Recent episode scripts!

Hi, everyone! All $1+ patrons receive access to scripts to Renegade Cut episodes. Here are some of the latest. You may notice that they are slightly different than in the finished episodes. This is because I change my mind or cut a few things for a variety of reasons. Basically, you get to see everything I wasn't able to show everyone on YouTube.

FIFTY SHADES OF GREY

 AUDIO 1
 Fifty Shades of Grey is a 2013 film directed by Sam Taylor-Johnson. Christian Grey, a 27 year old handsome billionaire helicopter pilot, pianist and BDSM enthusiast seduces Anastasia Steele, a shy, naive virgin with the name of parody romance novel protagonist. Christian stalks and violates the personal space of Anastasia, which she finds seductive, and she falls in love with the domineering, insensitive playboy who says he always gets what he wants. In the end, Anastasia decides that this lifestyle is actually not for her and leaves him admist a sweeping montage that romanticizes their troubling relationship. ... This movie sucks.
 From a purely structural standpoint, the biggest problems with Fifty Shades of Grey are its embarrassing, inauthetic dialogue, its mediocre cinematography and its flavorless relationship between the two leads that lacks even the slighest bit of chemistry. The essence of drama is conflict, but in Fifty Shades of Grey, there are almost no consequences to what is happening. The conflict – such as it is – circles around whether or not Anastasia Steele will sign a sex contract that is absolutely not legally enforceable for obvious reasons. The broader conflict is whether or not Anastasia can continue to love Christian despite the fact that they want completely different things from a relationship and are clearly wrong for each other in every conceivable way. So, the problem with this conflict is that anyone in the audience with any sense would realize that, no, they should not be together.   
 AUDIO 2
 Remaining together would mean one of them would have to give up their entire sexual identity, and though there is something noble in sacrifice, neither would be even remotely happy in said relationship, meaning there would be no point. What's worse, it is a challenge for anyone in the audience to become invested in the protagonist, Anastasia, considering we know almost nothing about her. Rather than spend time on her backstory or carefully reveal her character before meeting Christian, the movie begins as she makes her way to interview him.   
 It almost feels as if the film were starting -- In medias res – as some screenplays are designed, and that we would receive flashbacks over the course of the narrative to better understand our protagonist, but no, we're just...in it. And we're supposed to care. Anastasia Steele is the worst blank slate character in modern history, which is not too surprising for what is essentially self-insert fan fiction. … Now, admittedly, these are just typical “bad movie” benchmarks, a checklist of passionless filmmaking.   I don't want to harp on that all day because it's the mostly HARMLESS kind of bad. There is something far worse about Fifty Shades of Grey. The biggest eye-roll of the film is its frequent and unceasing ignorance about BDSM that is somehow both laughable and also dangerous.
 [What are butt plugs?]
 
 
 AUDIO 3
 Fifty Shades of Grey is woefully misinformed about BDSM – the subject of the film – to the extent that it actually misinforms the audience as well. BDSM actually stands for multiple things within its characters. “BD” stands for Bondage and Discipline – but the D is then used for something else – “DS” – Dominant and Submissive – and the “S” combines with “M” to be – Sadism and Masochism. The terms are lumped together that way because BDSM can be different things to different people with different preferences. Even its terms are more complicated than one might think, but author E.L. James, screenwriter Kelly Marcel and director Sam Taylor-Johnson seem completely in the dark as it relates to the actual ins-and-outs of BDSM.
 Firstly, the story portrays Christian Grey, a dominant, as someone who can only be aroused by his unorthodox sexual practices because he was abused as a child. His mother was a crack addict and a prostitute, and Christian had sex with a grown woman when he was underage. He was the victim of statutory rape. This relationship persisted, and Christian is still in contact with her, never thinking of her behavior as wrong. In the real world, an interest in BDSM in someone typically does NOT have its origins in abuse, and the suggestion falsely casts BDSM itself as abusive. If one watched Fifty Shades of Grey, one might assume it is.
