Took Vladimir Putin’s word over the US intelligence community,
Withdrew the US from the Paris climate accords,
Called his exceedingly faithful vice president a “p—y” for following the Constitution,
Steve Bannon (Wikipedia photo).
Got into telephone fight with the leader of Australia(!),
“The Christmas Cats Flee the Bee,” 6th book in the Christmas Cats series (www.TheXmasCats.com).
Rolled back regulations that protected the public from mercury and asbestos,
Placed a political hack in charge of the Postal Service,
“Bee Gone: A Political Parable”
Attacked the Supreme Court when it ruled against him,
Held a COVID super spreader event in the Rose Garden,
Said that any opinion poll showing him behind was fake,
Tried to start a boycott of Goodyear tires due to an Internet hoax,
Took advice from the MyPillow guy,
He was a great President 
The Goodbye Line
BACK STORY
Many years ago, when I was pondering writing a novel (before I actually wrote four of them) I had a “Eureka!” moment where I thought of what would be the perfect plot device. My nascent novel would feature a pay phone booth. It would follow the different people who used this pay phone booth. It seemed like a good idea at the time, although I never followed through with actually sitting down and thinking up a plot that would involve these fictional protagonists.
That book idea has died a grisly death. So have pay phone booths. A recent statistic informed me that just ten years ago each state had about 27,000 pay phones. Fast forward to 2025. The California Utilities Commission reported that as of March there are only 2,525 active pay phone units in California. Four hundred and eighty-four of these pay phones were located in Los Angeles County. In Los Angeles there are only 149 remaining pay phones. Out of those 149 pay phones in Los Angeles, only 20 were operative.
Pay phones have given way to cell phones and my novel idea has died with the changing times. But never fear. A couple of clever artists, Alexis Wood and Adam Trunell, came up with an idea far more creative than my novel idea: the Goodbye Line.
THE GOODBYE LINE
The pair—who are a romantic duo as well as a professional team (Wood is a documentary filmmaker)—have placed stickers on the phones that say, “Yes, this pay phone works” and have invited random individuals to use the phone free and leave a message. Their pitch: “Some day these will be gone, like me, you, and everyone else.” The message went on to invite passers-by to leave their (free) message “before it’s too late. Saying goodbye is such a part of life. It’s all us coming and going, coming and going. We all share that. And it makes it less lonely, less scary. Not that it makes it easier.”
Trunell, 46, and Wood, 37, emphasize that the Goodbye Line was not rooted in any sort of personal loss. But the calls have reduced Wood to tears, at times, and left the pair pondering how to intervene if the caller seems to be saying goodbye to life. One call, coming in from the Hollywood corner of Yucca Avenue and Wilcox Street, read: “Goodbye, Donny. You were my love from 2017 to a few years ago. But you died last year, and I didn’t know for a long time. It makes me very sad.”
Another caller voiced an emotional goodbye to her mother, who died when he was a teenager, saying, “You thought that I might kind of squander my education,” said the caller, recalling that their last conversation had been an argument about his grades. “I love you, and I miss you, and this has been a long overdue goodbye.” And he hung up.
ALEXIS WOOD & ADAM TRUNELL
The callers have the opportunity to state that they want their words kept private. Otherwise, Trunell and Wood transcribe the conversations and post them on Instagram and social media. Trunell says, “You kind of just walk into this and realize how all this feels. It just sort of happens. The reward is unexpected connections, and reminders of your own humanity. I’m worried about my folks dying, but I don’t think how it’s going to change me. This just feels like a very human project. It takes you out of whatever b.s. is going on.”
One particular phone booth, set along the Chaney Trail, produced calls from people (hikers) saying good-bye to their previously unfit selves and opening the door to their new svelte selves. There are, of course, some drunken calls. And, occasionally, there are disturbing calls, like the one that Wood describes: “It sounded like a kid, and it was a super brief message, and you don’t know if it’s serious or not.”
When asked what caused the two to start the Goodbye Line, Trunell said, “Initially, I wanted to hear people’s voices. I wanted a place where we would get to hear people saying things.”
A PERSONAL APPEAL
Call me. (Isn’t that a song?)
Me, too.
I recently wrote to my best friend (whom I had called, but not reached) and declared, “I NEED A PHONE FRIEND.” I grew up in the era of land lines. I like nothing better than a discussion about current events, politics, movies, or, really, anything. In today’s society (as a former phone friend informed me) all the ‘cool kids’ text. You are considered an oddity, a fossil, a freak if you’d like to actually TALK to someone.
And, of course, I don’t mean sharing health hurdles, but conversation with like-minded individuals who, ideally, share 50% of the duty of carrying the conversation on to a level that we both enjoy. One potential phone friend, my sister, never leaves her house, doesn’t own a car, and currently doesn’t have a driver’s license. She was perfect because she literally never goes anywhere. When you phone others, they are at work, or out shopping, or otherwise engaged (making dinner, reading, watching TV, etc.). Some of them have let me know that they just don’t have the time or inclination to be my “phone friend.” If I didn’t “get” that when it was articulated more than once, some have rattled frying pans or clinked glasses or otherwise let me know that I am bothering them and they are much too busy to be my phone friend.
That is sad, for me. And it is sad for humanity, because, as Adam Trunell said, I, too, wanted to hear people’s voices and other people’s opinions—probably why I went into journalism in the first place in 1963.
If you would like to be my “phone friend” and have time for a conversation on any topic of your choosing, send me a note (via e-mail) and let’s have at it. (I’m not close enough to California to find a pay phone and make a call and, besides, that would be a one-way encounter, which is not my intention.
My only sibling, I had to cross off my dance card. Perfect in so many ways (see above). But she interrupted repeatedly AND within five seconds.
I asked, politely, that she let me finish one short sentence. One of our first cousins had just died, unexpectedly. I had called to share this news. Despite asking politely that she not interrupt for five seconds to let me get that message out, it didn’t help. She said, instead, “If I don’t say what I’m thinking immediately when I’m thinking it, I won’t remember it later.” O…….K……
I gave up on her as a phone friend, a loss because she is, after all, my only sibling and, secondly, how many people do you know who never leave their house at all? (That would be none, for me). I finally had to point out that phones do work “both ways.” I moved on down the road. We haven’t spoken in months.
So, with the loss of the sole phone friend with plenty of time to talk, I am open to new phone friends, and I want to put that out there for anyone reading this who knows me. How would you reach me? Write me at [email protected] and we’ll figure it out.
And let me end this piece on the death of land lines (which work so much better without recharging) and pay phones with the words of Todd Martens, who wrote about the Goodbye Line in the Los Angeles Times. It’s a fascinating article and one that ends with this well-written paragraph: “An underlying thesis of the Goodbye Line: Its existence is a reminder of life’s impermanence. As much as it encourages us to say goodbye, it’s also a nudge to never stop picking up the phone to say hello.”
“A whistleblower told Congress and CNN that DOGE staffers secretly used Starlink (Musk’s satellite network) to export vast amounts of sensitive worker, union and employer data from the records of the National Labor Relations Board. Russian hackers then logged onto the NLRB’s computers, USING THE RIGHT PASSWORDS, the whistleblower said.”
Where does your mind go when you read this?
