Unclear and Present Danger - The Enemy Within

Episode Date: October 28, 2023

For this week’s episode of Unclear and Present Danger, Jamelle and John watched “The Enemy Within,” a 1994 remake of John Frankenheimer’s “Seven Days in May,” starring Forest Whitaker and Jason Robards. Like the original film, “The Enemy Within” concerns a military plot to depose the president and take control of the U.S. government. Like the original film, our hero is an Army advisor who would rather defend the Constitution than his superiors. And like the original film, the story is a race against the clock as the president and his allies try to stop their adversary, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from executing his plan.“The Enemy Within” stars Forest Whitaker as Colonel “Mac” Casey, Sam Waterston as President William Foster, Dana Delany as his chief of staff Betsy Corcoran, and Jason Robards as General R. Pendleton Lloyd.The tagline for “The Enemy Within” is “You never know who your enemies are.”You can stream the movie on HBO Max or rent it on iTunes and Amazon. Connor Lynch produced this episode. Artwork by Rachel Eck.Contact us!Follow us on Twitter!John GanzJamelle BouieUnclearPodAnd join the Unclear and Present Patreon! For just $5 a month, patrons get access to a bonus show on the films of the Cold War, and much, much more. The latest episode of our Patreon is on “Seven Days in May.” So you can listen to these two episodes to compare and contrast the two movies.

What if you lived in a country where an embattered president cut back the military? What if the military decided to fight back with live ammunition and one soldier with no friends, no allies, had seven days to stop them? Forrest Whitaker, Jason Robbins, the enemy within. The HBO original movie critically acclaimed award-winning feature films that you'll see only on HBO, Hollywood's brightest stars and television's most provocative story. The HBO original movie, and now the Enemy Within. unclear and present danger, a podcast about the political and military thrillers of the 1990s and what they say about the politics of that decade.

I'm Jamel Bowie. I'm a columnist for the New York Times opinion section. I'm John Gans. I write a substack newsletter called Unpopular Front, and I am the author of a forthcoming book about American politics in the early 1990s called When the Clock Broke. And that will be out in... June of 2024, but if you really want to,

you can order it now, and I would appreciate it. Yes, as I think we've been saying each episode, when it comes to books, pre-orders are very important. Pre-orders are sort of, can make or break a book. So if you're interested in this book, go to your local bookstore, go

to your local Barnes & Noble, if you have one, wherever, request that they have the book in stock. Pre-order the book so you can get it. I'm currently flipping through a a proof copy, and it's good. Oh, yeah. Thank you. It's very good. I do you like it. I think people will really enjoy it. Okay. And before I even go any further, if my audio sounds a little different, it's because I'm currently traveling. I'm in Denver, Colorado, and I'm using a

portable mic, different mic set up than usual. So if there's any audio issues, that's the reason apologies ahead of time. But I think we should be fun. This is a solid mic. Okay. For this week's episode, we watched The Enemy Within, a 1994 remake of John Frankenheimer's Seven Days in May, starring Forrest Whitaker and Jason Robart. Now, we've actually discussed seven days in May on our Patreon.

You go to patreon.com slash unclear pod. You can hear our conversation about seven days in May. which is a terrific film, one of my favorite political thrillers of that era. The Enemy Within, not so good. Yeah, it's not terrible. I think it, I don't know. I think that there's some, well, there's something good about it. There's some good things about it, and it's not, but yeah, of course.

It's a TV movie, which I'm very interested in for nostalgia reasons and thinking about, but yeah, it's got limitations for sure. But if you've never seen either seven days in May or the Enemy Within, you should at least watch seven days in May. Like the original film, The Enemy Within concerns a military plot to depose the president and take control of the U.S. government. Like the original film, our hero, played by Forrest Whitaker, is an army advisor who would rather defend the Constitution than stand with his superiors. And like the original film, the story is very much a race against the clock as the president and his allies try to stop their adversary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, played by Jason Robards, from executing his plan. The enemy within stars again, Forrest Whitaker as Colonel Mack Casey, Sam Waterston, as President William Foster with an interesting southern accent. Daney, sorry, Dana Delaney, who people may recognize if your millennials may recognize as the voice of Lois Lane from Superman the animated series. And she's and lots of other stuff.

I have, I got a big crush on Dana Delaney. Danae as his chief of staff of Betsy Corkeren and Jason Robards as General R. Pendleton Lloyd, the tagline for the enemy within is you never know who your enemies are. that's true it's true yeah you can stream the movie on eb o max or rent it on itunes and amazon the enemy within was released on august 20th in 1994 so let's check up the new york times for that day all right here we go um this is the big article well none of them are giant screaming headlines but here's one of the uh headlines at the top of the fold uh efforts to solve energy rules woes clashes with nuclear safety. If the collapse of nuclear controls in Russia

poses the near-term threat that terrorists could seize plutonium to make nuclear weapons, longer-term fears arise from nuclear energy programs launched by America's closest to allies, Japan, Britain, and France. Over the next two decades, these countries, as well as Russia, plan to vastly increase the world's stockpiles of plutonium. They are producing it to fuel a generation of nuclear power plants whose time has never quite come.

And in the process, they are deflating the post-Cold War optimism that the world supply of bomb-usible materials would drastically shrink. Moreover, the race to produce plutonium for energy is also sustaining a rationale that nuclear aspirants like North Korea have used to justify building nuclear energy installations that can quickly be used to weapon's productions. The plutonium can be used to fuel existing reactors in place of uranium, but also, Also, for planned breeder reactors, nuclear plants are conceived with enormous enthusiasm as a virtually self-sustaining source of electric power. These reactors burn nuclear fuel while breeding more, and for decades, seemed to offer a solution to two major problems at once.

By recycling fuel, breeders would cut down on the amount of nuclear waste that would otherwise have been buried or sunk in the ocean. At first blush, the technology promised to save billions. Well, nuclear proliferation is a huge issue after the end of the Cold War, and it hasn't really stopped. I mean, North Korea has a nuclear weapon now. Of course, Pakistan and India do too. They've had them for some time, but, you know, they've developed more and more missile systems and so on and so forth. Nuclear power is a big issue. Formerly people who you might expect to be anti-nuclear power, liberals, and environmentalists, have sort of come around that maybe nuclear power

is, you know, sort of a not the worst solution in the age of climate change to the world's energy rose. At the same time, it does create, you know, radioactive material that's very difficult to store and get rid of and can be used for nuclear weapons. But this fear of terrorists getting nuclear weapons from the former Soviet successor states was a big thing. And in many of the movies that we watched was a big thing. So, and also last passes up to 9-11, the war on terror, all the fears of a dirty bomb and so on and so forth. So that's a big issue in the 1990s. Here's another one.

