But rookie wide receiver Tre’ Harris can’t help but feel some change, even if just so slightly — knowing that a loss means back-to-back seasons under Harbaugh without a playoff win.
“Everybody a little bit more locked in,” Harris said. “Everybody’s staying a couple more hours after meetings and things like that. Cleaning up things, making sure everything’s dotted. That’s what comes with playoff football.”
Harris referenced a “wise words” speech linebacker Daiyan Henley made at the end of practice Thursday as an example of the communication veteran players and coaches are extending to younger players on the team.
Henley, who eclipsed 100 tackles for the second straight season, said his message was about not letting up — a reminder to adhere to the Chargers’ season-long standards and processes with their Super Bowl aspirations on the line.
“For me mentally, and for a lot of guys here, you get into these rooms with these coaches, and they can build up the moment, build up the anticipation,” he said. “It’s the playoffs. It’s do or die.”
The Crenshaw High alumnus continued: “These are things we all know. But what we have to understand is that it’s been do or die since we started this season, because if it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be here — we wouldn’t be in this situation in the playoffs.”
The importance of the game isn’t lost on Chargers offensive coordinator Greg Roman, who has been working longer in meetings — and waking up earlier too. Roman, who guided the Chargers to the 12th-best offense (334 yards per game) despite losing standout offensive linemen Rashawn Slater, Joe Alt and running back Najee Harris to injuries during the year, has been getting a head start on playoff preparations by setting his alarm for 2:30 a.m.
Luckily for the sleep-deprived Roman, he should have a healthy offensive line. Jamaree Salyer, who sat out the last two weeks with a hamstring injury, is set to return at left tackle, giving the Chargers their best starting five.
But one big question remains: will running back Omarion Hampton play?
After recovering from a fractured left ankle, the rookie tweaked his right ankle during Week 17 against the Houston Texans. Hampton, listed as questionable, said he’s planning to play against the Patriots. If Hampton can’t play or isn’t 100%, it could prove costly against a New England team that had the NFL’s sixth-best run defense (102 yards per game) during the regular season.
A standout performance by the Chargers’ defense would alleviate some of the pressure on offense. Under defensive coordinator Jesse Minter, the Chargers allowed the fifth-fewest yards (285 per game) and had the league’s ninth-ranked scoring defense.
In December 2024, the Chargers defeated quarterback Drake Maye and the Patriots 40-7 in Foxborough. Under coach Mike Vrabel, New England is a much different team — and Minter knows stopping Maye, a favorite for NFL MVP, will not be easy.
“Maybe the top offense in football,” said Minter, who has received requests to interview for head coaching jobs with the Cleveland Browns and Tennessee Titans.
But Minter is ready for the challenge, one that could add another highlight to his resume and send the Chargers into new territory under Harbaugh.
“I think everybody in our room has tremendous confidence,” Minter said.
Her jitters came and went during the first meet of her college career. Now, it’s time for UCLA freshman Nola Matthews to focus on her training and routines.
“How I practice is the standard that I want,” Matthews said, “so now, I just need to implement that into competition.”
The UCLA women’s gymnastics team sent four freshmen (Matthews, Tiana Sumanasekera, Ashlee Sullivan and Jordis Eichman) to the floor during their meet against Washington, California and Oregon State on Saturday.
After earning three wins during the competition in Washington, the Bruins swept the Big Ten Conference weekly awards, including freshman of the week award for Sumanasekera after she placed second on the balance beam and the floor exercise.
“They have so much experience just through their time with being elite athletes and things like that,” coach Janelle McDonald said about her freshman class. “I think it really is going to bode well for them for their longevity and their NCAA career.”
“I’m excited to see them continue to grow throughout the season and really on what they’re capable of doing out on the competition floor,” she added.
The win made the Bruins the No. 1 team in the country, a distinction they say they are not going to worry about. Instead, they’ll just concentrate on themselves.
“We’re only going to be focused on what we’re doing, staying in that bubble, staying together, staying as one team,” Matthews said.
Leadership
When they first hit the floor, McDonald noticed nerves from the freshmen. Their execution wasn’t perfect and they performed a bit too tight. Since it was their first meet, their coach expected it, but what impressed her the most was their adjustments.
“We’re going to have so many things throughout the year thrown at us and really being resilient through those moments and just really being able to turn the page and focus on what’s next is just so crucial to being a successful team,” McDonald said.
The grit they showed was supported by the leadership the newcomers got from Jordan Chiles and the rest of the returning members.
“I just thought Jordan did that phenomenally and our returners did as well,” McDonald said. “Those were the things that I took away that I was really excited about.”
“They’ve really taken all of us under their wing, and they’ve been there for us, especially when we’re having bad days,” Matthews added.
The noise of a No. 1 ranking
McDonald understands that the leadership skills her returning team members bring to competition is the key to success for the Bruins this season. In order for UCLA to maintain its No. 1 ranking it needs to worry about what it can control and not the noise from outside.
“We’re really focusing on what we can do to continue to improve and get better in our gymnastics and our connection with each other and how we show up for each other as we head into this next meet,” she said. “You can’t always control your scores, you can’t always control your ranking, but you can always control how you show up in each moment and how you prepare for those opportunities.”
Their next meet will be against Oklahoma, Utah and Louisiana State on Saturday on ABC at 1 p.m. PST. The lights will be bright, a target will be on their back as the best program in the country, but they will tune out the noise by focusing on their work.
“We all just have to keep our heads down, keep doing what we’ve been doing,” Matthews said. “We’ve been working so hard this preseason and I feel like we’re in a really good spot.”
But after just one season at USC, Longstreet is leaving.
The true freshman passer and former top prospect officially entered the NCAA transfer portal Thursday, throwing the Trojans’ future plans at football’s most important position into question. USC has just two quarterbacks currently on the roster, one being a true freshman in Jonas Williams.
There’s no doubt, however, who will remain USC’s quarterback next season. Returning starter Jayden Maiava, who led the Big Ten in passing yards last season (3,711) announced his intent last month to play another season at USC, as opposed to declaring for the NFL draft.
That left Longstreet with a choice: Spend another season on the sideline or search for opportunity elsewhere.
USC coach Lincoln Riley made a plea for his young quarterback’s patience last month.
“For any player, especially a quarterback, I don’t know if this would be the right time to leave this place,” Riley said. “This thing is getting pretty good. And I think a lot of people recognize that, both in what we have now and what we’re bringing in, where this thing is going.”
But Longstreet’s father, Kevin, told On3 last month that his son was looking for a chance to contribute immediately.
“He loves USC, the team and players, but no guarantees in life and Husan is a competitor,” Kevin Longstreet told On3’s Greg Biggins. “Everyone is saying ‘sit for another year, only need one good year.’ But there’s no guarantee Lincoln is back next year, what if we struggle and a new staff comes in? Then he has to learn whole new system. He wants to play now and give himself his best shot.”
It wasn’t until late in the recruiting process in November 2024 that USC even emerged as a serious option for the Corona Centennial High product. He spent the previous seven months committed to Texas A&M, while USC already had a 2026 quarterback committed in Julian Lewis.
But after a delicate dance of courting both quarterbacks, USC pivoted to Longstreet and managed to flip him from the Aggies. It was one of Riley’s most significant USC recruiting victories.
“The more we got to know him, got to evaluate him, the more we got to see his mental makeup, how team-oriented he was, how serious he was about the game, we just felt like in the end, there wasn’t a better fit for us,” Riley said on signing day in December 2024. “That’s eventually why we made the decisions we made. I feel like we landed on the perfect guy for us.”
Longstreet appeared in four games as a true freshman, retaining his redshirt year. He’ll have four seasons of eligibility remaining wherever he ends up. He completed 13 of 15 passes for 103 yards and a touchdown, while rushing for another 76 yards and two scores.
“As a hometown kid, representing USC was an incredible opportunity I’ll always cherish,” Longstreet said in a statement on social media. “I’m excited for what’s ahead and ready to embrace the next opportunity with faith, purpose and gratitude.”
With Longstreet gone, expect USC to pursue a veteran passer in the transfer portal to fill the No. 3 spot on its depth chart, similar to how Sam Huard did last season.
In the last episode of The Envelope video podcastbefore the 2026 Oscar nominations, Joel Edgerton describes the transformative experience of making “Train Dreams.” Plus, our hosts share the names they’d like to hear called on nominations morning.
Kelvin Washington: Hello and welcome to another episode of The Envelope. Kelvin Washington, Yvonne Villarreal, Mark Olsen, and it’s great to have you both here as usual and especially when this is our last episode before Oscar nominations. So I’ll start with you, Yvonne. It could be a movie, a director, or some rising star or just anything that you hope once they read those nominations that morning, you’re gonna hear.
Yvonne Villarreal: I’m not going to say the usual suspects because that’s covered. I really want to see Chase Infiniti get nominated for her role in “One Battle After Another.” I just think she’s been such a revelation for me as somebody who watched “Presumed Innocent.” Seeing her in this role — and I don’t want to spoil anything, but she really finds herself in a hairy situation in this film and the way she sort of rises to the occasion and really has a moment of triumph for herself, I think it was just striking to watch. And she’ll be in “The Handmaid’s Tale” spin-off “The Testaments.” I’m really looking forward to see what she does there. But also I’ll say, as somebody who got thrown into the bandwagon of “KPop Demon Hunters” because of my 6-year-old niece, I wanna see that get some love in the animated category.
Mark Olsen: And in the music categories. Best song.
Washington: It better! Do you know how much I have to hear that song in my house with three daughters, 9, 7 and 4 [years old]? Like, I’m going to be “Golden.”
Villarreal: Are they memorized?
Washington: That’s an understatement. It’s to the point I got concerned. Is it like some robotic AI that’s taking over my daughter’s brain? Instantly. That and 6-7. I have to deal with that every day.
All right. Mark, swing it to you. What do you have?
Olsen: Well, you know, the actress Rose Byrne for the movie “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You.” She won a lot of critics’ prizes leading up to the nominations. And I think it’d be so exciting if the filmmaker on that, Mary Bronstein, also got recognized either for the screenplay or as director. You know, Mary’s someone that she made her first film, “Yeast,” more than 15 years ago and had not gotten a second project going and had sort of been living a life and doing other things. And to see her sort of reemerge with this project in particular, which is so powerful and so specific, it would be really exciting — as great as it is to see Rose being rightfully recognized — to see Mary get some attention as well.
Washington: So I’m gonna jump in with a couple. One, because she’s been on the radar for years as just a multitude of things, she’s multifaceted: Teyana Taylor can dance, she can sing, she’s just all of that and now acting alongside Leonardo DiCaprio. Very impressive for her. And not a debut, but maybe for those who aren’t familiar. So I’d be interested to see, I have a feeling we’re gonna hear her name. And then I’m going super popcorn, Raisinets, Junior Mints, going to the theater. “F1,” for me, I know it was kind of —
Villarreal: Whoa, that’s a throwback.
Washington: I know, but hear me out. It was fun. It was just fun. And it’s kind of one of those movies like, you know, you forget that you go to the movies, it’s gonna be a little fun, maybe a little cheesy, but dang it, I’m here. I’ve got my popcorn. All of that. That for me was another one that was like, “Oh man, that’s kind of the moviegoing experience sometimes we’ve forgotten.”
Olsen: And it’s always good to see the Oscars recognize a film like that as well. I mean, it helps just for attracting audience to the telecast. But I think it is important that the Oscars recognize a breadth of filmmaking styles and one of the things that’s so exciting about the movies is that it can be so many different things, from like a really small personal story to some big high-tech film like “F1: The Movie.” And so I think, yeah, to see that recognized in some of the major categories would be really exciting.
Washington: You know why I like Mark? Because he tried to legitimize my choice. And I’m OK with that.
Olsen: There’s no try. You don’t need the help.
Washington: Look at how I look in the camera. You know, why? Because I know someone’s going to be highbrowin’ me right now. And I get it. And I am with you. However, as we know, we can get all the types of mergers and some things will happen. Are people going to be going into movies anymore? And I was sitting in it going, “Oh, yeah, this is kind of what that feels like.” So ha! Take that.
Villarreal: My reaction was more, it had been a while since I heard the title.
Washington: It felt the same.
Villarreal: Sorry!
Washington: I like what I like, OK? I enjoyed it. That’s all I have to say about that.
All right, Mark, coming to you now. We’re talking about Oscar buzz, and just buzz and a lot of traction that someone can get from a role. Talk about Joel Edgerton playing a logger in Netflix’s “Train Dreams.” What was that conversation like?
Olsen: It was a really terrific conversation. This is a movie that premiered at Sundance last year and was picked up by Netflix there. And even though it has that machinery behind it, there is still something that feels very organic about the success of this movie. It genuinely feels like it’s word of mouth that people have been discovering the film. And it has just a really quiet power too. And a lot of that comes from Joel’s performance. You know, he originally pursued the rights to this book himself and wasn’t able to get it, the rights were already taken. And so he sort of like thought, “Oh, well, that’s that.” And then years go by and the project comes back around and he’s offered this role that he’d been so interested in playing. And he feels like it’s hit him at a very specific time in his life.
The [story] is set in the early part of the 20th century. He plays a logger in the Pacific Northwest. And it really is just a portrait of a life. And the story deals with grief and family, and Joel, in the subsequent years, has become a father himself. And he said how, if he’d have played this a few years ago, he thinks it’d be totally different than the way that [he’s] playing it now. Also he is a guy who’s been in the business for a few years now. He has, I think, some really sharp opinions, views on like what this business is, what the industry is like right now and where it’s going. So it was a really terrific conversation to have with him.
Washington: It sounds like it. Let’s get straight to it. Here is Mark and Joel right now.
Joel Edgerton in “Train Dreams.”
(Netflix)
Mark Olsen: As we’re talking, the movie has been building this sense of momentum around it with reviews and awards. And while there is an awards campaign around the movie, there is something about it that feels very organic. This movie seems to be catching on through word of mouth, just people seeing it and responding to it. How do you feel about the response to the movie?
Joel Edgerton: It feels very good. Coming from an independent film background, I love it when small movies make a lot of noise. And I can’t really analyze or diagnose why, but I get this feeling with “Train Dreams” that it means different things for different people and it holds up a bit of a mirror to their own experience, being that the film is really this celebration of an ordinary life and shows the majesty in that. What my character goes through, they’re universal experiences and so people find something of their own experience in it and I think that’s part of the reason why. It’s a small movie but it’s also a very big movie.
Olsen: The other side of that, in a way, you were recently on a red carpet and you were asked about some comments that James Cameron had made regarding movies on streaming services and the awards race. And I don’t know if you want to say anything more about that, but also do you feel like people do somehow hold it against “Train Dreams” that it’s on Netflix?
Edgerton: Look, the world we live in now is so in the hands of the audiences because of social media. I feel like in the old days, well before I was born, we were told who our movie stars were. The studios would make those decisions for us, and things were very narrow. And now people have the power to choose what they want to watch, who they want to watch, they choose the movie stars. They speak about the movies, and Letterboxd, for example, is such a big thing. And in that same vein, it’s really interesting to hear what people, regular people, moviegoers think of how movies should be exhibited, how they feel, regardless of whether they know about the business side of things or not, or why things are the way they are. They have feelings, sometimes very passionate points of view on where and how we should watch movies. And of course, for all of the business side, if we put it aside, I do believe people want to go to the cinema and watch movies.
My comments come from understanding now where I am in my life. I’m all about creativity and all about story, but I do understand business, and I feel like I emerged out of my bubble in Sydney and felt like the whole world of cinema had suddenly changed. My views on streaming had started to evolve just after we showed a movie at Cannes called “The Stranger.” Another very small movie we made down in Adelaide and Netflix picked up the movie and I remember thinking, “Should we go with them?” So many people saw that movie because it was on a streamer. And so my feelings are very mixed and they’re very much tailored to what the movie is — and therefore according to what the movie is and how big or small it is, where it should live. I’m all for pushing to fight for keeping cinema alive and I believe a younger generation feels the same thing. But I also feel like there are chances that some people have that are narrow as they get their start in the business, which means sometimes the first things you can do, you’re not necessarily going to get a 2,000-screen release on your very first movie. So I have many, many opinions about it. But I feel like we all need to fight for cinema. We also sort of hopefully don’t allow streaming, as great as it can be, to take over everything. That’s my feeling.
Olsen: You’re also a producer as well. This feels like we’re in the middle of a transformative moment for the industry. What is it like for you as a person in the middle of that tide, just trying to navigate that for yourself?
Edgerton: Again, it’s all about what is the story and where should it live. My feeling always is that if I ever get behind making something, I want as many people as possible to see it. I also want to have an exchange at the cinema. One of the great things about “Train Dreams” is I’ve done about 50 Q&As so far — I haven’t counted them up, but around that, and we’ll do a bunch more. We’ve been to a number of festivals and we have an exchange with the audience. We get to watch and see people’s reaction to the film in like an analog way. Sometimes the feeling with letting a movie go on streamer without any fanfare is that it feels like it disappears with a whisper, and you don’t get to have that exchange. And I think that’s very important.
My dream would be to make a film exhibited at the cinema, knowing that at some point it will end up on TV screens and in people’s lounge rooms all over the world. And finding the right way to get a balance of both. There’s nothing better than sitting in the cinema and watching a movie with a bunch of other people. The sad thing at the moment [is] it seems — and again, I don’t know the full diagnostics of it — you get a cinema release and you’re there for like two weeks and then you’re replaced by something else. I’m old enough to remember the days where a movie would sit in the cinema for six, seven, eight weeks if it was good.
Olsen: I don’t want to belabor the point, but I’m so curious about this. I’m assuming when you went to the Gotham Awards you were not thinking “I’m going to give James Cameron a piece of my mind tonight.” Do you find in the time that you’ve been doing this, now you may show up to something and you have no idea what someone’s going to ask you, you have to be ready to talk about just about anything?