Do you wonder, as I did, “Gee. How did the Russian hackers KNOW THE PASSWORDS?”
Or do you say “Well, DJT is definitely in the tank for Putin. Everything he has done—nearly all of it very detrimental to our country in so many different ways—is something that Russian media is crowing about on their official television channel. ”
I could go on at great length about the damage to our country that has been visited upon us to date, but I don’t need to explain this to anyone with a functioning brain and the ability to “connect the dots.”
Think about the above and be afraid. Be very afraid.
And while I am pondering the horrors of being stuck in a kakistocracy (look it up), if you have, so far, been giving Donald J. Trump the benefit of MANY doubts and honestly do believe that he is acting in our country’s best interests and is treating the Presidency of the United States the way it should be treated—well, then you’re not really paying attention, so move long,.
Nothing to see here if you’ve drunk the Kool Aid.
Ava Wilson (and friend).
Elise Wilson (and friend).
I admit that I have been on vacation. Cancun beckoned, but, sadly, the perfect weather and laid-back vibe at the Royal Resorts is giving way to the advancing heat of Texas, where a giant rat snake was recently pictured climbing a wall near our house. I enjoyed the remarks from the neighborhood group, who pointed out that it was a harmless rat snake, but also asked, “Which way did it go?”
I wanted to share these photos of Ava and Elise, because they look absolutely beautiful in them–even though they are from a year ago. This is what a sophomore in high school looks like, Folks.
Meanwhile, the full moon over the Veranda restaurant with the daughter sets a mood.
It’s been real and it’s been 30 years of home away from home.
Puerto Madeiro restaurant.
Stacey and me, Veranda Restaurant, Royal Sands
Cancun, 2025.
Before posting some photos from the vacation week of last week in Cancun, I’d like to call your attention to the new “badge” on the right of my blog, which names WeeklyWilson to the Top 100 Movie Blogs. My thanks to Feedspot, which contacted me regarding this and, as of right now, has not asked for nor received Cent One. Thanks for the recognition of the from-the-Red-Carpet shots at SXSW, Sundance, Chicago, Nashville, and elsewhere.
The Royal Sands.
Last week about a dozen of us wined and dined in Cancun, hitting Harry’s, Sisal, the J.W. Marriott restaurant, the beach and the Royal Sands, our “home away from home.” The Royal Sands opened in 2000, but we owned at the Royal Islander since the 90s (lost it 2 years ago to the state) and stayed at the Mayan and the Fiesta Americana Condessa for a couple years prior. We’ve been coming for 30 years and only missed one year in those three decades. (I banked the week we didn’t come and went to Puerto Vallarta with Joan Clark , a high school classmate, and Pan Hall, a work colleague.
On Friday night we attended a Michael Jackson show put on by our resort, which now is part of the Holiday Inn Vacation Resorts. We got to experience the brand new children’s water park right outside our door for the first time. It’s been under construction since last year, but now it is open. It’s hard to figure out when, exactly, it is open, however. It seems to close early and open late, which is fine with me.
Full moon over pool on Italian buffet night.
Guests in our group arrived from New York, Boston, Nashville, Chicago, Austin and some were missing a small amount of school time (sophomore year).
The flight over from Austin (in our case) was two and one-half hours and it was 87 upon arrival. Meanwhile, the group that departed for New York today had snow and 40 degree temperatures to look forward to.
Ava, Stacey and Elise at Harry’s.
Just enjoying the moments and living life.
“The Tallest Dwarf” screens at SXSW 2025′ (Photo by Gabriella Garcia-Pardo).
“The Tallest Dwarf” was a 92 minute documentary helmed by Julie Forrest Wyman, who directed and produced. Debra Schaffner wrote and edited the film, and many Little People populate the scenes as Julie and other members of the group bond and talk about their feelings towards being far shorter than average. The Octopus Project provided the original score.
Julie has a burning desire to find out if she may be a dwarf, but, as we learn, there are many different types of dwarfs. It will take genetic testing to really confirm if she has Achondroplasia or some other form of what I hesitate to call a disease, because the Little People in this movie do not view their condition as “a disease.” As Julie says, “It’s really hard to feel like your body is wrong.”
Julie talks at length with her father, Forrest Paul Wyman and her mother, Genevieve MaGuffin, about her desire to find out if she is really and truly a dwarf. There is no history of dwarfism in the: family that anyone can point to, but 80% of dwarfs are born to average-sized parents. The dramatic tension (if any) throughout the film is contingent upon Julie waiting to receive the results of the genetic testing she decides to undergo. She does have a FGFR3 mutation, as it turns out.
There’s really not much tension in this “reveal.” After all, the title of the piece is “The Tallest Dwarf.” It is highly unlikely that the Director, in today’s society, would be using that term if it were not supported by science. Otherwise, as with another SXSW short film, “The Beguiling,” about white people pretending to be Indians, she’d face intense criticism for pretending to be something she’s not. Julie can “pass” in society, as she is a tall dwarf but testing reveals the presence of the gene that causes dwarfism.
PERSONAL STORIES
Julie shares old home movies of herself growing up. She is tall, by dwarfism standards, and only her arms and legs appear short. She has kept a journal throughout her adolescence and, at age 12, while praising her thick hair and her hands, she knows she is “different” and wants longer legs and also hopes to lose weight. She finds herself always “struggling to accept the body I have.” She (repeatedly) vows to go from 140 pounds to 120 pounds.
That constant struggle to make her body conform to what the world considers “normal” and is something that most of us can relate to, whether we are short, tall or of average height. The trans debate in society today would be another example of people of all genders struggling with acceptance. The sexual orientation dilemma that many face seems a part of everyday life that we have seen play out forever in films. Weight is another area that is germane. The idea of being accepted in society is universal.
Mark, of the Little People of America.
As a good-looking Little Person named Mark says, “I do not suffer from dwarfism. I suffer from the mistreatment imposed on me by my dwarfism.” Little People express their feeling that this mistreatment is the biggest threat to their happiness. Mark is, in fact, an actor, and says that he chose acting as a career “to control how people thought of me.” He seems resigned, but frustrated, by the fact that almost any movie he has ever had a role in denied him a close-up. He was generally shot wide to reveal his stature. But, says Mark, “When you’re doing a Dr. Pepper commercial and you are dressed as an elf and you only have one line, it really doesn’t matter.”
It is now fairly apparent that repression of many sorts is becoming the rule of the day in the United States in 2025. Any form of compassion towards anyone who is “different” is in short supply in the United States in 2025. What happened to the Golden Rule and the religious notion of loving one another? It is down for the count. All of the documentaries about those on the fringes of society made me wonder: Whatever happened to the Golden Rule and respecting and caring for one’s fellow man? [Removed from original review.]
DWARFISM FACTS
How short do you have to be to be considered a dwarf/Little Person? Answer: 4’ 10”
We see Julie and her father measuring from their chin to the top of their heads and from their ribs to their middle fingers. That is a tenth of the entire body and, yes, they are both “off” about 10%.
