Television

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Television

      Actor Danny Masterson Found Guilty of Raping 2 Women in Retrial

      by

      The case against a star of the sitcom “That ’70s Show” drew widespread attention because of accusations that the Church of Scientology had tried to discourage his accusers.A jury in Los Angeles on Wednesday convicted Danny Masterson, the actor best known for his role on the sitcom “That ’70s Show,” of having raped two women in a case that drew widespread attention because of accusations that the Church of Scientology had tried to discourage his accusers.The jury deadlocked on a charge that Masterson had raped a third woman, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office said.The mixed verdict came after a jury deadlocked on all three charges in November, resulting in a mistrial. The retrial lasted more than a month, and jurors deliberated for more than a week before finding him guilty of two counts of rape by force or fear.Masterson, 47, was taken into custody after the verdict. He will face up to 30 years to life in state prison when he is sentenced on Aug. 4, the district attorney’s office said.Prosecutors said that Masterson, who played Steven Hyde on “That ’70s Show” from 1998 to 2006, raped three women at his home in the Hollywood Hills between 2001 and 2003. He was charged in 2020 and had pleaded not guilty. A spokeswoman for Masterson’s legal team said the lawyers had no immediate comment after the verdict on Wednesday.The case was closely watched in part because of accusations by two of the women that the Church of Scientology, to which they and Masterson belonged, had discouraged them from reporting the rapes to law enforcement, according to court documents. The church has strongly denied that it pressures victims.Although both trials centered on the same allegations, Judge Charlaine F. Olmedo of Los Angeles Superior Court allowed prosecutors to tell jurors directly in the second trial that Masterson had drugged his three accusers, The Associated Press reported.Prosecutors suggested the possibility of drugging only in the first trial, as they presented testimony that the women felt disoriented and confused after Masterson gave them alcoholic drinks.Masterson’s lawyer, Philip Cohen, had argued that the women’s stories were inconsistent and that there was no physical evidence of drugging and “no evidence of force or violence,” The A.P. reported.“I am experiencing a complex array of emotions — relief, exhaustion, strength, sadness — knowing that my abuser, Danny Masterson, will face accountability for his criminal behavior,” one of Masterson’s accusers, who was identified in court documents only as N. Trout, said in a statement released by a public relations firm for lawyers who are representing her in a lawsuit against Masterson and the Church of Scientology.Another accuser, who was identified in court documents only as Christina B., said in the same statement that she was “devastated” that the jury had deadlocked on the charge that Masterson raped her in 2001 when they were in a relationship.“Despite my disappointment in this outcome, I remain determined to secure justice, including in civil court, where I, along with my co-plaintiffs, will shine a light on how Scientology and other conspirators enabled and sought to cover up Masterson’s monstrous behavior,” she said.According to a trial brief filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in September, Christina B. had reported the rape to the church’s “ethics officer” or “master at arms,” who told her, “You can’t rape someone that you’re in a relationship with” and “Don’t say that word again.”According to the brief, Masterson raped a third woman, identified only as Jen B., in April 2003 after he gave her a red vodka drink. About 20 or 30 minutes later, she felt “very disoriented,” the brief states.According to the brief, Masterson raped her after she regained consciousness on his bed. She reached for his hair to try to pull him off and tried to push a pillow into his face, the brief states. When Masterson heard a man yelling in the house, he pulled a gun from his night stand and told her not to move or to “say anything,” adding expletives, the brief states.Jen B., after seeking the church’s permission to report the rape, received a written response from the church’s international chief justice that cited a 1965 policy letter regarding “suppressive acts,” the brief states.To her, the response signaled that if she were to report a fellow Scientologist to the police, “I would be declared a suppressive person, and I would be out of my family and friends and everything I have,” the brief states. Still, she reported the rape to law enforcement in June 2004, the document states.N. Trout told her mother and best friend about the rape, but not the church, the brief states.“If you have a legal situation with another member of the church, you may not handle it externally from the church, and it’s very explicit,” she said, according to the brief. She added that she “felt sufficiently intimidated by the repercussions.”The church said in a statement in April that it “has no policy prohibiting or discouraging members from reporting criminal conduct of anyone, Scientologists or not, to law enforcement.”“Quite the opposite,” the statement said. “Church policy explicitly demands Scientologists abide by all laws of the land.” More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Television

