idea

For a long time, the lifestyles and foibles of the modest bourgeoisie were a mainstay of art-house cinema, with urbane, upscale audiences happy to turn out to see versions of their own lives depicted on the screen. But more recently, as ideas about what middle age looks like have shifted, along with the changing demographics of viewers, these films have largely disappeared. Which is what makes the seriocomic “The Invite” feel both fresh and something of a throwback — a movie for those who worry about losing their edge.

Directed by Olivia Wilde, “The Invite” was a clear standout when it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January and now arrives in theaters as one of the best dramas of the year so far. It feels daring for how it wants to actually examine the emotional costs of contemporary grown-up life, bringing wincing laughs of recognition.

The film begins with married couple Angela and Joe, played by Wilde and Seth Rogen, checking back in at their home in San Francisco at the end of the day. He has been at the teaching job he resents and she has been frantically preparing for the dinner party she may not have told him about. Their daughter is away at a sleepover for the evening and it seems they no longer fully know how to relate to each other. As they bicker and jab, their quiet dissatisfaction with their lives stops being so quiet.

Angela has invited over their neighbors from the apartment upstairs, who they do not know well and who often have loud sex. That couple, Piña and Hawk, played by Penélope Cruz and Edward Norton, seems more assured, self-possessed and adventurous, the kind of people you can absent-mindedly invent stories about, assuming their lives are much cooler than your own.

Things go in ways both expected and unexpected, the two couples warily feeling each other out as they wait to spring their own private agendas. Over the course of the evening, things will be alternately tense, flirty, vulnerable and revelatory as surprisingly little food is eaten. (Other substances get ingested instead.)

An adaptation of Cesc Gay’s 2020 Spanish film “Sentimental,” the screenplay is credited to Rashida Jones and Will McCormack. In an unusual step, the script was further workshopped and developed with the cast during rehearsals. Rogen came up with some of the biggest laugh lines and Norton wrote the deeply earnest monologue he delivers late in the film. (The popular Belgian psychotherapist Esther Perel is also credited as a consultant.)

This American version expands upon the characters more than Gay’s original film while consistently returning to the disappointment of Angela and Joe’s lives in terms both big and small. Neither of them are the people they once thought they might become. Whether two people who are each unhappy can make it as a couple becomes the overriding theme of the film.

This is Wilde’s third movie as a director and it is, by far, her most cohesive and accomplished, both contained and expansive. Her debut, 2019’s charming end-of-high-school tale “Booksmart,” had a throw-everything-at-the-wall quality, as if she wanted to get out every idea and try every trick in case she never got another chance to direct. Wilde’s follow-up, the 2022 psychodrama “Don’t Worry Darling,” became mired in behind-the-scenes gossip and tabloid speculation that overshadowed what was intended as a stylized portrait of female rage and discontent.

Her latest fulfills and exceeds the promise of those earlier movies. Shot on 35mm film by cinematographer Adam Newport-Berra, the action of “The Invite” is almost entirely confined to Angela and Joe’s apartment, which thanks to a recent renovation has plenty of rooms to explore. All four players are exceptional in their roles, playing smartly off their screen personas while exploring the nuances of the characters and their intersecting dynamics.

Wilde’s Angela is expressive and antic; Rogen’s Joe is sullen and snarky. Cruz is alluring and watchful, while Norton turns out to be the film’s secret weapon. He has a low-key comic energy and helps guide the story through a few of its trickier emotional turns. At one point he simply rises from behind a couch and it plays like a punchline.

Skip the next two paragraphs if you want to hold onto the film’s purest pleasures. Those noises from upstairs have been Piña and Hawk hosting group sex parties and they are now cruising Angela and Joe for some extramarital couples’ fun. Here, the movie pivots from passive-aggressive party conversation into farce, as Angela and Joe try to process the idea anyone else might find them desirable, as they have long since given up on seeing themselves in that way.

Wilde in particular lights up during this section, Angela’s mind racing at possibilities she never considered for herself while fumbling over the practicalities of protocols and just how this would work. Before pushing the film into its final forlorn section, the excitement that something sexy might happen charges the actors. It is very likely that streams of Sade’s seductive “By Your Side” will skyrocket.

But the focus stays very much on the struggles of married life. One of the biggest strengths of “The Invite” is the way it keeps evolving as the night progresses so it never feels claustrophobic or repetitive. There is a sense of visual invention and imagination to the film that continues all the way through, such as a moment when Wilde crouches down to check on a doomed soufflé in the oven and addresses the camera directly, looking up as if talking to Rogen. The viewer is frequently placed in an adjacent POV to the different characters, as if you are there in the room too.

The film has a propulsive rhythm to it, a relentlessness, even as Wilde and editors Yorgos Mavropsaridis and Anthony Boys know when to ease off the throttle and take it easy for a bit. The film breathes in a dynamic way, the last few beats taking a startling turn toward a somber wistfulness. The ending is just enigmatic enough to have audiences talking it through as they make their way out of the theater.

The end credits include a handwritten dedication, “For Diane,” a nod to Diane Keaton. The live-wire wit and idiosyncratic verve that she embodied in “Reds” and “Something’s Gotta Give” are very much on display here. Early in the story, Norton dryly notes, “We love a contentious environment.” Thanks to Wilde’s confident direction and the ensemble’s unpredictable performances, audiences will too.

Just past noon, a young man appeared on the north side of San Vicente Boulevard, a block west of Hauser, and eyeballed the flow of westbound traffic.

When he saw an opening, he slid across to the median strip, where he waited for eastbound traffic to let up before crossing over to the south side of San Vicente to pick up some takeout food. And then he retraced his steps across the 150-foot wide thoroughfare that knifes through the heart of the city along what once was the Red Car line of the Pacific Electric Railway.

He should have used the nearby crosswalk, but there aren’t enough of those on the boulevard, so pedestrians routinely skitter and scoot across the street like they’re in a game of Frogger.

I watched this drama the other day from Dam Good Coffee, where I met with two guys who live in the neighborhood and, in their spare time, have been doing a lot of thinking. They’re fine-tuning a pitch to reengineer the boulevard, reduce traffic, improve access to two new transit lines and transform the Mid-City portion of San Vicente Boulevard — from the Beverly Center on the west to just past La Brea on the east — into a 3-mile, 30-acre linear park.

Ambitious. Outlandish. Insane.

From left, Catherine Geanacouras, Oren Hadar and Michael Wacht of the San Vicente Park Foundation have a plan to turn a stretch of San Vicente Boulevard into a greenway.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

It’s all of that and a longshot undertaking, given the countless obstacles that can derail their dream. But Oren Hadar, a sound engineer, and Michael Wacht, an architect, are serious, along with a small coalition of neighborhood believers.

“One of the things I always say is L.A. needs to get back into the business of taking big swings,” Hadar said. He is motivated in part by the fact that his two young kids don’t have a nearby park to play in.

The big swing comes at a time when Los Angeles has just fallen from 90th to 93rd in terms of park acreage, investment and accessibility in the annual Trust for Public Lands ranking of the 100 largest cities in the U.S. You’d think a city with great weather and thousands of apartment dwellers with little or no outdoor space would fight its way into the top 10 rather than settle for sinking to the bottom of the heap.

“What if L.A.’s next great park was already here, hiding in plain sight?” a narrator asks in a video that appears on the group’s San Vicente Park website.

Local resident Jo and her dog Elle carefully cross San Vicente Boulevard in Los Angeles on Wednesday, June 17, 2026.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

Sun-baked asphalt would give way to turf. Pedestrians and cyclists would have more breathing room. There’d be far less traffic.

“You can put in micro forests,” Wacht said. “You can do farmers markets. You can do growing areas. You can do fountains. Playgrounds.”

Catherine Geanuracos, a CicLAvia board member who was an advocate for turning the Silver Lake Reservoir into an aquatic park, joined our conversation and called the idea “eminently feasible.”

“I think this is what makes L.A. great,” Geanuracos said. She’s lived in New York City and San Francisco and thinks there’s greater opportunity here for engaged residents to advance their civic improvement ideas.

The advocates said they’d gotten some encouragement from Councilmembers Heather Hutt and Katy Yaroslavsky, whose districts include the area of the proposed park. Hutt’s office sent me a statement saying she supports “effrorts to create more walkable, green communities.” She said she has encouraged the group to keep exploring the vision, and she looks forward to hearing input from various other neighborhood groups.

Hadar writes a blog called The Future Is L.A., which is part love letter to Los Angeles and part lament on unmet potential.

“Just about every other major American city has a policy and research think tank dedicated to pursuing ideas that could make the city better,” Hadar recently wrote, calling for L.A. to have its own.

I don’t want to say the park idea’s chances are slim, but let’s look at a few hurdles.

Traffic passes through the intersection of San Vicente Boulevard and La Brea in Los Angeles on.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

L.A. city government has trouble managing existing parks and even the open spaces around City Hall, so how can it build and care for another 30 acres of greenery?

The cost would be in the millions, and the cup does not runneth over.

And then there’s the biggest pothole of all on the road to pastoral wonder:

Creating the park would mean squeezing off one or two lanes of traffic in each direction of San Vicente. That would dump more cars onto surrounding streets and set up another road diet clash that pits car culture against growing demand for a city that is safer and more inviting for those who walk, bike and use transit.

All of this would be examined in a feasibility study the advocates are raising money for. But the supporters claim San Vicente is lightly traveled compared to Wilshire, Pico and Olympic, so stealing traffic lanes wouldn’t be catastrophic.

I mentioned that I’d think twice about sending kids to play in a median strip park. But the supporters said San Vicente would become more of a neighborhood service street than a thruway, with safer crossings into the new park, which by the way already has plenty of full-grown trees.

When I took a walk and polled people on the park idea, I got mixed reactions.

“That’s a bad idea,” said a man who was walking along the median strip. He said he thought that after the addition of bike lanes a few years ago squeezed vehicular traffic, San Vicente became more dangerous, and the idea of a park between lanes of traffic sounded disastrous to him.

Miguel Lopez looked like he was trying to bring the park vision to life. He sat on the median strip reading a book and smiled when he was shown a rendering of San Vicente Park.

Blanca Vanburian practices tai chi in her yard along San Vicente Boulevard on Wednesday.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Blanca Vanburian, who was doing a variation of Tai Chi on the lawn outside her apartment building, had several good questions, including one about whether the city could be trusted to maintain a new park. She said a lot of residents would be concerned about new traffic flows through side streets, and she wondered if the park would attract more homeless people.

Hadar told her the feasibility study would probe all of that, and the more she heard, the more Vanburian came around to the idea of the park.

“It’s up to us how we use public space,” Wacht said, looking out on a particularly unattractive stretch of roadway that generates so much exhaust and serves as a barrier, dividing two neighborhoods. “I get disappointed when I see so much of it devoted to this, and it’s keeping us from being more of a cohesive neighborhood.”

Margaret Free walks three basset hounds, named Bob, Doris and Ruth, along San Vicente Boulevard in Los Angeles on Wednesday.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Margaret Free was walking three Basset hounds — Bob, Doris and Ruth. She said she and the dogs could be counted as four votes in favor of the park.

A woman named Jo safely managed a Frogger crossing with her dog, Elle. Jo said she was absolutely in favor of a park and doesn’t think losing lanes of vehicle traffic is a bad thing, but she feared backlash from drivers who disagree and asked me to withhold her last name.

Joshua Mock, owner of Dam Good Coffee, said everyone would benefit from the park, especially neighborhood children. “It’d be dope,” he said, “and good for business.”

For all the doubters, the advocates point to several projects around the country where public spaces were repurposed, including the New York City High Line. And they note that several local projects are in the design or construction phase, including the L.A. River master plan, the Broadway-Manchester streetscape project and the park under the Sixth Street bridge.

If you have ideas for remaking your neighborhood, send them my way.

And take big swings.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

In this week’s episode of The Envelope podcast, Riz Ahmed talks about drawing on his own experience for “Bait,” his Prime Video series about a British Muslim actor whose life is upended when he’s rumored to be the next James Bond.

Kelvin Washington: Hello, everyone, and welcome to the next episode of The Envelope. Kelvin Washington, Yvonne Villarreal, we have Mark Olsen. And Mark, I’ll stay with you for a second. You had a chance to speak with Riz Ahmed, who is the creator and the star of “Bait,” which centers around the idea of who could be the next James Bond. So then, dang it, I’m asking you two the same question: Who could be, should be the next James Bond? Is there somebody or somebodies that you’ve thought about for a while and said, “Well, that would fit, that could work”?

