AISHA HARRIS, HOST:
“The Fabelmans” is Steven Spielberg’s semi-autobiographical and deeply personal film a few Jewish American boy who dreams of constructing movies. While growing up, he learns to inform stories through his eight millimeter camera, and life-altering events inside his family’s household significantly affect how he views the world.
LINDA HOLMES, HOST:
Michelle Williams and Paul Dano play Sammy’s loving but slowly unraveling parents. The film can also be an ode to the ability of flicks and the truths they’ll reveal. I’m Linda Holmes.
HARRIS: And I’m Aisha Harris. And today we’re talking about “The Fabelmans” on POP CULTURE HAPPY HOUR from NPR. Joining me and Linda today is Weekend Edition producer Danny Hensel. Welcome back, Danny.
DANNY HENSEL, BYLINE: Hey there. Thanks for having me.
HARRIS: And likewise with us is NPR film critic Bob Mondello. It’s great to have you ever back, Bob.
BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: It is so good to be here.
HARRIS: Well, “The Fabelmans” is about within the ’50s and ’60s, and it tells the story of Sammy. He’s played as a young person by Gabriel LaBelle. Paul Dano plays his dad Burt, a successful engineer, and Michelle Williams plays his mom Mitzi, a talented artist whose ambitions of becoming a renowned concert pianist never quite panned out. Now, after Sammy’s parents take him to see his first movie, his passion for cinematic storytelling is ignited. He spends much of his time enlisting them, his three sisters and his friends in his creation of those elaborate DIY movies which might be shot on an eight millimeter camera.
As he hones his filmmaking skills, his family goes through some big life changes, including moves from Latest Jersey to Arizona to California due to Burt’s job. Sammy also learns a disturbing secret that impacts how he views his parents, and he experiences violent anti-Semitism at his recent Northern California highschool. “The Fabelmans” also features Seth Rogen as Benny, who’s a detailed family friend and Burt’s colleague, and Judd Hirsch as Mitzi’s uncle Boris. It was directed by Steven Spielberg, who co-wrote the screenplay alongside his frequent collaborator Tony Kushner. And it’s now playing in theaters.
Well, Danny, let’s start with you. How did you’re feeling about “The Fabelmans”?
HENSEL: Well, I actually have to say first that I feel I’m really within the tank for Steven Spielberg and possibly especially this last decade, through which he’s almost grow to be, I feel, form of underrated. And this was no exception. I actually enjoyed this movie loads. I assumed it was very compelling. And it felt like sitting in on someone’s therapy in one of the best ways since it felt like there’s almost the identical sense of discovery that he will need to have felt when he was working through this time in his life and in his memories. And I feel it also feels form of loose for a Spielberg movie. There is a sense of play and fun that jogged my memory plenty of last 12 months’s “Licorice Pizza,” which I also loved quite a bit, even while coping with these tough topics. And so at the top, you understand, I just left a really pleased customer really enthralled by this latest offering.
HARRIS: It’s interesting that you just mentioned therapy because, you understand, Steven Spielberg did a really interesting interview with A.O. Scott at The Latest York Times that I highly recommend people take a look at. And he talks about how he’s actually never really done therapy except, like, possibly once in his life. And that was very temporary. And so he actually views this exactly as his version of therapy, which some could argue – I do not know if that is at all times the perfect thing to do. But clearly what he was attempting to do got here through to you. So what he’s doing was working on some level.
HENSEL: Yeah.
HARRIS: Bob, how about you? What was your response to this film?
MONDELLO: Well, because I’m possibly two or three years younger than Spielberg, those early sequences were my very own childhood, right? I mean, I went to movies like “Best Show On Earth.” However the experience of the primary decade of his life was so very similar to, you understand, the things I used to be going through, mainly. I assumed it was a beautiful evocation of period and of anyone who’s form of discovering that there is something he really cares about. I mean, he’s told the story of how he went to see “Best Show On Earth” after which got here back and began fidgeting with model trains and making movies with the model trains. And he’s told it plenty of times in interviews. He’d been doing it for – like a few many years, he’s been telling that story. So seeing it come to life on screen like this is basically form of interesting. But it surely’s clear that that is form of real for him. And I assumed you can feel it right through the movie.
