Eliana Willis

An oral history of Apple’s groundbreaking “1984” spot, which helped to establish the Super Bowl as TV’s biggest commercial showcase.Four decades ago, the Super Bowl became the Super Bowl.It wasn’t because of anything that happened in the game itself: On Jan. 22, 1984, the Los Angeles Raiders defeated Washington 38-9 in Super Bowl XVIII, a contest that was mostly over before halftime. But during the broadcast on CBS, a 60-second commercial loosely inspired by a famous George Orwell novel shook up the advertising and the technology sectors without ever showing the product it promoted. Conceived by the Chiat/Day ad agency and directed by Ridley Scott, then fresh off making the seminal science-fiction noir “Blade Runner,” the Apple commercial “1984,” which was intended to introduce the new Macintosh computer, would become one of the most acclaimed commercials ever made. It also helped to kick off — pun partially intended — the Super Bowl tradition of the big game serving as an annual showcase for gilt-edged ads from Fortune 500 companies. It all began with the Apple co-founder Steve Jobs’s desire to take the battle with the company’s rivals to a splashy television broadcast he knew nothing about.In recent interviews, several of the people involved in creating the “1984” spot — Scott; John Sculley, then chief executive of Apple; Steve Hayden, a writer of the ad for Chiat/Day; Fred Goldberg, the Apple account manager for Chiat/Day; and Anya Rajah, the actor who famously threw the sledgehammer — looked back on how the commercial came together, its inspiration and the internal objections that almost kept it from airing. These are edited excerpts from the conversations.JOHN SCULLEY On Oct. 19, 1983, we’re all sitting around in Steve [Jobs’s] building, the Mac building, and the cover of Businessweek says, “The Winner is … IBM.” We were pretty deflated because this was the introduction of the IBM PCjr, and we hadn’t even introduced the Macintosh yet.STEVE HAYDEN Jobs said, “I want something that will stop the world in its tracks.” Our media director, Hank Antosz, said, “Well, there’s only one place that can do that — the Super Bowl.” And Steve Jobs said, “What’s the Super Bowl?” [Antosz] said, “Well, it’s a huge football game that attracts one of the largest audiences of the year.” And [Jobs] said, “I’ve never seen a Super Bowl. I don’t think I know anybody who’s seen a Super Bowl.”John Sculley, right, with Steve Jobs in 1984. The ad would promote the company’s new Macintosh personal computer.Marilynn K. Yee/The New York TimesFRED GOLDBERG The original idea was actually done in 1982. We presented an ad [with] a headline, which was “Why 1984 Won’t Be Like ‘1984,’” to Steve Jobs, and he didn’t think the Apple III was worthy of that claim.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The hit novel became a movie, and now it’s a 14-episode Netflix series. More time let the screenwriter get deeper into the characters of Emma and Dexter.For the British author David Nicholls, the key to a good romantic story is avoiding the clichés. “The first kiss, the first night together, the wedding day. There are all these landmarks which are quite familiar and quite obvious,” he said recently.Instead, his 2009 novel “One Day” follows its two protagonists, Emma and Dexter, on the same day each year for two decades, as they weave in and out of each other’s lives as friends, partners and everything in between. What has happened on the previous 364 days is revealed slowly and indirectly, with many key moments left to the reader’s imagination.In 2011, the novel — which has been translated into 40 languages and sold millions of copies — was adapted into a film starring Anne Hathaway and Jim Sturgess, and the story has now found new life as a limited series, created by the Scottish screenwriter Nicole Taylor and available on Netflix.Emma, a hardworking student, and Dexter, a popular guy around campus, meet in the first episode on their last day of college. Ludovic Robert/NetflixWhile both adaptations closely follow the structure and plot of the novel, the show devotes the majority of its 14 half-hour-ish episodes to a different year in the pair’s lives. The film’s shorter run time meant significant cuts, so that it ultimately became a “little synopsis of the novel,” according to Nicholls. (In a Times review, the critic A.O. Scott wrote that the film “turns an episodic story into an anthology of feelings and associations.”)The show’s extended length allows more rounded characters to emerge for Emma (played by Ambika Mod, previously Shruti in “This Is Going to Hurt”) and Dexter (Leo Woodall, who was Jack in Season 2 of “The White Lotus”). We meet them in 1988, on their last night of college, where Emma has kept her head down and worked hard on a double major and Dexter has been a popular party guy, achieving below average grades in anthropology.