Television

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Movies

      Stream These 9 Shows and Movies Before They Leave Netflix in June

      by

      An eclectic mix of titles are leaving the service for U.S. subscribers by the end of the month. Catch them before they’re gone.In the month to come, Netflix in the United States will bid farewell to an eclectic mixture of genre movies, sketch comedy, reality TV and romantic comedies, as well as a beloved family feature and a documentary exploration of a peculiar corner of the entertainment industry. (Dates indicate the final day a title is available.)‘Bathtubs Over Broadway’ (June 8)One of the most delightful documentaries of recent years, this 2018 charmer chronicles how the “Late Show With David Letterman” writer Steve Young stumbled onto the long-forgotten world of “industrial musical theater”: original musical productions, created specifically for corporate events and solely to inspire sales, that nevertheless provided steady paychecks and opportunities for performers, composers and designers for decades. What begins as an ironic fringe interest, discovered while sifting through vinyl oddities, becomes something of an obsession for Young, and the film evolves into a quiet love letter to ephemeral art.Stream it here.‘The Mole’: Seasons 3-4 (June 13)One of Netflix most unexpected (but enjoyable) resurrection projects has been the reboot of the reality competition series “The Mole.” The streamer premiered its latest season, hosted by MSNBC’s Alex Wagner, last fall — 14 years after the show’s fifth and presumably final season aired on ABC. And for nostalgia’s sake, it also licensed the third and fourth of the original seasons. Those were the “Celebrity Mole” years, so viewers can enjoy the host Ahmad Rashad (the original host was Anderson Cooper) guiding viewers in the hunt for the saboteur among a group of decidedly mid-2000s celebs, including Stephen Baldwin, Angie Everhart, Kathy Griffin, Dennis Rodman and Frederique van der Wal.Stream it here.‘The Mist’ (June 21)The writer and director Frank Darabont’s third adaptation of Stephen King’s work was a far cry from his earlier, emotionally hefty, Oscar-courting films “The Shawshank Redemption” and “The Green Mile”; if those were not what we think of as a “Stephen King movie,” this 2007 take on King’s 1980 novella certainly was. Set primarily in the supermarket of a small Maine town enveloped in a mysterious murky fog, the story features supernatural forces, killer creatures and protagonists cracking under pressure. It also features stellar performances from a stacked ensemble (including Andre Braugher, Marcia Gay Harden, Laurie Holden, Thomas Jane and Toby Jones) and one of the bleakest endings to ever sneak its way into a mainstream movie.Stream it here.‘Chappelle’s Show’: Seasons 1-2 (June 30)Say what you will about his current preoccupations (and there is much to say), but there’s no denying the impact, power and sheer comic virtuosity of Dave Chappelle’s Comedy Central sketch series, which scorched cable airwaves for these two brief seasons, from 2003 to 2004. (Chappelle notoriously walked off the show during production of its third season, with only enough material for three episodes in the can.) But in that brief time, a handful of memorable characters and sketches — including Chappelle’s impersonations of Rick James and Lil’ Jon and sketches about a blind Black white supremacist and a celebrity “racial draft” — became immediate comic sensations and pop culture reference points.Stream it here.