HARRIS: Yeah. If there’s one common thread that I saw throughout the film, it’s that, like, that is clearly made with a lot love. And even the best way he frames many shots which have this form of ethereal glow by means of – I don’t need to say – the go-to for that era is at all times someone like Norman Rockwell. But it surely does have a form of, like, in some ways, Rockwellian feel to it that I feel is basically interesting to take a look at, especially considering Spielberg has often – I feel he gets unfairly accused sometimes of being oversentimental. But I do want to come back back to that concept of form of how that plays out throughout this film since it does feel in some ways like there may be plenty of reverence and admiration and never as much grist possibly, but we are able to speak about that later. Linda, what was your response to this?
HOLMES: Yeah. You realize, sometimes with contemporary Spielberg, I wind up feeling like I like the movies greater than I really like them, which is form of the best way plenty of people, I feel, feel about anyone like Christopher Nolan – something like that. I feel like it isn’t necessarily a story that completely revved me up. I do not – I mean, I feel the performances are terrific. You realize, after I saw the promotions for this, Paul Dano and Michelle Williams are two actors who I feel are at all times interesting whatever the project that they are participating in. In order that did loads for me. I do think it’s unimaginable to separate this film from its Spielbergosity (ph). You realize, once we talk on this show about emergencies in popular culture reporting, our shorthand is usually, like, if Steven Spielberg dies. And it’s because he’s so massive within the imagination of popular culture of our era and form of niches, right? I admired enormously the filmmaking here. There are a bunch of shots here where I just thought, gosh, is that pretty.
MONDELLO: (Laughter).
HOLMES: Like, I kept finding myself pondering, like, that could be a glorious composition, or that’s glorious lighting. And I feel while you’ve been watching plenty of somewhat underbaked filmmaking, inexpensive form of stuff, I feel while you see anyone who clearly puts love and fervour and craft into each thing – there are couple of shots on this where just the composition of how persons are standing – there is a shot where Dano is within the foreground, and Williams is within the background form of lying on the piano. I just saw that shot and thought, boy, that’s so pretty, and it’s so interestingly composed. I do think, like, if this weren’t in regards to the guy who became Steven Spielberg, would I find this an incredibly moving story? Perhaps not. It might probably leave me a bit cold.
I also think – as you progress particularly into the part where he’s in highschool, there was a piece where I used to be like, what the heck is happening here? After which I began to comprehend that that section of the movie is about his highschool experience and a bit little bit of a sendup of highschool movies and highschool bully movies because there’s a piece that I assumed, this can be a really silly presentation of this bully. And there is a component where the bully form of cracks his neck. And I just thought, it’s such an infinite cliche. But then I assumed, oh, that is the point, right? He’s form of doing a bit about teenager movies and that form of thing.
So I do find it interesting to form of have a look at what he’s doing. I do not know that that is my favorite thing of his. But it surely’s clearly, as you said, made with enormous love and care and fervour and technique that’s so filled with pleasures that the indisputable fact that I wasn’t that absorbed within the story, you understand, between the performances and the opposite parts of the craft, you understand, it’s a really pleasurable movie to look at. I like it enormously, you understand?
MONDELLO: I got to say, the thing that – as you are talking about it, I’m realizing that I didn’t – this is not fair to the movie. I didn’t care as much about Sammy’s growing up as I did in regards to the scenes where he was actually making movies. I used to be talking at a screening the opposite day to the mom of one in all the costume people for “The Fabelmans,” and apparently, her daughter was charged with finding the precise made-up costumes for that war movie he makes in the midst of the movie so that they could reproduce the movie he had shot when he was 13 years old along with his Boy Scout troop. The concept of doing all of that craft to recreate something that he’d actually done a few years ago, I mean, I just got an enormous kick out of it.
Also, I mean, I feel the thought of burying a stick in the bottom with a rock on top of it with a bunch of dirt – you do not manage to pay for to do little munitions in your war movie. So if a child running along steps on the stick, then it shoots up a bit little bit of dirt behind him, and it looks like something’s been shot. That is a really clever device, right? And I watched them doing that and thought, (laughter) it’s amazing. It’s all form of fascinatingly clever. And so for me, you understand – I actually have to go to plenty of movies – it’s interesting to see how you’ll do that.
HENSEL: Well, I feel he also – one thing I loved throughout the movie was how he understands all of the various functions of film because we see film from the start as entertainment, after which when he gets his movie camera and he starts filming a train crash over and once again, which scared him when he watched “The Best Show On Earth,” it – you understand, he uses film as a approach to conquer his fears. We see all the consequences as a approach to, you understand, mix engineering and coordination and human labor into movies. He uses film as comfort when he’s making a documentary, you understand, for his mother after his grandmother dies. We see movies as documentaries, as evidence. They’re political at school, as they form of settle scores, and so they form of reshuffle his place at school.