US halts hundreds of Cubans at sea in abrupt policy change. The United States today plucked hundreds of Cuban refugees from rafts and boats off the Florida coast and began to transfer them to detention camps at Guantanamo Bay. Huh. Detention camps in Guantanamo Bay, who would have thought? As President Clinton ordered an end to the longstanding policy. of welcoming fleeing Cubans with open arms. With more Cubans taking to the seas than at any time since 1980, the abrupt change of American policy was aimed at averting a new Caribbean exodus,

as much as the administration has sought to discourage Haitians from leaving their country by denying them entry to the United States. Instead of being ferried to Florida, all fleeing Cubans now intercepted by the Coast Guard in the United States Navy already be delivered to new camps at the American Basic Guantanamo near Cuba's southeast tip. where they will join 15,000 Haitians already being held there. Well, there has always been a little bit of a, shall we say, inconsistency in American immigration policy because we've always allowed,

as part of our Cold War opposition to the communist regime in Cuba. Cuban migrants, we've welcomed with open arms. If you're from Haiti, Mexico, other places, not so much. And this is obviously, you know, for political reasons. reasons. The Cuban-American community in Florida has a great deal of political clout. It's very usually votes Republican. It's very highly anti-communist. The Clinton administration came under fire for not, you know, by Republicans and by anti-Castro Cubans for being insufficiently strong about the embargo.

And then this culminated in the Alion Gonzalez affair, which was brought to my attention again, and I sort of forgot about it. It was a huge deal. And the guy I was talking to, a very smart friend of mine, made the point that maybe one of the reasons that George W. Bush was actually elected. I don't remember all the particulars off the top of my head, but maybe Jamel, do you have any thoughts about all that? I, so if I, I don't remember the particulars either. If I remember correctly, it was Ellen Gonzalez was, it was like he was trying to be brought over to Florida by his mother. He got to the U.S. Yeah, he got to the U.S. by one parent and then the other parent or someone who had more

claim on custody was still in Cuba and wanted me return. And this was a big political fracas because, you know, you're returning this kid to a communist nation, a dictatorship. But, you know, he had more family there. It was a big complicated thing, which I don't think was handled politically all that intelligently. Yeah, I just, I just remember, I do remember. it being it being like a whole big thing. I remember cable news coverage of it

very very sort of like vividly but I'm not sure that I have the greatest handle on the old no because that's what that's what passed for news back then you know and now we actually have real problems

I mean by the time we get to the middle of the 90s I mean it's interesting you know the the the issue I think are still interesting and what was bubbling beneath the surface is fascinating. But a lot of times when we look at the newspaper, especially, you know, when we were looking at the early 90s and then we get to the middle and the later part of the decade, a lot of these headlines are kind of quiet. Yeah.

Yeah. Anyway, anything else here, Whitewater Inquiry turns to later Clinton financing in the weeks before he was replaced as the independent counsel investigating the Whitewater case, Robert P. Fiske, Jr., substantially barred in his inquiry to examine the way. Bill Clinton had financed his political career, particularly his 1990 campaign for governor of Arkansas, witnesses and outside lawyers familiar with the inquiry say, well, the whitewater scandal is another thing that has kind of been lost to the time. Excuse me, I did not meet upon to the tides of time, but the, it was not intentional. But this was a, this was a,

a political and business scandal involving the Clintons and some real estate holdings and something to do with their law firm. As a child, they could barely follow it. It didn't seem like a big deal. I think that the Whitewater inquiry, although the Republicans trying to use as a way to nail Clinton, eventually turned into the Monica Lewinsky scandal. So the investigations of one turned into the other. That's right. So that's a much bigger deal, historically. The Lewinsky scandal is sort of like the culmination of lots of little investigations from the Clinton. Basically, congressional Republicans are trying to find something that would tank Clinton's political standing and they eventually come to, you know,

these allegations of sexual misconduct, which in the end don't actually tank Clinton all that much in the moment. Of course, in the year's sense, especially as Lewinsky herself has sort of taken a real public role as a public figure. There's been a real reevaluation of how she was treated during those years, Clinton's culpability and responsibility, all these things. With people correct, I think, I think correctly coming to the conclusion that the country was entirely too hard on Monica Lewinsky, who was a 20-something year old who was facing sexual advances by the president of the United States, and not hard enough on Bill Clinton, who was the president of the United States. Yes. Yeah. I mean, like politics,

as they, you know, people say culture follows politics, but really politics follows culture. I mean, wait, I got that reverse. No, people say politics follows culture, but really culture follows politics. And lots of people he would expect to know better just because of the elation of having a Democrat in the White House finally. We're pretty soft on Clinton and Harshan Lewinsky, and that sort of, you know, created the cultural tone of the era. I just have one more thing to add is I flip the page, and I think this is really interesting considering everything that's going on now.

It's the international section, Gaza Journal, Rabbi on the Messiah's team, and now Arafatz. Gaza, August 14th, Rabin Moshe, Hirsch, the only Jew and Yasser Arafat's posting government. believes he is charged with a divine mission in this era of peace and reconciliation. I pray daily for the demise of the demonic Zionist state, he said, holding his black beaver hat in his hands as he sat outside Mr. Airfrau's office the other day. Rabbi Hirsch and his sect of Orthodox Jews, Naturaicarta, say they accept the accord between Palestinian leadership and the Israelis because it deals with land and power.

But they are, but they say their own spiritual battle against the Jewish state can abide no compromise until Israel ceases to exist. While anti-Zion sentiment is common among rigorously Orthodox Jews, many of whom refuse to serve in the army or recognize the legitimacy of the state, few groups have ventured as far as this. Yeah, Nataric Carter is a very specifically radical group, but again, this is interesting and good for people to know. Many ultra-Orthodox Jews, Hasidic Jews, not every sect and not every grouping

of Hasidic Jews, there are differences within it are anti-Zionists because they believe that the state of Israel can only be created in the messianic age and the secular state of Israel is kind of a religious abomination. They don't all go so far as to support the PLO or what was then the PLO. But even in Israel, many of the Orthodox Jews who live in communities in Israel are not particularly committed to the idea of an Israeli state. There are also exceptions to that, and there are also religious Zionists who are Orthodox and have a very radical Zionism, and those are the settlers and so forth. So very complicated issues.