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Meyers said Trump lacked “any sense of irony or self-awareness” when “he claimed it would be an attack on democracy to remove him from the ballot for attacking democracy.”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.‘The Tortured Lawyers Department’On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard arguments over removing former President Donald Trump from the ballot in Colorado because of a clause banning officials who engaged in insurrection from running for office.Trump didn’t appear at the hearing, but he gave a radio interview from Mar-a-Lago, in which Seth Meyers said that “without any sense of irony or self-awareness,” Trump “claimed it would be an attack on democracy to remove him from the ballot for attacking democracy.”“That’s what you did. That’s why this case is happening in the first place. It’s like if O.J. had gotten up in court and said, ‘If you put me in jail, you’ll be murdering my freedom!’” — SETH MEYERS“One of two things is possible: Either Trump is a shameless pathological liar who projects his crimes onto others, or he has what’s known in the medical community as ‘50 First Dates’ disease, where he wakes up every day and forgets what happened the day before. That would explain why Trump makes as much sense at his rallies as an Adam Sandler character.” — SETH MEYERS“It is funny to imagine that the drafters of the 14th Amendment somehow specifically exempted Donald Trump, of all people. That would explain why they added a clause saying ‘any person who engages in insurrection shall be barred from office unless said person is a boisterous and irksome real estate financier with peculiar physical features and a bizarre obsession with winged creatures slain by a wind-producing apparatus who once hosted a reality competition program on television, or whatever that is.’” — SETH MEYERS“First up, did you know that Trump’s legal team has been prepping for months? Also, they’re making an album called ‘The Tortured Lawyers Department.’” — JIMMY FALLON“Trump’s lawyers have also pointed out that the 14th Amendment says, ‘People who engaged in an insurrection cannot hold office’ — it doesn’t say they can’t run for office. But the point of running for office is to hold office. Unless you’re Nikki Haley. We’re not sure what her point is.” — STEPHEN COLBERT“And, finally, did you know the hearing was led by Chief Justice John Roberts? Also, he’s the only Chief that’s not worried about the 49ers.” — JIMMY FALLONWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The live arguments gave audiences a rare chance to experience a Trump court case as it happened.If you were to list the ingredients of riveting live television, you would probably not include still photos, empty TV studios and parsing the nuances between the nouns “office” and “officer.”Thursday’s Supreme Court arguments over Colorado’s attempt to remove former President Donald J. Trump from the ballot on the grounds of insurrection had all of those. But the proceedings, carried via live audio on cable news, also had two essentials of must-watch (or -hear) TV: High stakes and novelty.The stakes were clear, whether or not you could follow the dissection of the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. There are few things as important in a democracy as the decision of who gets to run in the next presidential election, not to mention the responsibility, and the consequences, for attempting to overturn the previous one.The broadcast was novel in more than one way. The Supreme Court only began livestreaming oral arguments in 2020, during the pandemic. Having such consequential arguments take over cable news for a full morning is a rarity.What’s more, much of the coming election will turn on court cases involving Mr. Trump, and American TV audiences are likely to be kept outside the door. Cameras were mostly barred from his civil trials in defamation and fraud cases; current federal rules prohibit them in his coming Georgia election-interference case. (The Georgia case is supposed to be livestreamed, but it may not take place before November, and Mr. Trump’s lawyers have argued that he should not be tried at all if he wins the election.)Thursday, in other words, was a rare chance for voters to experience a part of the Trump Legal Cinematic Universe for themselves, not through the analysis of pundits or the fulminations of the defendant. That alone made it a TV event.