“You can’t be walking around at night, on a white street, and not expect trouble.” Author Isabel Wilkerson’s mother has likely said something like this before, in one of any number of tragic contexts. In this case, George Zimmerman has recently killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin for walking, in a hoodie, at night, while Black. And Wilkerson wonders: Is it really on the young man’s shoulders to avoid arousing suspicion, then deadly overreaction, among his fellow American citizens?

Martin’s name is one of many heard in the vital, supple new film “Origin,” and screenwriter-director Ava DuVernay has found a way to turn an adaptation-defying bestseller — Isabel Wilkerson’s magnificent “Caste” — into what feels like the only possible film version.

Without sacrificing or exploiting any of Wilkerson’s personal story, “Origin” honors what the author and journalist did in taking on a hugely ambitious research project in the service of her second book. Subtitled “The Origins of Our Discontents,” “Caste” came out in 2020. It wasn’t easy to write, but it reads like a streak — a provocative and elegantly intertwined examination of America’s racial history and structural biases, and their undeniable links to both India’s caste system and Nazi Germany’s murder of 6 million Jews.

The result, on screen, is not like any other how-I-wrote-this biopic, partly because it’s much more than that. DuVernay dramatizes the historical figures in Wilkerson’s “Caste,” through her travels abroad and her family joys and sorrows at home, in constantly surprising ways.

It begins where too many American stories begin: with one more dead Black body on a residential street. The 2012 killing of Martin serves as the sobering prologue to “Origin.” The news story strikes Wilkerson (played with supple authority and great, compressed force by Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor) as worth writing about, though she resists the entreaties of a friend and former New York Times editor (played by Blair Underwood).

Soon enough, grief sends Wilkerson, the former Chicago bureau chief of the New York Times, into a heartbreaking new realm of purpose. Wilkerson’s second husband (Jon Bernthal, excellent) dies suddenly, a 15-year-old brain tumor diagnosis cruelly catching up with him. Wilkerson soon suffers another family loss and must pick up pieces everywhere she turns.

Those include the pieces, the notions, for researching an ever-larger idea for a book: one dealing, somehow, with America’s own racial caste structure and its connections to Nazi Germany’s caste society, as well as India’s. With the death of her mother (played with wonderful grace by Emily Yancy) in due course, Wilkerson focuses on work, as best she can, while seeking solace in friends, friends/interview subjects and colleagues around the world, some more supportive of her central thesis than others.

“Origin” struggles a bit to accommodate both DuVernay’s dramatized research, in the form of flashbacks, focused on 1930s Germany, and the Dalit caste of India — the lowest rung, the ones tasked with cleaning latrine waste with their bare hands. But like the book, the film about the making of the book pulls off a near-miracle in shaping a steadily multiplying amount of information and ideas that are not simply information and ideas. Reason: The people come alive in “Origin” and Ellis-Taylor holds the key.

I’d see it again for any number of scenes, notably Audra McDonald as a friend of Wilkerson’s, relaying the riveting story of why her father named her Miss Hale. DuVernay, whose previous work includes first-rate documentaries (“The 13th”), docudramas (“When They See Us”) and biographical portraits of a person and a movement (“Selma”), creates a singular visual leitmotif, in which we see Wilkerson, in a black void, leaves falling all around, communing with her late husband, or with a research subject who dies before she has a chance to hear his own story of racial caste prejudice involving a whites-only swimming pool and a Little League team that didn’t bother with caste and racial designations.

To say “Origin” is destined for countless classroom screenings risks making it sound medicinal or earnestly educational. It is, I suppose, educational; it’s also vibrant and adroit and searching as human drama. It’s one woman’s story. And like the book that inspired it, DuVernay’s adaptation makes us see what Wilkerson saw, all around the world we make for ourselves. And then remake. Or else.

———

‘ORIGIN’

3.5 stars (out of 4)

MPA rating: PG-13 (for thematic material involving racism, violence, some disturbing images, language and smoking)

Running time: 2:21

How to watch: In theaters

©2024 Chicago Tribune. Visit chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The new Wes Anderson adaptations of Roald Dahl stories, now streaming on Netflix, outpace and out-satisfy so many of Anderson’s feature-length projects, the question simply is this: Why? What is it about Anderson’s visual, narrative, emotional and adaptive approach to this material — his second Dahl effort, following the stop-motion-animated “Fantastic Mr. Fox” — that works so well?