      ‘Ted Lasso’ Taught Phil Dunster How to Play Nice

      by

      The charismatic English actor, who stars as the cocksure footballer Jamie Tartt, had to trust the writers to transform him from villain to hero.As Jamie Tartt in “Ted Lasso,” Phil Dunster began as a bratty showboat and is ending as an emotionally mature team player.Ryan Pfluger for The New York TimesThe new Jamie Tartt is very different from the old Jamie Tartt. As played by Phil Dunster, the 31-year-old English actor, the Tartt that closes out the third and probably final season of “Ted Lasso” is earnest, candid and emotionally mature — a far cry from the bratty, egotistic playboy and soccer star we were introduced to in Season 1.That Tartt was selfish and preening, a ball-hog on the pitch and a thorn in the side of those forced to put up with him, including his AFC Richmond coach, Ted Lasso (Jason Sudeikis); his professional rival turned personal trainer, Roy Kent (Brett Goldstein); and his on-again, off-again girlfriend, Keeley Jones (Juno Temple). Recent episodes of the hit Apple TV+ comedy have found Tartt opening up to those characters, among others, and learning to forgive his abusive father (Kieran O’Brien). Most surprising of all, he’s leading the Premier League in assists: The showboat is now a team player.In Wednesday’s finale — light spoilers start now — Jamie lands a Nike commercial in Brazil, shares a long-brewing heart-to-heart with Roy and visits his father in recovery, showing how much progress he’s made over the last three years.Dunster credited Jason Sudeikis, the star and co-creator of “Ted Lasso,” with helping him with his character’s evolution.Apple-TV+It has been a drastic reinvention for a character once known strictly for bad-boy smarm. And Dunster, faced with making this transformation convincing, had doubts that he could pull it off.“I was terrified constantly,” he admitted in a video call last week from his flat in London. “Every time I read a new script, I would think, [expletive], I don’t know how to do that.”He credits Sudeikis, as the star and co-creator of the series, with helping him through it, especially in a major scene in Episode 11 in which Tartt breaks down and weeps over the stress of an impending game before his hometown crowd. “There are some lovely things people have said after that episode, and the honest answer is that it was Jason’s idea,” Dunster said.Affable and boyish, with a thoughtful air that often had him gazing off into the middle distance before he spoke, Dunster seemed eager to look back on “Lasso,” as it drew to a close. (While no official announcement has been made about the show’s future beyond Wednesday’s Season 3 finale, there are currently no plans for more episodes or for spinoffs.) He reminisced about the casting process with a wistful glee, speaking in a tone of well-mannered English refinement that contrasts sharply with Jamie’s Manchester brogue.At the time, he said, the character of Jamie Tartt was called Dani Rojas, who was “what the character of Jamie is now, but maybe European or South American, representing where lots of footballers come from that might have a diva-y spirit.” (Dani Rojas later became a separate character, a soccer-loving Pollyanna from Mexico played by Cristo Fernández.)“It was easier to make him unlikable and trust the writing to show that he was redeemable,” Dunster said of Jamie. With, from left, Kola Bokinni, Charlie Hiscock and Cristo Fernández.Apple TV+Dunster auditioned “in a sort of Spanish accent,” he said, which was “not quite what they were looking for.” He assumed that was the end of it. But one afternoon some time later, while playing volleyball, Dunster got a call from his agent telling him that the producers wanted him back — only this time without the Spanish.“The note was, find an accent that would represent footballers in the U.K., that doesn’t sound like me,” he said. As a lifelong soccer fan, his mind went straight to Manchester — home of the vaunted Manchester United and the Premier League’s current juggernaut, Manchester City. Instead of “myself,” Jamie says “me-self”; “Keeley” becomes “Kee-lah.”“I did my best to make a fairly bold choice of who he was,” Dunster said. “It was a pretty broad brush stroke: a fame-hungry young man with a warped idea of celebrity who thinks longevity in this industry is to be as ostentatious as he can be.” He was careful, in the early going, not to soften Jamie’s harsher edges too much — he had to let himself be the bad guy, at least for a while.“It was easier to make him unlikable and trust the writing to show that he was redeemable,” he said. “It’s about getting out of the way of the text, isn’t it?”Brett Goldstein’s Roy Kent went from being Jamie’s rival to being his mentor.Apple TV+But his take on the character, informed by his deep soccer fandom, came to dictate much of how the character was written, he explained, right down to jokes that hinge on Dunster’s twanging accent. (One of the most memorable lines in Season 3 revolves around his singular pronunciation of a colloquial term for excrement.) Sudeikis encouraged the actors to “massage the text” so that it felt right for each of them, Dunster said, “whether that was to Anglify it, or Jamiefy it, whatever it needed.”Dunster, who grew up in Reading, England, was drawn to acting from an early age, appearing in school productions that won him much-sought attention in class and at home. “I don’t want to put it down solely to my performance as Oliver in a Year 3 production at school, but that laid the foundation of me being a show-off,” he said.Though he comes from a military background — both his brother and father served in the armed forces — he said his family supported his decision to pursue acting professionally by enrolling at the Bristol Old Vic Theater School. This was in part because, as he dryly explained, “they also knew I had zero academic skills, so they were like, ‘Yeah, mate, you’ve got nothing else going for you.’”After graduating, Dunster took a job as a waiter at an Asian restaurant in Brixton, but after a single trial shift, he could tell it wasn’t for him. “I flocked, man — I had someone who was looking after me, and I still managed to screw everything up,” he said. On the bus ride home, he was dismayed: “I remember thinking, ‘What am I doing? I can’t be an actor if I have to do this.’”Fortunately, he didn’t have to: He was offered a major role in the British period gangster film “The Rise of the Krays” (2015) almost immediately afterward, and just like that, Dunster went from anxious graduate to professional actor and has worked steadily ever since.Before “Ted Lasso,” Dunster won notice in “Murder on the Orient Express,” among other titles.20th Century FoxHe went on to earn notice with parts in the dark parenting comedy “Catastrophe” (2015-19) and in the Kenneth Branagh film “Murder on the Orient Express” (2017). But joining the cast of “Ted Lasso” in 2020 raised Dunster’s profile to new heights as the series became a pandemic-era phenomenon, wooing audiences and critics with its sweetly comic sincerity. Yet despite the show’s stratospheric stateside success, it has not gained a notable cultural foothold in Britain.“I’m constantly telling my friends, like, ‘Guys, I promise you I’m famous in America,’” Dunster joked. While he’s managed to persuade them to watch the show, the overall effect of its popularity on his career has been difficult to gauge.Dunster’s initial conception of Jamie was “a fame-hungry young man with a warped idea of celebrity.” In his real life, he tries not to worry about such things.Ryan Pfluger for The New York TimesOn the one hand, he said, “it’s slightly easier to come by meetings in America than here, which is not something I take for granted.” On the other, the whole notion of success and viewership at home versus abroad can be an unnecessary distraction.“It’s easy for that to be the focus rather than doing the actual work,” he said. “At the end of the day, the whole point of that stuff is to hopefully aid in me doing more interesting work.”“It’s an insidious thing,” he continued. “You can see it work its way through people — the desire to follow that stuff. It’s important not to fly too close to the sun, as some Greek dude once did.”“Ted Lasso” is above all a show about goodness — about finding the goodness in others and bringing out the goodness in ourselves. That includes Jamie Tartt, who Dunster said came to be “driven by love rather than driven by hate,” which he “never thought he would choose.” It’s perhaps unsurprising that his time on “Lasso” has taught Dunster the importance of “working with good people” — as the series wraps up, at least for now, that’s what he’s looking for again.“The part can be whatever — big or small, a nice guy or a bad guy, a prime minister or the opposite of a prime minister,” he said. “It doesn’t really matter, as long as the people making it are good.” More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Television