Edgerton: You’re right, and I never expect a red carpet is a mine field. I do go home sometimes and think, “What did I say?” I knew what I said. And I also stand by what I said. What I don’t love is the process of reduction of someone’s comments. Someone had sent me this thing that said that I “lashed out” or used a word that was quite a violent one, like I was lashing back at James Cameron. I was like, “No, I wasn’t doing that at all.” I actually had a fair and balanced opinion about the fact that James is, excuse the semi-pun, a titan. He is a pioneer and an inventor and we’ve seen that he’s created technology that has made movies better. He can exhibit movies in this broad scale because he’s dared to dream big. And I feel like there’s a world where there are people who are never going to get their first film on 2,000 screens because it’s a small story, movies like “Sorry, Baby.” They’re not 2,000-screen release movies. There’s a world where they live somewhere, whether it’s in small art house cinemas or whatever. So I was like, “All right, don’t make it feel like I’m putting the gloves on and have a fight with James Cameron, because he’s probably going to win if that’s the case.” And that’s certainly not what I was doing at all. Just saying my point of view is slightly different. And I also understand his point of view. But [comedic wrestler voice] “I’ll meet you on the top oval, James. Let’s do it.” I’m not trying to start a fight. I’m a lover, not a fighter.
Olsen: To start talking about “Train Dreams,” you’ve talked a lot about how you read the book around 2018 or so and the rights weren’t available so you set that idea aside —
Edgerton: Sulked a bit.
Olsen: What do you feel like you were responding to then in that book?
Edgerton: I’ve heard the term neo-western, which I understand now, but it didn’t really make sense to me at the time. When I first read the book, we come into the story with this violent act towards the Chinese worker, for anyone who’s seen the film. And I didn’t know Denis Johnson’s work at all at the time. The book had been gifted to me as a wrap gift on “Boy Erased.” I thought, “If someone gives you a book, it means they think there’s some meaning in it for you, that it will resonate with you,” and it did. But I thought, “Oh, this is a western.” And then within a handful of pages, I realized it was a different kind of western. It would look and feel like a western, but it was a rumination on a life itself. Not that it was going to answer the big elusive question of the meaning of life, but swirling questions of what is the purpose of a life and what is in the extraordinary details of a life we may never care to remember because the person is not the great inventor, the great general, the great president or superhero. I love the ordinariness, I love the idea that it resonated with something that my parents had always instilled in me, which is that every single human being has a great story to tell and that we all shouldn’t be considered insignificant. And I just was so moved by the sort of glimpses of one man’s entire life. Wanted to get my hands on it, couldn’t, and I’m happy to say that it’s good that I didn’t get my big fat lumberjack hands on it then. Mostly because I think [director and co-writer] Clint [Bentley] is a remarkably sensitive, excellent filmmaker [and] has done a much better job than I ever would if I was in control of things. And because in the four years since he reached out to me to be in the film, I’d become a dad. And that was like everything to me. And if you’ve seen the film and you know what’s inside of the film, I really believe that my performance, I don’t know what my performance would have been like pre-Joel the Dad, but now that I am a dad, it’s like there’s stuff inside of me that makes this performance possible.
Olsen: But when it came back to you, do you feel like you responded to it differently? Did you recognize that difference right away?
Edgerton: One hundred percent. And I know it, there was a significant moment. Clint came to meet me in Chicago, I was shooting “Dark Matter” and I was very excited that this had somehow come around to me, knowing that I loved the book and the character so much. Then I watched “Jockey” and knew that he was a really solid filmmaker. His adaptation was extraordinary. And then when I met him, I realized as a filmmaker he was like a director version of the central character of the film — kind, honest, generous, a really great observer. And I went home and I spoke to my wife, and she obviously, her two big questions every time I want to do a project [are] when and where. Because it means moving us around, uprooting our family. I told her and Spokane didn’t exactly make her click her heels, because her life is about being plugged into big cities. She said, what’s the story about? And I started trying to tell her the story, and when I got to the stuff that happens to Robert in the middle of the film, and my 1 1/2-year-old twins are in the other room, I couldn’t even finish telling her the story. And I realized then how much the story now kind of terrified me. But also was so much more connected for me. And she watched me, my chin was quivering and and she was like, “All right, I guess we’re going to Spokane.”
Olsen: Have you done a project that felt this personal before? And did that have its own kind of anxiety attached? Did you have any reluctance to do this for the reason that you were connecting to it so strongly?
Edgerton: I feel like I learn something about myself on every job and every time I approach a new job, I always describe it in rudimentary terms, like a toolkit. What aspects of myself do I bring to this? Which parts do I leave behind? And how would I approach this? For example, “Gatsby” for me felt like, “This is about me turning myself up to 11 out of 10, bringing something bigger.” And with “Train Dreams” what I’ve really learned was how much in the past I’ve tried to hide from myself. And I feel like it’s a trap a lot of actors fall into, is thinking they’re not enough and you have to adorn a performance to be really seen or heard or impress. And I realized how much I’ve avoided playing characters that are very much like me. And though Robert’s a lumberjack, I’m putting all the trappings of it aside on an emotional level. How much is a character like you? And I’m constantly trying to play dress ups and really interested in being people that I’m not and I think that my favorite actors have often been transformative character actors. So I felt like my task in my mind was always to do something different and run away from the idea of just showing my own self really. And I realized that as a husband, as a father and as a guy who’s constantly guilty and struggling with the idea of being away from my family for work, these are all things that Robert is [dealing with], just doing a different job. A contract worker, which I am too except I’m not chopping down trees. And I have my greatest fears around my kids and the safety of my kids. So it felt to me like this was a chance to be very open about my own feelings and bring that to the work without feeling like I had to put too much garnish on things. And that’s a bit scary for me. But it now makes me realize it’s probably a better path in the future to do a bit more of that, just be a bit more open rather than hiding who I am, if that makes any sense.
Olsen: Completely. Because a lot of reviews of the movie, I sort of said this myself, have noted how it feels almost as if your career has been building to this performance, leading to it somehow. Does it feel like that to you?
Edgerton: I know that in decades to come I’ll look back and say always that “Train Dreams” is one of the great experiences I’ve ever had. The process and the result. I think the movie’s fantastic, but what I got out of it personally, it was extraordinary. Look, I hope that I’m building towards something else extraordinary in the future, and it’s like a new mission with each film and each story and each character. But this one definitely feels special for me, and it feels like I use the word “suitable,” which feels so boring. But I played characters that are not suitable for me in the past, and I’ve really challenged myself to bend into shapes that are different from who I am, rhythms that are different from what I’m like, successfully or relatively unsuccessfully. I can’t really judge it for myself. But this felt really suitable. It felt like it belonged to me.
Olsen: You’re also a director, writer, producer. What is it like for you when you show up to a project and you’re just an actor? Does it allow you to focus more on your performance? Or are you always like, “I was thinking you could put the camera over there.”
Edgerton: It’s such a relief. I think directing is the best job in the world, but I wouldn’t want to be doing it every time I went to work, because there’s a lot of stress, a lot of responsibility. Many times I’ve described the difference between acting and directing. An actor is like a child. Literally you could turn up to work in your pajamas, somebody will put makeup on you, dress you, you have one — well, I don’t want to be reductive about it — but you have one job, to play your character and fit into the story, serve the story. As a director you’re running the household. You’ve got to do everything. You’ve got to stock the fridge, you’ve got to make all the decisions about everything in the household, and there’s so much responsibility to that.
I was curious after I directed my first film, how I would be walking onto another director’s set. And it would just be a sin to walk onto someone else’s set and start to look over their shoulder and check their homework and sort of impose yourself on that process. I realized the two things that fascinated me the most were what lens was being put on the camera according to what the shot was. So I just became like really quietly observant. Actors who direct get this sort of great luxury of visiting so many sets and watching other directors and learning from them, good and bad things. And behavioral stuff. It’s not just about how their craft works or how they apply themselves as filmmakers, but how they conduct themselves as people, how they treat their crew, how they elicit the best out of their heads of department and give them freedom or not. Like Clint, for example, on “Train Dreams” is amazing at deputizing his heads of department, giving them freedom, and I think that’s the greatest show of power as a director, the confidence of relinquishing control because you hired the great people and you’re trusting them to collaborate with you. So as an actor I love the freedom of just being there to serve the story. And then watching and putting little things in my ideas bag for next time if I’m lucky enough to be the director again.
Olsen: You were recently on [“Late Night With Seth Meyers”] and he said that he thought it was a very wonderful performance and he noted how you don’t have very much dialogue in the movie and you said you think it’s wonderful because there isn’t much dialogue. And you were kidding, but I wonder if you could unravel that a little bit. How do you think the lack of dialogue in the movie impacted your performance?
Edgerton: Words are there to confuse us in the world. There’s the things we say, what they actually mean, there’s so many layers to any conversation you have with any person. There’s something really interesting about people who don’t speak very much. There’s a mystery often to them. I think there’s a lot of mystery to men that I grew up with in my life. I find myself drawn to people that don’t speak very much because I’m wondering what they think, what do they think of me, what’s going on in their mind. As an actor, I guess I really cut my teeth on “Loving” with Jeff Nichols. He’s a character, again, a very good man who had a lot of feelings and a lot to say, but for whatever reason or for different reasons, with Richard Loving and with Robert, chooses not to say things or doesn’t know if he has the right to say certain things. As an actor I think what becomes the focus is knowing that the camera sees, is looking into your soul. The thought is the imperative, to put the thoughts in the right place, to just be present, knowing that the camera will read those things. And of course the story’s job is to help guide us along and we have a narration. But I was always hoping that the camera will see what’s on my mind and for me to then fill that with words would actually kind of be counter to what the character is, which is one of these very stoic nonverbal men that I think we can all identify with or that we’ve met in our lives. So it’s just putting the right thoughts in my head.
Olsen: It is remarkable how often in the movie it’s as if we’re just watching you feel, you’re sort of taking in your surroundings, you’re not really saying much, but it does feel like we’re in your head, that we can understand what the character is thinking and what you’re conveying as a performer.
Edgerton: Thank you. I was smiling because I was remembering the square root of eight. Do you know what I’m talking about? There’s an episode of “Friends” — is it Joey who’s the actor? — he’s like, “When you’ve got to act and you’ve got to look like you’re really trying to work something out, you’ve just got to think of the square root of eight.” It actually works. But I wasn’t using it in “Train Dreams.”
Olsen: The story does build to this scene with Kerry Condon where your character actually does explain himself. What was it like to flip the switch and have to be verbal and emotional in a more conventional way?
Edgerton: Talking about emotion was one of the tricky things with “Train Dreams.” Clint and I had many conversations, very cerebral conversations, theoretical conversations about story — and emotion was one of them. So Robert’s a character, one of these men who is not really willing to show his emotions. And when he does he’s very quick to put them down, or in the case of the film he apologizes for showing his grief. But it’s all building to this moment, and this is one of the things I love about the film, is that it illuminates the importance of human connection. Robert meets this character Claire that the audience feels like maybe there’s a romance about to happen, which I love that it doesn’t steer in that direction. These chance encounters with strangers that we maybe don’t know that we need to have met on our journey, that are a chance for us to express ourselves. And he has a chance to, whether he knows it or not, he’s going to tell her about his feelings of strange complicity in something he had no responsibility for. And we knew that we were building towards this and yet at the same time we’re still trying to keep a lid on the emotions, but finally Robert gets to speak and it makes so much more sense of his silence up until that point if he we finally hear him string more than a sentence together to try and talk about what’s inside of him and those scenes we shot them in a short one-and-a-half hour window of magic hour with Kerry, who’s just extraordinary. And it felt like time was standing still, even though you would think that there would be a sense that we were rushing. It felt like we had hours.
Olsen: As you’re making the movie, are you talking with Clint or William H. Macy or Felicity Jones, having these kind of big picture, thematic conversations? Because the movie invites these questions of, what makes a life? How do you define being a man? Are you having those conversations while you’re making the movie?
Edgerton: There’s something fascinating about “Train Dreams.” Something I say is so special about Clint is, I know this because I read so many screenplays and I think about story all the time, is this draw to tell an audience what to feel all the time. Whether it’s through words, the story itself, music. “Train Dreams” does this thing that as much as I can speak about it objectively, and it’s the same in the novella, these moments that aren’t telling you what to feel, they’re just layering on top of each other, and I feel like there’s some compression of all these things. It pulls something out of people in their own way. They find their own experience out of it, which can be quite emotional and quite cathartic in a good way. Particularly anyone who’s been through moments where they’re being knocked down in life. I think there’s some sort of hopefulness in watching Robert’s story. It’s hard to define, but there’s a confidence in the way Clint’s rendered it. It’s not telling you each time what to feel. Robert’s not telling you, it’s not screaming to the heavens. There’s nothing sort of overly melodramatic or cathartic about it. And yet these layers build and compress. I had a very similar experience watching “Into the Wild,” Sean Penn’s film. It’s another character isolating himself in in nature. The credits roll and something in me just was like it was like, “I needed to feel something.” I call them a happy cry movie. You know, you’re crying but also happy at the same time.
Olsen: There’s a a moment in the film that I find so haunting and I’ve been trying to unravel it for myself. It’s late in the film, it’s the 1960s, you’re portraying the character as an old man. And in the voice-over the narrator Will Patton says something like, “He never spoke on a telephone.” And there’s something about that I just find deeply moving and really haunting. And I’m struggling to even define for myself what it is about that idea that really gets me.
Edgerton: Because there’s these great things in the movie that I call little sidecars or whatever, this idea that the world is sort of moving so quickly it’s going to leave us behind. It reminded me of my grandmother, who when I pointed a video camera at her for the first time, she didn’t move because she was thinking I was taking a photo of her. And I was saying “It’s OK, this is a camera that’s gonna capture you moving.” She was like Robert. She never saw some of these things. She never experienced a lot of things. I think she went on an airplane, like a jumbo jet, once in her life. And there’s a great thing in the book actually, about Robert and his point of view on the world and as he’s aging, and it talks about his body and his spine and the way his shoulders moved. For example, that scene where Robert goes up to the window and realizes he’s staring at a man walking on the moon and he’s looking up at the sky, wondering, “How is that even possible?” There’s this sense of his physical dilapidation as he moves. It’s this guy that every time he turns his head has to move his entire body from all the hard work. But all this is sort of just a general sense of wonderment that I remember in my grandmother’s eyes when she would look at new things. But this sort of awe and childlike wonder at the world, which I found very special.
Olsen: Part of the story also deals with just how to know when your time has past. And you and I are about the same age and it’s something I grapple with a lot, wanting to be sure that I still have something meaningful to contribute. Do you worry about that for yourself? In a way it comes back to where we started this conversation, that there are people who would tell you that movies are on the way out.
Edgerton: Relevance is a weird thing. I always saw myself as the youngest person in the room. I started very young. I was young at drama school. I was always young, and now I’m not. The beauty of being an actor if we’re allowed to keep doing what we’re doing, if AI doesn’t mess everything up, as long as my brain keeps working, I can keep learning about the new versions of myself as I get older. You know, “Train Dreams” is a good chance for me to see myself in the middle of my life. But I wonder about relevance. I wonder about my character staring at a chainsaw in the movie and wondering how it’s going to affect his world. I wonder at that for myself, as I’ve never downloaded ChatGPT. I’m sort of terrified, but I also feel like I need to not turn a blind eye to it. I have young kids. I’ve got to accept this thing. But I do worry about what it’s going to do to movies. What I feel optimistic about [is] — I always evoke Jonathan Glazer’s film, “Zone of Interest.” Because I think the genius of that film is the beautiful human thought behind the point of view of setting a Holocaust film in the general’s house over the wall in an opulent setting. And I keep thinking, “I don’t think AI is going to come up with an idea like that, think outside the box.” I think it pushes us into more of a challenge of the unique thought, the unique piece of art, doing things that are bespoke. I don’t think we’ll ever want to stop watching human beings or listening to human stories told by humans, starring humans, music made by humans, paintings painted by humans. I hope. Yes, we can enjoy the wildness of what computers create for us. But I don’t think zeros and ones are going to entirely ruin our lives. But then I can be pessimistic too. I won’t rant on that.
There are some things that make a person happy they’re not a millennial mom. Ashley Tisdale’s mommy group drama is one of those things.
Because Tisdale — now Ashley Tisdale French — sounds like she might be stuck in her own “High School Musical,” and it looks as if Hilary Duff’s husband just threw a stink bomb under the bleachers.
Adding to the drama: Duff and Mandy Moore are rumored to be part of the group, though Tisdale French has annoyingly refused to name names.
“Since becoming a public figure as a teenager, it’s often the thing I least expect that people most want to talk about,” the former child star wrote in an essay for New York Magazine that echoes what she wrote a while back on her own blog. “Sometimes, I’ll say something offhandedly, only to see it turn into a headline or start a conversation on TikTok.”
Bottom line, per the essay, is that Tisdale French — who married composer Christopher French in 2014 — was pregnant during the pandemic. She missed out on baby showers and prenatal yoga classes and handing her newborn baby off to acquaintances. Then a friend brought together a group of new moms.
“[F]inally, we were able to be together, and our kids were able to be together, and it all felt right,” she wrote.
The founder of the Being Frenshe line of personal care products thought she had joined a group of cool kids who did cool things.
“I felt energized by being around women who understood the challenge of feeding a baby while taking a Zoom call.”
She literally called them cool.
“[I]t made me hopeful about finding the balance between fulfilling work and family life, since all these cool women were able to do it. Maybe we’d be able to share our secrets to success.”
Then social media burst her bubble.
“I remember being left out of a couple of group hangs, and I knew about them because Instagram made sure it fed me every single photo and Instagram Story.”
She wrote that she realized her mommy group was just like high school.
“Even though it had been decades since tenth grade, the experience of being left out felt so similar.”
But now she was a grown-up, so she took a stand.
“So that’s exactly what I texted to the group after being left out from yet another group hang: ‘This is too high school for me and I don’t want to take part in it anymore.’”
People didn’t react well, she said. One mommy sent flowers, then didn’t acknowledge her thank-you. Another was like, “You weren’t invited? I thought you were.”
Then again, it also includes a Kathy Griffin essay about post-divorce dating at age 65 that includes some serious name-dropping — “It wasn’t my idea; it was all Sia and our friend Nia Vardalos’s fault. We were at Sia’s house, just being silly girls, when they dared me to do it.” — and a detailed discussion of condoms.
But back to Tisdale French.
“Why me? The truth is, I don’t know and I probably never will. What I do know is that it took me back to an unpleasant but familiar feeling I thought I’d left behind years ago.”
She was more specific about what happened in her older blog post, by the way.
“I realized that there were group text chains that didn’t include everyone, which led to cliques forming within the larger group. And after the third or fourth time of seeing social media photos of everyone else at a hangout that I didn’t get invited to, it felt like I wasn’t really part of the group after all.”
She also shared a revelation with her blog readers.
“If a mom group consistently leaves you feeling hurt, drained, or left out, it’s not the mom group for you. (Even if it used to be!) It’s no longer serving you in a way that lifts you up, and you don’t have to stay out of obligation or anything else.”
