The 89th Academy Awards: Is AMPAS Still Relevant In The Selection Of The Best Picture?

Many of us watched the 89th Academy Awards ceremony on Sunday evening, February 26, 2017.

Some of us may still be in shock over the awarding of the Oscar for Best Picture.

The Best Picture award is the key event of the night, the opening of the envelope we all anticipate, the highlight of the evening.

They opened the wrong envelope. It wasn’t their fault. They, Bonnie and Clyde, Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty, did not hold up the event. The robbery duo of 50-years past were handed the wrong envelope. They opened the envelope containing the name of the Best Actress winner, Emma Stone of La La Land. Perplexed, they passed the card, looked at each other, and with a funny Warren shrug on her side, Faye announced to the audience, “La La Land.”

La La Land’s producers and cast rushed to the stage and jubilantly received and cradled their Oscars. As we watched, mice scurried in the background and we wondered what was happening. Mumbles and jumbles rushed to the microphone and kindly, worriedly and interruptively announced, “I’m sorry, there’s a mistake.”

Moonlight had won, not La La Land, as the scene collapsed in a nervous rush to the commercial break.

But does this, one of the greatest guffaws in Oscar history, end there?

Or is there something more to the story?

Are there contributing causes?

For 65 years, a certain process had existed.

For 65 years, no more than five films in a given year had been nominated for Best Picture.

For all that very considerable time (1944-2009), the Academy’s voters had been called to cast a single vote for one of the Best Picture nominees. The winner was simply and straightforwardly the nominated film that received the most votes. The method employed was one called First-Past-The-Post voting.

In 2009, however, the voting and tabulation process were changed to something called Instant Runoff Voting or Alternative Voting or Transferable Voting or Ranked-Choice Voting or Preferential Voting. Don’t ask what it is or how it works? The explanation will hurt your head. The process is used in national elections in several countries. In this year, do we need say more? Elections are one thing; Oscars, we had hoped, are another.

In 2009, things were radically changed. Since then and with due respect, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) has been nominating far too many films and using a process that is far too complicated for the Best Picture determination.

Evidence the fact that they can’t even get the envelopes straight.

Please note that this is not a comment on the picture finally selected by the Academy and so confusedly announced on the TV. This is a comment addressed to the credibility of the process employed to select the Best Picture. More fundamentally, it is also a guarded statement of concern regarding the continued relevance of the Academy and its Best Picture award.

A process should be seen as credible.

For the Best Picture process to be credible, it might be said that the process should be transparent and understandable both to the AMPAS voting participants and the movie audiences intended to receive the results.

A process that nominates too many films and is too complicated may not meet this standard.

On the one hand, the Academy could be viewed as abdicating its responsibility to the movie-going public and its voters in not make an expert judgment as to the very best nominees for Best Picture for that year. There is a concern here that this responsibility has not been met where there are too many candidates. In fact, there will only be one Best Picture; and in reality, it is unlikely there are more than two or three comparable films for that particular year. Judgment needs to be exercised before the ballots are distributed.

On the other hand, a process that is too complicated and perhaps best served in other applications could be viewed as doing a disservice to the AMPAS voters by not allowing their views to be reflected fully and truly in the results. Furthermore, a complicated exercise more appropriate for degreed statisticians may do a disservice to the more widely represented theatre audiences by not being fully transparent or easily understandable to the average ticket holder. Ballots should be easily marked and results straightforwardly tabulated.

Again, this is not to question the result for the Best Picture selected for 2016.

With deference and respect to the Academy, it is to question the continued relevance of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in the exercise of its unique responsibilities to nominate the best pictures of the year, to assist the AMPAS voters in their selection of the one Best Picture, and to present a winner determined by a credible process. That process should reflect at its heart that the Oscar is determined and presented not by the Academy, not by the AMPAS voters and not by stars on a stage, but by the moviegoing audiences around the world who love the magic of film and are the true measure of a movies worth.

Allegiance is owed, by the Academy and its voters, first and foremost to those audiences.

