More stories

  • in

    ‘Beef’ Creator, Ali Wong and Steven Yeun Address David Choe Assault Story

    The creator and stars of the new Netflix series said they accepted David Choe’s contention that he had fabricated the detailed story he told on a 2014 podcast about coercing a masseuse into sex.The creator and two stars of the new Netflix series “Beef” addressed a brewing controversy on Friday about another actor on the show who said on a podcast in 2014 that he had sexually assaulted a masseuse, comments now recirculating on social media.David Choe, an actor and artist, has long said that he made up the incident he recounted on his podcast, an assertion that the show’s creator, Lee Sung Jin, and its lead actors, Steven Yeun and Ali Wong, backed up in a statement.“The story David Choe fabricated nine years ago is undeniably hurtful and extremely disturbing,” said Lee, Yeun and Wong, who are also executive producers on “Beef.” “We do not condone this story in any way, and we understand why this has been so upsetting and triggering.”They added, “We’re aware David has apologized in the past for making up this horrific story, and we’ve seen him put in the work to get the mental health support he needed over the last decade to better himself and learn from his mistakes.”Netflix confirmed the authenticity of the statement, which was made exclusively to Vanity Fair, but declined to comment. Choe and representatives for Lee, Yeun and Wong did not immediately respond to requests for comment.On a 2014 episode of a podcast that Choe co-hosted, he talked about engaging in what he called “rape-y behavior” when he coerced a masseuse into oral sex. He later said that the story was made up.“I never raped anyone,” he told The New York Times two years ago.The clip from his podcast has recirculated on social media since the premiere of “Beef” this month. The show stars Yeun and Wong as Angelenos who get into a road-rage conflict that ripples into the rest of their lives, and Choe appears in seven episodes as the cousin of Yeun’s character.The 10-episode season has received praise from critics and was the service’s second-most-watched English-language show this week, according to Netflix.Choe hosted a four-episode limited series on FX and Hulu in 2021 and has appeared in other shows sporadically, including in one episode of “The Mandalorian.” “Beef” is his first substantial acting role.Choe gained broad recognition in 2012, after an initial public offering appeared to make him a multimillionaire.Several years earlier, the entrepreneur Sean Parker had asked Choe to paint murals in the Palo Alto, Calif., offices of an internet start-up. Parker offered him $60,000 or stock in the nascent company, Choe has said, which is how Choe wound up a very early shareholder in Facebook, which is now called Meta. More