What is the term for those whose body parts are proportionate? Answer: Pituitary dwarfs. This particular form of dwarfism scientists found a way to fix (if that is the right term). Dr .Herbert Evans and Dr. Eberly Sheridan in 1935 and Dr. Theodore T. Zuck in 1933 spoke of pituitary dwarfs as “specimens that needed to be fixed.” And they were able to do so, via scientific advances. Julie refers to this discovery as “the canary in the coal mine.” [ ITALICIZED DATA REMOVED BY REQUEST. Difficult to find the citations to justify changing the name Dr. Eberly Sheridan (from the film) to Dr. Shelton, as instructed. Still searching to find the origin of these somewhat unusual names used in the piece as viewed, which may or may not be “wrong”].
MORAL DILEMMAS
Julie Forrest Wyman, Director of “The Tallest Dwarf” screening at SXSW 2025. (Photo by Luz Galliardo).
While almost all of the members of the Little People of America group feel that they are “a marginalized community”, they seem to agree that science providing a relief from spinal stenosis and bowed legs is a good thing. Mention is made of the research in the 70s at the University California in San Francisco into growth hormones, using cadaver pituitary glands. The FDA fast-tracked synthetic growth hormones and Genentech, between 1989 and 1994, began a dwarf measuring program in conjunction with this research. [*On July 29, 1994, Dr. Wimu and Dr. John Wasmuth at the University of California in Irvine discovered the gene for dwarfism. DATA REMOVED BY REQUEST.]
This brought on a heavy-duty moral discussion, including, “What should we test for and who(m) should we test?’
Eighty percent of dwarfs are born to normal-sized parents (changed to average-sized by request). Those parents are seen wrestling with the difficult question of what to do about their child’s lack of height.
Some patients underwent as many as 14 operations, like the 3’ 10” Chan, who chose to undergo the repetitive surgeries to lengthen her legs. This choice is left up to the individuals and the families to wrestle with. Some seem to want to remain the way they were born. Some would do anything to be taller because—let’s face it—there are a lot of things that are more difficult when you are very short, such as driving a car.
There is a heated debate about accepting money from pharmaceutical companies, which some of the members of the Little People of America obviously consider an organization that wants to exterminate them.
CONCLUSION
This one contained a lot of food for thought, and a lot of information on a subject about which I knew very little, going in.
Good luck to the Little People of America and to all the rest of us in America in 2025.
******
WHAT I SHOULD HAVE LEARNED AFTER 55 YEARS OF REVIEWING:
I’ve been reviewing since the 70s. (as I explained to the Public Relations representative who hounded relentlessly for over 3 weeks). I sent a lengthy response to her first e-mail and asked what was “wrong” that she objected to in the review (seen above). There was one typo, I was told, a surname, which we fixed. There were numerous word changes that she objected to, including the use of the term “dwarf” despite the fact that the director entitled the piece “The Tallest Dwarf.”
It was just never going to “please” this person, who completely ignored the contents of my lengthy response, explaining how a young girl sitting behind me at the showing of “On Swift Horses” learned of the documentary from me and immediately began reading the review with an intention to attend, if possible. The general chaos that any film festival represents: pretty much ignored and dismissed. And, yes, I gave her enough details for more than the cursory “When are you going to change this?” barrage that continued unabated.
Here is a partial list of the “changes Anne requested:
- Updating to current language embraced & used by the community, For example:
- changing dwarf to little person
- changing dwarfs to dwarfism
- deleting THEIR CONDITION
- Dwarf is a term that is reclaimed by many little people – but also that is seen as problematic by others. In this case Julie (the director) is reclaiming this term in her title
- replace normal-sized with Average Height
- Correcting spelling. For example:
- it is Dr. Shelton not Dr. Sheridan (*from the doc; unable to be determined as “wrong”, so far).
- Clarifying attribution. For example:
- removing a quote from Julie tied to a medical diagnosis in the review but NOT linked to a medical diagnosis in the film
- Julie’s mother is linked to an IMDB page linking the filmmaker
- Mark is not a spokesperson for Little People of America
- removed a quote attributed to Dr. Zuck when it was Julie’s quote
- remove quote on growth hormones attributed to LPA who does not comment on growth hormones in the film – OR clarify who mentions it
- Remove reference to Dr. Wimo who is not mentioned in the film
- Clarifying facts. For example:
- changing THE to MOST
- removing statement that there was no dwarfism in Julie’s family but Julie clearly inherited her dwarfism from her father
- removing Hypoplasia as that is the incorrect medical term
- Changing the statement that Mark has always been denied a close up vs. that it is “less common” for him to get a close up)
SXSW Alamo Drafthouse Theater on Lamar.
First, it was “change this to that.” That was done. One typo was fixed; [trying to find the support for that change has proven difficult; believe the name came from the film itself]. The names of the 1933 and 1935 doctors were so unusual and unique that one would expect them to be able to be found in the literature, but, so far, no. Therefore, whether there IS no Dr. Eberly Sheridan (etc.) is something that, like many claims, has yet to be supported by fact. Since it came from careful watching of the film’s screener, it seems unwise to meekly accept the “change” as an error, but, in an attempt to please Anne we did. Searching for support regarding these surnames has proven difficult,—and is it really important, since the entire italicized portion was subsequently removed? The review on a bigger blog was very “stripped down,” so it did not appear there, anyway.
The review was a fair, objective reporting of the issues faced by the Little People of America; in no way would it be considered a “bad” review. It was sensitive to the predicament that Little People face and sympathetic to their plight.
No mention of the “draggy parts” of the documentary was made, although there was cause for making such a negative point. Some editing to make it shorter would have improved the documentary, but that is very often the case. So, there was no mention of that in the original review(s). The review was far “meatier” than others, because research had been done to add to the audience’s understanding. Objections were made to giving this dwarfism background, which seemed, then and now, odd.
No mention was made of the frequent shots taken from an angle that was very unflattering to the director and the others (see picture at the top of the page). None of us would look great if shot from behind, but the shots were frequent. But, as it was a Little People project with many contributing to the filming, the focus was on the issues, not the cinematography. Those issues were presented in a fair and unslanted fashion, usually using direct quotes from the dialogue. If anything, the review was very sympathetic to Little People.
NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED
In fact, in the original appearance of the review at SXSW, the times that the documentary was going to be shown were included, in the hopes of boosting attendance at the venue, which was somewhat off-the-beaten path. This only happened in two reviews submitted. It was an attempt to be helpful to the documentary. Also offered was placing the review up earlier than its stated embargo.
Rather than appreciating this additional information (included in only one other review), the “change this to that” orders kept coming. An offer was made to put the review up early (original premier date was March 10th ) with the thought that more people might attend, as happened with “Retirement Plan” from Irish Director John Kelly in the animated short category (a category he won. John wrote twice to say he felt the early review was a factor in their win in the category of Animated Short.)
THIRD TIME IS NOT A CHARM
Red Carpet, Paramount Theater, March 7th.
I’ve had 3 instances (in 55 years) where a representative made herself or himself unbearable by trying to pressure a reviewer (i.e., me) to present a certain point-of-view or slant. The first time was eleven years ago in Chicago. The documentary dealt with Honor Killings in the U.S.. I’ve honestly tried to block the entire incident from my mind and do not remember if it was “The Price of Honor,” or another. It taught me that it is unwise to respond to pushy people who want a total rewrite. A group of Canadian women (all attorneys) were bound and determined to dictate the point-of-view of the piece. Many things that seemed immaterial to the basic opinion of the piece (a piece which was sympathetic) were changed at their request.