When the maintenance of this sacred bond ceases to be the primary and determinative factor in the process of selecting and presenting the Best Picture, the risk exists that the Academy may have lost its credibility and relevance in the eyes of those it serves.

It is our sincere hope that this has not yet happened.

The debacle of the other night raised eyebrows.

The changes of the past years raise doubts.

It is for now to quell those concerns.

With hope for the future.

Grandpa Jim



The Sound Of Music: The 1965 Oscar-Winning Best Picture — A Top Pick With Its EFMO Fans!

“The hills are alive with the sound of music.”

This is the opening line sung by Julie Andrews as she spins across a high meadow in the Austrian Alps. Her character, Maria, is studying to be a nun – – – until the young acolyte is nudged by the Mother Abbess ever so gently out the convent door and on to another profession. As the singing governess to Captain Van Trapp’s seven children, she dances into the hearts of the children and the arms of their father. With their musical talents, Marie carries the youngest child over her mountains as the family escapes the Nazi incursion. Leaving the hills behind, the Van Trapp Family Singers move beyond their beloved homeland and sing their way into history.

The movie is the 1965 Hollywood blockbuster of the Broadway adaptation of the true story of the Von Trapp family. It was and is a blockbuster. The first run of the film played in theaters for four and a half years. In some cities, the number of tickets sold exceeded the population. After the first release, there were the re-releases, which have really never stopped. Within a year of its release in 1966, the Sound of Music had become the highest grossing film of the time, surpassing Gone with the Wind which held the top spot for twenty-four years. Today, The Sound of Music remains one of the top-earning movies ever produced, with an inflation-adjusted take of over $2.5 billion — not bad for a young nun, seven kids and a captain.

Our EthnoFamilyMovieOgraphy (EFMO) audience liked the show very much. So much so that the film’s after-movie survey evaluation of 9.57 out of 10 places it at #3 from the top in the list of the first 38 Oscar-winning Best Pictures.

One of the survey questions each EFMO viewer is asked to answer for that evening’s film is the following:

“Assume hypothetically that you are angry with a person and considering leaving the person out in the freezing cold on a bare hillside in the snow without food or water or retrieving the person to the comfort of a warm cabin. There are no consequences to your decision. Immediately after viewing this show, which way would this movie influence you to act? Circle one:  LEAVE  RETRIEVE”

Hooray for Marie and those beautiful singing children! No one circled LEAVE. A wonderful happy zero inhabits that column. This is the second week for this welcome result to occur. Last week, no one circled LEAVE for the lovely My Fair Lady. We have had the real pleasure of watching back-to-back two delightfully entertaining and easily appreciated shows. Of the 38 Best Pictures to date, only six have received goose eggs in the LEAVE column, and we have unanimously retrieved that poor shivering person on the hillside for two shows in a row.

“What was the short summary sentence for The Sound of Music?” you ask. Well, here it is:

“Almost everyone listed ‘music’ as their first ‘like’, and most liked everything about the film (the second most-liked-everything movie in a row after My Fair Lady the week before); with the music, some identified ‘story’ and ‘love’ as likes, reflecting the overall happy and uplifting nature of the show and lifting the movie the the #3 position of the 38 movies viewed to date.”

There you have it in a scant sixty-seven (67) words.

And the single word for the movie is?


Could there be another for The Sound of Music?

Thank you for listening and please consider watching.

This is one of the best films to walk down the aisle for its award.


Grandpa Jim

My Fair Lady: The Best Picture Of 1964 — A Delightful Exercise In Musical Elocution!!!

Eliza Doolittle sells violets on the steps of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London England. She speaks squeaky Cockney English which horrifies Professor Henry Higgins who studies and enunciates the King’s English. Offhandedly, Professor Higgins comments to Colonel Pickering that he could make a lady of Eliza in six month’s time by teaching her proper English. Eliza’s untutored mouth may twist the English tongue but her mind is as sharp as a tack. She knows what words mean and she thinks about what those words so causally dropped might mean for her.