  • in

    Rachel Weisz, ‘Dead Ringers’ and the Glorious Horrors of Pregnancy

    The first episode of the new female-fronted television adaptation of David Cronenberg’s 1988 psychological thriller, “Dead Ringers,” splices together footage of four live births with shocking forthrightness. A plastic-gloved hand grips the bloody head of a newborn and tugs it from the birth canal as another cradles it from below; a baby is pulled briskly out using a pair of elongated metal forceps clasped around its skull; a scalpel is drawn sharply through the surface of a prepped and sterilized abdomen during an emergency cesarean section; hands are thrust inside and a small body is lifted up. “Why are you wearing my vagina like it’s a [expletive] glove?” shouts one patient at the doctors working busily out of view.The montage is a feverish, pugilistic sequence of grunts and cries that presents modern obstetrics as a high-volume industry, an assembly line made up mostly of soft, fleshy parts and powered by adrenaline. When at last the twin gynecologists who are the focal point of the series (both played with startling acuity by Rachel Weisz) are able to pause and rest for a moment in the quiet of an empty hospital room, I couldn’t help letting out my own sigh of vicarious exhaustion.In the television world, babies are a convenient way to reinvigorate stale interpersonal dynamics, or a point of narrative pressure that forces characters to make dramatic choices. But births, in all their beauty and gore, are rare. We’re used to a certain sleight of hand, carefully placed cuts and scenes where fresh-looking mothers in hospital gowns hold clean, swaddled infants in their arms. Real birthing is something more radical: Pregnancy involves a terraforming of the body that might appear terrifying if you were to see it at time-lapse speed. Inside a pregnant body, the volume of blood can increase by at least a third: It swells the hands and limbs; fluid accumulates in some tissue, like the legs, causing it to bloat like an oversaturated sponge. Soaked in hormones that relax the tendons and ligaments, the joints in the pelvis loosen and the shape of the foot is remolded under greater weight. During labor, the pelvic floor, which helps to hold organs in place, can stretch or tear permanently, causing them to resettle in unfamiliar ways.Thinking about all this puts birth in a different generic register depending on how it is framed and depicted. Having a child might be a blessing or a difficulty within the tropes of a domestic drama, but the actual mechanics of bringing that child into the world verge on body horror, the genre perhaps best typified by the films of David Cronenberg. He made his reputation as a horror auteur with movies like his 1986 remake of “The Fly,” in which a scientist accidentally fuses his DNA with that of a common housefly. In his worlds, familiar physiology is bent into strange new shapes, showing us that the seeming fixity of our bodies is only a soothing illusion.Weisz had been fascinated by both Cronenberg’s “Dead Ringers,” which she saw in the theater in 1988, and the real-life story of the Marcus brothers (renamed Mantle in the film), twin gynecologists who, having withdrawn from public view, were found dead in the apartment they shared in New York City in 1975, their messy lodgings strewn with bottles of opioids and barbiturates. These “miracle workers” who specialized in helping barren women conceive and give birth, met an end that cast doubt on the infallible authority of doctors. The story cut to one of the insoluble tensions in reproductive care: that the individual assigned to work so intimately with your hopes and fears and physiology is essentially a complete stranger — maybe even a dangerous one.Amazon Prime VideoRachel Weisz plays twin gynecologists in “Dead Ringers,” a new series based on David Cronenberg’s 1988 thriller.Niko Tavernise/Amazon Prime VideoCronenberg’s film played up the psychic conjunction of the twins, a monstrous codependency that functions perfectly until, suddenly, it does not. Weisz’s new adaptation is less claustrophobic, less a psychological study than a psychosexual thriller in the vein of some of her favorite films in the genre, “Bad Timing” (1980) and “Don’t Look Now” (1973), in which the externalizing of the characters’ private desires and fears rearranges the world itself. Beverly and Elliot — one a nurturing obstetrician, the other driven by an insatiable appetite for food, sex and biomedical research — are working to open a slick, hyper-modern birthing center and seek funding from an ultrawealthy investor. Beverly’s goal is “to change the way women give birth, forever,” but Elliot’s is something more fluid — she wants to continue her illicit laboratory work growing fetuses in artificial wombs, but most of all she wants to make her twin sister’s dream a reality. They negotiate, in alternating agreement and opposition, the contradictory drives toward individuation and the need for others, repulsion and love.What “Dead Ringers” manages to get on the screen feels, in terms of television, urgent and new. It publicizes bodily processes long held in a secretive personal space, making them available for discussion. Together with her collaborators, Weisz — who is an executive producer on the show as well as its star — has summoned a discordant vision of female experience: the grisly, unsettling and unexpectedly beautiful fact that birthing is a life-altering event rather than a collective fantasy.In February, I spoke with Weisz over Zoom from her home in upstate New York. She wore a plain shirt and thick glasses of crystal-clear acrylic that gave her the look of the most stylish professor on a comp-lit dissertation committee. Weisz radiates the poise that was the signature of her early career, looking impassive until something unexpected grabs her attention and she breaks into a warm smile. As we spoke, her bearing made me search myself continually for something pleasing to say. Dark-haired, heavy-browed and possessed of an intent gaze, she still has the features of the fresh-faced English rose who stepped into the spotlight in Bernardo Bertolucci’s “Stealing Beauty.” The face holds more emotion now, and has a greater capacity to convey softness or threat or an ambiguous sort of danger lying beneath its placid surface.In recent years, as Weisz has moved into a more boundary-pushing phase of her career, you can see her cracking the beautiful, cultivated exterior to reveal moments of vulnerability and even ugliness that touch the viewer at a visceral level. These characters — like the power-obsessed Lady Sarah of Yorgos Lanthimos’s “The Favourite,” or the willful and transgressive Ronit Krushka of “Disobedience” — are women of appetite who evoke curiosity rather than simple admiration. Watching these performances, you have the feeling that something instinctive and utterly convincing has roared to life within Weisz. Her performance as the driven, obsessive Mantle twins is an extension of this movement toward playing women who don’t represent some ideal, but are instead embodied, desirous beings struggling to negotiate the weight of that desire.We’re used to a certain sleight of hand, carefully placed cuts and scenes where fresh-looking mothers in hospital gowns hold clean, swaddled infants in their arms. Real birthing is something more radical.When Weisz proposed a gender-flipped version of “Dead Ringers” to a producer at Annapurna Pictures, she was intrigued by the intricately enmeshed personalities of the twins, the way they negotiated their fraught obsession with each other. “It just seemed a very fertile ground,” Weisz explained. “A twisted, codependent relationship between identical twins, whatever their gender, who are brilliant in their careers.” Unlike Jeremy Irons’s diametrically opposed siblings in the Cronenberg film, whose complementary personalities could seem to form a single person, Weisz’s are intricately enmeshed: Though Beverly is introverted, she’s hardly passive, and pursues both her love affairs and the mission of creating a more humane, women-directed way of birthing with quiet focus. Elliot curbs her own scientific imagination, her appetite for grander interventions like eliminating menopause or aging, in service of what she perceives to be Beverly’s needs. Weisz fills the dual roles of Beverly and Elliot with her own raw, organic power, guiding patients through labor with quick, steady hands and a tone that’s firm almost to the point of coldness.But some of the most affecting moments in the series come when she’s tapping into maternal vulnerability, as when she portrays Beverly’s discovering that she’s had another miscarriage, the latest in a gutting series. The camera hovers over her hand holding a bloody piece of toilet paper in a shot that is almost from a first-person perspective. The effect for me, as a viewer, was the opposite of an out-of-body experience: It was a sight that I had only experienced in my own life, and for a moment my mind raced through the consequences that it implied — was I menstruating, had I forgotten to take my pill, was there something deeply wrong inside of me? You could say that the series normalizes these physiological processes by showing them onscreen, but they are already normal — they’re just the unseen part of the iceberg that is having a body.Weisz’s experience as a parent — she’s a devoted mother of two who had her second child in 2018 at age 48 — has gone hand in hand with her decisions to explore these looser, rawer, less polished characters with their unusual thirsts and hungers. When I asked her about her own experience with birthing, what she remembered most intensely was the horrifying tales of deliveries gone wrong that others seemed eager to tell her. “The one thing I did notice the first time I was pregnant was the amount of times people came to me to tell me terrible stories, some terrible things that happened,” Weisz said. In response, she actively sought out accounts of positive outcomes, to get a sense of all the possibilities, all the branching pathways. She gravitated toward Ina May Gaskin, a midwife and prolific author who pioneered techniques for low-intervention birth and home birthing. In the then-male-dominated field of obstetrics, Gaskin was the first midwife to have a procedure named after her — the Gaskin maneuver, adapted from the practice of Guatemalan midwives, in which turning a woman from her back onto her hands and knees helps to ease the baby’s shoulder through the birth canal. Just as Gaskin pushed for women to be able to give birth outside the specialized medical environment of the hospital, a common refrain throughout the show is the idea that pregnancy is not a disease, and pregnant women are not sick. “You don’t have to possibly be cured,” Weisz said, paraphrasing Beverly. “There’s nothing wrong with you. It’s just a natural part of life.”Weisz, a producer and an actor, has moved into a more boundary-pushing phase of her career. Thea Traff for The New York Times“Dead Ringers” is a sort of antidote to this culture of pressurized, overdetermined moralizing over the ways that women choose to navigate the experience of pregnancy — or at least a temporary anesthetic. Though it engages with important issues about reproductive technology and birthing, it also seeks out a deliciously profane set of possibilities. The notion of the nuclear family could be retooled, could mean a pair of identical twin sisters raising the offspring of an ex-lover’s brother, or an uncanny Southern Gothic brood of perpetually pregnant daughters, headed up by a pontificating patriarch obsessed with the eminent gynecologist J. Marion Sims, who conducted experimental anesthesia-free surgical operations on enslaved women. Breeding could be a house of horrors, or a laboratory of startlingly new kinds of tenderness, as in a scene in which Beverly’s lover, Genevieve, a TV star who was once her patient, delivers an erotic monologue about how she wants to impregnate her. Under the existing laws of biology and anatomy, the fantasy is impossible, but only narrowly so: In the world the twins want to create, desire can meet reality in dark, mischievous, complex ways.To bring that vision to life, Weisz collaborated with the screenwriter and award-winning playwright Alice Birch, whose play “Anatomy of a Suicide,” an exploration of mental illness as experienced by three generations of women within a single family, was performed at the Atlantic Theater Company across a stage divided into three sections. “She’s so brilliant at creating all those levels of complexity where you’re, hopefully, in a state of pleasure, being entertained and you can’t tell what’s right or wrong,” Weisz explained. “It simply isn’t clear.”Soon after meeting, they began riffing on topics such as the French performance artist Sophie Calle and imagining the twins’ parents — ordinary anorak-wearing Brits — standing in the rain gazing at the magnificent birthing center created by their terrifying daughters. In the end they agreed that the Mantle twins’ new gender changed “everything and nothing.” Though their anatomy allowed for plot points that the male Mantles would never have encountered, the twisted specificity of their entanglement is in a moral and psychological world all their own.In Cronenberg’s “Dead Ringers,” the twins’ female patients are little more than loci for the projection of male fantasies and fears. The mutated women Beverly hallucinates signal his alienation from the female bodies that are the site of his work. Unsurprisingly, the consequence of swapping the gender of the story’s protagonists is a more robust interest in women and pregnancy — the deliveries, miscarriages, the intense and intractable particularity of each patient’s reproductive situation. “It just, I suppose, happened as a result of the doctors having the same bodies as their patients,” Weisz said. “They weren’t ‘other’ to them.” Women in Weisz’s series are what they are — complex, self-destructive, occasionally destructive of others — and the horror comes directly from their actions, from whom they can’t help being. The most graphic and upsetting moments of the series foreground routine obstetric procedures that are rarely viewed outside their specialized audience — C-sections, vaginal births, the movements and turnings of infants beneath the skin of the mother’s stomach — which brings up the question of why we as viewers are so insulated from the realities of reproduction. Horrific to whom? Disturbing for what reason? And whom does it serve to make birthing so opaque, so secretive?As Weisz and Birch’s vision began to take shape, Birch gathered a writers’ room made up of eight women. Weisz sat in on writing sessions, and there were occasional visitors: midwives, gynecologists, endocrinologists and embryologists who gave their thoughts on what needed to change in the way we view and support birthing. Under lockdown and Zooming in from various locations — some had moved back in with their parents; another became pregnant during the writing sessions while living on a boat off the coast of Cornwall — the writers shared stories and experiences of their own. Even amid discussions about the dystopian state of modern reproductive care, there was a distinctly utopian imagination at work. “How do we unthink what we think of as normal, and how do we make unmysterious what is still inherently mysterious?” asked Lileana Blain-Cruz, a director who participated in the writers’ room as a dramaturg. “It becomes a philosophical question — not just of the mystery of it, but of how systems inhibit progress and thinking.”Thea Traff for The New York TimesThe writers’ room was intent on directing the viewer’s attention away from the debate over how a pregnant body should be, and toward the more open-ended question of how pregnancy could be: There could be soothing depictions of natural landscapes, soft silicon instruments, rigorously tailored personalized care. There could be gene editing, immortal wombs, eternally youthful skin and freshly grafted ovarian tissue. There’s an argument to be made that it’s impossible to talk about improving reproductive outcomes without talking about abortion rights; that it’s discriminatory to talk about fixing the way women give birth without addressing the high maternal mortality rates of Black and Native American patients; that it’s anachronistic to talk about pregnancy as though it were a thing experienced only by cis women — this show engages only tangentially with these topics. Instead, it takes hold of contemporary debates over medical ethics and class inequities in reproductive care, and treats them as playground equipment, as the terrain on which psychological dramas of a wild and unpredictable nature can be played out. As the arc of the show grows increasingly macabre, some of the portentous weight of birthing — the need to make the perfect choices, to give birth in an ideal and aspirational way — gives way to a wicked sense of fun.So much of the anxiety around reproduction in the United States has to do with the contradiction of being dependent and isolated at once: dependent on a health care system that must be paid for privately; dependent on a political apparatus outside your control that can force you to give birth while denying any resources or care to the baby that is born; isolated by the moral codes and prescriptions that circulate in the media and among the people in our lives. We often approach pregnancy with a hunger for clean, clear answers — the exact week at which a pregnant body should no longer be allowed caffeine or soft cheese, or the moment at which a bundle of cells becomes a legally protected human being — but living matter resists these attempts at containment.The womb is itself a paradoxical thing. In preparing for pregnancy, an entirely new organ, the placenta, is created. It infiltrates the uterine blood vessels and grows over 150 miles of capillaries to provide nutrients and oxygen to the developing fetus before it is unceremoniously expelled from the womb during birthing. But the placenta’s origin blurs the distinction between host body and fetus: Though it originates from cells in the outer layer of the embryo that burrow their way into the womb using a combination of digestive enzymes, substances that trigger suicide in target cells and by impersonating the host’s blood vessels, it is built in part from motherly resources. One’s self mingles with another across a semiporous border. By drawing boundaries, we lose sight of our radical interrelation.Alexandra Kleeman is a professor at the New School and a Guggenheim fellow in literature. Her newest novel is “Something New Under the Sun.” Thea Traff is a photographer and photo editor based in New York who frequently contributes to The Times. Her work focuses on human emotion conveyed through facial expressions and body movement. More