      ‘Succession’ Series Finale Recap: The Dotted Line

      by

      Who won? Who lost? Who was left staring off into the sea?Season 4, Episode 10: ‘With Open Eyes’Whenever a show as talked-about and admired as “Succession” reaches its end, fans and critics start coming up with lists of the biggest questions that still “need to be answered” in the finale. More often than not, the finale itself answers some of those questions but leaves others dangling, because the stories TV creators want to tell do not always line up with what the viewers expect. And that’s fine. That’s entertainment.Somewhat surprisingly though, this last “Succession” episode resolves a lot. The only major plot thread from the season that remains open by the closing credits involves the outcome of the presidential election. We do learn that the Democratic candidate Daniel Jiménez has filed legal challenges regarding the burned ballots in Wisconsin; but ultimately the winner of that particular contest is insignificant to the “Succession” ending that the creator Jesse Armstrong has in mind.What does matter is whether the Waystar board approves the GoJo deal; and who Lukas Matsson will name as the company’s new CEO. We will get back to both, but for those who want what Logan Roy would call “the protein,” the answers are: Yes, the board votes for the sale; and in a stunning upset, Tom Wambsgans steals the C.E.O. job from his wife. (Wild, right?)Yet what makes this such a satisfying finale is that Armstrong and his cast and crew also grapple with one of the series’s most divisive questions: All things considered, is there anything redeemable about the Roys?The answer: Yeah, sometimes. Kendall, Shiv, Roman and even Connor are at their best when they are away from the pressures of business and politics and are just swapping memories and jokes, while talking about how strange their lives are. These riff sessions do not compensate in any way for all the destructively selfish decisions they have made or the people they have hurt. But they do show some real humanity.Matsson and Tom — and, unexpectedly, Cousin Greg and Lady Caroline — have a lot to do with restoring that sibling bond, at least for a little while. When Shiv and Kendall find out their mother is sheltering the humiliated and bruised Roman at her island estate, the two Waystar rivals race down to talk to their brother, to try to win his vote at the upcoming board meeting.Shiv, who thinks that she has secured Matsson the votes he needs (and herself the top job), is already trying to soften the blow for Kendall and Roman, talking about how maybe the boys can revive their plans for their bespoke information hub “The Hundred.” Unbeknown to Shiv though, Kendall is being fed inside information by Greg, who is hovering around Matsson and using a translator app to find out what the Swede is secretly saying. That is how Greg learns Matsson has soured on Shiv.Greg doesn’t get the whole story, but we do. We know Matsson doesn’t think he needs Shiv’s political expertise and that he definitely doesn’t want her ideas. (Also, though he insists it does not bother him, Matsson maybe starts wavering after seeing a magazine cartoon showing Shiv pulling his strings.)Early in the episode, Shiv lets Matsson know that when it comes to Tom’s future with the company, she considers him “a highly interchangeable modular part.” This ends up being a selling point. After an awkward visit to an art exhibit (where Tom praises a painting by saying “the colors go well”) and an equally bad dinner (where Tom says, “Those cod cheeks were a worthy opponent”), Matsson asks Tom to pitch himself.The ATN head immediately shifts tones and starts touting his willingness to cut heads and harvest eyeballs. He says he does not want to give his ATN customers “dietary advice” about what kind of news they consume. He wins over Matsson, who needs a “pain sponge” — someone who does what needs doing and does not mind being hated.Kendall does not know Matsson has chosen Tom; but he does know Shiv is out. So he uses that info to try to persuade her to vote no on GoJo. He tells a sweetly sad tale about Logan naming him as his successor at the Candy Kitchen in Bridgehampton when Kendall was 7 years old. Between that story and Roman’s honest assessment that no one with any real power sees Shiv or himself as the new Logan, she relents.Kendall thought it was finally his time. Jeremy Strong in the series finale of “Succession.”HBOThat’s where this episode becomes fun. United at last, these three get hilariously sardonic, whether it’s Roman expressing his anxiety about swimming in the sea (which he calls “a huge water subway for things that want to eat me”) or Shiv doing her impression of how Kendall’s deadpan monotone would sound if she ever tried to kill him. The good vibes continue when they return to New York to hear Connor explain his plan to distribute their father’s personal effects to whomever places the most stickers on what they want, following the strict guidelines of his “stickering perambulating circuits.”Everything eventually starts breaking down again, of course. When Tom learns Shiv is going to vote against GoJo, he confesses to her that he is Matsson’s CEO of choice and she rages, calling him an empty suit. (Tom responds to this by getting into a silly-looking smack-fight with Greg, while Greg is still clutching a roll of Connor’s inheritance stickers.)But no matter how much Shiv and Roman hate Matsson and Tom, when the time comes to cast their vote for Kendall, both hesitate. They simply do not feel good about seeing Kendall in Logan’s chair, in an office filled with memorabilia of their father’s amazing accomplishments.Roman starts to wobble first, realizing he does not want to compound the embarrassment of his funeral meltdown by appearing with a bandaged head in front of the board (including Gerri) and conceding to Kendall. Roman is brought back into line by Kendall embracing him in a brotherly fashion and then grinding his wounded forehead into his shoulder. But Shiv? With the vote tied 6-6 and her as the deciding “yea” or “nay,” she flees the boardroom, with Kendall and Roman following.Kendall makes one last pitch, asking Shiv to have some pity on a man who is “like a cog built to fit only one machine.” But when she brings up his confession back in Italy about causing the death of a cater-waiter in a drunk-driving incident — an unforgettable moment of realness and sibling compassion for all three of them — Kendall botches his response, lying that he made up the whole story. Roman then makes some unforgivable comments about Kendall’s children not really being part of the Roy “bloodline” like Shiv’s unborn baby will be; and Kendall turns violent. By the time the dust settles, Shiv has already cast her vote.And so we leave our three broken Roys, one by one. Roman reassures Kendall that nothing Waystar produces (“broken shows,” “phony news”) really matters, and then he reluctantly participates in the big publicity photo of Matsson signing the acquisition papers. Shiv perhaps admits to herself that she was just as willing to sell out Tom as he was to betray her; and when he asks her to ride with him to the post-signing celebration, she agrees, and even lays her hand lightly — very lightly — atop his in the back seat of the car.As for Kendall … Well, throughout this series we have seen Kendall either swallowed up by water or buoyed by it, depending on whether or not he is thriving. As “Succession” ends though, he is merely staring dead-eyed at the water, stubbornly off in the distance. He did not really lose, because he is still obscenely rich. But he definitely did not win either. If anything, he has been kicked out of the game altogether.Are these three redeemable? Absolutely. That’s what makes it all the more punishing that they are never redeemed.Harriet Walter in the series finale of “Succession.”Sarah Shatz/HBODue diligenceI wonder if Jesse Armstrong knows somebody like Lady Caroline, because there is such a specificity to her lousy mothering. Part of what makes the island scenes such a hoot is the way Harriet Walter plays them. Caroline talks about how human eyes — or, as she refers to them, “face eggs” — revolt her. She asks her kids to stay for dinner and then serves them a paltry meal with the excuse that she “knew you wouldn’t be hungry in this heat.” (Later though, Caroline does allow her kids to tap into her supply of “knobbies,” which is how she refers to the bread heels from her husband Peter’s sandwich loaves that she saves in the freezer.)Roman, upon hearing from his mother that they are not allowed to touch Peter’s special cheese: “I’m going to eat his cheese.”One last warmly human moment before everything falls apart at the board meeting: At Logan’s home, Connor is playing a video he calls “virtual dinner with Dad,” in which Logan cracks jokes and Karl sings a Scottish folk song. Sometimes, when these people weren’t doing terrible things, they could be kind of nice. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Television