 AUDIO 4
 A dominant is taking on a role in the sexual act or even the sexual relationship, just as the submissive is. Christian, on the other hand, walks around acting dominant all the time – in every aspect of his life, sexual or otherwise, and that’s completely unrealistic. First of all, dominant and submissive sexual partners generally know that in spite of the roleplay scenario, it is actually the submissive who has noticeably more power. The submissive controls when everything must slow down or stop. The submissive has more control over the situation than the dominant, partly for reasons of personal safety. Fifty Shades of Grey spends a great deal of time talking about consent, which is probably good in and of itself, but Anastasia never signs the consent form, and Christian never adheres to his own rules anyway.   
 Fifty Shades of Grey portrays the dominant role in the BDSM relationship as having all the power, even to the point of abuse and manipulation. Christian stalks Anastasia at work. Their “chance encounter” at her local hardware store is preposterous. There is no way billionaire Christian Grey does his own shopping  – at a small store no less. Christian confesses to this need to see her regardless of her wishes. He says that he will not leave her alone. Her shows up in her own home, which I am fairly certain is trespassing. Christian also somehow tracks her down at a local bar. When she wants to leave, he says that her mouth may be saying no, but her body is saying yes. Those are the words of a sex offender. All of the actions should probably land him in jail in any other movie or, you know, real life.
 [incapable of leaving her alone]
 
 
 AUDIO 5
 Christian’s stalking should not be romanticized, nor should his controlling behavior be conflated with his BDSM role as a dominant. Again, a dominant is playing a role that is generally under the auspices of the submissive. Christian's paraphilia – a condition in which one's sexual desires controls all other aspects of one's life – should not be portrayed as exciting. Most psychological studies say that people in BDSM relationships are very healthy, and that the relationship is one of great communication. This is probably because a dominant-submissive relationship absolutely requires the two people to communicate with one another very explicitly about their needs. They are play partners. Fifty Shades of Grey somehow both demonizes dominants AND showcases a titillating, how-to guide that is ignorant and dangerous.
 Now, simply because one man who is into BDSM is portrayed as someone who is still suffering from his childhood abuse and stalks women does not necessarily mean that the story is saying everyone who is into BDSM was abused and stalks women, BUT when he is the ONLY dominant in the film, he becomes THE representative of the culture. His portrayal is the only significant window into BDSM in this film, and as such, it is deeply troubling. It casts dominants and indeed anyone who practices some form of BDSM as abused and damaged, as if that were the clear genesis of the kink.   
 AUDIO 6
 Now, besides some of the obvious reasons the relationship between Christian and Anastasia is unhealthy and not reflective of actual play partners, let's examine how uneducated Fifty Shades of Grey is as it relates to safety. Christian buys cable ties, harsh rope and duct tape at the hardware store in a scene that I am guessing was meant to be erotic foreshadowing. Dominants generally do not use cable ties and other harsh bindings in their play sessions. They are widely understood in the BDSM community as unsafe. Specifically made BDSM tape is formulated to be both effective AND not rip skin or hair off when removed. Basically, silk and nylon bondage rope will not leave your skin irritated and rug-burned.   
 I can't show everything due to the nudity, but there is a scene in which Christian whips parts of Anastasia's chest that are dangerously close to the kidneys. That is generally thought of as out of bounds, as it could result in bruising vital organs. Sometimes, Anastasia agrees to sex that she’s uncomfortable with because she’s too shy to speak up, or because she’s afraid of losing Christian. BDSM requires communication and emotional maturity. The majority of dominant-submissive relationships begin on the Internet or after meeting at a fetish event. Two people go into the arrangement knowing enough to reasonably consent, whereas Christian finds a naïve virgin who doesn't know what a riding crop is and drafts a draconian sex contract. In BDSM relationships, there is a lot more connection, talking and ritual. The act is considered a “scene” and some BDSM “scenes” do not even involve sex.    
 AUDIO 7
 Now, you might be thinking, so what? A book and a film adaptation misrepresent BDSM, big deal, why does this matter? Well, as much as we would choose to believe art never influences us, that's just not reality. Ignorance has a way of spreading. Fifty Shades of Grey in both its forms are wildly popular. The book was read by tens of millions of people, and the movie is astonishingly popular despite its catastrophically poor quality. The misinformation contained, if used as a how-to guide, is dangerous. We can argue whether or not gun violence in film is responsible, but at least action scenes show the consequences of violence.   