We will never know how far into either essay Hilary Duff’s husband got. We do know that Matthew Koma didn’t hesitate to pull out the Burn Book.
Koma got riled up enough over it that on Instagram, he mimicked Tisdale French’s repost of New York Magazine’s promotional post about the essay, slapping a picture of his own face over hers and changing the headline from “Breaking Up With My Toxic Mom Group” to his own: “When You’re The Most Self Obsessed Tone Deaf Person On Earth, Other Moms Tend To Shift Focus To Their Actual Toddlers,” with “A Mom Group Tell All Through A Father’s Eyes” as a sub-headline.
Alas, he posted it as an Instagram story, now expired, so we can imagine it only with the help of outlets such as People, which for the longest while has been writing about Reddit AITAH posts and the subsequent comments telling the original poster whether they are indeed the jerk in a particular situation. (Not that any jerks are being discussed here.)
Tisdale French doesn’t name names in her essay, but Koma’s reaction seems to indicate that former child star Duff, 38, might have been one of the allegedly mean moms who was definitely not being named. And Duff and Koma hosted former child star Moore, 41, and her family after last year’s Eaton fire in Altadena, when Moore’s home burned down, so some might bet on Moore also being among the mothers of small children in former child star Tisdale French’s group.
Tisdale French, meanwhile, apparently anticipated this kind of speculation in reaction to the New York essay because she had experienced it after blogging about the same topic. And apparently it’s all wrong, wrong, wrong.
“It’s a subject that has made women DM me to say ‘I feel seen’ and to share their most emotional stories with me,” she wrote for the magazine.
“It has also made wannabe online sleuths try to do some investigating like they’re on ‘CSI’ (please, don’t even try — whatever you think is true isn’t even close).”
Cool? Uncool? Christopher French, Ashley’s husband, may have made his own decision on that already.
“Underrated life skill,” French wrote on Wednesday morning in an Instagram story, quoting author and mindfulness coach Cory Allen. “Pausing to decide if it’s worth your energy.”
MIAMI — In 2017, as political outsider Donald Trump headed to Washington, Delcy Rodríguez spotted an opening.
Then Venezuela’s foreign minister, Rodríguez directed Citgo — a subsidiary of the state oil company — to make a $500,000 donation to the president’s inauguration. With the socialist administration of Nicolas Maduro struggling to feed Venezuela, Rodríguez gambled on a deal that would have opened the door to American investment. Around the same time, she saw that Trump’s ex-campaign manager was hired as a lobbyist for Citgo, courted Republicans in Congress and tried to secure a meeting with the head of Exxon.
The charm offensive flopped. Within weeks of taking office, Trump, urged by then-Sen. Marco Rubio, made restoring Venezuela’s democracy his driving focus in response to Maduro’s crackdown on opponents. But the outreach did bear fruit for Rodríguez, making her a prominent face in U.S. business and political circles and paving the way for her own rise.
“She’s an ideologue, but a practical one,” said Lee McClenny, a retired foreign service officer who was the top U.S. diplomat in Caracas during the period of Rodríguez’s outreach. “She knew that Venezuela needed to find a way to resuscitate a moribund oil economy and seemed willing to work with the Trump administration to do that.”
Nearly a decade later, as Venezuela’s interim president, Rodríguez’s message — that Venezuela is open for business — seems to have persuaded Trump. In the days since Maduro’s stunning capture Saturday, he’s alternately praised Rodríguez as a “gracious” American partner while threatening a similar fate as her former boss if she doesn’t keep the ruling party in check and provide the U.S. with “total access” to the country’s vast oil reserves. One thing neither has mentioned is elections, something the constitution mandates must take place within 30 days of the presidency being permanently vacated.
This account of Rodríguez’s political rise is drawn from interviews with 10 former U.S. and Venezuelan officials as well as businessmen from both countries who’ve had extensive dealings with Rodríguez and in some cases have known her since childhood. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation from someone who they almost universally described as bookishly smart, sometimes charming but above all a cutthroat operator who doesn’t tolerate dissent. Rodríguez didn’t respond to AP requests for an interview.
Father’s murder hardens leftist outlook
Rodríguez entered the leftist movement started by Hugo Chávez late — and on the coattails of her older brother, Jorge Rodríguez, who as head of the National Assembly swore her in as interim president Monday.
Tragedy during their childhood fed a hardened leftist outlook that would stick with the siblings throughout their lives. In 1976 — when, amid the Cold War, U.S. oil companies, American political spin doctors and Pentagon advisers exerted great influence in Venezuela — a little-known urban guerrilla group kidnapped a Midwestern businessman. Rodriguez’s father, a socialist leader, was picked up for questioning and died in custody.
McClenny remembers Rodríguez bringing up the murder in their meetings and bitterly blaming the U.S. for being left fatherless at the age of 7. The crime would radicalize another leftist of the era: Maduro.
Years later, while Jorge Rodríguez was a top electoral official under Chávez, he secured for his sister a position in the president’s office.
But she advanced slowly at first and clashed with colleagues who viewed her as a haughty know-it-all.
In 2006, on a whirlwind international tour, Chávez booted her from the presidential plane and ordered her to fly home from Moscow on her own, according to two former officials who were on the trip. Chávez was upset because the delegation’s schedule of meetings had fallen apart and that triggered a feud with Rodriguez, who was responsible for the agenda.
“It was painful to watch how Chávez talked about her,” said one of the former officials. “He would never say a bad thing about women but the whole flight home he kept saying she was conceited, arrogant, incompetent.”
Days later, she was fired and never occupied another high-profile role with Chávez.
Political revival and soaring power under Maduro
Years later, in 2013, Maduro revived Rodríguez’s career after Chávez died of cancer and he took over.
A lawyer educated in Britain and France, Rodríguez speaks English and spent large amounts of time in the United States. That gave her an edge in the internal power struggles among Chavismo — the movement started by Chávez, whose many factions include democratic socialists, military hardliners who Chávez led in a 1992 coup attempt and corrupt actors, some with ties to drug trafficking.
Her more worldly outlook, and refined tastes, also made Rodríguez a favorite of the so-called “boligarchs” — a new elite that made fortunes during Chávez’s Bolivarian revolution. One of those insiders, media tycoon Raul Gorrín, worked hand-in-glove with Rodríguez’s back-channel efforts to mend relations with the first Trump administration and helped organize a secret visit by Rep. Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican, to Caracas in April 2018 for a meeting with Maduro. A few months later, U.S. federal prosecutors unsealed the first of two money laundering indictments against Gorrin.
After Maduro promoted Rodríguez to vice president in 2018, she gained control over large swaths of Venezuela’s oil economy. To help manage the petro-state, she brought in foreign advisers with experience in global markets. Among them were two former finance ministers in Ecuador who helped run a dollarized, export-driven economy under fellow leftist Rafael Correa. Another key associate is French lawyer David Syed, who for years has been trying to renegotiate Venezuela’s foreign debt in the face of crippling U.S. sanctions that make it impossible for Wall Street investors to get repaid.
“She sacrificed her personal life for her political career,” said one former friend.
As she amassed more power, she crushed internal rivals. Among them: once powerful Oil Minister Tareck El Aissami, who was jailed in 2024 as part of an anti-corruption crackdown spearheaded by Rodríguez.
In her de-facto role as Venezuela’s chief operating officer, Rodríguez proved a more flexible, trustworthy partner than Maduro. Some have likened her to a sort of Venezuelan Deng Xiaoping — the architect of modern China.
Hans Humes, chief executive of Greylock Capital Management, said that experience will serve her well as she tries to jump-start the economy, unite Chavismo and shield Venezuela from stricter terms dictated by Trump. Imposing an opposition-led government right now, he said, could trigger bloodshed of the sort that ripped apart Iraq after U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein and formed a provisional government including many leaders who had been exiled for years.
“We’ve seen how expats who have been outside of the country for too long think things should be the way it was before they left,” said Humes, who has met with Maduro as well as Rodríguez on several occasions. “You need people who know how to work with how things are not how they were.”
Democracy deferred?
Where Rodríguez’s more pragmatic leadership style leaves Venezuela’s democracy is uncertain.
Trump, in remarks after Maduro’s capture, said Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado lacks the “respect” to govern Venezuela despite her handpicked candidate winning what the U.S. and other governments consider a landslide victory in 2024 presidential elections stolen by Maduro.
Elliott Abrams, who served as special envoy to Venezuela during the first Trump administration, said it is impossible for the president to fulfill his goal of banishing criminal gangs, drug traffickers and Middle Eastern terrorists from the Western Hemisphere with the various factions of Chavismo sharing power.
“Nothing that Trump has said suggests his administration is contemplating a quick transition away from Delcy. No one is talking about elections,” said Abrams. “If they think Delcy is running things, they are completely wrong.”
We asked the film staff to name the titles they were most stoked for in 2026. They were happy to see the returning likes of Nolan, Spielberg, Gerwig and Wile E. Coyote.
Amid stacks of cash and liquor bottles, Tony Montana and Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán sit together inside a painting. One fictional and the other real, the drug lords look nonchalant.
“That’s us!” says filmmaker Raúl “RJ” Sanchez with joyful mischief when I point out the centerpiece on the main wall of their office in Downtown L.A. Sanchez’s partner in artistic crime, Pasqual Gutiérrez, tells me they got the frame nearby at Santee Alley.
Located on a street corner in the Fashion District, their space, which doubles as a man cave, reflects their creative influences, their ties to L.A. and their offbeat sense of humor. Before they moved in 2021, the place was a shoe store called Latino Fashion — the storefront sign remains.
Walk in and you’ll find the bottom half of a mannequin flaunting male genitalia (“That was our stunt penis from [the short film] ‘Shut Up and Fish,’” says Sanchez laughing). There’s also a bulky metal structure that resembles a torture device, a teal green couch (which they got for under $100), photography books and keepsakes on shelves that once displayed footwear. It’s a mini museum to their history so far. Or, as Sanchez calls it, it’s “a living brain.”
Known artistically as Cliqua, the in-demand duo has already worked with some of the music industry’s biggest names. Their resume includes directing videos for Bad Bunny (“La Difícil”), the Weeknd (“Save Your Tears”), J Balvin (“Reggaeton”) and Rosalía (“Yo x Ti, Tu x Mi”).
This year, Gutiérrez crossed over into feature filmmaking with his docufiction debut “Serious People,” a deeply personal “cringe comedy” that he co-directed with longtime friend Ben Mullinkosson. Following its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival, the film had a theatrical release in November and is now available to stream on multiple VOD platforms.
On screen, Gutiérrez and Sanchez play versions of themselves: music video directors in an industry that takes itself too seriously. While expecting his first child with partner Christine Yuan, also a filmmaker, Gutiérrez found himself caught between his commitment to his partnership with Sanchez and his responsibility as a soon-to-be father. The Gutiérrez in “Serious People” hires a doppelganger to replace him in his professional commitments.
“There were some things coming our way where if both Raúl and I weren’t available to do it, they would go away. Clients would be uninterested if it wasn’t the Cliqua brand,” Gutiérrez says. “That was deeply frustrating and haunting for me because it was like, ‘Raúl isn’t choosing to have a baby, but I am. And this is affecting us, because he can’t do everything on his own because people aren’t letting him do it.’”
Though both Gutiérrez and Sanchez fit under the generic identity umbrella of “Mexican American,” each of them knowingly embodies a distinct “flavor of Mexican.”
“I definitely identify with Chicano a lot,” says Gutiérrez. “I am second-generation and growing up I knew about lowriders and East L.A. barrio s—.” Raised between East Los Angeles and Pomona, Gutiérrez believes his Latino identity is unique to L.A.
Sanchez, on the other hand, is the child of immigrants from Mexico City and Jalisco. As a first-generation kid in the South Bay city of Gardena, his worldview was shaped differently.
“We’ve always had that split. You represent more what it is to be in this country for more generations, and I feel like I’m new. The culture I associate with more is Mexican but more rancho s—,” Sanchez explains. A vivid memory for Sanchez is his grandfather slaughtering a pig and driving around South Central on his pickup truck selling it. “The Chicano heritage wasn’t a thing for me, it was more the immigrant experience,” he says.
“I grew up speaking more Spanglish,” says Gutiérrez. “But Spanish was Raúl’s first language.”
Their artistic alliance is an amalgamation of what each brings to their friendship. Sanchez got Gutiérrez into Los Tigres del Norte and corridos, while Gutiérrez introduced him to Lil Rob’s “Summer Nights” and the 1993 movie “Blood In Blood Out,” which Gutiérrez considers a foundational cultural artifact in his life.
“Both of us have crossed towards the other’s side a little more,” says Sanchez. The two met through their then-girlfriends (now their wives and mothers of their respective children) almost a decade ago. At that point they each were already directing music videos.
“We really bonded over that shared experience of, ‘What’s it like trying to navigate this industry as a Latino?’” adds Sanchez.
For Gutiérrez, one of five siblings, his interest in filmmaking is linked to one of his older brothers who had a bit of a double life. “He was a gang member, but he was also a low-key cinephile,” he says. “He used to work in art house theaters, and we used to just watch weird stuff for a little kid to watch. A lot of ‘Blood In Blood Out,’ but also stuff like ‘Amélie.’”
With his father’s support, Gutiérrez attended Chapman University to study film production.
“My pops said, ‘Growing up no one ever asked me what I wanted to do. That wasn’t even an option for me,’” Gutiérrez recalls. “‘And the fact that you got accepted to this school, we’ll just find a way. We’ll take all the loans out. Go try and see how it is.’ My father empowered me to follow my dreams for sure.”
Sanchez had a less linear path into filmmaking. He graduated from UC Berkley with a degree in ancient history with the intent of going to law school. Instead, he returned to L.A. to try his hand at film, an interest that evolved from his enjoyment of video games growing up and film studies courses in college.
But how does one break into making music videos?
“In the beginning, a lot of times you’re shooting videos for your friends,” says Gutiérrez. “If you are creative in L.A., you know other creatives and one of them is a music artist or one of them is a rapper or in a rock band. And you start that way.”
“My sister was dating a rapper, so I was shooting his videos,” adds Sanchez.
Still, they both aspired to make feature films.
“Even when we were at the beginnings of Cliqua, the language we have always used to even talk about music videos has always been film-centric,” says Sanchez. “Those are the influences. We speak in movies.”
After meeting and hanging out for a while, Gutiérrez and Sanchez were eager to work together. That opportunity came with the video for J Balvin’s “Reggaeton,” which they had to sign on to do without being able to do much preparation. In the aftermath of that positive experience, they decided to create Cliqua, which originally also included music artist Milkman (MLKMN).
The name comes from the book “Varrio” by Gusmano Cesaretti, an Italian photographer who documented East L.A. culture in the 1970s, including the Klique Car Club.
The video for J Balvin kick-started their careers. They soon found themselves a niche as reggaeton became globally popular and a new crop of artists revitalized its aesthetic. But even as they eventually crossed over to other corners of the industry and landed consistent work with the Weeknd, they were aware of the limits to their creative freedom.
“Music videos are funny because they’re obviously not truly our work either; we’re at the service of another artist,” explains Sanchez. “We’re executing someone else’s vision even if the brief is generally open. It’s not truly us, but we’re in there.”
“Music videos are hard, man,” adds Gutiérrez. “The difficult thing about music videos that’s different from feature filmmaking is that it’s so fast. You get a concept, and you maybe have two days to come up with an idea and write a treatment for it. Then from there, you have a shoot date, but the shoot date can get pushed and it can get pulled depending on the artist.”
In 2023, Gutiérrez and Sanchez released their first narrative short film, “Shut Up and Fish,” about four “Edgars” (young Latino men with bowl cuts) on a boat. Their impetus was to subvert the expectations of stories involving characters from their community.
“We wanted to make it feel like an [Ingmar] Bergman film, because we’d never seen that, especially with these kids,” says Gutiérrez. One of the actors they cast in the short, Miguel Huerta, plays Gutiérrez’s chaotic doppelganger in “Serious People.”
For “Serious People,” Gutiérrez and Mullinkosson invoked arthouse references, such as the vignettes in the films of Swedish auteur Roy Andersson, or the surveillance feel of Jonathan Glazer’s “The Zone of Interest.” Gutiérrez makes a point of mentioning these inspirations in Q&As and interviews in hopes of igniting the curiosity of those watching “Serious People.”
“Making [that culture] accessible has always been a goal, whether that’s conscious or unconscious,” says Gutiérrez.
It was an anxiety-induced dream that first inspired Gutiérrez to write “Serious People” to satirize the entertainment industry. In the dream, Gutiérrez went on Craigslist to hire a look-alike in order to balance his personal and professional commitments. As soon as he woke up, he told his dream in detail to Yuan, who suggested he turn it into a film.
Gutiérrez brought Mullinkosson on board given his background in documentary, and because he thought co-directing it with Sanchez might make it too meta for comfort.
“This industry is so competitive and so demanding that every single director has a fear that if you say no to a single project, you’re never going to get hit up again,” says Mullinkosson on Zoom from Chengdu, China, where he lives. “At the end of the day, we’re just making movies — like, this isn’t that serious.”
Sanchez hesitated at first about the idea of being on camera, but his loyalty to Gutiérrez proved stronger than the reservations. “I actually got a kick out of seeing myself on screen,” Sanchez says. “When you see yourself projected that big, you start to understand what you feel like to other people in the world, which was a very interesting out-of-body experience.”
“Vulnerabilities are what make movies special, especially this one because Pasqual, Raúl and Christine opened their real lives to being on camera, and it’s very personal,” says Mullinkosson. “When you can be as brave as them to share your real life, something beautiful happens.”
Gutiérrez and Sanchez, who also became a father soon after our interview, are currently developing a new feature film, “Golden Boy,” which they describe as a “Stand by Me”-type of story about four Edgars. One of them thinks former boxer Oscar De La Hoya is his long-lost father. They go on a journey across California to confront De La Hoya.
“Music is where we started, but the goal has always been to do long-form, to do features,” says Gutiérrez. “And now with ‘Serious People,’ one is out there.”
Welcome to Screen Gab, the newsletter for everyone who is mindlessly scrolling on their phones before the futile New Year’s resolution to curb the habit begins.
In our annual year-end edition, we expand our usual “ICYMI” feature, highlighting 2025’s most-read stories about film and television. It’s a hearty mix of celebrity profiles, insightful criticism and deep dives into the most talked-about pop culture that defined the year.