      ‘Succession’ Finale Drew 2.9 Million Viewers Sunday, a Series High

      by

      The acclaimed HBO drama ended on a high note, with its largest audience for a season closer.The series finale of “Succession” drew 2.9 million viewers on Sunday night, a viewership high for the decorated HBO drama, the network said on Tuesday.That audience was a considerable improvement from the Season 3 finale, which had 1.7 million viewers on the night it premiered, in December 2021. For the fourth and final season, HBO said that “Succession” was averaging 8.7 million viewers per episode, including delayed viewing, also a new high for the show.The ratings put an exclamation point on an improbable 39-episode run for “Succession,” which debuted in 2018 to modest expectations and turned into a critics’ favorite and an awards show beast. In addition to multiple Golden Globes wins, “Succession” has won 13 Emmys, including best drama (2020 and 2022), acting honors (Jeremy Strong, Matthew Macfadyen) and best writing (three times for the show’s creator, Jesse Armstrong).Even with those highs, “Succession” remains somewhat of a niche series, particularly compared with some of HBO’s other recent hits. The second season of “The White Lotus,” which concluded in December, averaged 15.5 million viewers per episode, nearly double the viewers for the final season of “Succession.” The second season of “Euphoria,” which premiered in early 2022, averaged 19.5 million viewers. And mega-hits like “House of the Dragon” and “The Last of Us” averaged roughly 30 million viewers per episode, according to the network.But “Succession” is already the early favorite to take best drama honors at this year’s Emmy Awards for a third time. Shows eligible for this year’s Emmys had to premiere between June 1, 2022, and May 31, 2023. Voting for the Emmy nominations begins on June 15, and the nominees will be announced in July.The viewership figures are compiled by HBO and tallied up from a combination of views from Max, HBO’s streaming service, and of ratings from the live airing and repeat telecasts on traditional cable television. Many entertainment companies, like Netflix, release internal numbers to tout the popularity of their biggest series, though they are difficult to verify. During the live 9 p.m. broadcast of “Succession” on the HBO cable network, for instance, 789,000 viewers tuned in, according to Nielsen. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Television

