It is Wednesday evening here at BCB After Dark, the hottest happening for night owls, early risers, young parents and Boys Fans abroad. We’re always happy to see a friend, new or old. Come in and cool off with us. There’s no cover charge tonight. We have a few tables left. The show starts shortly. Bring your own beverage.

BCB after dark is the place to talk about baseball, music, movies, or anything else you want to get off your chest, as long as it follows the site’s rules. The night owls are encouraged to get the party started, but everyone else is invited to join in the next morning and afternoon.

Three Cubs pitchers — Shōta Imanaga, Nate Pearson and Porter Hodge — combined to throw a no-hitter tonight. You’ve probably heard it. It was glorious.

Last night I asked you which of six relievers you would most like to see on the Cubs in 2025. The vote was close, but Nate Pearson won with 29 percent of the vote. Tyson Miller came in second with 26 percent, and Jorge López was third with 24 percent.

Here I talk about music and movies. Feel free to skip ahead if you want. You won’t hurt my feelings.

Tonight we feature pianist Brad Mehldau playing The Verve’s 1997 hit “Bittersweet Symphony.” It’s from 2010.

I saw the penultimate film by director Alfred Hitchcock, rage (1972) last weekend. ragestarring Jon Finch, Alec McCowen, Barry Foster and Billie Whitelaw, was a return to form for Hitchcock in several ways. Firstly, it was the first film that Hitchcock had made since Stage fright in 1950. In many ways, Hitchcock attempted in this film to restore his English identity, which many believe he lost after “going to Hollywood.”

Secondly, it’s a return to Hitchcock’s tried and tested formula, where an innocent man is drawn into a conspiracy he doesn’t quite understand. In this case, Jon Finch plays Richard Blaney, a down-on-his-luck man who is framed as the “tie killer” by the real serial killer himself – Bob Rusk (Barry Foster). This is actually based on a true case in England in the 1940s where a man was hanged for murdering his wife and child – only to later reveal that they were actually killed by a serial killer who had testified against the man at the trial.

Third, rage is actually a good film after the boring spy thrillers of the Cold War Torn Curtain (1966) and topaz (1969) and whatever Marnie (1964). I know Marnie has its fans, I just don’t count myself among them.

There is also a lot of black humor in the film, which Hitchcock uses to lighten what could be a pretty grim story about a man blamed for a series of rapes and murders. And the murders are depicted quite graphically. Hitchcock took advantage of the breakdown of the Production Code and its British equivalent to show nudity and further details of the violence. As Roger Ebert wrote in his contemporary review – it is as if we are watching Psycho without shower curtain. rage is the only Hitchcock film to receive an age rating of “R”.

The screenplay by playwright Anthony Shaffer (detective) is pretty strong. We are never left in any doubt that the innocent Richard is being framed by the brutal serial killer Rusk – but the film also puts Richard in a situation where you can see that the evidence against him is overwhelming. The thrill for the audience is to find out where Rusk will go wrong and how Richard will manage to prove his own innocence. after he is convicted.

rage is full of traditional Hitchcock camera techniques, such as the high-angle establishing shot, a long tracking shot down a staircase and out a door. Much of the action also takes place in the fruit and vegetable market in Covent Garden, a place where the young Hitchcock spent much of his youth with his father, a greengrocer.

It was good to see, after a few duds in the second half of the sixties (plus whatever you think, Marnie), Hitchcock ended his career with a strong rage and his last film Family grave (1976), which has a lighter tone but is also well worth seeing.

Here is the trailer for ragewhich is a masterpiece in itself. Hitchcock lets his grotesque sense of humor run wild here.

Welcome back to all those who avoid music and movies.

After the no-hitter tonight, there is really only one question: Should Shōta Imanaga have been allowed to finish the no-hitter?

Obviously, the Cubs ended up with number one after Nate Pearson and Porter Hodge took the team out of the game in the eighth and ninth innings, respectively. And Isaac Paredes definitely had a bad game, making three errors and forcing Imanaga to throw more pitches.

But Imanaga had only thrown 95 pitches, and his career high is 103. It’s entirely possible he could have pitched the eighth inning and still stayed under 103. And while it seems extremely unlikely that he would have finished the no-no and stayed under that number, it’s possible Imanaga could have finished it with around 115 pitches, which is a lot, but not an absurd number.

Craig Counsell, on the other hand, said he was more concerned about Imanaga’s long-term health than the story. How risky it would have been for Imanaga to continue pitching is unknown. But the game was over. The Cubs had a huge lead. It wouldn’t have been risky to lose the game if Counsell had left Imanaga in the game until he allowed a hit.

There is also a situation where Imanaga gets through the eighth inning without a single hit, but needs 20 pitches to do so and someone else would have to pitch in the ninth inning anyway.

But you can’t argue with results, and the Cubs recorded their first no-hitter at Wrigley Field since 1972. But I know some of you don’t believe the total number of no-hitters really counts.

So should Imanaga have been allowed to pitch the eighth inning?

Thanks for stopping by tonight. We appreciate everyone who stops by, and especially everyone who votes and comments. Please get home safe. Tell your friends about us. Recycle cans and bottles. Tip your server. And come back next week for more. BCB after dark.