And we couldn’t do it without the support of our subscribers. We know there’s an endless stream of TikToks, Reels, articles and, ahem, other newsletters competing for your attention in any given minute — not to mention, TV and movies! — so we’re incredibly thankful for the time you choose to give this newsletter each week. We hope to continue guiding you through all the exciting film and television that greets us in 2026.
Until then, happy reading and happy watching! See you in the new year!
Take care,
Yvonne Villarreal
(The writer who tries to pull this whole thing together each week, with the help of my tag-team partner Maira Garcia.)
P.S.: Shout out to my amazing colleagues who never make me grovel for contributions, even with their demanding work loads. And to the copy editors who remain the true heroes of this place.
A look at the scene outside the El Capitan Entertainment Centre, where the late-night show “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” is staged, in the wake of the show getting pulled from ABC.
Alicia Piller was giddily flitting around her Inglewood live-work studio holding up resin-coated balls of detritus, showing off tiny fossil fragments, and pulling out plastic trays filled with random thingamajigs that had been organized by color.
The assortment is all part of her eclectic jewelry-making arsenal. She clusters recycled textiles, found items, donated castoffs and gemstones to create handmade wearable art that she describes as “science bohemian.”
In this series, we highlight independent makers and artists, from glassblowers to fiber artists, who are creating original products in and around Los Angeles.
Piller juxtaposes opals, garnets and pearls with less conventional materials such as tile fragments, snakeskin, bits of lava from a trip to Iceland, and bullet casings, all bound together with strips of leather or vinyl. Lately, she’s been working with 3-D printed waste that her friends, a pair of costume-based performance artists, started delivering to her in giant garbage bags.
“I am always thinking about some aspect of recycling,” she said, “seeing the value in these things that we deem ‘trash.’”
One wall of her studio is lined with metal racks stacked with bins and boxes labeled “clay,” “metal” and “scraps.” The room is cluttered, yet curated.
“There’s a little bit of hoarding mentality,” Piller laughed, “but I use it!”
1
2
1.Necklaces featuring seashells, gemstones and recycled printed plastic.2.Alicia Piller displays her handmade ring.(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)
From her “controlled chaos” come intricate, ornate, one-of-a-kind necklaces, earrings, brooches and rings. While Etsy is her main retail hub, she previously sold her wearables at L.A.’s Craft Contemporary museum and the Houston Center for Contemporary Craft. She’s also provided flair for the likes of Phylicia Rashad, Jill Scott and Ciara.
Her creations give nods to nature, at times skew extraterrestrial, and have Afro-futuristic undertones. One pendant evokes the sea with its swirl of mother-of-pearl, spiral seashells and rivulets of pale gray leather arranged above a piece of bleached coral. A crystal-festooned collar necklace calls to mind a pair of Blue Morpho butterfly wings. And a jasper-studded pin resembles a Ghanaian mask at first glance.
The undulating layers and microcosms that make up her jewelry’s signature “biomorphic” look extend into her fine art practice, as well.
Piller received an MFA from Cal Arts and now teaches sculpture as an adjunct professor at UCLA and UC Irvine. Her maximalist mixed-media artwork has shown at Track 16 (the L.A. gallery that represents her), as well as institutions across Southern California, including the Brick and the Orange County Museum of Art. Both the Hammer Museum and the California African American Museum have her pieces in their permanent collections. Next summer, she’ll unveil a new monument as part of West Hollywood’s Art on the Outside public art program.
In her studio, multiple towering sculptures are ensconced in cardboard and bubble wrap, while others — works in progress — sit on plinths, lean against walls, or hang from the ceiling. There’s a stark contrast between these 9-foot-tall pieces and her smallest makes, a pair of one-inch post earrings. But toggling from the massive to the minute comes naturally to her.
Alicia Piller stands for a portrait in her studio.
(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)
“It’s about the microscopic and the macro,” she explained. “I like being able to see the tiniest detail, then letting it expand out into the cosmos. I’m thinking about those two scales constantly and about where we fit between those scales.”
While she addresses such weighty topics as police brutality and climate disasters in her large-scale works, making wearables provides comfort.
“The jewelry is much more free-form and fun versus the more serious stuff that feels heavy to me,” she said. “It’s not always full of activism and all these ideas about humanity and the world. It’s more of a joyous, less stressful task.”
She added, “I also just love to adorn myself in the things that I make.”
This has been true since childhood.
During the studio tour, the artist pulled out a piece of brass wire bent to spell out her name, a keepsake from when she was 12. She’s kept all manner of adolescent mementos, such as beads she fashioned out of tightly-rolled magazine pages or colorful pieces of clay. Her future as an artisan was a foregone conclusion.
Photos of Piller’s maternal ancestors line the edges of this textural necklace, which features a pair of beetles at its center.
(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)
Growing up in Chicago, Piller and her mother performed as clowns at birthdays and company picnics. From ages 7 to 14, it was her job to create balloon figures for partygoers — sculpting skills that would come in handy. She gained an appreciation for nature and anthropology from mother-daughter fishing excursions and regular visits to the Field Museum, which focuses on natural history. Her affinity for biology comes from her father, who attended medical school when she was young.
“I had all these books around me that had the insides of bodies,” she recalled, “so there was a fascination with the inside.”
Piller went on to study anthropology and painting at Rutgers University, making jewelry in her spare time. During breaks, she’d work at a Chicago bead store, where she learned about global jewelry-making practices. After graduating in 2004, she moved to Manhattan, spending weekends hawking accessories and hand-painted clothing from a sidewalk table. She later relocated to Santa Fe, N.M., where she worked at a store selling fossils, minerals and semi-precious stones.
“That’s when I really understood that in all these materials there’s a spiritual side, an energy,” she said. “There’s a beauty in the fusion of all of these materials together.”
Piller moved to Inglewood in 2019. Asked if L.A. has impacted her work the way previous cities had, she said, “[My] storytelling, narrative side has come to the forefront. There’s definitely been a shift, in terms of thinking about how an object can tell a story.”
For example, enamored of Pasadena-born author Octavia Butler, she began referencing the sci-fi legend’s writing and using her likeness, both in sculptural form (as with her 2024 piece “Mission Control. Earthseed.”) and in her jewelry. She also started incorporating images of other inspiring women, including her maternal forebears and the Cuban American sculptor Ana Mendieta.
1
2
3
1.Earrings featuring science fiction author Octavia Butler, one of Piller’s many inspirations.2.A necklace made from a crinoid fossil stem.3.Cuban American artist Ana Mendieta sits at the center of these necklaces.(Juliana Yamada/Los Angeles Times)
L.A. has shaped her aesthetic in more literal ways, too.
“A big part of what I do is walking and doing urban hikes,” she said, noting that she’s trekked through nearly 20 countries. She’s walked from her studio to Watts Towers or westward to Torrance, collecting things she finds on the ground along the way and eventually transforming them. For instance, a pair of jewel-toned beetles she picked up made an ideal centerpiece for a regal bib necklace.
“There’s that side of me that really gets excited about looking at those objects, then creating my own sort of cosmology, my own artifacts, if you will,” she said. “I’m using ‘high’ gemstones to ‘low’ plastic and elevating all of them, fusing them into one work that then creates this energy, this power.”
It was abundantly clear to actor-director Bradley Cooper that if “Is This Thing On?,” his comedy-drama set in New York’s stand-up scene, lacked authenticity, the film would fail. With the iconic Comedy Cellar at its heart, he found the key to unlocking that — by casting several of the real-life comedians who regularly take the stage there. Among them were two women at the top of their game right now with sold-out shows and substantial social media followings: Chloe Radcliffe and Jordan Jensen.
“Bradley fell in love with the Comedy Cellar and the relationships that go on there,” Jensen recalls.
“Is This Thing On?” is based on an anecdote from the life of British comedian John Bishop, whose career started when he stumbled into an open-mic night in Manchester, England, while temporarily separated from his wife. In the film, Will Arnett plays a fictionalized version of Bishop, Alex Novak, a finance guy, and the narrative shifts to New York.
“The idea was, ‘If we use people who aren’t comics to play comics, there’s not going to be a juxtaposition between Arnett and this super-tight group of people,’” Jensen says. “His character is this stuffy, bored guy, and he enters into this world of people who have day jobs just like him, but they step into this room, and it’s all dirty humor and busting each other’s balls.”
Radcliffe realized early on that Cooper, who also produced and co-wrote the film, understood the level of commitment required to portray the stand-up world realistically. She saw the first signs of him getting it when he screened 10 minutes of test footage for the comedians at his home, just a few blocks from the Greenwich Village club.
Comedian Chloe Radcliffe on stage as her character, Nina, in “Is This Thing On?”
(Jason McDonald / Searchlight Pictures)
“The second the test footage started, I immediately felt so confident that we are in the right hands,” she recalls. “Any lingering doubt or trepidation was totally washed away immediately, because Bradley just has such clarity of vision and taste. It was clear that he and Will had both embedded themselves deeply in the world of stand-up. Bradley wanted to capture what is real, and he was like, ‘If that means going off script, do it. If that means going to a weird place, do it.’”
Jensen adds, “I don’t think I said one actual line from the script. I would improvise something, and along the way, as I got the point across, it was OK. He might occasionally tell us to say a line, but it was in between 100% moments of improvisation, and he would be rolling camera.
“When I saw the movie, it was really moving. The way he showed it reintroduced me to it and made me be like, ‘Oh yeah, this place is f— magical.’”
Cooper wanted to capture what goes on offstage as well as on, and a significant part of that happened around a particular table at the Olive Tree Cafe, which sits above the underground comedy club. It’s where the acts gather before, after and in between their sets.
“We shot a scene around the comics’ table on the very first day,” Radcliffe says. “About a week or 10 days later, Bradley wanted to reshoot it because he looked at the footage and realized that it looked like a movie. He wanted to make something that looked like the real environment. I admire that so much. Not only is he willing to ask us for our input, but he’s also willing to go back and make new decisions based on new information.”
According to Jensen, in another scene in the cafe, the filmmaker asked whether the comedian’s coats, which PAs had removed from the shot, would be there, and when he was told they would, ordered them to be put back. The level of detail even extended to whether the comics would share fries from a single plate or have their own. It all mattered.
Comedian Jordan Jensen was used to riffing through her scenes on camera while playing her character, Jill, in “Is This Thing On?”
(Jason McDonald / Searchlight Pictures)
Radcliffe describes Cooper’s reverence for the Comedy Cellar and the comics as an appreciated display of “humility and willing” that extended to both the filmmaker and Arnett, asking for their input on techniques that would improve Novak’s set.
“We wound up chatting about things like where the funny idea is in a punch line, so you might rearrange the sentence so that the most surprising part of it comes at the end. That’s an unnatural way of delivering that sentence,” she reveals. “I would see Will running the set at the Cellar before the shoot, and he is so naturally funny that even if he went off script and started riffing, he instinctively hits punch lines. He has this natural sense of rhythm.”
However, neither the actor nor the director, who also plays Novak’s best friend, Balls, rested on their laurels. To gauge real audiences’ reactions to the material, they ran it multiple times in rooms for months before filming started. It’s something Jensen calls “the ballsiest thing I’ve ever seen a person do.”
“I would be on a show months before the movie was happening,” she says. “They’d be like, ‘Here’s Alex Novak,’ and I was like, ‘Who is that?’ I would see that it was Will Arnett and then I’d be like, ‘F—, he’s bombing. Oh, this is the movie.’”
However, the bombing was intentional, and things would change as the set progressed. She continues, “What I realized is they had written it so that the first chunk in the movie, he doesn’t do so great, the second chunk he does a little better, and the last chunk he does the best, which is how comedy works. I can’t imagine in a million years doing that and not breaking at some point, and being like, ‘Hey, by the way, I’m actually doing this for a movie.’”
While Arnett was on stage, Cooper would stand in the back of the room, taking notes, making changes and doing research. However, Jensen says watching Arnett tank, even on purpose, was “brutal.”
Will Arnett with director Bradley Cooper on the set of “Is This Thing On?”
(Jason McDonald / Searchlight Pictures)
“These were not open mic nights; they were real shows. It was Will Arnett’s reputation, and he was bombing on purpose, but it totally worked out in the long run. He was operating like a real comic up there.”
There were also little things that Arnett did, sometimes by accident, that made his delivery next-level. One example is when he breathes into the microphone.
“It was totally an improvised thing,” Jensen enthuses. “It was this moment of awkwardness that is so authentic that it makes you immediately empathize with him. You’re like, ‘Oh, man, I know that feeling of the air leaving your mouth, hitting the mic, and now everybody has heard that you’ve let out a sigh of grief.’”
Radcliffe, who plays Nina, and Jensen, who plays Jill, are close friends in real life and read for each other’s roles. Aside from being able to take Cooper and Arnett behind the curtain of the comedy scene, their relationship added an extra level of authenticity to the film and to each other’s performances.
“We’ve been really close since pre-pandemic, and she and I have a lot of similar energies,” Radcliffe muses. “We can both be trashy little gremlins. She has a level of aggression that I don’t quite step into, and I think I have a level of exasperation that she doesn’t quite step into. We play off each other really well. She’s so subversive and transgressive, and she’s got such a magnetism in where she is willing to go on stage that I think is unmatched in a lot of other comics working right now.”
Jensen, who is a big fan of Cooper’s work, recalls being starstruck when he first opened the door to his home when the cast came over to read the script for the film. “He opened the door and said, ‘Hi, I’m Bradley.’ I just looked at Chloe over his shoulder, beelined right to her, and snuggled up next to her on the couch, because I was so intimidated,” she said. “It would have still been great if she weren’t there, but having her there was the best. It’s one of those things where when I’m really old, I’ll tell people, and they won’t believe me.”
Welcome to Screen Gab, the newsletter for everyone who would rather reflect on the year in pop culture than look at their current bank statement.
Santa wasn’t the only one making lists this year. As the final days of the year come to a close, we’ve gathered several of our key year-end TV and film lists for 2025 in one handy place for easy browsing while you wait in return lines, prepare to board flights or zone out on the couch.
We also threw in some other recent lists, unbound to 2025 but still useful this time of year when our brains need all the help they can get to winnow down viewing choices.
Enjoy!
From left, Tessa Thompson in “Hedda”; Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Colman in “The Roses”; Michael B. Jordan and Miles Caton in “Sinners.”
(Photo illustration by Josep Prat Sorolla / For The Times; photos from Amazon Prime, Searchlight Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures )
The 10 best movies of 2025 — and where to find them: The best movies of 2025 include “Sinners,” “Hedda,” “One Battle After Another,” “Eddington” and “The Naked Gun,” according to our critic Amy Nicholson.
The 12 best needle drops of 2025: These songs made their scenes indelible, from classic rock and dance pop to old-timey blues and thrash. There’s even a former Beatle on here.
Best of 2025: Television — from left, Anna Lambe in “North of North,” Ethan Hawke and Michael Hitchcock in “The Lowdown,” “Women Wearing Shoulder Pads.”
(Photo illustration by Josep Prat Sorolla / For The Times; photos by Netflix, FX and Warner Bros.)
The best TV shows of 2025: The TV series on this list delivered real surprises with new directions and original formats, while others just had good old-fashioned storytelling, according to our critic Robert Lloyd.
The 16 best documentaries of 2025: The documentary films and series that captured our attention this year feature famous people and ordinary people, as well as new ideas and perspectives.
The best reality TV of 2025: Scandals, competitions and breakups are par for the course on reality shows, but this year also brought some tender moments that made for must-see TV.
The 33 best comedy specials of 2025: Specials by Frankie Quiñones, Andrew Schulz, Jordan Jensen, Sebastian Maniscalco, Bill Burr, Atsuko Okatsuka and Gabriel Iglesias make our list.
15 must-watch British crime drama series: Whether with an old-fashioned one-case-per-episode or a more sprawling multistrand story, quaint or violent, historic or modern, the birthplace of Agatha Christie understands that we all need stories that make sense of seemingly senseless acts.
Nobody does a jaw-drop reaction like Bobby Berk. It’s only surprising when you assume he’s probably seen it all after eight seasons traveling the world as the interior design expert on Netflix’s reboot of “Queer Eye”; writing his 2023 book, “Right at Home: How Good Design is Good for the Mind”; making many TV appearances (including a Taylor Swift video) and selling pretty much anything to make your home shine on BobbyBerk.com.
But in his new HGTV series “Junk or Jackpot?”, premiering Friday at 9:30 p.m. Pacific, genuine reactions come often from Burke as he enters the homes of Los Angeles collectors and sees not only rooms jam-packed with action figures, pinball machines, puppets, marionettes and more, but also some jackpot items just sitting on a bookshelf. In one episode, for example, a collector shows Berk a trading card he has that is appraised in the $100,000 range. “I’m pretty sure I said, ‘What the f—?’ though I assume it was bleeped because it’s HGTV,” says Berk from his Los Angeles home. “I’m used to Netflix, where I could say whatever I wanted. But, yeah, that was just crazy to me.”
Reactions aside, the real marvel on “Junk or Jackpot?” is watching an enthusiastic Berk swoop into people’s homes to help them learn how to come to terms with a collecting hobby that has grown into something that’s stifling homes and putting a damaging strain on relationships. “Obviously, I’m not a therapist. I’m a designer, even though in our field, we often make the joke that we’re not just designers, we’re marriage counselors,” he says.
But Berk, born in Houston and raised in conservative Mount Vernon, Mo., is a self-taught pro at identifying what isn’t working and doing everything possible to fix it, including in his own life. Case in point: Berk, not feeling safe coming out in Mount Vernon, left home at 15 and bounced around for several years in various cities, never finishing high school. “From 15 to 22, I moved around and can’t even count the amount of places I had to move around to just due to finances and situations going on in life,” he recalls.
Eventually, he landed in New York City and worked for stores like Restoration Hardware, Bed Bath & Beyond and Portico before he opened his first online store in 2006 and first physical store in Soho in 2007. Soon thereafter, Berk was racking up appearances on networks like HGTV and Bravo before “Queer Eye” came calling in 2018 and took him to new heights, including his 2023 Emmy win for structured reality program. He also received an honorary degree from Otis College of Art and Design in 2022.
Now, with “Junk or Jackpot?” about to launch, the 44-year-old Berk spoke about how he was handpicked by pro wrestler and movie star John Cena for the show, the key to helping collectors let go of things that are weighing down their lives, and, after living many places and traveling the globe, where he considers home with husband Dewey Do and their mini Labradoodle, Bimini.