The next morning, our ragtag flower girls presents herself at the very proper bachelor retreat of Professor Higgins. Eliza offers to pay real money for language lessons to make a lady of herself. At first, Professor Higgins is reluctant; but the kindly Colonel Pickering converts the waif’s proposal to a more acceptable wager. If Higgins will teach, Pickering will pay. The Colonel will cover the costs of the lessons, provided the Professor’s efforts are proven successful by Eliza passing her vernacular examination at the Embassy Ball in six month’s time. The gentleman shake. With that, they and Eliza are off to the races in a musical reconnoitre that will forever alter the future of a flower girl and her Professor.

The music is worth the trip. The story is endearing in a distant, unkindly and worried sort of way. The language is tortured and memorable in the haunting fashion of an early morning dream. The costumes are simply not to be missed. The ending is oddly unsatisfying yet reassuring, like a lost pocketbook that has somehow found its home. Only, I’m not sure who of the two is that pocketbook or who has found whom?

Audrey Hepburn is Eliza Doolittle. Rex Harrison is Professor Higgins. Wilfred Hyde-White is Colonel Pickering. The movie is “My Fair Lady,” the film awarded the 1964 Oscar for Best Picture at the  37th Academy Awards ceremony hosted by Bob Hope for the 14th time.

Is this a show not to be missed, to be added to your must-see list of best films?

Our EthnoFamilyMovieOgraphy (EFMO) reviewers say that it is.

The EFMO viewers have seen the first 37 shows.

Their assessment: #5 from the top!!!!

This is a good one.

One of my jobs is to synthesize the EFMO “Like” and “Dislike” comments into a single sentence. In 75 words or so, here is my abstraction of their appreciation of My Fair Lady:

“Most liked everything — the music, the acting, the story, the humor, the costumes, Eliza’s transition; and although some felt the stereotyping and arrogance were a bit much for today’s viewer and were concerned that Professor Higgins never shared his feelings for Eliza, the film was highly rated (#5 of the first 37 Best Pictures) and, from observing the audience reaction, one of the most enjoyed.”

Yes, the movie carries some of the baggage of a 53-year old film. I fear the dialogue is, in parts, not as correct as it might be – to today’s ears, of course. Nevertheless, and in retrospect, whose verbiage would be perfectly correct after the passing of all those years. None of us ages as well as new thoughts emerge to date ourselves and our words. That is, I suspect, a sign of the times. Nonetheless, the film, despite its bluster, is remarkably adhering and comfortably appeasing. I think the lyrics and music of Lerner and Loewe have much to do with its staying power and still high marks for My Fair Lady.

One last point: The comments on each film must be reduced to a single word. Long sentences are appreciated but what goes into the night when the thrown slippers are finally found and retrieved must be a single elemented locution, a single term.

For “My Fair Lady” the single word, that says it all, is: “lovely.”

And, for that, you must watch the show.

And appreciate the accent.

Movies are fun,

To see


To hear.


Grandpa Jim

The Best Of The Best Pictures From the 1920s, 30s, 40s And 50s: Which Show Will You Watch?

You have some time and you want to watch an old movie. You want to watch a movie from the 1920s, 30s, 40s or 50s — the first four decades of the Academy Awards. It should probably be one of the 32 Best Pictures from those years — one that received the Oscar, but you don’t know which one? What are the top films of the 32 movies selected by the Academy of Motions Picture Arts and Sciences as the best movies of the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s?

Your question has been answered!

Your quandary is resolved.

The EthnoFamilyMovieOgraphy (EFMO) family of viewers has done just what you are requesting. They have watched each the Best Pictures from the first four decades of the Academy Awards, and the faithful EFMO reviewers have rated each film individually and evaluated all 32 movies together as a group.

It has taken some time, but the combined results are now tabulated and ready for your review.

The best of the best films for the first four decades of the Best Pictures are — with the top rated movie shown in the #1 position . . . and the year of each film noted in parentheses . .  . well, I can’t wait any longer, herrrre they are!!!!