But the commands kept coming.
I finally just took it down, BUT the Canadian attorneys resurrected it in PDF format and kept at it.
That went on for a very long time (just like this episode). I made a note never to deal with that agency again in any way, shape or form.
I also made a mental note that it never pays to respond. It leads nowhere. The only “changes” should be fixing factual errors, and, aside from one typo, there weren’t a lot of “factual errors.” [I’m still not certain that the surname change is “right,” but most of the paragraph was “axed” anyway, so it became immaterial.] I will need to write this down before I get into the fray of a large film festival again.
We fixed and fixed and fixed, but nothing was going to make Anne happy. I recognized this immediately and suggested taking it down from the second blog right away, just as I had taken it down from my blog immediately..
But, just as democracy dies in darkness, free speech is not something to surrender without a fight.
Reviewers should not cave simply because the person wanting the changes becomes more and more demanding and persistent. I did not tell Anne how to do her job, but she certainly tried to tell me how to do mine. If alienating reviewers when you are a Public Relations person is the goal, it seems counter-productive. Is this the best line of work for someone with a tendency to verbally bite you in the ankle (figuratively speaking) and do so over and over again? A nice, neutral review with good data should be considered a win by a P.R. team, since it was in no way negative towards the film and even designed in such a way to try to increase attendance (offer to run it earlier) by inserting the run times of the film.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
In light of the bullying going on nationwide these days, something about removing the entire mention of this (“B-“) documentary does not set well. We still have freedom of speech—don’t we? We might not have it much longer if we cave to every demanding person who feels they have the right to dictate our opinion. [Funny: I got thank you notes from 4 other representatives or their clients, including the Swedish Ambassador representative for “The Home,” John Kelly for “Retirement Plan” and “We Bury the Dead” director Zak Hilditch and The Beguiling team.]
Australian Writer/Director Zak Hilditch and reviewer Connie Wilson at the SXSW screening of “We Bury the Dead.” (Photo by Jeff Peterson),
The second time a P.R representative sent demanding e-mails over a review was a Tennessee documentary entitled “The Tennessee 11.” That happened a good 10 years later. In that case, the P.R. representative didn’t like the opinion expressed, which was that bringing the eleven Tennessee people, who were on opposite sides of the gun control debate, into a room and making them try to reach some sort of legislative consensus to bring about gun control in the state yielded much heat but little light. It was true that the group was civil to one another, but they were no closer to reaching agreement than a liberal would be close to agreeing with a rabid evangelical MAGA supporter. There were other issues, but the Big One was saying that the meetings had been counter-productive. No legislation ever emerged as a result of the Tennessee Eleven and that was ostensibly the purpose of the documentary effort.
By then, I had wised up. I simply took down the piece immediately, rather than be subjected to non-stop “do this/change that” demands.
This time, the onslaught went on from March 2nd for over 3 weeks.
It has been an unrelenting series of “do this/do that” demands. Is this the best way to facilitate future reviews?
In reviewing “The Beguiling” I researched the background of “pretenders” who claim Indian blood when they have none. Research outside of what was presented in the short film was included, because it added to the audience’s understanding of the message of that (short) film. No one from that film sent me a note saying “that wasn’t in the film.” In fact, I received a very nice thank you note.
This attempt to include background information was also the case with this documentary. Much “looking up” of the background of dwarfism, who first found the gene that causes it, etc. The film’s P.R. representative complained about the inclusion of additional information—something that I look for in a good review. Over a period of nearly 3 weeks that information was removed in an attempt to honor her many requests.
It does make one wonder whether it is a P.R. firm’s job to repeatedly contact a reviewer and demand that data be removed. I’ve written 30 books. I’ve never contacted a reviewer telling them what to think about any of my books in their review(s). I’ve never tried to tell them what information can or cannot be used to support their point-of-view. It is fair game to correct misspellings but telling a reviewer in minute detail what should be included is not the way it works. The review should be sensitive and fair and this one was.
Maybe, under our current President, it WILL become how it works, as it does in Russia. But, right now, we have freedom of speech. A reviewer is supposed to give an honest appraisal of the content of the film. That was done. It was NOT a “bad” review and it was sensitive to the subjects. It was a fair and impartial discussion of the issues that were presented in the documentary. One objection was to the use of the term “dwarf.” “Dwarfism” was to be used or Little People. That change was made, despite the fact that the title of the documentary was “The Tallest Dwarf.” A handsome young man who appeared throughout the film—an actor named Mark—was NOT a spokesperson for Little People of America. Okay. He was shown articulating his opinions in front of the group constantly and certainly appeared to be a spokesperson for the group, but that was also removed, by request. Then came requests to change various wordings. Let’s just be precise about what all was asked and what was done:
Changed “dwarf” to “little person,” while respecting the film’s reclaimed use of the term in its title.
Changed “dwarfs” to “dwarfism” in relevant contexts.
Replaced “normal-sized” with “average height”
Removed the phrase “their disease.”
Corrected spelling/typo of Dr. Shelton to Dr. Sheridan
Clarified that Julie inherited her dwarfism from her father.
Removed “hypoplasia” but retained the correct term: Hypochondroplasia
Removed a quote that was attributed to a physician, rather than Julie
Unlinked Julie’s mother’s IMDB page and, instead, linked to the filmmaker
Clarified that Mark is not a spokesperson for Little People of America (although he is used extensively in the film)
Clarified or removed information on growth hormones, [which was contained in the film.]
Adjusted language to reflect that close-ups of Mark are “less common”, rather than “always denied. ( The actual dialogue that Mark speaks was taken from the documentary. If the Director later found it off-putting, maybe it should have been edited out?)
So, here is the review, with (some) changes and with the desire to utilize our right to free speech before it is taken away. Just as I said at the end of my review, “Good luck to the Little People of America and to all of us in the United States in 2025.”
.
“
“The Pearl Comb” to screen in Cleveland.
“THE PEARL COMB” from writer, director and star Ali Cook is a 20 minute short that has a message about female empowerment (or lack of same). It is set in 1893 Cornwell with beautiful cinematography of the area. The Victorian period sets and costumes, cinematography and music were also excellent. But, best of all, the short packs an unexpected surprise ending—not easy to pull off in twenty minutes.
CAST
“The Pearl Comb” to premiere at Cleveland Film Festival.
The film focuses on a fisherman’s wife, Beatie Lutey (Beatie Edney of “Poldark”). Beatie is being investigated to find out how she was able to cure a young person of tuberculosis. Beatie tells Gregory, the investigator (played by Writer/Director Ali Cook), that the healing gift comes from her husband, Lutey (Simon Armstrong) and his happening upon a mermaid who bestowed upon him the gift of healing in return for his aid.
One line that sums up Beatie’s message to the investigator: ”No one is ready for a female doctor. A woman of learning is far more threatening,” (Sad that this remains true in 2025, just as it was true in 1893.)
Simon Armstrong as Lutey (“Game of Thrones”), Clara Paget as the mermaid (“Black Sails”), Roxana Cook as Edith and Thomas Stocker as Arthur round out the cast.