Mark Olsen: It was recently announced that they have begun the casting process to replace Daniel Craig in the beloved and long-running James Bond franchise. And there have already been at least one sort of confirmed person, the actor Tom Francis, auditioned. But then there’s a lot of other names being thrown around, like Callum Turner, Jacob Elordi, Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Kind of everybody about that age bracket you could think of. You know, it’s funny, in the last movie, “No Time to Die,” Lashana Lynch was given the number 007, so she was not James Bond, but she was 007. And I always thought, actually, in the last couple of movies, that Léa Seydoux would make a perfect [00 agent] — she’s cool, she feels kind of dangerous. She would have seemed to me like a great person for that kind of role. But then also, that’s obviously not James Bond. So who knows who it could be. Yvonne, what do you think? Do you have anybody in mind?

Yvonne Villarreal: Can it be a toss-up between you two? How would you fare?

Olsen: I don’t know if I’d pass basic training.

Washington: They have doubles, OK? They got stunt doubles and CGI and AI for all of that and for you, OK.

Villarreal: It’d be like the Leslie Nielsen version.

Washington So it’d be like 007 with a question mark: 007?

Villarreal: More seriously — not that I don’t take you two seriously as candidates — I would throw my enthusiasm around Jonathan Bailey or Damson Idris.

Washington: I’m gonna one-up your Idris and just go [with] the obvious, Idris Elba. It’s been sitting there for the last 15 years or so.

Villarreal: That’s why I didn’t [say that], because I’m like, “It’s been sitting there and they still haven’t.”

Washington: But sometimes it just makes sense. Sometimes it’s just sitting smacking you in the face, or shooting you with a silent 9mm — whatever he uses, James Bond. It just makes sense, and to be honest, it’s one of those, he’s probably passing [on the role] because you wanna have a franchise you can hold on to for 20 years with a particular actor, give or take, and he seems like he’d be probably too senior for that at a certain point. The podcast, the conversation behind what really happened there is going to be fascinating because, to your point, it just seems like the momentum was building for it and it didn’t happen. So it would be interesting to hear what actually comes out of that. But those are my are my guesses right there.

All right, Mark, you had a chance to speak with Riz Ahmed, obviously the creator and the star of “Bait.” Fascinating to me, just the concept of the show as a whole.

Olsen: Riz Ahmed is someone who, he’s so thoughtful about his own career, but also his place in the world. And so he does such a great job with this show and taking this idea of like, “Could an actor like Riz Ahmed, could he be James Bond? Should he be James Bond? Why not?” And so the show is just so thoughtful and finds all these really inventive ways of exploring that idea. He’s playing a little-known actor who it becomes public that he’s auditioned for the role and that throws his whole life into tumult both within the industry, with sort of like online hate towards him, but then also with his own family. And the show is also meant to be kind of a real love letter to the South Asian communities of London. Riz in the conversation talks about how they went out of their way to shoot in parts of London that you don’t normally see. So the show, it’s just so inventive and fun in a lot of really terrific ways.

Washington: Well, let’s hear more of your conversation with Riz now.

Riz Ahmed.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Mark Olsen: On the show, you play an actor who auditions for the part of James Bond. It leaks to the press, and then his whole world turns upside down. For you, is the premise of the show predicated on the idea that someone like you would never get that part, or is it that, of course you should get that? Which end of the telescope are you looking at it from?

Riz Ahmed: Kind of neither, really. The premise of the show was something a bit more emotional than that. The James Bond thing came right at the end, to be honest, of the creative process. Really, the heart of the show is the idea of auditioning. James Bond really serves as a symbol in the show, a symbol of aspiration, pinnacle of achievement in this industry and also of alpha masculinity and all this kind of stuff. And so it’s really the idea of trying to be that guy, which on some level, we’re all trying to be this kind of preferred version of ourselves, right? We’re all performing. We’re actually all always auditioning. So it’s about that feeling, [which] I think extends outside this industry. We’re doing that on LinkedIn or social media, on this podcast right now. We’re performing a version of ourselves. When actually the true version of ourselves is kind of messy, chaotic and vulnerable. So it’s that distance between the public and private self that I was really interested in, and James Bond just served as an aspirational symbol of that public way that you would love to be seen.

Olsen: But Bond, because of the specific cultural baggage that comes with that franchise, did you feel like it fit thematically with what you were trying to do?

Ahmed: Oh, perfectly. It was a godsend. It was like one of those moments where it’s like, “OK, so we want to do something about, like, aspiring to be anything but yourself. We want to do something about feeling like life is one big audition, but we need something that encapsulates success and cultural acceptance.” And it was like … Of course: Bond. And because the process of making this show was one of pulling so much from my own personal life, there was a moment or two when my name was mentioned in that conversation. I mean, along with, you know, everyone and their dog. But it was an interesting kind of thought experiment, it was an interesting, as I said, kind of vessel to place all of the themes into. And so when that idea came about, it was like, “This is perfect. We can talk about everything we want to talk about using this symbol.” We’re like, “OK, now how are we gonna get it?” And everyone told us Barbara Broccoli would never let us use it. Rightly so, she was very protective of this IP. But I wrote her a letter, sat down with her, showed her the scripts and she understood. She understood that it’s not really about Bond. It’s a show about self-love, and she really kind of vibed with that. Shout out Barbara Broccoli, thank you for letting us use Bond exactly how we wanted to.

Olsen: You recently hosted the new “SNL UK” and in your monologue, you made this joke that you don’t just play intense roles, that there’s this image of you that it’s all that you do. Did you purposely want to make “Bait” as a way to break you out of that perception?

Ahmed: It wasn’t that careerist and calculating, to be honest. I was just trying to make something that was authentically me. And I think the people who know me know that I’m a lover of comedy. My first rap song was a comedy rap song. I got banned on British radio back in the day because it was a quite an acerbic kind of satire. And actually it’s funny because I think that’s an American perception of me. In the UK, nine times out of 10, when I get stopped is for a British comedy I did called “Four Lions.” Which is like a kind of cult classic British movie. It’s a very British comedy. That’s like me, that’s like how I am in real life. And so when I wanted to make my own show, it just stands to reason it would be a reflection of my taste. So the overall frame was comedy, but I kind of have quite a maximalist sensibility. I want to have my cake and eat it. So I also wanted it to be a spy thriller and a family drama and quite surreal and psychological thriller and all of these elements kind of put together, but the frame of it all, I would say, is comedy. And yet it was really actually important to us that we tried to defy genre and defy categorization in that way.

Olsen: Did you feel like this was a role that, like, nobody was going to give you, like you had to write this for yourself?

Ahmed: It wasn’t so much out of a kind of frustration or a desire to create work for myself or break out of a pigeonhole or anything like that. Honestly, I just tried to make something as honest and authentic and vulnerable as possible, if that doesn’t sound too eye-rolly. I guess I reached a point in my life as a creative where I realized, actually, performance isn’t about putting on the mask, it’s about taking it off. It’s about sharing with the world who you are, sharing your privacy and your insanity. And if you do that, people will connect with it because it’s honest. And if you name your pain and your craziness, there’s something healing in that for yourself and others. I had kind of gotten to that place in my life. And so I wanted to kind of follow that through to a place that felt quite scary and pull on the most personal aspects of my own neuroses and my life and my neighborhood that I grew up in — so many locations are literally where I’ve grown up. So many moments in the show I pulled very directly from my life experience. My character has a panic attack at the end of Episode 1 at this particular music venue in North London. I had a panic attack in that venue in North London when I was supporting Wu-Tang Clan. My character is approached by MI5 and MI6. They say, “Hey, you’re a rising actor, do you wanna work with us, help with messaging?” That happened to me specifically once I started to become a bit more well known. There’s just so many things that kind of came from that place, and it was all based on this idea of like, “If I wanna make a show about a character who needs to learn how to take off the mask, then I need to do that as well.” And we kind of had a mantra in the room, which was like, “If it feels scary and it’s true, do it.” And there were times when I didn’t want to do it, definitely times when I wanted to kind of hide, but I just increasingly have this feeling that if you can offer up a part of yourself, then that’s one of the most liberating things you can do as an artist. And also for an audience, it just feels honest. That’s where you can connect most with people, if you’re willing to share that vulnerability.

Olsen: What was the writing process of the show like for you? Was there a moment where you had like a whiteboard with a list of awkward things that had happened to you?

Ahmed: That whiteboard would be very, very big, very, very large. Let’s say we’ve got a lot left in the tank if we ever do another season. The writing process was a learning curve for me, never having been in an American writers’ room system before. Hugely grateful to my co-showrunner, Ben Karlin, who’s got himself a really eclectic background. He’s one of the founding writers of the Onion, the satirical website. He has this track record, “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report,” but also “Modern Family.” And so I wanted someone who had that eclectic background, and we had a writers’ room that was similarly very eclectic. We had stand-up comedians. We had novelists. We had playwrights. We had experienced TV writers. We had U.S. [people], we had UK people. I just knew that I wanted this to feel quite eclectic, and as I say, kind of genre-bending. And so I wanted that breadth. So actually the writing process for this was like, “How do we make this feel as chaotic and messy and unpredictable as possible?” That requires a crazy amount of craft. And there were a lot of late nights, there was a lot of hair being pulled out. And it was, I think, one of the most intense periods, more so than the shoot, even. It was just trying to figure out what this show was. And I came to this realization, which is, Shah Latif, my character, is having an identity crisis. He’s trying to work out who he is. So it stands to reason the show should also be trying to work out what it is. The show needs to be having an identity crisis. So then we gave up on this mission of trying to make it feel coherent and consistent. And we said, “Of course, he’s an actor trying to work out who he is. Every episode should be a different genre. We should have our James Bond-goes-to-the-gala-in-a-tux episode. We should to have our Bollywood-proper episode. We should have our Linklater walk and talk. We should have our Greengrass does a spy thriller.” So we really deliberately and really defiantly tried to embrace the identity crisis of the character in how we told the story. And when we did that, everything fell into place. We would stop trying to straitjacket this into something more predictable.

Olsen: And what was it like for you to be filling this role of not just actor but also writer, producer, showrunner? How did you feel about taking on all those roles?

Ahmed: I felt scared. I felt out of my depth. I felt like I needed the help of people much smarter than me. Luckily, I had that help. And more than that help, their patience. I continually said, “No, we’ve got to go back and do it again. We’ve got to rewrite that episode. We’ve gotta redo this whole section,” as it felt so personal to me. Not just because it’s my personal experiences, but because there’s a world that hasn’t quite been put on screen before in this show, and I felt a tremendous sense of responsibility and emotional connection to that world and these characters. So at times it felt overwhelming. ButI’m of this philosophy that usually when you’re making something, you kind of end up feeling how the character is feeling. The character feels out of his depth, feels overwhelmed, feels like he does not quite know what he’s doing, it stands to reason I should feel like that. If I really feel like I’ve got it all worked out and I’m in control, we’re doing something wrong. So as far as possible, I tried to remind myself that that was a sign of almost being in touch with the material. At least that’s how I tried to talk myself off the ledge, man.

Olsen: Can you just talk to me a little bit about the title? As I understand it, “Bait” is UK slang?

Ahmed: The title actually has many different layers to it. I always say this is a show that’s hard to sum up in a sentence, but it’s really easy to sum up in one word, and that word is bait, because it has like five or six different meanings. So one key meaning is British slang. It means really blatant and in your face. So if you’re blowing up someone’s spot, you’re baiting them up. You’re being really kind of, “Look at me, look at me,” you’re being bait. So that speaks to Shah Latif, the character, and his attention seeking. But bait also means, online, trolling. It also means, in Urdu, your loyalty or your allegiance. It also mean in Arabic, in Hebrew, home. And it also, in literal meaning, it’s something used as part of a trap, which speaks to the spy thriller element to the show. So all these different layers to the word bait correspond to a different layer of show, correspond to each different episode. That’s exploring that meaning. And I wish I could tell you we had this all worked out upfront, but we struggled with the title for so long and it kind of like hiccuped itself up into the ether in a late-night kind of hair-pulling session. We realized, “Oh, my God, that’s it. That’s exactly what it should be.” So yeah, the title I think encapsulates how we’re trying to explore these different genres and all the different narrative threads in the show.

Olsen: All the things that your character of Shah Latif is going through trying to move forward in his career as an actor, remaining true to his community and his sense of self, how much of those are your own issues? Are there things that you feel like you’re on the other side of now? Are those things that you’re sort of constantly trying to figure out for yourself?

Ahmed: Of course, like this idea of searching for your identity in a world that either commodifies it or punishes it, that’s something I relate to. But I also kind of feel like that’s something we all relate to. There’s a lot of me in Shah Latif, but I actually think there’s a lot of Shah Latif in all of us. This idea of feeling as though you’re not enough. This idea of trying to cultivate a public version of yourself because you’re ashamed of the private version of your self. I think that’s such a universal feeling right now in this performative culture that we live in. We all wanna be looked at, but we don’t wanna be seen. And somebody once told me that the distance between your public and private self is the amount of shame that you carry. I think it’s true, more or less. I’m not saying you shouldn’t have a private life and some things shouldn’t be kept private. It probably should. But in a kind of deeper sense, I think there’s a truth in that. So I wanted to make a comedy in this playground of shame because it’s something that I can relate to, but I just had a sense that this is a very universal feeling.