#1 Ben-Hur (1959)

#2 Gone With The Wind (1939)

#3 It Happened One Night (1933-34)

#4 Casablanca (1943)

#5 On The Waterfront (1954)

#6 The Bridge On The River Kwai (1957)

#7 Mrs. Miniver (1942)

#8 Marty (1955)

#9 Going My Way (1944)

#10 Rebecca (1940)

Ben-Hur and Gone with the Wind are no surprises. They essentially tied for top EFMO appreciation. Charlton Heston as Judah Ben-Hur was appreciated more for his moral positioning than his place in the most memorable horse race of movietime. Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh are more than memorable as Rhett Butler and Scarlett O’Hara, perhaps the most famous couple of all movietime, and their film is still the greatest overall money-maker of any show to take the Best Picture Award.

Surprisingly, a comedy is next. At #3, Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert chase each other around the countryside in the screwball comedy that launched the genre. Delightfully entertaining and the oldest show on our top list, you can watch this movie anytime and laugh. It does transcend the ages.

Casablanca is probably my favorite. I can’t get the music and the line out of my head, and I don’t want to. Ingrid Bergman and Humphrey Bogart are magical in a film that reminds me oddly and sadly of the The Lord of the Rings. There is something in a good leaving that does last forever.

On the Waterfront is, in its ways, the most serious and most dramatic of the top 5 films. Marlon Brando is the beat-up and knocked-down Terry Malloy who stands true at the end and walks into movie history. The supporting cast is outstanding, as it is in all the Best Pictures.

There is, I think, a natural break here. The next five films can move up and down. In some sorts, they can switch with ones farther down the line; but in their own ways, they are the best of the next tier.

The Bridge On The River Kwai may be the best war film made after World War II. It took some time to look back at that hard time. There is an honesty here that may always be hard to appreciate.

Mrs. Miniver is set during the wartime at the moment of the rescue of the British troops stranded on the sands of Dunkirk. The film is an oddly at-home piece and one that struck home with our audience today, so many years later.

Marty is, what can I say, Marty. My grandfather was a butcher. Marty reminds me of him and the quiet era when the young boomers were starting to grow up in a new time and place. The street scenes are worth the show.

Going My Way is good clean fun, a respite in a war-torn time and an uplifting film for every audience.

Rebecca, to me, represents a new age or style or something in film. Mrs. Danvers is the villain I remember from watching movies on the old black and white TV in the cold basement of our home. She is the very worst and never to be forgotten.

Well, there you have it. They are all great movies. One thing we have learned from watching the Best Pictures is that they are all best films. Amazingly, in one evaluation, 24 movies of these first 32 received at least one vote in someone’s top 5. Truly, they are all great films. You can not go wrong.

Enjoy the shows.

Grandpa Jim


Three Oscars: West Side Story, Lawrence of Arabia and Tom Jones — How Did They Fare?

Since we talked last, the EthnoFamilyMovieOgraphy group has watched and evaluated three Oscar-winning Best Pictures: West Side Story (1961), Lawrence of Arabia (1962) and Tom Jones (1963).

It is with sadness that I report that West Side Story was something of a flop. When young, I found the musical exciting, novel, boisterous, comic and sadly romantic. Now older, our audience gave the movie a rating of 7.95 on a scale of 1-10. That puts the film right in the middle of the pack of the thirty-four films evaluated to date — only an average rating among the Best Pictures.

I abstract the written comments for each show to a single sentence and then reduce that sentence to a single word. Here is the sentence for West Side Story:

“Most loved the music, songs and dancing but hated the message of the movie, because the message is that hate of others for their differences is still with us as it has been since Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet; some saw that sad message of hate manifested in our current stuggles to integrate immigrants, our glamorization of gangs and the violence prevalent in our inner cities; there was an air of sadness in the comments that was reflected in the movie doing poorly in its overall rating.”

And, the single word for West Side Story was: “sad.”

Our next film was the 1962 winner, Lawrence of Arabia.” My expectations were high. My youthful memories were of an extravaganza sweeping across the wind-swept deserts with high adventure and lofty ideals. The reality to my older eyes was disappointing. Despite his brash and dashing antics to free and unite the war-torn tribes of Arabia, Lawrence managed only an 8.00 on our 10 scale — again, as with West Side Story, only an average rating for a movie some consider one of the best of all time. And again, I was personally disappointed: both that an old favorite managed so poorly in this modern day and also that I was personally less enamored with that old favorite. Perhaps young eyes are truly more forgiving than those grown older with time.