‘How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days’ (June 30)There may have been better early-2000s romantic comedies, but this 2003 hit from Donald Petrie may be the most early-2000s romantic comedy. All of the conventions are present and accounted for: an impossibly gorgeous, opposites-attract central couple (Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey); a plotline centering on a secret wager; Kathryn Hahn stealing scenes as our heroine’s BFF. But what it lacks in originality it makes up for in verve, with Hudson and McConaughey creating considerable sparks and Petrie directing with the proper, light-as-air touch.Stream it here.‘Jerry Maguire’ (June 30)In retrospect, it was really kind of genius — artistically and commercially — of the writer and director Cameron Crowe to combine the most stereotypically “dude flick” (the sports movie) with the most stereotypically “chick flick” (the romantic comedy). Yet by doing so, he proved how simplistic and suffocating such labels could be. In telling the story of a high-powered sports agent (Tom Cruise) whose nervous romance with a single mom (Renée Zellweger) makes him a better agent and a better man, Crowe drafted an unlikely Venn diagram, in which the common concerns of family, integrity and loyalty are of equal weight and audiences can’t help but root for both the underdog team and the unlikely couple.Stream it here.‘Puss in Boots’ (June 30)The “Shrek” movies made untold truckloads of money, but strangely, their most lasting cultural footprint seems to have come in the form of a side character who didn’t even appear until “Shrek 2.” Yet the suave, swashbuckling, Puss in Boots, voiced by Antonio Banderas, became not only one of the most popular characters in the series but also the star of his own delightful adventures. This 2011 treat offered the expected thrills and giggles for the little kids as well as some Easter eggs for their parents, including Banderas’s reunion with his “Desperado” co-star Salma Hayek and energetic voice performances by the likes of Guillermo del Toro, Zach Galifianakis, Amy Sedaris and Billy Bob Thornton.Stream it here.‘The Taking of Pelham 123’ (June 30)The original 1974 film adaptation of the crime novel “The Taking of Pelham One Two Three” was so steeped in the specific circumstances of Fun City-era New York City that it was probably impossible for a remake to reanimate its specific, grimy thrills. But Tony Scott’s 2009 version offers up its own pleasures. Scott’s frequent leading man Denzel Washington brings tormented complexity to the grizzled hero, whose shift at M.T.A. dispatch is disrupted by a madman (John Travolta) whose crew takes over a subway car and holds its passengers hostage. And James Gandolfini is wonderful (and miles from Tony Soprano) as the city’s mayor.Stream it here.‘World War Z’ (June 30)Max Brooks’s 2006 novel about a zombie apocalypse was both a no-brainer for film adaptation (again, it details a zombie apocalypse) and a challenge, as so much of its power came from its epistolary-style, “oral history” structure. Those challenges made for something of a troubled production, and the stories of expensive reshoots and 11th-hour rewrites were so plentiful that it’s somewhat surprising the picture is as coherent as it is — well-crafted, tense and thrilling, alternating effective character beats with chilling set pieces.Stream it here.Also leaving: “Philomena” (June 19), “Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom” (June 29). 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