  • in

    ‘Indian Matchmaking,’ It’s Time to Break Up

    The Netflix dating show claims that tradition can find love where modernity has failed. But all it does is reinforce age-old prejudices.“In India we don’t say ‘arranged marriage.’ There is ‘marriage’ and then ‘love marriage.’” Of all the platitudes — and she spouts a lot of them — issued forth by Sima Taparia, the self-anointed top matchmaker of Mumbai and breakout star of Netflix’s “Indian Matchmaking,” none land more true than this one. It’s not as if finding husbands and wives for unpaired offspring hasn’t been a fixation of anxious parents across centuries and civilizations, even if in Europe and the United States, love may have finally entered the chat and stayed long enough to become unexceptional. But for older generations in India, parents’ finding spouses for their children has been the norm for so long that the idea of those same adult children’s marrying for “love” is still alien enough for it to occupy an entirely separate category — now a reality-TV show.“Indian Matchmaking,” whose third season premiered on April 21, follows the immaculately coifed, highlighted and bejeweled Taparia as she steamrolls through the lives of unhappily single men and women of Indian origin mostly living in America. She promises to find them the spouses of their dreams, as long as they don’t dream for too much. The cast varies (with some fan favorites and villains occasionally brought back) but most are seemingly well-off young people, urbane and cosmopolitan, who run their own businesses and attend boutique workout classes. This season’s standouts include an emergency-room doctor named Vikash, whose god complex extends to referring to himself in the third person as Vivacious Vikash and performing solo dances to Hindi songs at his friends’ weddings (and allowing video of himself doing so to be broadcast on the show); he wants a tall Hindi-speaking girl because he’s really attached to Indian “culture.” There’s Bobby, the over-energetic teacher who performs a math-themed rap that ends with him snarling “mathematics, boiii” at the screen. Arti from Miami lists weekly visits to Costco as her hobby.The activities that these aspirant matchees choose for the dates they go on (wine tastings, yoga with baby goats) are straight out of gentrified Williamsburg. Interspersed in between these scenes are cameos from their stony-faced parents, astrologers dispensing sex advice, face readers, tarot-card readers and Taparia’s own peremptory admonishments reminding them that they’re never getting everything they want in a partner, so they better start lowering their expectations now.She promises to find them the spouses of their dreams, as long as they don’t dream for too much.That she has not yet made a single match resulting in marriage over the course of two seasons and 16 episodes has deterred neither Taparia herself nor the makers of the show from continuing this Sisyphean journey into a third. She is not one to suffer from impostor syndrome or even, apparently, introspection, so her matchmaking methodology remains resolutely unchanged. The only big departure this time around is the expansion of her hunting grounds to Britain, where she commences her reign of terror in London by telling a 35-year-old divorcee named Priya that she “should not be so much picky.”To people like me, who grew up in this third-party matchmaking milieu, Sima Taparia or Sima Aunty (a nickname she gives herself) is just that — an aunty, an archetype we’ve known and avoided all our lives: the obnoxious and overbearing relative, neighbor or acquaintance with zero sense of boundaries. But to the global audiences who eagerly lapped up “Indian Matchmaking” during the early months of the pandemic, Taparia was a delightful novelty, in one moment tossing bon mots of conjugal wisdom with the serenity of an all-knowing sibyl (“You will only get 60 to 70 percent of what you want; you will never get 100 percent”) and in the next moment ordering a female client to get rid of her “high standards” with the brusqueness of a guidance counselor breaking it to an overzealous student that they’re not getting into Harvard.In India, the business of parents seeking brides and grooms for their children is a cruel and cutthroat one, having originated as a way to preserve caste endogamy.Throughout history, the coming together of two people in matrimony (holy or otherwise) has never been just about the union itself — it is the broader institution that reveals the deepest anxieties (financial, religious or racial) undergirding a society. “Indian Matchmaking” bills itself as just any other show about the caprices of trying to find love in a hostile world. It is predicated on the idea that seeking the help of someone as quaintly old-fashioned as a matchmaker is superior to the travails of dating online, where one must undergo far worse indignities like being ghosted or breadcrumbed. Here, at least, relationship expectations are mutual, and after all, what is a “biodata” (a curiously-named document Taparia uses in her practice) if not the same exaggerated dating-app profile but in résumé form and with fewer wince-inducing mentions about loving tacos and pizza.But in India, the business of parents seeking brides and grooms for their children is a cruel and cutthroat one, having originated as a way to preserve caste endogamy, and it continues to be fraught with violence from every side, a reality that is at odds with the show’s portrayal of the process as a decorous, civilized exchange that takes place over tea and manners. The most pernicious aspects are hidden behind a flimsy veneer of fabricated gentility, apparent in the many euphemistic phrases in which Taparia, the singles she is matching and their parents communicate. The show’s title itself reads like an awkward, faux-anthropological translation, when in reality, the Indian here in “Indian Matchmaking” is merely a stand-in for outrageously wealthy, landed upper-caste Hindus (with an exception here and there).Caste, one of the most malicious forces still dictating India’s social fabric, is gingerly intimated by low-voiced mumblings of “same community.” Openly declaring that you want to marry someone filthy rich would be uncouth, so the words “good family, good upbringing” are uttered frequently. Women cannot afford to be “picky.” Women have to be “flexible.” They must also learn how to “compromise.” My personal favorite of these, though, is “adjust,” one of the hardest-working euphemisms in Indian English, whose meaning linguistically can range from the squeezed addition of a third backside on a bus seat meant to fit only two, to a man’s parents’ demanding that the girl foredoomed to marry their son give up her professional career to pursue full-time daughter-in-law activities. Curiously enough, the men are spared the brunt of such exhortations.“In marriage, every desire becomes a decision,” remarked Susan Sontag in 1956, a strikingly trenchant line that I recalled when watching the show’s participants being quizzed about their “criteria” for a potential spouse. Initially, they start out reciting millennial-speak straight out of the 2012 twee-internet era: the desire for someone “kind” with a “sense of humor.” But upon further prodding, out come tumbling the real demands, the decisions that display that their modernity hasn’t yet overcome the inherited prejudices that govern this entire phenomenon. Costco-obsessed Arti cannot help mentioning that her father would have really, really, really loved for her to marry someone from her “community.” Vivacious Vikash, meanwhile, for all his insistence on Indian “culture,” forgot to specify that he wanted a Hindi-speaking girl from America (a “same community” of its own) and not the “very Indian” woman with the Indian accent that Sima Aunty found for him.Source photographs: NetflixIva Dixit is a staff editor at the magazine. Her previous articles include an appreciation of eating raw red onions and an exploration into the continued popularity of “Emily in Paris.” More

