of you and realizing that all the emotional baggage you avoided dealing with should probably have been addressed in therapy years ago. That’s a very rude awakening. Go see a therapist. Learn to live alone. Move out of your parents’ house—not with a girlfriend or a boyfriend, but by yourself. Spend some time alone. Figure out who you are.

Figure out how you like your eggs!

This might sound like a strange reference, but there’s a great example of this in the movie Runaway Bride (1999) with Julia Roberts and Richard Gere. If you don’t know how you like your eggs because you keep eating them the way your current partner prefers them, then you probably have bigger issues to deal with before entering another relationship. But people are afraid of being alone. And do you know what they do instead? They don’t leave a relationship until they are absolutely certain they can enter another one. They prepare the next relationship before leaving the current one. Technically, they can still say, “Well, I’m still here. I haven’t left. I haven’t cheated.” But emotionally, they’re already halfway out the door. And that’s one of the cruelest things you can do to someone. Because you’re not giving the other person the chance to understand what’s happening.

You’re not giving them the chance to process the relationship ending.

You’re avoiding confrontation. You’re avoiding the difficult conversation. Instead of having a mature discussion and acknowledging that the relationship has run its course, you quietly step away while the other person is still emotionally invested.

In sitcoms, relationships often end in very beautiful ways. Even when they are painful, there is usually some sense of closure. Real life rarely gives you that. So sometimes you have to create that closure yourself.

Have the difficult conversation.

Sit down with someone and say goodbye.

Tell them that the relationship mattered.

Thank them for the time you shared together.

Allow them the dignity of understanding that a chapter of their life has ended. That healing process might take two weeks. It might take three years. But at least they will know what happened. And that’s why watching this show became so frustrating for me.

Because here we have two characters whom the entire world is telling, “Maybe you shouldn’t be together.” Yet the show frames their constant struggle as something romantic. We are supposed to admire the fact that they keep fighting for the relationship. We are supposed to find it beautiful that they refuse to give up.

But honestly? I think they’re being idiots. I genuinely think they should break up.

And if they still miss each other after breaking up, then maybe they should consider coming back together. Instead, the second season ends with them being together again—even though none of the fundamental issues between them have actually been resolved. Joanne might convert to Judaism.

But honestly, who cares at this point?

Because it feels less like a genuine spiritual journey and more like a desperate attempt to avoid losing the relationship. And Noah keeps claiming that faith isn’t the most important thing to him. But the entire second season demonstrates that it absolutely is.

They fight about Valentine’s Day. They fight about gifts. There are toxic dynamics involving their exes. And most importantly, they don’t actually grow together. That’s my biggest problem with the show.

Does that make it a bad show?

No.

In fact, I’ll be completely honest: I hated the second season when I first watched it because it felt repetitive. But when I stepped back and compared it to the relationships I see around me—friends who probably shouldn’t be married, friends who probably shouldn’t be having children, friends who maybe shouldn’t even be dating right now—I started seeing the parallels everywhere.

And that made me reconsider what the show might actually be trying to do. Maybe the point of the show isn’t to present a romantic fantasy. Maybe the point is to show what relationships actually look like in the 21st century. Because a lot of relationships look exactly like this.

There are small positive moments:

“He got me a nice gift.”

“He supports my career.”

“He talks openly about his feelings.”

“My partner’s family accepts me.”

All of those things matter. They add weight to the positive side of the scale. But at the end of the day, the real question remains: is it enough? Is it enough that other people approve of your relationship? If the relationship itself doesn’t make you happy, does the approval of friends and family really matter? And what about the constant hope that the other person will eventually change? Is that really a healthy foundation for a relationship? Waiting for someone to suddenly fall in love with your hobbies, your values, your needs? I don’t think it is.

People can change.

Relationships can evolve.

But if you’re only one year into a relationship and both partners are already asking the other to become someone completely different, that’s probably a sign that something isn’t working. And that’s the uncomfortable truth this show seems to explore.

