:focal(700x527:701x528)/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer_public/40/87/4087d128-de78-4a07-9a3a-598b9896bbe8/smithmag-podcast-ep8-flowermoon-article.jpg)
In 2019, Martin Scorsese—one of America’s most celebrated filmmakers—had a completed draft screenplay adapting David Grann’s nonfiction best seller Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI. He had a pair of stars in his longtime collaborators Robert De Niro and Leonardo DiCaprio. And he had a studio prepared to cover the film’s $200 million projected budget.
A true-life saga involving organized crime, racial prejudice and evolving American identity, the material seemed at first glance like a perfect fit for the director of Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, The Departed and dozens of other acclaimed films. When Jim Gray, a former chief of the Osage Nation, and other Osage leaders invited the filmmaker to Oklahoma to hear their concerns about his new project, Scorsese came. Scorsese listened. And then he rewrote and reconfigured Killers of the Flower Moon from soup to nuts, with a result that has earned a rapturous response from Native American viewers like Gray and journalist Sandra Hale Schulman, and from the broader critical community, too. The movie opens in theaters this Friday and will appear on the Apple TV+ streaming service before the end of the year.
In this episode of the Smithsonian magazine podcast “There’s More to That,” Schulman walks me through a brief history of how Native Americans have been depicted in a century’s worth of movies. Then, Gray tells me about his personal connection to Killers of the Flower Moon, the pattern of Native American erasure from national discourse, and how he and his colleagues persuaded Scorsese to rethink the new movie.
A transcript is below.
To subscribe to “There’s More to That,” and to listen to past episodes on J. Robert Oppenheimer, the OceanGate Titan disaster, the history of book banning in America and more, find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Chris Klimek: Here is a long, sad story: In the late 1800s, the U.S. government forced the Osage people off their land in Kansas and relocated them to what was called Indian Territory. This place is now the state of Oklahoma. The government put the Osage there because the land was thought to be worthless, but it turns out it had oil. Suddenly, many Osage families were wildly rich. White outsiders took notice of this wealth, and they wanted it. By the 1920s, the “Reign of Terror” had begun. Osage were cheated out of their money, and several dozen were murdered. The deaths were the subject of a major criminal investigation by a young government agency, now known as the FBI. But most of the murders were either misreported or went unsolved. In the middle of all this, Henry Roan was born. Here’s James Roan Gray, who goes by “Jim.” Henry was his great-grandfather.
Jim Gray: I’m not only the great-grandson of Henry Roan. My mom chose to name me Roan in my middle name, named after her little brother, who died as an infant, and named after her grandfather, who was murdered during that same decade. And so I grew up kind of carrying this story.
Klimek: This story is now a movie called Killers of the Flower Moon. The death of Henry Roan is part of the plot. It’s directed by Martin Scorsese, based on a book by journalist David Grann. And it tells the story of the Reign of Terror and the subsequent FBI involvement. When Jim learned this would be a big-budget Hollywood film, he was concerned. So was his entire community.
Gray: It was collectively on our minds, because nobody knew whether or not they were just going to follow the same path that other moviemakers have made when it came to making Native-themed movies.
Klimek: Jim Gray is a former chief of the Osage Nation. He was one of several Osage who reached out to Scorsese, wanting him to hear their perspective on this story, which is how the following meeting happened between him and the filmmaker.
Gray: We had a large receiving line of all the Osages that were in the room, and he went through with his entourage and shook everybody’s hand in the whole room, which probably took about 45 minutes to do, because there were about 150 of us in the room. Each us had a chance to say a few words. I had a few words to say about the fact that the three biggest movie blockbusters, by the terms of your industry, that had a Native theme were Dances With Wolves, Last of the Mohicans and Little Big Man. And all three of these stories have something in common. One is that they require a white person to tell the story and save the day. Two, they require a white writer to write a story of fiction.
Klimek: We’ll find out later in this episode how this meeting entirely changed the focus of Killers of the Flower Moon, but it also got us thinking about the entire history of how Native Americans have been portrayed on film and who gets to tell the stories that become blockbusters. From Smithsonian magazine and PRX Productions, this is “There’s More to That,” a show where we talk about the real stories behind Hollywood hits. On this episode: From old westerns to Killers of the Flower Moon, what has changed, and why is it so important for us to find out? I’m Chris Klimek. Let’s get started.