  • in

    ‘Yellowjackets’ Season 2, Episode 5 Recap: Destructive Secrets

    This week brought plenty of confessions but little healing.Season 2, Episode 5: ‘Two Truths and a Lie’“Giving voice to our darkest thoughts is how we gain access to our deepest truths,” the true believer Lisa tells Adult Natalie as a prompt during one of Lottie’s workshops. Indeed, Lottie’s methodology is proven right over the course of the fifth episode of “Yellowjackets,” where destructive secrets are wantonly shared. But there is little healing to come from these confessions, only more destruction.Take, for instance, Misty.Teen Misty is feeling especially loose lipped thanks to her friendship with her “bestie” Crystal. Some facts we learn about Misty: The three famous people she would invite to a slumber party are Plato, the “Grind” host Eric Nies and Jack Kevorkian because what he does is “so brave.” She hates deodorant. She once walked in on her parents having sex and wasn’t all that grossed out. And, of course, the one we already know: She destroyed the plane’s emergency transmitter the night after the crash so she could remain the Yellowjackets’ hero in crisis.That last one doesn’t sit well with Crystal, whose name, it turns out, is actually Kristen. That’s the kind of secret that she shared with Misty, explaining that she never corrected her teammates when they mistakenly called her “Crystal the pistol” on the first day of practice. It’s a detail about her life that she revels in sharing with her best friend, something sort of embarrassing but not actually all that shameful. Misty misreads Crystal’s acceptance. Rather than celebrate their shared oddity when Misty utters the story about the transmitter, Crystal’s expression drops. Misty is the reason they are all stranded. Suddenly the game isn’t fun.Misty tries to save face, pretending she’s just kidding, but Crystal knows better. “You’re not that good of an actress,” she says. Misty, facing social isolation once more, resorts to a threat, vowing to kill Crystal if she tells anyone. She doesn’t have to. Crystal stumbles backward and plummets to her death. When Misty returns to the cabin, she tells the group Crystal got lost in the raging storm that just descended on the wilderness knowing full well Crystal’s mangled body is at the foot of a cliff.In the present, Walter Tattersall also knows that Misty isn’t a very good actress. Their dynamic mirrors Misty and Crystal’s, though Misty isn’t as willing a participant in the banter he’s trying to start. She reluctantly plays his game of “two truths and a lie” before getting distracted upon finding the gate to Lottie’s compound. When Natalie emerges, it’s not the reunion for which Misty had hoped: Natalie sends the betrayed and frustrated Misty away.What Misty fails to recognize is she finally has someone sitting across from her who will accept her strangeness wholeheartedly. Walter has figured out she was likely involved in Adam Martin’s death, but he doesn’t really care. “I like you regardless of your extracurricular activities,” he says.He’s had his own odd experience with killers — his grandma murdered his grandfather, apparently — and is bizarrely charmed by Misty’s nefariousness. This isn’t the same situation as Shauna’s daughter, Callie, and the creepy cop who is trying to pry clues out of her through bowling dates. Unless I’m mistaking his earnestness for something else, Walter says what he means.But Misty rejects that. She’s offended that he thinks she’s a murderer and fails to see that she might finally have a weirdo who matches her, a bestie who’s even more sympathetic than Crystal, may she rest in peace. Instead, she leaves Walter behind and marches up to Lottie’s community with a new plan: She’s going to join up.In that enclave, Natalie has been trying to unearth some secrets of her own. She finally manages to dig around Lottie’s office, and discovers boxes of personal documents about Lottie’s followers. To her it looks like a gold mine, but she’s quickly shut down when it turns out everyone relinquished that information willingly.With Natalie despondent, Lottie turns the tables on her, encouraging Natalie to divulge what she’s been hiding — specifically, what she told Travis that led to his death. Using a technique from her “time away” — a euphemistic term for when she was institutionalized — Lottie flashes a light in Natalie’s eyes and coaxes out of her the story of the last time she saw Travis.It’s a seedy tale in which Natalie and Travis went on a bender and Natalie overdosed. In her unconscious state, Natalie saw a vision of the Yellowjackets’ crash site, but none of them had survived. The mysterious figure known as the “antler queen” moves through the vessel among the corpses. When Natalie was revived she told Travis: “I saw it. I felt it. We brought it back. Trav, we brought it back with us.”As she shares this, Lottie, terrified, looks over her shoulder and sees the shadow of that same person or creature. “Yellowjackets” viewers have theorized that Lottie was the “antler queen” because she dons a crown made of antlers at the “Doomcoming.” But now Lottie is the one haunted by that image. Is it her own shadow self that’s scaring her? Or is the “antler queen” even a single being? Is it instead the manifestation of the “darkness” all of the Yellowjackets carry?That darkness has arrived at Adult Van’s apartment-slash-video store in the form of Taissa. Tai is aware she is placing a huge burden on Van by asking for her help. Meanwhile, Van has some hidden habits of her own, squirreling away oxycodone when she thinks Tai is asleep. And Tai is asleep when Van takes the drug. It’s the “other one” — Tai’s alter ego — who emerges in the darkness and kisses Van. “This isn’t where we are supposed to be,” she says.It’s easy to think of the spirits plaguing these women and girls as evil, yet in the final moments of the hour we’re given an example of wilderness mysticism as a force for good. Pregnant Shauna has grown understandably suspicious of Lottie, who whispers to her baby in utero. But when Shauna and Tai are stranded in heavy snowfall they are seemingly guided by Lottie’s mantras about hearing the wind and the trees. They are able to make it back as Shauna goes into labor, her primal scream of pain ending the episode.In an earlier scene, Lottie had told the fetus, “You are going to change everything.” Now the child is here, a new life entering the world replacing Crystal, who has left it. Bye, bestie. Hello, baby.More to chew onAdult Shauna’s Built to Spill T-shirt is a great costuming choice.An interesting fact for those keeping track of where everyone was post-rescue: Tai and Van were still together when Shauna got married. They swapped out the guest book pen for a dirty novelty pen.I think the creepiest character on the show might be Matt Saracusa, the adult detective who pretends to date a teen to solve a case. In addition to its general ickiness, I grew tired of that whole plotline this episode including Shauna’s fake tryst with Randy, the most useless character on the show.The motif of videotape static has been with the show since the beginning thanks to the opening credits, but it’s being deployed more and more in the narrative. What does it mean?Is Misty actually a murderer? Technically, she isn’t as far as we know, and maybe that’s why she’s so angry at Walter’s assumption. She’s definitely an accessory and you could probably charge her with manslaughter. But straight up murder? Not yet.Does Crystal become the next meal? More