MAN MEETS MERMAID
Clara Paget as the mermaid. The mermaid (Clara Paget of “Black Sails”) promises Lutey wealth if he will help her return to the ocean. (“Beautiful mortal, help me. Carry me out to sea.”) Lutey sought, instead, the gift of healing to improve his wife’s ailment (prompting the mermaid to say, “You are the first unselfish man that I’ve ever met.”) To prove to Lutey that he is not just imagining their meeting, the mermaid gives him a pearl-encrusted comb.
The film is a blend of the mystical and the modern. The line from Beatie to her husband when he calls her “beautiful” is modern. Beatie responds, “You ain’t called me beautiful in 30 years!” The long-suffering wife at first thinks her husband has been drinking, but she soon learns that his story, while fantastic, is true.
CONCLUSION
The Pearl Comb.”
“The Pearl Comb” is both beautiful and thought-provoking, with a surprise ending that adds to its impact. “The Pearl Comb” was nominated for five awards at the British Short Film Awards 2024, winning two. Writer/Director/Actor Ali Cook’s previous film “The Cunning Man” won 33 awards.
This is another potential award-winner to watch as it screens at the Cleveland International Film Festival, an Oscar-qualifying festival. “The Pearl Comb” premieres on April 4th at the Allen Theatre at 9:50 p.m. and subsequently will be available on CIFF Streams from April 6-13th.
Australian Writer/Director Zak Hilditch and reviewer Connie Wilson at the SXSW screening of “We Bury the Dead.” (Credit Jeff Peterson).
From Australian writer/director Zak Hilditch (1922, These Final Hours), comes a terrifyingly realistic new zombie movie, “We Bury The Dead.”
PLOT
As the synopsis says, “We Bury the Dead’ is a gripping and emotional thriller set after a military experiment decimates the people of Tasmania.” It is the United States that is responsible for the deaths (500,000 victims). One scripted line, alluding to Ava’s U.S. citizenship, says, “I’m surprised we’re letting the Yanks chip in at all.” [Me, too, in today’s climate.] But Ava, a U.S. citizen, is determined to find her husband, who was away on a work retreat.
An experimental weapon has totally annihilated Hobart. Travel is banned. Ava volunteers for a body retrieval unit, hoping to make her way to Woodbridge where her husband, Mitch, was attending a work retreat at the Enso Resort. Some of the victims, who lay dead where they fell instantly in this catastrophe, are re-animating for brief periods. The “Miracle Mike” headless chicken is even referenced. (I wrote an entire short story about Miracle Mike that appears in “Hellfire & Damnation,” a book of horror short stories, so that line rang a vivid bell)
CAST
Daisy Ridley (Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens) stars as Ava, a desperate woman joining the “body retrieval unit” as a volunteer in the hopes of finding her husband alive. Some of the victims have been “coming alive” briefly. That means there might be hope for restoring life, perhaps. Ava’s husband, Mitch (Matt Wheelan), when he departed, was on the outs with his wife. We don’t find out why for a very long time in the 94-minute movie.
When we do, however, and when Ava finally finds her spouse, it humanizes all the horrors she has endured and triumphed over on her way to the Enso Resort. It also sets up the only false note, for me, of the entire film,–the ending— but, since it is the very end of this SXSW entry, you’ll have to see it for yourself to find out what that might be. I hope that you do. It’s well worth the time and we can debate the significance or likelihood of the last few minutes—the denouement— of the film. It was a unique original ending.
The body retrieval volunteers are assigned partners, and Ava draws a hunky, long-haired motorcycle-riding he-man named Clay (Brenton Thwaites, “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, 2017). After seeing flashbacks of Ava’s nuptials with husband Mark, one wonders if she might consider dumping Mitch for Clay, based on looks alone. But, of course, this is not a skin-deep movie based on only sex appeal. Ava is going to go through hell to try to find and perhaps save her spouse. We will (eventually) find out what they were fighting about just before he departed. When Ava succeeds in finding Mark, she will be in for some surprises.
GRIEF
Director Zak Hilditch of “We Bury the Dead.” (Photo by Connie Wilson.)
“We Bury the Dead” is an exploration of human grief, which grew out of Writer/Director Zak Hilditch’s loss of his mother to breast cancer. When he was cleaning out her house and disposing of her things, said the Director in a Q&A session following the movie’s screening at SXSW, he realized, “There’s no handbook when it comes to grief.” Hilditch began thinking about the ramifications of some sort of mass catastrophe and how cleaning up all the bodies might be handled.
Hilditch admitted that there was much DNA from the 2002 film “28 Days Later” in this film. That early influence contributed to thinking about how the country would handle the disposal of all the bodies— those who had dropped dead while having breakfast (or, in one case, at a bachelor party with strippers). And what if some of the deceased started to “come back,” which a few do. Would the Army want to study those that temporarily revive, to see if they could be restored to life somehow? (Answer: no). What would the undead dead look like? You know the answer, but the rheumy eyes of those who are “awakening” and the mastication noises of teeth grinding (sound designer Duncan Campbell and Tom Heuzenroeder get the credit), plus the gorgeous cinematography from Steven Annis all contribute to a first-rate viewing experience. This one was exciting to watch, beautiful in its many images of the Australian landscape, and professionally done.
CINEMATOGRAPHY
The aerial shots, (which are many and numerous), added a great deal to the film. The use of choral music (Handel, et. al.) during body removal scenes was both original and eerily fitting. A British composer now living in Melbourne composed the score. He is listed as Clark (first name, Chris). Shots of the still-burning hills instantly took me back to panoramas of the recent Los Angeles fires. The truly interesting camera shots from overhead angles really added to the film’s patina, achieved on a relatively limited budget. A shot of the sun coming up was breathtaking; there are great coastal scenes when Ava and Clay are riding a borrowed motorcycle to evade the road blocks. The music was great in those scenes, also.
CLOSE CALLS
“We Bury the Dead” with Daisy Ridley at SXSW 2025. (Credit Steven Annis).
Ava displays a great deal of courage during several encounters with the zombies and, in one case, with a military man who has lost his pregnant wife to the disaster imprisons Ava for a short time in a bathroom, During Ava’s brief imprisonment, Clay escapes. When the officer comes to let Ava out of her cell, he asks for one dance during which she will impersonate his now deceased wife. The poor guy insists that Ava dress precisely the way his wife would have been dressed, complete with wearing his wife’s wedding ring. That’s when trouble starts. Ava is no slouch when it comes to taking care of herself using violence, if necessary.
There were so many human moments and so many unique touches that one viewer announced to the crowd that “We Bury the Dead” was now his favorite zombie movie. Never an afficionado of “The Walking Dead,” I had attended with someone who worked on that series. He gave it high marks for creativity and realism. (I know my eyes were riveted on the stripper with pink hair, Crystal Heo,, and the barn full of zombies in chains, the Viking funeral of husband Mitch when Ava finally located him, the assisting of a victim to bury the rest of his family and dispatching of the grief-stricken.) All felt fresh and unique and were so well filmed and scored that I’d have to agree with the impressed viewer who voted for 2002’s “28 Days,” until now.
Q&A
Hilditch gave great credit to Daisy Ridley for her work, saying, “I think it is the most amazing performance of her career. She knew what to do. And she is just the easiest-going person.” Scenes that called for tears, such as on the airplane on the way to the Tasmanian disaster area, seemed natural and effortless. Said Hilditch, “I think she’s the only actor in Hollywood who reads and reads fast.” It took one year to prep the film. Hilditch sent her the script within 72 hours of zooming with her.