Anyway, I thought that was interesting to point out, considering everything that's going on. Yeah, that is very interesting. I don't think there's, everything else is pretty, as you mentioned, not too interesting. We're in the middle of the health care battle, which will eventually end with the health care plan being tanked, but not really worth diving into that. Okay, let's talk about the Enemy Within. So again, The Enemy Within is a remake of seven days in May. It's origins were actually 10 years earlier. There was an idea to remake that film back in the 80s, but didn't really get off the ground until the 90s.

The production company, I believe, was headed by, it was Frank. Let me check real quick. The production company responsible, no, not Frankenheimer's son, Peter Douglas, who's, oh, by Kirk Douglas's kid. So Peter Douglas, the producer, wanted. Not Michael Douglas. Not Michael Douglas. Peter Douglas, the producer, wanted to remake Seven Days in May, and it took, again, a while for it to get off the ground, and it was done under the auspices of HBO, which this is an HBO television movie, but HBO television movies were pretty much just like feature-lying films, lower budget, but not low budget, you know. This one is shot on location, in fact, in D.C. and in Arlington.

So, you know, a decent enough budget to at least do some on-location shooting. The broad outlines of the plot of the enemy within follow those of seven days in May, but there are differences and updates and such for the 90s. And so, for instance, the kind of instigating conflict in seven days in May is that the president has signed a disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union. Soviet Union no longer exist in 1994 or in the 90s. And so here, the issue is that the president might veto a defense spending bill. Now, here's for here.

I can tell you're pretty impatient with this movie. Here's the thing. There's no conceivable world in which a U.S. president vetoes a defense spending bill. That's true. It just, it's, it, like, but maybe that's what, it might lead to a coup because of that, Jamel. True, true. You know, with seven days in May with the original, the president signing a determined treaty with the chief union is like a plausible thing, especially since this movie, seven days in May, I believe, interproduction in 63. So we're past the Cuban missile crisis, right?

they're sort of like, that's in the air. And so that seems totally plausible. But this, this to me seems a little less plausible. But anyway, the president might may veto a defense spending package. President Sam Waterston says, it's not his name, but I'm going to call him. President Sam Watersden says, you know, I was elected to reduce the deficit and I need to reduce stuff. We need to invest in domestic programs.

Again, this is so, the fact that his election pledge is reducing the deficit is like, feels like a very 1990s thing. The 90s are when there's a balanced budget amendment that almost becomes, that passes Congress or almost passes Congress, which would be a disaster for a variety of reasons. But there's like this obsession with balancing the budget with fiscal responsibility, so-called. Anyway, so he may veto it. And the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff played by Jason Robards believes that this is ruinous,

that there are still threats and adversaries in the world, and we need to retain an offensive posture. And so he is plotting with other generals, other folks, including the vice president in the United States, to stage a coup. This will be a little different than the one in seven days. In seven days, the general James McHminton-Smith, played by Bert Lancaster, will actually be the,

the leader of the coup. He has a powerful media presence. He's well known to the public. He's more or less the face of the opposition. So the idea is that in that version of the plot, he will go to the American people and say, this is why this is necessary and here. And this, Robards is much more of a behind-the-scenes guy

and will clear the way for the vice president to take control. That will force the president to resign, and the vice president will take control. yeah um they right to in order to launder the coup and our constitutional guys right right right right right to make it seem above board um now robarts is assistant who in the original film was played by kirk douglas is played here played by forrest whittaker uh who discoverers very quickly this movie's too short this movie's too short um i mean it's not good the portions are too small and food is terrible and the portion is terrible but anyway he discovers

he he he after his his buddy or whatever um finds weird notes of like you know gambling and betting um forest Whitaker's character deduces that there's something going on discover so using um uh authorized use of chemical weapons for a field exercise live ammo for field exercise seems like something's up and that's going on. So he gets suspicious. And in his suspicions, he concludes that there's a coup attempt, a foot, and he brings it to the president and his chief of staff who then begin this investigation. I feel like here, the movie, this version really departs quite a bit from the original. In the original, you get kind of like a bit of a procedural investigation sequence with

the various players going about their missions to figure out exactly what's happening. And this, it's sort of, oh, well, we have these photos of the vice president plotting with generals because the Russian government is assisting Forrest Whitaker's character, or at least Russian agents are assisting him because they don't want the United States. A military dictatorship of the United States. the attorney general who does not want to go along with the plot is murdered, presumably by the plotters. His assistant is secretly a Russian agent and is helping out Forrest Bittaker.

She's assassinated. A quick parenthetical here in 70s in May, characters are killed, but it's off screen. here we get a very 90s sort of like a bullet to the chest yeah sniper they love snipers so she gets killed the troops are actually deployed in this version

Lloyd and the vice president go to the president's office demand his resignation and then in this in the prior one they have a confession from the secretary of the Navy who they are able to bring in so like this is evidence of the plot

and this Whitaker, who has both deduced the plot and collected evidence for it, says, well, I will confess. I will confess and say, I was a part of this plot, and this will ruin you. And that's what gets the general and his allies to back down and they resign. Which is interesting. I think, like, okay, I hear what you're saying. This is not a good movie. But I'm surprised a little bit that you have, you were not more.

charm by this movie because usually it's me that's harsh on the bad movies and you want to find something to like about them. But I think what this movie, it kind of lacks some excitement for sure. It's sort of like something you would put on and kind of like zone out to. And like I think that that's a form of movie that exists less and less that we talk about sometimes. Like this is like a Sunday afternoon movie or something you watch when you're like sick home from school and it's like barely engaging yeah it's a movie that plays it's 4 p.m. your parents are making dinner the sun is going down it's like November yeah and it's like there's no game tonight so we'll watch this exactly it's it and then that's like the 90s vibe

a little bit like we talked last time we ran it and raved about like the mediocrity of the 90s and like the comfortable mediocrity of the 90s and this is just it in spades and like it's just like the most kind of nothing movie TV movie and you know like it's just complete that sort of not that bad but really not good and you know it's got all these kind of character actors from the period and I can't look at Jason Robars without cracking up because I think he was like in a naked gun movie and I think he's like forever stuck that image of him or or airplane he's an airplane or one of those movies. He's in one of those Zucker, Abram Zucker movies, and I can't think of it.