Sometimes people stay together not because the relationship is healthy, but because the alternative—being alone and starting over—feels too frightening. If that’s the message the show is trying to convey, then it has absolutely succeeded.

Because watching it is genuinely painful. Not because it’s badly written. But because it feels too real.

And maybe that’s exactly the point.

What's Next On My List? Pawn Shop Chronicles

 As per tradition, every year I try to look at one of Paul Walker's films, missing him dearly still, and I am slowly but surely running out of films from his filmography that I had never seen. There are some works from his early years where he barely had any big scenes. There are some where he's quite young, he started out as a young actor, but thankfully I still have a couple to go. 

Pawn Shop Chronicles (2013)

One of these was Pawn Shop Chronicles, and I just did not know what to expect with this film, but to my biggest delight, it wasn't about driving cars, it wasn't about being an undercover cop, and surprisingly, despite how incredibly insane this whole idea is and the whole story is, it was just one of the best performances I had ever seen from Paul Walker. He was playing with his voice, he was playing with his body, his interactions with the other cast members was lifted, he had perfect chemistry, some of the weirdest dialogue options, some of the weirdest scenes, it was just such a good time and a good ride.

So, what made this movie interesting is that it was divided into three separate chapters, connected by Vincent D'Onofrio and Chi McBride's character. People who came in and went out of the pawnshop were connected throughout the story. Gotta say, I liked that hook. Obviously, if it's chronicles, like the title suggests, that it's going to deal with a lot of stories within that area, within that state. But at the same time, I needed a bit more from the story to actually, let's say, appreciate the connections. Because Elvis's story really wasn't about anything other than getting to his gig. I didn't see much of the connection from him to the other story lines. And in that sense, it was just very disjointed from the first, which was a very short story, to the second, which made up basically two-thirds of the film. And the third one, I was completely unclear on at the end. I am uncertain about how these three were actually connected.

Now, taking them separately. The first one was about Paul Walker and he and his friend trying to rip off the person that has been supplying them with the drugs that they have been selling, thinking that they're gonna have a big score. And his interactions with his companion and just playing a good old meth head was very entertaining, very fun, unique as well. His take on the character was insane. At the end of the film there were a couple of blooper reels with him in it and they were just so insanely unique and funny and silly. It does not compare to any of his other roles. And at the same time I was very sad because then he died at the end of his segment, sorry, spoiler alert, and it was the best character so I was very sad to not see him in the rest of the film. 

Because the rest of the film left me with a very weird punch in the gut. The second story starred such incredible actors as Matt Dillon and Elijah Wood. It was just insane to see a man trying to find his wife who had gone missing and only to find her being a victim of sexual abuse, of physical abuse, having become a slave to a disgusting perverted man played by Wood, which is a very unlike character for him. And it just left this feeling in my stomach that I was deeply disgusted by. And the man freed other women who were also abused of by this disgusting man who unfortunately by the end of the film we find out survived, despite him being one of those true motherf*ckers that you would be very happy to see in the ground. And I never, it just, it got to my stomach the way women are treated, the issues with Stockholm syndrome, the disgusting abuse of it all. It was just too much. It was fucking too much. And the last story from the film didn't really give us a good conclusion to that because at the end, yes, we can see all three stories coming together. But it still was so much deeper than all the other shit in the film... there was an imbalance. I was deeply disturbed, disgusted. I just left wanting an actual resolve, an actual solution to the situation, not having seen one, not having gotten one from the story was abysmal. And the main guy, the husband, Matt Dillon's character who tried to save his wife, obviously he did not know how to cope with somebody suffering a severe Stockholm syndrome and believing that her captor is actually her savior. It makes sense that it caused a lot of damage in their relationship and there really wasn't a relationship to fix there. But overall, it was just gut-wrenching how disgusting it was and how he was the one who, through karma, in the end also died. But he died trying to save her so it really didn't feel satisfactory.