“I’m not a therapist. I’m a designer, even though in our field, we often make the joke that we’re not just designers, we’re marriage counselors,” Berk says.
(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)
What are the origins of “Junk or Jackpot?” and what does John Cena have to do with it all?
I’ve been toying back and forth with HGTV for years, even when I was still on “Queer Eye,” but with my exclusivity with Netflix, I couldn’t do design shows with anybody else. We always just kept that line of communication open, so then when this specific opportunity came about, Loren Ruch, the head of HGTV, who’s unfortunately since passed, reached out. He said, “Hey, John Cena’s created the show for us and you’re the top of his list of who he wants it to host it.” John was a big “Queer Eye” fan, so I said yes. It shot here in L.A., which was really important to me. We were really lacking for entertainment jobs here in the city so that was a big plus for me to be able to bring jobs here to L.A. to all of our amazing crews.
And it’s not your typical design show. Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with a typical design show and they do help people. But coming from “Queer Eye” where everyone we helped was because it was somebody deserving, somebody that was going through something and needed that extra boost in their life. That’s what this was with “Junk or Jackpot?”
Every single collector, as we’re calling them, had a story going on. With Patrick and Roger [in the premiere episode], Roger had moved out and their relationship was on the rocks because there was literally no space for Roger. With Carly and Johnny in another episode, they had a kid that they weren’t expecting to have in their early 40s, so it was a life-changing moment for them. Their priority needed to be their son, J.D.
I love the show because it was helping people at these moments in their life where they’re like, “We have this thing that we love and has brought us joy, but now this thing is actually starting to have negative things happening in our life.” I wanted to come in and really bring back the joyous part of their collection.
HGTV hasn’t given you a huge budget to revamp the homes and the collectors have to work themselves to sell off their collectibles to pay for the renovation. How did that angle come about?
It was a bit of therapy and I wanted the collectors to really realize that, yes, the collection that they have has value but this other thing that is happening in their life because of this collection has value, too. I wanted them to either be able to prove to themselves that what they were wanting to change in their life had more value than those things. Like with Patrick, Roger had a value.
I wanted them to go through the exercise of “You need to start parting with things.” And if you notice, I never pushed them to get rid of the most precious pieces of their collection. I pushed them to get rid of the things that often they had duplicates of but weren’t necessarily something like, “Oh, I got this as a child” or “somebody got this for me.” I wanted them to emotionally disconnect with those things so they could prioritize things better in life and in the future, they would have a lot easier time letting go even if I wasn’t there to push them.
Swatches and mood boards in Berk’s office. The host of “Junk or Jackpot?” says it is not your typical design show.(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)
How do you consider budget with the collectors? In one episode, you choose to cover a brick wall instead of tearing it down and building a new one.
The homeowners are the ones footing the bill for this, because again, a portion of this is the exercise of letting go. To your point, if we had just come in at HGTV and said, “Here’s all the money!” They’re like, “All right, I have no motivation to get rid of anything.” I wanted to make sure we made budget-conscious decisions and I think that’s also a really important thing to share with people at home that you don’t always have to go out and knock out a fireplace if you hate the material. You can do a thing like micro cement and you can completely change it for a minimal cost.
What would you say you learned from shooting the first season of “Junk or Jackpot?”
I wouldn’t say I learned anything necessarily new, but it was reaffirmed to me the emotional attachment and mental health aspect that your space and design can have on you, either in a good way or a bad way.
In the bad way, your house becomes so cluttered and overwhelmed with something that used to spark joy for you, but it’s now having an effect on not only your mental health, but your relationships with other people. On the other hand, the difference in your mental health just redoing that space, reorganizing that space, reclaiming that space can have on your mental health and your relationships not only with yourself, but with your family and your friends.
Vivian, who collects Wonder Woman memorabilia, her friends stopped coming over because there was just nowhere to sit. Her best girlfriend used to come in from Vegas all the time, where she lives, and she would spend the night and now she’s like, “I just can’t anymore because I’m surrounded literally. It’s too much and I just can’t do it anymore.” You see how just changing your space really can change your life.
“I wanted to make sure we made budget-conscious decisions and I think that’s also a really important thing to share with people at home, that you don’t always have to go out and knock out a fireplace if you hate the material,” Berk says.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
Season 1 is set in Los Angeles but assuming you get more seasons, would you want to do other cities or countries?
I personally would always love just to keep doing L.A. I live there and with “Queer Eye” for eight years, we traveled all over America. That being said, this is a very niche show, so it might be hard to continue doing it in the same city season after season, so we probably will have to go to other cities, and I’d be fine with that. But I would at least like another season or two in L.A. After spending the last eight years filming “Queer Eye,” I like being home.
That said, you have lived in New York, you’re in L.A. now and you also have a place in Portugal. Where do you call home?
L.A. is definitely home for me. Portugal’s great, but L.A. is definitely home. Although the more time we spend in Southeast Asia, specifically Vietnam, since my husband’s originally from there, that also feels like home. I believe in reincarnation, and I was definitely from over there in my last life. Like when I landed in Vietnam, in China, anywhere in Southeast Asia — I just feel very at home.
“Queer Eye” was such a roller coaster for all you guys but what are your reflections now that it is behind you? Were you able to enjoy it at the time?
Yes and no. It was an amazing roller coaster. I enjoyed most of it, but there were times where we were just exhausted. I don’t know if you know the flight app “Flighty,” but it tracks your flights and tells you how many hours you’ve been in planes every year and how many times you’ve been on the exact same plane. I was looking the other day at how much I flew in 2019. Keep in mind in 2019, five months of the year I was filming, so I wasn’t flying anywhere. So this was just seven months, and I flew 200 flights. I flew over 500,000 miles. I don’t miss that. That was a lot. But as much as I can remember of it, I look back with fondness.
This article contains spoilers from Season 5, Vol. 2, of “Stranger Things.”
What could be more gulp-inducing than trying to defeat a nightmarish vine-covered villain and wipe out an eerie and horror-filled alternate dimension? Maybe writing a satisfying conclusion to a mega-popular TV show built on that idea.
Ross and Matt Duffer, the sibling masterminds behind Netflix’s “Stranger Things,” are closer to finding out if they’ve achieved that in the eyes of the show’s fans. On this morning in early December, the duo are in their own alternate dimension limbo with the show’s final season release — Vol. 1 is out and they’re bracing for impact with Vol. 2.
“The day that [Vol. 1] was released, I paced around all day,” Matt says. “I did absolutely nothing, just waiting for reactions to come in and reviews to come in because you really never know how people are going to react. There’s pros and cons to the show growing in size in the way it did — people just take it apart to an insane degree. It’s scary, always scary. You never really get used to it.”
But the self-doubt keeps them sharp, he says. “It forces you to not get lazy.”
“It’s a balance between feeling very confident, then it swings to being very insecure about it — and it’s hard to keep sight,” Ross adds. “You watch these episodes dozens and dozens of times over and over again. And the strange thing about this show is that a very small group of people had seen the episodes, a really small circle, then suddenly you’re just blasting it out to millions of people all at the same time.”
The pair are sitting on a couch in the office they share — “E.T.,” “Alien” and “Batman Returns” posters adorn the walls — at their facilities, Upside Down Productions, in Los Angeles. While they were able to revel in fan reaction for a few days after the release of Vol. 1, they’re back in work mode. At this point, they still have to finalize sound and color, as well as some visual effects, on the series finale.
“Very boring visual effects,” Matt quips. “If I have to look at one more shot of spores and fog, I’m going to lose my mind.”
Nancy Wheeler (Natalia Dyer), Jonathan Byers (Charlie Heaton), Steve Harrington (Joe Keery) and Dustin Henderson (Gaten Matarazzo) in Season 5 of “Stranger Things.”
(Netflix)
For now, the drip-drop release around the year-end holidays continues, with Vol. 2 (Episodes 5 through 7) now streaming. The episodes contain some of the season’s bigger emotional beats, including one of TV’s most amicable breakups between teenagers, a mended friendship and a character finally living his true self openly. The Duffers discussed that and more in this edited conversation.
Let’s start with those final 10 minutes of Episode 7. Will [Noah Schnapp] shares a part of himself that he’s kept secret for a long time. He realizes that if he wants to be successful in defeating Vecna, he can’t feel afraid about this part of myself. How did you decide Will’s coming out would be revealed?
Matt: It’s something that we’ve been planning to do for a really long time. Initially, it was planned for Season 4, and we just felt it was unearned by the end of it. We wrote that scene with him in the back of the van and him talking to Jonathan [Charlie Heaton]. But I like the idea of Will slowly building to this moment. He has a breakthrough in Episode 4 in a major way, but he has this one final step to take in order to really unlock his full potential. Something we really wanted to do with the show is tie his emotional growth with these powers that he’s developed.
Ross: Putting it at the penultimate [episode] ultimately made sense because what we’re trying to do with the second volume is get our characters in a place where they all felt confident in themselves. Will being one of the major character arcs that carries through the season, but also with Dustin [Gaten Matarazzo] and Steve [Joe Keery] and Nancy [Natalia Dyer] and Jonathan — we wanted to get people, before they go into this final battle, having dealt with their internal fears and doubts.
Matt: Because that’s what Vecna weaponizes against you. If you don’t have that self-hatred or self-doubt or those insecurities, then he can’t hurt you. When Will purges himself of that, he becomes unstoppable — or that’s the hope.
1
2
1.Noah Schnapp as Will Byers, the show’s central character.2.With his mother, Joyce (Winona Ryder). In Season 5, Vol. 2, Will comes out to her and his friends. “It’s something that we’ve been planning to do for a really long time,” says creator Matt Duffer.(Netflix)
What did you want that moment to be? What didn’t you want it to be?
Ross: We were nervous about it because you want to get it right, particularly working with Noah, who had recently come out himself. When he read it and we got his blessing, we felt really, really good about it. For us, it clicked writing it when we started talking about, “What are Will’s actual fears here in the future?” When the show really works for us is when we can combine both our mythology and the supernatural with the emotional. In this case, it’s going: Vecna is taking these fears and weaponizing them against Will, so Will actually talking to the group about these fears, as opposed to keeping them to himself — that’s when the scene really clicked.
The original plan was for him to come out to Joyce [Winona Ryder], and we started writing it and it felt really wrong because if he’s really going to be confronting these fears, he has to open up to to his friends as well. Once we did that, and we put the group in there, and we had him talk about what he saw in his future, that’s when the scene felt, as a coming-out scene, like something very unique to this show.
Matt: It’s the scene we spent the longest on this season because we were so anxious about it and getting it right. It was the most important scene of the season. I can’t emphasize enough how much the actors influence the characters, and their journeys as people really feed into what we’re writing and how we write those characters. You’re trying to channel Noah and what he went through and his growth, which we’ve watched as a person, as he’s found himself. Most of what is in the show is the first take, the first close-up that we did of Noah. It was incredible to watch because it’s one of those moments where Noah was not acting. Those words were real that he was saying. It was very emotional. It felt so real to Noah, so truthful to him. Hopefully the scene feels like that to other people because a lot of kids are watching. You feel a certain responsibility, especially with scenes like that. You can’t be careless about it.
Shipping is a hallmark in every fandom. There’s a moment where Will mentions a crush he’s harbored. He doesn’t directly state it’s Mike, but Mike knows. The viewer knows. How would you describe their dynamic?
Ross: There is a lot of shipping that’s going on with this show. In terms of all the relationships — this goes with the Will storyline, it goes with Jonathan and Nancy — for us and the writers, what’s interesting is not who ends up with who. What’s interesting to us is, how are our characters growing as people? And most of the time, the answer to that is them finding strength within themselves as opposed to finding strength with someone else. When we were talking about Will, those are the conversations that we have. How do we get Will in a place that he feels confident and strong? And that, ultimately, is him confronting these fears and exposing himself to everyone, including Mike.
Matt: When we were growing up, shipping was not a thing. This is a new thing and it gets intense. Part of me likes it because it shows how passionate people are for the show. I don’t mind people interpreting things however they want. Obviously, Ross and I have what we intended. Ross touched on it thematically — in [Episode] 4, when Will finds his power, what we were intending was not that his love for Mike gives him these powers, but his love for himself and tapping back into how he felt when he was younger — that was the key to unlocking his full potential.
Ross: It’s more of an important message to put out to younger viewers. When I’m thinking about my younger self and our struggle growing up, to put out a message that’s “It’ll all be right if this secret crush you have works out” versus “You don’t need that.” Even if it disappoints some people, it’s the more important message to put out into the world.
Matt: Not one crush of mine worked out. It hurts you, though, right? If you feel feelings and it’s unrequited, it feels like an attack on you or makes you feel unwanted. So much of the show is two things: just our love for the supernatural in the movies that we grew up on, and the other part of it is dealing with all the feelings that we had growing up. The best thing for me in the world is when younger people come up to us, the very few that recognize us, and tell us how it helped help them through a difficult time in their lives. Even Robin’s speech to Will, giving him the confidence to come out, that makes it all worth it.
“To write them being back together and friends again was just such a relief,” says Ross Duffer of Dustin, left, and Steve.
(Netflix)
I want to move on to Dustin and Steve. The strain on their relationship comes to a head in these episodes, but also reaches a reconciliation. That moment between them on the collapsing stairwell —
Matt: It’s a very short moment, but incredibly emotional. We were really moved by Gaten and Joe’s performance. It wasn’t hard for them to get into that spot. They’re very close, they have a very sweet friendship that’s not entirely dissimilar from their friendship on the show. The one frustrating thing about the show being split in the way it is, is we didn’t put out a season of the show in Volume 1 — that’s half of a show. I’m excited for people to see Volume 2, mostly for the Steve-Dustin resolution.
Ross: It was hard even writing it, keeping them apart. We felt it was right, emotionally, but to write them being back together and friends again was just such a relief because we’ve missed them, and hopefully the audience has too.
And I love that Steve gets to have his a-ha moment where he comes up with what may be the plan that ends all this.
Ross: It’s funny, we’ve joked about this; he’s very convenient for us as writers because he’s always confused. He doesn’t know what’s going on. Dustin dings him for that in Episode 5, and it was so satisfying to have Steve come up with the final plan, or the linchpin for the final plan. That was such a thrill to write to finally give Steve a moment because the brainstorming almost always goes to Dustin.
Nancy and Jonathan, at one point, are bracing for imminent death and find themselves having this touching and tender moment, sharing confessions and hard truths. What was the lay of conversation for what you wanted from that moment — there’s the acknowledgment of their trauma bond and a slightly romantic unproposal?
Matt: It’s not dissimilar, in some ways, to the Mike-Will stuff. These are people who do love each other very much; it’s just a question of, “What does that mean? What does the future look like for them?” Whenever we talked about Jonathan-Nancy — there’s got to be this feeling that they feel like they must be together because of what they’ve been through, and how could you ever connect with somebody else who hadn’t been through the same thing? But are they right, in the long run, for each other? We wanted to express that as best as we can.
Ross: It was a challenging idea. We’ve been building to it, but to get it across in five-ish minutes, it’s a complicated thing. It’s not just a soap opera where it’s shipping and who’s going to end up with who. I’ve been through experiences similar to this, when you’re with someone for a very long time, you grow so close and you go through so many things together, and it reaches a point where you go, “Well, how could someone else understand?” But at the same time, is that suffocating to your own self-growth? So when we were talking about Nancy and Jonathan, and where do they go from here, it felt like for Nancy to really grow, it’s not about Steve, it’s not about Jonathan, it’s about giving herself the space.
Matt:And for Jonathan. They both felt the same way, they just weren’t expressing it. Especially when you’re young, you have trouble understanding or expressing those feelings. We wanted to put them in a life-or-death situation where it’s their last opportunity to confess. The reference for that scene was “Almost Famous,” when the plane’s about to crash and everybody, in the moment of near-death, tells everybody everything. And then the plane doesn’t crash and it’s awkward. This is the opposite.
Matt, left, and Ross Duffer are closer to releasing the “Stranger Things” series finale. Is it a happy ending? “Even in victory, it’s not confetti and dance parties,” Ross says.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
To return to this idea of the characters wrestling with what life looks like after this is over, if it’s ever over — is a happy or triumphant ending possible? Do you even think of it in those terms?
Matt: It’s weird because we didn’t realize until we had finished writing it, how much was a reflection on the show itself. Everybody had a tricky year emotionally; it was a real roller-coaster in terms of dealing with the fact that something we had been putting everything into for 10 years was coming to an end. Ultimately, the show is more about childhood, coming of age and leaving that behind for a new part of your life. It’s not really a question of a happy ending versus a not-happy ending. It’s just a question of capturing what it feels like to move on. It’s a bittersweet thing, but I think it’s something that everybody goes through.
Ross: Even in victory, it’s not confetti and dance parties. It’s a little more complicated than that. I remember “Lord of the Rings,” reading it and watching the films as a kid — there’s that moment when they’re just back in the Shire, and there’s bit of like, “How can you understand? And how do you move on from this?” I remember at the time, when I was younger, feeling a bit of disappointment. I was like, “Can’t they just come back and everyone just celebrate and there’s a party and then we fade out?” But watching it older now, there’s something so much more resonant about it. That’s why we talk so much over the course of this season about “Even if we are able to defeat Vecna, what does that look like for all of us?” Because this Vecna and the evil in the Upside Down brought all these people together.
Matt: In terms of the parallels to the show ending, that’s really a complicated and confusing mix of emotions. Everybody’s sad to move on, but then there’s that sense that you have to move on. We try to capture that feeling.
I need you to tell me what the workflow is like on a show like this. It’s lore, science and nerd-heavy. What are the checks and balances of making sure you’re not messing things up?
Matt: The challenge, especially as the lore and mythology has gotten too complicated, is to ensure that it’s not weighing down the show and that there’s enough room for the characters. That is more important than anything. What we’ve been trying to do as much as possible with this season, because there is so much mythology, is tie it into characters and their growth.
Ross: For instance, the Jonathan-Nancy scene — the melting lab was not an idea we had and then thought, “Oh, we could put Jonathan and Nancy in the situation.” We know we want this conversation with Jonathan and Nancy. How do we get there? Then going, “Oh, what if the dark matter makes the lab unstable?” Most of the time, you’re starting character first, and then we’re adjusting the mythology in order to make those character moments work.
Matt: But also, a melting lab is cool! Everybody was super enthusiastic about that — Netflix, our production designer.
Ross: Other dimensions, everyone was fine with the wormholes. But when we suddenly go, “The lab is going to melt,” everyone was like, “Excuse me?” No one knew how to do it.