Olsen: How much of these are issues or things you were going through in your career maybe five years ago, 10 years ago? What are the the sort of top-line things that you feel like you’re struggling with now?

Ahmed: This is where it becomes a full-blown therapy session. I would say that there was a period of time when I was just really desperate to be in the room. And now I’m in a place where I’m really excited to try and build my own room. And that, in a way, is a journey that the character goes on. I think it’s a journey that I’ve gone on, and the show, in a way, is a culmination of that journey. You know, it was just such a privilege to be able to create a playground and bring together this kind of ensemble. I don’t think there’s ever quite been a brown ensemble like this on screen before and [to] showcase all that talent and create that sense of family and specificity. And yeah, as I said, kind of build my own room rather than asking for a seat at someone else’s table. So I think that journey is one that I’ve been on and one that, I think, the show is exploring.

Olsen: There are these title cards throughout the series that give you these neighborhoods and locations, and I don’t know London super well, but like, it feels like it’s a very specific version of London. What was the importance of those locations for you?

Ahmed: The shows that I really adore and the ones that really inspired me on this journey are ones that are unapologetically specific. The Holy Trinity in my mind was “Atlanta,” “I May Destroy You” and “Fleabag.” These half-hour shows that are super personal, but also super specific in the world they’re exploring, whether they’re a city like Atlanta or a certain kind of Black London, or a very particular kind of white, middle-class British family in “Fleabag.” And so I wanted that unapologetic specificity. I wanted it to be a love letter to my London. And so I wanted to shout out these neighborhoods that really mean something to me. But more than that, I wanted to give a nod to the spy genre with those title cards. You know, in a Bond movie it says like, “Somewhere in the Caribbean,” you know, “Mexico City.” I wanted do that with Kentish Town, with Brick Lane, with Wembley. I wanted to elevate our daily experience and those neighborhoods to that kind of grand stage and those epic stakes and say, “Actually, this is as magical, as important, as exotic, as thrilling as any of those locations within that kind of genre.” Jordan Peele, when he made “Get Out,” said, “Being Black in America is like living in a horror movie. That’s why I made ‘Get Out.’” I can add this thesis that being brown in the West is like being in a spy thriller. And that’s why we made this. So I wanted those neighborhoods to feel like those chyrons you have in a spy thriller.

Olsen: You’ve often mentioned in the past, it’s a phrase I’m very taken with, “stretching culture,” expanding the idea of what’s possible. And I’m just curious, like, how is that going for you?

Ahmed: There’s the idea that the universe is expanding in all directions at the same time. I feel like that with culture. I feel like things are getting crazier and better at the same time simultaneously at an accelerating pace. You know, that’s kind of how I feel about it. And it’s like our consciousness, right? You get a little bit crazier, even as you get smarter. It’s that kind of feeling. For whatever it’s worth, it may sound pretentious, but I kind of feel it’s important to try and anchor myself in some sense of purpose. And I think that’s the purpose of storytelling, is to kind of constantly expand horizons of who is considered human and what is considered human. And I think for me, at least in this moment in my journey, I want that to be about telling stories that haven’t been told before, portraying worlds and communities and characters that maybe we haven’t been that familiar with.

Olsen: You’ve expressed some frustration recently with the phrase “representation” — that it’s become kind of a hollow gesture. What would you like to see happen moving forward?

Ahmed: Well, I was really proud to be part of the conversation, when we were kind of collectively coining that term, right, going from diversity to representation. But I do think it’s not an end in itself. Like I said, being in the room doesn’t necessarily change anything. It’s what are you allowed to do in that room? Does the room change you, or do you change it? It’s what the show’s exploring. And so at least for me right now, the kind of representation I’m interested in is how authentically we can represent ourselves. Do you know what I mean? Like, do I have to code switch? Do I have put on a mask or do I get to take it off? That to me is, I think, the most exciting kind of knot to unpick right now. And as I said, that’s kind of at the heart of the show.

Olsen: I want to be sure to ask you about some of the other cast on the show, specifically Guz Khan. I feel like I could watch the two of you just driving around in a car together for hours.

Ahmed: I’ll send you the rushes.

Olsen: Did you two have an immediate chemistry?

Ahmed: Can I tell you, the story of me and Guz is its own bizarre bromance. Here’s how I thought I knew Guz. Guz went viral in the UK because he did a joke, kind of like [a] shout-out against Steven Spielberg, right? Because there’s a kind of dinosaur in his “Jurassic Park” reboot that sounds like a racial slur in the UK. I’m just gonna let people check it out for themselves. I’m not gonna say more than that. This is like 10 years ago, something like that. He goes viral, he starts blowing up, people start offering him his own TV show. He DMs me on Twitter and he’s like, “Bro, like, what’s the industry like? Is it like crazy Illuminati vibes?” I was like, “Yes, but the Illuminatis are actually very fun, come and join us.” And just started this banter with him, and he goes on his journey, becomes one of the most beloved comedians. I’m on set with him, shooting “Bait.” And he goes, “You don’t remember the first time we met and we spoke, do you?” I said, “I remember, you DM’d me like a crazy guy.” And he was like, “No, no. We met 20 years ago.” I was like, “What are you talking about?” I was doing a spoken-word performance in the Midlands in the UK. No one was coming to see it. It was a completely empty club. So I take it upon myself to go outside and start flyering passers-by. Down a dark alley, I see guys with some of his friends engaged in a business of some sort. His legal team have asked me to refer to it as “selling tulips.” They were selling tulips, OK? I go down to this alleyway, I hand him flyers, him and his friends. I’m like, “How are you doing there, gentlemen? Would you like to come and see me do some spoken word?” They’re like, “What the hell? We’re in their mid-tulip transaction.” He decides out of the kindness of his heart with his boys to come and watch me do spoken word at Coventry Student Union. And he said it was the first time he saw someone that looked like him doing something like that in a space like that. … Twenty years later, we’re on set together. We met when we were like 20 years old and I’d completely forgotten him, but he remembered. We have like a brotherhood and a friendship in real life. I wrote that role for him. He is someone who constantly reminds me that as an artist, your art can only be as expansive as your heart is. He’s just that guy on set you want to be around. He brings the positive energy, he reminds you this is meant to be fun. And actually, when you’re having fun, you’re feeling relaxed and loose, you do great work. He’s evidence of that. And so I just have so much love for him, but I would only say that because he’s not here. If he was here, I would be making fun of him aggressively.

Olsen: Now that to me seems like this notion of stretching culture, where you’ve had this influence on him that you kind of didn’t even know.

Ahmed: I would love it if he would say that publicly, rather than me having to tell the world that I’m responsible for his career. Thank you for saying it. If we can clip that bit, that would be great. Send it to Guz, yeah? Email that to him. I don’t know, man. I kind of feel like we’re all in this relay race, right, and we’re just fumbling the ball to one another and trying to move forward. And one of the great things about this show was being in community in that way. I think for some people, particularly in the UK, they’re familiar with the world that’s portrayed here. I think, for a lot of Americans, they’re really not. Interestingly, I’ve had a lot of Latin viewers and Latina viewers approach me saying, “That’s my family, I get that, I know what that is.” And so I don’t know, I just think it’s kind of exciting. One of the things I love most about storytelling on screen is we can bring people into worlds they haven’t been to before. That’s what I remember falling in love with when I watched “Goodfellas” and “Mean Streets” in that world that Scorsese creates. So yeah, I think as long as we’re all leaning into this specificity, doing so in community, maybe that’s how we get to stretch culture.

Olsen: In a recent profile on you, the actor Sandra Hüller, who you work with on the upcoming movie “Digger,” she said that one of the things she most admires about you is that you take yourself and your work seriously. And I think I feel the same way, like there’s an intentionality to what you do, there’s a sense of purpose to what do.

Ahmed: It sounds so boring, though, when you put it like that. Doesn’t it? I hope I don’t take myself too seriously. I guess I take it seriously that I’ve got this opportunity to try and tell stories, and I believe that they matter. But I actually hope I don’t take myself seriously, very seriously. I hope this show in a way is evidence of that. That’s Exhibit A. Yeah, you got Hüller’s testimony here and then you got “Bait” over here. Who do you believe?

Olsen: Is there anything you can tell me about “Digger”? It’s a new film from Alejandro González Iñárritu, it stars Tom Cruise, and it has quickly become, I think, one of the most anticipated movies of the year. People are very excited about it. And there’s very little known about it, is there anything you can say about it?

Ahmed: It’s funny you should say that because I spoke to Alejandro today and he gave me permission to reveal something exclusively to you on this podcast. No, not really. There’s nothing. Absolutely nothing. I actually might get assassinated for just saying that even.

Olsen: And have you seen it?

Ahmed: I feel like anything I say, there’s like a bomb on my leg that might go off. I’ll say this, it was a really unique and incredible experience. Alejandro is this crazy genius and being around that level of — Tom Cruise as well — they’re all obsessive perfectionists that have just like endless rocket fuel in them. It’s just inspiring to be around, honestly. Really, really unique. I don’t know if I’ll ever have an experience like that again.

Olsen: And then you were nominated for an Academy Award for acting for “Sound of Metal,” but you won an Academy Award for the short film “The Long Goodbye” that was based on an album that you put out. As you’ve become busier in your acting career, has it become difficult for you to still make time for your music?

Ahmed: The projects that I have out right now with “Hamlet” and “Bait” are things that I’ve built. I’m not saying this is the way, necessarily, it’ll always be, but at least over the last several years, acting is like this cherry on the cake. I’m spending all this time building these other things and writing these things and producing these things. And in a way making music is part of that. It’s like being in a writers’ room, with musicians in a studio. And one of the things that I’ve enjoyed most is bringing the development of stories together with the development of albums. “The Long Goodbye” short film is an example of that. But I mean, I joke about this to my friends, one of the main reasons I made “Bait” as a TV show is so that I could make a soundtrack. You know, I grew up on Bollywood where, in a way, the movie was just an excuse for the music. I partly almost feel the same way here. We’ve got a soundtrack for “Bait,” which I’m very, very proud of. And it’s a reflection, I think again, of that eclectic, multicultural London that I know and love. It pulls together artists from across the diaspora, from the Bay Area and the U.S. through to India and Pakistan, from Trinidad and Bangladesh and Karachi and London. And it’s something that I think kind of speaks to the genre-bendiness of the show as well. So in a weird way, as I’m developing more of my own stories, I’m able to incorporate music into that process more.

Olsen: But are you making music of your own?

Ahmed: Yeah, I’ve got two tracks on that soundtrack, for example. Yeah, one of them with a rapper who I’ve been a huge fan of for many, many years. So that was a lovely moment. His name is Casisdead, makes very kind of cinematic UK hip-hop. So I’ve got two tracks on that and yeah, I mean, watch this space. Hopefully I’ll have some more time.

Olsen: And then, this is a moment in the show, and I know it’s something that’s happened in the past, but are you still ever mistaken for Dev Patel?

Ahmed: Honestly, every time I’m mistaken for Dev Patel, I’ll take the flowers. I’m such a fan of his, personally, and he’s actually also from that very particular pocket of Northwest London where I’m from, that this show is almost a love letter to. That pocket of London has produced, if I may humbly put myself in that bracket, myself, but also Dev Patel, Jay Paul, Jay Sean and Jay Shetty. All the Jays. All of them. So I’m very proud of Dev and everything he’s doing, and he’s telling his own stories as well in a way that I find really inspiring.

Sit at a table with a bunch of actors and it inevitably becomes an impromptu acting class, one in which even the Michelle Pfeiffer is leaning over to observe. At least that’s what happened on a recent afternoon when The Envelope gathered six actors from some of this season’s most talked about television series for its 2026 Emmy Drama Roundtable.

It all began when Pfeiffer (“The Madison”) shared that, while studying acting, she couldn’t grasp the technique created by Sanford Meisner, which trains actors to stop overthinking and encourages them to listen and respond actively to their scene partners. The revelation immediately activated Katherine LaNasa (“The Pitt”), who beckoned Tom Pelphrey (“Task”) to join her in a spontaneous application. (Both had studied the method.)

“I like your jacket,” LaNasa said, locking eyes with Pelphrey.

“You like my jacket?” he replied playfully.

“I do like your jacket … You’re smiling at me.”

The exchange, which had a flirtatious energy, continued for a minute, before Pelphrey and LaNasa emphasized that it’s essentially looking at and listening to what the other person is doing.