A few guesses. For one, I think, the short form flatters and crystallizes Anderson’s every decision, and even the multilayered framing devices and nesting-doll stories within stories deepen our enjoyment. The longest of the quartet, “The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar,” runs 41 minutes. The others run about 17 minutes apiece: “The Swan,” “The Rat Catcher” and “Poison” — and that’s probably the ideal order for viewing, if you begin with “Henry Sugar.”

Beyond that, there’s a more vital level of comic invention afoot here than I’ve seen since my favorite Anderson feature, “The Grand Budapest Hotel,” nearly a decade ago. Much of that vitality must be credited to Ralph Fiennes, a key member of this four-story anthology’s quite perfect ensemble.

Often, critics settle for the word “deadpan” to describe many, or most, of the performances in an Anderson film, and for Anderson’s geometrically precise framing. Sometimes the deadpan part is true; more often, though, the best Anderson performances get up to many things at once. The voice subtly delineates the emotions not immediately clear on the surface, or on the actor’s face. Other times it’s the other way: The face tells all, while the comparatively flat affect of the verbal component suggests someone struggling, almost invisibly, to maintain control amid an emotional crisis.

Fiennes, Benedict Cumberbatch, Ben Kingsley, Rupert Friend, Dev Patel and Richard Ayoade make up the bulk of this Dahl company, and they are on it. The stories come from different parts of Dahl’s life, spanning the 1940s to the 1970s. In “Henry Sugar,” a wealthy English layabout and occasional and dishonest gambler (Cumberbatch) happens on the story of a yogi (Kingsley) who has mastered the art of seeing with his eyes closed. This story ends quite happily; “The Swan,” the cruelest of the four — Dahl appears to have drawn painful inspiration from his physically abused boarding-school days — concerns a sensitive young boy bullied, in ghastly and potentially murderous fashion, by a pair of older boys. That one ends not happily, but not without a glimmer of just desserts. (Dahl was surely one of the bleakest fantasists since Hans Christian Andersen, though funnier.)

Fiennes dines out, with beautiful wit and careful gradations of black humor, on “The Rat Catcher,” in which he takes the title role with a nice pair of pointy false choppers. He’s sent to deal with a rat problem that proves more difficult than expected. The final story, “Poison,” likewise deals with questions of two species forced to accommodate each other’s lives. In “The Rat Catcher” it’s human vs. rodent; in “Poison,” a British officer stationed in India (Cumberbatch) lies still, sweating, in his bed, while another officer (Patel) strategies how to save this man from a deadly snake that has curled up asleep on the officer’s stomach.

If you save “Poison” for last, the cumulative 90 or so minutes follows a path toward unavoidable and slyly damning assessments of British colonialism and insidious classism. Not that Dahl was any sort of liberal. As has been verified by plenty of letters, interviews and, indeed, much of his fiction, the author acknowledged his bigotry, antisemitism, racism and misogyny. To some that makes him persona non grata, for good. As for Anderson, he has provoked some lesser but notable charges regarding his own work — primarily that some films of his betray a blithe colonialist sampling of different cultures. “The Darjeeling Limited” (Americans in India) and “Isle of Dogs” (dogs in Japan) come up most often for debate.

Even with Dahl’s reputation swirling in the background, the magical rightness of Anderson’s adaptations for Netflix is all the sweeter. They stay very close to Dahl’s source material, so the literary component remains ever-present and, with these actors, ever-appreciated. There’s also a delightful theatricality at work every minute on screen, with stagehands taking Ben Kingsley’s hairpiece and mustache off in full camera view one minute, and painted backdrops relocating the action the next. This is nothing new for Anderson, who has played around, often brilliantly, with the artifice of set pieces moving in and out of frame, setting up the next shot, sometimes with digital assistance, sometimes not. But here the entire enterprise comes off without any hitches, or self-consciousness.