      ‘Succession’ Clears the Air: Here’s What to Read

      by

      Still sorting through the finale? Here’s a broad range of hard and soft takes to help you out.This article includes spoilers for the series finale of “Succession.”When a great and wealthy brute of a man such as Logan Roy dies, one expects there to be some kind of reading — a last will and testament, formal instructions to the executor of the estate, something that tells the family about his feelings. But Logan, never big on feelings, didn’t update his will, leaving in doubt his thoughts on a worthy successor and leaving his friends, family and associates to do “Sticker Perambulating Circuits,” or SPCs, to lay claim to any physical inheritance. (As for the Waystar Royco company itself? None of his children could manage to put a sticker on that.)In lieu of a reading of a will, we are instead treated to a variety of readings from the “Succession” Thinkpiece Industry, as Daniel Fienberg, a TV critic at The Hollywood Reporter, called it. Below, we put stickers on some of the noteworthy recent features on the series coming to its end.‘“Succession” Is Over. Why Did We Care?’ [NY Times]The “billon-dollar question,” as Alexis Soloski puts it, has been answered — none of the Roys won the prize. A companion question, however, is why did we care so much?“Writers have argued that we love ‘Succession’ because of what it says about America, what it says about class, what it says about money, family, trauma and abuse,” Soloski writes. “These characters are just like us. They’re not like us at all. They’re fake. They’re real. We hate them. We love them. We’re rooting for them. Are we? Did we? Why?”‘The Great Genius of “Succession” Was Hovering Two Inches Above Reality’ [NY Times]“Succession” did something none of its prestige-TV predecessors did, Kurt Andersen writes. In blurring fiction and reality in a fictional world, it created spot-on commentary about the same dance of fact and fantasy in the real world at a pivotal and disorienting time.‘Critic’s Notebook: The “Succession” Series Finale Was a Brilliant Family Nightmare’ [The Hollywood Reporter]The reason “Succession” will endure is because of things like “Sticker Perambulating Circuits,” argues Daniel Fienberg. “You might think you relate to the comic tragedy of their lives, to the quaint process of adhering stickers to the things that helps you remember the things and people you love, but their stickers aren’t your stickers and their tragedy isn’t your tragedy.”‘Can You Have a Powerful Career and Still Be a Good Parent? “Succession” Has a Clear Answer’ [Politico]When Tom unwittingly tells a pregnant Shiv, “I think you are maybe not a good person to have children,” it speaks to a recurring theme in “Succession” that “power and parenthood are incompatible,” writes Joanna Weiss.“Ultimately, ‘Succession’ suggests that an intergenerational transfer of power is doomed by definition,” Weiss writes.‘In the “Succession” Series Finale, the Poison Drips Through” [The Ringer]Logan Roy didn’t just promise each of his kids — well, except for Connor — the chance to inherit his throne. He also made sure that they never could, Miles Surrey writes. “If anything, all Logan did was poison them — just as he poisoned the world.”‘Who Was Bill Wambsganss, and Was He a “Succession” Spoiler?’ [NY Times]Thanks in part to a viral video on TikTok, Tom’s surname — Wambsgans — became a talking point before the finale. Was Shiv’s husband named for an otherwise unremarkable second baseman known for making an unassisted triple play in a World Series?“Whether the connection was intentional or not,” Benjamin Hoffman writes, “it shined a light on a player who has been all but forgotten beyond one outrageously good play.”‘What Was ‘Succession’ Actually Trying to Tell Us?’ [Vox]Did “Succession” show us how to be rich, the way Tom showed his protégé Greg? Whizy Kim argues that it did so, but in a cynical way that revealed the collateral damage.“Many popular TV shows have portrayed the lives of the wealthy as glitzy and glamorous,” Kim writes, “but few have so deftly used the real symbols and language of wealth to tell a story of greed and abuse of power that’s also a microcosm of a society suffering under the weight of an increasingly unequal, undemocratic economic landscape.”‘“Succession” Finale Review — A Perfect, Terrible Goodbye’ [The Guardian]“Perhaps the success of an ending can best be judged by how much it seems, as the credits roll, that it could have turned out no other way,” Lucy Mangan writes. The series finale succeeds on that front.‘“Succession” Season 4 Was a Mess — Until the Series Finale’ [Variety]The show’s final season had problems with pacing and focus, but “Succession” righted itself at the end, writes Daniel D’Addario. “These are, finally, not characters who are endlessly adaptable, easily able to be plugged into just any dramatic scenario; when Kendall pleads in the finale that he doesn’t know what he was meant to do beyond work at Waystar, we believe him.”‘What Was “Succession” About?’ [Vulture]Vulture has a few fun riffs on the ultimate meaning of “Succession,” ranging from Wolfgang Ruth’s opinion that the show was about “Stewy being bi all along” to Choire Sicha’s art-inspired observation that “Succession” was really a bunch of “noisy large-scale public art” of the characters’ “interior landscapes.”“Succession” is also about the “linguistic baubles” that emerged, profane, profound and otherwise, according to Genevieve Koski. Or, as Jackson McHenry writes, “Succession,” like “Seinfeld” is about nothing.‘Miss “Succession” Already? Here’s What to Watch Next” [NY Times]It’s been less than a day since the series finale, but “Succession” addicts could suffer withdrawal symptoms already. To ease the pain, Margaret Lyons curates a watch list for every possible “Succession” craving, including series like “The Righteous Gemstones,” “I Hate Suzie” and “Quiz.” More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Television