 Fifty Shades of Grey is a completely different animal because the phony BDSM displayed in the story is false, and if used as displayed, it's dangerous. It does not show the consequences of Christian Grey doing it wrong. It shows Anastasia enjoying his mistake. The writer and director just don't know that it IS a mistake. Art does not have to be accurate, but in this case, it should at least be responsible. The author of the novel and the director of the film may have no first-hand experience in BDSM, true, but neither do I, and it only took some research and some common sense to learn the basics. Grant the subject you wish to write about at least the dignity of learning what it is.
 [clip of 1:09:23]
 AUDIO 8
 Fifty Shades of Grey has been a boon to the sex toy industry, and that's fine – I'm not here to kink-shame anyone – but when the instruction manual is wrong, injuries can occur – and they have. Emergency room visits related to sex toys spiked after the release of the novel. Admittedly, that cannot entirely be blamed on Fifty Shades because such injuries have been slowly on the rise since the Internet made sex toys more available, but the jump between the year before it was released, the year of its release, and the year after are noticeably larger than normal.   
 In the BDSM community, Fifty Shades of Grey is apprently pretty cringy – usually due to the abusive, unhealthy relationship. Hopefully, the sequel that was just released will fade into obscurity, and we won't have to deal with....ughhh...damn it. 

THERE WILL BE BLOOD

 AUDIO 1
 There Will Be Blood is a 2007 film directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. Daniel Plainview is an oil man, as he will be sure to tell his investors. Daniel Plainview is a family man, his son used as a prop and as evidence to this fact and to his down-to-earth goodness. Daniel Plainview is successful, a quality that often follows the ruthless. Around the beginning of the 20th century, Plainview adopts a baby, H.W., from a man who died in an accident. More like “snatched” really, and only to use him to convince others of his trustworthiness. He establishes an oil company over the next few years, and after a tip from a young man named Paul Sunday, he travels to California to establish a larger operation.
 Plainview comes into conflict with Eli, the twin brother of Paul and local preacher. He meets a man, Henry, claiming to be his half-brother, and when Plainview exposes this lie, he murders him. Plainview is blackmailed into being baptized by Eli in an embarrassing public display. Years later, now terribly wealthy, H.W. – who is now deaf – leaves his father's employ to start his own business. Plainview reveals H.W.'s origins. Eli comes to Plainview to beg for financial assistance. He murders Eli instead.
 [milkshake]
 AUDIO 2
 There Will Be Blood confronts the loss of conventional, theistic morality that dominated the western world before the Age of Enlightenment. The post-Enlightenment dissolution of strict moral absolutism ordained by a creator resulted in new paths laid down as replacements. Immanuel Kant famously secularized the Christian Golden Rule as the Categorical Imperative – insisting that human beings should only act as if there actions could be universal law. Arthur Schopenhauer argued that only compassion can drive moral acts. Friedrich Nietzsche believed that with the secularization of society, human beings needed to craft their own morality and their own values, but that not everyone would be able to do so.
 Daniel Plainview does not give his philosophy a name. We can only ascertain his worldview from his brief speech about hating most people and through his actions. There are some noticeable and almost certainly unintentional parallels between Plainview and Nietzsche. The German philosopher's father was a Lutheran pastor, and perhaps because of this, he thought to study the motives of preachers, what brings these men to their conclusions about morality, what makes them...believe. Nietzsche, though a philosopher himself, believed that both philosophy and religion were expressions of self-interest.
 AUDIO 3
 Plainview admits his own self-interest. He never categorizes it as a failing. He never questions it. When he was young, he saw a house, and he wanted it. When he was older, he found oil, and he wanted it. When he saw a baby, he wanted him for his own purposes. Plainview believes self-interest is the only motivator, and because of this, he assumes Eli Sunday, the leader of the congregation of The Church of the Third Revelation, is also motivated by the same. Plainview does not even consider the possibility that Eli may be sincere. Eli might even believe himself sincere and selfless, but by the philosophy of Nietzsche, there may be no such thing and that Eli is only fooling himself.