The single sentence for Lawrence that I took from the written comments is this:

“Most everyone liked the sweeping cinematography and the acting; some found the story confusing; most did not like the hard ugliness of the fighting and the fact that nothing seems to have changed from then to now.”

“Nothing seems to have changed.” Like West Side Story, the innocence of youth appears to have been lost to the realities of older eyes viewing Lawrence of Arabia in the less forgiving desert of today’s world.

The single word for Lawrence: “discouraging.”

For this, I needed some relief.

Tom Jones?

Tom Jones is 1963 film awarded the Best Picture Oscar by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. It is a comedy of a young man finding his identity and fortune in an improbable romp across merry old England. Quite the new and avant-garde show at the time. How would it be seen today?

The very bottom of the heap! That’s right. For Tom Jones, the rating out of 10 was 3.17, the lowest average assigned by the EthnoFamilyMovieOgraphy audience to a Best Picture to date. I was astonished, astounded and amazed. How could a Best Picture be so bad? Even the Rotten Tomatoes audience gave it a 59%. Collectively, we gave it a slight 8%.

The single sentence for the Tom was:

“Some liked Albert Finney, the scenery, the word plays, film techniques and British humor; most disliked everything, including the scenes, dialect, story, acting, plot and bawdiness.”

To my dismay, the lament into the movies of the ’60’s had continued.

The single word for Tom Jones was “disliked.”

Can hope be on the horizons?


Next week, we move to My Fair Lady (1964) and, after that, The Sound of Music (1965).

Pass the popcorn.

The shows are about to begin.

With guarded anticipation from Dallas, we await the ratings, sentences and single words derived from the studied viewings of our stalwart EthnoFamilyMovieOgraphers.

Until then,

Grandpa Jim

PS: I have not forgotten. I owe you the top movies of the first four decades of the Oscars, the 20’s, 30’s, 40’s and 50’s. The acquisition of the data has taken longer than anticipated. Hopefully, with the next post, we can view the listings of the very best and most highly rated shows. See you back here soon for the results.

Best Pictures: Happy New Year, EthnoFamilyMovieOgraphy and “West Side Story”

Happy New Year to all our readers around the globe.

2017 is here. Now we begin the annual struggle to remember to write and include the New Year’s digits in all that we say and do. I wish you wonderfully and exceptionally well in all your do’s and say’s this year. You are the New Year’s people.

Tonight, we continue the viewings of the Oscar-award-winning Best Pictures. This project started last year on January 8, 2016 with the 1927-28 winner, the only truly silent film to win the outstanding picture award, “Wings.” On December 1, 2016, we finished the year with the sadly comedic winner, “The Apartment.” With and between the two in 2016, we watched thirty-three (33) Best Pictures in yearly order. I view this as an amazing accomplishment for 2016, and the resolution is to continue the process in 2017. A special “Thank You” to the thirty (30) brave souls who participated and completed the EthnoFamilyMovieOgraphy Survey form after the showings. We averaged 13.45 views per movie for a total of 444 in-crowd survey forms. Yes, the data is being tabulated.

Tonight is the 1961 winner, “West Side Story.”

“West Side Story” is a musical adaptation of Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet.” Natalie Wood plays Maria (Juliet) and Richard Beymer plays Tony (Romeo). The tale is of a turf war between rival teenage gangs in Manhattan’s Hell’s Kitchen and the two lovers who cross the battle lines.

The film was nominated for 11 and won 10 Academy Awards, including Best Picture at the 34th Academy Awards hosted by Bob Hope (his 7th time to host). “West Side Story” is the musical with the most Oscars and is consistently listed as one of the top musicals in cinema history. Only three films have received more Academy Awards at 11 (“Ben-Hur,” “Titanic” and “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”).