I mean, I feel there may be form of a heightened quality to every thing Spielberg does on this movie but additionally every thing that I feel he’s done within the last 20 years or so. You realize, his cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski, also helps with that. The whole lot form of feels surreal, like a Norman Rockwell painting, and form of exaggerated. But I feel also, there’s form of a mixing of his life with movies themselves. And I feel possibly in his personal memories, you understand, the films that he watches which teach him about life, you understand, grow to be as vital as his personal experiences. And so for me, I feel it is sensible that there is all this form of exaggeration and possibly homage to the various film genres that he grew up with and studied from as they find themselves into his life story. To me, that is what made it so compelling since it does feel like a dream. It isn’t quite realistic, but it surely also feels so personal and true.
HARRIS: Yeah. I mean, I feel I form of come a bit bit more on Linda’s side when it comes to how I responded to this film. There are two scenes, though, that basically stood out to me and were like a gut punch emotionally. And the primary was when Sammy’s discovering Mitzi’s secret, and he’s running the film of their camping trip through the editing machine, going forwards and backwards and forwards and backwards. As this is going on, there is a sequence where his mom is playing the piano of their front room, and his dad is listening intently. And it cuts in between him, Sammy, running the film and his parents within the front room. And the camera at one point does, like, this circling, 360 degrees around him a number of times, and that moment was just cinema at its finest. Like, I do not even understand how else to explain it.
It’s the proper combination of this epiphany that this kid goes to have about what it means to have the ability to capture things on film and the way those things, even the smallest little details, can reveal these giant truths. And on top of that, you simply have this really masterful way of conveying that with none words. And to me, that was just Steven Spielberg working at his apex, one in all, possibly, the perfect sequences he’s done throughout his entire profession. Then the opposite one is far more easy. But I feel it’s simply because it have a really personal resonance for me, which is when Burt and Mitzi announced that they’ll get separated. And the best way the youngsters react, I used to be – it just took me back to my very own parents, after they told me and my sister that this was happening.
And people were the moments where, I feel, for me, despite the fact that the remainder of the movie didn’t at all times gel for me when it comes to connecting the emotional dots, I feel – when Mitzi’s mother dies, it form of left me a bit cold because we didn’t really see her before that. I do not remember seeing her before that. And if we did, it was very short. And so it felt prefer it form of got here out of nowhere. Because we had built all this emotional investment on this family at this point, those two moments really hooked me in. And I form of wish the remainder of the film had done the identical for me, but it surely didn’t.
For me, the movie-making parts also worked the perfect. And I’m curious what you form of make of those form of central questions on this movie, which is this concept of art versus family and practicality versus art. And there is that tug and pull between Burt and Mitzi in addition to – we have not even talked about Judd Hirsch’s character as Uncle Boris, who has that big form of – that is the Oscar scene. That is the – I mean, he’s only in, really, like, one a part of the movie. But that’s the Oscar scene of him talking about how art is our drug. And family is great, but art is what we want or – you understand? What did you think that of that and the way that form of – that tension plays out throughout the film?
HENSEL: You realize, I feel the film also sets up this tension between what features of his parents he also will come to embrace more. His father is an engineer. His mother is an artist. And it form of signifies that his art puts him within the conflicts between his parents as well. And I feel the movie form of comes down on the reply of, these are usually not mutually exclusive realms of life.
Spielberg’s profession is one which meshes science and art, family, you understand, values and love with practicality. And I feel this movie, you understand, has that very same effect, too, where art for Sammy is amazingly personal and is used to, essentially, enhance or support his family life. The way in which that he pertains to his family comes through his art. And so, I mean, I loved Judd Hirsch. But that tension he brings up doesn’t quite land with the identical force as plenty of the opposite movie for me. It felt a bit – I do not know. It felt a bit forced to me.
MONDELLO: I’m really intrigued, as I’m listening to this, at the best way we’re picking out moments in it. If the movie were just astonishingly great, you would not be picking moments, right? And I – as much as I like this movie, I feel it’s – it’s kind of of a patchwork. And I feel that is partly because he looks back at his life. And – although, Tony Kushner has shaped it in a way, within the screenplay, that makes every thing make sense. And, you understand, like, all of it is driving toward something. And when it gets there at the top, you get an actual form of lift feeling from it.