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Movies

      Meet Greta Lee, the Star of “Past Lives”

      by

      She’s known for playing offbeat characters in “Russian Doll,” “High Maintenance” and “Girls,” but Greta Lee is winning raves for her restrained performance in “Past Lives.” It almost didn’t happen.“I’ve played a lot of larger-than-life people,” Greta Lee said. “This is entirely different. I was really attracted to what that could be, and whether or not I could pull it off.”Chantal Anderson for The New York TimesGreta Lee shines at playing the entrancing oddball, the scene-stealing weirdo you can’t take your eyes off of.Over the years, the actress has channeled Soojin, an entitled, self-absorbed gallerist who thinks she’s poor but isn’t (“Girls”); Hae Won, a nail salon technician who can party with the best of them, in this case, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler (“Sisters”); and Maxine, the free spirit on “Russian Doll” caught in an inescapable time loop with her best friend, played by Natasha Lyonne.What Lee hasn’t gotten to play much are characters who are, to use her word, restrained.For many actors, restraint is not necessarily something to strive for. “A lot of times, as performers, we’re fighting this unspoken desire to show you can do something,” she said. “To show that you understand the assignment.”Audiences will get to see a bit more restraint and a lot more of what Lee can do in the A24 drama “Past Lives,” which opens June 2. After years of making the most of small parts, the actress’s talents have long been there to see for anyone with eyeballs, whether she was performing on Broadway (briefly) or in some of TV’s most groundbreaking comedies. All that was needed for Lee to move up was the right role — in this case, her first leading role, one that almost didn’t come her way.In “Past Lives,” she plays Nora, a Korean Canadian playwright who reunites with the childhood sweetheart she left behind in Seoul when her family immigrated 24 years before. The film also stars Teo Yoo (“Love to Hate You”) as Hae Sung, the man who still wonders what might have been, and John Magaro (“Not Fade Away”), as Nora’s husband Arthur, a writer forced to wonder what might have been, too, when Hae Sung comes to New York for a short but affecting visit.Teo Yoo and Lee in “Past Lives.” Initially the roles went to other performers.A24In many ways, Nora is about as far from Lee’s roster of scene-stealing roles as you can imagine: measured and still rather than riotous or offbeat; the humor, when it comes, wry. It’s a breakthrough performance in a film that has already earned rave reviews (The Times described it as “a gorgeous, glowing, aching thing”) after it premiered at Sundance and played the Berlin Film Festival earlier this year. The Los Angeles Times called her turn a “career-making performance,” while The Hollywood Reporter singled out the “extraordinary depths” of her portrayal of Nora.“I’ve played a lot of larger-than-life people,” Lee said. “This is entirely different. I was really attracted to what that could be, and whether or not I could pull it off.”The role almost eluded Lee, an experience she related one afternoon in a coffee shop in the Highland Park neighborhood of Los Angeles. “I felt absolutely certain that it was not going to go my way,” she recalled.IF NORA IS NOTHING LIKE many of Lee’s previous party-girl characters, neither is Lee herself. She’s a mother, for starters, of two young boys with her husband, Russ Armstrong.On set, “Greta is like a Hunter S. Thompson-meets-Fellini character,” Natasha Lyonne said in an interview. “She’s a total original.”And while Lee’s characters can seem infinitely too cool to be seen with you or your friends, she herself isn’t above getting excited about all sorts of things, including how kind and receptive everyone has been about this latest movie of hers. “I’m going to show you,” she said, pulling out her cellphone. She played a tiny clip she had shot on her phone of the blocks-long line at a recent screening of “Past Lives.” “It keeps going! Still going. Still going. Isn’t this completely wild?”Lee, now 40, was born in Los Angeles and spent most of her childhood here. The daughter of Korean immigrants and the oldest of three, she experienced much of her early life as a series of firsts. “I was the first kid to be an American citizen in the family, the first to go to school here, just navigating all these things,” she said. “I always had a burning fire to prove something, either to myself, or to whatever authority figure there was in my life.”Growing up, she loved sports (“there are Olympic wrestlers on my dad’s side”) and musical performance. She played the piano, studied opera, sang Liza Minnelli numbers at the local mall, took modern-dance classes, competed in classical music festivals (and won). “I know a lot of Italian arias and German art songs,” she said.After high school, Lee attended Northwestern University in the hopes of going into musical theater. “Back then it was ‘Miss Saigon,’ ‘South Pacific,’ ‘The King and I,’” she said. “It’s kind of sad to think about now. It was so limited in what it could be. But it was still enough for me to feel like there was something here that I deeply want to be a part of.”For a time, she hustled for any type of role or gig. “I was meeting rejection and obstacles, and I remember feeling constantly like I was falling behind,” she said, recalling the five-year stretch when she booked just a few TV episodes.Still, all that auditioning paid off. In 2010, Lee found herself on Broadway in a revival of “La Bête,” a comedy in iambic pentameter set in the 17th century and starring David Hyde Pierce and Joanna Lumley. Even then, she was multitasking. “I would do that play, and then change out of my corset and walk around the corner to MTV’s ‘TRL’ studios, where I was a VJ.”Supporting parts in celebrated series like “High Maintenance,” “Girls” and “Inside Amy Schumer” followed. In 2019, Lee landed regular roles on the streaming series “Russian Doll,” which finished its second season last month, and “The Morning Show,” which has been renewed for a fourth season.