Be here next week for some highlights from the survey results for “West Side Story.”

Also, next week I will give you the top-ten-rated Best Pictures of the 1920’s, 1930’s, 1940’s and 1950’s from the surveys and from a special one-time ranking by our viewing audience. Make your picks and be here to compare the results.

See you next week at the cinema.

And now, tonight’s show.

Grandpa Jim


The New Year’s People — 2016

© James J. Doyle, Jr



“Send in more bubbles, Second. Those parents need help.”

“Yes, Sir, Commander Sudsy. You there, pop to it and foam up. You heard the boss.”

“It is amazing, Second. Human scientists see this soaping and lathering as some kind of chemical interaction, polarized this and layers of that. They have no idea what’s happening.”

“It is hard to believe, Captain. We must remember, Sir, we are invisible to them.”

“True, Second, very true. . . . What are the reports from the other fronts? We can take a break here. The bubble bath is foaming up and the parents are scrubbing away.”

“With the help of our people, Director Sudsy, with the help of our people.”

“Where do you get these titles for me, Second? I’m just a simple Suds.”

“You are the Suds for Operations and that is a big responsibility, Mr. Field Marshall, Sir, a very big responsibility”

“Yes, well, your report then. What is the status of our field forces and the party crews?”

“With your permission, General, I’ll do smoke, dust and dirt first.”


“Fires persist in the west, dust storms rage to the mid-south, and children are as usual escaping on all fronts to play in the dirt. Our agents say Christmas toys are responsible for an increase in smudging on the kids. You could see that in the two we’ve been observing.”

“I see those two are now dried, dressed and ready for bed. My recollection from the surveillance report is that the parents are home for the evening. Is that correct?

“It is, Fierce Brigade Leader, they plan to stay up for the stroke of midnight.”

“It is the big night, Second.”

“It is, Courageous Commander, New Year’s Eve itself.”

“Our big lift, Second. When the clocks strike twelve, our people will be buoyed and strengthened throughout the world. It is the turn of the year that pumps us up and keeps us bubbling.”

“You’re right there, my Major of the Moment, and we could use the lift. Reserves are low on all fronts. The field people say they have just enough to make it to midnight.”

“What about the party crews, Second? Without the crews, there’d be no sparkling beverages to welcome the New Year. I know the human scientists call it carbonation and effervescence, but you and I know who’s responsible. It’s the last big bubble of the year. Are we ready?”

“There are challenges, mon Capitaine. Proximity is most important. When the tabs are pulled and the corks are popped, the bubbles have to be there and ready to go. Timing is critical. We have the people. That’s not the issue.”

“I get the feeling there is an issue. Is there a problem, Second?”

“Perhaps, O Glorious Leader.”

“Second, enough with the creative appellations. Just call me ‘Sir.’”

“Well, Sir, you remember the saponification fiasco a few years back?”

“I recall a snafu in the management of change protocols. Resources were not properly deployed.”

“Quite correct, Sir, the new Suds for Manufacturing failed to staff the quality control laboratories at the soap production sites. Without our people in the sinks and on the tubs, the tested products did not bubble and suds. Major shipments of bar soap, shower gel and bath powder were declared off specification and directed to disposal. The cleansing materials never reached the humans exposed to the smokes, dusts and dirts our field sudsing forces guard against.”

“That could not have been kind to the noses, Second.”

“Spot on, Sir. Without humans wetting and rubbing the soaps, gels and powders, our people could not introduce the bubbles and foams to counter the rising olfactory distress.”

“But this is this year, Second. There have been no reports of odor problem or humans not washing for lack of soap.”

“It’s not the soap, Sir. This year it’s the ‘bubbly.’”

“The sparkling beverages. Did they somehow fail their tests?”

“No, Sir, our people were present and ready. The drinks bubbled as designed.”

“Then, what’s wrong?”

“Global warming.”

“I don’t follow.”

“Our teams didn’t catch it, either, at first. Carbon dioxide has been linked to global warming. To help control carbon dioxide emissions, the governments launched campaigns to reduce the consumption of carbonated beverages. The advertisements worked, much better than anyone, including our field monitors, anticipated. In response to decreased demand, manufacturing plants greatly reduced their production of the fizzy drinks.”