Finally, the last story was about an Elvis impersonator, played by Brendan Fraser, who was very good in this role. It drove me insane that he was in this small f*cking town and people didn't recognize his outfit. He was so f*cking clearly Elvis, it could not have been anybody but Elvis, and it did not make sense. And this town, which up until then was just a southern town with meth heads and, I don't know, some assholes, it turned into this very weird, very disgusting place where the guy who is actually proposing ideas about Jesus was the devil ... I didn't understand. And then Fraser's character sang one song, which was just drawn out and very long, and the girls who had escaped from their abuser were there. And instead of me feeling like at least these girls will be, I don't know, will find some joy in being free from whatever it is that they went through, the dude shows up and takes them back into captivity. And the Elvis guy.... the whole thing was weird. I can tell it was on purpose, but I don't know to what end. His ex-girlfriend, who was a bitch, was also taken by Wood's character, and I did not like that twist, I don't care for it, I don't think it was, I don't know, smart. But all these girls were dressed in flags, and was this symbolism that the United States is a fucking rotten, disgusting place? I don't understand. 

There was a barbershop scene where people in town were insane, and again, I don't know if it was just this Elvis character's view of the town that this was just a bit fucking weird. So the movie started off with fantastic acting, fantastic dialogues, silly but insane people trying their best at life, and just being idiots, ultimate idiots, with fantastic dialogue. And then it turned completely stomach churning, and then finally the last chapter was just weird. And I didn't see how these three actually connected. There was a bit of a running joke that one of the stories was brought on by a guy who sold a ring to the pawn shop, and then he finds that same ring at the side of the road, and then he sells it again. Ha ha ha, cool. The film has left me with more questions than answers. Now, should you watch it? I do think that for the first half of it, it's worth it. And the acting is brilliant, with an A-lister class of actors. There are these American films which are just chapters of something, and I do believe this was supposed to be one of those. And I understand if that's all it wanted to be, to be a chapter, but overall it wasn't disgusting enough, nor was it scary enough to elicit deeper meanings. And it wasn't silly enough to be laughable, unfortunately. So it kind of fell in between. 

If you are a fan of Paul Walker, and that is why we are here at the end of the day, I do suggest you watch it, you check it out, because his acting in it is brilliant. It's too bad that it's only done in the first half of the film, well first one third of the film, but for him it's worth it. This was to date the last film that he appeared in before his passing. So this one was special even for that sense. And yeah, I do think that it's worth a watch, but lower your expectations. 

Thanks so much for reading. Make sure to look around the blog for other posts, and if not sooner, then I'll see you next year on the celebration of his birthday.

Exit Stage Left: Quitting Academia

It has been a couple of months now since I made the decision to quit my PhD. I was close to finishing, but life happened. More than anything, I felt completely burned out—and I’ll have a separate blog post about that soon (still working on it). What has become very clear over the past few weeks, though, is that I made the right decision when I left my academic career behind.

There were many reasons behind my decision, but three in particular stand out. I wanted to write about them because, of all the things people warned me about when I started my PhD, these three were ones no one saw coming.

1) A TECH MOGUL BOUGHT AND DESTROYED

ONE OF MY RESEARCH PLATFORMS

Over the years, I developed a deep fascination with John F. Kennedy—and also RichardNixon. I spent years searching for new angles to analyze their media presence: how they opened (and tried to close) the door to the White House, how they were portrayed in popular culture, and how their ability—or failure—to establish a relationship with the media shaped their legacies. I wrote several essays on the subject, and some were even published.

But focusing on media meant also keeping up with its evolution. From the printed press to mass media to what now plagues our phones and screens: social media. President Barack Obama was the first to recognize its potential for campaigning, but even with an official White House profile, he didn’t yet use social media for serious campaigning. Still, slowly but surely, Twitter became one of the most widely used free platforms for political discourse in America.