Fiennes also takes on the Dahl role, popping in here and there, in his writing shed, presiding over the omnibus quartet. And let us not forget that Anderson and his peerless design colleagues, starting with production designer Adam Stockhausen (”Grand Budapest,” “Asteroid City” and others), invest fully in the business of making cinema. Presto: literary, theatrical, cinematic. A tri-modal success. In the end, both Dahl’s stories and Anderson’s movies require a few common but difficult skill sets of the actors. Wit. Technical precision. Verbal facility. Adroit timing. And some fun, even if it’s tightly prescribed and carefully confined to a certain place in a fastidiously arranged, ever-shifting picture frame.

———

‘THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF HENRY SUGAR’ AND OTHER STORIES

4 stars (out of 4)

MPA rating: PG (for thematic elements, peril, brief language and smoking)

Approx. running time: 1:30

How to watch: Netflix

———

©2023 Chicago Tribune. Visit chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Opening night, 1986. August Wilson’s play “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone,” Huntington Theatre Company in Boston. Patti Hartigan, a rising young critic and arts writer, took her seat for the pre-Broadway tryout performance, the production one of several regional theater stops for the new play en route to Broadway.

For a lot of reasons, Hartigan will never forget what she saw that night, notably the Act 1 climax: a haunted man’s vision, which consumes him in the middle of a joyous Pittsburgh boardinghouse celebration, of bones walking on water. These are the bones of enslaved Africans lost in the Middle Passage. Wilson’s play takes place in 1911. America’s former slaves are free, on paper, but searching — following the scent of what Wilson calls their “blood memory.”

In her absorbing, richly detailed biography, “August Wilson: A Life,” recently published by Simon & Schuster, Hartigan calls “Joe Turner” Wilson’s greatest achievement. She has plenty of company in that opinion.

For much of the 1980s and ‘90s, Wilson worked like a one-man vaudeville touring act: a man, a typewriter and one more play in his ambitious 10-play cycle of 20th century Black American life and poetic drama. Wilson developed and revised (and cut, and cut) his plays across a far-flung network of nonprofit theaters, including Chicago’s Goodman Theatre. The goal was a commercial debut on Broadway; sometimes that worked out profitably (”Fences,” “The Piano Lesson”), other times not quite (”Joe Turner”) or not even close (”King Hedley II,” “Gem of the Ocean,” “Radio Golf”). Money isn’t everything. The plays are continually up for revival, and reassessment.

In 1982, Wilson was on his second of three marriages, living in St. Paul, Minnesota, writing at odd hours, working day shifts as a cook at Little Brothers of the Poor. He’d already submitted plays for the O’Neill National Playwrights Conference five times, five different years. His sixth submission, “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom,” did the trick. And then August Wilson slowly, then quickly, became a force.

Conference director Lloyd Richards, the first Black director on Broadway (Lorraine Hansberry’s ”A Raisin in the Sun” in 1959), saw something in “Ma Rainey,” even in its shaggy, four-hour nascent state. The bell curve of their subsequent, celebrated 12-year writer-director partnership extended on Broadway from 1984 to 1996. Then it fell apart, though the strain showed as early as “Fences.” The backstage drama on Wilson’s biggest Broadway success comes to vivid life in Hartigan’s book, along with Wilson’s remarkable family history. There’s enough of Wilson, the personality, the difficulty, the setbacks and the success, to flesh out Hartigan’s chronicle of a major American playwright’s many chapters.

Wilson died at the age of 60, of liver cancer, in 2005, five months after he finished his final work, “Radio Golf.” Hartigan’s book tour brings her to Chicago Aug. 22 for a discussion and book signing at the downtown American Writers Museum.

Our interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Q: Your book begins in 2003, two years before Wilson’s death, when he has returned to Pittsburgh for his friend Rob Penny’s funeral. To some of his old Pittsburgh cohorts, as you write, Wilson was “the one who turned his back on the community.” Penny didn’t want Wilson to speak at his funeral, and he didn’t. Can you go into that for us?

A: I rewrote that prologue probably a hundred times. I wanted to capture a moment of August’s life when he’s at the height of his fame, and he’s back where everything started, in that church in the Pittsburgh Hill District. Success, for someone as important as he was, changed the way many people looked at him. He was empathetic enough to feel that. He was the one who’d really made it — and a lot of people thought someone else would be the one to make it. Nobody really thought August was going to be the one to break through.