“I think the path I took, as an Asian American woman, was different from what is conventional,” Lee said. “Certain points in my life during this journey didn’t always make sense to other people. But it makes so much sense to me now.”Chantal Anderson for The New York TimesLee read the script for “Past Lives” the following year and was immediately captivated. “It really stood out in terms of what a romantic drama could be,” she said. “It’s not a conventional love story or love triangle. And the woman at the center of the story is really different from others I’ve seen in other films.”Not long after that first read, “I got a phone call from an assistant, asking if I was available for an important meeting” at a restaurant in the Village, she said. “I assumed I had gotten the job!” But the assistant had the wrong number, and it turned out the message, unrelated to “Past Lives,” was for Greta Gerwig.In fact, Lee wasn’t even being considered for the part. For months, Celine Song, the writer and director of “Past Lives,” had been looking at other Noras, other Hae Sungs. “They cast it with two other people,” Lee said.According to Song, the oversight had little to do with Lee herself. The film’s story is loosely based on the true-life reunion of Song, her American husband and her Korean school pal, which took place when the director was 29. “When you’re young, you think that being 29 is so interesting and cool and meaningful,” Song said. “So I was trying to find somebody at 30, or even in their twenties, and Greta, of course, was in her late 30s.”“It was really stupid,” Song admitted.AFTER SONG CAME TO HER SENSES, she contacted Lee. A year had passed since Lee had first read the script, but she still remembered it: her soul-mate film, she called it. Could she meet with Song, via Zoom, that day? After a video audition that stretched on for two and a half hours, with Lee reading key scenes as Song played the two male leads (“Celine makes an excellent Arthur and Hae Sung,” Lee said), Song offered Lee the part on the spot.The film began shooting in summer 2021. To help the actors convey the feeling of being reunited with someone after 24 years, when you’ve only communicated over Skype, Song kept Lee and Yoo apart as much as possible. “She told us, you guys can’t touch,” Lee said.For Yoo, “during the rehearsal process, the instinct is to say goodbye naturally, with a hug,” he said. “And Celine was like, no, no, no, you guys, no touching.” I’m allowed to touch and hug, she told them, but Yoo and Lee got shooed away when they tried.Song insisted that the actors were all in, and that she never had to scold them to keep them in line. “Is that what they’re saying?” she asked, with a laugh. “No, no. I think they wanted to go along with the trick.”Of course the actress balked, Lee said, at least at first. “I was like, we’re all professionals here, and there’s a question of, how much of this needs to be actualized? We’re acting. But I think we all wanted to support her vision of this, and I was also curious to see how this might affect the process.”“It was really visceral, that first moment when we hug each other,” Yoo said. “So I was glad that we were able to capture that, and the audience gets to experience it.”Much of “Past Lives” was filmed in New York, as Nora shows Hae Sung around the city during a particularly dreary, rain-soaked week. The shoot was a reunion for the cast — not with, say, a long-lost sweetheart, but with the city itself. Song and the three leads had all lived in New York when they were coming up. Lee and Yoo had spent years in the East Village as struggling actors: Yoo, above a pizza joint at the corner of Avenue A and St. Marks Place; Lee, above a Thai restaurant in a small apartment she shared with three other women.“I was the first kid to be an American citizen in the family, the first to go to school here, just navigating all these things,” Lee said. “I always had a burning fire to prove something.”Chantal Anderson for The New York Times“We were shooting on the actual streets I lived on in the East Village when I was just starting out as a young 20-something, really desperate for work and trying to make a living,” Lee said. “It’s embarrassing to put it this way, but I guess it did feel somewhat like destiny.”In addition to “Past Lives,” Lee returns this fall as the network executive Stella Bak in the third season of “The Morning Show.” “I think people are really going to be excited about her arc on this season,” Lee said.She’s also set to appear in “Problemista,” an A24 comedy written, directed and starring Julio Torres. Greta plays a painter unfairly maligned by an art critic (Tilda Swinton). The part is small, Torres said, but memorable. “Greta has a way of staying with you even when you haven’t seen a lot of her, which is a very powerful thing to have,” he said.Right now, however, Lee’s focus is on “Past Lives.” All those other experiences she’s gone through, the stage work and revivals, the sketches and half-hour comedies, the TV dramas and voice actor work, she said, have all helped prepare her for this moment.“I think the path I took, as an Asian American woman, was different from what is conventional,” she said. “Certain points in my life during this journey didn’t always make sense to other people. But it makes so much sense to me now.”“I feel like I’ve been working really hard,” she added, “to make sure I was ready for the day when a role like Nora Moon would come my way.” 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