And so the bits where he’s making movies, and the bits when he’s referring to his mother and the opposite bits where, to a surprising extent, I feel, he’s referring to his father, who – you understand, because the movie starts, I used to be pretty sure the dad was going to find yourself being form of the villain. And he doesn’t really find yourself being the villain in any respect. I feel what they’ve done is crafted a really nice story. But there is a difference between craft and flowing. And, you understand, that is – I feel that is how I’d articulate that.
HOLMES: Yeah. I feel, one thing that I noticed – and I feel this is said, Bob, to what you are talking about, which is, one reason why I feel this movie sometimes seems to not completely hang together for me is that it stops very ceaselessly for anyone to look earnestly into Sammy’s eyes and provides him life advice.
HARRIS: Yeah.
(LAUGHTER)
HOLMES: And again, like, if anybody’s earned this sort of project, it’s probably him. What he’s trying to speak is, listed below are all of the vital things that I learned, that individuals told me, that helped me understand my life and my family. And so that you get an awful lot of, like – his sister stops and form of addresses him with wisdom. His father addresses him with wisdom. His mother does. The Judd Hirsch uncle definitely does. On the very end, there is a Hollywood figure who does.
And to me, the movie stops for those things and form of for the stand and deliver of the wisdom. I feel that is one in all the the explanation why, for me, it pulls me out of the story a bit. It might be related to the indisputable fact that Kushner is a playwright, you understand? I feel Kushner is form of a master of massive talk, like, in a great way. And I feel it worked very well when he did “Lincoln” with Spielberg, for instance…
HARRIS: Yeah.
HOLMES: …Type of these big, grand moments. But in a bit family story like this, it may sometimes form of break the flow of the family story for me. Even Seth Rogen does it, too.
HARRIS: Yeah.
HOLMES: I’ll now deliver a speech to you about how things work. And I feel he values all this recommendation. He values all of the things he learned from these people. But it surely’s a bit bit donk, donk, donk, donk, donk (ph) at those moments for me.
HARRIS: Yeah. And I feel that comes with form of the territory of this being set when it was. And, you understand, Richard Brody, in his form of essay or review of this film, points out that this can be a very insular film in some ways. There is not any form of sense of anything happening politically on the surface of all of this, no sense of the civil rights movement, JFK. And like – and look; I do not know if I necessarily need all of that because what number of movies have we seen where it’s like, swiftly, you see the film reel of MLK at March on Washington? Like, that does not at all times necessarily should be there. But it surely does feel prefer it’s form of at a remove. And people form of slogans which might be continually being told to this kid do have a tinge of, like, “Leave It To Beaver”-style placement that I do not think necessarily lets it flow in the best way that I’d like to see something like this flow.
MONDELLO: (Laughter) That is a beautiful remark. I’m just imagining that “Leave It To Beaver” can be regarded, during that period, as form of documentary realism…
(LAUGHTER)
MONDELLO: …Because people at all times got here as much as you and gave those sorts of little speeches (laughter). I do not remember them from my very own childhood, but I assume they occur in everybody else’s.
(LAUGHTER)
MONDELLO: It’s like…
HENSEL: Perhaps not written by Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner.
HARRIS: Yeah (laughter).
MONDELLO: I’m struck by how this pertains to other directors who’ve made movies about their childhoods. I mean, not too way back, we saw “Roma” – right? – which is a very evocative film in regards to the childhood of Alfonso Cuaron. And, you understand, it isn’t every filmmaker who makes a movie about moviemaking as a baby. The truth is, I’m having trouble coming up with others. It doesn’t normally go this fashion. This can be a story that Spielberg can tell that not plenty of other people can. And that is partly because, I mean, until he got here along and his generation got here along, you did not have home movie setups that you can do this sort of thing with.
HARRIS: Right.
MONDELLO: That is the Spielberg version of this particular story.
HENSEL: Well, I take into consideration “Lady Bird” often, which might be my favorite of this genre.
MONDELLO: Sure.
HENSEL: Obviously, it isn’t also about filmmaking. And there could be more of a departure from Greta Gerwig’s biographical life, but plenty of the facts are the identical. But that is a movie where I feel there’s plenty of those not exactly direct-to-camera appeals but, you understand, lines that feel form of like Hallmark cards. But I feel those lines have an actual verisimilitude. Like, I can remember the road of the pinnacle nun at her school saying, don’t you think that love and a spotlight are the identical thing? – that I take into consideration on a regular basis. Leaving “The Fabelmans,” I actually have not likely thought in regards to the words of wisdom that his relations impart to him.