 When Plainview brings prosperity to the people of Little Boston, Eli understands that his power has been usurped in two ways. First, Plainview is now the leader of the community and the most important figure in it. Second, prosperous people require less from God. People with full stomachs are not desperate, and Eli needs them to be desperate enough to believe that only he can drive out the demons – desperate enough to believe that he can see ghosts and cure afflictions by laying hands on his flock. Plainview does not hate religion – he merely sees it as both phony AND a means in which to control people. He uses religion when he begins drilling, giving his own blessing in front of the townspeople, finishing it with “Amen” – a prayer in which he is God.
 AUDIO 4    
 At the end of the film, Plainview, holding firm in his suspicions about Eli Sunday all these years later, forces the preacher to admit that he is a false prophet and that God is a superstition. Eli does so, initially claiming that he is only saying that to humor Plainview, but in his shouts, we may be hearing the truth of his convictions. To Plainview, Eli uses religion to rationalize his selfish motives. When Plainview begins his drilling operation in Little Boston, home of the Sundays and many others, he brings water wells, education, roads – a proper society – but controlled entirely by one wealthy man. He strips power from the Church by denying Eli the right to bless the operation. Nietzche asserted that a “good and healthy aristocracy” – lead by a select few – will raise us up.   
 Plainview is bringing prosperity to the people, but this is merely the byproduct to his own success. This is consistent with Nietzsche's view of the Ubermesnch, the ideal superior human being of the future who could rise above conventional morality to both create and impose his own values. Plainview does not require or even want the approval of others – and certainly not the approval of a God he does not believe in. Plainview treats his one business associate reasonably well, as he is more or less on his level and not a competitor. He treats others – those who he believes less than himself – as nothing or as fools. Nietzsche's “master morality” states that we only have duties towards our peers and that we may treat those we think as less than us as we please.    
  [hate most people]  
  AUDIO 5  
 Both the oilman and the preacher desire power – they simply have different means in which to attain it. Daniel Plainview is more monstrous than his counterpart. He is dishonest to others but honest with himself. Eli Sunday is less monstrous, but he is dishonest to others AND himself. In Nietzschean terms, Plainview is a worthy leader. He came up from underground, injured, dirty and bloody, and remade his own world in his image – however despicable that image is. To Nietzsche and to Plainview, Eli Sunday is not a worthy leader. Plainview is forced to beg for “the blood” of Christ – insincere as he may be – but it is Eli who is “bloodless” in the harsher sense. He is soft and unfit. Plainview yells "I want the blood!" but we, the audience, are not sure if he's demanding the blood of Christ to wash away his sins or Eli's blood as revenge for this humiliation.  In the end, we only see Eli's blood in his death.  
 Eli and the Sunday family appear to represent the Christian faith or at least the institution in a more general sense – their surname a double for the Christian Sabbath. There is no character in the novel from which this was loosely adapted. Eli is the physical embodiment of Nietzsche’s view of religion. Nietzsche saw religion as something used by the weak and powerless. In a sermon, Eli rejects the Christian concept of universal salvation – also called universal reconciliation –  is the doctrine that states all sinful human souls – due to because of the divine love and mercy —will ultimately be reconciled to God. Unsurprisingly, the Bible has conflicting messages on this.    
  AUDIO 6  
 Proponents of universal salvation cite the First Epistle to the Corinthians. “As all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ” [1 Corinthians 15:22] whereas opponents cite the Gospel of Luke "Someone asked him, 'Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?' He said to them, 'Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.' Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.' But he will answer, 'I don’t know you or where you come from.'" [Luke 13:23-25]    
 Opponents of universal salvation like Eli believe in what is generally called special salvation – something as narrow as aristocracy. The point is that if that if a theistic basis for morality will not protect everyone, a secular morality can seem more appealing. Plainview, a powerful but vile Nietzschean Ubermensch, stands in contrast to this. Nietzsche once said “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”  
  AUDIO 7  
 The meaning is often misunderstood. The quote points to the western world’s reliance on religion as a moral compass and source of meaning. Nietzsche, seeing the coming of secularism in the Age of Enlightenment, tried to convey that God is no longer a credible source of absolute moral principles. This was not something the philosopher necessarily welcomed. He had concerns about what this would mean for humanity, which is why he placed importance of human beings replacing the morals of God – in a sense, becoming our own gods.  