“Somehow I was doing it wrong and I didn’t understand why I was doing it wrong,” Pfeiffer said.

This openness and encouragement carried the entire conversation, which brought together Pfeiffer, who plays Stacy Clyburn, a wealthy New York City matriarch whose life is upended by the tragic death of her husband, which compels her to move to Montana; LaNasa, who brings depth to the burnout plaguing steadfast, straight-talking charge nurse Dana Evans; Pelphrey, in his turn as Robbie Prendergast, a sanitation worker who robs drug houses at night to provide for his family; Zahn McClarnon, who stars as Det. Joe Leaphorn, a stoic man battling his past and the loss of his son in “Dark Winds”; Billy Magnussen, who portrays Duncan Park, the eccentric and profit-hungry CEO of a tech company in “The Audacity”; and Karolina Wydra, who plays Zosia, the eternally cheerful liaison to a utopian, hive-minded collective in “Pluribus.” Read on for excerpts from our discussion.

I know all your characters are going through some personal things, but if you were to transform into them for 24 hours, what would you do with that day?

Magnussen: I live with Duncan daily because I think your job as an actor is to check the morality of the character you’re playing. And at the same time, you have to question your own morality, see where you stand, to then deal with that character. Duncan’s a really messed-up guy, and doing it for five months … I was on set 16 hours a day every day. I was with him nonstop. And his temperament and pace was just out of this world. It’s exhausting. So what would I do? I would try to go to a spa, personally, because it’s exhausting.

Wydra: Do you find that it gets blurry after a little while?

Magnussen: I still know who Billy is.

McClarnon: But there’s times where you can’t see that line between [fiction and] reality, just moments. I’ve found myself in those moments where I know the difference, obviously, but I’m so emotionally attached to Deanna Allison, who plays my wife on the show, where I can’t separate them anymore. It’s not like 24 hours, but just moments where I’m like, “Wait a second, where am I? Am I in the show? Is this Joe Leaphorn or is this Zahn?” Usually in the middle of the season, it starts to get a little blurry for me.

Magnussen: Do you think it’s the job, though, to keep it separated? Or do you guys believe in Method acting?

Wydra: Rhea Seehorn, who is on “Pluribus,” who’s incredible, who’s my partner in crime, she gave me a book about Method [acting] — the Method and what really Method was. And it’s not what we think it is. We all do Method acting, but it’s not staying in the character and living in the character forever. … And that’s what people think Method is, is that you never break the character, you take the character home, but it’s not. It’s building a world. Building it, personalizing it.

Pfeiffer: Isn’t that what we all do? Some actors will go live on the ranch. They won’t take a bath for six months. They really take it to another level, which I’m not willing to do … From the minute I commit to something, it’s right there [in my head], I’m thinking about it. It can be a year away, and it’s right here torturing me, which is I think why I’m a bit of a commitment-phobe. My agents always call me “Dr. No” because I know no matter what, even if I’m not consciously aware of it, it’s there just badgering me.

LaNasa: I have found that people want Dana, want my character, in real life. And it’s cool because she’s very comforting to people. But I had an experience recently in New York where this table of girls, they were having some party, and someone said, “Oh, you mean a lot to us.” And I said, “Oh, are they nurses?” Well, some of them are. And then they asked at the end of their dinner would I take a picture. And then one girl told the other people to leave and then she told me her illness journey. And I had breast cancer. She was going through breast cancer. And it was really interesting. And it was the most meaningful that I’d ever felt about taking a character home where it’s like … I think I spoke about my wellness journey because I was playing the role. It ended up coming up through the press. … And for some reason, because I was Dana in someone’s mind, it meant something. And I thought, “Well, this was actually useful. This breaking of that wall between character and person was actually useful.”

Tom, you get the call that you’re cast as Robbie in “Task.” What’s the first thing you do to figure him out?

Pelphrey: When I read the first two episodes, I felt like I understood Robbie’s soul perfectly, but I knew that I would have to break my ass to get that accent right. So that was where I focused most of my conscious energy and discipline and time, was just [on the] technical, just on the accent. The fun part was, because he would be my age, thinking about growing up in Philly at that time and who his heroes would be, having ideas for tattoos, stuff like that. We had more time than you get sometimes before we had to start filming because we knew and then the writers’ strike happened. I had a lot of months to sit with him and emotionally and spiritually. And I’d just become a father. Obviously [with] Robbie, everything he does is for his kids.

Pfeiffer: It changes everything. It opens your heart.

Pelphrey: I was a new person. And I understood him in that regard perfectly and I couldn’t have before. I could have imagined it and now I knew for sure.

For “The Audacity,” Billy, you spoke with some tech folks. What did you come to understand about what they’re after as innovators versus what you’re after as a creative?

Magnussen: Listen, no one’s a villain in their own story. I believe that from Day 1, these people probably came to the Valley with genuine ideas. The genesis of their idea was to connect and really bring something powerful and important to society and people. And, “Oh wait, we’re making a lot of f— money.” And through that lens, you start being blinded by this humanity that’s around you or caring for people around you rather than a bottom line. When you’re in an incestuous pool or in a small bubble, culture is created. And like Facebook, their slogan was “Move fast and break things.” Being a bull in a china shop is not a good idea anywhere, but for some reason that was the culture. People just started doing that more and more and breaking things and breaking things and breaking things. I don’t think they started off that way, but the culture just bred them to become this way. I personally relate that to, I don’t want to say Hollywood or the entertainment world, but we’ve seen the toxicity. And we’ve been slowly trying to filter that out, I think, of Hollywood. But when you have a microclimate kind of culture feeding in toxic behavior and rewarding toxic behavior over and over again, it breeds it. So you start to have to scrape away that cancer. But again, the genesis of all these ideas were pure. We were 6 years old just dreaming to be something or being like, “I could do this.”

Pfeiffer: Pretending to be something else, other than what we were.

Magnussen: I empathize with that. I don’t think people are bad. I just think they’re lost sometimes.

Karolina, your character in “Pluribus,” Zosia, is carrying the weight of almost every person in the world. What do you remember about those discussions with [creator] Vince Gilligan and how he helped you unpack this character and the relationship with Carol, Rhea [Seehorn]’s character?

Wydra: I took a break for five years from acting before Zosia came into my life. I walked away at 39 to have kids and my agent and my manager dropped me and it was really terrifying to also be a woman and turning 40, to have children at that time. When Lou [her second son] was maybe a year-and-a-half [old], I got the itch of like, “God, I miss acting so much. How am I ever going to come back? How am I going to get an opportunity?” And I was 43 at the time and out of nowhere I got an email being like, “Hey, there’s this thing …” from a commercial agent that I was on their roster, but I did not work with them. And they said, “There’s this audition.” And I go, “OK.” I read it and I said, “Who wrote it?” And she said, “Vince Gilligan for Apple TV.” I went, “What? OK.” And I didn’t know anything about the project and it was always my dream to work with Vince from when I saw “Breaking Bad.”

Long story short, I’m here and the whole journey has been so wild, so insane. When I first would talk to him about Zosia, I was like, “God, how am I going to tackle the world and someone that has the highest emotional intelligence, someone that does all these different things? And how do you see the Others? How do you want them to move about the world and the complexities of who they are?” Vince is such a beautiful human being. He’s like, “They’re just happy and content.” You go, “OK, yeah, but … what else?” For me, Zosia is extremely spiritual. Meditation was my key, my go-to to get into that zone of connection to humanity, not in the physical but very spiritual way where, [if] you meditate enough, the ego gets lifted and you truly feel connected, and you feel one with everyone. And the wild thing, I think the greatest gift, was becoming a mother; I understood what it means, unconditional love. Because my heart lives outside my body all the time. And so becoming a mother was a gift to play Zosia, because I unconditionally love Carol. And now, no matter what she throws at me, I just love her, and take care of her, and I want to nurture her.

Michelle, you get the call from Taylor Sheridan, who also created “Landman” and “Yellowstone.” He says he wants to meet with you and he wants to do it on his turf in Texas, not yours. There’s no script. What does someone like Taylor Sheridan say to someone like Michelle Pfeiffer that will get her to agree to the show?

Pfeiffer: Well, he gave me a lot of tequila.

LaNasa: Writing this down: Tequila, check.

Pfeiffer: I got a call that he wanted to meet with me, that he had an idea for something, “But you have to come to Texas.” And I said, “Is there anything? Is there an outline? Is there a paragraph?” “No, no. He wants to explain it to you in person.” I had to stay the night in Fort Worth and then met with him and he gave me tequila, and then after a while I had to stop drinking. He gave me a very rough outline of the show, of the character … She’s been with the love of her life for 50 years. It’s the marriage that we all dream of having. And he dies suddenly, tragically, and … all of a sudden the rug is really just emotionally and psychologically pulled out from underneath them. And it’s how do you rebuild a life and it’s the study of grief. He said that I had committed that night, which I did not. I’d had a few cocktails. We went back and forth a little bit about [the fact] that I really would like to read something. And he said, “Well, I would really like to cast this before I write anything.” Then I realized I wasn’t going to win this battle and I reached out to Helen Mirren [who starred in Sheridan’s “1923”], who I don’t know, but I figured she doesn’t suffer fools and she would give me the truth about what it’s like to do this. She couldn’t have spoken [more] highly of everything. She said the scripts are wonderful. The production is wonderful. And loves Montana. And so I took a leap of faith. I never do that.

What stands out to you about his process versus then working with your husband, David E. Kelley, also a prolific writer, who adapted “Margo’s Got Money Troubles”?

Pfeiffer: I couldn’t be luckier working for two of the most talented and prolific writers in the history of television. [They’re] not that much different. I purposefully didn’t want to bug David because it’s not like we had any hard-and-fast rules about not working together, but we weren’t really actively seeking it out because that can get a little dicey, just looking at it from afar. I really cherish my marriage, and our family, and I just didn’t want to mess it up. I really mostly went to the director and every now and then I might throw a little something his way. And [with] Taylor … I would go through Christina [Alexandra Voros], our director, because he’s just not honestly that accessible because he’s got a bit going on. I personally don’t like to spend my time trying to rewrite things. It’s more interesting to me to try to make something work and then I end up finding something I never would’ve decided. It just takes you to a new place and it’s so much more interesting than anything I would have conjured up.

Zahn, you’re not only the lead in “Dark Winds,” but also an executive producer and directing episodes. I know there was a moment where your character was supposed to shoot someone in the face early on. And you felt strongly, “My character’s not someone that would do this.” Talk to me about leaning into speaking your mind.

McClarnon: There’s not a lot of Native characters on television. The foundation of that character obviously comes from Tony Hillerman’s books. So the foundation was set for that character. And when I got to a point in the season where I’m supposed to kill a man, shoot him in the head in the middle of the desert — first off, I didn’t see that in the books. And I know it’s television and we want drama and all that stuff, but also, to be honest with you, I want Native kids — see, I’m going to cry now — to have something to look up to. We grew up with these stereotypes and we grew up with these tropes of Native Americans. The only one I can really remember that I really looked up to was Will Sampson in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” because he was playing a trope, but he becomes the hero at the end of the story. It’s one of my favorite films. So when it came to that point where the writer said, “He’s going to kill this rich white man in the desert and shoot him in the head,” morally, I think Joe Leaphorn is more than that.

And it was simple. I sat down with the showrunner [John Wirth] and we talked about it, and we went back and forth for about a week. And I’m so glad that I have access to somebody like that. I have access where they’re not telling me, “No, this is the way it’s written. This is what you’re going to do.” So yeah, we decided not to shoot the guy in the head, where I’d just leave him out in the desert to fend for himself.

Katherine, you’ve talked to nurses and medical professionals in the making of “The Pitt,” but you were also a patient during your breast cancer journey, interacting with them a lot from the other side. What is something that they’ve told you or even something you observed in that time that really spoke to you about what they’re going through on the day to day in these jobs?

LaNasa: It’s funny, I’d always wanted to work with John Wells. I go through this period of all this unemployment, and then I get this job for John Wells. I had had cancer a year before and then had complications up to like six months before. It wasn’t until I got to the emergency room set that I was like, “Oh, this whole period … ” — the spirituality of that. I really believe that we need to be grateful for our life while we’re living it, no matter what’s going on. Because I still have my children, and I have nature, and I have my husband, and cooking, and my dog, and so many wonderful things. And I was really trying to hold onto that. It’s always this idea that maybe something is for a reason or whatever — now I’m going to cry. The fact that that was so purposeful, that I understood so deeply what it was to be a patient, what it was to be terrified going into the emergency department. I also understood how much it mattered when a nurse took a little extra time and was a little bit kind.

Pfeiffer: You’re going to make me cry.

