More stories

  • in

    ‘Perry Mason’ Season 2 Finale: Case Closed

    The season finale offered some comeuppance and well-deserved praise, but if you thought this story would end with the world set to rights, you’re mistaken.Season 2, Episode 8: ‘Chapter Sixteen’Camilla Nygaard lies back silently as yellowjackets, held by tweezers, sting her repeatedly under the eyes. A filmy mask is laid atop her face, “American Psycho”-style. Flowers are placed upon her eyes, making her look like a horticultural horror straight out of “The Last of Us.” If it wasn’t clear already, the opening scene of this season finale makes it so: She’s a monster, and here, she finally looks the part.But if you thought this story would end with the monster safely defeated and the world set to rights, you’re mistaken. Just as the first season of “Perry Mason” hinged on the myth-busting idea that no one confesses on the witness stand, this one bursts the happy-ending bubble.Granted, things could be a lot worse. Utilizing Camilla’s attorney, major-domo, and hitman-hiring go-between, Phippsy, as an erstwhile ally, Perry and his team recover her cache of incriminating photos on all of Los Angeles’s major players, neutralizing her blackmailer’s hold over the closeted district attorney Hamilton Burger. (Not to mention averting the potential extortion of the similarly situated Della, who finds and hides the pictures of her and her lady friend Anita before anyone else can see them.)With that out of the way, Burger is finally free to hash out a plea deal with Perry on behalf of the Gallardo brothers. The older sibling, Mateo, who pulled the trigger on Brooks McCutcheon, takes the rap all by himself and is sentenced to 30 years without parole; not great but better than the noose. His artistically gifted kid brother, Rafael, walks out of the courtroom a free man.At Perry’s insistence, Della is feted as a hero on the courthouse steps. Deservedly so! Thanks to her expert performance in court, Brooks has been exposed for the sexual predator he was and the McCutcheon name is in the mud. (“She’s better at that than you,” Paul says to Perry, correctly, of Della’s post-trial news conference on the courthouse steps.)The McCutcheon patriarch, Lydell, is in the wind: The FBI is onto his and Camilla’s illegal oil trade with Japan, so he’s stuck in that imperial island nation for the foreseeable future.As a bonus, the ambitious, unethical assistant district attorney, Tommy Milligan, has been neutralized, yanked from the case by his boss, Burger. His impotent rage alone is worth the price of your soon-to-be-Max subscription.But that’s where the good news ends.Mateo will spend the best years of his life in jail. Everyone further up the food chain than he in the murder plot, most notably Camilla and Phipps, walk free without their guilt even being brought up in court.Scarred by the beating he was forced to dole out during the investigation, Paul pays off the victim — still alive, despite earlier appearances to the contrary — and quits the team. He then goes to work for Perkins, the very gangster who ordered the beating; he’ll be gathering blackmail material himself now, albeit for the worthy cause of forcing city councilmen to grant Perkins permits for a park and pool for the city’s Black residents.Thanks to his buddy Pete Strickland’s bit of B&E, Perry is on the hook for hiding the murder weapon, and agrees to a four-month prison sentence in exchange for being able to see the case to its conclusion. Both his partner, Della, and his girlfriend, Ginny Aimes, will be waiting for him when he gets out, but he’s clearly concerned his young son won’t be so understanding.Our old