      Sarah Goldberg on the ‘Barry’ Finale and Bad Decisions

      by

      “I signed up for a comedy,” the actress Sarah Goldberg said of her role in “Barry.” “I never thought I’d have to cry so much in a comedy.”This was on a recent morning at Joe Allen, a theater district mainstay. Goldberg, dry-eyed and graceful in a relaxed take on a power suit, was stirring a Shirley Temple, angling for the cherry. The wall behind her was decorated with the posters of famous Broadway flops: “Rockabye Hamlet,” “Home Sweet Homer,” “Carrie.” Yet Goldberg, who spent the first decade of her career in theater, is currently enjoying a generous pour of success.“Sisters,” the comedy she created with Susan Stanley, debuted earlier this month on IFC. (In solidarity with the Writers Guild strike, she would not discuss it.) She is now shooting a substantial role for Season 3 of the Max series “Industry.” And the cherry at the bottom is “Barry,” the HBO not-quite-a-comedy that earned Goldberg an Emmy nomination in 2019 and aired its violent, mordant, wrenching final episode on Sunday night. (Titanic spoilers follow.)The log line of “Barry,” which began in 2018, sounds like the setup to a joke that increasingly held its punchlines: A hit man (Bill Hader’s Barry) walks into an acting class. Goldberg was cast as Sally, a fellow student and Barry’s love interest.Season 4 jumps ahead to a time when Sally (Goldberg) and Barry (Bill Hader, right) have a son, John (Zachary Golinger).Merrick Morton/HBOWith the blessing of the series creators, Hader and Alec Berg, Goldberg, 37, conceived Sally as a social experiment: Could she take the girl next door and restyle her as a gaping maw of narcissism and need? Yes, she could. In her hands, Sally became a sunlit catastrophe of a person. And in a pattern familiar to other prestige series (“Breaking Bad,” “The Sopranos”), online commenters seemed to judge Sally more harshly than her antihero partner. Did that ever feel bad?“Only in the way that every single day as a woman can feel bad,” she said.Over its four seasons, the dark Hollywood satire of “Barry” gave way to something even darker: a catalog of hungry, damaged people playing pretend. But while the finale left Barry dead and the acting guru Gene Cousineau (Henry Winkler) jailed for life, Sally broke good. Having finally left Barry in an effort to protect their son, the one-time actress and showrunner is shown years later, directing high school theater somewhere snowy.“It is as close to a happy ending for Sally as possible,” Goldberg said.Over mocktails, Goldberg discussed the finale, the series’s tonal leaps and how Sally survived. These are edited excerpts from the conversation.So what was “Barry” about?“Barry” was a morality tale. “Am I a good person?” Every character has that question. It’s the crux of the show. Every character is up against that. It’s like, how many bad decisions or bad choices make you that person?What was the show ultimately saying about acting?It’s a real cautionary tale, isn’t it? I wouldn’t watch that show and think: You know what? I’m going to pack my bags and drive to L.A.! In Cousineau’s classes, he gets people to bring their trauma to the forefront. The whole thing becomes this game of competitive grief.Goldberg wanted Sally “to be as morally bankrupt as the men on the show,” she said. “I wanted her to remain complex.”Merrick Morton/HBOWas “Barry” a show that believed that people can change?For the most part, no. But for Sally, in the finale, she finally makes an unselfish choice. She chooses this child that she didn’t even want and walks away from Barry. She still needs the reassurance from her child the same way she needed it from Barry. That narcissism and insecurity is still there. However, she’s up there with the students getting real joy out of having made this show. It’s not about fame or huge applause. It’s about having done something joyful with these kids. If she had become incredibly famous, things might have gone a lot worse for her. I don’t think it would have worked out.Why did Barry have to die?I always felt he was going to die. And I wondered who was going to kill him. I wondered if it was going to be Sally for a while. And if this is a morality tale, then there’s the question of consequences or repercussions. It’s brave storytelling to kill your lead. There’s a fun finality to it. It’s really over.Redemption never really worked for him. He tried. Became a “nice” guy, went to church. But in the end, he still went back to Los Angeles to kill Gene.All that redemption was on such a superficial level. None of it was going deep. Because ultimately, if he felt threatened, he would make the selfish choice. So it was just more performance.Was this really a comedy, especially in this final season?It was definitely a comedy when we started. The tone became really expansive. This season, particularly in the latter half, we changed genre almost every episode: thriller, horror, drama. I was surprised that the show could hold that. I laugh out loud, still, watching the show, but “comedy” doesn’t sum it up.How much say did you have in shaping Sally?I had a lot to say, which I never took for granted, because it’s rare. I’ve always said that with Sally, you don’t have to like her. You just have to know her. Likable? Dislikable? That’s a barometer we really only use for women. I wanted her to be as morally bankrupt as the men on the show. I wanted her to remain complex. I asked for that from Season 1. I find it interesting to play characters who are making bad decisions. I’m not interested in playing nice people.Sally attracted a lot of online hate, which reminded me of the reactions to female characters on other series. Why do people hate these women so much?I wish I had an answer that made any logical sense. I feel like there’s just this undercurrent of cultural misogyny — the sexism involved in how we view those characters is wild to me. “Barry” was no exception. I was curious how that would go. My hunch was correct that we were met with the same type of misogyny, but that only made me want to double down and go harder.Did any of it feel bad?Only in the way that every single day as a woman can feel bad. When I was growing up, I was taught that we lived in an equal world, and I believed it. When I went to theater school, in my year, there were 20 boys to eight women. We were told: “Well, this is a model of the industry. It’s representative of what kind of roles are available to you.” And we all just nodded along like, “Oh, that makes sense.” I have a lot of latent rage around those things. Some of it I was able to channel through Sally’s outbursts, but I felt so frustrated as an actress when I was starting out at what was available. I’d have this litmus test of like, Does she only ask questions? Does she say, “I’m so worried about you, babe”? Does she have a point of view? Does she have a job?”My hunch was correct,” Goldberg said about the misogyny aimed at her character online. “But that only made me want to double down and go harder.”Lanna Apisukh for The New York TimesWhat can you tell me about the character you’ll play in “Industry”?Petra, she’s the polar opposite of Sally. That was the draw. She’s an incredibly contained woman who is very successful and wickedly smart. While Sally was many things, contained was not one of them. Sally is always searching or floundering. Actually sitting still and taking the higher status is harder for me. So that’s why I’m enjoying it. It’s been a lovely job so far.How has “Barry” changed your career?Well, it changed my life. There’s only so long one can survive on a theater salary. Opposite to Sally, I’m someone who very much enjoys anonymity. The people who watch “Barry” seem to really love the show. If I’m approached in the street, it’s usually someone very kind who shyly wants to say, “I love the show.” And that’s lovely. Honestly, my life hasn’t changed all that much. Especially in London, nobody cares. I just feel lucky that the material I’ve been able to do has been stuff that I want to do. I haven’t had to compromise. As long as I can sustain that, I think I’ll be happy.You can just play nice girls from now.Yes, that will be my question: Is she likable, though? More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Television