I had charts, data, and numbers on how congressional and senatorial candidates used Twitter to campaign—and I loved doing that research. I was always online during presidential debates. Twitter functioned like a massive live chat room, with celebrities and friends reacting in real-time. It felt like being in a big room, discussing history as it happened. It was an incredible time. Seeing a random social media platform transform into a free forum where voters could reach their elected officials (and vice versa) was a sight to behold. I loved researching this.

But then social media changed—and right in front of my eyes, my research platform became… unavailable. First, President Trump created his own social media site, which wasn’t open to users outside the U.S. for nearly two years, making analysis much harder. News sites and pundits quoted his posts, of course, but conducting unbiased research meant accessing the material firsthand. Second, came Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. Since then, content moderation has changed significantly.

People have left Twitter in large numbers, migrating to Meta’s Threads or the more independent Bluesky. But as of now, neither platform has reached Twitter’s scale. It’ll take time to see the numbers. Many influencers have already said Bluesky “feels like old Twitter,” but I’m not sure that’s enough to persuade people—especially political figures who benefited from Twitter’s free and open interface for so many years—to make the switch.

So whether my research can be continued remains uncertain. There are promising studies tracking how users move between platforms. But even if we believe Twitter played a significant role in Donald Trump’s re-election, just last week, despite Elon Musk’s efforts, the Wisconsin Supreme Court seat remained in Democratic hands.

The only real conclusion right now is that it’s too early to draw any real conclusions. More time needs to pass. We’ll see whether social media remains a collection of echo chambers or if free public discourse can return—and with it, candidates encouraged to use these platforms again. These echo chambers have continued to mislead us, as we saw clearly in both the 2016 and 2024 elections.

2) THE TOPIC OF MY DISSERTATION WAS MIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES

When I started my PhD, I left behind the topic of Presidents and moved on to migration. There were several reasons for this—not only was my advisor well-versed in the field, but I also saw an opportunity to combine my other major, Italian, with my existing knowledge of American culture. The focus wasn’t just migration itself, but the representation of migration.

I worked extensively with Italian Americans, a group that fascinated me. From the first Italians who made the trip, to the fourth and fifth generations who still proudly identify as Italian today—everything about that trajectory blew my mind. I loved doing this research. I still love it. I can talk about it for hours. So many people told me I’d grow tired of it by the time I finished my PhD, but for me, that never happened. I was incredibly lucky in that way. It’s also part of why I didn’t want to quit. The stories I wanted to tell felt important—needed to be told.

Still, even when narrowing my focus to a small slice of the broader picture, I had to keep an eye on the whole thing… and parts of it are rotting. Right in front of my eyes.

When I heard that a father had been wrongfully deported to El Salvador—after a judge ruled he should not be detained, and despite his legal right to be in the U.S.—my gut reaction was disgust. This came on the heels of a similar case involving a Lebanese teacher, also wrongfully detained and deported. Every week brings another horror story: gross mismanagement, wrongful deportations, all from a racist government in power. And frankly, I can’t stomach it.

I can’t, in good conscience, just focus on past migrations. Trends must be analyzed; waves of movement have to be compared over time. But I can’t simply zoom in on the parts I enjoy researching. It’s impossible to do this work while ignoring the daily decisions being made by the Trump administration about migrants—both legal and undocumented. I wish I could just focus on Italian migration in the 20th century. But that’s not how this field works.

All of this is to say: I’m angry. I do love my research. Even after seven years in a PhD program, I never came to hate it. I never got bored. I just cannot, at least for now, bring myself to dig deeper.

3) ChatGPT

Here’s a hot take on academic writing: it’s boring, repetitive, and written in a style we like to call formal—when in reality, it’s just about stretching a five-word sentence into fifteen. There have been multiple studies showing that the mandatory academic articles we’re forced to write are read by, on average, 2–3 people. Can you imagine that?