Klimek: Before we go back to Jim, let’s take a second to talk about the history of Native Americans in the movies. Sandra Hale Schulman recently wrote about Native American representation in Hollywood for Smithsonian magazine. Sandra is part Cherokee and also a film producer herself.
Sandra Hale Schulman: Going back to the ’50s, there was a slew of movies made, particularly with John Wayne, that were just horrible representation, and just showing Natives as hostiles and savages and just people to be attacked and wiped out. The white savior. And the Manifest Destiny, which outlined that this is what’s going to happen: White people, the Europeans, and the settlers are going to move across the country. This is what’s meant to happen, and nothing’s going to stand in their way. And it turned into just a mass genocide. So the films were reflecting that. It’s just staggering. They got away with that, and nobody questioned it for a really long time.
Klimek: And not only were narratives like this pervasive, but it was also rare to see an actual Native American actor in a Native American role.
Schulman: Most of the Natives were played by Italians, and they were just putting makeup and wigs on them. And their excuse was, “Well, there were no Native actors available.” That’s not true. They just were simply not looking for them or letting them in the films.
Klimek: Sandra said that eventually things started to shift in a slightly better direction during the civil rights movement.
Schulman: The consciousness-raising really started in the ’60s. I think it had to do with the Voting Rights Act, that gave everyone the right to vote, which they shockingly didn’t have. African Americans and Native Americans did not have that right for a long time. When they finally got that, it changed the game, because when you get voting rights, then you have power. And then you can start demanding civil rights, and that led into the protests in the ’60s. And then I think the film representation changed around in the ’70s. The awareness of what was going on with minorities across the board needed to be reflected in entertainment and then film. An early movie that I remember seeing when I was young that really made an impression was Soldier Blue.
[Clip from Soldier Blue, 1970]
Candice Bergen (as Cresta): Good, brave lads. Coming out here to kill themselves a real live “Injun.” Putting up their forts in a country they’ve got no claim to. So what the hell do you expect the Indians to do? Sit back on their butts while the Army takes over their land?
Schulman: Soldier Blue had Candice Bergen and Peter Strauss. And she plays a woman that was adopted by a Cheyenne tribe when she was orphaned and gets involved with Peter Strauss, who’s a soldier, and he comes to see the horrors of what the Army is doing through her eyes. That was a big turning point. And then Little Big Man was another big one with Dustin Hoffman, which had some great Native actors in it, but it was kind of played as a Black comedy.
[Clip from Little Big Man, 1970]
Dustin Hoffman (as Jack Crabb): White? Sure. I’m white. Didn’t you hear me say, “God bless George Washington. God bless my mother.” I mean, now what kind of Indian would say a fool thing like that?
Schulman: They tended to turn these really horrific scenes into humor. It’s a strange film.
Klimek: One of the biggest hits based on Native American subject matter came in 1990. It was Dances With Wolves, directed by and starring Kevin Costner.
Schulman: Again, kind of complicated. I think Costner did certainly have all the right intentions.
[Clip from Dances With Wolves, 1990]
Kevin Costner (as John Dunbar): The fierce one, as I call him, seems a very tough fellow. I hope I never have to fight him. From the little I know, he seems to be honest and very direct. I like the quiet one immensely. He’s been patient and inquisitive. He seems eager to communicate.
Schulman: He used really great Native actors. Floyd Red Crow Westerman played the chief. But again, it’s kind of a white savior story, in a way. And they don’t go all the way with the interracial love story, because he falls for a white woman that was adopted into the tribe.
Klimek: Yeah. I mean, that’s kind of why I want to talk about some of these movies. Yes, they’re taking Native people seriously enough to take care to depict the language correctly, and the clothes, and the set design. But they’re still centering their stories around white stars.
Schulman: Well, these are movies being made by white directors with white leads.
Klimek: Do you feel like Killers of the Flower Moon is a step in the right direction in terms of Native representation?
Schulman: Oh my gosh. Well, it sets the bar so high. I think unfortunately, for future filmmakers who do not have pockets that deep, it’s going to be a challenge, because I think they’re going to get called out on it. I mean, they had an enormous budget to do this. It shows. It shows on the screen. In other films, they’ll bring in a consultant or an advisor or two in the beginning and say, “Is this what they looked like? Is this what they would’ve worn?” And then the consultants are gone. They’re not there on the set. They’re not there in the filming. They’re not involved in editing. This level of involvement was from start to finish, so that’s a big difference.