      Succession Finale: Was Tom Wambsgans a Reference to Bill Wambsganss?

      by

      When Tom Wambsgans outmaneuvered the Roy siblings, getting himself named as the U.S. executive running Waystar Royco for GoJo at the end of a rollicking finale of the HBO series “Succession,” it likely came as a shock to many of the viewers at home. But to fans of baseball’s early days, and internet conspiracy theorists, the signs were there for Tom to come out on top, besting three competitors at the same time.“It’s me,” Wambsgans said to his wife, Shiv Roy.The clues were there for some, thanks to Bill Wambsganss, a second baseman for Cleveland from 1914 to 1923. Wambsganss didn’t hit much, and there’s little indication he was a stellar base runner or a top-notch fielder. But he had one moment of pure glory, turning the first — and only — unassisted triple play in World Series history.Tom Wambsgans also did not stand out to many ahead of the finale for much beyond his poor treatment of Cousin Greg and his destructive relationship with his wife. But his unusual surname, and the notion that he would have to knock out three opponents at once, caught fire on social media in recent days, thanks to a viral TikTok by Sophie Kihm, the editor in chief of Nameberry, an online catalog of baby names.Thanks to her video, people began to speculate if the show’s writers had tipped their hands as to who would come out on top — and how. The theory had existed in various places for awhile — some believe it explained the ending of Season 3 — but, as the series began to wrap up, the idea that Tom could end up winning, just like Wambsganss, started to feel more and more plausible.Whether the connection was intentional or not, it shined a light on a player who has been all but forgotten beyond one outrageously good play. Sean Forman of Baseball Reference reported on Sunday night that there had been a surge of traffic on Wambsganss’ player page in the wake of the show’s finale.What people are finding is an unremarkable player who made a play that is worth all the attention.Wambsganss and Cleveland were facing Brooklyn in the 1920 World Series. In the fifth inning of Game 5, with Cleveland leading by 7-0, Brooklyn’s Pete Kilduff and Otto Miller both singled. Clarence Mitchell then hit a liner that looked as if it could score a run or more.In a breathless story about the game the next day, which ran on page A1, The New York Times recounted what happened once the ball left Miller’s bat. Wambsganss, who had been playing fairly far from second base, “leaped over toward the cushion and with a mighty jump speared the ball with one hand,” the paper reported.“Wamby’s noodle began to operate faster than it ever did before,” the article continued. “He hopped over to second and touched the bag, retiring Kilduff, who was far down the alley toward third base.”With two outs already having been recorded on the play, Wambsganss turned his attention to Miller.“Otto was evidently so surprised that he was just glued to the ground, and Wamby just waltzed over and touched him for the third out,” the paper reported.The play gave Wambsganss a level of notoriety that eclipsed anything else about his career, or even his life despite his having gone on to manage in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League.“Funny thing, I played in the big leagues for 13 years, 1914 through 1926, and the only thing that anybody seems to remember is that once I made an unassisted triple play in a World Series,” he said in the 1966 baseball oral history, “The Glory of Their Times.” “Many don’t even remember the team I was on, or the position I played, or anything. Just Wambsganss-unassisted triple play! You’d think I was born on the day before and died on the day after.”With “Succession” having completed its wildly popular run on television, we will never know if Tom Wambsgans was able to thrive after completing a triple play of his own, or if he would come to be defined only by the one moment, as Wambsganss was.In Wambsganss’s defense, it has been more than 100 years since the unassisted triple play, and people are still talking about him. You would have to assume Tom Wambsgans would be OK with having the same fate. More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Television