LaNasa: And there was one particular nurse — I had my cancer, went through my radiation and then [went] back and forth, back and forth [to the ER]. And there was a week, the second trip to the ER [they thought I might have multiple sclerosis]. “Now do I have MS on top of having had cancer?” And I had a breakdown in the ER. And she’s like, “Listen, first six months after cancer are really bumpy, and it’s not going to stay like this. Do you need an Ativan?”

Magnussen: Did not see that turn.

LaNasa: It was that human touch. Or when they would come and give you a warm blanket or something. There’s a nurse, Kathy Garvin at County, who told me she wouldn’t do the job that she does being the [emergency department] charge nurse if it wasn’t in a county hospital. She wants to do that hard work for people that really need her. For the most underprivileged, for the unhoused. And I try to honor that in the story and to just bring that to life — their generosity and their humility.

The Envelope’s 2026 Emmy Drama Roundtable: From left, Zahn McClarnon, Michelle Pfeiffer, Tom Pelphrey, Katherine LaNasa, Billy Magnussen and Karolina Wydra.

There’s a lot of discussion in the industry right now about runaway production and can L.A. rebuild and what’s lost. I’m curious how you feel about this topic.

Magnussen: I live in Georgia and … one of our biggest exports as Americans is our culture. And if we just keep it isolated to Hollywood, I think we lose out at expressing everything we are as Americans.

McClarnon: We shoot on the Tesuque Pueblo. There’s 19 pueblos in New Mexico. We have taken over their old casino and we’ve converted it into a soundstage. We use their back lot. We obviously help out the tribe with renting the place out. And so I like shooting in New Mexico and supporting the local community, especially local Natives.

Pfeiffer: I think there’s room for all of it. We shot [a movie] in London that took place in Los Angeles. And it’s ridiculous that our entire industry has left. Los Angeles is really hurting. And a lot of people are hurting. All those jobs, all of those restaurants where people used to eat, people used to shop. And I think to not give the same sort of tax incentives that other states are doing — look, if it takes place in Georgia, you should go to Georgia. But I think Los Angeles was really built on the movie [industry].

LaNasa: I have a 34-year-old and a 12-year-old. I remember with my 34-year-old, even just being a young, starting-out mother, I would be like, “Well, I’m not going out of town. I have a child.” I would never go do a TV show out of town. I had a kid and the kid was in school and I needed to provide consistency for that child. And then with my second one, that was impossible. We would just not have been able to work. But it’s really hard on families. We are actors and we’ve come here to pursue the industry. We’ve moved here and we’ve risked something … L.A., for all of its problems, is a city of dreamers. It’s a city of people that came to pursue their art. And I am one of those people. And so in a way, I wasn’t really a citizen like the other citizens of Atlanta. I was outside. I didn’t have my community.

Magnussen: I know, but that’s the thing I have an issue with is this idea that, “It’s only there.”

Pelphrey: I’ll say this. Love that we get to film all over our beautiful country. Would love to keep the jobs in this country. That would be the nice part. Because when everybody’s like, “Oh great, we can go to Belarus or London.” Guess what? All of us get to go. Our crew doesn’t get to go — the people that we know that we need, that we work with, that we make these things with. We get to go wherever the f— we want, actors, directors, but the crew doesn’t.

Maybe you can use a laugh this morning. Maybe you’re still deep in your feelings, thinking about the “Hacks” series finale and that shot of Hannah Einbinder looking at Jean Smart on the dance floor, grief seeping into her eyes. Maybe you’re lamenting the chaos at our treasured national parks. Hell … maybe you took out a loan to buy a tomato over the weekend.

If you’re feeling down, Gary Oldman would like a word. And that word is: Hufflepuff.

I’m Glenn Whipp, columnist for the Los Angeles Times and host of The Envelope newsletter, back in your inbox for the next few weeks as we navigate our way through Emmy season.

Digital cover story: The world according to Gary

(Jennifer McCord / For The Times)

Gary Oldman is a Hufflepuff.

Never mind that the 68-year-old actor, who played the rebellious, impulsive wizard Sirius Black in the Harry Potter film franchise, couldn’t tell you the difference between a Hufflepuff and, say, a Gryffindor.

When journalist Josh Horowitz reads a list of core personality qualities — loyalty, hard work, patience, fairness, dedication — and asks Oldman if that describes him, he nods his head.

You’re a Hufflepuff.

“I’m a Hufflepuff?” Oldman says, trying the word on for size. He likes it. “I’m a Hufflepuff!”

This video clip is a favorite of mine, one I could watch on a loop for the sheer delight Oldman takes in pronouncing the word Hufflepuff.

It’s easy to see why Oldman takes such pleasure in being a granddad these days, one of the things we talked about at length not long ago for an Envelope digital cover story. He can access his silly side with ease.

I asked Oldman about the upcoming HBO “Harry Potter” television series, a decade-spanning endeavor that will spend a season adapting each of J.K. Rowling’s seven fantasy books.

“I’ve seen a trailer for it, and I think it’s a great idea,” Oldman says. “They’re doing the whole book, which I love, because there were a lot of wonderful things, fabric and character detail, we had to lose for the sake of telling the story in two hours.”

Would Oldman be keen to don a distressed velvet overcoat again and participate in the reboot?

“I don’t think they want any of us from the movies contaminating or muddying the waters,” Oldman says, pleasantly. “Besides, I’m too old.”

But with AI, is anyone too old now? Oldman could drop into “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” and look like he hasn’t aged a day since the movie was released 22 years ago.

“I don’t know where we’re going with it because it seems to advance every week,” Oldman says. He ponders the advances made since Martin Scorsese used digital deaging in his 2019 film “The Irishman.”

“I think that was the least successful thing about it,” Oldman says of the technology, “and I’ve been a huge Martin Scorsese fan forever. Ultimately, I don’t know why they wanted to make [Robert] De Niro’s eyes blue.” He pauses, considering the change and why it bothered him. “I guess it’s a blue-eyed Irishman. If I had one negative takeaway, it would be that.”

Oldman prefers directors like Christopher Nolan, whom he worked with on the “Dark Knight” movies and “Oppenheimer,” who think technology should be used sparingly to enhance the storytelling.

“Otherwise it leaves me a bit cold,” he says. “You’re just looking at ones and zeroes.”

“I don’t want to be replaced entirely,” Oldman continues, shaking his head. “I don’t think anyone does.”

Read more coverage of ‘Slow Horses’

Jamie Vardy had left Cremonese after one season with them relegated from Serie A and his time in Italy a struggle for the family in terms of finding schools and home comfort foods.

Pensive Rebekah Vardy admits the future for her family is up in the air after their return from Italy – as her husband weighs up where to play football next.

The Mirror told yesterday how Jamie Vardy had left Cremonese after one season with them relegated from Serie A and his time in Italy a struggle for the family in terms of finding schools and home comfort foods.

On their future she joked: “Is there ever a f**king plan?” Before she went on to say she did not see Jamie returning to Leicester City. Other reports suggest he could join Sheffield Wednesday or go to play in the Netherlands or even return to the Premier League.

In an interview with the Times to promote their new ITV reality series about their time in Italy, Rebekah spoke of her public persona after losing the Agatha Christie trial against Coleen Rooney.

She said: “I accept that I am very Marmite. I’ve been portrayed as a villain since I met Jamie — they called me a gold-digger and said I’d leave when his football career ended — and to an extent I’ve played up to being that villain.

“I don’t do emotions; that’s genuine. Someone once said I have a ‘resting bitch face’ and I ran with it. It gets me into trouble because my face doesn’t portray the feelings I have inside. I am not a bitch. I find it hard to show vulnerability because of my childhood [Vardy’s family were Jehovah’s Witnesses], and the church forces you to suppress how you feel.

“That cycle is hard to break. So yes, I do come across as cold, but when you look at the bigger picture there’s a reason. At the same time, I am not a victim. I will not play the victim card.”

She also says abuse from trolls and losing the court case against Coleen, leaving her with legal bills of millions of pounds, have taken their toll in the past.

Rebekah added: “There were times when I questioned the point of existing. I didn’t want to be here any more. It was a horrendous time. What got me through was the life we have together and our children. Always the kids. They are our world.”

ITV will next week profile the family’s time in Italy in three-part series The Vardys. The new ITV documentary was supposed to celebrate a great new chapter in their life.

But instead the cameras show Rebecca struggling to find accommodation and schools for their children; Olivia, six, Finley, nine, Sofia 12, Taylor 16.

It was not the Italian dream they hoped for and lasted less time than expected. Once positive is Rebekah will get Jamie at home this Summer as at 39 he is too old to make it into the England squad.

And she insists she won’t miss not being at the World Cup. She said: “It’s actually quite lonely. You go to support your husband or boyfriend but you don’t get to be near them very much. And Russia was terrifying. It was not an easy place to be.”

* The Vardys airs at 9pm on Tuesday June 2nd on ITV1 & ITVX. All three episodes will be immediately available to stream as a boxset online.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

The travel industry is on edge after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin reiterated his threat to withdraw U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers from airports in so-called sanctuary cities in a move that could jeopardize international flights.

The U.S. Travel Assn. said that Mullin confirmed he is considering withdrawing the officers in a meeting where the trade group was pressing its concerns about other proposals the Trump administration is considering that could hamper travel. The travel association and major airlines quickly condemned the idea, and even Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said it doesn’t make sense to him.

“U.S. Travel believes such a move would have devastating consequences for the travel industry and communities that depend on international visitation,” the industry group said Friday in a statement.

Details of the meeting were first reported by the Atlantic.

Duffy said at a congressional hearing this week that he wasn’t familiar with Mullin’s remarks, and he’d like to learn more about the context and maybe ask Mullin a question about what he meant. But Duffy said it would be a bad idea to start restricting travel based on political views. After all, he acknowledged, at some point Democrats will be in charge and “you will all switch spots at one point — hopefully not too soon, Mr. Chairman.”

“We have people from around the world and around the country that need to be able to fly into all different kinds of places. We shouldn’t shut down air travel in a state that doesn’t agree with our politics,” Duffy said.

So it’s not clear how much support this idea has within the administration, though President Trump has previously threatened to withhold funding from sanctuary cities.

There is no strict definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities, but the terms generally refer to jurisdictions that limit cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And courts have rejected the idea of pulling funding from them in the past.

In Trump’s first term in office, in 2017, courts struck down his effort to cut funding to the cities.

It’s not clear exactly which cities and airports Mullin might target, but the Justice Department last year published a list of three dozen states, cities and counties that it considers to be sanctuary jurisdictions. They include California, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego County.

The Airlines for America trade group was quick to say the idea would hurt the economy and disrupt travel.

“Reducing CBP staffing at major airports would have a devastating effect on the airline and tourism industries, causing a significant operational disruption to carriers, travelers and the flow of international cargo.”

Funk and Yamat write for the Associated Press.

For a guy who has become known for his monstrous output of clips, comedy specials and content, it’s a wonder Josh Johnson has time to stop to think about what makes his comedy timeless. As a former writer and now one of the hosts of “The Daily Show,” much of Johnson’s humor outside of specials relies on his ability to deliver jokes on the dumpster fire du jour when it comes to pop culture and politics. But for his latest one-hour special, “Symphony,” premiering Friday on HBO, he wanted to orchestrate something different that would still be funny 40 years from now, regardless of what’s fashionable or who is running the country.

Using music as a canvas to paint a funny, layered portrait of the human experience, Johnson creates a set that comes alive with the sound of more than the laughter at the Wiltern, where the special was filmed earlier this year. With stories focused on surviving rowdy family, moments of loneliness, struggles with faith, and navigating our deepest human relationships, Johnson’s abilities as a pensive storyteller are conducted masterfully. The result is an hour that helps showcase his refined comedic voice, surprise the audience and sound the trumpets for his next round of touring.

This interview was edited for length and clarity.

Why was it important for you to veer so strongly into music as a theme of your new special, “Symphony”?

I think music, in a way that nothing else does, brought the central points and themes of the special home. In the beginning [scene] with the title card and the busker who has a [music-related] quote in front of him, that’s sort of the mission statement of the special and everything I’m trying to do. The thing to me is including the music to help bring about these ideas and bring each section home and bring it all the together in a way that obviously I’m also attempting to do through the comedy. I think thematically there’s nothing stronger to make the overall point than music.

What inspired you to shoot it at the Wiltern?

The Wiltern is so beautiful and it also lends itself to that sort of art aspect I’m talking about in the very beginning of the special. Things that have that look of the Wiltern help not just create a spectacle, but give you something really beautiful to look at. You get something really beautiful to listen to in the music, and then the comedy helps decorate the hour that we’re spending together.

“If you speak to a lot of people’s timelessness around family and culture and some of the bigger topics, but without naming names, I think that you create something that really stands the test of time,” Johnson says about his new special, “Symphony,” premiering Friday on HBO.