Klimek: To find out how this was possible, let’s go back to Jim Gray and his great-grandfather, Henry Roan. The real-life Henry Roan spent much of his childhood in a government-run boarding school in Pennsylvania.
Jim Gray: It was a military barracks. And they burned his clothes when he got off the train. They cut his hair. They beat him, and all Indian kids, for speaking their language or practicing their traditional ways. And unfortunately, he was sent to live there for years, deprived of an Osage upbringing, deprived of an Osage community to support him growing up. And so years later, as a teenager, when he returned, he didn’t really fit into the white society because he was an Indian. But he didn’t really fit into the Indian world because he wasn’t raised Indian.
When I try to describe my great-grandfather’s short existence, and half of it was spent being in the turmoil of that boarding school experience. The last half was trying to find a place that he felt at peace in, and he never did find it. Later in life, he had marriages that didn’t work out. One of them was to Mollie, and that was an arranged marriage that didn’t stick.
Klimek: That’s Mollie Burkhart?
Gray: Mollie Burkhart, yeah.
Klimek: Mollie Burkhart is a main character in Killers of the Flower Moon, played by actress Lily Gladstone. In the movie, she’s married to Ernest Burkhart, played by Leonardo DiCaprio. But she had a brief marriage before that, to Henry Roan.
Gray: There are very few family stories about his life that I wish I could tell you, but unfortunately I can’t, because history has robbed us of that. The only thing I have to rely on is the FBI investigation, that basically classified him as a drunk Indian who had it coming to him. And I reject it, because I know this other part of the history. Very few Native American children who did survive that period had a good experience in that system. And, unfortunately, his life didn’t turn out the way he had wanted. And, as a result, he was in the wrong crowd. And this guy named William Hale, who orchestrated all these killings, saw value in his death and had him killed.
Klimek: William Hale was the orchestrator of Henry Roan’s death and of other murders during the Reign of Terror. But his relationship with crime didn’t start or end there. In Killers of the Flower Moon, he’s played by Robert De Niro.
Gray: William Hale was larger than life. He was friends with everybody. He was a cattleman. He spoke Osage. He ingratiated himself into the community. They say the devil doesn’t show up with horns and a tail. He shows up smiling, charismatic, very approachable. William Hale called Henry Roan his friend and told investigators that he had what they called “melancholy.” And the melancholy was caused by the sadness.
The seed was planted in his head by Hale himself, who told anybody who would listen to him that [Roan’s] wife was cheating on him with another man. And not feeling terribly confident, whether that was true or not, he went to drink. And the person who provided him the alcohol was William Hale. And, eventually, in one of these drunken trips out in the country, he had a hired gun take him out in the country and, while he was drunk, shoot him in the back of the head.
Klimek: Over time, these kinds of killings became more commonplace. But there were no answers and no accountability.
Gray: Osage just could not find justice with the local law enforcement. And as time went on, the tribe would hire private investigators to look into it. Families did as well. None of them got anywhere. Nobody would talk. There was fear of doing anything that would offend William Hale. He had a reputation for being pretty shrewd. Those who challenged him didn’t fare well. And there was also a system of just … everybody was in on it. It wasn’t just killing Osages, it was marrying into the tribe. It was overcharging them at stores, getting them into debt, taking their land to clear debt. And this practice went on and on and on.
Klimek: Eventually, members of the community decided to seek help from the federal government. The Bureau of Investigation was a relatively new agency back then. It was led by J. Edgar Hoover, who at the time wasn’t even 30 years old. The Osage murders presented Hoover with an opportunity.
Gray: He was looking for something that would raise the profile of the bureau. At the time, it was a little-known bureau within the Department of Justice. And so as time went on, the Osages passed the hat, as it were, and raised $20,000 in 1920s money, which is close to $300,000 today, to entice the investigators to come in. We’re setting aside that nobody should have to pay the bureau to investigate a crime, right? But these were different days. And so this is what the tribe did. That’s how that investigation got started. And I think that when you look at it from that point of view, it’s not a stretch to suggest that Native people were not seen as equal to other Americans. Not in society and not in the law.
Klimek: Jim would hear bits of stories about this period of time throughout his childhood. When he got older, he decided he wanted to learn more for himself. He got his hands on a copy of a book called The Deaths of Sybil Bolton by reporter Dennis McAuliffe. Here, he learned about the extent of the Reign of Terror for the first time.