HOLMES: Yeah, I feel the strength of this film, as within the strength of any autobiographical and even biographical film, is in its specificities. And I feel the 2 specificities that I feel were probably the most welcome for me are, as Bob said, a very tight have a look at the importance of developing as a creative kid and a filmmaker after which also his experiences in highschool with anti-Semitism because I used to be pleased to see the eagerness that he put into explaining the role of that in his life, which is interesting ’cause it is available in form of late within the film as an explicit theme. And, you understand, I feel it feels timely, and it feels, you understand, as I said, specific. And I feel those are the parts of the film that gave it more texture for me, versus the stuff that is a bit bit more general about form of – you will have to be this sort of person, and you will have to face your fears and things that felt a bit more common to everybody’s experience.
MONDELLO: Yep, yep, yep.
HENSEL: I loved seeing the Jewish home life, too, because, you understand, it’s nice to see, like, kugel and challah on the table for a vacation and likewise hear people use, like, Yiddish interjections like (speaking Yiddish), which I actually have not come across a lot since reading, like, Philip Roth. You realize, that felt really truthful to me. And, like, middle-class Jewish home life depictions are usually not as common as we’d think. I feel like plenty of Jewish film within the last 50 years has been in regards to the Holocaust and about European life and, even in recent times, has been loads about, like, Hasidic communities fairly than the best way I feel nearly all of American Jews experience their lives.
I mean, I grew up in a really Jewish community, and so I didn’t really experience any anti-Semitism in any respect, really, until college. But my parents – or my – especially my dad, who moved from a reasonably Jewish town to Atlanta in 1968, definitely experienced, you understand, plenty of the identical discrimination and form of hate speech and all that form of stuff. And, you understand, it felt so truthful. And it appears like something that I am unable to wait to speak, you understand, to my parents about, about what it was like within the ’50s and ’60s and in numerous parts of the country that – you understand, that I’m not accustomed to.
MONDELLO: You possibly can talk over with me about that, too.
(LAUGHTER)
HARRIS: I definitely think Steven Spielberg – you normally cannot go mistaken. You will a minimum of have a great time, even when it doesn’t all necessarily give you the results you want. So tell us what you consider “The Fabelmans.” You could find us on Facebook at facebook.com/pchh. Up next – what’s making us pleased this week.
And now it is time for our favourite segment of this week and each week – what’s making us pleased. Danny, let’s start with you.
HENSEL: Well, I spent the primary 22 years of my life within the Midwest, within the Chicago area, after which Michigan in college. And so I actually have plenty of pride within the region. I also love architecture. It’s, like, my first art love. And one thing that keeps each those passions alive is a Twitter account called Midwest Modern. It’s run by a man named Josh Lipnik. That is @joshlipnik on Twitter – L-I-P-N-I-K. He posts mostly photos of buildings but additionally designs of things from throughout the Midwest, each in the massive cities and small towns and, of buildings from over the past century and even earlier. I feel he has a very great eye, and he sees value and wonder in nearly every thing. So that is the Twitter account Midwest Modern by Josh Lipnik, bringing the fantastic thing about the Midwest to the web.
HARRIS: Well, thanks a lot, Danny. That sounds really, really fun. I’m going to ascertain that out, of course. Linda, what’s making you pleased this week?
HOLMES: This week I need to recommend the podcast “Unclear And Present Danger.” It’s hosted by Jamelle Bouie and John Ganz. And so they speak about ’90s post-Cold War thrillers. That is form of the initial mission. They form of are expanding it in certain ways, including through their Patreon. But I find it to be a very nice balance of fun but additionally serious and analytical in the case of politics. It’s just a very smart approach to take popular culture and have interaction with its very specific moment. And additionally they speak about “The Firm.” They speak about “The Fugitive.” They speak about, you understand, plenty of movies that their political content is a bit different from form of something as straightforwardly post-Cold War as something like “The Hunt For Red October.” But anyway, again, that’s – and, you understand, you get the little jest here. It’s called “Unclear And Present Danger,” a podcast you’ll find, you understand wherever podcasts are. And that’s what is making me pleased this week.
HARRIS: That is an awesome pick. I have been a giant fan of Jamelle since he and I were colleagues twice in my previous jobs. And likewise, his – the episode they did on “Deep Cover,” the movie starring – the form of neo noir starring Laurence Fishburne. Really good. It was fun to hearken to that. Bob, tell us – what’s making you pleased?