(Ser Baffo / HBO)

You definitely play around with the format of a typical special in this new hour. As somebody who has mastered the ability to release a crazy amount of comedy in recent years on YouTube and social media, what aspect of a traditional one-hour special do you still find important?

I think that everything that I’ve been doing so far is pretty topical and very of the moment, even when I’m not talking about a specific pop culture or political topic. I think that there’s a time for comedy of the moment, but then I also think there’s an aspect that you want to be timeless, and that’s what the specials are for me. You want the piece to be something that people watch 40 years from now, and I don’t always expect every single set that I put out to have that level of longevity. Because no matter how it feels right now, there’s going to come a time where we look at the people who take up so much of our bandwidth and our thoughts throughout the day as just a sort of passing political fashion or the things that we see as like huge indicators of where society is right now will eventually become forgotten crazes. But I think that if you speak to the human condition, if you speak to a lot of people’s timelessness around family and culture and some of the bigger topics, but without naming names, you create something that really stands the test of time.

There’s a duality between your timely comedy on “The Daily Show” and the timelessness you’re aiming for in specials. Was it important for you to separate the two ways that people might see you as a comedian?

People are going to have their takeaways from whatever you do. I try bringing the same amount of intention to everything, but as far as the way people see me, it’s something that’s kind of out of my control.

Religion comes up a lot in the special, the Bible specifically. I’d read somewhere that you had taken a break from practicing Christianity in recent years. If so, what was your reason for including the topic in your special?

I wouldn’t even necessarily call it a break, I just think that there’s moments you’ll find yourself in, where whether you grew up on a text or a certain few tenants that you live by, there’s always going to come a time where it’s really important to revisit those things… It’s not necessarily that I bring religion up in the special because I stopped practicing. It’s actually because I think that if I’m breaking life down into these sort of pillars that make up a person — I’m not saying religion has to be one of them — but I do find it to be an aspect for a lot of people. So if I’m once again trying to speak to things from a universal perspective as best I can, I think it’s something that that definitely comes up.

Comic Josh Johnson turns his new hour into a concertlike experience, using live music, a busker’s credo and L.A.’s ornate Wiltern Theatre to tie jokes into a single, sweeping theme.

(Ser Baffo / HBO)

Considering how well you use music as a backdrop for the special, how long did it take to come up with a concept for the hour? Did you write the jokes before coming up with the structure or vice versa?

I basically had a structure before I had a set, and I went to the director Jacob Menache about the idea for this thing like three years ago and we were talking about how best to make it work. That was long before I knew what jokes were going to go where, or how many things, how many aspects we were going to add to it, or anything. So I think that it’s been a long time coming, as far as like the actual structure of what you end up seeing.

Watching your special was the first time I paid real attention to who the musical director was in the credits. What was it like working with respected bassist and producer Derrick Hodge on creating the concept for the music in “Symphony”?

I look at Derrick as someone who was doing a lot of interesting things, and so I thought it was going to be a fantastic opportunity to get to work with him. I don’t know that much about music, to be honest. I try to dabble with producing here and there because I have ideas, but it’s the real musicians, the real artists that take the ideas that I might pitch out and create something with it. So I really leaned on Derrick as much as possible to like bring us home. I feel like so much of what I was trying to do was in bringing an overall idea of the structure of a set and asking Derek, “Hey, what do you think about this?” I don’t know if I could have ever thought up a way to create what I was trying to build without him.

Was there something about you that you felt like you wanted to get across in this special that maybe you haven’t gotten to in your previous specials?

It can be tough to show new shades of yourself when you put out a lot of stuff, and you are always kind of coming with stories about your life and your childhood or anything like that when I think of putting a set together, especially something that is attempting to be timeless. Overall, I think every new story is a new story to [the audience]. But I think that if you can express how you used to think versus how you think now, that can be revealing. Towards the beginning [of “Symphony”] I talk about how there are things I didn’t understand until pretty close to the special in theory, things I didn’t understand until like a week ago, or I’ve always held this belief, or something like that, and I think that if you can give people insight to your evolution as a person, I think that’s a really powerful thing.

“I think music, in a way that nothing else does, brought the central points and themes of the special home,” Johnson says.

(Ser Baffo / HBO)

Were there any things that occurred during the rehearsal process that genuinely surprised you?

Watching it come together was a huge surprise, because you know, [the director] Jacob’s out here in L.A., I’m in New York, and so I make the flight down and everything, but the Thursday rehearsal with the musicians [before the taping] was the first time I was seeing everything come together. It was first time I was hearing everything, and so I think watching something finally come to life after such a long period of time is always going to throw you for a loop.

Now that the special will finally be out, what plans do you have next about how to showcase your comedy?

I’m really excited for people to see what’s coming. I start the tour Comedy Band Camp in June. I have some surprises for people there as well, and I’m looking forward to showcasing lots of artists. I’m looking forward to showcasing as much as I can that helps me elevate the level of craft and what I bring to people. And so I’m doing that through even more collaborations. I’m going to be hyping up some people that maybe you’ve heard of, or maybe you haven’t heard of. The special is kind a beautiful kick off for the tour that I’m going to be doing because we are going to be on the road for quite a while, and I chose Comedy Band Camp as a theme, because camp is this thing that people are nostalgic for, it’s a place to go that is safe, where you make friends. Band is about people coming together for a shared goal, it’s about everyone having a singular purpose towards creating art. So I think mixing those two things together will be a unique experience that no one can get anywhere else, and it’ll be a challenge to present it as best as possible. But I have a lot of plans for how I’m going to do that.

Last week, news organizations and Disney bloggers learned that the Mouse House had filed building permits with the city of Anaheim related to a parking structure at Disneyland Resort.

That immediately sparked rumors about a third park — a long-held dream of Walt Disney Co. fans who want to see more rides, themed areas and Mickey-related shopping destinations.

But that will remain a dream — at least for the foreseeable future.

Anaheim city officials confirmed as much in an internal email about one of the news articles, noting to City Council members and the mayor that the permits were, in fact, for minor parking lot improvements within the existing Toy Story parking structure off Harbor Boulevard.

The email, which was reviewed by The Times, said the improvements were not related to an already-approved expansion of Disneyland Resort, or “what could ultimately be developed on the property in the future.”

A Disneyland spokesperson told me the permits are related to painting and striping at the Toy Story parking structure. So much for a third theme park.

It’s not the first time there’s been a hullabaloo about an additional park at Disneyland Resort.

In the early 1990s, there were serious talks about a Disneyland expansion called Westcot Center, a West Coast version of Walt Disney World’s Epcot in Florida. The plan at one point was to include three hotels, a public plaza and a number of retail, dining and entertainment options all around a central lake. At one point, both Anaheim and Long Beach were vying to be chosen as the site.

But that all collapsed in the mid-’90s amid financial concerns. Disney later built California Adventure, and briefly teased the idea of a third theme park complex with both a water park and amusement park that could complement the two-park resort. But that but never came to fruition.

The idea came up yet again about 10 years ago at an annual shareholders meeting in San Francisco, when former Chief Executive Bob Iger batted down speculation about a third park.

“We have plans at Disneyland for an expansion that we have not announced but those plans at the present do not include a third gate,” he said at the time.

More on that expansion later, but the truth is Disney simply doesn’t have enough land in Anaheim to build out a third theme park. I spoke with Len Testa, president of theme park travel site TouringPlans.com, who laid out the issues for me.

A third park would probably need a minimum of 80 to 120 acres of land to accommodate big new rides, as well as necessary behind-the-scenes facilities like employee break rooms and other back-of-the-house infrastructure.

“They’re landlocked,” he said. “And to acquire that land now in any way that would keep the campus centralized and avoid the logistics of a far-flung transportation network, that would be prohibitively expensive.”

That’s not to say that Disneyland Resort isn’t expanding on the land it does have.

Two years ago, Anaheim approved expansion plans for a project known as DisneylandForward, which will allow the company to build new attractions alongside shops, restaurants and hotels.

Development plans include a bigger Avengers campus with two new rides, as well as a “Coco” ride and “Avatar”-themed area in California Adventure, as well as a new parking structure.

Although it’s not a park, adding new lands and rides is “mission critical” for Disneyland Resort, Testa told me. After all, to drive attendance, you need to regularly open new attractions.

And these new rides can’t just be any old rides — they have to be “epic, mammoth blockbusters” that no one’s seen before, which takes time, space and money, he said.

Disneyland Paris is a good example. The European tourism resort saw a notable boost in attendance after it opened a World of “Frozen”-themed land in March.

“When you have that type of expansion and you can fill the park, you feel very, very good about that,” Disney Chief Financial Officer Hugh Johnston said last week at the MoffettNathanson media, internet and communications conference. “When we leverage our [intellectual property] and take that IP and build big new attractions, not little things … it’s these big new things that actually tend to just really bring in the consumers.”

That’s also key when you consider Disney’s growing competition from Universal Studios, which recently opened Epic Universe in Orlando and siphoned off some attendance from Walt Disney World.

And while the company’s TV and film business is vital, its theme parks still throw off most of the cash — new Disney CEO Josh D’Amaro recently called the parks the “physical centerpiece of the company.” And of course, they retain a deep link to Disney’s heritage.

As Walt himself noted, Disneyland is a “living” entity that would “never be finished.”

Stuff We Wrote

Film shoots

Number of the week

Lionsgate’s musical biopic “Michael” retook the top spot at the box office last weekend with a haul of $26.1 million in the U.S. and Canada.

The film, which chronicles the early career of singer Michael Jackson, has had remarkable staying power atop the charts since it debuted in late April. The film’s weekend revenue was down only 31% in North America compared with the previous weekend.

Overall, “Michael” has now made an estimated $703.9 million in worldwide box office revenue, with $421.1 million coming from international markets.

What I’m watching

Now that WNBA season is in full swing, I’ve been watching my L.A. Sparks and caught the game against the Toronto Tempo on Sunday. It was a rough game, but here’s hoping the Sparks can start turning things around, and quickly.

SACRAMENTO —  The Democrats’ mantra this election year — especially among wannabe governors — is that the richest Californians should “pay their fair share.” But by any objective measurement, they already do.

I’m referring to state taxes, not federal. It’s a valid argument that the most prosperous Americans should kick in more to the federal government, particularly after President Trump and the Republican Congress lowered taxes for the wealthy, who already had a pretty good deal.

But it’s a different story in California, where state government lives off the well-heeled. Yet, never-satisfied liberal Democrats and public employee unions constantly cry for more.

In fact, an unexpected surge of $16.8 billion in state tax revenue, mostly due to the stock market boom and capital gains earnings, is bailing out Gov. Gavin Newsom and allowing him to claim a balanced budget as he prepares to depart Sacramento and run for president in 2028.

The state Franchise Tax Board recently reported which income groups pony up the most taxes. The more money you earn, the steeper your income tax burden. Of course, that’s the way it should be. But California pushes its progressive tax system to the extreme.

We’ve got by far the highest state income tax rate in the nation at 13.3%.

In 2024, the latest year for which there’s complete data, the top 1% of California taxpayers accounted for 40% of the total state income tax revenue, the FTB reported. But they earned just 24% of the taxable income. To be in the top 1%, your annual earnings had to be at least $973,000.

The top 0.1% kicked in 21% of the tax, while earning 12% of the income. To be in that megarich class, you needed annual earnings of at least $4.7 million.

By contrast, middle-class families with incomes between $73,000 and $139,000 paid 9% of the state’s income tax take.

This doesn’t mean we should weep for the rich and demand more from the struggling lower middle class.

But the problem with Sacramento living off the wealthiest taxpayers is that they’re unreliable. Their fortunes flourish in boom times and fall when the economy busts. When the stock market sneezes, California state government catches pneumonia.

If the state treasury is overflowing, Democratic lawmakers tend to spend freely, expanding programs and creating new ones. Then when the cache inevitably shrinks in bad times, the policymakers’ usual response is to essentially turn their eyes.

Rather than sharply whack spending and raise taxes, they gimmick up the budget with borrowing, deferred spending and crossed fingers. And they dig the hole deeper.

For decades, under Democratic and Republican governors, we’ve sorely needed to update our archaic tax system to make it less volatile and more dependable.

A reform that makes lots of sense is to extend the sales tax to services primarily used by businesses. They could deduct the cost on their federal tax returns. And California state and local governments would steadily collect several billion dollars annually. Some income and sales tax rates could even be lowered.

California also has the nation’s highest state sales tax rate at 7.25%. Combining state and local sales tax rates, we have the seventh-highest at 8.99%.

Taxing deductible business services makes sense to many politicians — but only privately. They’re too weak-kneed to seriously consider it in public. There’d be winners and losers and high political risks.