Can you imagine having to publish just to get your PhD, to move up the academic ladder, to even be considered for a full-time teaching job—when virtually nobody reads the work? There’s a whole saying for it: “Publish or perish.” This pressure is so widespread that it birthed its own grim motto, yet each individual article gets read by two or three people. It’s ridiculous.

And it’s even more frustrating because not everyone is suited to endless publishing, presenting, and researching. Some of us—like me—are meant for teaching. And others should never, and I mean never, set foot in a classroom.

As ChatGPT became more well-known, I saw students experimenting with it. A few tried to cheat (thankfully not in my classes—and for that I’m grateful; it showed me they understood that writing skills matter, and this wasn’t just another class to pass and forget). Unlike many of my colleagues who panicked and assumed everyone would cheat, I wanted to explore the tool myself. I wanted to see how it could be integrated into the classroom.

But then I started using it… and it wrote, in seconds, a chapter that was better than anything I’d written for my dissertation. I was left feeling… empty.

What’s the point of forcing people to churn out publication after publication when, one: nobody reads them, and two: AI can do a better job? I was already struggling to convince myself that the conferences and papers were worth it—just so I could keep teaching in higher education. Because the fact that I was a good teacher—that I consistently had 30-33 students apply for a seminar that could only seat 15—meant nothing. My teaching ability, my connection with students, the work I put into making class engaging—none of it mattered in academia. And that makes me incredibly angry.

I knew the system from the start, but the workload expected of professors is beyond unreasonable. It's unsustainable. The result? Mediocre research. Mediocre teaching. Every student who complains that university sucks? They’re not wrong. The system is broken.

And insisting that publications still matter in the age of ChatGPT? In my humble opinion, that’s a scam.

Dear reader, this blog entry—this very one—was reviewed by AI. And I can tell you: it made it better. I know my limits as a writer. I love writing, but now I have a tool to help refine it.

So what’s the conclusion?

Nobody could have predicted these changes when I started my PhD. I don’t regret leaving academia—it’s a system that requires extensive reforms. But I do miss the classroom. I miss the energy of a lively discussion with students. And it breaks my heart to know that as long as the system values obscure papers more than human connection and effective teaching, there’s no future in higher education for teachers like me.

That deeply saddens me.

Still, we move forward. Some time has passed, and I know I made the right choice. I just hope I can recharge—and find my potential again.

What's Next on my List? Vehicle 19

 As a tradition, each year in memory of Paul Walker, I review a movie that he starred in as long as I run out. I miss him terribly still... he was truly one of my favorites. This is for you, happy birthday!

Vehicle 19

I had no expectations going into the movie, and I was very pleasantly surprised. Our main character is Michael Woods (Paul Walker), who goes to Johannesburg to restart his relationship with his wife, ends up driving a car that has a package not intended for him: it is a witness in a court case against the chief of police. Although wanting nothing to do with it, and at first he would take her back to those that kidnapped her, in the end, he decides to help her. The movie is shot from inside the car, even if some of the characters leave it, the camera only looks outside. This car is the reason for all that happens in the film, and as a viewer you never forget it. As the main character he of course ends helping the little guy, but the movie had a very smart layered way of convincing him to not just walk away from it all.

It has been incredibly sad not to have Walker around anymore, but out of many of his films this one reminded me of how talented he was and how much he still had to offer. I always like to remind myself that we are lucky  that we shared the Earth with him and that we do have all those movies that stay with us. This movie feels like an action film, and some of the trailers were certainly edited that way, but really, it is more of a drama, and the main character has continuous struggle over how to make the right choice. But slowly and surely he realizes that there is no right choice. 