I was talking to someone the other day about Angela Duckworth’s book “Grit,” and it made me think of August Wilson. He had grit. He came from nothing. A genius-level IQ but he left high school at 15 (after years of racist taunts at the roughest of the Catholic schools he attended). Grit comes with a price, sometimes. In his heart, I think, August was still the guy hanging out on the hill with Gabriel (a character in “Fences”) and Hambone (”Two Trains Running”), yet there he was, in city after city, at the galas. The guest of honor who’d rather be talking with the waitstaff.

Q: Can you talk about the digging you did for the book’s prologue, which takes us back to Wilson’s mother’s family in Spear, North Carolina?

A: August always told people his mother was born on a mountain in Spear, and that was true. He never went there himself, and his mother and her siblings never went back, the same way my grandparents never went back to Ireland after they got out, after the civil war. I was interested in that. August’s cousin, Renee Wilson, had been looking into their family history for years, and she shared some of the things he learned. The two of us went down to Spark and climbed the mountain with a local man who had run around those mountains (of Southern Appalachia). He guided us to the homestead of Sarah “Eller” Cutler, August’s great-grandmother. (Theirs was the sole Black family on the mountain, as Hartigan writes in the chapter titled “The Blood’s Memory.”) Cutler had been involved with Willard Justice, a white farmer who lived near there. Their story is fascinating, and nearly 100 years later the homestead was still there! The hearth was still there. To see that, with August’s cousin, was just astonishing.

Q: There’s a great vignette in the book where Wilson, as a teenager, gets to know a librarian at the University of Pittsburgh library —

A: Thank you for saying that! I know you knew August, as I did. Doesn’t that just capture his personality? The idea of him befriending the woman at the library, someone who can get him all the books he wants, and then they end up trading “word of the day” each time they see each other? It’s a fabulous insight into the young August Wilson.

Q: In your book, you write a lot about the key father/son relationship in Wilson’s life, though it’s a metaphoric one: his relationship with director Lloyd Richards, who gave him his start. Wilson’s plays, especially “Fences” and “Jitney,” are full of these harsh father/son depictions. It’s well documented that Richards’ work as director was crucial to the end result of Wilson’s early plays and biggest successes, as script editor and dramaturge. And Wilson grew to resent that relationship.

A: In the book I say they were both right and they were both wrong. It was like a divorce, but perhaps an inevitable one. Theirs was a symbiotic relationship. They both got a lot out of it. It was tragic that it ended but while it lasted, I mean, it was one of the key relationships in the American theatre, right up there with Tennessee Williams and Elia Kazan.

Q: I’m naive, certainly financially, but I didn’t realize how much of their disagreements came down to lawyers fighting over percentages in contracts.

A: That’s part of it, but it goes to a deeper father/son (clash) as well. Everyone could see August wanted more control. After “Fences,” when he almost lost control of his own play (producer Carole Shorenstein Hays and star James Earl Jones agitated for substantial script changes), he wanted to be more in charge. Of everything. And to partly, at least, make decisions the director ordinarily makes. And you don’t do that with Lloyd Richards.

Q: He was hardly unique in this regard, but the more successful Wilson became, the less time he made for the long haul of getting his plays into shape. I remember interviewing him in Seattle around the time “Two Trains Running” was making its way to New York, by way of San Diego. And more or less out of nowhere, he told me he never really cleared his schedule to give himself a few solid weeks of writing time on that particular play. “I never got my month,” he said.

A: When you’re that busy, and you’ve made this promise to the theater world, to your mother, to yourself, that you’re going to write this 10-play cycle — that’s a big burden to carry every day. He had to finish those 10 plays, yet he had this grueling, mind-boggling schedule. He was hardly ever home. Everyone wanted a piece of him. And then by 2005, the man is dying, and he’s still got to do his final play, “Radio Golf,” no matter what. That’s an enormous amount of pressure.

But look at what he accomplished. Even his most problematic plays have something in them. You look at “King Hedley II” (which made a pre-Broadway stop at the Goodman in 2000) and that monologue Viola Davis, who played Tonya, had? About why she can’t bring another baby into the world? If that were the only thing in that play, it still deserves a place on every shelf.