 This, of course, can and certainly has been twisted historically to a frightening degree. Plainview, immediately before murdering his Christian foe – the representative of God – declares himself a kind of god, mocking Eli, and exclaiming “I am the third revelation!” – shunning the Church that forcibly baptized him and thereby positioning himself – and his own values – in its place. Nietzsche believed   conventional morality was not only false but objectionable and that it weakened the innate strength and power in human beings afforded to them by Nature. Plainview is a Nietzschean protagonist, even unintentionally resembling the German philosopher behind his bushy mustache.    
  AUDIO 8  
  Although Nietzschean philosophy is German in origin, There Will Be Blood is distinctly American, and not only because of its setting. Plainview's feeling of “competition” is an indictment of greed at all costs. Self-interest in American philosophy is typified by Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. In the film, we see a closer approximation to the American Dream – ruthless self-interest. Greed is an inherent national quality, one that persists to this day.    
  In the aforementioned scene about hating most people, Plainview not only rejects conventional morals but sees them as signs of weakness. He says that he looks at a human being and sees nothing to like. His desire for wealth is not only a need for power but also for the isolation that it would allow him. A philosophy of self-interest, by definition, would leave someone without anyone to trust ... any true, meaningful companionship. The peace from other people brings him no solace. He is miserable among people because he refuses to see their worth, and in alienating them, and he is also miserable alone. 

THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE

 AUDIO 1
 The Man Who Wasn't There is a 2001 Coen Brothers film. In 1949, Ed Crane, a dissatisfied barber, suspects his wife, Doris, of having an affair with her employer, Dave. Ed comes across a man looking for an investor in a dry cleaning business. He blackmails Dave into giving him $10,000 for the investment. When Dave realizes who was behind it, he tries to strangle Ed, but is killed in self-defense. The police arrest the wrong suspect, Doris. She hangs herself in jail. Later, Ed is mistakenly arrested for the murder of the man who wanted to start the dry cleaning business. Dave actually killed him, mistaking him for the blackmailer.   
 Yes, there are a lot of twists and turns and mistaken identities, but stay with me. Ed pleads guilty in hopes of the judge showing him mercy due to the bizarre circumstances. He does not and sentences Ed to death by electric chair. Ed contemplates how he got here, sees the full picture of his life, and is executed. Although not present in their entire filmography, since the turn of the 21st century, the Coen brothers films have become noticeably existential, and The Man Who Wasn't There is one of its clearest examples.
  [clip of This human being, this barber]
 AUDIO 2
 There is a lot of confusion about existentialism in philosophical corners and debate because of how broad the term is. One could say that existentialism is any philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual as a responsible agent acting under some level of free will and the importance of living sincerely or authentically, but that covers a wide variety of views on metaphysics and ethics, not to mention the disparate opinions on everyone from Soren Kierkegaard to Jean-Paul Sartre, spanning a very long time. So, let's focus in on some commonalities among existentialism and how they relate to this film.  
 Part of the bedrock of both existentialist thought and The Man Who Wasn't There is the notion that existence precedes essence –  this handy phrase simply means that the most important consideration for individuals is simply that they are individuals. That means the act independently and are responsible, conscious beings – this refers to the former term in the phrase – "existence" — and not what labels, roles and other definitions and categories the individuals fit – this refers to the latter term in the phrase – "essence". Sartre, perhaps, explained it best. “What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be.”  
  
  AUDIO 3  
 That does not discount these other definitions, but if existentialists accept that existence precedes essence, then it creates a kind of hierarchy of importance. In The Man Who Wasn't There, this is made clear right away. In the first lines of the film, Ed narrates who he is by saying “Yeah, I worked in a barber shop, but I never considered myself a barber.” Ed acknowledges his individuality – his existence – and rejects his most common, external definition – his essence. Ed is called the “Modern Man” in the film, and existentialism is a modern way of thinking. In the Abrahamic faiths, for example, humanity was created by God deliberately and with specific ideas or purposes in mind. A plan. So, in this context,  the “essence”  – meaning nature and characteristics -- of humanity existed in the mind of God before any actual humans existed in the world. In this way of thinking, it is the opposite – essence precedes existence.  