I can't take him seriously now. Forrest Whitaker is a really fine actor, but doesn't have a lot to work with here. And Sam Warrison, I know he's a cult favor of many people, but he does not put on a good performance in this movie. And yeah, his accent is silly. And I think what this movie does do well, I think if you kind of synthesize this movie and Seven Days in May, you'd have a real, I said, Seven Days in May is a good political thriller. I think some of the attention this movie pays to the constitutional things and stuff like that is kind of smart.

They're like, yeah, that would probably need to be done in such a way. I also think like this movie, if you read it backwards or read it from the opposition, the president is going to sign is going to veto a spending bill and he's cooperating with Russian intelligence in order to stop this supposed coup. I mean, like, think about this for view this movie through the guys of Russia hoax, Russia hoax, Russia hoax politics. It's like, you know, you can imagine this going the other way. And if they discovered the president was working with the Russian intelligence, they would, like, if they knew any kind of politics, this would work in the favor of the coup plot. Because then they could say, oh, well, the, the, the president's people were talking to

Russian intelligence. we have a Russian spy in the White House essentially trying to undermine our national security. And from a certain sense, it's kind of true. Like, I thought that was interesting when he goes and talks to the Russian intelligence. And, like, we're supposed to think, oh, of course, they have our interests at heart. But if you put this in like, even in the guise of 2016 to the present liberalism, it would be like, oh, no, like, which is now much more hawkish and national security state friendly because of that. their apparent, you know, liberalism in certain ways of themselves, you know, this could, you could make an opposite movie of this, which is you have Trump as the President

Waterston, like trying to do some kind of, some kind of Russia-friendly move. And then he gets removed. And there's Russian intelligence officers kind of crawling around with White House adjuncts. And the priority of events. kind of gets put in a little different ways. And he's removed from office using the 20, what's the 25th Amendment, right? Yes, 25th Amendment. Yeah. And then that's cheered by all the resistance liberals finally.

And he's removed from office for being insane, which is what they try to do to this guy, which, you know, you could make a very strong case of that for Trump. And everyone would say, oh, that wasn't a coup. That was a great patriotic moment. So in a way, the mechanism by which the coup potters go about in this is probably the way it would actually look like. And I think if that actually happened, which this movie doesn't really show. And neither movie kind of shows. I think this movie doesn't show enough a sense of crisis in the country that would lead to a coup like that.

Like there has to be the present. They always are like, oh, he has a 29% approval rating. That's a crisis. No, no, no. We've gotten close to that. I think it's like 10, 15% approval rating. then you'd start to be like, okay, we're having like civil unrest. Right.

I mean, even in the depths of the 2008 recession when George W. Bush's approval plunged to something like 25, 24 percent, it got low. Oh, we didn't. Right. There was no, there was no sense that, oh, obviously we're going to have a coup. Revolution or something. Yeah, no, no. It would have to be.

But an election was coming up. Right. The election was coming up. It'd have to be like a lower approval rating as a result of like genuine social disruption where there doesn't appear to be any political solution anywhere on the horizon. And the president would actually legitimately, I think, have to appear kind of cracked or incompetent for this. And like a crisis would have to, like, there would have to be like a real case that can be a political case that could be taken to the American people that people would buy, be like, yeah, the president looks crazy. The president looks like he's out of control.

And it wouldn't be, I would say that what these movies, what, what these movies all, like a really. good version of this movie, which should be made today, or good, and it could be like a TV series, would be like, what would a coup look like in America? Well, not everybody would call it a coup. You know, like, it would be a little subtle. And, you know, it would look kind of, you know, rational and have a constitutional part of it. Other people would be like, look, what really, like, we've discussed this like the aftermath of January 6th, right? And there's this whole theory. that, okay, there was a coup attempt, and then afterwards, basically Trump was effectively removed from office by a Troika that included the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff,

the speaker of the house, and the vice president. Now, that's not constitutional. Right. It may have been politically, you know, necessary for the country to get through because Trump had obviously, you know, himself tried to break with the constitutional order. It would be something like that. It would be like the justification of. of dictatorship of having of something like a dictatorship having to to be put in to save the

constitutional order would have to actually be quite convincing and that's what trump and his people have never really come up with like it's too bullshit like the thing that there it's too crazy they they've never if there was like i think what they wanted was like real civil unrest in all the cities and then they could be like oh we need to do something because like we're under extraordinary circumstance but they didn't quite get the conditions of crisis that they needed, they thought, oh, like, we just saw George Floyd protests. The urban centers will all go crazy and, like, you know, and then we'll be able to put them down. They wanted, they foresaw a much more chaotic thing happening that they could

take advantage of. I think it was a stupid plan to the begin with. But you can kind of imagine what a U.S. coup would look like. And I think a lot of us would not call it a coup. Ooh, we would be like, well, that was necessary. Yeah, that's, that's, that's the thing to think about with both of these movies, I guess to broaden out from the plot, the plots of the movie themselves and just sort of thinking about them. In our seven days in May episode for the patron, we talked about sort of how kind of the, you know, we, people envisioned military or envisioned any kind of disruption to the Constitution orders coming from the military as like this kind of more authoritarian institution. in the American state. And the permanent sort of defense establishment is like a relatively recent addition to kind of like the American political order. It doesn't exist before the Second World War.

And there's a military, of course, but it's like very small. It's, you know, not particularly organized. It's like it's not the kind of, you know, massive defense state we have now. And so sort of like, well, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, um, uh, uh, American liberty comes from, but we, we've had our recent kind of attempted to, which didn't come from there and arguably the military, um, was quite resistant to Trump, Trump the entire way. The argument I made in the patron is that, I think people underestimate the extent to which, like, the officer class, especially is like, like, like, very much acculturated. into understanding itself as defenders of the Constitution. And so to your point, John, one thing that a version of this kind of story, which I think it's probably worth doing again, and I think I'm actually quite anti-miniseries.

I think they kind of get shaggy. But I think a miniseries would be good for kind of like actually delving into the politics of all of this. because that's any kind of attempted disruption to the constitutional order would be presented as a preservation of the constitutional order. It would not be

you know, there's, you know, there's Sinclair Lewis as it can't happen here and the, you know, the famous line about how, you know, when that doesn't come to America, it'd be like wrapped in the flag and carrying across,

which may, well, be the case, whatever. But in terms of establishing a government, I don't think, I do not think it's going to look like, it's not going to look cinematic in the way people think it's going to look cinematic. It's going to, and maybe that's, in a funny way, maybe that that's sort of the Trump, the Trump's problem is like, so their conception of it is from movies. And not actually, not actually thinking about how this, how this would work to, how this work in a way to have legitimacy with enough of the public. It would be, it would likely be something engineered by some of the popular elements of the U.S. government, like by members of Congress, by members of

the judiciary. It would be any restrictions on elections or whatever. would be framed as necessary to preserve any constitutional order in a time of crisis. And if a president were removed, I think you're right. Under those sorts of short circumstances. It would come through normal order. Yeah. Some kind of legal or constitutional mechanism. I think there would be a real debate over whether it constituted a coup.