Matt: We had to fight for that melting lab, from a production and cost standpoint.
I thought we were going to have a “Titanic” situation.
Ross: Oh, “Titanic” was a reference. But we wanted them both on the table.
1
2
1.Max Mayfield (Sadie Sink), left, and Holly Wheeler (Nell Fisher).2.Jamie Campbell Bower as Vecna.(Netflix)
There’s a massive culture of forecasting and dissecting — it can be overwhelming to me as a viewer because I feel like I’m not watching closely enough. But I also love seeing how people interpret things.
Ross: Especially with the superfans, the tiniest of detail is picked up on. I think it’s fun for them because they’re rewatching this over and over again, so every little minute thing is seen as something significant even when that wasn’t our intention — not that we don’t plant things for later and do Easter eggs, but 99.9% of the writers’ room is just talking about these characters in the story they’re on. That is hopefully how you’re going to be watching the show because it can get overwhelming when you see this stuff online. But at the end of the day, we’re having people engage with a long-form story, so it makes us generally happy.
Matt: But you hit on something important, which is everybody experiences the show very differently. Sometimes I go, “What show are you watching?” Whatever show they’re watching is a completely different show than the show we thought we wrote. Then sometimes, some are on exactly our wavelength. And you see this with debates over the season. Season 3 is either the best season ever or the worst season ever. This is why you can’t write to fans, because which fan are you writing to? It would be impossible. Ross and I just try to write what we think is cool and what our writers think is cool.
There are so many theories out there about how the show is ending. Has there been one where the person got it or close to it?
Ross: I remember Season 4 someone early, very early, before we’d even released it, had figured out the Henry-Vecna-One thing, which was pretty impressive. This season, though, I have not seen anyone get the ending correct, which is, hopefully, a good thing.
Matt: I think it’s good. We’ll find out. I like that the ending is not obvious to people.
My understanding is the final scene of the series is one you’ve had in mind for about seven or so years. In the end, did you reach it the way you thought you would?
Matt: Yes. The show changed a lot in the course of seven years, so aspects of it certainly changed. But I think the fundamental state, more or less, the scene is what we always thought it was going to be.
Ross: I would say there was a key idea that we came up with, breaking [Season] 5, that wasn’t in there seven years ago. There was one element that we changed, but generally it is what we always hoped it would be. After the finale is out, we’ll be happy to tell you.
Matt: It didn’t change the scene, it just added something that I think was really important.
You spoke earlier about the circle of people that you share episodes with. How do you know you’re on the right path?
Ross: It’s such a small group. It really comes down to just our group of writers. What I love about our writers’ room is, even with Matt and I, people are very happy to tell us that an idea is not working. It’s usually everyone building off of each other, and then someone synthesizes those ideas, pitches it out to the room, and you feel this collective relief and excitement within that room. And when that happens, we go, “That’s it. That’s the idea.”
Matt: This is how we’ve always worked, once the draft is written, Ross and I will do multiple passes to the point where we’re really happy and confident. We don’t like turning in anything even remotely rough to Netflix. But the final episode, that was actually weird. We didn’t get any notes from Netflix or the producers. It is that first draft that we turned in. We did multiple drafts of it, but once we turned it in, that was it.
Were you on time with that draft?
Matt: We’re never on time, as you can tell with the gaps between seasons. Ross and I are not the fast. We were actually writing it in the midst of shooting, which was not a great idea. But Ross and I do the best work when we have a gun to our heads.
Ross: There’s not a single finale of the show that wasn’t written in the midst of production, but we like it because it allows us to get a sense of what the season is, what’s working, how the actors are performing, and we can really write to that. If you look at our season finales, generally, they’re some of our better episodes, part of it because the story is culminating, but also because we’ve learned over the course of the season what this season really is, what is really clicking. Then you can lean into that.
Matt: The only weird thing to have is because we were behind, and this has never happened before, is the Holly sequences that are in Henry’s mind, that’s in summer, so we couldn’t wait to shoot those. We were shooting any scene in the woods with Holly before the script was done. That was odd because we were handing actors scripts and scenes when they hadn’t even finished the episode. But it worked out quite well.
But now, I don’t know if it’s because of us, but Netflix won’t start shooting a season of anything until all the scripts are written. I do think they’re missing out on something because … like the sense of discovery that it allows. That’s the nerve-racking thing to me about doing a movie next, is we won’t have that ability to have it evolve.
What was the reaction at the table read for the series finale that stood out to you?
Matt: As nervous as we are of how the audience is going to react, it will never match the nerves we had in terms of how the actors were going to react to it. They’ve been in it with us since the beginning and they’re so invested in these characters. I think everybody was crying. Noah started crying first, then it just spread from there.
How do you feel you’ve changed since starting the show?
Matt: It’s hard to know. You have to try to remember back to how we were 10 years ago. We were really green. We had only directed one movie before. And we never directed television before. We’ve become, hopefully, better leaders and more confident and better at communicating. Ross and I, because we’re twins, we were really good at communicating with each other, but not with other people, and I think we’ve gotten a lot better at working with a large group of people, and hopefully we’ve evolved as as filmmakers.
Ross: There was a lot of fear making that first season. It was almost out of panic and fear both, if we get this wrong — our first movie was a failure — if we mess up, we’ll never be able to tell a story again. And the lack of experience, especially in terms of production. Production was scary because our production on the movie was such a challenge and it was a traumatic experience. Now, we know so much more. We keep making it hard for ourselves because we keep raising the bar in terms of the scale of the production [and] the number of people we’re hiring. But at this point, we can walk into a set, we’re much more flexible now if actors are coming in with ideas that are different from what we had planned, there’s a lot more ability to explore.
Caleb McLaughlin, left, Finn Wolfhard, Millie Bobby Brown and Gaten Matarazzo when they were much younger in “Stranger Things.”
(Netflix)
To expand on the learning curve, there was a recent report that said Millie Bobby Brown had filed a complaint of bullying and harassment against David Harbour. As first-time showrunners, how was it helming a show with young actors and figuring out how to balance the responsibility of making sure they feel safe and cared for on set?
Matt: Ross and I just love working with kids, and it was fun this season to go back to that, in terms of bringing in a new generation of kids. Mostly what we try to do is treat them respectfully and listen to them and listen to their ideas. I think you just get so much better work out of them that way. We’ve become very close because we got to know them when they were really young. It feels less parental and more like an older brother situation, and we try to make it very relaxed so they’re not nervous around us, and they certainly are not. I think what’s been challenging, and mostly challenging for the kids, who are no longer kids anymore, is when the show became bigger and [dealing with] social media. I think if something’s been damaging, it’s social media. I saw it happening with Jake [Connelly], who plays Derek this year.
Ross: And Nell [Fisher, who plays Holly], as well. That is something you feel more helpless about. But what has been beneficial for them, for Jake and Nell, [is] the kids that have been through it can help them through this more. Millie’s been through it. Finn’s been through it.
Matt: That’s the thing — yes, they have us, but they also have each other to get through this. I always think that that’s the key in terms of how they all turned out as grounded as they are. We were with all of them on this press tour, and I’m constantly impressed by how level-headed and grounded they are, and how ego-less they are; that they’re not broken by what they’ve been through. It’s been great with Jake to see it completely turn around. But that doesn’t excuse what people were doing before. It’s disgusting. I wish they had gone through this without social media.
A big talking point in Hollywood right now has been the bidding war for Warner Bros. Discovery. You have forged relationships with both Paramount and Netflix, the companies vying for it. How are you feeling about this moment and where things seem to be headed?
Matt: It’s just so hard to know what things are going to be like. It’s hard to say anything right now. Ross and I have been pretty open about wanting to make sure that the theatrical experience is preserved. For as long as stories have been told, it’s often in front of a group. There’s something about the communal experience and I just don’t want people being isolated. But as long as things are getting in theaters, I think it’s going to be OK. I’m trying to be optimistic about it.
Ross: I think the two fears are, with whatever happens, is you want to try to protect theatrical, which is in not the best state right now. And if you keep shrinking these windows, it just continues to de-incentivize people to go to the theater. That is not something we want to see. It’s a reason why we’re making a movie for theaters next; we believe in it and want to fight for it. The other is you need competition for artists because that’s the whole reason “Stranger Things” exists in the first place. If it’s too much consolidation, then shows like this are just going to become increasingly extinct.
Was it an easy sell, getting Netflix on board with releasing the series finale in theaters?
Matt: Yeah, actually. This is where the internet can frustrate me because something starts as a rumor and then goes around, then it’s fact. We pitched the idea to Netflix marketing — it was mine and Ross’ idea, then [Chief Content Officer Bela Bajaria] called us — it was only about five days [later] and [she] said, “Yeah, let’s do it.” We’re really grateful for them for supporting us. I cannot wait to go sneak into some theaters and watch it.
January has traditionally been the harshest time of the year for the Kings, who haven’t had a winning record in that month the last three seasons. But winter grew dark and gloomy a little earlier than usual because December has hardly been a walk in the park.
With Tuesday’s 3-2 loss to the Seattle Kraken, the Kings head into the NHL’s three-day Christmas break having lost six of their last seven. And things aren’t getting easier any time soon: when the team returns to the ice Saturday, it will play host to the Ducks, who lead the Pacific Division in wins, before closing out 2025 Monday on the road against the Colorado Avalanche, who lead the NHL in wins.
“It’s not going the way we all want to,” forward Kevin Fiala said. “But you know, that’s going to happen for everybody. So it’s us who have to do something about it. Who can pull us out of it? Nobody else.
“I’m not worried. Like, I’m sure we’re gonna get out of this. But it’s not acceptable right now.”
And if it doesn’t change right now, the rest of the season will be as cold as a winter frost for the Kings.
It’s not just that the team is losing, but how it’s losing that is most concerning. The Kings (15-12-9) are 31st in the 32-team NHL in scoring, 31st on the power play and have scored more than two goals just twice in 11 games this month. That’s negated a defense that is second in the league in goals allowed.
“Sometimes it’s difficult to make sense of things,” coach Jim Hiller said when asked to explain a slide that has dropped the Kings into the middle of the division standings. “We just feel like we haven’t had a good run of games where we felt like, win or lose, we really like how we’re playing.
“That’s something that we’ll keep driving towards. We just haven’t had it yet.”
Last season, Hiller’s Kings tied franchise records for wins and points in the regular season and had the best home mark in team history. This season, they’re 4-8-4 at Crypto.com Arena, the second-worst home record in the Western Conference. And that has general manager Ken Holland answering questions about Hiller’s future behind the bench.
“I expect him to be here the rest of the season,” said Holland last week, not exactly a full-throated vote of confidence.
Yet for all their struggles, December has just been a continuation of the things that have plagued the Kings all season.
“We all have high expectations for ourselves,” Hiller said. “We just haven’t hit our stride yet. That’s the part that we’re chasing. That’s what we have to focus on. We have to hit that stride.
“It’s a difficult time right now, for sure.”
On Tuesday, Hiller tried to shake things up by mixing up his lines, most significantly pairing Fiala and Andrei Kuzmenko with center Alex Turcotte. And while Fiala and Kuzmenko responded with goals, they didn’t come until the Kraken had taken a 3-0 lead.
The first goal came from Jordan Eberle, who was left alone in front of the Kings’ net, giving him plenty of space to settle a pass from Matty Beniers before lifting the puck around goaltender Pheonix Copley and under the crossbar for his 13th goal of the season. It was the fourth power-play goal the Kings had given up in the last two nights and the sixth in four games.
The Kraken doubled their lead on a quirky goal less than eight minutes later, with Copley misjudging a deflected shot from Seattle’s Frederick Gaudreau, allowing the puck to knuckle off his glove then trickle through his legs for the goal.
Ben Meyers extended Seattle’s lead to 3-0 with less than four minutes left in the second before the Kings finally got on the board with an unassisted goal from Fiala, his 13th of the season, 11 seconds later.
Kings coach Jim Hiller watches from the bench during the second period of a 3-2 loss to the Seattle Kraken on Tuesday night at Crypto.com Arena.
(Luke Hales / Getty Images)
Now the Kings will have three days to think about that, although Fiala said he’d gotten over the game by the time he finished showering.
“If you win five in a row or lose five in a row or whatever, it’s forgotten. It’s in the past,” he said. “I think we take the good things with us and the bad things we hopefully analyze and get better at.”
For Hiller, the break couldn’t come at a better time. Or a worse time since the team’s current seven-game slump is its deepest since the winter of 2023-24. That one cost coach Todd McLellan his job.
“I hope the players are able to relax and refresh themselves,” Hiller said. “It’s been from September till now, with the schedule and how busy it is. And 85% of our games, we’ve been playing within one goal.
“It’s taxing physically and mentally. So I’m sure those guys need a break.”
The oldest baby boomers — once the vanguard of an American youth that revolutionized U.S. culture and politics — turn 80 in 2026.
The generation that twirled the first plastic hula hoops and dressed up the first Barbie dolls, embraced the TV age, blissed out at Woodstock and protested and fought in the Vietnam War — the cohort that didn’t trust anyone over age 30 — now is contributing to the overall aging of America.
Boomers becoming octogenarians in 2026 include actor Henry Winkler and baseball Hall of Famer Reggie Jackson, singers Cher and Dolly Parton and presidents Donald Trump, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
The aging and shrinking youth of America
America’s population swelled with around 76 million births from 1946 to 1964, a spike magnified by couples reuniting after World War II and enjoying postwar prosperity.
Boomers were better educated and richer than previous generations, and they helped grow a consumer-driven economy. In their youth, they pushed for social change through the Civil Rights Movement, the women’s rights movement and efforts to end the Vietnam War.
“We had rock ‘n’ roll. We were the first generation to get out and demonstrate in the streets. We were the first generation, that was, you know, a socially conscious generation,” said Diane West, a metro Atlanta resident who turns 80 in January. “Our parents played by the rules. We didn’t necessarily play by the rules, and there were lots of us.”
As they got older they became known as the “me” generation, a pejorative term coined by writer Tom Wolfe to reflect what some regarded as their self-absorption and consumerism.
“The thing about baby boomers is they’ve always had a spotlight on them, no matter what age they were,” Brookings demographer William Frey said. “They were a big generation, but they also did important things.”
By the end of this decade, all baby boomers will be 65 and older, and the number of people 80 and over will double in 20 years, Frey said.
The share of senior citizens in the U.S. population is projected to grow from 18.7% in 2025 to nearly 23% by 2050, while children under 18 decline from almost 21% to a projected 18.4%.
Without any immigration, the U.S. population will start shrinking in five years. That’s when deaths will surpass births, according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office that were revised in September to account for the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. Population growth comes from immigration as well as births outpacing deaths.
The aging of America is being compounded by longer lives due to better healthcare and lower birth rates.
The projected average U.S. life expectancy at birth rises from 78.9 years in 2025 to 82.2 years in 2055, according to the CBO. And since the Great Recession in 2008, when the fertility rate was 2.08, around the 2.1 rate needed for children to numerically replace their parents, it has been on a steady decline, hitting 1.6 in 2025.
Younger generations miss boomer milestones
Women are having fewer children because they are better educated, they’re delaying marriage to focus on careers and they’re having their first child at a later age. Unaffordable housing, poor access to child care and the growing expenses of child-rearing also add up to fewer kids.
University of New Hampshire senior demographer Kenneth Johnson estimates that the result has been 11.8 million fewer births, compared to what might have been had the fertility rate stayed at Great Recession levels.
“I was young when I had kids. I mean that’s what we did — we got out of college, we got married and we had babies,” said West, who has two daughters, a stepdaughter and six grandchildren. “My kids got married in their 30s, so it’s very different.”
A recent Census Bureau study showed that 21st-century young adults in the U.S. haven’t been adulting like baby boomers did. In 1975, almost half of 25-to-34-year-olds had moved out of their parents’ home, landed jobs, gotten married and had kids. By the early 2020s, less than a quarter of U.S. adults had hit these milestones.
West, whose 21-year-old grandson lives with her, understands why: They lack the prospects her generation enjoyed. Her grandson, Paul Quirk, said it comes down to financial instability.
“They were able to buy a lot of things, a lot cheaper,” Quirk said.
All of her grandchildren are frustrated by the economy, West added.
“You have to get three roommates in order to afford a place,” she said. “When we got out of college, we had a job waiting for us. And now, people who have master’s degrees are going to work fast food while they look for a real job.”
Implications for the economy
The aging of America could constrain economic growth. With fewer workers paying taxes, Social Security and Medicare will be under more pressure. About 34 seniors have been supported by every 100 workers in 2025, but that ratio grows to 50 seniors per 100 working-age people in about 30 years, according to estimates released last year by the White House.
When West launched her career in employee benefits and retirement planning in 1973, each 100 workers supported 20 or fewer retirees, by some calculations.
Vice President JD Vance and Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk are among those pushing for an increase in fertility. Vance has suggested giving parents more voting power, according to their numbers of children, or following the example of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán in giving low-interest loans to married parents and tax exemptions to women who have four children or more.
Frey said programs that incentivize fertility among U.S. women hardly ever work, so funding should support pre-kindergarten and paid family leave.
“I think the best you can do for people who do want to have kids is to make it easier and less expensive to have them and raise them,” he said. “Those things may not bring up the fertility rate as much as people would like, but at least the kids who are being born will have a better chance of succeeding.”
Schneider writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Emilie Megnien in Atlanta contributed to this report.
The year was already a debacle for the Los Angeles Fire Department and Mayor Karen Bass, with multiple stumbles before and after the epic January blaze that obliterated Pacific Palisades, so it was hard to imagine that things could get worse in the closing days of 2025.
But they have.
A blistering Times investigation found that the Fire Department cleaned up its after-action report, downplaying missteps.
In other words, there was a blatant attempt to mislead the public.
And Bass representatives said they requested that her comments in the final minutes of a video interview — in which she admitted that “both sides botched it” in the Eaton and Palisades fires — be edited out because she thought the interview had ended.
Please.
Together, these developments will echo through the coming mayoral election, in which Bass will be called out repeatedly over one of the greatest disasters in L.A. history. We’re a long way from knowing whether she can survive and win a second term, but Austin Beutner and any other legitimate contenders are being handed gifts that will keep on giving.
In the case of the altered report, kudos to Times reporters Alene Tchekmedyian and Paul Pringle, who have been trying all year to keep the LAFD honest, which is no easy task.