  • in

    Late Night Laughs at Elon Musk’s SpaceX Explosion

    “When people saw the rocket light up and start smoking, they were like, ‘All right, happy 4/20, everybody!’” Jimmy Fallon joked on Thursday.Welcome to Best of Late Night, a rundown of the previous night’s highlights that lets you sleep — and lets us get paid to watch comedy. Here are the 50 best movies on Netflix right now.Light It UpSpaceX and its chief executive, Elon Musk, saw the company’s Starship rocket explode on Thursday, just four minutes after launch.“Yeah at first, when people saw the rocket light up and start smoking, they were like, ‘All right, happy 4/20, everybody!’” Jimmy Fallon joked.“SpaceX is now saying they triggered the explosion, but originally when it happened, they called it a ‘rapid unscheduled disassembly.’ That sounds like what celebrities say when they’re getting divorced: ‘Our marriage is going through a rapid unscheduled disassembly — please respect our privacy at this time.’” — JIMMY FALLON“I have to hand it to him — ‘rapid unscheduled disassembly’ is one hell of a way to describe your rocket blowing up. That’s up there with ‘wardrobe malfunction’ and ‘conscious uncoupling.’” — JIMMY KIMMEL“Right after the giant explosion, Elon was like, ‘Oh, crap, did we launch a Tesla by mistake?’” — JIMMY FALLON“Elon’s defenders were quick to point out that this was only a test and the rocket was actually supposed to explode, which is definitely what I would say if my $3 billion rocket exploded.” — JIMMY KIMMELThe Punchiest Punchlines (Expensive Overcompensation Edition)“And to the haters who said Musk couldn’t possibly destroy something faster than Twitter, joke’s on you.” — JORDAN KLEPPER“They’re calling this the most expensive penis overcompensation in American history.” — JIMMY KIMMEL“Yeah, it took off fast, was flying high and then, all of a sudden, it exploded — kind of like Ron DeSantis’s presidential campaign.” — JIMMY FALLON“That disassembly cost SpaceX $3 billion, which, you could defame four different voting machine companies for that much money.” — JIMMY KIMMELThe Bits Worth WatchingDanny Trejo joined Stephen Colbert to make some recipes from his new cookbook, “Trejo’s Cantina,” on Thursday’s “Late Show.”Also, Check This OutLittle Richard in 1956. The rock ‘n’ roll trailblazer is the subject of the documentary “Little Richard: I Am Everything.”Pictorial Press Ltd/Alamy Stock Photo/Magnolia PicturesThe new documentary “Little Richard: I Am Everything” presents the early rock ’n’ roll performer as a man of many contradictions. More

  • in

    Review: In ‘The Thanksgiving Play,’ Who Gets to Tell the Story?

    Larissa FastHorse’s comedy of performative wokeness is also a brutal satire of American mythmaking.Rehearsal rooms are embarrassing places. Actors jockey, directors bloviate, writers fume at liberties taken.We see all of that in the rehearsal room where “The Thanksgiving Play” is set, even though what’s being rehearsed is just a holiday pageant for elementary school students. Yet not just any holiday pageant. Meant to “lift up” the Native American point of view despite including no Native Americans, this one twists the drama teacher who is creating it, along with her colleagues, into pretzels of performative wokeness so mortifying they induce a perma-cringe.If that setup makes “The Thanksgiving Play,” which opened on Thursday at the Helen Hayes Theater, sound like a backstage farce akin to “Peter Pan Goes Wrong,” which opened the day before, that’s true. In both plays, everyone behaves badly, tempers flare and nothing flies right.But for Larissa FastHorse, the author of “The Thanksgiving Play,” farce is not an end in itself. Rather, it is the hilarious envelope in which she delivers a brutal satire about mythmaking, and thus, in a way, about theater itself. The stories we create can do almost as much harm as the false histories they purport to commemorate, she shows. And well-meaning people can, too.The well-meaning people in this case include Logan (Katie Finneran) and Jaxton (Scott Foley): she an imperiled high school drama teacher (her production of “The Iceman Cometh” incited parents to seek her dismissal) and he an out-of-work actor (except for a gig at the farmers market). They have mastered the buzzwords of white progressivism and use them as protective amulets, holding space for others, acknowledging privilege, sharing pronouns without being asked. Jaxton brags that he even used “they” for a year.In short, these are ridiculous figures — and yet not so ridiculous as to be unrecognizable. Nor, in Rachel Chavkin’s cheerfully cutthroat production for Second Stage Theater, are they even unlikable. Turning Logan’s anxiety into a parade of comic tics and uncertain outbursts, Finneran is endearing and even sympathetic in her attempts at righteousness, no matter how wrong they go. And though Jaxton is an obvious skeeve, decentering his maleness only as a kind of tantric come-on, Foley does it so well that the character is somehow attractive.It’s less their bad traits than their good intentions that drive you mad. Logan has engaged a wide-eyed elementary school history teacher named Caden (Chris Sullivan) to serve as a factual backstop for the pageant, then mostly ignores him. (Sullivan does puppyish disappointment beautifully.) And her casting of Alicia (D’Arcy Carden) to represent the Native American experience — under the terms of a “Native American Heritage Month Awareness Through Art Grant” — turns out to be deeply flawed. A Los Angeles actor, a third understudy for Jasmine at Disneyland and a “super-flexible” ethnic type, Alicia is not, even a little bit, Native American.Foley and Finneran’s characters, who have mastered the buzzwords of white progressivism, are ridiculous figures yet not unrecognizable.Sara Krulwich/The New York TimesNevertheless, so clever is FastHorse’s setup, and so thorough her twisting of the knife of woke logic, that Alicia, if anyone, is our hero. In part, that’s because she alone is untroubled by her whiteness — or, really, by anything. (She defends her casting by pointing out that the actor who plays Lumière in “Beauty and the Beast” is not a real candlestick either.) Still, as the team proceeds to “devise” the pageant, she’s crafty enough to steer it toward her actual strengths. “I know how to make people stare at me and not look away,” she explains (and Carden convincingly demonstrates). She’s also good at crying.In mesmerizing moments like this, FastHorse neatly sets up the tension between identity and the performance of identity — a tension she doesn’t resolve but upgrades over the course of the play to a full-scale paradox. By the time she’s finished, Logan, Jaxton and Caden are left wriggling in agony as if under a moral microscope, reduced to saying things like, “We see color but we don’t speak for it.” Eventually they conclude that the only way to center Indigenous people is to erase them.Of course, they have been erased already — repeatedly. FastHorse, a member of the Sicangu Lakota nation of South Dakota, gradually introduces the horrifying undertow of that fact with filmed segments screened briefly between the live scenes. Distressingly, these segments are based on Thanksgiving projects that real teachers have posted online. In one, adorable young children performing “The Nine Days of Thanksgiving” are made to list the many things, like “six Native teepees,” that Indians “gave” the Pilgrims. In another, fifth graders shooting turkeys with prop muskets sing a song with the lyric “One little Indian left all alone/He went out and hanged himself and then there were none.”In the play’s well-acted but somewhat diffuse premiere at Playwrights Horizons in 2018, the film sequences were less awful and violent. For Broadway, they (and the production as a whole, including its set by Riccardo Hernandez) have been pumped up to emphasize the weight of indoctrination, among adults who should know better and children who can’t. Though this is crucial to the play’s project of undoing centuries of racist mythologizing, I was left a bit queasy thinking about the young performers. Weren’t they being indoctrinated too?Filmed segments screened between live scenes are based on Thanksgiving projects that real teachers have posted online.Sara Krulwich/The New York TimesBut queasiness may be just what FastHorse is aiming for. She told the publication American Theater that she thinks a lot about “rhythm and release” in her writing. “You take your medicine, and then you get some sugar, then you take some medicine, you get some sugar.”Repeated several times over the course of 90 minutes, that cycle — enhanced by Chavkin’s pacing, which leaves you swallowing your laughter — can lead to an upset stomach. And the characters are sometimes so exaggerated for satire that they lose their grip on your emotions. Still, by the time the bloody tale of the Pequot massacre is enacted onstage, you may find yourself agreeing with Logan, of all people. Being a vegan, she already struggles with the “holiday of death”; I wanted to disown it entirely, from the turkeys all the way back to the Pilgrims.But “The Thanksgiving Play” is not primarily a brief for correcting American history. Like Tracy Letts’s “The Minutes,” which also uncovered a horrific massacre hiding in the clothing of civic pageantry, FastHorse is interested in how new information (new only to some people) might change the stories we tell in the future. The first step, to judge by the absurd crew onstage, will be to change the storytellers. FastHorse being the first Native American woman known to have a play produced on Broadway, maybe we’ve finally started.The Thanksgiving PlayThrough June 4 at the Helen Hayes Theater, Manhattan; 2st.com. Running time: 1 hour 30 minutes. More

