Chris Nicholson joins me to talk about Season 1 of Pluribus. This is a completely different conversation than the one I just had with Rob. Chris keeps pointing out, and I agree with him, that the show is probably not going to go that deep philosophically or in terms of the origins of the virus. He mentions his “oh no” moment when Vince Gilligan noted to the interviewer he was talking to that the drones were happy. Are we just getting the most basic thought experiment from intro to philosophy? Is the virus storyline simply unnecessary?

I add that the interviews have another value here, in that Gilligan tells us explicitly that the show is not about Covid or AI. In some ways, the point about AI makes it worse, because it takes away one plausible method for the virus to have ended up with its bizarre and seemingly contradictory characteristics. We discuss the idea of Vince Gilligan interviews serving as the Word of God in understanding this universe.

I note how incurious Carol appears to be about why animals are not part of the joining, or even why she is one of only a handful of people on earth immune from the effects of the virus. Major red flags.

Chris reminds me here that I wasn’t demanding enough as a viewer. We’re getting answers about how exactly the joining works, and the rules governing the Others’ behavior. What we don’t have any hints of are the whys. There is no indication that we’ll ever get them either. Why are the Others like this? Is there a deeper logic of the origins of the rules? Does it have something to do with human nature, or does the virus not care about the specifics of the species it infects? Is there an evolutionary theory that can explain how we got here? The show creators want us to speculate on these things, but they haven’t given us anything to go on.

Chris and I clarify that we’re not saying it’s a bad show. But there are a lot of opportunities to go deeper here, and we might just not get them. If things continue like this in Season 2, I’ll be disappointed but may be able to more fully enjoy the show without expecting it to be any different.

For those who get to the end, you’ll see us preview the forthcoming Game of Thrones spinoff and talk about why shows take longer to make these days.

For previous discussions on Pluribus, Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, see below. All episodes are conversations between me and Chris, unless noted otherwise.

“Should You Become a Pod Person?” Pluribus, S1:E1-3, with Rob Henderson

“The Kim Wexler Theory,” Pluribus, S1:E1-6

“The Righteous Mestizo,” Pluribus, S1, with Rob Henderson

The Breaking Bad Universe

Nietzschean or Christian? Marc Andreessen on Breaking Bad and Saul

“The Conscientious Objector to Therapy Culture,” Rewatching Breaking Bad, S1-S2

“A Love Story?”, Rewatching Breaking Bad, S3- S4E4

“The Whitewashing of Walter White,” Rewatching Breaking Bad, S4-S5

Better Call Saul: S6E7, Plan and Execution

Better Call Saul: S6E8, Point and Shoot

Better Call Saul: S6E9, Fun and Games

Better Call Saul: S6E10, Nippy

Better Call Saul: S6E11, Breaking Bad

Better Call Saul: S6E12, Waterworks

Better Call Saul finale with Chris and Marc Andreessen

Note: If you would like to get this podcast through a regular podcast app, go to richardhanania.com on a browser on your device (it doesn’t work in the app), log in to Substack, and click on the tab for either the Hanania Show or the H&H Podcast. Select the episode you want, and then choose one of Apple, Spotify, etc. under “Listen on” to your right. You’ll be able to add the show through an RSS feed, after which you will get new episodes, either free or paid depending on what kind of subscriber you are, through whichever platform you use. You can also decide whether you want to receive either podcast via email or alerts through your settings.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.richardhanania.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.com

I’ve done two previous podcasts on Pluribus: one with Rob Henderson, and one with Chris Nicholson. I didn’t want to choose between them for discussing the end of the season, so I decided to do an episode with each. I’m releasing Rob today, and Chris will be later this week. As you will see, these are vastly different conversations, and I think many will enjoy the contrast.

In this discussion, Rob brings up a good point, which relates to how Manousos and Carol approach their shared situation in ways that reflect sex stereotypes. I bring up Manousos as the “Righteous Mestizo” prototype, a figure we also saw in the Breaking Bad universe. I mention the hints of religiosity in his character, and the way that this undergirds his stubbornness and morally upright behavior. Perhaps this ties in to Vince Gilligan’s conservatism, and also his contempt for AI.