pal Holcomb, the crooked cop who worked with Brooks, decides to beat a retreat from the casino-boat business, torching the ship with a Molotov cocktail using his own black tie for a wick.The times being what they are, Ham, Della and Anita still have to live in the closet; Anita looks on smilingly as Ham and Della pose as a happy couple for the public.But before that, Della confronts Camilla, a woman she once greatly admired, about her rampant criminality: the murder, the extortion, the smuggling, all the ugly things beneath her glittering surface of power, glamour and sophistication — the monster behind the mask. As the FBI approaches, Camilla promises Della they’ll meet again. As with Milligan, Team Perry has made a potentially formidable enemy.And Team “Perry” has made an indisputably formidable show. It’s true that this season was less dark and psychologically rich than its predecessor, with its themes of religion and infanticide. But it’s really no less successful a work of art on its own terms. With its murderers’ row of a cast — a hugely enjoyable performance seems to have been waiting around every corner Perry Mason turned — and its sordid, surprising and frequently sexy story from the new showrunners Jack Amiel and Michael Begler, it is a period crime drama done right.It’s a dual mystery: More than just a question of whodunit and why, “Perry Mason” entices the viewer with the riddle of the title character. How can a damage case with a melancholic temperament save himself, much less anyone else?We get our answer in his final scene with Della, I think. Using the secretly water-inflated melons peddled by his grocer client Sunny Gryce as a metaphor, Perry tells Della, “It’s not justice that’s an illusion; it’s the system.”“OK,” she replies. “So what are we supposed to do with that?”“We fight,” he says simply. He says this even as he’s preparing to go to prison over that fighting spirit.That’s the message I’m taking away from this season: If you’ve got that fight in you at all, then fight you must.Paul Raci and Hope Davis in “Perry Mason.”Merrick Morton/HBOFrom the case filesMilligan to Burger, on the plea deal: “Why would you go behind my back?” Burger to Milligan, seemingly shocked he even needs to say it: “I’m the D.A.” In two lines you have a portrait of Milligan as a self-aggrandizing grasper and Burger as the justifiably confident voice of authority.Another great Burger-related exchange comes when Perry and Della present him with Camilla’s incriminating negatives. “So now you know,” he says to Perry. “I don’t care,” Perry reassures him. “I do!” Burger retorts. It’s not that he distrusts Perry, with whom he’s maintained a cordial relationship despite their professional opposition; it’s that he resents having control of this personal information taken away from him, even when done by someone who’s got his back.In an image that echoes Holcomb’s use of expensive booze and a black tie to burn the boat, Pete confides in Perry that he urinated in Milligan’s expensive bottle of Napoleon-owned cognac before quitting his job with the district attorney’s office. I guess that’s one way to say you’re sorry for landing your one-time best buddy in the clink on behalf of a jerk like Milligan.Considering how recognizable the composer Fred Steiner’s original Raymond Burr–era “Perry Mason” theme is, you might think it a mistake for this reboot not to use it every week. Then it drops it on you over the closing credits of the season finale and the weight of recognition hits you like an anvil. It’s the sound of “We fight.”As a pretty much miserable guy who’s sincerely angry about injustice, Perry Mason is a hero for our time. More