  • in

    ‘Star Trek: Picard’ Series Finale Recap: Saying Farewell

    In the end, the final season of “Picard” was a worthy send-off for the “Next Generation” crew.Season 3, Episode 10: ‘The Last Generation’“What began over 35 years ago ends tonight,” Jean-Luc Picard says, standing on his favorite bridge and glaring at his most distasteful enemy. It recalled his “The line must be drawn here!” from “First Contact.”This was ostensibly a reference to the Federation’s longstanding battle with the Borg, but it also might as well been about “The Next Generation” franchise. (The show began airing in 1987 and 35 years ago would be 1988.) And if this is the last time we see of these characters, then that’s OK. Not because this season of “Picard” wasn’t a strong one. Quite the opposite, in fact: It was quite good and recaptured everything that made “Next Generation” what it was.The characters all used special skills to work together and save humankind. Some of the dialogue was campy. There were plot holes. And there were the classic “Star Trek” tropes, like Jean-Luc nonsensically going to the Borg cube, when he was likely the least physically capable of the old crew in fighting off the Borg.But overall, this season was a worthy send-off for the crew. It wasn’t perfect, but neither was the show or any of the movies. But it was worth doing. The story justified its existence. It advanced each of the main characters, and filled in some gaps.And it confirmed one last time that “The Next Generation” was greater than the sum of its parts. That might have been why the first two seasons of “Picard” didn’t work well. Jean-Luc wasn’t the best character he could be without his old friends to bounce off. The chemistry wasn’t as fluid. The story wasn’t as deep.In the finale, we learn a bit about what the Borg have been up to, though I remain baffled that no one brings up Jurati or the whole Good Borg thing from last season. (Maybe it was for the best.) There was no collective left — only the Borg Queen remained, she claimed, though we know from last season’s events that this isn’t exactly true.It was Jack who found the Borg Queen, at least from her telling. She speaks in a way contrary to what we’ve known about the Borg: She says she was lonely and that the Borg were left to starve. (This kind of undercuts the Borg’s whole message of being the perfect beings.) But now, the Borg want to evolve rather than assimilate, and Jack is the perfect partner to do that. In order to survive, the Borg Queen, I think, resorted to Borg cannibalism. Yikes! Hope those drones won Employee of the Month or something.The Borg and the changelings came to an agreement in which the changelings would be the Borg’s vehicle to carry out some villainous plan to help them procreate. Aside from an ill-fated revenge that they didn’t really need the Borg for, I don’t know what else the changelings really got out of this alliance.Elsewhere, classic Star Trekking happens. Worf and Riker fight off some baddies on the cube. Beverly uses her now finely honed combat skills to fire weapons. (It’s somewhat amusing that Geordi refurbished the Enterprise D for display at the fleet museum and also included a loaded torpedo system. Thank goodness he went above and beyond!) Data shows off his lightning fast piloting skills, assisted by his newly acquired gut instinct.Beverly is faced with an impossible decision: Blow up her son and save the galaxy, or, uh, don’t. I loved that Geordi is the one who asks her permission, because he now understands a parent’s love for a child. And when it comes time to fire on the beacon, Geordi really, really doesn’t want to do it.Jean-Luc finds another solution. He assimilates himself so he can get in contact with Jack in the Borg collective. Jean-Luc isn’t human, of course. He is an android — apparently, he can just plug himself in to the network like a flash drive. Jean-Luc tells Jack that he is the missing part of Jean-Luc’s life. (Patrick Stewart plays this perfectly.)Jean-Luc is finally able to admit to himself how lonely he was outside of Starfleet, and that Starfleet merely covered up that loneliness rather than filling it entirely. Jean-Luc gives his son something he’s craved his whole life: approval and unconditional love. And Jean-Luc also won’t let his son go. He offers to stay in the hole with him so they can climb out together. Jean-Luc gets to be the father he never knew he wanted to be.Eventually, Jean-Luc’s pushes Jack to unassimilate himself and turn against the Queen. And that’s that: The universe is saved again. Our thanks to the crew of the Enterprise for the umpteenth time.The episode ends in the only appropriate way for the “Next Generation” crew: They sit around and toast each other. Jean-Luc quotes Shakespeare. And then they whoop and play cards, just like at the end of “All Good Things…,” the series finale of the original “Next Generation.”The end wasn’t perfect, but it was proper. And that’s all about all you can ask for from a season like this. I don’t need any more — I want the Enterprise D crew to Costanza it and leave on a high note. They’ve earned it.LeVar Burton in “Star Trek: Picard.”Trae Patton/Paramount+Odds and endsSomewhat amusingly, Jean-Luc does not express any concern or mention Laris throughout any of this season, another example of the team behind “Picard” trying to erase the first two seasons of the show from existence. But Laris, for her