Question &

coming. My name is Malcolm Gabbong, I am the host.

I'm a Hitchcock history and I watch you by pushing the industries. I think there's a whole bunch of

things in the house. Not long ago, in a probably ill-utilized experiment, all of us at

revisionist history decided to do two live shows. One in New York and one in Philadelphia.

All kinds of people came to watch, a little treat for the diehards. And in the spirit of the

experimentation, we thought we'd share a few excerpts from those shows with all of you, the real

audience. And what you're hearing is me standing up in front of the crowd, confessing I have no idea

what's about to happen. They tried to get me to rehearse tonight. I just didn't want to do it.

So you're all kind of guinea pigs, for which I apologize. But I'm very excited. I broke out,

snazzy Adidas, old school Adidas, the sear sucker, the whole thing. This is I barely dress up,

so this is a very, very big occasion for me. So what we're going to do is we, at the time,

I was working on an episode of revisionist history about a very well-known movie, almost a perfect movie,

except the writers had screwed up the ending. If you want to listen to that episode,

it's called Starstruck. You can check it out on the feed. It goes in a million directions,

gone with the wind, Star is born, Samuel Goldman, car accidents, Atlanta. We hung out in

Graveyard and took a group road trip to Margaret Mitchell's Archives at the University of Georgia.

A very revisionist history mashup. But at the live show, I just wanted to zero in on the

core question raised by the episode, which is what makes an ending work? Because the truth is,

most endings don't work, right? You sit in the movie theater and at hour three of the blockbuster,

you think, did no one at the studio give any thought about how to wrap this thing up?

That's what I wanted to get at. Why are endings so hard?

...