MONDELLO: Well, I do not know if it’s simply because we have all been talking about “The Fabelmans,” and that is my childhood, or if it’s just the season, but I actually have been occupied with my mom’s holiday recipes for a few things. I’m not a baker. I do not really know find out how to do it. But I used to like when she would start making these items that she would allow me to stay my hands into and squish dough together and stuff like that. They were just amazing. And so there have been two things she at all times made. One in all them was bourbon balls, and the opposite one is shortbread. And mainly, with the shortbread, it only had three ingredients. It had 4 cups of flour, a cup and a 3rd of sugar and a pound of butter. So it’s obviously good for you.
(LAUGHTER)
HARRIS: Yes.
MONDELLO: And also you mainly just take those things, and also you squish all of them together, and also you push them right into a glass dish and cook it at 350 degrees for 45 minutes. And you then take it out and cut it straight away because otherwise you will not have the ability to ’cause it is going to get so hard. And you allow it within the Pyrex dish until it’s cool, and you then pop them in your mouth. And so they’re so good. Anyway, that is shortbread. It’s really easy. It’s like – I have been finding recipes online which have every thing from baking soda to vanilla to salt and all types of other things. That is just three ingredients, which I assumed was unbelievable.
HOLMES: Well, I’d use salted butter for that because in case you’re not adding salt, then I’d add…
HARRIS: Yes, yes.
HOLMES: I’d use salted butter.
MONDELLO: I used to be hoping you’d say that because that was my – my mom at all times bought salted butter.
HENSEL: (Laughter).
HARRIS: You had me at a pound of butter.
(LAUGHTER)
HARRIS: That sounds great. So what’s making me pleased this week? Well, really, for the previous couple of weeks, I assume, I actually have discovered Steve Lacy’s album “Gemini Rights.” It’s a, for me, no-skips album. I really like “Bad Habit.” It doesn’t sound like anything on the radio at once, which I feel is partially why it’s such a – it has been so successful and has been, for me, such a revelation. So here’s a bit little bit of “Bad Habit.”
(SOUNDBITE OF SONG, “BAD HABIT”)
STEVE LACY: (Singing) I bite my tongue. It’s a nasty habit. Type of mad that I didn’t take a stab at it. Thought you were too good for me, my dear. Never gave me time of day, my dear.
HOLMES: It is very roller rink.
HARRIS: Yeah (laughter). Interesting. I hadn’t considered that. But yeah, it form of appears like that. It is a song about, you understand, having a crush on someone and pondering that they weren’t into you but then realizing possibly too late that they really were. And it’s like, oh, why didn’t I try this? Why didn’t I pursue it? And just the entire album overall is so great. My – one in all my other favorite songs is “Helmet,” which is form of like Stevie Wonder meets Sly and the Family Stone in one of the best ways possible. So yeah, Steve Lacy, “Gemini Rights.” He’s been a guitarist and producer with The Web. And I just think he’s making some really, really interesting and fun and just groovy, groovy music that I actually love. So…
HOLMES: I really like that little real, like, waow-waow-waow-waow (ph).
HARRIS: Yes.
MONDELLO: (Laughter).
HOLMES: That, like, is a great sound.
HARRIS: Yeah. And it’s all throughout the album. So yeah, definitely test it out.
(LAUGHTER)
HARRIS: So that is what’s making me pleased this week. In case you want links for what we beneficial, plus another recommendations, you’ll be able to join for our newsletter at npr.org/popculturenewsletter. That brings us to the top of our show. Linda Holmes, Danny Hensel and Bob Mondello – thanks a lot for being here. It was a pleasure.
HENSEL: Thanks.
MONDELLO: Great press.
HOLMES: Woo-hoo (ph). Also, please hearken to Aisha’s accomplished series Screening Ourselves…
HENSEL: Yes.
HOLMES: …Which is three episodes, that are all great and awesome.
MONDELLO: Which is amazing.
HOLMES: And you’ll find it in our feed.
HARRIS: Thanks a lot for sharing that, Linda. This episode was produced by Rommel Wood and edited by Jessica Reedy. Audio engineering was provided by Gilly Moon and Hannah Gluvna. Hello Come In provides our theme music. Thanks a lot for listening to POP CULTURE HAPPY HOUR from NPR. I’m Aisha Harris. We’ll see you all next week.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
Copyright © 2022 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text will not be in its final form and should be updated or revised in the longer term. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.