A coup. Well, it was, there was a huge debate over where January 6th was a coup attempt. even and you know these things look farcical when they fail but sometimes they don't fail i'll say you know when we when i write about this for the times there's like we have we still have an active amongst myself my editor and the copy editors discussion fact checkers about whether or not we should refer to it as a coup um not not because not for any sort of like you know well, it's not technically a coup, but in the sense that he's not, Trump is not literally deposing another leader, right?

Right. Yeah, that's like the definition, dictionary definition of it. He's an auto coup. Right, it's an auto coup. It's an unusual thing, which, and I'll say, you know, the actual mechanism that Trump was trying to use was not even. to, it wasn't like to depose Biden or anything. It was to use a thing that actually exists in the Constitution,

sort of like electors can change their votes. It was to use the mechanisms of the electoral college to basically lower the threshold so that the election would get tossed into the House of Representatives where then a majority of delegations would vote on who would be president. And the majority of delegations, because it's not the majority of members,

majority of delegations, 50 delegations, one vote per delegation, a Republican would likely win that kind of vote. Yeah. I think it's still a coup because, you know, the 18th, I mean, the, you know, Louis-Napoleon's coup against, in 1851 against the Second Republic, he was president and then declared and overthrew the Republic after being elected, you know, fair and square, but then decided he just didn't want to deal with the Republic anymore and made himself emperor. So I think it's still a coup-like behavior.

I do think, like, also the friction in the United States system, as we kind of saw, comes from the two, like, and I think this is true in a lot of presidential systems, is the friction between the fact that we have a directly elected president and directly elected Congress who are directly elected at, you know, on different intervals. both of which can claim to have popular legitimacy and democratic legitimacy, who really has it, right? Who embodies the will of the people? I mean, in a parliamentary system, the parliament is sovereign. That's it, you know? That's simple. The executive comes out of the parliamentary body. In our system, it's like, well, the president can claim I'm the, you know, elected, you know, leader of the American people and I have legitimacy.

Congress can say it too. No, we were elected. And there's an implicit tension between those two claims to legitimacy. And if they have different ideological factions that dominate each side, they can start to use their, you know, different claims to, there are different claims to popular legitimacy can take on a very sharp difference. So if like, let's say Congress represents, you know, the president. was elected with, you know, more support from rural areas and Congress was, you know, was elected with more support from urban areas. And, you know, there's a different social groups that are represented in different issues. They both can start to claim, well, we're the real people. And then you get a real, real serious problem. Right. I mean,

we, we had a version of this. So the funny thing about right under Trump is that for at least for the last two years of his term, there's a Democratic House. Right. But Trump's problem is that he never was elected by a majority of the people. So much of the ideological work the administration was trying to do was the present itself as if it did represent the people in some abstract sense. But the fact that he never won. And they were never successful. They were never successful.

Because he never won a numerical majority. This is why, as an aside, this is why I get kind of frustrated by, you know, pedantic types. Like, well, you know, technically the popular vote doesn't matter. You know, technically it doesn't matter. But, like, ideologically, it actually does quite a bit. It has since Americans. Legally, it doesn't matter. Politically, it matters a lot.

Right. And that's been the case since, like, the 1820. It's like it actually matters quite a bit who won the most votes politically. And in terms of establishing legitimacy. But during this, so, so Trump, funny enough, didn't really, this wasn't the problem during his administration as much because. Just no one was persuaded at all that he ever represented the people. Now, the back half of the Obama administration, we did have some of this, right?

Because Obama is reelected, solid, you know, 51, 52% of the vote. Two majority wins on his part. And then in 20, so there's a Republican House after 2012 still, Democratic Senate. After 2014, there's a Republican Senate. So there's a Republican Congress and a Democratic president. And there are real conflicts about who represents actually the public at large. Who represents the people? I wanted to switch gears a little bit from politics and just talk about something that caught my eye in the enemy within.

So in 70s and May, the Forrest Whitaker's equivalent, Kirk Douglas' character, is like a single man. he has sort of a kind of nascent relationship with Ava Gardner, right? Ava Gardner's character and that's part of the plot of the film part of the story of the film is their relationship

and whether she feels manipulated by him. And the enemy within, Forrest Whitaker is married and has a son and it's like a full, it's like a standard nuclear family unit and part of the story of the film is

is he is dealing with his son's sort of, I wouldn't say quite typical young teenage misbehavior, but like the kind of stuff that teenagers do when they're trying to create some sort of like separation and identity between themselves and their parents. He stole some stuff, got in trouble for it. Families in therapy now. And I, you know, I don't have a firm conclusion here, but it does get back to, I think what of my recurring, you know, preoccupations in these movies, which is just the presentation of black domestic life and the presentation of black figures of authority.

And this movie seems very much of a piece with other films with black protagonists or black characters in which in which we're given sort of like a it's like a picture it's it's the middle class black life

as an unremarkable standard thing right it's not it's not it's not it's not even worth remarking on in the context of the film but this is like a middle class black family living in arlington it doesn't matter it's not it's it's non-political in the context of the film.

And I think that's interesting, especially given the actual politics of this particular period, which is, you know, the crime bill, the crime bill signed that summer, in fact. There is still a national preoccupation with crime because crime rates are still quite high. There's a national preoccupation with sort of like black pathology with the state of the black family, the bell curve comes out pretty soon, if it's not already out. So to me, it's just sort of like, it's always like noteworthy when these things pop up. Whether intentional or not, it seems like a, it always seems to me like a comment on, on a, you know, the state of things. I'll also just note on a personal note that my, you know, my dad wasn't.

exactly a force Whitaker type but like i was wondering this is not this is not entirely my mom was in the military too this is the difference my mom was also in the military uh so um uh except the need for discipline right right uh but this this is not in our house like our neighborhood was not nearly as nice uh and whatever but like this isn't super different from Basically, like, my household experience. Well, the first moment I turned this movie on, he's, like, ordering his son around. I was like, whoa, is this going to, like, is this, Jamel's child in it on screen? Coming from a military family.