      What’s on TV This Week: ‘The Idol’ and ‘Dave’

      by

      HBO premieres its new series from the creator of “Euphoria,” and the show starring Lil Dicky wraps up.Between network, cable and streaming, the modern television landscape is a vast one. Here are some of the shows, specials and movies coming to TV this week, May 29 — June 4. Details and times are subject to change.MondayWHITE HOUSE PLUMBERS 9 p.m. on HBO. This mini-series starring Woody Harrelson and Justin Theroux, based on the Watergate scandal, is wrapping up its run this week. Over the course of the five-episode run, Harrelson and Theroux play E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy, who bug the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee during the 1972 presidential election. From there, we all pretty much know the rest of the story.From left: Josh Hamilton, Sydney Sweeney and Marchant Davis in “Reality.”Courtesy of HBOREALITY 10:05 p.m. on HBO. Set in 2017 and based on a true story, this new show follows Reality Winner, an Air Force veteran and National Security Agency contractor as she is questioned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for leaking a classified report about election interference. The dialogue in the show, starring Sydney Sweeney, is taken from the real F.B.I. transcripts from Winner’s questioning.TuesdayAMERICA’S GOT TALENT 8 p.m. on NBC. Entering its 18th season, the show that celebrates talents and strange party tricks of all kinds is back with its first round of auditions this week. Terry Crews is returning as the host and Simon Cowell, Heidi Klum, Howie Mandel and Sofía Vergara will all be back as judges.WednesdayDAVE 10 p.m. on FXX. This semi-autobiographical show about the rapper Dave Burd, a.k.a. Lil Dicky, is wrapping up its third season this week with Dave ending his quest to find love. The show, which originally started as a story about a man in his late 20s who believed he was destined to become one of the greatest rappers of all time, has slowly turned into a show about Dave actually being a rapper, touring around and finding modest success.SECRETS OF THE DEAD: ABANDONING THE TITANIC 10 p.m. on PBS (check local listings). The sinking of the R.M.S. Titanic has had countless retellings; from the 1997 film to many documentaries, there is not a lot left unknown or uncovered. But in this documentary, investigators talk about a lesser-known detail: When the Titanic was sinking, another ship in sight sailed away instead of helping the people freezing to death in the water. Who was on the ship that sailed away? This documentary finds out.ThursdayElvis Presley and Ann Margaret in “Viva Las Vegas.”Agence France-PresseVIVA LAS VEGAS (1964) 6:30 p.m. on TCM. Elvis Presley plays a musically gifted racecar driver (naturally), who goes to Las Vegas to win enough money to buy a new car so he can enter the Grand Prix, but he ends up loosing all his earnings. While trying to make his money back, he falls into a love triangle with a swimming instructor (Ann-Margret) and another racecar driver (Cesare Danova). “Whatever it isn’t, ‘Viva Las Vegas’ remains friendly, wholesome and pretty as all get-out,” Howard Thompson wrote in his 1964 review for The New York Times.FridayOCEAN’S 11 (2001) 7:30 p.m. on TNT. If you’ve seen these films, starring George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon and lots of other big names, you know the three rules: “Don’t hurt anybody, don’t steal from anyone who doesn’t deserve it, and play the game like you’ve got nothing to lose.” That’s how Danny Ocean (Clooney) and his accomplices pull off one of the most elaborate casino heists that Vegas has ever seen. “For those not so taken by the star power, this new ‘Ocean’s Eleven’ is the equivalent of a domineering team you can’t stand that enters the Super Bowl,” Elvis Mitchell wrote in his review for The Times. “Even if you don’t like the players, the odds are so good that it’s tough to bet against them.”SaturdayThe Carolina Hurricanes played the Florida Panthers during Game Four of the Eastern Conference Final during the Stanley Cup Playoffs.Bruce Bennett/Getty ImagesSTANLEY CUP FINALS 8 p.m. on various networks. After a long hockey playoff season with lots of ups and downs (see: the Seattle Kraken beating the Colorado Avalanche), we have arrived at the finals, with the Florida Panthers playing either the Vegas Golden Knights or the Dallas Stars in Game 1.SundayLeonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet in “Titanic.”Paramount Home EntertainmentTITANIC (1997) 6 p.m. on VH1. After watching the Titanic documentary, tune in for this whooping 3-hour-plus fictionalized account, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet as Jack and Rose, lovers who meet on the ship. Come for the love story and decadence, stay for the harrowing scenes of characters meeting terrifying deaths. “Beyond its romance, ‘Titanic’ offers an indelibly wrenching story of blind arrogance and its terrible consequences,” Janet Maslin wrote in her review for The Times.THE IDOL 9 p.m. on HBO. The production of this show, starring Lily-Rose Depp and Abel Tesfaye (a.k.a The Weeknd), got a rocky start and was eventually taken over by the “Euphoria” creator Sam Levinson. Now it is finally coming to small screens. The show, which has been marketed by HBO as the “sleaziest love story in all of Hollywood,” follows an aspiring pop star (Depp) and her relationship with Tedros (Tesfaye), a self-help guru. “There’s a lot of dirty talk so grossly delivered by the Weeknd that you may need to mute and switch to closed captioning,” the Times reporter Kyle Buchanan wrote about the show after seeing the first two episodes at Cannes Film Festival. More