In the latest bombshell dropped by the two reporters, they dug up seven drafts of the department’s self-analysis, or after-action report, and found that it had been altered multiple times to soften damning conclusions.
Language saying LAFD did not fully pre-deploy all crews and engines, despite the forecast of extreme conditions, was removed.
Language saying some crews waited more than an hour for their assignments during the fire was removed.
A section on “failures” became a section on “primary challenges.”
A reference to a violation of national guidelines on how to avoid firefighter injury and death was removed.
The central role of the earlier Lachman fire, allegedly started by an arsonist, was also sanitized. A reference to that unchecked brushfire, which later sparked the inferno, was deleted from one draft, then restored in the final version. But only in a brief reference.
Even before the smoke cleared on Jan. 7, I had one former LAFD official telling me he was certain the earlier fire had not been properly extinguished. Crews should have been sitting on it, but as The Times has reported, that didn’t happen.
What we now know with absolute clarity is that the LAFD cannot be trusted to honestly and thoroughly investigate itself. And yet after having fired one chief, Bass asked the current chief to do an investigation.
Sue Pascoe, who lost her home in the fire and is among the thousands who don’t yet know whether they can afford to rebuild because their insurance — if they had any — doesn’t cover the cost of new construction. Pascoe, editor of the local publication Circling the News, had this reaction to the latest expose:
“To kill 12 people, let almost 7,000 homes/businesses burn, and to destroy belongings, memorabilia and memories stored in the homes — someone needs to be held accountable.”
But who will that be?
Although the altered after-action report seems designed to have minimized blame for the LAFD, if not the mayor, the Bass administration said it wasn’t involved.
“We did not red-line, review every page or review every draft of the report,” a spokesperson told the Times. “We did not discuss the Lachman Fire because it was not part of the report.”
Genethia Hudley Hayes, president of the Board of Fire Commissioners, told The Times she noticed only small differences between the final report and an earlier report she had seen.
“I was completely OK with it,” she said, adding that the final report “did not in any way obfuscate anything.”
Well I’m not OK with it, and I suspect a lot of people who lost everything in the fire feel the same way. As I’ve said before, the conditions were horrific, and there’s little doubt that firefighters did their best. But the evidence is mounting that the department’s brass blew it, or, to borrow a phrase from Bass, “botched it.”
As The Times’ David Zahniser reported, Bass said her “botched” comment came in a casual context after the podcast had ended. She also said she has made similar comments about the emergency response on numerous occasions.
She has made some critical comments, and as I mentioned, she replaced the fire chief. But the preparation and response were indeed botched. So why did her office want that portion of the interview deleted?
Let’s not forget, while we’re on the subject of botching things, that Bass left the country in the days before the fire despite warnings of catastrophic conditions. And while there’s been some progress in the recovery, her claim that things are moving at “lightning speed” overlooks the fact that thousands of burned out properties haven’t seen a hammer or a hardhat.
On her watch, we’ve seen multiple misses.
On the blunderous hiring and quick departure of a rebuilding czar. On the bungled hiring of a management team whose role was not entirely clear. On a failed tax relief plan for fire victims. On the still-undelievered promise of some building fee waivers.
In one of the latest twists on the after-action report, Tchekmedyian and Pringle report that the LAFD author was upset about revisions made without his involvement.
What a mess, and the story is likely to smolder into the new year.
If only the Lachman fire had been as watered down as the after-action report.
Welcome to Screen Gab, the newsletter for everyone who wants to spend some time revisiting Rob Reiner’s indelible mark on pop culture.
For many of us, it was already that time of year when we pop in our DVD of “When Harry Met Sally…” or figure out which streaming service has it in its library (or digitally rent it, if none do), and passively recite every quotable moment until Harry’s breathless declaration of love on New Year’s Eve necessitated our full performance. It was a comfort watch in the best sense because of how joyous and hopeful it left so many of us, even cynics, feeling. This year, as the tradition now becomes layered with sadness following the tragic deaths of Reiner and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner, there’s at least comfort in knowing all the Hollywood magic he brought to life (whether he was directing, or starring in a production) that was full of humanity, humor and heart, and accompanied us at different stages of our lives, can continue to do so. Members of our film team took a look at some of Reiner’s best films, many of which can be streamed. And TV critic Robert Lloyd reminded us of Reiner’s contributions to television, particularly through shows like “All in the Family” and “New Girl” (“Lettuce, tomato, lettuce, meat, meat, meat, cheese, lettuce” — iykyk).
But if it’s all too soon, we get it. Maybe our other streaming recommendations can provide an escape — one is a TV drama about a disillusioned Broadway director returning home to his amateur community theater, and the other is a mystery thriller with an unlikely duo teaming up to investigate the case of a missing girl.
Also in this week’s Screen Gab, “Emily in Paris” actor Samuel Arnold stops by Guest Spot to tell us about the behind-the-scenes adventures of the show’s Italian-set fifth season.
ICYMI
Must-read stories you might have missed
Julianne Hough near the Dolby Theatre at the 97th Academy Awards earlier this year. The Oscars are moving to YouTube, sending shock waves through Hollywood.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
What the Oscars moving to YouTube means for broadcast TV: The Academy Awards will stream on YouTube beginning in 2029, ending a more than five-decade run on broadcast television and marking the show’s biggest distribution shift in its history.
Recommendations from the film and TV experts at The Times
Harry McNaughton as Charlie Summers, a disillusioned Broadway director returning home to his amateur community theatre in “Happiness.”
(Andi Crown Photography / PBS)
“Happiness” (PBS app, pbs.org)
What could be better, at this festive time of year, or any other time, than a backstage musical comedy set in an amateur theatrical company in New Zealand’s fifth-largest city? Harry McNaughton plays Charlie Summers, whose Broadway dream dies when he’s fired as the director of a “Cats” revival and, losing his work visa, returns home to New Zealand for what he hopes will be only a couple of days. Naturally, it turns out otherwise, with Charlie drawn reluctantly into the production of a new musical, “The Trojan Horse,” at the Pizazz theater, run by his mother (Rebecca Gibney) and stocked with a original twists on classic characters: a dictatorial director, the always-cast leading lady, a talented ingénue, a buff electrician with a great voice and the shy high school music teacher who wrote it, making themselves and their desires quickly felt. (There’s a feminist thrust to the plot.) The songs are tuneful and witty, the performances fun, the atmosphere charged but charming. Presented in six 20-minute episodes as part of “Masterpiece Theater.” — Robert Lloyd
Emma Thompson as private investigator Zoë Boehm and Ruth Wilson as art conservationist Sarah Trafford in “Down Cemetery Road.”
(Matt Towers / Apple TV)
“Down Cemetery Road” (Apple TV)
Nothing says the holidays like a gripping crime drama where everyone’s a suspect! Apple TV’s smart and unvarnished British series follows Zoë Boehm (Emma Thompson), a private investigator who hasn’t the time or bandwidth for social niceties, shows of emotion or combing her hair. She’s thrown together with homemaker and art restorer Sarah Tucker (Ruth Wilson), a passive suburbanite who likes 4 Non Blondes.
Their sparring personalities create the undeniable chemistry that’s at the heart of this eight-part series, while the drama’s unexpected turn of events and fast pacing make it hard to hit pause. The two women are connected when a deadly residential explosion rocks Sarah’s neighborhood. A woman was killed, but her young daughter, who made it out alive, has mysteriously disappeared. The quest to find the girl pulls the odd-couple investigators into a complex and dangerous cover up by the Ministry of Defense, and they discover the explosion was in fact an orchestrated assassination.
Morwenna Banks’ adaptation of Mick Herron’s debut novel of the same name, “Down Cemetery Road” also features the PTSD-plagued Downey (Nathan Stewart-Jarrett), the villainous Amos (Fehinti Balogun), bumbling agent Hamza Malik (Adeel Akhtar) and his sociopathic boss, C (Darren Boyd). But it’s Thompson’s gruff character who gets the best lines, such as the one she says to a potential client: “I don’t drink Prosecco and I don’t bond emotionally.” The show has already been renewed for a second season. — Lorraine Ali
Guest spot
A weekly chat with actors, writers, directors and more about what they’re working on — and what they’re watching
Samuel Arnold as Julien in Season 5 of “Emily in Paris.”
(Netflix)
Every office needs a deliciously snarky employee who is too fabulous to work, but still manages to grace the room with their presence to boost the vibe. In “Emily in Paris,” that person is Julien. The quippy, sharply dressed and gossip-loving character, played by Samuel Arnold, has been a bright spot in the series over its run. Initially the guy who liked to remind Emily she was une ringarde American, he’s softened his stance on his fish-out-of-water colleague. But as the Agence Grateau luxury marketing team ventures to Italy this season, which is now streaming, his side eye shifts focus to a new co-worker. Over email, Arnold shared what it was like shooting outside their usual setting and the animated series he returns to over and over. — Yvonne Villarreal
The Grateau team spent time in Italy this season. Some filming took place in Rome and Venice. What’s a memory or experience that stands out from filming there? Did any place there become a go-to spot for you when you weren’t shooting?
Rome was incredible, both on and off screen. One moment that really stands out is when Ashley Park and her choreographer, Carlye Tamaren, taught us one of Ashley’s dance routines. Everyone did so well — and Bruno Gouery was absolutely hilarious. When we weren’t filming, one of our favorite meeting spots was the rooftop at the Minerva Hotel. It’s stunning. In Venice, we would all gather in Bruno Gouery’s room and play a pirate dice game that Lucien Laviscount introduced us to. The city itself felt like a dream.
The series revolves around Emily and her fish-out-of-water experience of building a new life in Paris. How would this series look if it were titled “Julien in Paris”? Five seasons in, what would a slice of his life look like if you could pitch it to Darren Star?
If the show were called “Julien in Paris,” it probably wouldn’t be very exciting — Julien is a Parisian. He has Paris on lock. I like to think he sees himself as the prince of the city. Now, Julien in New York City — opening his own marketing firm there — that’s a different story. I can already feel the drama.
Julien is very discerning and could spot the games Genevieve was playing. How do you think he handled her, and the position he was in, knowing this secret could damage Emily and Mindy’s friendship?
I think Julien handled it pretty well. It’s not a great position to be in. When one friend hurts another, the right thing to do is to encourage the person at fault to do the right thing. And when someone like Genevieve — played by the absolutely lovely Thalia Besson — tries to stir up trouble, Julien definitely knows how to deal with that in the best possible way.
With all the love triangles (and squares), who would you, Samuel, pick for Emily — Gabriel or Marcello? And for Mindy — Nicolas or Alfie?
I don’t think I should be picking men for those women. What I can say is that they should follow their hearts and embrace whatever comes with that. Honestly, we should all try to do the same.
What have you watched recently that you’re recommending to everyone you know?
I recently watched “Safe House” [Netflix], with Lucien Laviscount as a badass action hero. The casting is great, the ending really catches you off guard, and Lucien does his own stunts — which makes it even more impressive.
What’s your go-to comfort watch — the movie or TV show you always come back to?
“Rick and Morty” [Hulu]. It never gets old. It’s funny, packed with pop-culture references — which I love — and the voice acting is just incredible.
The holidays have arrived once again. You know, that annual festival of goodwill, compulsory spending and the dawning realization that Santa and Satan are anagrams.
Even in the best of years, Americans stagger through this season feeling financially woozy. This year, however, the picture is bleaker. And a growing number of Americans are feeling Grinchy.
Unemployment is at a four-year high, with Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, declaring, “The U.S. economy is in a hiring recession.” And a new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll finds that 70% of Americans say “the cost of living in the area where they live is not very affordable or not affordable at all.”
Is help on the way? Not likely. Affordable Care Act subsidies are expiring, and — despite efforts to force a vote in the House — it’s highly likely that nothing will be done about this before the end of the year. This translates to ballooning health insurance bills for millions of Americans. I will be among those hit with a higher monthly premium, which gives me standing to complain.
President Trump, meanwhile, remains firmly committed to policies that will exacerbate the rising cost of getting by. Trump’s tariffs — unless blocked by the Supreme Court — will continue to raise prices. And when it comes to his immigration crackdown, Trump is apparently unmoved by the tiresome fact that when you “disappear” workers, prices tend to go up.
Taken together, the Trump agenda amounts to an ambitious effort to raise the cost of living without the benefit of improved living standards. But if your money comes from crypto or Wall Street investments, you’re doing better than ever!
For the rest of us, the only good news is this: Unlike every other Trump scandal, most voters actually seem to care about what’s happening to their pocketbooks.
Politico recently found that erstwhile Trump voters backed Democrats in the 2025 governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia for the simple reason that things cost too much.
And Axios reports on a North Carolina focus group in which “11 of the 14 participants, all of whom backed Trump last November, said they now disapprove of his job performance. And 12 of the 14 say they’re more worried about the economy now than they were in January.”
Apparently, inflation is the ultimate reality check — which is horrible news for Republicans.
Trump’s great talent has always been the audacity to employ a “fake it ‘till you make it” con act to project just enough certainty to persuade the rest of us.
His latest (attempted) Jedi mind trick involves claiming prices are “coming down tremendously,” which is not supported by data or the lived experience of anyone who shops.
Trump may dismiss the affordability crisis as a “hoax” and a “con job,” but voters persist in believing the grocery scanner.
In response, Trump has taken to warning us that falling prices could cause “deflation,” which he now says is even worse than inflation. He’s not wrong about the economic theory, but it hardly seems worth worrying about given that prices are not falling.
Apparently, economic subtlety is something you acquire only after winning the White House.
Naturally, Trump wants to blame Joe Biden, the guy who staggered out of office 11 months ago. And yes, pandemic disruptions and massive stimulus spending helped fuel inflation. But voters elected Trump to fix the problem, which he promised to do “on Day One.”
Lacking tangible results, Trump is reverting to what has always worked for him: the assumption that — if he confidently repeats it enough times — his version of reality will triumph over math.
The difficulty now is that positive thinking doesn’t swipe at the register.
You can lie about the size of your inauguration crowd — no normal person can measure it and nobody cares. But you cannot tell people standing in line at the grocery store that prices are falling when they are actively handing over more money.
Pretending everything is fine goes over even worse when a billionaire president throws Gatsby-themed parties, renovates the Lincoln Bedroom and builds a huge new ballroom at the White House. The optics are horrible, and there’s no doubt they are helping fuel the political backlash.
But the main problem is the main problem.
At the end of the day, the one thing voters really care about is their pocketbooks. No amount of spin or “manifesting” an alternate reality will change that.
Therapy often gets mined for comedy but we don’t often see comedy treated as sincere therapy. “Is This Thing On?” from director and co-writer Bradley Cooper, makes the case that glum dad Alex (Will Arnett), new to Splitsville after he and his wife of 20 years, Tess (Laura Dern), mutually agree to separate, may have figured out an ideal coping mechanism by signing up for open mic night.
Not that we see this by-day finance guy reject professional help in favor of some untapped passion. (Vamping for five minutes in front of strangers negates the cover charge.) But in bringing his marital woes to the stage and getting some chuckles, Alex believes he’s hit upon something: a talking cure that comes with a fresh identity, new friends, an acceptable level of risk and a way out of unhappiness.
It’s such a frisky, alluring idea for a character study — meeting failure with the potential for more failure (and night after night to boot) — that when the movie proves to actually be about whether the marriage can be saved, instead of the granular, temperamental world of stand-up newbies, it almost feels like a bait and switch. Fortunately, the divorce saga is interesting too, featuring Dern at her best, and is plenty intelligent about the nuances of couples who have built something solid (stable lives, nice 10-year-old twin boys, etc.) at the same time they’ve grown apart. “Is This Thing On?” is that rarity: a perfectly worthy dramedy that sometimes feels off because it’s trying to cram two good movies into one.
The confidence comes from Cooper, who, after only two films in the director’s chair (“A Star Is Born,”“Maestro”), has shown himself to be not only a powerful chronicler of artistic lives but especially couples in the showbiz sphere. This time, he tantalizes us with the milieu of nightclub self-expression and a group of regular amateurs Alex gets comfortable hanging with. But over two hours Cooper makes it clear he’s simply followed his protagonist into a safe space of encouragement (featuring Amy Sedaris as a helpful veteran comic), not necessarily a complex world of personality types to be navigated. It’s codified by Cooper’s visual approach, a handheld intimacy reminiscent of European movies, in which Matthew Libatique’s camera rarely strays from tight shots of Arnett’s face, looking for change — circling it, centering it, trailing it when Alex is on the move.
Though Alex is earnest if a tad hacky with his relationship jokes, Arnett (credited as a co-screenwriter with Mark Chappell, from a story they created with John Bishop) captures a fizzy, awkward energy of midlife discovery. Invariably, the movie is unconcerned with whether Alex might be any good as a stand-up because soon it’s about how this new pep in his step registers with Tess, who’s struggling with her own sense of personal fulfillment as a former volleyball legend turned mom and how it affects their on-the-brink married friends, Christine (Andra Day) and Balls (Cooper, hilarious as a spacy actor). Christine Ebersole and Ciarán Hinds, as Alex’s parents, humorously weigh in too on what long-term togetherness entails.
After a narrative coincidence that’s entertainingly handled, “Is This Thing On?” aims to be a more serious-minded, less rom-com-ish “It’s Complicated,” with Tess and Alex seeing if there’s a new way for them to acknowledge where they went astray. The actors sell it, especially when Dern is unafraid to mix revitalized pleasure with pushing for answers. But the stand-up storyline, so promising, is dropped and it feels like a missed opportunity. Still, the highs and lows of marriage aren’t merely a punch line in “Is This Thing On?” — and that’s good.
‘Is This Thing On?’
Rated: R, for language throughout, sexual references and some drug use
CBS News is moving forward with a series of town hall and debate telecasts with a major advertiser backing them, the first major initiative under editor-in-chief Bari Weiss.
The news division announced Thursday it will have a series of one hour single issue programs under the title “Things That Matter” done in collaboration with the digital platform the Free Press.
CBS News parent Paramount acquired the Free Press which was co-founded by Weiss, in September.
Bank of America will be a major sponsor of the series.
The town hall participants include Vice President JD Vance, who will discuss the state of the country and the future of the Republican Party, OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman on artificial intelligence and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore on the future of the Democratic Party.
The debate subjects include “Should Gen Z Believe in the American Dream?,” “Does America Need God? and “Has Feminism Failed Women?” The debaters include journalist Liz Plank, New York Times opinion writer Ross Douthat, and Isabel Brown, a representative for the right-wing organization Turning Point USA.