Gray: So I read that book. And I came home one day, and I talked to my mom about it. And I asked her if she had read the book, and she said, “Yeah.” And I said, “Well, there’s a passage in that book that he says, ‘Not all the murders that took place were investigated by either the state, local government, or by the fed.’” And she goes, “Yeah, I read that.” And I said, “Well, mom, how many—I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Grandpa Gray and Grandma Gray on my dad’s side also pass away during that period of time?” She said, “Yeah.” “And your mom, she passed away during that time?” She said, “Yeah.” “And your little brother, who was an infant, also died in that time?” She said, “Yeah.” And she didn’t elaborate.
If she had theories of her own, she didn’t share it. And I think it speaks to a period of time that even after the FBI got their headlines and got their convictions, they all left. But the killings continued to go on, Chris. And a lot of [Osage] just stopped talking about it. That entire generation didn’t even talk about it for decades.
Klimek: Jim also pointed out that while the Osage were facing a Reign of Terror, a neighboring community was simultaneously facing their own violent backlash. The 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre was a 24-hour siege wherein an armed white mob decimated an affluent Black district of Tulsa, Oklahoma. It’s estimated that as many as 300 people may have been killed in this attack. Jim speaks about this connection often.
Gray: I think it just talks about how the world saw people of color. These are two marginalized groups by society, generally speaking, but both had become fantastically wealthy in their own way. The North Tulsa community was a prosperous Black district. They managed to create their own businesses and stores, their own real estate companies, their own banks, their own newspaper. They were able to be independent of reliance on anybody else but their own community. And they were able to draw investment from all around the area into their banks. And those dollars that those banks had invested right back into their families and their communities to start businesses of their own.
So the community just prospered in an unbelievable way that was somewhat shocking for its time, because we’re talking about Jim Crow, the rise of the KKK throughout the South and this part of the country as well. And this was happening at the same time the Osages had found oil on their land.
Oil and gas development was going crazy during that period of time. World War I was going on, and they needed oil to run the machinery of the war. So there was an enormous desire for the United States to capture as much oil as they could. And these companies—like Sinclair, Conoco, J.P. Morgan—they all got their fortunes in drilling during this period of time. Their presence is still felt in the Ponca City and Bartlesville, Oklahoma, and Tulsa, which are all border towns to the Osage Nation. These industries all made their money drilling Osage oil. And so these two events were happening simultaneously.
The first reported death in the Osage Reign of Terror was identified on May 21, 1921. By the end of that week, the Tulsa Race Massacre started. These two events happened the same week, 40 miles apart.
Klimek: I never learned about the Osage murders or the Tulsa Race Massacre in high school or in college. I found about these things as an adult, which is shocking to me. I mean, what does this tell you about whose stories we think of as worth telling and educating kids about in this country?
Gray: It just shows you that this country has a lot of work to do to hold itself accountable on how it became the country that we now call America today. I think there are people like me who know our story and have taken time to educate myself, but I know that I did not learn that in school. I went to a small high school in Pawhuska, Oklahoma, where the headquarters of the Osage Nation is located. They didn’t even talk about it. I had a high school teacher, this old gentleman. His name was Mr. Burton. He was real kind man.
I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately. I was a sophomore or junior, and we all got into class in our seats, and he told us to put our books down, put our pencils down. He said, “I’m going to tell you a story. Don’t worry. You don’t have to take notes, because you’re not going to be tested on it, because I’m not really allowed to teach this.” And for that whole hour, he told us the story of the Trail of Tears, of how the Cherokees had fought to hold on to their land and had fought with General [Andrew] Jackson when he was a soldier, and had saved his life in the previous war — in 1812, I think.
The Cherokees were nothing but an ally and friend of the United States. They were [considered] the “civilized tribes” at the time. I don’t think the Cherokees care for that term, but that’s how the country referred to them. They’re “good Indians.” And they use the institutions of this government to defend themselves from being moved off their land. They sued, and they won. And it was appealed. And it went to the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokees. And President Jackson said, “The court has made its decision. Now let them enforce it.”