Throughout the conversation, we refer to two Gilligan interviews, one in Variety and the other in Esquire.

For previous discussions on Pluribus, Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, see below. All episodes are conversations between me and Chris, unless noted otherwise.

“Should You Become a Pod Person?” Pluribus, S1:E1-3, with Rob Henderson

“The Kim Wexler Theory,” Pluribus, S1:E1-6

The Breaking Bad Universe

Nietzschean or Christian? Marc Andreessen on Breaking Bad and Saul

“The Conscientious Objector to Therapy Culture,” Rewatching Breaking Bad, S1-S2

“A Love Story?”, Rewatching Breaking Bad, S3- S4E4

“The Whitewashing of Walter White,” Rewatching Breaking Bad, S4-S5

Better Call Saul: S6E7, Plan and Execution

Better Call Saul: S6E8, Point and Shoot

Better Call Saul: S6E9, Fun and Games

Better Call Saul: S6E10, Nippy

Better Call Saul: S6E11, Breaking Bad

Better Call Saul: S6E12, Waterworks

Better Call Saul finale with Chris and Marc Andreessen

Note: If you would like to get this podcast through a regular podcast app, go to richardhanania.com on a browser on your device (it doesn’t work in the app), log in to Substack, and click on the tab for either the Hanania Show or the H&H Podcast. Select the episode you want, and then choose one of Apple, Spotify, etc. under “Listen on” to your right. You’ll be able to add the show through an RSS feed, after which you will get new episodes, either free or paid depending on what kind of subscriber you are, through whichever platform you use. You can also decide whether you want to receive either podcast via email or alerts through your settings.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.com

Chris Nicholson returns after almost two years to discuss Pluribus, up to episode six.

He raises some good questions about the direction of the show. Chris says that thus far, it is mostly a character study of Carol, and he has no reason to care about her yet. I say fair enough, but the reason that most of us began watching the show is the involvement of Vince Gilligan and Rhea Seehorn. We compare Pluribus to Breaking Bad, which was plot-driven at first, and Better Call Saul, in which we were going in with a character that we already knew and loved.

This led me to think through my own theory: perhaps Carol Sturka is Kimberly Wexler. I asked ChatGPT about this, and things went in a very weird direction. I haven’t seen any reason so far why this is impossible.

Chris and I discuss the question of whether the hive mind is its own creation, or the result of what you get when you amalgamate all of the world’s humans. Is there a way to see the hive mind’s code of ethics as a sort of least common denominator human morality? The ethical system has some inconsistencies, and there are still open questions like why they can kiss others without their permission to fundamentally change them but they can’t violate their individual rights in other ways. The ethical system seems to be a mix of the most extreme forms of libertarianism and paternalism. And why do they care about Carol so much anyway? All of these questions hopefully have satisfying answers.

We also talk about the possible AI angle. Is this hive mind the result of something that evolved naturally, or, as I suspect, a technological creation that started to spread across the universe? The latter is seeming a lot more likely. The idea that this is misaligned AI would explain the oddities of their ethical system.

Chris lays down his marker and says that Pluribus is going to invert the process that unfolded in Gilligan’s previous two shows. Instead of a character going bad, here they’re going to become better. By the end, we’ll see peace, love, harmony, and an understanding that we all need each other. That would be kind of lame though, and I have too much faith in Vince Gilligan to think he’ll take us in that direction.

Still, this makes sense in light of some of the lessons of the previous two shows, which teach that most people in American society are good. Chris and I debate whether we are supposed to share in Carol’s contempt for her fans, or react more negatively to her sneering at them. I was sure it was the former, but on further reflection maybe this is wrong. Just as most lawyers are ethical, finance isn’t about screwing people over, and most Americans try to live their best lives and follow the rules, perhaps the truly enlightened view is that we should let the romance novel readers have their fun.

For previous discussions on Pluribus, Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, see below. All episodes are conversations between me and Chris, unless noted otherwise.