I am slowly running out of his films, and it leaves me with this emptiness. It has been 11 years since he passed away, but I still feel this void in my heart. It's silly, I know, it is not like I knew him. But he is a reminder of all the good people we have lost, all the ones who left us too early. Some people made life on this planet worth living. With cancel culture and everyone turning out to be insane, racist, sexists, it's just a good reminder that some people are still good. Were good. In this film they did not cover up his tattoo with the name of his daughter Meadow, but left it in. I think it's beautiful that there is a memory of that too in this film, of the life he led, of his presence on the this wretched planet. 

I do recommend this movie, like I do with every movie from the past couple of years. I have grown tired of mentioning the good and the bad, it is all subjective, it is all in good fun. Movies are fun. A great pass time and a great way to start a discussion, to get to know another person, to get to know yourself better, so see your likes and dislikes, to learn languages ... and to remember some fantastic Hollywood stars we have lost over the years. Just keep watching movies!

Happy Birthday Paul!

What's Next On My List? Rhinestone

 Here we are, ten years of #StalloneMonth. Over time I have decided to stop writing, it does not bring me the same joy as it did, but you know what I do still love? Movies. I just adore movies. And one of the many actors that keeps me going back to the big screen is none other than Sylvester Stallone. As I am going through his filmography, it is always hard to choose the four movies I will cover, and honestly, I am slowly running out, having done this for ten years now, it is no wonder. This man is a machine, and I hope he will be making movies for many years to come! Let's just jump into the next one:

Rhinestone (1984)

Jake Farris (Dolly Parton) enters a bet with her boss, and in order to win it she has to turn a simple New York cabbie into a singer. The person she finds is Nick (Stallone), and they spend time together long enough to not just make Nick someone the crowd can cheer for, but they also develop feelings for each other. In an unsurprising event, Jake almost loses the bet, but then, in the end, wins anyway, as it is in every single rom-com where a bet is involved.  

I have read that this film was not the stellar success that you think it could be with such names as Stallone and the one and only Dolly Parton attached to it, but in fact, it was very badly received. Stallone himself has admitted to having regrets over taking this role and having turned down others, but honestly, watching it now: it was fine. I have seen far worse films, and I'm telling you, someone saw something when they put together young Stallone and young Parton on screen together. It is a silly film, and you have seen this plot a hundred times before. Winning the bet is not the point, the moral victory is, of admitting to have done the wrong things for the right reasons, and learning from our mistakes.

I have been going on and on about writing my dissertation on Italian American representation, and in all fairness, in most of his films Stallone does play somebody of that community. I was lucky to see this film, because, although I am 100% that none of my opponents know it and are unlikely to bring it up at the defense, I have a very good speech prepared already as to why I will not include this one, however, here on my blog I can tell you a bit about my thoughts on representation. Nick, as we find out early on, comes from an Italian American family, where, when he is not driving a cab, he helps out at the funeral home that his family runs. There is a scene where he eats with his family, and I have analyzed several scenes of this kind, where the Italian American family talks with a stronger accent, and the food is the centerpiece of the interactions. And this film is ultimately the perfect example as to how Italian Americans started to assimilate more and more and became just Americans. Most of the films that I have analyzed still focus on the importance of community and how that community puts certain restraints on its members. None of that comes into play in this film, and Nick is his own person and his own man. It is interesting to see that the film decided to gives us a glimpse into an Italian American family, but overall avoided all stereotypes that were typical of the films that had Italians as subject in the 1980s. 

So, watch it? It is honestly not the best film I have ever seen, but after having read the reception to it, where are far worse movies out there. The casting alone in it is great, and Dolly Parton sings a lot, which is truly the only thing I needed to grab some popcorn and enjoy myself. 

We have come to the end of #StalloneMonth for 2024. I'll be honest with you, writing these has proven to be more of a challenge than I thought it was going to be. I had fun writing, but keeping to the weekly deadline was impossible... I honestly don't know how I kept doing that for ten consecutive years! I think, that as long as there are Stallone movies out there, I am gonna keep going, but it is an interesting experiment to see how I approach deadlines differently as time passes and I get older.