So I knew this was going to come up. Yeah, that's very interesting. I do think, like, what's, okay, there is something political in some of the things you're saying because it's like the patriarch of this family is stirring. but you know understands he needs to be flexible and that's different from that's sort of modeling the necessary what the military should be in a democracy you know he's a little sensitive modern father not like a crazy military patriarch like he goes to therapy with his family right and he's not like reluctant to be there he only leaves therapy because like because he has to save the country right right which is also like a very male uh fantasy mentality the only reason

I'm not there for my families because I'm doing very important stuff for in the world. But like, but you know, the thing is, is like, yeah, you know, he's stern and patriarchal from certain perspective, but it's also flexible and sensitive. And it's sort of models a kind of, it's like, yeah, the military society, it's there. But it's also like, it doesn't break the constitutional order and it follows the rules and is not authoritarian. It's strict, but not authoritarian. Or it's authoritarian within its bounds. And so there's that.

And in terms of the racial stuff, I think a stock character or a trope that we've discovered since the 1970s in some of the movies we've watched is the black officer class as reliable American patriot and extremely trustworthy. And that is something which I attribute to. a few things. First, just the growth and the availability of more positive roles for for black people in Hollywood. Hollywood liberals wanting to kind of break nasty stereotypes. And also the actual experience of many Americans with black NCOs and black officers for the first time in Vietnam and Korea. And their experience being, you know, well, you know, I rely. I, I, I, these people,

people save my life. And I think that, and, and they were, you know, good men. And I, I, I felt comfortable with them. And they were, I was under their care. And I think that that changed American culture a lot. And I think that was a lot of what civil rights leaders were, we're hoping for integration of the military that it would have this integrating effect. And it, and it has. But, but, but I think that that's also interesting. And there was a genuinely new experience of, you know, like what black authority figures meant and within certain boundaries a lot of the movies especially that have to do with the military present black figures and authority as not being only acceptable but being desirable and I think that that's this movie kind of builds on that trope it's like

you know a black father it's like Kirk Douglas was in the it was like you know a bachelor white guy who you know was a reliable person but now it's presented as like something has changed in the in the in the 30 years or so exactly 30 years between these two movies um which which has more black characters and figures of authority into that I think that underlies both the artistic choices of Hollywood actually real social changes yeah yeah I think I think that's right I mean there there's it's it's so you can almost think it's sort of like um it is a it is a the black military authority figure. We're just like the black institutional authority figure,

whether they are an army officer, whether they are an executive, whether it is in the 2000s, right, the president in 24, or even in a couple movies, I believe in deep impact, the president's played by Morgan Freeman. So you're beginning to see the president

as African-American. Oh, God, we're going to watch it. The great movie. Crimson Tide. Yes, in Crimson Tide. Yeah. The black authority figure is like this, it feels very much like a post-civil rights synthesis.

It's sort of like, it represents integration, integration into American institutions, but also these are not, these figures are not resentful of the United States. They are, in fact, it's, like, greatest embodiment of its values. Like, they are the defenders of the values of the country. And it feels very much like a direct outgrowth, like cultural outgrowth of the post-60s, post-70s integration of at least, like, middle-class black Americans into the American mainstream. Like, you'll notice that, like, Colin Powell. Colin Powell, yeah. You'll notice that, like, in none of these.

none of these characters right like harbor any resentment harbor any any kind of like uncertainty right it's not like there's no there's no scenes of them with black colleagues being like like you know fucking white people which you would see today like this kind of character today is presented with a much more kind of like ambivalent view towards the nation yeah and that's not the case in the 90s no but you know there's more of a racial subtext in crimson tide which is very interesting but it's it the racial resentment comes from or the racial dating comes from the white character you know right it's not like yeah um which actually just not to interrupt people listeners continuously ask when we're doing crimson tide we will do crimson tide um we just got to we

there's a guess we have in mind and we just got to like get that saddle way yeah squared away. It's a great movie. It's perfect for us. Yes. It's a great. It's a great movie. Denzel at the high of his powers, Tony Scott, doing his Tony Scott thing. It's great. We're going to do it. It's just we got to get the logistics sorted it out. This movie doesn't have any racial commentary except in that subtle ways that we've discussed. It doesn't ever, you know, like the characters never try to kind of race bait Forrest Whitaker's character. They're mostly trying to appeal to him. Both sides are trying to appeal to him. But no one, you know, you wouldn't,

imagine either in reality or with another writer like someone might kind of bait him a little bit but but that that that doesn't happen in the movie and you know that's fine but but yeah so there are some interesting things here it's and it you know Colin Powell obviously at this time was highly trusted and respected figure in American life I mean maybe maybe the most trusted yes maybe yeah he was he was Mr. America in certain ways and was just like you know thought to be the ideal general and the ideal patriot and the ideal statesman, unfortunately. His story is a little tragic. We've talked about it before.

But obviously, it's very complicated and his past, and Vietnam is complicated. But I don't want to idealize him too much. But he was idealized in the public eye and by the media. And, you know, that is important context when you're looking at the representation of black military figures on screen or in, you know, know, the Jack Ryan movies, black intelligence community figures, that's an important context. And that was also like what Reaganite integration looked like. It was like, well, meritocratic fitting in with the racial, I mean, fitting in with the conservative values of the United States.

So, you know, I want to say Colin Powell is obviously an acceptable figure. And while this happened more under Bush, Clarence Thomas, but Clarence Thomas became very complicated, obviously. But like, yeah, these figures that were of certain, embodied certain conservative values that were acceptable to Republicans, but just happened to be black. It was like, oh, we're colorblind. We like this guy's politics. And we like his upstanding this, but he's black guys. Oh, who cares? And I'll say, I mean, not Colompa, but Clarence Thomas did come to National Prominence under the Reagan administration.