“Should You Become a Pod Person?” Pluribus, S1:E1-3, with Rob Henderson

The Breaking Bad Universe

Nietzschean or Christian? Marc Andreessen on Breaking Bad and Saul

“The Conscientious Objector to Therapy Culture,” Rewatching Breaking Bad, S1-S2

“A Love Story?”, Rewatching Breaking Bad, S3- S4E4

“The Whitewashing of Walter White,” Rewatching Breaking Bad, S4-S5

Better Call Saul: S6E7, Plan and Execution

Better Call Saul: S6E8, Point and Shoot

Better Call Saul: S6E9, Fun and Games

Better Call Saul: S6E10, Nippy

Better Call Saul: S6E11, Breaking Bad

Better Call Saul: S6E12, Waterworks

Better Call Saul finale with Chris and Marc Andreessen

Note: If you would like to get this podcast through a regular podcast app, go to richardhanania.com on a browser on your device (it doesn’t work in the app), log in to Substack, and click on the tab for either the Hanania Show or the H&H Podcast. Select the episode you want, and then choose one of Apple, Spotify, etc. under “Listen on” to your right. You’ll be able to add the show through an RSS feed, after which you will get new episodes, either free or paid depending on what kind of subscriber you are, through whichever platform you use. You can also decide whether you want to receive either podcast via email or alerts through your settings.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.com

Tyler Tone joins me to discuss There Will Be Blood (2007), as part of my Paul Thomas Anderson series, which has thus far included One Battle After Another (2025) and Boogie Nights (1997).

I absolutely loved this film. Daniel Plainview was one of those characters who become incorporated into my psyche for a substantial period of time, like Don Draper or Tony Soprano. I open by discussing how Plainview’s relationship with his son affected how I interacted with my own for a few days. I find myself still returning to his competent benevolence whenever the kids become too annoying.

We talk about the themes relating to capitalism, progress, and religious fundamentalism in backward communities. The movie was genuinely pro-capitalist in ways I didn’t expect. The man of action gets ahead by building, based on his own intelligence, competence, and drive. And I’ve rarely seen such a satisfying ending.

Late in the conversation, we circle back to other PTA films, with Tyler giving me his theory for the general worldview of the entire body of his work.

Note: If you would like to get this podcast through a regular podcast app, go to richardhanania.com on a browser on your device (it doesn’t work in the app), log in to Substack, and click on the tab for either the Hanania Show or the H&H Podcast. Select the episode you want, and then choose one of Apple, Spotify, etc. under “Listen on” to your right. You’ll be able to add the show through an RSS feed, after which you will get new episodes, either free or paid depending on what kind of subscriber you are, through whichever platform you use. You can also decide whether you want to receive either podcast via email or alerts through your settings.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.com

Rob joins me to discuss the first three episodes of Vince Gilligan’s Pluribus, which is now on Apple TV.

I started watching because I trust Gilligan based on Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul both being among my favorite shows. The fact that he brings Rhea Seehorn along as the lead actress added to the appeal.

If you haven’t watched it yet, you can go ahead and start now since we’ll be following along with the series (spoilers below). One cool thing Gilligan does is that he spends a lot of time showing people getting deeply into some technical or scientific topic or engaging in a form of craftsmanship. We see a great deal of lawyering in Better Call Saul, and engineering and chemistry in Breaking Bad. Recall Walter White’s experiences fixing the boiler and cooking meth, or Gus talking wine. We observe glimmers of this here when the scientists find signs of alien life, and when Carol and Helen are walking through the ice hotel and the bellhop is explaining the experience. Rob informs me that this is something the kids call “competence porn,” a phrase that we both hate but nonetheless seems to capture the phenomenon.

Gilligan has identified as conservative, or at least more conservative than most people in Hollywood. I discuss with Rob the beauty of casting a Mauritanian as the lecherous guy who uses his newfound power to ride on Air Force One and have sex with as many women as possible. This is a country with a blend of French, Arab, and black African culture. In other words, this is like the sexual predator singularity (I can say it, I’m an Arab). Moreover, the Asians and Native Americans want to just accept the new world, the black guy wants to be king and have a lot of sex, and the upper class American white woman is the only one looking around and saying this is not ok! Perhaps she needed to be a lesbian, as that’s the only way a show can otherwise be this politically incorrect. The other benefit of making her one is that she stands out as a prototypical suburban Karen. Rob points out that even her name sounds like Karen.