CONCLUSION
This one, released on March 9th after its SXSW debut, deserves to find an audience. It is riveting, well-paced, and human—not necessarily characteristics of all zombie movies. In a week that saw me take in multiple features, this one was my favorite film. I look forward to seeing it again. At the end of the screening at the Hyatt Theater, the director, once again, mentioned the low budget and said, “All hail indie cinema!”
Amen!
The closing night film at SXSW in Austin at the Paramount Theater on March 13, 2025 was “On Swift Horses.” Director Daniel Minahan (“Six Feet Under”) was present with cast members Daisy Edgar-Jones (Muriel), Diego Calva (Henry), and Sasha Calle (Sandra). Missing from the stage was the cast member most came to see, newcomer Jacob Elordi, who played Julius Walker, brother of Will Poulter’s Lee.
Sasha and Diego on the Red Carpet at SXSW on March 13, 2025. (Photo by Connie Wilson).
The scripted line “He has passions of his own” (Lee to Muriel) is code for “my brother Julius is gay.” Apparently the many gay sex scenes caused a few patrons to depart the Palm Springs International Festival when it was a surprise showing. The true nature of the relationships is somewhat shielded by the veiled write-up(s) that appeared before the film was screened.
As the plot progresses, we learn that Muriel, too, may be gay—although she may be more accurately termed bi-sexual. As I watched the film, I couldn’t help but be reminded of the content of the “Sally” documentary of Sally Ride, who also married and had male lovers, hid her true sexuality from the world, but spent the final decades of her life with a significant partner of the same sex.
There is definitely chemistry between Daisy Edgar-Jones’ character and Julius when he shows up at the Kansas farm that Muriel has recently inherited from her deceased mother. I was hopeful that this “forbidden passion” was going to be played out onscreen, but it was several different kinds of forbidden passions of the fifties that comprised the film’s 2 hour run.
LGBQT?
As a female appreciative of a young actor as good-looking as Jacob Elordi (“Saltburn”) it disappointed me that the sex scenes we saw the most of were between Elordi and Diego Calva as Henry. To each his own, but the loss of some heterosexual love scenes between two such attractive leads as Daisy Edgar-Jones and Jacob Elordi was a big disappointment, just as the young actor’s absence from the premiere was a let-down for the crowds that had gathered.
There would be some less lengthy love scenes between Muriel and Sandra (Sasha Calle). Sasha Calle turned in a dynamite performance, as did Daisy Edgar-Jones.
BACKGROUND
The unsung heroes: the writers! (Book, left, Shannon Pufahl, and screenplay, right, Bryce Kass). (Photo by Connie Wilson)
The book “On Swift Horses”, written by Shannon Pufahl, was the basis for this film. I get the distinct impression that I should go back to the source material to see how accurate the Bryce Kass screenplay was in adapting the multi-layered story of young love and lust in the fifties in the United States.
But, as a woman who lived through this decade (the Eisenhower era), I feel informed enough to comment on the societal repression it portrays. Women, in the fifties and sixties, were not allowed to have credit cards in their own names. We had to apply as Mrs. Wilson or, in this case as Mrs. Lee Walker to get a department store credit card. It was still illegal in San Diego to be queer until 1975, said Sasha Calle from the stage. Jobs of various sorts were not open to females (i.e., the high-paying ones.) Prejudice against queer or gay citizens existed, even if it was unspoken, and, all-in-all, it was not the greatest time to come of age as a woman in America nor to be “different” in any way.
The screenplay by Bryce Kass tells us that Muriel’s mother was the first woman in Marshall County, Kansas, to get a car, the first to go to college, and the first to get a divorce. Perhaps Muriel’s blazing new life paths for herself isn’t quite as surprising after we learn that information about the bold steps taken by her own mother. There is also the put-down from Julius who said, “That sad girl. She needs someone to tell her what to do.” Remarks like that would make today’s females mad enough to cut loose and attempt to do their own thing. It may have sparked those emotions in young Muriel. As Director Minahan said from the stage “These are young people following their hearts and risking everything to be themselves.” Another documentary (about Sally Ride) playing here (and at Sundance), “Sally,” covered the same ground with a woman who was the first U.S. woman in space. My point: yes this prejudice against gays, lesbians, Hispanics existed in the fifties and beyond. It still exists in repressive countries like Iran and Russia. Are we secure that those bad old days are gone forever in America today? Check your local newspaper (online, of course) to see if equality—which came a long way—can survive in 2025.
SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS
Daisy Edgar-Jones (Muriel) at SXSW on March 13, 2025. (Photo by Connie Wilson).
Muriel marries Lee, but not very enthusiastically. There is repressed sexual tension between Muriel and Julius as soon as he shows up at the couple’s home. (If only that had been let play out a bit more.) The dancing scenes were promising. From an interested onlooker, you have Lee–who is a good guy with a bad hairdo—and you have Julius, who is gorgeous. No wonder Muriel hesitates to give a straight answer about marriage when she meets the handsome brother. We suspect, however, that her lone wolf style, which emerges and triumphs, is more her inner spirit guiding her than the temporary lure of a more attractive male. Muriel is young and she is finding her own way, which ultimately doesn’t involve either brother. Lee (Will Poulter) says that Muriel has chosen what is not real. (Hmmm)
Will describes his brother as “He gets to live his life like there’s no tomorrow.” Basically, it means, as one other scripted line put it, that Julius ends up “a thief, a faggot and alone.” It does seem that Julius really wants to have a meaningful relationship with Henry (Diego Calva), harkening back to films like “Brokeback Mountain.” In fact, in the latter half of the 1 hour and 59 minute film, Julius is putting his life in danger looking for Henry in Tijuana. (Thank heaven for Henry’s little gold gun at the moment of truth!)
One performer who stood out was Sasha Calle as Sandra. Her onscreen performance as a sexually liberated lesbian bombshell was palpable. She smolders onscreen with a sense of self-confidence. Sasha referred to the cast as “young, attractive, and cool” right before breaking into laughter and calling herself a “dork.” She’s a dork who will have a bright future in the right parts, as will Daisy Edgar-Jones, who has already been working professionally since age 17 on the London stage and in television.
Sasha Calle on the Red Carpet for “On Swift Horses” at SXSW on March 13, 2025. (Photo by Connie Wilson).
Diego Calva told the audience during the Q&A that he was not sure, at first, that he was the right choice for Henry, but Director Minahan sat him down and said, “You’re Henry. Be brave.” Calva (“Babylon”) was brave (as was Elordi). However, I’m still regretting the failure to provide equal time for an Elordi/Edgar-Jones hook-up. (Different strokes for different folks.) The sexual tension was there; it would be nice to see the two paired again in a different vehicle.
I wasn’t as convinced by the Elordi/Calva relationship. It was not because it was a homosexual relationship. It was because I had a hard time understanding much of Diego Calva’s dialogue and some of Jacob Elordi’s. On the other hand, I was impressed with how well Daisy Edgar-Jones, born in 1998 in London, handled her American Midwestern accent. She has shared that snippets of her accent(s) from a Northern Ireland grandfather and her Scottish father emerge at times. Edgar-Jones trained at the National Youth Theatre in London.