Like he was head to the equal employment opportunity. commissioning to Reagan. So, yeah, I mean, this, this is, this is, it's, it's, we, the 80s are a conservative decade, and I don't think we necessarily think of them in terms of sort of like, you know, inclusion, but there is, there's, there's the, this sort of, yeah, this Reaganite integration, this rate, this sort of drive towards inclusion for, you know, meritocratic, kind of traditionally presenting African Americans is a real thing. I just thought of, you know, Virginia elected its first and so far only black governor

at the end of the decade. And then in 1990, 89, 90, Douglas Wilder was elected governor of Virginia, and he was the black mayor of Richmond. And was considered to be like a plausible presidential candidate in the wake of his election as governor of Virginia. the black moderate the black moderate well clarence tom is not a moderate but you know what i mean yeah uh the one thing i i wanted this is a little off subject but it is relevant it's not off subject it's just like not the time period but i was just i was discussing with a friend

recently about how one of the interesting things about the um the attempted the attempt to construct a post-Trump Republican Party or a post-Trump right that's inclusive of what happened during the Trump years, is that it really feels like the vanguard of that effort is like all in on like the Nazi stuff. Yeah. And not so much all in or even contemptuous of the things that I actually think gave Trump juice with a broader swath of the public. which is just sort of like this being this figure of like patriarchal producer masculinity, sort of like, you know. Yeah. Which we don't think of him that way because he's a diva very much so.

But like his pre-political image is of this sort of like er provider. He's a big successful guy. Right. Supposedly. Supposedly. But his image is a big successful guy. And I've always thought that this image explains a lot of at least sort of like working. class male attachment to the guy.

Yeah, for sure. And his attitude. Right. Trump's sort of how he has fuck you money and he can provide for his family. And I think that's sort of a thing. His multiple families. Right. Multiple families.

This is the thing a lot of American men want. And what's interesting to me is that that element of it is like the one thing that seems of a piece, like continuity with the Bush era, which envisioned this conservative of coalition grounded, at least in part, on a kind of, you know, conservative producerist message to conservative leading racial minorities, black, Hispanic, Asian Americans. This is the ownership society, right? Like you own a home, you own a business. Do you remember that Trump ad, the Latino Trump ad that was like probably won him Florida?

Yeah, I mean. You know, with a song and it just shows these family scenes and it was like, yeah, it was like the smartest ad, political ad, maybe ever, I've ever seen. And it was just like, Trump is not a big, scary threatening guy menacing people. He believes in your family and your communities. He likes you're a guy. He's a guy too. He wants to provide for his family. Like, he represents very traditional values. And he's not involved in some kind of resentment campaign against political elites. He's just a guy. And that's like part of his appeal and part of his populist appeal is that he's just kind of like he's he's he's a rich dude obviously but he's also kind of folksy and down

to earth and yeah as you say he produces he he helps he's he provides for his family although you know he's been divorced you know like and a lot of people in america have been divorced and have multiple families he has a relatable story he's a businessman that's what most american people want they're like i want to start a business i want to be able to pay my fucking ex-wife or alimony and like take care of her kids but i also want to have like a hot young wife i want to be rich i want my kid you know like i want my kids to obey me like and and you know take over my family business like he represents an american dream for a lot of people and that's like a lot of people miss that there is the dark i mean i'm not the lot of the the

last person to deny it you know what i've been saying both of us we're both there is a darker darker, and they're tightly integrated in weird ways, but there's a darker story there where he does attract, you know, something more fascist, I would say. But the Nazis are the only ones with the political energy. The people, the attitude we have describing is in Kuwait. It doesn't have a clear political expression in the same way as people who actually want to create a fascist dictatorship in America do. And that stuff is, I think it scares people.

Like, look at what happened when DeSantis' campaign has really leaned into all that stuff. And they're turning everybody off because it's like, that's weird. And, like, Trump is not, Trump is obviously a very weird guy, but he's also just like a bully and he has this amazing sense for like making fun of weirdos. Like if anything comes across the screen that's like, I see that this is like a weird dork I can pick on. He does it. And that appeals to people. Like, his norminess and weird and his, his basicness also appeals to people. Like, he, he says funny things that are just like the cracks of kind of a dickish guy.

But, like, he's not like this completely bizarre alien from outer space. I mean, he is in certain ways. But in a lot of the ways he presents himself, he's a regular dude. He's a legible figure in American cultural life. Yeah, exactly. He's like a fucking goo. You know, he's just a slightly goonish boss that everyone's had who's like, that guy's kind of gross, but he does kind of make me crack up. And like, and then there's a debate.

Is he like a good guy or is he a creep? Whereas, um, you're Ron DeSantis's are just like. Clearly just a creep, man. Like a school shooter. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. And that's a problem with these fucking Nazis is that, well, thank God, is that a lot of them have very off-putting vibes, you know? Yeah.

Yeah, okay. So I think, I think it's a little off topic from the movie, but it flows. It flows from a lot of competition. It's going to dictatorship, fascism, you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think we should move on to wrapping up. All right. Again, maybe it's, I actually watch this back to back with seven days in the main that might

explain my kind of just negative reaction. I was like, oh, this is like very much not as good. It's not as good a movie. That's true. But it's perfect. it's perfectly it's perfectly fine it's 90 minutes if you need something to throw on see some character actors you like see you know I feel the movie's very 90s but like you can imagine this exact movie being made today and it would be even like flashier and dumber in a lot

of ways yeah so I appreciate that it's like it's only kind of a typical level of like 1990 is like dumb versus um versus versus what we might get in like an amazon the amazon jack ryan show right sort of which is i don't have you seen any of it i watched the first two seasons i don't watch that crap because of course i watched the first two seasons yeah it's like it's incredibly stupid the second season it's sort of like what if uh what if they're the the U.S. did a coup in Venezuela. It's dumb. It's not good.

Yeah. I just can't believe that fucking actor is Jack Ryan. Oh, John Krasinski? Yeah, dude. The fucking office guy? Come on. Give me a break. We've talked about this on an older, much older episode.

But the whole point, Jack Ryan is a middle class man, male fantasy. Don't put someone younger than like 50 as Jack. Ryan. Right. It's got to be Harrison Ford, who's now too old. There's no Harrison Ford's anymore, Jamel. No, they're trying to think of anyone who can play that role. And that would be, you know what? Jason Clark. Okay. Although, the problem with Jason Clark, we're going to wrap up when I say this. In a few years, Ryan Gosling. Yeah, yeah, in a few years, Ryan Gosling. But the problem with Jason Clark, who is an actor I love, I thought he was great in Oppenheimer.

He's terrific and Chappaquittic. Oh, yeah. He's not doing a tech entity impression. He really just seems like Ted Kennedy. He's in one of the new Apes movies, I think War for the Point of the Apes, or Donovan. He's very good in it. But Jason Clark, his characters are often cut on screen. Yeah.