©2023 Chicago Tribune. Visit chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The wide, bright, satiric world of “Bottoms,” director and co-writer Emma Seligman’s second feature, expands and contracts as needed. One minute it’s a sincere portrait of a teen friendship between the equally uncool and marginalized PJ (Rachel Sennott) and Josie (Ayo Edebiri, Hulu’s “The Bear”). They’re queer, witty and a little heartbreaking, and not only because they refer to themselves as “ugly” and “losers” when they’re plainly not.

Then, on a dime, Seligman and co-screenwriter Sennott change the key and start tossing whole chunks of “Fight Club” and “Heathers” into a mini-Ninja blender, along with the entirety of John Hughes’ canon of hetero-male high school ‘80s cool.

The result — peppy, bloody and swift — is very different from Seligman’s 2021 sublimely nerve-wracking debut film, the deft comedy of lesbian Jewish mortification “Shiva Baby.” This one tries more, every which way and largely successfully. Arch? Glib? Yes and yes. But I laughed a lot, all the more so because the payoffs in “Bottoms” have a way of delivering in stealth mode, like a process server working for Jason Sudeikis.

We’re real world-adjacent here. PJ and Josie’s high school is ruled, literally, by the football team, the Vikings, and quarterback Jeff (Nicholas Galitzine, lately of “Red, White & Royal Blue”). They harass, bully and float like hormonally unchecked royalty. Unfortunately for Josie, her most ardent crush, cheerleader Isabel (Havana Rose Liu), is philandering Jeff’s girlfriend. But for how long?

An unreliable but exploitable rumor about PJ and Josie’s hard-knock life in juvie leads our heroines to their Big Idea: starting a self-defense club for females, with noble intentions up front but a yen to get close to the gorgeous, popular girls as a bonus. It works; the club becomes a riot of broken noses and bloody gums. And then they take it outside. In the realm of “Bottoms,” jokes about sexual assault, the raging patriarchy and Black Republicans not yet of voting age are equally fair game.

Some comedies, even erratic but rewarding ones like this one, would work with different casting decisions made for the leading roles. “Bottoms,” I’m not sure. That’s another way of saying Sennott and Edebiri work beautifully together and separately. The escalating craziness of the film’s final half-hour, leading to the championship game with the Vikings’ bloodthirsty rivals, could’ve used a little more craziness, a wilder visual quality.

That said, Seligman set out to create a “campy queer high school comedy in the vein of ‘Wet Hot American Summer’ but more for a Gen-Z queer audience,” as she told a festival audience last year. Nothing’s quite as it seems here, even the time frame: Characters rely on generations-old technology (an actual phone book makes an appearance) and, like “Peanuts,” the universe of “Bottoms” is essentially bereft of adults or reliable adult supervision.

PJ and Josie score, however, in lining up one of their instructors (Marshawn Lynch, very funny) to “advise” their thirsty fight club. In the end, all these young women want is a foothold on life, a little less humiliation and some physical intimacy. If that makes “Bottoms” snarky on the outside but conventionally heartfelt on the inside, well, that’s fine, actually.

———

‘BOTTOMS’

3 stars (out of 4)

MPA rating: R (for crude sexual content, pervasive language and some violence).

Running time: 1:30

How to watch: In theaters Friday

———

©2023 Chicago Tribune. Visit chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

“Flash,” meet pan.

Last weekend at movie theaters, DC’s stand-alone superhero film “The Flash” starring Ezra Miller, twice, and featuring three Batmen (Michael Keaton most prominently), fell short of box office projections. A fiscal disappointment in the works, most certainly. Same for Pixar’s “Elemental,” another film that needs north of $500 million worldwide, and likely more, to break even on its production and marketing.

This is coming off Disney’s live-action $250 million remake of “The Little Mermaid,” which has done … eh. Not a hit. Good, actually, certainly livelier than most of the animation-to-live-action adaptations. But it’s a might-see. Not a must.

How much longer can this recycling continue?

So much red ink this year, though some franchisees did well: “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3,” for one. Director-writer James Gunn, now co-CEO of DC Studios, may well be what’s needed to get people interested in Superman, Batman and the rest of the indestructibles all over again. Gunn’s “Superman: Legacy” arrives in 2025.