I also see hints of a parable that is pro-capitalist, or at least somehow about capitalism. When Carol finds Sprouts empty, she calls the aliens and tells them that she’s always been independent and wants to do her own shopping. But to get her “independence” she needs an army of drones to bring the food and stock the shelves. Isn’t this what capitalism is? People mindlessly doing repetitive tasks for our pleasure and benefit? We just don’t appreciate it and think that we created everything we have. Then at the end of episode 3, we get Carol’s shock upon realizing they would provide her with an atom bomb if she wanted one. Is this showing us where capitalism goes off the rails, when it gives us substances and products that are clearly harmful?

Rob brings up AI as a theme, which I didn’t consider much before, but it makes perfect sense. Here is this thing that has access to all of the world’s knowledge, is much smarter than you, but also has blind spots and is dumb in a lot of ways.

We spend a lot of time going over potential paradoxes regarding the rules of how the pod people behave and interact with the autonomous humans remaining. What if they get contradictory commands? Do they feel pain and pleasure experienced by other pod people? Why can they not coerce the remaining humans into doing stuff while their entire project is about coercion in the end? Where do animals fit into all this? There’s a lot in this universe that is yet to be explored.

On the surface, we’re supposed to be on Carol’s side. But part of me wonders whether there’s a pro-alien reading of the show. Maybe they really are all-knowing and we should just listen to them. When Zosia serenely tells Carol, in her drugged up and miserable state, that we would all save a person drowning without thinking twice, doesn’t the point land? After all, Zosia is happy and Carol is spiraling! You might say she was in this condition because of the aliens, but the flashback to the hotel and initial episode tell us she wasn’t all that happy before.

Rhea Seehorn is perfectly cast here. As a dry-humored cynic, she seems more Wexler than Wexler. Maybe this is another reason she had to be a lesbian. I feel that if a woman like Carol wasn’t a lesbian, her male partner would need to be a complete non-entity.

The show is generally funny, though the snapback humor is a bit cringe. I think Seehorn provides the best possible version of it nonetheless.

Gilligan has not disappointed, and I’m eager to see where this goes next.

If you are interested, check out previous discussions I’ve had on Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. All conversations are with Chris Nicholson, except for the two that involved Marc Andreessen. Pretty amazing to think that at this point I have done dozens of hours of video and audio on the worlds that Vince Gilligan has created. My audience for the TV reviews isn’t huge, but it is very passionate.

The Breaking Bad Universe

Rewatching Breaking Bad, S1 and S2

Rewatching Breaking Bad, S3- S4E4

Rewatching Breaking Bad, S4-S5

Better Call Saul: S6E7, Plan and Execution

Better Call Saul: S6E8, Point and Shoot

Better Call Saul: S6E9, Fun and Games

Better Call Saul: S6E10, Nippy

Better Call Saul: S6E11, Breaking Bad

Better Call Saul: S6E12, Waterworks

Nietzschean or Christian? Marc Andreessen on Breaking Bad and Saul

Better Call Saul finale with Chris and Andreessen

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.com

Fresh off watching One Battle After Another, I did a livestream review of Boogie Nights with Tyler Tone as part of a series on Paul Thomas Anderson films. We begin with a discussion about the movie playing to nostalgia. This was a film made in 1997 set in the 1970s and 1980s. It is impossible to imagine us today having the same feelings looking back at the aughts. I wonder whether this is similar to economic growth in that the low hanging fruit has been picked, and you can only do things like sexual liberation and break down taboos once. Culture thus becomes stuck soon after society achieves a long enough streak of peace and prosperity.

We debate the message of the film. I came away believing that it was very anti-porn, while Tyler sees it more as about Hollywood in general, and with an uplifting message in the end. My view is quite darker. We discuss the B characters, and what their stories are trying to tell us.

We’ll be doing There Will Be Blood next, so stay tuned for that.

Note: If you would like to get this podcast through a regular podcast app, go to richardhanania.com on a browser on your device (it doesn’t work in the app), log in to Substack, and click on the tab for either the Hanania Show or the H&H Podcast. Select the episode you want, and then choose one of Apple, Spotify, etc. under “Listen on” to your right. You’ll be able to add the show through an RSS feed, after which you will get new episodes, either free or paid depending on what kind of subscriber you are, through whichever platform you use. You can also decide whether you want to receive either podcast via emails or alerts.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.com

Lily Zuckerman joins me again to discuss the new Paul Thomas Anderson film One Battle After Another. The movie consciously goes out of its way to separate itself from circa-2020 era wokeness. Lily calls it representative of Chapo Trap House liberalism.