THINGS THE PERIOD PIECE GOT RIGHT
Daisy Edgar-Jones on closing night of SXSW on March 13, 2025, at the Paramount Theater in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Connie Wilson).
I lived through the fifties, a time when a married woman couldn’t get a credit card in her own name, but had to apply as (in this case), “Mrs. Muriel Walker” or “Mrs. Lee Walker.” A good friend of mine, a single teacher buying her first home, was truly irritated when she was listed as “a spinster” on the paperwork. (She was in her twenties at the time, but single.) Women were frowned upon in the professions. It was “okay” to be a secretary, a nurse, a teacher, or a hairdresser, but it was not okay to be an engineer, a doctor or a lawyer. The phrase “second class citizens” might be considered accurate for women in the 1950s and beyond. Yes, there were the occasional trail-blazers like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, but I’m talking about the majority of women. The pill did not really become available until the early sixties, so women were trapped by their biology and by the mores of society, which frowned on divorce and barely even had terms for women attracted to their own sex.
One thing that certainly was accurate: everybody smoked.
Kat Cunning as Gail. (Photo by Connie Wilson).
The gambling scenes, for both Julius and Muriel, were well-done and took us out of the house, the low-rent hotels ($1.50 a day), and the underbelly of fifties society, in general.
The un-sexy boxy female underwear of the era: accurate.
The Zenith radio and “The Rifleman” on TV: true to the times.
All-in-all lots of attention to detail to “get it right,” although one wonders if the principals aren’t a bit preoccupied with sex. Muriel, in the film, never has to contend with a pregnancy that might have changed the course of her life. Most of society’s women of the time did have to deal with that reality in one way or another, but Muriel seems to float through life on a lucky streak, winning at the race track even as she loses at marriage.
HORSES
Julius is a gambler, and Muriel becomes one, betting on the ponies. (Title reference). There is also a horse that Julius wins in a poker game and takes to his brother Lee’s house, thinking that Will and Muriel live on a ranch. Lee corrects him. Will had said the couple built a ranch-style house. Now they have a horse wandering around in their backyard. Interesting. Also interesting: I wondered how one could ride a horse from San Diego to Kansas, but nevermind about that. Jacob Elordi looks good on a horse, sprawled on the hood of a car (shirtless) when we first see him, in a sailor uniform or lazing about in his underwear. He even looked good dead (in “Saltburn”). Give me more Jacob Elordi opposite Daisy Edgar-Jones in the future, please.
The cast of “On Swift Horses” onstage after the film at the Paramount Theater in Austin, Texas, during SXSW’s closing night film on March 13, 2025. (Photo by Connie Wilson).
CONCLUSION: If you are an open-minded person who accepts same sex (and opposite sex) relationships without condemnation or moral judgment, as I am, but you are straight, you will probably regret not having more of the Elardi/Edgar-Jones chemistry explored onscreen, but the attempt to “really honor the performances and approach every scene with simplicity and integrity” was admirable. The performances were, by and large, authentic and touching and we get a peek into the sexually repressed fifties, which gives us a glimpse into the future that the current administration would like to reinstate. The cinematography from Luc Montpellier was terrific. The period music, costuming, and sets all contributed. The film opens in theaters on April 25th.
Director Dan Farah worked 2 and ½ years on his documentary “The Age of Disclosure.” Previously Farah had produced Steven Spielberg’s “Ready Player One” and has numerous other credits on IMDB.com. In “The Age of Disclosure,” which premiered at SXSW on Sunday, March 9th, 2025 at the Paramount Theater in downtown Austin, 34 government, military and intelligence community figures speak out about alien intelligence and UAP, Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. (Formerly known as UFOs).
From “The Hollywood Reporter” (Daniel Feiberg, March 9, 2025): “Almost nothing in The Age of Disclosure is “new,” per se. The documentary uses these 34 talking heads from various levels of the government, military and intelligence community to allege a deep state conspiracy covering up interactions with non-human intelligent life and technology of non-human origin going back 80 years. Many of the people in the documentary have testified before Congress about what they say they know, and more than a couple of them have been in previous documentaries and docuseries recounting their stories with the same level of personal conviction.”
The pilots and scientists who told stories of their encounters with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena seemed legitimate. Telling the audience that the document is “unprecedented and revelatory” was NOT totally accurate. But it was an interesting and slick documentary that the young audience seemed to totally accept. Director Dan Farah, from the stage, disclosed that he had been told by “key members of the White House” (one a personal friend) that they are going to be using this film. Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee was onstage as a proponent of additional Congressional hearngs. On March 12th, Burchett, who represents Tennessee’s 2nd Congressional district, appeared on CNN defending DOGE and addressing questions about a potential government shutdown. Burchett is part of the new House subcommittee overseeing President Trump’s DOGE (Department of Governmental Efficiency.)
Tim Burchett (R, TN) is one of the Committee Heads of DOGE, Elon Musk’s Department of Governmental Efficiency and was Committee Chairman for the first Congressional hearings on UAP (until he was removed from that position 18 hours before the hearings).
The “secret war” amongst major nations is a competition to be the first to reverse engineer technology of non-human origin: a contention for which the film offered no real proof. Nor had the term “the Legacy Crash Retrieval Program” been used previously, to my knowledge. Was it coined for this film? The documentary alleges that this secret program goes back to President Harry Truman and 1947, and that Roswell (NM) really happened the way it’s been portrayed in the movies. The film flatly states that there was a boot-shaped aircraft with hieroglyphs or runes within it, 4 non-human bodies that were sent to Wright Air Force Base. [I’ve been to the Roswell, New Mexico “museum” devoted to this crash; it is not persuasive at all, unless you’re “in” to paper mache re-enactments.]
There is a second contention presented as fact that Russia recovered a Tic Tac ship in 1989 and 4 non-human bodies. Proof, again, is not available, all because of the “conspiracy” to keep things secret.
Who would want to keep this secret? And why?
As another reviewer noted, “My problem isn’t the lack of opposing voices. It’s that there could not be experts debunking anything because nothing is proven, therefore nothing can be refuted…If someone insists (as one man in the documentary does), without evidence, that people they can’t or won’t name were killed to keep certain things they can’t tell you about secret, what are you going to say?” What about cell phone video of these encounters in this day and age of cell phones?
DEFENSE CONTRACTORS
Dan Farah, 45, Director of “The Age of Disclosure.” (Photo by Ali Feinstein)
Tops on the list for people with a motive to refuse to reveal the truth of alien spaceship crashes are defense contractors. The contention is that defense contractors have been going to flying saucer crash sites for years, but won’t share the knowledge they glean because they want to keep it for themselves, reverse engineer whatever they find, and become Top Dog. Hence, the Age of Disclosure, since we all can agree that transparency—so far not very forthcoming in any political administration ever—would be desirable. The film even goes so far as to suggest that the Presidents during these 80 years might not have been “in the know” and used the example of former President George Herbert Bush, who was also once the head of the CIA, so…. It seems illogical that Bush I could be kept in the dark, but the film does a good job of making it all seem plausible. And isn’t that enough for the fans of Alex Jones, for instance? Should it be “enough” for we regular citizens who owe it to ourselves and our nation to really dig deep on simply accepting statements as fact (“Your grocery prices will go down on Day One,” for instance, from one political candidate.) Don’t we owe it to ourselves and our country to ask tough questions, no matter how much we WANT to believe?