  • in

    Len Goodman, Judge of ‘Dancing With the Stars,’ Dies at 78

    Mr. Goodman, who was also a longtime judge on the British show “Strictly Come Dancing,” was known for his wry humor and colorful phrases and delivery.LONDON — Len Goodman, a former British exhibition dance champion who was a longtime judge on the BBC reality show “Strictly Come Dancing,” as well as its American spinoff, “Dancing With the Stars,” died on Saturday in a hospice in Kent, England. He was 78.The cause was bone cancer, his agent, Jackie Gill, said on Monday. Mr. Goodman, who had been working until up to a few weeks ago, was with his wife, Sue Barrett, and his son, James, when he died, Ms. Gill added.Mr. Goodman was the head judge on the BBC show “Strictly Come Dancing” for over a decade until 2016. From 2005 until last year, he also judged the U.S. version, ABC’s “Dancing With the Stars,” where he was known for addressing contestants with wry humor, charm and colorful phrases, as well as a distinctive delivery that included the way he would announce the score of “se-VEN!”“He retained his sense of humor during his illness and dealt with it with great dignity,” said Ms. Gill. “He was always a true gentleman. He loved his work and never took anything for granted.”Leonard Gordon Goodman was born in Bethnal Green, London, his agent said. He moved to Blackfen, then in Kent, England, and now part of London, when he was 6 and attended Westwood Secondary Modern School. He started dancing when he was 19, relatively late in life for someone who later becomes a professional, according to Ms. Gill.Mr. Goodman went on to have a successful career as a dancer, winning Dual of the Giants, the British Rising Stars, the British Exhibition Championships (four times) and the World Exhibition Championships. He then opened the Goodman Academy, a dance school in Dartford, England.His first marriage, which ended in divorce, was to Cherry Kingston, a dancer, in 1972. He then had his son, James, with his partner Lesley. In 2012, he married Sue Barrett.In addition to his wife and son, Mr. Goodman is survived by his two grandchildren.Mr. Goodman, right, shakes hands with the then-Prince Charles at Buckingham Palace in 2018.John Stillwell/Press Association, via Associated Press More