When Xavier Becerra, the current Democratic front-runner in the June 2 gubernatorial primary, entered the race a year ago, I asked him about extending the sales tax to services, as all other states do. He wanted nothing to do with it.

“We need to stabilize our tax system in California with a more steady source of revenue,” he told me. “But I’m not a fan of the sales tax to begin with. It lands on working families.”

He was not interested in exploring a possible tax on services that didn’t hit working families.

Becerra, a former California attorney general and U.S. health secretary, added: “Before we start exploring new taxes, we should explore existing budget spending. We have to scrub the budget.”

In revising his new budget proposal last week, Newsom proposed $5.1 billion in modest tax hikes on businesses — even as unanticipated revenue was surging. He asked the Legislature for a limit on corporate tax credits and a tax on digital software.

He also proposed to trim $3.7 billion from Medi-Cal healthcare for the poor.

Newsom proposed spending $349.9 billion in the next fiscal year and asserted that budgets would be balanced for 18 months. But after that, he and practically everyone else in Sacramento foresee deficit spending without extensive fiscal restructuring.

But you don’t hear a peep about that from leading Democratic candidates running to replace Newsom. Most are talking about imposing significantly higher business taxes to pay for new or expanded programs.

Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer wants to close “the corporate tax loophole.” What he’s talking about is gutting Proposition 13’s property tax breaks for commercial holdings. He’d make it easier to reassess when partners sell their portions of a property — a commonly called “split roll” that would treat commercial property differently than residential.

That was tried in 2020 and rejected by voters.

Steyer also supports the billionaire tax that’s expected to be on the November ballot. It would impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California’s 200-plus billionaires.

To their credit, no other gubernatorial candidate supports this misguided proposal. Practically all the $100-billion windfall would flow solely into healthcare while causing fed-up super wealthy to flee the state.

Former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter would raise taxes on the most profitable corporations to pay for free child care and college tuition. They’re both good causes but of questionable fiscal feasibility right now.

Rather than pushing rich investors and job creators out of state, we should be encouraging them to stick it out in California and continue to pay their fair share.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Who won and who lost in Thursday night’s California gubernatorial debate? Our columnists weigh in
TikTok dough: The Steyer campaign pays influencers. Their posts don’t always make that clear
The L.A. Times Special: Steyer campaign staffer linked to video of rival Katie Porter berating staff

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

If, god forbid, there’s a natural disaster in L.A. in the near future, Jena Malone might be one of your first responders.

“I’ve been studying Community Emergency Response Team training,” the actor-musician, 41, said, drinking coffee in the living room of her home overlooking pomegranate trees and a canyon in northeast L.A. “Whether it’s fire management or building a neighborhood tool shed, it’s less important for me to hit career milestones now than to transform how I live on this planet. Let’s build something where we’re all taking care of each other’s needs through mutual aid.”

Those are galvanizing priorities from Malone, who’s led generationally beloved films like the sci-fi noir “Donnie Darko,” played the axe-chucking Johanna Mason in two “Hunger Games” tentpoles and recently co-starred in the lesbian bodybuilding revenge flick “Love Lies Bleeding.” For almost as long, she’s also made experimental folk and electronic records that toy with avant-garde noise and quietly poignant songwriting.

This is a wild time in L.A. for anyone concerned about the city and its culture industries, and Malone is deeply invested in both. Just before the release of her new Netflix series, the Duffer Brothers-produced “The Boroughs,” she’s released her first album in nearly a decade. “Flowers For Men” is an effects-shredded, future-primitive record, written after the birth of her son upended her obligations — and expectations — toward the men in her life and the world they’ll inherit.

“It changed everything,” Malone said, about raising a son. “I grew up learning to thrive and mask in masculine spaces. Grind culture is a masculine toxicity that I inherited and indoctrinated myself in. But parenthood offers you this opportunity to burn your entire life down in sacrifice to finding out what’s real. I had no idea what it was to be a man. All of my ideas burned down and not much was being raised back up.”

For millennial film fans, Malone’s been a consistently compelling, trust-anything-she’s-in actor since her child-star turn in 1997’s “Contact.” Few embody a tortured, beguiling Americana quite like her.

“The Boroughs” — a high-profile follow-up to “Stranger Things” from the masters of unreality, created by Jeffrey Addiss and Will Matthews — has a stacked cast that includes Alfred Molina, Geena Davis and Bill Pullman, set amid a bucolic retirement community under supernatural threat. A ragtag group of Duffer Brothers misfits teaming up to fight off eldritch horror might be the last safe bet in television.

Yet that’s also how Malone feels about the current climate of Hollywood — a once-stable neighborhood fending off malign forces. Institutional consolidation and retreat, spiraling costs, technological upheaval — they all add to a creeping sense that an era is over, and worse is coming.

“Film is in such a delicate transition. I think that where music was 20 years ago, film is now,” she said. “It’s like being on an elevator where every floor is on fire. A lot of the things that I loved about it no longer exist, even if what I love about it is still wildly potent. My stress levels go down and my creativity goes up when I’m building a world that does not rely on the film industry, even though it’s my main love.”

That feeling called her back to music on “Flowers For Men,” arriving nine years after her last LP. The ego-shattering experience of giving birth in 2016 and raising a son prompted reflections about what men’s inner lives were really like, and she wanted to write about them.

“I was raised by two moms, and I had this strange aspiration to become the dad,” Malone said, laughing. “I was the breadwinner of my family then. But being a parent was all brand-new to me. I kept seeing my father in him, my grandfather, these older relationships with men. It was asking me to look at him with curious, childlike eyes.”

“Flowers For Men” was written from a sincere curiosity about mens’ strictures, bad influences and better aspirations. To inhabit someone else’s life, she had to sound different, too.

“Film is in such a delicate transition. I think that where music was 20 years ago, film is now,” Malone said. “It’s like being on an elevator where every floor is on fire. A lot of the things that I loved about it no longer exist, even if what I love about it is still wildly potent.

(Evan Mulling/For The Times)

The most prominent instrument on the album is its layers of vocal treatments. Malone has a lovely natural voice — intimately whispered, with hints of ‘70s country rock. But here she douses it in pitch-shifted digital acid, like a late 2000s R&B record dropped in the pool at the Joshua Tree Inn.

It’s an uncanny combo, but its lends modern melancholy to “Barstow,” which has the narrative structure of a Townes Van Zandt banger but is corroded with bleary effects. “Create In Your Name” has a Billie Eilish-worthy late-night murk, with lyrics so devotional they almost sound consumptive. “Disaster Zones” is all blown-out ambience, and the LP closes on a showstopping cover of John Prine’s classic “Angel From Montgomery.”

“I just love that a man wrote a song where the first line is ‘I’m an old woman,’” Malone said. “As a female songwriter, it gives me so much permission. Now all the doors are open. If I was to give flowers to all of the different men that have touched or changed things that deserve celebration, John Prine would be one of them.”

That idea — celebrating men for the good they’re capable of — felt transgressive enough today that it cohered the album for her. But it also came with questions about how romantic partnership fit into her life. Settling into motherhood, she read up on relationship anarchy — which she sees as not abiding by tiers of connection. She bought books on ethical nonmonogamy (“Sex at Dawn” was a big one) to learn how other lives were not just possible, but maybe even more fulfilling.

(Perhaps this was not a stretch from an actor who played the wild child Lydia Bennet in “Pride and Prejudice.”)

“I had been under this societal understanding that hierarchical love, placing one partner above everything else, was the ultimate romantic expression. I could name hundreds of movies that brought that up,” she said. “But while I’m learning to take care of this child, I’m realizing that self-love is one of the most important parts of this equation. I need to have expression, some work in life that felt like another love. And then my family, and how important friends were. And all of a sudden there’s no world where I would just have one love, not even just romantic love.”

“I had been under this societal understanding that hierarchical love, placing one partner above everything else, was the ultimate romantic expression. I could name hundreds of movies that brought that up,” Malone said. “But while I’m learning to take care of this child, I’m realizing that self-love is one of the most important parts of this equation. I need to have expression, some work in life that felt like another love.

(Evan Mulling/For The Times)

“Flowers For Men” is, in her way, a bargain with that contradiction — to love men deeply, but never put them above all else, even as she got engaged to her partner, actor Jack Buckley, earlier this year.

She’s still sorting out how to present this album live. She said she’s a fan of the Dead City Punx model of renegade shows in forgotten corners of L.A. Maybe as the city seems to fall apart, she’ll find a leafy park or the back of a dingy bar that’s the right home for these strange, lonely yet hopeful songs.

“I want someone to walk into the bathroom and be like, ‘Whoa, why is there a woman singing to me?’” Malone said. “I like the idea that art makes you a little uncomfortable and you don’t have the previously held expectations to know how to hold it.”

SHE became the youngest ever Bond girl at 21 – and Gemma Arterton thinks one reason she landed the role as MI6 agent Strawberry Fields is because she teased 5ft 10in Daniel Craig about his height at the audition.

Now 40, the actress recalls how she had been relaxed about applying for the part in Quantum Of Solace because she did not realise quite how huge the 007 films were — and just tried out for “fun”.

Talking about Daniel, 58, who played Bond for 15 years, she says: “He’s got his sense of humour, so that was good.

“I used to poke him a bit, like, I think that’s why I got the job.

“I did a screen test with him and I came on set and said, ‘Hi’, and he said, ‘Hi’. I said, ‘You’re not as tall as I thought you would be in real life’.

“He said, ‘That’s really nice of you to say so’. I was joking with him. I didn’t think I’d get it.”

TV CREW

Princess Andre & Ella Rae Wise lead the glam at star-studded ITV Showcase

‘MORTIFIED’

Gemma Arterton’s brave response to director demanding last-minute sex scene

After she landed the part, Gemma — who is 5ft 7in — says Daniel had to use height-boosting shoes for a few scenes when she was ­wearing stilettos.

Gemma, whose parents split when she was young, grew up on a Kent council estate with her mum Sally-Anne, a cleaner, and younger sister Hannah.

She said at the 2024 Marrakech International Film Festival: “I knew nothing about the Bond legacy because I grew up in an all-female household where we didn’t really watch movies.

“I literally didn’t know how big James Bond was, which sounds ridiculous because everyone else does. The ­surprise of how big it was — I couldn’t believe it.

“I auditioned for it because my agent told me to, not expecting to get it, and got it and just did it because it was fun.

“But I had an amazing time making it and it was huge. I had no idea what I was letting myself in for.

“We went on all these amazing locations. I had just left drama school, it was one of my first jobs, and it was the first time I was on a big film set.”

Now, Gemma is about to appear in another spy thriller — but this time she will take on the lead role in new ITV crime drama Secret Service, which starts tomorrow night.

She plays Kate Henderson, who balances being a suburban married mother of two teenagers with secretly being a senior MI6 operative and heading the Russian desk at the intelligence service.

It is based on the book of the same name by ITV newsreader Tom Bradby.

Gemma says: “She trains spies and finds out some very important information, which is that there is a Russian spy within the British government.

“Her mission is to find out, by hook or by crook, who that is. It’s really gripping. It’s edge-of-your-seat stuff.”

For this role, Gemma did plenty of research and, with writer Tom’s help, she even met a real-life spy to perfect the part.

She told ITV’s This Morning: “I was lucky enough to meet someone who could advise me on how they negotiate their lives and live day to day — you know, their family and their kids.

“There’s a scene where I tell my kids what I do and they don’t believe me, they laugh it off. And that came from this ­previous spy and what happened when he told his daughter and she thought, ‘You’re joking’.

“But it was invaluable to me because it’s not just the high-stakes lives they live, it’s about the attributes they have to be a spy, which are very specific — very risk averse, good at problem solving.”

Gemma has been acting since she was a teenager and was 16 when she first considered it as a career.

She says: “I come from a humble family. My father was a metal worker, my mother is a cleaner, and not involved in the arts in any way.

“I always liked performing and showing off. I didn’t know that acting was a profession really until I was about 16 and I was doing a lot of amateur dramatics as a hobby.

“There was a lady there who said, ‘You should go to college to study acting’.

“I thought, ‘OK let’s see what happens’. Then I saw Breaking Away and Dancing In The Dark and I was inspired.

“That’s when I realised I would like to give it a go.”

She first broke through with comedy film St Trinian’s in 2007, followed by Quantum Of Solace a year later.

Since then, she has made more than 30 films, including 2018’s Vita & Virginia, in which she played author Vita Sackville-West, who had a romantic ­relationship with fellow writer Virginia Woolf.

Talking about why she left Hollywood films behind to make more independent movies, Gemma says: “I think at the time it was very different in the industry to how it is now for women.

“In those films — not the Bond film. I had a really good time making that film, but the other ones — I didn’t feel very empowered.