The managing editor of the movie website rogerebert.com Brian Tallerico told me recently: “With so many streaming options, audiences are starting to say: I didn’t like the last one. So I’m not going to see the next one.”

We talked the other day about money, sequels, franchise exhaustion, failures of imagination and other delights. The interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Q: Brian, let’s talk flops for starters. Is there any silver lining to be found with so many lesser-quality films semi-tanking this year, from “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” to “Fast X” to “The Flash”? Are there lessons for the studios to learn here?

A: The lesson’s right there in your question when you mentioned “lesser quality.” I mean, “Across the Spider-Verse” isn’t failing. It almost feels like audiences are being more discerning, doesn’t it? They don’t want to devote their time to a sequel to something that’s basically about diminishing returns. Like “Fast X,” or the DC movies. Or Pixar, sadly. Though that’s another story: I think people just got used to watching Pixar movies on Disney+. With so many streaming options, people don’t see stuff just because they feel like they “have to.”

Q: This year, by April, we’d already seen a half-dozen franchise pictures of middling quality or less. Are humans really meant to consume “Shazam!” sequels at that quantity?

A: Over-saturation is a definite problem. Think of it: When we were younger, we had to wait three, four years in between “Star Wars” movies. But today there’s a new Marvel or DC product every other week, it seems, if you include the TV stuff. People have started to take it for granted.

Q: Or leave it.

A: Right. I also heard something interesting the other day. Pre-pandemic, a lot of people, fans included, went crazy for “Avengers: Endgame” (2019) and saw it as a final chapter. They didn’t want or need to start right in with a new phase in the Marvel Cinematic Universe after that. I think Marvel made a mistake going straight into another series of stories, with “The Eternals” and “Ant-Man,” characters few people cared about. They should’ve used “Endgame” as a finish line and then come back a few years later.

Q: Good luck retraining the owner-conglomerates on that idea! The idea of taking 10 years in between “Revenge of the Sith” and “The Force Awakens” — it feels like ancient history to do things that way.

A: Also, this idea that a movie has to make a billion, or close to it, to turn a profit — that was never sustainable. The more options people have for their entertainment, the more the box office numbers go down. The idea that “The Little Mermaid” and “Fast X” are bombs, even with the amount of money they’ve made, it’s crazy.

Q: Look at the new Indiana Jones film (coming June 30). The budget for director James Mangold’s movie landed in the $300 million range, not including marketing. The economics of big-budget action filmmaking have changed in 42 years, since “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” But “Raiders” cost around $20 million in 1981. That’s about $70 million in today’s dollars.

A: What did “John Wick 4″ cost to make?

Q: About $100 million. Which is what “Across the Spider-Verse” cost. That’s half or a third of a lot of the flops so far this year.

A: And “Spider-Verse” and “John Wick 4″ both look great, and made a nice fortune. Most modern CGI (computer-generated imagery) in live-action movies, I mean, most of it looks bad now. Imagine how it’s going to look in 10 years. I watched “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” the other night for Father’s Day, with the family. Looks great. Looked great in ‘89, looks good now. The stunt work, the way Spielberg sets up the action scenes — all good. A sense of composition has been lost with modern CGI. No one will ever remember an image from “Quantumania.” Not even the people who made it.

Q: What should filmmakers be talking about with the studios about expectations in this massively uncertain phase of the film industry?

A: Don’t make assumptions about viewers, and what you think they want to see. Don’t assume people want a “Flash” movie just because it’s part of some big corporate strategy the audience doesn’t care about.

Q: When some of us were 12, we saw plenty of kid-oriented stuff, some good, some not. But now the industry relies on enforcing a kind of perpetual adolescence in everyone. What’s the endgame for an industry forever catering to our childhoods?

A: I was thinking about that, rewatching “Last Crusade.” I saw that the same year I saw “Dead Poets Society” and “Field of Dreams.” Same year as “Do the Right Thing.” Those movies don’t get made anymore, by and large. The mid-budget, wide-release movie has disappeared. And something’s been lost.

———

(Michael Phillips is the Chicago Tribune film critic.)

©2023 Chicago Tribune. Visit chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.