  • in

    What’s on TV This Week: ‘Tom Jones’ and ‘Couples Therapy’

    PBS’s literary adaptation series tackles Henry Fielding’s classic, and the Showtime docuseries returns with Dr. Orna Guralnik and a new group of couples.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, April 24-30. Details and times are subject to change.MondayWhoopi Goldberg in “The Color Purple.”Warner Bros.THE COLOR PURPLE (1985) 8 p.m. on TCM. Based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel of the same name by Alice Walker, this Academy Award-nominated film by the director Steven Spielberg follows Celie (Whoopi Goldberg), a Black woman from the American South over the course of 40 years during the early 20th century. The film explores themes of domestic violence, poverty, racism and sexism, as well as love, friendship and resilience. In her review for The New York Times, Janet Maslin noted that the film glosses over some of the grittier aspects of the novel, but still tells Celie’s story with a sense of “momentum, warmth and staying power.”TuesdayFrom left, Demi Singleton, Will Smith and Saniyya Sidney in “King Richard.”Warner Bros.KING RICHARD (2021) 5:35 p.m. on HBO2e. This Academy Award-nominated film by the director Reinaldo Marcus Green is an emotional yet buoyant look at the rise of the young tennis stars Serena (Demi Singleton) and Venus Williams (Saniyya Sidney). Will Smith, who won a best actor Oscar for this role, plays the girls’ father, Richard Williams, who had plans to catapult his daughters to success even before they were born. A.O. Scott declared the film “a sports drama that is also an appealing, socially alert story of perseverance and the up-by-the-bootstraps pursuit of excellence,” in his review for The Times. “It’s a winner.”WednesdayCHASING CARBON ZERO 9 p.m. on PBS. This new episode from the documentary series NOVA takes a look at the science behind the technology that could help the U.S. reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Through interviews with scientists, engineers and change makers in the environmental sector, the episode examines the country’s current excessive emissions, before identifying the existing technologies and processes that could slash emissions in half by 2030.AWKWAFINA IS NORA FROM QUEENS 10:30 p.m. on COMEDY. This comedy series starring the rapper and Golden Globe-winning actress Awkwafina as the show’s titular character is back for its third season. The show follows Awkwafina’s Nora Lum, who lives with her father and grandmother, as she navigates coming into her own. The series is based on Awkwafina’s own upbringing in New York City.Thursday(RE) SOLVED 9 p.m. on VICE. This new true crime series takes a second look at some of the most controversial celebrity deaths. Through examinations of police reports and their own sleuthing, professional investigators and armchair detectives re-examine and investigate the causes of death of Hollywood figures such as Bob Saget, Prince and Anna Nicole Smith.100 DAYS TO INDY 9 p.m. on The CW. A new docuseries about the world of open-wheel car racing, also known as Indy car racing, brings viewers on the journeys of racing teams and NTT IndyCar Series drivers as they train to compete in the Indianapolis 500 — a 500-mile race considered to be the sport’s premier competition. This six-part series premieres 100 days before the race and is directed by the Emmy-winning director and producer Patrick Dimon.FridayDr. Orna Guralnik in “Couples Therapy.”SHOWTIMECOUPLES THERAPY 8 p.m. on SHOWTIME. Returning for the second installment of its third season after a yearlong hiatus, this docuseries follows the real-life therapy sessions of couples as they hash out their intimacy issues with Dr. Orna Guralnik, a psychologist and couples therapist. The Times critic Margaret Lyons described the viewing experience as “equal parts insight and voyeurism.” This installment features four new couples navigating topics including polyamory, Mormonism and infidelity.From left, Mark Whitfield, Lizz Wright and Linda May Han Oh in “International Jazz Day from the United Nations.”Steve MundingerINTERNATIONAL JAZZ DAY FROM THE UNITED NATIONS 10 p.m. on PBS. Premiering two days before International Jazz Day, this one-hour television special from the United Nations is a celebratory nod to the history and evolution of jazz. Acclaimed artists will perform original songs and interpretations of classics, with a cast ranging from the legends David Sanborn, Herbie Hancock and Marcus Miller, to modern favorites including Gregory Porter, Joey Alexander and Lizz Wright. The blues singer Shemekia Copeland will open the program with her social justice anthem “Walk Until I Ride,” and a full-cast rendition of John Lennon’s “Imagine” will close out the night.SaturdayDavid Bowie in “Moonage Daydream.”David Bowie Estate/HBOMOONAGE DAYDREAM 8 p.m. on HBO. The Emmy award-winning filmmaker Brett Morgen’s ode to the singer-songwriter David Bowie is “less a biography than a séance,” A.O. Scott writes in his review for The Times. With the entire contents of Bowie’s archives at his disposal, Morgen weaves together snippets of Bowie’s own narration with never-before-seen footage and music to produce an ethereal “portrait of the artist as a thoughtful, lucky man.”SundayTIME100: THE WORLD’S MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE 7 p.m. on ABC. To celebrate this year’s TIME100 list of the World’s Most Influential People, the global media brand is holding a gala event at New York City’s Lincoln Center. The event will be hosted by the actress Jennifer Coolidge, an honoree from this year’s list, and will feature performances from other honorees, including Doja Cat and Lea Michele.TOM JONES 9 p.m. on PBS. Mid-18th-century England comes alive in this retelling of the classic Henry Fielding novel from PBS’s “Masterpiece,” a literary adaptation series. Told in four parts, the series follows Tom (Solly McLeod), a man of humble beginnings and uncertain parentage, and the sweet, seemingly unattainable heiress Sophia (Sophie Wilde) as they forge a forbidden romance despite their class differences and the tireless meddling of the seductress Lady Bellaston (Hannah Waddingham). More