I enjoyed Lockjaw as an amalgamation of rightoid characters. He’s in the military, and also a Nazi, and an incel. I point out that another way that this movie is not woke is that its bad guys are literal white supremacists. There’s none of this idea that the real enemy is unconscious bias or disparities or whatever. It’s a liberal fantasy through and through. You get sex and violence, but also an enemy that makes you feel morally pure.

I argue that a move away from the neurotic version of woke – here I’m thinking of a room full of masked DSA members talking about their anxiety – was inevitable. How would you even make an entertaining movie glamorizing these people? A liberalism that is about sex, violence, and killing Nazis is broadly appealing. It would center left-wing economic ideas, which are popular across the political spectrum including among Trump supporters, and also lets one protect the innocent and fight adversaries who are both evil and pathetic, like Lockjaw. We talk about the prospects of immigration being the issue that unites various factions of the left, given that it is the one place where conservatives actually do use violence against people of color.

Note: If you would like to get this podcast through a regular podcast app, go to richardhanania.com on a browser on your device (it doesn’t work in the app), log in to Substack, and click on the tab for either the Hanania Show or the H&H Podcast. Select the episode you want, and then choose one of Apple, Spotify, etc. under “Listen on” to your right. You’ll be able to add the show through an RSS feed, after which you will get new episodes, either free or paid depending on what kind of subscriber you are, through whichever platform you use. You can also decide whether you want to receive either podcast via emails or alerts.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.com

Rob Henderson joins me to talk about Look Who’s Back (2015) (watch on YouTube), a German film with the premise that Hitler returns to life and becomes a successful entertainer. We talk about the over-the-top antifascist messaging of the movie, as on the surface we see Germans indulging their racism, and (spoiler) at the end a Hitler voiceover as we’re shown the activities of modern day rightists.

Yet we can’t help but wonder… is there a Straussian understanding of the film, or perhaps the source novel? Frankly, Hitler comes across as really cool. He’s smart, talented, and charming. He learns about the world, takes initiative, and accomplishes his goals. Hitler gives fatherly advice. He has progressive views on women, and appears unbothered by all the homosexuality and gender bending he must observe in Berlin. Germans who oppose immigration are allowed to speak their piece. At the same time, the movie tries to give the impression that Hitler is actually talking to leaders of the NPD, with one of them asking that the cameras be turned off so he could express loyalty to the Führer.

As I found out from my research, this was a scripted part of the movie, but it was intended to give the impression that it was real. I mention how people will always take the surface level interpretation of a piece of art, so it is not difficult to send a hidden message. This is what has always made me skeptical of Straussian readings of books, as people will miss the point unless you make it very clear for them, and that goes even for sophisticated observers, who are unlikely to put that much effort into understanding any particular work.

Nonetheless, it’s fun to speculate. Scott Greer actually read the novel, and I asked him whether there was a way to read it from a pro-Hitler perspective. He replied yes, and the film actually made Hitler look even worse than the book. I await the Highly Respected episode on this.

Rob and I discuss German remembrance culture, and whether the same film could be made today. We also mention the eerie way in which a lot of people’s faces are blurred, which I’m guessing is the result of Germany having really weird privacy laws. I take this as an indication that there is something deeply wrong with their culture.

Near the end, we discuss the chapter on propaganda in Mein Kampf, and how Hitler would do as an influencer today.

Note: If you don’t want the TV and film reviews, go to your settings in Substack and uncheck the H&H podcast. Also, if you would like to get this podcast through a regular podcast app, go to richardhanania.com on a browser on your device (it doesn’t work in the app), log in to Substack, and click on the tab for either the Hanania Show or the H&H Podcast. Select the episode you want, and then choose one of Apple, Spotify, etc. under “Listen on” to your right. You’ll be able to add the show through an RSS feed, after which you will get new episodes, either free or paid depending on what kind of subscriber you are, through whichever platform you use.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.com

Lily Zuckerman is a student at UATX. She suggested we watch Materialists (2025), in which a high-end matchmaker named Lucy Mason (Dakota Jackson) goes around setting people up while also being involved in a love triangle of her own.