So, basically, he defied a U.S. Supreme Court decision. And they forcibly removed the Cherokee people from the southeast part of the country to Indian Territory at bayonet-point. And that story he told us in high school happened on this land that we were in in Oklahoma. The Cherokees were moved to eastern Oklahoma, where they had to re-establish themselves. But in the process of that removal, they lost one-fourth of their population to starvation, and through the bitter cold of the winter. They froze to death along the way. That’s why it’s called the Trail of Tears. [Mr. Burton] took time to tell us that story in high school, but he wasn’t allowed to teach it.
Klimek: Jim was busy working on a project about the Reign of Terror when he heard Martin Scorsese would be making Killers of the Flower Moon into a movie. This was January 2017.
Gray: With Scorsese signing on to be the director, it became obvious this was going to get a lot of national and international attention. That was exciting for the Osages, but it was also very nerve-racking, because at that point, we didn’t know what kind of movie they were going to make. And so myself and other Osages that were paying attention to this story started talking in our own community about the need for agency, the need for some kind of voice in this story. They’re talking about our family members here.
Klimek: In October 2019, Jim got together with other descendants of victims from the conspiracy against the Osage. They decided to write a letter to Scorsese asking him to come visit them in Oklahoma.
Gray: And he responded and said, “Yes, I will come.”
Klimek: And then Scorsese arrived.
Gray: He literally had an entourage with him of people who had worked on all his films going back 20, 25 years. Set designers, location people, people that work on the technical side of the film. One of the executive producers was there. [Scorsese] said no press, and so it wasn’t covered. He didn’t want this to be a photo op. This was a sit-down. Let’s roll up our sleeves and let’s talk.
Klimek: Eventually, it was Jim’s time to speak.
Gray: I was nervous. I mean, I was sitting here talking to Mr. Scorsese. Now, I’m only eight feet away from him, from a microphone in front of a hundred-plus Osages in a room. And I was a little starstruck, I guess is the right word. But I didn’t want him to leave empty-handed. I wanted to challenge him. I said, “Listen, the people in this room are descendants of the people in this book. David Grann did an excellent job of writing the accurate history of what happened in those killings, but the Osage way of life, the Osage cosmology, are not in the book. But they’re in this room.”
And I said, “Nobody in here wants you to fail. We want you to get it right, and we want to help you if you’ll let us. We want you to make the movie that this industry has never made before. The one people in the industry are going to look at and say, ‘That’s the one we got right.’ Be the director to make that film.”
And the whole room just went up into applause and war whoops. And [Scorsese’s] eyes got really big. He leaned into his entourage. and they all started whispered together. And he jumped out of his chair. He shook my hand, and he took the mic. And he said, “I’ve learned a lot from listening to you all. And I want to take some time to postpone production, to give myself time to write this story right. And I don’t want to start it until I do.”
Klimek: Wow.
Gray: He made that promise right then and there. Yeah.
Klimek: So he wasn’t at all defensive or—
Gray: Well, it’s Scorsese, right? This isn’t a Victorian movie of polite society. He did say, “Look, there’s a way to tell this story that brings the humanity of the Osages into this picture that I think I could work on, and I can make it better. But I also want you to know this is a violent story. And I’m not going to leave the violence out.”
I don’t think you can tell this story without the violence, to be honest, because it is hopefully a teachable moment for people who, like you said before, have not [chosen] to teach in our public schools that this actually happened.
Klimek: Scorsese’s original screenplay was centered around Tom White, the FBI agent tasked with investigating the Osage murders. Leonardo DiCaprio would’ve played this character in the film’s original conception. But after this big meeting and Scorsese’s pledge to revise the script, another big thing happened.
Gray: He was going to start production in March of 2020, which we all know what happened in March of 2020. The pandemic probably had as much to do with giving him the time to rewrite these characters and recast these stars into these new roles, with the script to go with it. He wouldn’t have been able to do that in a matter of weeks, which was his original plan. But when the whole world shut down, including the movie industry, and nothing was being made for months. That unfortunate event actually gave Scorsese and his team time to rewrite the script. And he did it in a way that basically changed the direction of the film. Once the story started up again, it caused other things to happen. By the time they came back to shoot, there was an entire infrastructure that the tribe had established that was ready to teach the actors Osage.
Klimek: Oh, wow.
Gray: That was ready to sit down with the costume designers and show them how the Osage dressed in the 1920s, what their homes looked like in the 1920s, and there were set designers who were Osage artists, that were Osage craftspeople, painters, electricians. People of all different trades had come in. Heck, even the guy who got the catering contract, who was a Chicago-based trained chef who moved home to be with his mom in Pawhuska, got the contract to provide food for everybody on the set for eight months of filming. I mean, it was an amazing collaboration. I was just blown away. They could have just put a bunch of non-Osages in these roles, speaking Lakota, or Navajo, or some other tribal language, because the White audience wouldn’t know if they were speaking Osage.