TECHNIQUES
One technique for giving some of the speakers legitimacy is to have them stand near monuments like the Washington Monument or have their picture appear right after another better-known individual. Another is to insert a brief snippet of someone like Bill Clinton being asked about alien life on a talk show format and include President Clinton’s neutral-but-open-minded answer. It was former Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton who revealed (on Jimmy Kimmel’s show) that the term, today, for what we had come to identify as a UFO, is now UAP, Unidentified Anomolous Phenomena. Many of the scientists and pilots absolutely come across as telling the truth and some governmental spokespeople seem honest (and some don’t, which I’ll address in another article.)
Another alien existence testifier not in this film, but on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Bob Lazar (Bob Lazar: Area 51 and Flying Saucers) commented that changing the terms the general public uses might well be an attempt to keep the general public from investigating further. Lazar takes no money from his appearance(s) and testimony. He also tries not to make many of them, as he talks about working on a retrieved space ship at Los Alamos many years ago. He, also, experienced the “he never worked here” public denial that was discredited. So perhaps there is a kernel of truth within this slickly put-together documentary. And we’re all interested in getting to the truth, aren’t we?
But is the entire aim to enlighten the public and spark more investigations, or are there other concealed motives at play?
THE EVIDENCE
Typical of the images used in “The Age of Disclosure” to convey gravitas and legitimacy. (Photo credit: Vincent Wrenn).
Owen Gleiberman, in “Variety:” The evidence, if you truly look at it, isn’t all that compelling: blurry black-and-white U.S. government video footage that shows tiny objects zipping forward over the surface of the water. It’s the footage of aerial phenomena witnessed by Navy pilots that we all saw back in 2021, when it was declassified. It’s fascinating to look at but quite inconclusive. It’s hardly the stuff that alien dreams are made of.”
There were a lot of juxtapositions of the officials testifying with well-known figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Were they attempting to give the speakers legitimacy? The pilot or expert would be telling us, as fact, that alien bodies existed, but their existence was “covered up.” The reasons for this ranged from the lust for power by anyone in the know (pick your agency, because all of them are being discredited these days) to this theory, which makes sense: “We must prepare for the unforeseen or whatever we’ve not seen before. It could be a threat to humanity. If this is something they can’t protect us against, they don’t want to tell the public about it.”
So far, so good.
THE WORLD HANGS IN THE BALANCE?
Then comes the statement “We need unprecedented levels of cooperation to face an alien threat from outside this world.” Does this mean that we must completely change our historic allegiances and our positions as “the leader of the Free World” and cozy up to Russia? [Gee! That would be quite a big change, wouldn’t it?] And how would this “unprecedented level of cooperation” work if we recently had placed huge tariffs on most of our biggest trading partners (our old friends and allies) leading to a plummeting stock market and a lot of economic uncertainty in the days ahead, not to mention a fair amount of returned antagonism. In other words, can we even count on Canada and Mexico, our traditional allies, to join us to fight an alien enemy? How popular are we now in Europe, since we seem to have turned our backs on NATO, the Ukraine, and recently voted against the UN resolution censuring Russia for invading Ukraine? Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t our president just say that Ukraine caused the war and Zelensky (not Putin) was a dictator?
What about the concept that other nations (Russia, China, etc.) might be behind the space ship sightings which seem to have increased of late? Are drones somehow to blame for recent increases in UAP sightings?
ABOUT THE DOCUMENTARY
This is a well-done documentary that made me immediately think of the documentary that convicted felon Dinesh D’Souza released to discredit President Barack Obama, entitled 2016: Obama’s America. That was a hit job, full of “facts” that didn’t add up. But it made a lot of money. It became the fifth highest-grossing documentary-style film in the United States during the last four decades,[98] and the second highest-grossing political documentary. He’s made a lot of other questionable documentaries, all of them pushing “facts” that are really D’Souza’s far right neo-Conservative beliefs, with little or no factual foundation(s). The testimony in “The Age of Disclosure” is definitely worth examining and discussing, but intelligent viewers will remain skeptical and keep questioning and asking for proof.
This documentary (unlike any of D’Souzas), on the contrary, has some stated noble goals.
The good: transparency, letting the American people know the truth, establishing a resource for pilots to report what they see while on the job. (“We need to have standardized reporting for both military and civilian pilots.”) Educating ourselves about potential scientific advances and progress that should be shared with mankind.
The bad?
Stories about “secret organizations” and established organizations refusing to cooperate in sharing important knowledge. Not saying it isn’t true; saying we should continue to question and not gullibly accept everything we are told. Naturally, this theme of “secret conspiracies” leads us to distrust every organization in existence, to the point that we are pitted against each other as Americans. And to the point that many of these organizations (FBI, CIA, IRS, Social Security, USAID, etc.) are currently under intense attack. Seems to be a lot of that going around lately. Maybe it cannot be avoided.
Discrediting all legitimate news sources and refusing to allow agencies like the Associated Press to cover White House briefings (ostensibly because they haven’t begun calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America) is not good for us as a nation or for the stock market, as we are all currently experiencing. A free press is the people’s friend and trying to “control” the dissemination of all news is a page right out of Putin’s playbook Distrusting the courts—the last bastion of protection against the chaos being perpetrated by DOGE— not good. What could happen if all of the citizenry rise up in rebellion? (Did you see Alex Garland’s “Civil War,” 2024?) Personally, I’d like to see a return to the days of presidential decorum when the incumbent didn’t berate and belittle his predecessor non-stop, but acted “presidential,” responsible, moral, compassionate and reasonable. Enough with DOGE and firing thousands of loyal government servants. Let’s slow down and do some serious thinking about the repercussions of such drastic acts, shall we? But I digress.
Some of the 34 talking heads who appeared in “The Age of Disclosure,” onstage at SXSW on March 9, 2025. (Photo by Connie Wilson).
CONCLUSION
“Mulder, the truth is out there,” says FBI Special Agent Dana Scully in Episode 17, “but so are lies.”
Either the things that the people in “The Age of Disclosure” are talking about are alien spaceships…or they’re not. Many who see the film will come away thinking that they are real, says Owen Gleiberman in “Variety,” because the film is well-done (Kudos to Editor Spencer Averick, Cinematographer Vincent Wrenn and Blair Mowat’s music. Mostly, the documentary is talking heads stating things as facts for 109 minutes with no real proof except our own intrinsic willingness to believe that “we are not alone.”) I’m as open-minded about accepting these testimonials and as willing to believe as anybody, but I’m also a born skeptic.
Is there another “hidden agenda” operating here? Think about that, too, before accepting every word or supposed “fact” as Gospel.
- Crew: Director: Dan Farah. Camera: Vincent Wrenn. Editor: Spencer Averick. Music: Blair Mowat.
- With:Lue Elizondo, Chris Mellon, Marco Rubio, Hal Puthoff, Jay Stratton, James Clapper, Kirsten Gillibrand, André Carson, Brett Ferrderson, David Fravor.
(*Read the companion piece, “A Funny Thing Happened to Me on My Way to the Documentary”).