And I don't think, and he kind of gives off it. energy a bit, and I'm not sure you could have him with Jack Ryan. Jack Ryan doesn't, other men aren't sleeping with Jack Ryan's wife. No. They have a perfect, perfect marriage, thank you very much. But if there's anyone who has sort of like could do a Jack Ryan character, I think it's Jason Clark, and you're right, gossiping when he gets a bit older. Although he's like 40 something right now.

He's not that young. He's getting there. Yeah. Okay. That was our show on the enemy, but then please check it out if you are so interested in the meantime uh if you're not a subscriber to unclear and present danger please subscribe we're available on itunes spotify citro radio and google podcast and wherever else podcast are found if you subscribe please leave a please leave a rating

and a review helps people find the show and you can reach out to us over email at unclear and present feedback at fastmail.com where we take your feedback about the episode Every episode we do read a piece of feedback. And so this week, we have an email from Michael titled Dolph Lundgren's Place in the Pantheon. This is a response to our previous episode on the 1995 film Hidden Assassin, which stars Dolph. Jamel and John, I've enjoyed your podcast since episode one, so well done. Thank you. I have a master's international relations, but somehow it's your recent discussion of Dolph Lundgren that prompted me to write.

I recently finished Nick de Semlans, Nick DeSemlans, the last action heroes about the crop of action movie stars who emerged in the 70s and dominated the 80s. As Jamel has noted, Schwarzenegro's trajectory is one of the wildest ever, but Lungrins also reads as an improbable sort of picaresque story. Raised in Sweden, he earned a master's degree in chemical engineering in Australia. It was also at the study on a full bright at MIT when Grace Jones hired him to work security for her. which changed the course of his professional and personal lives. I haven't watched Hidden Assassum, but I wonder if Lungwin's natural intelligence led him to experiment the sensitivity that you noted in his character. Or maybe he just didn't want to do Evondrago on repeat.

Yeah. D'Semlyan's book is a good, quick read that I think will appeal to Jamel in particular as a fan of the genre. It's chock full of funny stories about the stupidly toxic rivalries. A lot of these guys develop with one another. I look forward to future episodes. Cheers. Thank you, Mike. I think it's very funny to imagine someone looking like Dolph Lundgren, like in your chemistry class. But actually, I got this email and then I read the book, and the book is terrific. It's a lot of fun. And it, the best way I could say it is that the guy who seems like he'd be most like an insane person, Jackie Chan, is probably the most normal. And the rest of them are total freaks. Some of them with, like, interesting lives, like Stallone had a very hard childhood and a very

rough childhood. But that made him both sort of like a guy with a lot of drive, but also a very weird dude as well. John Claude Van Dam is a bizarre and strange man, who I find delightful. Yeah, it's a good book. It's a lot of fun. Schwarzenegger is both sort of like, Like, somehow simultaneously an incredibly driven, shrewd guy also, also, you know, kind of a giant child who took real pleasure in trying to ruin Stallone's career as much as it could. That's really funny. Actually, the funny story in the book to me, is so the

maybe the biggest bomb of Stallone's career is a movie called Stop Where My Mom Will Shoot In which it's like Stallone plays a cop And he has to I guess like take care of his mom I've never watched it There are there are things I will not watch

I've not watched this And his mom Is sort of involved in this And end up being caught up in this like criminal thing Whatever it's very bad It's supposed to be like Stallone Being humorous doesn't really work at all Estelle Getty plays his mom

She apparently it's good in the role but the movie just doesn't work. Now, according to this book, Schwarzenegger had gotten this script. It was like, this is a stinker. But then he told his agent to put it out that he was interested in the role. He was excited about the role.

He might take it. And Stallone, who is like very jealous of Schwarzenegger and wants to kind of one-up the guy. It's like, oh, Stelone, Schwarzenegger wants this. I'm going to take this role instead. And Stallone takes it, and it, like, kind of tanks him for a couple years.

And when Schwarzenegger heard about all of this, he apparently had like a, like, was smoking a cigar and had like a big, big, hearty chuckle. A piece of shit. That's really funny. The other thing you might enjoy about this book, John, is how much the conclusion of the author is that Steven Segal is the worst person in the life. Yeah, he's such a piece of shit, man. Anyway, that's a terrible actor. Although I didn't realize how much money his early movies was pulling. like for a couple years he was yeah he was a massive star he was a huge yeah i don't know why

what people were thinking it was a bad time in the country but yeah yeah uh okay so thank you thank you so much um michael for that email thank you for the book recommendation i really i really enjoyed reading it um and i'm going to recommend to have the people it's a fun book check it out uh we have an episode every two weeks and so In two weeks, roughly from now, we will have an episode. I'm looking forward to this. Returning to Oliver Stone with his film Nixon, starring Anthony Hopkins. And what I think is the best on-screen performance of Richard Nixon, other people disagree.

But it's my personal favorite. Nixon is just a straightforward kind of like Nixon biopic, except it really gets into Nixon's sort of like a paranoia and insecurity. And with all the Oliver Stone flourishes that you like. So that's our next film. We'll have a guest. Our guest will be the historian Nicole Hemmer over at Vanderbilt. Oh, cool. Love Nicole. Nicole's great.

Just great writer, great historian. Looking forward to having her on. And you can find Nixon to stream or rent on iTunes and Amazon. So check that out. It's a bit long. Again, Oliver Stone picture, it's about three hours, I think. But I think it's really worth it. I remember I watched, I think I watched J.F.K. Nixon back to back over the course of like two days once, which was a weird fever dream of a 48 hours.

I can imagine. It was a good experience. So next movie is Nixon. Over on the Patreon, we have seven days in May. Check that out. Patreon is $5 a month, two episodes in months. Sometimes the episodes are plugged in to main feed episodes. Sometimes it's on a separate track. But we're always covered. interesting movies over on the Patreon and we would appreciate their support, especially since I noted this on our Patreon episode, this is like the two-year anniversary of the show. We're doing this for two years. So if you like the show, if you want to see it go, you know,

through, we're at the midway point in the 90s at this point. We're going to start getting into a lot of the movies that people want us to cover. The Siege, Arlington Road, stuff like that. Independence Day. Air Force One. If you want to support the show,

want to see us keep going, sign up for the Patreon. $5 a month, not too bad. Two episodes, more content, more discussion, that kind of thing. Until that, until that next Patreon episode, to the next episode of this show for John Gans. I'm Timmel Bui, and this is unclear and in present danger. We'll see you next time. You know,

...andah, ... ... ...