  • in

    Review: In ‘Prima Facie,’ Jodie Comer Makes the Case

    The “Killing Eve” star has a spectacular Broadway debut in a play that puts sexual assault jurisprudence on trial.The neon image of a louche Lady Justice, in an electric blue robe and a hot pink mask, greets the audience at the Golden Theater as if the place were a strip joint for lawyers.In a way it is, at least while “Prima Facie,” which opened on Sunday, is playing there. Over the course of the one-woman, 100-minute play, we watch a barrister — the story takes place in England — remove every piece of psychological armor from the women she cross-examines in sexual assault cases, then see the same armor stripped from her when she becomes a victim herself.The play, by Suzie Miller, won all sorts of awards in Australia and Britain. It’s easy to see why. Its star, Jodie Comer, late of “Killing Eve,” gives a performance of tremendous skill and improbable stamina, especially considering it is her first stage appearance. The production, directed by Justin Martin, is chic and accessible, with design flourishes, by now de rigueur, to underline the idea that it is a Big Event. And the reform of sexual assault jurisprudence that the play advocates could hardly be more convincingly argued or worthy of our attention.But the underlining and the advocacy do something odd to the drama: They make it disappear.Not at first. When we meet Tessa Ensler she’s a complex and theatrical character, a “thoroughbred,” “primed for the race,” with “every muscle pumped.” She’s also, in Comer’s interpretation, funny, sexy and self-deflating, bloviating in bars and flirting with associates. She is not beneath the arrogance of pedigree: “Top law school, top city, top marks, top people.” When she bellows drunkenly that “innocent until proven guilty” is the bedrock of civilized society, you see that she also uses it as a free pass for her own dodgy behavior. At one point she throws a piece of trash into the audience.Thoroughbred she may be, but we soon meet a different incarnation of Tessa: a refugee from the working class, never able to return to it comfortably. Visiting her chilly mother in Liverpool, she becomes a girl in want of kindness and not getting much. (Her older brother is violent.) The posh accent she uses in court seems to erode before our ears, revealing the peculiar early-Beatles twang of her (and Comer’s) native Scouse dialect. (“Says” is not pronounced “sez” but “saze.”) She dashes back to London before she can get hurt.The dashing is not just Tessa’s M.O. but the production’s. With its expressionistic sound (lots of pumped-up heartbeats by Ben and Max Ringham) and sudden slashes of harsh light (by Natasha Chivers), Martin’s busy staging is at pains to help Comer fill the vast space alone. She doesn’t need it; she solves the one-actor problem with her own resourcefulness, handily playing all sides of conversations that sometimes involve several people. And when she must be both a third-person reporter of a remembered event and a first-person participant in it, she makes the echo meaningful by using it to specify the content. The laugh she lets out after saying “We laugh” is a very particular and complicated kind.Comer delivers a complex portrayal, our critic writes, going from a high-powered barrister to a defenseless victim.Sara Krulwich/The New York TimesStill, Martin has her constantly running about, moving tables, jumping on those tables to declaim in court, shouting over music, fiddling with her clothing and juggling props. Some of this stage business helps provide character insight that might go missing in the absence of other actors: When approached by a senior trial lawyer interested in offering her a job, Tessa tries to hide her Victoria’s Secret shopping bag. But much of it feels pro forma.In any case, the bustle comes to a halt halfway through. Now we meet a third Tessa, this one the victim of a rape she knows she will have trouble proving to the law’s satisfaction. She was drunk; she had previously consented to have sex with the man; she couldn’t shout no because he covered her mouth to the point that she could hardly breathe.She now enters the legal system as a complainant, not a defender: “Same court, no armor,” she says. Comer’s portrayal of that defenselessness is devastating: Mousy and short-circuited, the gloss gone from her hair, she looks small in her clothes and alone in the world. Her voice has shriveled. Even Miriam Buether’s set — sky-high shelves of case files — abandons her, rising into the flies.Yet this is also where the play abandons itself. Not its argument, of course. As Tessa suffers the same kind of cross-examination she has visited on other women in the name of “testing the case” impartially, it becomes painfully clear that finding truth, let alone justice, in such situations is all but impossible. More than that, the system of adjudicating consent is diabolical, a manmade trap to disable women from proving anything and thus, in effect, a second rape.Miriam Buether’s set features sky-high shelves of case files.Sara Krulwich/The New York TimesIf only the play allowed us simply to feel this. But as Tessa speaks to the courtroom despite being warned by the judge to stop, Miller, the playwright, herself a former criminal defense lawyer, likewise breaks free from the dramatic frame to let her. The lights come up on the audience. The text, now delivered straight out, becomes an oration, a summation. For reasons that seem more wishful and political than characterological, Tessa gets her voice back.One-person, multicharacter stories often fail to develop suspense and momentum, but Miller has structured this one precisely. Details we learn casually in the first half return menacingly in the second. The abandonment of that structure in the play’s final third is likewise precise, and many will value the disruption prima facie — at first glance.But for me the change undid the previous work of emotional engagement in favor of flat-out persuasion on a subject with which few in the audience would be likely to disagree. As Tessa’s speech ran on, repeating ideas that had already been dramatized, I began to feel pummeled, as if by a politician.Enlightening and enraging theatergoers in the hope of changing the world is not, of course, a violation of dramatic policy. That Tessa’s last name honors Eve Ensler, now known as V, ought to have been a clue to Miller’s intentions. V’s 1996 play “The Vagina Monologues” broke with dramatic forms (which, after all, were formalized and popularized by men) to make a difference well beyond them. I also thought of Larry Kramer, whose plays were pleas: agitprop and artistry pulped into something new. Thinking of works like theirs, and a singular performance like Comer’s, I won’t belabor the compromises of “Prima Facie.” Especially if, in the long run, it wins its case.Prima FacieThrough June 18 at the Golden Theater, Manhattan; primafacieplay.com. Running time: 1 hour 40 minutes. More

  • 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