I think this film perfectly encapsulates the post-MeToo era. Sure, there’s still a sexual assault storyline, etc. But it seems that after the crazy 2010s and early 2020s, men and women are back to being honest about what they want. Women want height and money, men youth and beauty. The film acknowledges this reality, and although it is judgmental about it – particularly towards the middle aged men who want to date younger, less so the woman who wants a guy with money – there’s an acknowledgment that this is human nature, so what are you going to do? Around 2020, cultural leftism felt like if it couldn’t change human nature, it could simply bully everyone indefinitely. With the decline in the power of the MSM, the rise of the bro podcast sphere, Elon’s purchase of X, the quick money that can be made via OnlyFans, and newer forms of social media, trying to repress our instincts has become a hopeless battle. The future is a more fragmented culture, which means that human nature will reign supreme given that no faction can exercise enough hegemony to realistically shape us into something else.

Lily and I discuss the importance of height in this film and dating culture more generally. When I was a kid, we would talk about women desiring a man who is “tall, dark, and handsome.” Dark of course didn’t mean black or Indian, but more like a tanned white guy. But there was less of this idea that things were hopeless if you were short. Either we’ve become more realistic, or women feel freer to indulge in this preference.

Lily explains why she thinks people should in fact be more rational about picking partners according to tangible criteria. I’m inclined to agree. Whatever the discourse around dating is right now and whatever it is encouraging people to do, it’s clearly not working. The default script people go through their lives with makes the difference, and we’ve flipped from one of being married and having children, to one that says focus on your career and a family would be nice to have if you find the perfect person in the right moment and it doesn’t interfere with your other goals in life. When we discuss people being picky, this I think is what we’re getting at. People think they should have jobs no matter what, so they’ll settle for a “good enough” career instead of remaining unemployed. They at one point treated family formation the same way, but don’t anymore.

Note: If you don’t want the TV and film reviews, go to your settings in Substack and uncheck the H&H podcast. Also, if you would like to get this podcast through a regular podcast app, go to richardhanania.com on a browser on your device (it doesn’t work in the app), log in to Substack, and click on the tab for either the Hanania Show or the H&H Podcast. Select the episode you want, and then choose one of Apple, Spotify, etc. under “Listen on” to your right. You’ll be able to add the show through an RSS feed, after which you will get new episodes, either free or paid depending on what kind of subscriber you are, through whichever platform you use.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.com

Anora (2024) was hailed by critics as a movie about the empowering nature of sex work (spoilers below and in the episode). Rob Henderson and Tyler Tone join me to discuss. We just don’t see it. This seems to be one of those films where there’s a politically correct interpretation that is divorced from the actual content of the movie. That conclusion seems inevitable from the last scene, in which Ani has sex with Igor and then breaks down. I was afraid there would be a cheesy heartwarming ending where she doesn’t have sex with him but wants him to take her out on a date. That’s how a rom-com would’ve finished. But this was much darker.

I knew we were supposed to feel sorry for Ani, but I saw her as a gold digger. Rob and I debate whether she was “really” in love with Ivan. He convinces me that she fell in love in the way someone like her would. The fact that she liked him for his money did not make the relationship any less real. This made sense. I guess the thing I struggle with is that Ivan just sucks so much as a person, so it’s hard for me to sympathize with a woman caring about him.

Speaking of which, Russians come off poorly here. We discuss the role of Russians in pop culture, and whether the movie could have worked if the rich family were American instead. I thought the father was the worst character of all, but Rob and Tyler convinced me that there was another way to interpret his behavior. Rather than being cold and aloof, chiming in only to laugh at Ani, he was taking a backseat to his wife, and enjoyed seeing her taken down a peg.

One of the more interesting debates we have is over how the audience is supposed to feel about Igor. He came into Ani’s life as a thug there to restrain her. If he could be redeemed by a few nice gestures, it indicates a more forgiving attitude towards male misbehavior than we saw at the height of the MeToo era.