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Our TV critic recommends a sleek British thriller that puts new spins on familiar crime show setups.Peter Capaldi and Cush Jumbo star in “Criminal Record.”Apple TV+There is a sleek chicness to “Criminal Record,” an engrossing British cop thriller on Apple TV+. It pulls from lots of well-worn formats but reconstitutes everything into its own chilly terrazzo, sometimes to exciting effect.Oh, sure, it’s hard to make room in one’s heart or viewing schedule for yet another dirty cop who does things his way — but he get results, damn it! Would you believe he has a troubled daughter whose antics further tie him to the seedy side of things, that he is both a dangerous guy and a loving but suffering father? How about a righteous female cop who takes her cases a little too personally, going so far as to endanger herself as a sublimation of the dissatisfaction in her domestic life? Ever heard of layers? Hmm?But luckily “Criminal Record” is a little trickier than that, fleshing out familiar setups with tense vitality. Peter Capaldi fills Daniel Hegarty, a detective chief inspector, not with the leather-jacket intensity of most police dramas but with a patient, scary wisdom. Cush Jumbo taps into Detective Sergeant June Lenker’s panic more than her professionalism. Aggression, enmity and maybe even predation are often the dominant themes in a cop show, but here it is wariness. Watching the show feels like watching a snake, its gliding undulations mostly moving side to side but actually propelling the story forward.The action begins when Lenker gets a tip in an emergency domestic violence call. A woman says that her boyfriend is going to kill her, and that he’s killed before and gotten away with it; another man is in prison for the crime. Lenker figures out that it is one of Hegarty’s cases, and despite repeated admonishments to let it go, she can’t stop herself from digging into everything — the identity of the woman on the call, the conviction at issue, Hegarty’s slipperiness. Hegerty and Lenker are suspicious of one another’s motivations, and both are aware of the genuine politics and the less-genuine political optics of their conflict: An old white guy with a network of cronies up against a younger biracial woman who wants to expose his misdeeds. “Are you familiar with the term ‘unconscious bias’?” Hegarty asks Lenker at one point, reveling in his little moment of irony.The push-pull of multiple investigations is more interesting than the at-home plotlines for either detective, though there are a few rich moments and shining fights. When Lenker’s husband complains that everything he says is under a microscope, she’s incensed. “Then say better stuff!” she shouts back.There are eight episodes of “Criminal Record,” and six are available now, with new episodes arriving Wednesdays. More

The current season of “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” meets Merce Cunningham in an incongruous mash-up of reality TV and modern dance.“Can you get my drink, and I’ll get Merce?“In certain circles — OK, mine — that name can belong to only one person: Merce Cunningham, the 20th-century choreographer who reshaped modern dance. Over the past few weeks, his name has come up in the strangest of places: “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.”On recent episodes, Sutton Stracke traveled to Spain with her fellow Housewives. Along with racks of designer clothes, she brought Cunningham’s ashes packed in a Ziploc bag. Cunningham, it turns out, was one of the most important men in her pre-“Housewives” life, and she wanted to release the ashes “in a significant place and make this a really meaningful trip.”Dismay ensued. “Put me in a Birkin, fine,” Kyle Richards, another Housewife, said. “But a Ziploc? No.”And out of Erika Girardi’s tipsy mouth poured this gem at dinner: “Merce is in the purse.”Worlds are truly colliding. Cunningham, who died in 2009 at 90, is an indelible part of dance history but less familiar to the general public. As Stracke told her castmates, “He’s a real big deal.” How big? Stracke explained that he was a founder of modern dance.Girardi asked, “With Martha Graham and all them?”“Yes,” Stracke said.“Twyla?” Girardi said, referring to Twyla Tharp. Girardi, who performs pop music as Erika Jayne, has long worked with the choreographer Mikey Minden, and knows a thing or two.“Twyla studied under him,” Stracke said.“OK,” Girardi said with detectable pride, “There you go.”Erika Girardi revealed the location of Cunningham’s ashes (a purse) over a tipsy dinner.Bravo/NBCUniversalWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More