  Throughout the course of the film, people ask for Ed by name. Detectives, and others. He responds to that, though he prefers not say much at all. And halfway through the film, upon realizing how the world sees him, what his life is, how invisible he has allowed himself to become, he finally relents, narrating again to the audience and in defeat, calling himself: THE BARBER. When Ed's lawyer, Freddy Ridenschneider, makes his big speech to the jury, he does not refer to Ed by name. He calls him THE BARBER. He removes his individuality – reversing the hierarchy of importance – and tells the jury that they cannot convict this barber because he is exactly the same as themselves. It would be like tying a noose around their own necks. He takes Ed away – the existence – and tries to fool the jury into thinking of him only as a barber – the essence.  
  [clip]  
  AUDIO 4  
  Another existential trait of the film is that of Angst. The liberation of ourselves as individuals has its downside. Kierkegaard said that while animals were guides solely by instinct, human beings both enjoy a dread the freedom of choice. Ed is responsible for his own life choices. He may have a dissatisfying relationship with his wife, but he chose to marry her and chooses to remain with her until her suicide. He does not want to be “the barber” so he endeavors to find a new line of work in dry cleaning, but his poor decisions lead to disaster.  Part of the Angst of our freedom is about moral freedom and the concern that if we are individuals and not governed by higher powers, what will our choices be?    
 Ed's choices are criminal, although he is convicted for a separate crime he did not commit. The infinite possibilities of free will create impossible-to-predict scenarios. Kierkegaard called this the dizziness of freedom. His example was a man standing on the edge of a precipice. The man fears of falling, AND the man feels an impulse to fling himself over the edge. Even if he did not want to jump, the realization that he even has this option is Angst. It is the burden of freedom – making moral choices as a consequence of free will.    
  AUDIO 5  
 Uncertainty is part of Angst, and it is certainly part of this film. Freddy tells Ed that he plans to use Werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in his defense. In physics, The Uncertainty Principle states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. Freddy – perhaps falsely – interprets this on a more social and philosophical level, suggesting that the more one looks at something, the less clear it becomes. In the end, Ed says that he sees all the choices he made like turns in a maze, but at the end of his life, he is able to pull back and see it as a whole – and that the complete picture of his life is only now known to him. Oddly enough, this brings to mind a quote from Kierkegaard. “It is perfectly true, as philosophers say, that life must be understood backwards. But they forget the other proposition, that it must be lived forwards.”  
 Another trait of existential study is Despair, and if there is one topic that is easy to spot in this film, it's this one. The loss of hope. After Dave’s murder and Doris’ arrest, Dave’s widow Ann tells Ed that her deceased husband once saw an alien spacecraft – a flying saucer – and that it abducted him and performed experiments. Later on, Ed reads about the Roswell incident in a Life magazine. He sees – or more likely dreams of seeing – a flying saucer as he prepares for his execution. He wonders if there is some greater meaning or connection to the events of his life. Actual UFOs are not to blame – this is not science fiction. They simply represent … the Unknown.    
  [clip]  
  AUDIO 6  
 Even though despair and hopelessness are prevalent in almost every scene in the film, the ending is not hopeless. Ed accepts his death and thinks optimistically about the possibility of an afterlife, hopeful about a world in which he can tell Doris all the things they don't have words for on Earth. This is actually not necessarily in contradiction to existentialism. Christian Existentialism, for example, takes an indirect approach. Sticking with Kierkegaard, his version of Christian existentialism involves the conflation of God and Love. When a person engages in the act of loving, he is achieving an aspect of divinity. Christian Existentialism, perhaps because it might not embrace existence preceding essence, is sometimes called a leap of rationality.  
  The most explicit reference to religion is in the beginning of the film in which Ed says he and Doris only go to church to play Bingo, but Ed shows himself to think in more abstract and even spiritual terms. Throughout the film, hair growing connects with Ed's views on life. He tells another barber that they just sweep up the hair and dispose of it, even though it is part of them. When Ed speaks of simply going through the motions of his life and waiting, he only refers to it as “cutting the hair” – meaning, growing, aging, existing, slowing dying. When he is about to be executed, someone shaves him, removing a piece of him. Ed pontificates about this in one scene, remarking that he will put the hair in the dirt – in the Earth – instead of the garbage, suggesting the value his puts on humanity. He narrates that hair grows after death – suggesting he believes in something beyond this life.