I just got back from the UK, but the night before I left, I went to see 1917 with yes,

with my dear friend Josh Porter who was here last week is basically an edge-junct teacher

that doesn't get paid at Bridgetown.

And Josh is my favorite person to see a movie with, one because he is the consummate

cinephile, and two because we have a long-running debate over the role of TV and film and the mind

of an apprentice of Jesus.

So he's more of the, it's art, you know, to enrich, you watch it to enrich your soul

and provoke you to mystery in the universe.

I'm more of the, it's soft porn.

You watch it to numb your conscious and destroy your neural pathways, opinion.

I'm right, he's wrong, but I'm open-minded, right?

And we literally have an email chain that goes back for three years.

I think it started with a Deadpool or something, and we just argue over email.

Point, point, counterpoint, counterpoint.

Anyway, on the rare occasion when we agree on a film, I love to go see one with him,

because he just knows way more than I know.

In 1917, if you haven't seen that movie, just stunning, you know, it's the first movie

as far as I understand that was ever shot and one continuous shot.

And it felt very different than I expected.

It felt more like a painting to me than like a movie.

And in our little post movie, kind of late night debrief, Josh said something really interesting.

He said, you know, they gave you the mechanism in the first five minutes.

...