When they had the casting calls, all these Osages showed up to appear as extras and other limited speaking roles that were in the film. When you watch the movie, you see a lot of Osages in the film, in the foreground, in the background. You see the shots of location. You see the landscape of the Osage lands. You see the way the Osage is taught, even in English. There was an Osage/broken English kind of cadence that you would not have picked up if you didn’t shoot it here. Those little things may escape a normal moviegoer, but to an Osage, they would say, “Wow, our culture is really present in this film.” And that’s due to Scorsese deciding he wanted that.
Klimek: I want to ask you about your opinion of the film. What did you think of it?
Gray: I would say my expectations were met and exceeded by how much Osage culture and language is present in the film. It was my biggest takeaway that they didn’t just teach these non-Osage actors and actresses Osage. They taught the white actors and actresses Osage. And their Osage was as good as anybody speaks it today. And the way they shot scenes involving an Osage funeral and Osage weddings, and even the Osage Council meeting, was all done with reverence and accuracy. It didn’t have to go down that way. I know it didn’t. 1920s Osage Nation came to life in this film in a way that I can’t really put into words.
Klimek: What was it like to see dramatization of a story that involved your ancestor very directly? I mean, you’re not just an Osage leader. You are a blood relative of one of these victims of these murders.
Gray: When I saw that the book had come out, and I knew that there was going to be a movie made of it, that was back in 2017. I basically had six years to mentally think this moment through, because I knew there’s no way they’re going to be able to tell that story without showing his murder. And I was right. They did show his murder, but I’m glad that it did not become the bloodbath that I feared it might. Scorsese didn’t go that route. He didn’t leave the violence out, like he said. It’s in there. It just wasn’t glorified.
Klimek: Do you want people to see this movie?
Gray: Yeah. I think everyone should see it. It’s important to know that this isn’t just my family story. It’s not just my tribe’s story. It’s an American story. So for anybody who’s not Osage watching this, whether they’re Indian or non-Indian, or any people of color, whatever, there’s an aspect of this story that they’re going to connect with. Colonization, Manifest Destiny, Doctrine of Discovery, all these terms that have been used to justify the wholesale taking of a continent, not just the North American continent, but South America, Africa, Asia and other countries in the Middle East have a connection to colonialism and its impact. It’s possible that this story would resonate with an audience of such a universal nature. I think it might. For Americans’ sake, it’s important for you to know your own story, just like it’s important for me to know mine.
Klimek: Thank you so much for talking to us at such length and in such detail, Chief Gray. This has been a fascinating conversation.
Gray: Thank you for inviting me. I’m glad to be here.
Klimek: To read Sandra Hale Schulman’s article about Native representation in film, head to SmithsonianMag.com. You’ll also find a link in our show notes.
We like to end each episode with a little extra something fun from my colleagues here at Smithsonian magazine: the dinner party fact. It’s just a small conversation starter you can bring to your next supper club. Although, as you’ll hear, this week’s fact might better at breakfast.
Meilan Solly: Hi. My name is Meilan Solly, and I’m the online history editor at Smithsonian magazine. While researching a story on the impending departure of the National Zoo’s pandas, I learned that Hsing-Hsing, a male panda who arrived in D.C. in 1972, had a surprising sweet tooth. Everyone knows that pandas love bamboo. But later in life, Hsing-Hsing took a shine to blueberry muffins, which keepers used to give him pills. He wouldn’t settle for just any kind of muffin. He demanded ones from Starbucks. Thankfully, the coffee chain agreed to donate the necessary baked goods.
Klimek: “There’s More to That” is a production of Smithsonian magazine and PRX Productions. From the magazine, our team is me, Debra Rosenberg and Brian Wolly. From PRX, our team is Jessica Miller, Genevieve Sponsler, Adriana Rozas Rivera, Ry Dorsey, Edwin Ochoa and Josie Holtzman. The executive producer of PRX Productions is Jocelyn Gonzales. Our episode artwork is by Emily Lankiewicz. Fact-checking by Stephanie Abramson. Our music is from APM Music.
I’m Chris Klimek. Thank you for listening.