“You’re saying supplies of bubbling beverages are down?”

“Way down, Sir. So much so our scientists say we may not make threshold.”

“That bad? We Sudses need to bubble in order to replenish ourselves. I’ve read the studies the Suds for Research publishes. Bubbling must be associated with human activity, either a cleansing function or a festive happening. New Year’s Eve is our big night. It’s the pop that puts us over the top.”

“I know, Sir, but the bubbly is not there. We missed the critical moment when the switch in manufacturing occurred. During our household and restaurant surveys, we caught the supply change adjustments, but there’s nothing we can do tonight.”

“Switch? You may have something there, Second. Our reports show the parents here are staying in to celebrate the New Year. Is that correct?”

“Yes, Sir, old home bodies they are, watching the telly with a tray of treats and their drinks for the evening. They’ll be downstairs by now.”

“What are those drinks, Second?’

“Checked the fridge myself, Sir. My field training, you know. They have imported water and a very nice white wine, both non-carbonated.”

“So you say, Second. So you say.”

“I do, Sir. What are you thinking, Sir?”

“There’s time. Yes, with the new communication technology, there’s time. Bounce over here, Second, and take a look at these instructions. This is an urgent wave to our party crews at their stations around the globe.” Second reviews the handwritten directions. “It’s not long, Second. Do you have it memorized?”

“Yes, Sir, I’m on it. Consider it done. And, Sir, I must say this is just marvelous. I do think it might work.”

“I hope so, Second. I do hope so.”


* * * * * * *


“Honey, are you sure the water was okay?”

“It was fine, Sweetie, not that different from last year.”

“It was, well, yeah, it was like last year.”

“Sweetie, look, on the TV, only a few seconds. It’s time to open the bottle.”

“The cork is almost out. Hold the glasses.”



“Pour. Pour. It’s New Year’s Day! Give me a kiss.”


“Happy 2017”

“And to you!”

“Thank you for the bubbly, Sweetie. It’s perfect.”

“It is. Unexpected and perfect. A surprising start for the New Year.


* * * * * * *


“This is the evening news. The breaking story tonight is bubbling over, all around the world. That wasn’t carbon dioxide in your beverages on New Year’s Eve. Drink manufacturers are in full conformance with the environmental regulations. That was real fizz you felt when you raised your glasses and the bubbly crinkled your noses, but it will not contribute to global warming. Scientists have confirmed the discovery of a new gas. Apparently removing carbon dioxide from beverages triggered an unknown side reaction, which liberated a material with bubbling properties similar to CO2 but with no adverse impacts to our atmosphere. Bubble away and know your planet is protected.”


* * * * * * *


“A masterful stroke, Sir, simply masterful.”

“Thank you, Second. A slight repackaging of our underlying message for the media. It worked because our people were already in place to do what they always do so well. They bubbled away.”

“The humans loved the surprise, Sir. They kept popping tops and pulling corks. On the bubble gage, we’re off the charts.”

“It’s hard not to appreciate a glass of cheer on New Year’s Eve. I was counting on the uplifted mood of the participants.”

“The message, Sir, was genius, pure genius. A new gas, that was simply out of this world.”

“Thank you, Second. We must give credit to the Sudses in Human Relations. They floated the idea to the major networks in record time. A green story with a new twist and a safe new gas to start the new year.”

“It is truly a promising start, Sir. At this rate, there will be no need for gas cuts or bubble tightening. And, there will be more room for new recruits on the party crews.”

“Precisely, Second. I know we are the Sudses and that sudsing for cleansing will always be a priority, but in my sphere of spheres I have always felt the New Year and bubbling for fun is the future. There we have room to grow and expand, to balloon and burst with joy. It is our mission to push ever outward and upward with raised expectations into the bright and billowing sky. Float and bubble, bubble and float, we are the New Year’s People.”

“Hear, hear, Sir, we are the The New Year’s People and proud of every happy bubble.”