“I didn’t feel like I had a voice and I didn’t feel comfortable. I always felt good doing independent films.

“My taste is that as well. I like independent film, it’s my passion. Usually, the stories are better and the characters are stronger and I felt like I had a voice on set.”

Films such as Byzantium, The Voices, Their Finest and The Disappearance Of Alice Creed followed, alongside performing with the Royal Shakespeare Company and starring in stage productions such as Nell Gwynn, which won her an Olivier Award in 2016.

On the Dish podcast, Gemma told how, when she starred in The Little Dog Laughed at London’s Garrick Theatre in 2010 with Tamsin Greig, Rupert Friend and Harry Lloyd, they had a novel way to try to dispel their nerves.
Laughing, she said: “We used to play this game called bum slap.

“We’d be on stage before the audience came in, obviously, and you have to run around and smack each other’s bum.

“Basically, you have to smack as many bums as you can. And it was the best warm-up ever because you were all loosey goosey.

“I think I’d rather do bum slap than any of the old acting rituals.”

Gemma loves working in Britain because she gets to perform different accents.

She said: “I do enjoy a Liverpool, that melting pot of accents that is Lancashire, Manchester and Blackburn, it’s insane.”

Gemma herself had a Cockney accent before gaining her scholarship to the Royal Academy Of Dramatic Art, where it “softened up a bit”.
London is now her home, but her mum still lives in Gravesend — and now does watch films, thanks to her famous daughter.

Gemma says: “She’s grand, she’s living the life. She’s down in Kent where I grew up, the same home — I paid off the mortgage.

“I think she does eventually watch my shows. She takes her time and needs to watch them with the subtitles on, maybe to absorb them.

“She’s very honest. She’ll say, ‘Why did you do that? You sold out there’.”

Gemma has her own family now, too — son Theo, three, and a baby boy whose name she has not revealed — with her husband, Peaky Blinders actor Rory Keenan, who she married in 2019.

They do not live a showbiz life, but he is supportive of her work.

Gemma says: “My family life is my world now, whereas before it was work.

“It’s made me hyper-focused on what I do want to do.

“Before, it was like, ‘I will do that with that director or that actor I like’, even though it wasn’t the best thing for me.

“But now it’s made me really specific about what I want to do, because if I’m going to be away from them, which I inevitably will, it’s hard.

“But if I’m in it and enjoy the work, then it’s OK.”

Timeline of James Bond actors

Over the years there have been seven actors who have played 007.

The first ever James Bond film was in 1962, and this is who has played the lead role over the years:

• Sean Connery – The late star was the first ever actor to play Bond, and reprised the role for seven movies.
• George Lazenby – The star only played Bond once, but was the youngest actor to ever play the spy.
• Roger Moore – The late movie star spent 12 years making seven films in the famous franchise.
• Timothy Dalton – The smooth actor took over from Roger Moore and appeared in The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill.
• Pierce Brosnan – The handsome star played Bond for four movies from 1995 to 2002.
• Daniel Craig – The British star was the first blonde James Bond and the sixth actor to win the role in 2005.

WASHINGTON — The Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee said some of its members would support a presidential pardon for convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in exchange for her assistance in the committee’s investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.

But good luck getting any of them to admit it.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) told Politico Wednesday that “a lot of people” support the idea of Maxwell receiving a pardon from President Trump in exchange for her cooperation in the committee’s investigation.

Although Comer said he opposed a pardon himself — “other than Epstein, the worst person in this whole investigation is Maxwell” — he offered that his committee was “split” on the issue.

Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, the top Democrat on his committee, condemned the idea of a Maxwell pardon and said Democrats on the committee uniformly oppose it.

“It’s outrageous that Republicans on the Oversight Committee are considering a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell,” Garcia said in a statement. “She is a sexual abuser who facilitated the rape of women and children.”

The Times reached out to all 26 Republicans on the committee to see who, if anyone, supported the idea of a pardon.

Although most didn’t respond, the few who did expressed outrage at the idea.

“I am absolutely not supporting a pardon for her nor have I heard that from anyone else,” said Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.).

“Never in a thousand years,” said Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.).

Maxwell declined to answer the committee’s questions during a video deposition in February from the Texas federal prison where she is serving her 20-year prison sentence.

She is still challenging her 2021 conviction on five counts related to the sex trafficking of minors for her role in recruiting and grooming girls for Epstein to abuse. She was accused at trial of also participating in the abuse of one victim.

At the time of her February deposition, Maxwell’s attorney David Oscar Markus said she would offer the “unfiltered truth” if granted clemency by Trump.

Attorneys who have represented victims abused by Epstein and Maxwell strongly opposed the idea of a pardon.

“This is a woman who belongs behind bars for the rest of her life for what she did to women,” said Spencer Kuvin, who has represented numerous Epstein victims.

Sigrid McCawley, a managing partner at Boies Schiller Flexner, questioned the value of information Maxwell could provide.

“Ghislaine Maxwell is a proven self-serving liar,” McCawley said in a statement. “There is nothing credible that she will offer the government, and the assertion that she would provide information is simply a smoke screen.”

Trump has not said he is considering a pardon but when asked by reporters he has declined to rule it out.

Epstein abused more than 1,000 girls and young women over the span of decades. He negotiated a lenient deal nearly two decades ago with federal prosecutors in south Florida that allowed him to serve 13 months in a Palm Beach County jail where he was allowed to come and go freely to settle claims that he had abused dozens of high school girls.

Following investigative reporting on that deal by the Miami Herald, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York brought new sex charges against Epstein in July 2019. He died in federal custody one month later.

Epstein and Maxwell counted members of the British royal family, multiple presidents and business titans among their friends.

They have been accused of forcing some of their victims to have sex with some of those men. But Maxwell is the only other person who has ever been charged in connection with Epstein’s crimes.

The committee has deposed numerous people who knew Epstein, including Ohio billionaire Les Wexner, who hired Epstein to manage his finances, and former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The committee has not, however, deposed Trump, who once famously called Epstein a “terrific guy” and said, “I just wish her well,” when told of Maxwell’s arrest in 2020.

The Department of Justice has also released millions of pages of documents from its investigations into the deceased sex offender in response to the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was signed into law last year.

The release of the files has led to criminal inquiries in the United Kingdom into Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former prince, and Peter Mandelson, the former British ambassador to the United States, over allegations that they provided secret government information to Epstein.

So far, the files have not led to any publicly known criminal investigations in the United States.

The co-creators of the new Prime Video series “Kevin” tried to make the show “as personal as possible,” says Joe Wengert, explaining that he and Aubrey Plaza looked back to the end of their relationship nearly two decades ago for inspiration. Then, Wengert says, they focused on “the emotional story and investing in the inner lives” of the main characters. (Plaza’s production partner, Dan Murphy, was a third co-creator.)

And, Plaza adds, they strived to give the show a real “groundedness” in its specific New York neighborhood — Astoria, Queens, where she and Wengert lived together — while also “infusing some of my film nerdiness and love of New York films.” There’s even a rooftop scene that’s a homage to Al Pacino’s first leading film role, in “The Panic in Needle Park.”

OK, so all of that’s totally true, but “Kevin” is mostly a silly, raunchy animated series with a star-studded comedy cast about talking animals and their escapades in a life generally free of human owners.

The show opens with a couple, Dan (Mike Mitchell) and Dana (Plaza), breaking up and their cat, Kevin (Jason Schwartzman), deciding he’s done with both humans and will find his own way in the world.

“Joe and I were talking and realized we both weirdly wanted to do a cat comedy, and he had this idea and I loved it,” Plaza says, explaining that when they broke up, Kevin and another cat, Howard, passively went with Wengert. (Howard died relatively young, but, spoiler alert, Plaza says a cat named Howard will make an appearance as a tribute.)

“Joe was then doing a lot of comedy about being a single guy with cats.”

Wengert, who serves as showrunner, says the breakup was “a significant moment in my life” and he wanted to explore that, but a sad man going off to reconnect with his friends was not as funny as this concept. “The idea of this just made us laugh,” he says.

The real Kevin was a homebody, not a cat who looked longingly out the window, Wengert says, adding that he always felt bad for Kevin: “You could have been with Aubrey Plaza but you’re stuck with me in my studio apartment.”

In the series, Kevin soon lands at an animal rescue where he falls in with Cupcake (Whoopi Goldberg), a self-declared feral cat with a kinky and rebellious side; Armando (John Waters), an aristocratic cat with a haughty attitude; Judy (Aparna Nancherla), a cat with gross eye infections who is way more upbeat and hopeful about the world than she should be; and a shrill and bossy dog named Brandi (Amy Sedaris), who runs the human Seth (Gil Ozeri) — ostensibly the operator of the shelter.

After his owners break up, Kevin decides to stay at an animal shelter, where he makes friends with a rag-tag group of cats, dogs and other animals.

(Courtesy of Prime)

“This idea of fending for yourself and trusting your instincts is part of checking off boxes to show you have lived a quote unquote real life,” says Schwartzman, briefly growing philosophical about what intrigued him about playing a neurotic cat.

The cats encounter plenty of other animals on their adventures, from a drunk spider to a deer that gets hit by a car and curses out the driver. “That made me laugh out loud,” says Plaza, who also voices numerous animals, including the spider and a pitbull love interest for Cupcake. “I’ve always wanted a love story with Whoopi Goldberg,” she adds.

(Wengert voices a parrot named Paco, among others, and says there’s talk of adding a tortoise.)

One secondary character is a horse named Patti Lupony, who, naturally, is voiced by Patti LuPone. She’s part of a stacked guest star roster that includes Addison Rae, Cary Elwes, Charles Melton, Nicole Byer, Jim O’Heir, Maria Bamford, Quinta Brunson and Tig Notaro. Many of the actors, including Schwartzman, Waters, LuPone and O’Heir, are Plaza’s friends.

“I like to do things that people don’t expect me to be in, and this is definitely one of them,” says Waters, adding that “Armando is not a real fan of humans, and as a human, I’m not a real fan of cats.”

Still, Waters, who prefers dogs, says he was easily able to get into Armando’s skin. “I’m a Method actor, so I was crawling around the floor,” he jokes, before adding, “If I was a cat, I would probably act like Armando.”

For what it’s worth, Schwartzman also owns dogs, though he’s quick to point out that growing up in Los Angeles, he volunteered at a cat shelter, and these days Plaza actually owns a dog, too. But as anyone who has seen her in “Parks and Recreation” or other roles would surmise, Plaza says, “I have cat-like tendencies and relate more to cats.”

Plaza and Wengert also incorporated the actors’ sensibilities and personalities.

“We would change things on the fly based on the actor’s input,” Wengert says.

Plaza says that Waters is known for being provocative and loves reading tabloids but that he asked to tone down Armando’s snide put-downs of celebrities. “I felt ill at ease about them,” Waters says. “I’ve gotten away with my career for 50 years because I’m not mean. My specialty is praising things other people hate, not the other way around.”

Wengert says the change “forced us to dig deeper and find something more unique in the character, so I’m happy that he asked us to make the change.”

(He adds that he expected Goldberg to object more “because we gave her so many outrageous lines” but she rarely did, except “to pitch something that was even funnier that worked better.”)

Plaza knew Kevin’s neuroses fit Schwartzman but also that he could bring his own touches while improvising. “He’s really funny about his own body,” she says. “We were hanging out once and he just said, ‘Feel this, my leg is really heavy.’ So we put that in for Kevin.”

Schwartzman says, seemingly seriously, “Wow, I don’t have a memory of that exact moment, but it is true that my leg does feel heavy.” And he adds that his friendship with Plaza enabled him to feel comfortable throwing out ideas during recording, adding that the improvising and tweaking went both ways, with the writers constantly adding new ideas. “It was a collaboration and an evolution,” he says.

The writers room is stacked with people who, like Plaza and Wengert, hail from the Upright Citizens Brigade improv world. (Wengert, who also imported writers he’d worked with on Netflix’s “Big Mouth,” was running the UCB school when they met.) “Our sense of humor is very aligned,” Plaza says.

While Plaza loves how “freeing” animation is — “your imagination can run totally wild” — she says that even though it’s out of character for her, she’d play the “bad cop” in the writers room. Wengert says one day she brought Schwartzman in and he and the writers pitched some wild ideas that made them say, “What the f— is going on.”

“We’re just building the world, so you need some rules, otherwise all the inanimate objects can start talking,” Plaza says. “When things started getting too crazy, I’d say, ‘Let’s rein it in.’”

The example Wengert gives is that they can briefly have a talking pizza slice (it is New York, after all) but they don’t want it to become close friends with Kevin in a major plotline.

But if they get to produce a second season — the scripts are already written — Plaza says the leash will get looser “and it will get more insane.”