part, actually appeared in the season premiere and, one could argue, help put the events of the reunion in motion.I keep thinking about that scene early this season with Riker and Jean-Luc at the bar, when Riker has to defend the honor of the Enterprise D. We didn’t know it then, but that foreshadowed the whole season.I would have liked to hear a bit more about what Worf has been up to since the events of “Nemesis.” At the end of “Deep Space Nine,” Worf was named an ambassador to Qo’noS. In “Nemesis,” Worf somehow just becomes a member of the Enterprise crew again with little explanation as to why. In this season, it’s implied that Worf helped destroy the Enterprise E. A bit more detail would have been nice. The “Worf as comic relief” thing also grew thin on me, like when he fell asleep on the bridge immediately after he is part of saving civilization again. But there is a fun callback in the last scene of the episode: Beverly saying Worf should have another glass of prune juice. A warrior’s drink!Pavel Chekov’s son, Anton, being president of the Federation was a nice touch. Anton is likely a reference to Anton Yelchin, who played Chekov in the rebooted feature films beginning in 2009. He died in 2016 as a result of a car accident.When Seven and Raffi figure out a way to transport assimilated crew members off the bridge using phaser rifles, it’s quite the deus ex machina. That technology would’ve been helpful all season!That was a funny moment when the cook is ordered to pilot the Titan. He didn’t even finish flight training, why is Seven making him take the wheel? Have Raffi do it! (Within minutes, the cook executes complicated evasive maneuvers, so that must have been some training.)At first, I found New Data to be quite jarring but after a couple episodes, this version grew on me. When he says he hates the Borg, you can see the Lore side of him burst through. It’s a fresh take on Data and Brent Spiner pulls it off nicely.That was a nice bit of wordless acting from Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis when Riker heads down to the cube for yet another mission with Jean-Luc. The swashbuckling Riker gives the slightest of smiles, as if to say, “You know who you married. You know why I have to do this.” And Troi reluctantly agrees. Later, when Troi tells Riker he will only have a minute or so to save Jean-Luc once the Enterprise fires on the Cube, he responds again with cool confidence in a near death situation.There will certainly be some disappointment among fans that Kate Mulgrew did not reprise her role as Admiral Janeway this season. The events in “Voyager” presumably are the reason the Borg cube was in such terrible shape when Jean-Luc beams aboard. Given the multiple references to Janeway and what was happening on Earth, it would have been nice to have gotten a glimpse of her. (And man, how gnarly does the Borg Queen look now?)Ah, there’s Tuvok, offering Seven her own ship. As Vulcan as ever.In the grand scheme of things, this is still only the second most successful attack by the Borg on Earth. Sure, they get to Earth, bring down the planetary defense systems and attack cities directly — all while using Starfleet ships. But in “First Contact,” they actually went back in time and assimilated all of Earth before the pesky Enterprise crew initiated a do-over. And honestly, if Jean-Luc and his merry band couldn’t rescue Earth from Evil Jack, they could just do what they did last season or in “First Contact”: Go back in time. It’s easy!Troi gets to drive the Enterprise D again. It went better than it did last time, when she crashed it.Beverly is an admiral now? What a promotion, considering the decades she spent out of Starfleet running a rogue operation. I wonder if Riker, Geordi or any of the others were like, “Hey, what about us?”Ed Speleers did an admirable job as Jack Crusher. It’s not easy to go toe-to-toe with Patrick Stewart, but Speleers fits in seamlessly as Beverly and Jean-Luc’s son. (While we’re here, what’s up with Jack’s brother, Wesley?)I hope all of you stuck around for the post-credits scene. Q is still alive! Of course he is. We don’t acknowledge last season around these parts. More

  • in

    How a ‘Succession’ Actress’s Daughters Joined the Family Business

    In the first film Mouna and Lina Soualem made with their mother, Hiam Abbass, personal attachments went out the window: “There’s no time for that.”Hiam Abbass: I see you both as a continuation of my path, in a way. But I didn’t plan it. As a mother, I just wanted you to do what you wanted to do.Lina Soualem: Mouna, you always knew you would be an actress. I felt that because both our parents [their father is the French Algerian actor Zinedine Soualem] acted, I would never be as good as them, so I started working in journalism first. I think I had to go through that to find my voice.Mouna Soualem: I love your discipline and commitment [as a filmmaker], Lina. You don’t let go when you want something. It’s different being an actor, when so much is out of your control and sometimes you must let go or you’ll go crazy.H.A.: We can also let go in order to be somebody else. The first time the three of us collaborated, for my film “Inheritance” (2012), I was playing a mother, and you two were playing my daughters. When we’re on set, though, I don’t relate to you both as my daughters, just as you don’t relate to me as your mom. There’s no time for that.culture banner More