No dates have been set, but the programs will air in the current 2025-26 TV season which ends in May.
CBS tested the town hall format Saturday with a telecast that featured Weiss sitting down with Erika Kirk, the widow of slain right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. The program taped in front of an invited audience and averaged 1.9 million viewers according to Nielsen data, on par with what CBS entertainment programming has delivered in the 8 p.m. hour in the current TV season.
The town hall format where a news subject takes questions from audience members has long been a staple of cable news channels. Broadcast networks have typically only used it with presidential candidates.
“Things That Matter” is less of a play for ratings than a symbol of the new vision for CBS News under Weiss.
“We believe that the vast majority of Americans crave honest conversation and civil, passionate debate,” Weiss said in a statement. “This series is for them. In a moment in which people believe that truth is whatever they are served on their social media feed, we can think of nothing more important than insisting that the only way to get to the truth is by speaking to one another.”
Weiss hosted the town hall with Kirk. CBS News has not announced the on-air talent for the “Things That Matter” series.
Weiss was recruited by Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison to pull the news division towards the political center where he believes most of the country stands.
The Free Press gained popularity for its criticism of DEI, so-called woke policies, and strong support of Israel. The site is often described as “heterodox” and has been critical of numerous actions of the Trump administration. But its biggest fans tend to be in the business community who disdain high taxes and big government.
In the latest episode of The Envelope video podcast,Oscar Isaac opens up about the connection he forged with director Guillermo del Toro for “Frankenstein” and Wunmi Mosaku reflects on the way her own heritage informed her work in “Sinners.”
Kelvin Washington: Hello, everyone, and welcome to a new episode of The Envelope. Kelvin Washington here, and you know who we have: We have Yvonne Villarreal, we have Mark Olsen, and you as well, so thank you for being here. Happy holidays to the both of you. First off, the green memo [gestures to Villarreal].
Mark Olsen: I feel like you guys have left me off the group text again.
Washington: We did.
Olsen: I’m not getting these messages.
Washington: By the way, tomorrow will be Christmas trees — but we’ll talk about that later. Don’t worry about that. Quickly, Christmas list. One thing you’re looking for.
Villarreal: A break. …. Sorry, I answered before you even finished.
Washington: You know our bosses and producers are looking at us right now. You deserve one. Mark, you?
Olsen: That sounds good, sure.
Washington: All right, that was it, thank you for watching this episode of … All right, let’s get into it. Yvonne, you had a chance to speak with Oscar Isaac, who’s taking on the role, of course, as Frankenstein in Guillermo del Toro’s adaptation of this classic. Tell me a little bit more.
Villarreal: He plays the brilliant but egotistical scientist Victor Frankenstein, who creates life with this monstrous experiment, and the result is the Creature, played by Jacob Elordi. It was really nice speaking with Oscar about some of the themes that the film explores, the father-son dynamic and breaking cycles of generational trauma. And he was talking a lot about where he pulled from, the conversations he had with Guillermo about what they wanted to delve into. And it was really fun also hearing him talk about the rock star inspiration, for his take on Victor. So it was fun.
Washington: All right, we’re looking forward to that. We’ll get there in just a moment. Mark, I swing to you. You had a chance to speak with Wunmi Mosaku, who in my mind was the kind of the breakout star of Ryan Coogler’s vampire thriller “Sinners.” I want to hear more about what you had to talk about.
Olsen: Exactly. I mean, this has been such a breakout role for her. Obviously, the film was a huge hit when it came out earlier in a year. And she, you know, she’s been acting for years now. I think a lot of people know her for when she was on “Lovecraft Country,” another sort of horror-themed story. Here she plays Annie, the former partner of Smoke, one of the two characters by Michael B. Jordan in the film. And just on a practical level, it was great to hear her talk about working with Michael, where he’s playing these two parts and the way he made it seem so effortless to shift back and forth between them. But then also on an emotional level, you know, she was born in Nigeria, raised in England, lives here in Los Angeles, and yet she just forged such a deep personal and emotional connection to this character from 1930s Mississippi. And so to hear her talk about that, there was just something really wonderful in the conversation. It was really terrific.
Washington: This happens all the time, as you all know, that moments like this, scenes like those in the movie, like she’s gonna become someone that’s, “Hey, you know what? We need to look into her more.” So I’m happy for her to have that breakout moment. All right, without further ado, here’s Yvonne and Oscar.
Oscar Isaac in “Frankenstein.”
(Ken Woroner / Netflix)
Villarreal: Oscar, thanks so much for being here.
Isaac: Very happy to be here.
Villarreal: I have to say, driving down the 110, I came across buses with your face wrapped around them.
Isaac: I’m so sorry.
Villarreal: It was a pleasant sight in L.A. I know you encounter a level of this with each project, but this does feel a little bit different. How you’re feeling in this moment with “Frankenstein”? How do you take stock of the small moments in this big production?
Isaac: There aren’t too many small moments with this, to be honest. Everything’s very big-sized. In a way, it’s the most I’ve really done to support a movie. I’d say even more than “Star Wars” to a certain extent, because it straddles so many things. It’s a big fun popcorn movie. It’s also an intense emotional drama. It’s a platform release, a few theaters then the streaming platform itself. So there’s been a lot of things to do for that. And it can be tiring, but the thing is when it’s in service of Guillermo [del Toro, the director] and his vision and it’s his love letter to cinema, it’s the story he’s always wanted to tell — that’s an energizing thing. Being able to do it with him. And with Jacob [Elordi] and Mia [Goth].
Villarreal: Have you come across a bus with your face on it yet?
Isaac: Maybe not a bus. I’ve seen billboards. I’ve seen bus stops, but the actual moving thing itself, no, I haven’t yet.
Villarreal: I know Guillermo has said that he has long seen you as the person to play this role of Victor, even before there was a screenplay. What do you remember about that lunch you had with him? What did he say that he saw in you for this?
Isaac: I wish I could really go back and like just parse it all out. We just immediately started speaking as friends, as fellow Latinos, as immigrants trying to navigate our way through this industry, as both having very intense relationships with our fathers and the way that’s changed over time, both becoming fathers and wanting to not necessarily follow in some of the same footsteps, but also recognizing what an incredible source of of life our fathers have been. But all the pain that came from that, and forgiveness. We talked about those things without any relation to a movie in my mind. It wasn’t until after that where he started talking about this project and he said, “I think you need to play Victor Frankenstein.”
Villarreal: I feel like Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” is so steeped in the culture because the creature, the monster, is such a part of pop culture. When did you first encounter the book? Did you have to read it in high school?
Isaac: I encountered it a little later. It was shortly after high school. I wanted to have a read because it’s such a famous, legendary, iconic book. I enjoyed it, but it didn’t really hit so hard for me. When I left that that meeting, Guillermo gave me Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” and the Tao Te Ching. He’s like, “Read these two books.” Going back to the book again, reading it, really hearing her voice, really hearing her voice in all of the characters — I thought that was very interesting, that everybody kind of sounds a little bit like her. And I love that Guillermo took that idea and did the same thing with his movie. He made it very autobiographical.
Villarreal: For “The Card Counter,” you also had to read a book about the way that we store trauma. Did you find yourself returning to that at any point?
Isaac: “The Body Keeps Score.” That’s right. Incredible book. I did, very much. Also, parts therapy. This idea that we’re all these different parts and different voices and we’re not any one thing. And gestalt therapy, this idea of, like, being able to hold that child-self of you that’s broken. For me, that was a very big one in thinking of the Creature. The Creature is a reconstruction of Victor’s broken child that has to chase him down to forgive him — to make him look at him, face him and forgive him.
Villarreal: Did you find that you wanted to understand both Victor and the Creature?
Isaac: Guillermo and I spoke very explicitly about the idea that they’re one and the same. That there are two halves of one full person. And that actually was really helpful in the playing of it, particularly in that one scene when the Creature comes back and demands a companion. That scene in particular was played on my part as if that’s his voice, his inner child, his addict, that darkness within him that he’s trying to suppress.
Villarreal: How did you both discuss Victor in terms of, is he a reliable narrator telling the story?
Isaac: We spoke that he’s very much an unreliable narrator. It is his remembrance. It’s a memory play. Did Elizabeth really look like his mom? Probably not, but that’s how he remembers it. That’s who he saw. And the sets are these massive archetypal Jungian visions that feel very much like they’re part of his inner conscious, his subconscious, and not so much objective reality.
Villarreal: I want to talk about the the look and vibe of Victor. I know that you’ve talked before about looking to some rock icons for inspiration, whether it’s Prince or David Bowie. I think Guillermo mentioned Mick Jagger at one point. How did you both arrive at that and what were the videos or the performances that you locked in on?
Isaac: That first meeting that we had, it wasn’t so much like he saw me and he’s like, “You’re my Victor.” It’s a conversation. And out of that conversation, inspiration starts to happen. That is what ultimately led for this thing to happening between us. And that conversation just keeps going. As he writes it, he has a few ideas, I look at a few scenes, I see where he’s going with it, we start talking about it more. He starts talking about the way he wants Victor to occupy space, especially in his memory, that he remembers himself like conducting a concert, like a rock star, like holding court and having this punk rock, iconoclastic energy. He’s like Mick Jagger. And suddenly “like Mick Jagger” becomes, “well, like a rock star.” Well, how does he move? What is it about Mick Jagger? What is it about these other musicians, these artists that that’s the form of expression to think about? Not so much the scientist or the mad scientist, but the passionate artist. Then those ideas mix with the incredible genius Kate Hawley, who does these costumes, who also is bringing in all of her ideas of punk rock in London in the ’60s and Jimi Hendrix and those bell-bottoms and those hats that have a bit of a Gothic-Romantic thing going for it. Then these little boots. And then suddenly I see these boots and I see this hat, but for me that looks more like prints to me. All these things are just conversations and pieces and things being put together that create a character. It is this amazing collaboration that happens, this collage that gives the impression of a character, and that’s really special.
Villarreal: You’re working opposite Jacob Elordi, and I think a lot of people come in with preconceived notions about maybe who he is as an actor based on his past work. He’s such a revelation in this film in terms of the work and prep that he did to get here. First, talk to me about seeing him as the Creature for the first time, but also what he was like as a scene partner.
Isaac: We only met briefly in Guillermo’s office at one point, and he seemed like a nice young fella. He had his little 35mm camera, was taking a lot of analog pictures, which was cool. And the first scene we shot was the last scene of the movie. That was the first time I saw him in the full getup. So he walked in and immediately I was really moved by how graceful he was. I remember him coming in, like, fingers first; his hands were like animals, like [a] sea anemone. There’s just like incredible movements that were happening and I found it really lonely and heartbreaking. I thought it was an amazing coincidental, if you believe in those, opportunity that that was the first scene that we were going to get to do together — the last scene, the time when these characters finally actually see each other for the first time. He was amazing and then so graceful and gentle and very emotionally available.
In between takes, I’d see this big lumbering monster taking photos with his little camera, which was incredible. What was incredible about that too is that he was loose. He was just taking everything in. And that’s a very hard thing to do in those high-pressured situations. People can kind of get, like, tunnel vision and narrow in and try just to do the thing that they want to do, but he was [operating from] open awareness, which is a place that we all hope to start from as artists.
Villarreal: Did you both have an idea of, “Do we need to approach this a certain way to be true to these characters, with the friction or tension that they have, or can we turn that off in between takes?”
Isaac: There was no need to do any of that. That would have been just extra work, more like an ego idea. It was very free on set, and that’s Guillermo; that comes from the top down. He’s ebullient, he’s joyous, he’s loud, he’s inclusive of everything. So there’s no secrets. If he likes something, everybody knows it. If he doesn’t like something, everybody knows it. Whatever he’s working on, everybody knows it. And so it feels like a team. There wasn’t really space for this kind of sheltering away or trying to manufacture some kind of dynamic.
Villarreal: Did your view or perspective on Victor shift over the course of making this film? As a son and as a father, how did you see him in the beginning and how did it change by the end?
Isaac: It’s funny because I have a lot of friends that have kids that have texted me saying, “Wow, man, that made me feel really guilty watching you do that,” because we can all think of those moments where we lose our patience and we yell or we get angry at these very innocent beings that didn’t ask to be here and yet they’re being forced to conform to these rules. And the idea that what we think is right trumps everything and that our children are just extensions of ourselves, accessories, things to be judged in relation to us, as either prideful or shameful. That horrible cycle that happens and those patterns that we fall into. So that became more and more evident, especially in those scenes with Jacob as the Creature, with the shaving and the washing and the being tired and all things that were additions from Guillermo that are not in the book. Because in the book, Victor leaves right away. But this is more of like a slow retreat from the responsibilities of bringing somebody into the world.
Villarreal: I want to unpack that more, because it’s been interesting to see the discourse online of people very much relating to this element of Guillermo’s take, the themes of generational pain and a father’s desire for redemption. Obviously, Victor is physically and emotionally abused by his father, and we see how the cycle repeats itself with the Creature. This idea of breaking generational trauma, like you said, it’s something that we try to be mindful of in how we work every day. Did you find yourself unpacking some of those emotions in the process, or is it just something that you’re sort of reflecting on now that it’s over?
Isaac: We spoke about those things at that first meeting, so that was actually like the touchstone of the whole thing. That’s what kept everything grounded. It’s a very heightened performance. It’s not naturalistic. It’s meant to be quite expressive. It also brings in modalities and forms of telenovelas and and Mexican melodrama. We watch those things very carefully to bring some of those elements out in this kind of fever dream that is this film. But we were only able to do those kinds of things knowing at the core it is about this generational trauma and this idea of what we inherit from our fathers or from our parents. And as much as we try to run away from them, we get blinded often by our own constructions of ourselves and our own egos and our own desires and are blind to repeating these exact same things again. And especially as artists — I can definitely relate to the idea of “Well, if I can just figure out this one thing, this character, this piece, if I can find the breakthrough here, then everything will make sense. Everything will be worth it, all the limbs that I’ve cut off, all the villages I’ve burned. The trail of debt I’ve left behind me will will mean something if I can figure this thing out.” Then you get to the other side of that and that’s not the answer. We very much were conscious of that.
Villarreal: I guess I ask because the interview I was referencing before, your interview with Terry Gross, which was around the time of “The Card Counter,” I was so struck by you talking about your [father and] upbringing in an evangelical household and this feeling like doom was around the corner. And I was so struck by how you talked about that. And you talked about your home in Florida being demolished by the hurricane. In my rewatch of “Frankenstein,” being focused on you and your character in particular, I was thinking about how much of that was playing in your head, especially in the scene where the place is burning down. Like, do you go directly to those kind of moments? How was it playing in your head?
Isaac: I don’t necessarily try to summon that specific moment. I think part of the preparation is reading and feeling; as I read through the script and as I think about it, where I connect with it emotionally. And sometimes if something feels far away, I do have to be like, “OK, well, how do I bridge the gap to this thing? How can I relate to it? Oh, well, I guess, yeah, I had to deal with this in my life. And how did I respond to it? Well, how would Victor respond to it? How would I respond to it if I had Victor’s circumstances?” That is some of the fun of meditating on the piece and thinking about what all the possibilities are. But with this, I didn’t find myself, like, literally reaching to stories in my past. I just allowed that to be available.
I did a bit with the last scene, thinking about, “When was the last time I was at a deathbed with a loved one?” And what was that like and what do I remember physically of that, what was the energy and what was the tone of that and how is it appropriate with this and how is it different? You use whatever’s available, and sometimes just the other person across from you is enough and sometimes you need to kind of summon it from the ancestors or from wherever to get through that performance ritual.
Villarreal: When you’re channeling those intense emotions, is it, like, hard to keep them under control sometimes for the good of the scene?
Isaac: Well, actually, that happened with this last scene. I’d spent a a day getting into that mode and summoning, and we did the scene and it was quite volatile sometimes. A lot of the emotions would come through and Guillermo would say, “OK, let’s do another one, but maybe tamp that down a little bit.” It’s like, “OK, let’s try that again.” We did it a bunch of different ways. And funny enough, even though it was a great day and everyone was happy, we ended up coming back and reshooting it. And it was done last minute. I didn’t have time to do all of this preparation, and we just went and that’s actually what ended up being in the movie. Because I wasn’t expending any energy trying to reach for something. It just was more reactive and it was a bit more sober and less an idea. It’s that balance sometimes between wanting to get to something, explore something, but also letting it go and allowing something to emerge that is not willed.
Villarreal: I want to talk more about the collaboration with Guillermo. What does that look like in practice? What is a note from him like? I saw another interview where you mostly spoke in Spanish with each other. How did that allow you to understand what he’s after more easily?
Isaac: That first meeting we only spoke in Spanish. So it set the tone. And my Spanish is good, but it’s like maybe seventh-grade vocabulary.
Villarreal: I feel a kinship.
Isaac: I would speak in Spanish to my mom. That was the person that I would only speak in Spanish to. And then when she passed eight years ago, I kind of lost that. I have my aunts and I talk to them, but it kind of starts to go away. So to suddenly have Guillermo show up, and that was the way that we really first interfaced. And with him, even though he could hear me sometimes, doing it in Spanglish or trying to get to it, he just was committed. It’s like, we speak in Spanish. He didn’t have to say it. That’s just what it is. It just created this real, almost, like, subconscious intimacy because it’s the mother tongue. That is the first thing that I heard. Even though when I learned to speak, it was in the United States, it was both always at the same time, then the English took over. But it just hits something different to have to communicate, to have to try to find a way to express myself in Spanish to Guillermo, talking about really difficult things. What would be great about it is it forced me to be simple and just, like, get to the f— point, and not like all this intellectual stuff around all these definitions and acting terms and all this. That was a really special thing.
Villarreal: We’ve talked a little bit about we’re working through, for lack of a better term, some daddy issues during the making of this. I know that “Hamlet” is such a seminal text in both your personal life and in your career. And obviously, this is a film that has parallels. With the passing of your mom, and working on this, especially with that last scene, how did you feel your mother while working on this project?
Isaac: Wow, that’s a very kind question. So, so, so much. She would have loved this movie. The last movie we saw actually was “The Handmaiden.” Super erotic too. I was like, “Mom, we’re sorry; close your eyes, Mom.” But it was so beautiful and kind of dark and opulent — she loved that stuff. She was always incredibly, incredibly present. Even the Elizabeth character — my mom had red hair as well. And this is in Mary Shelley’s text about the feminine and the masculine and those warring kind of energies. And for Victor, ironically, really tapping into more of the feminine energy with him in some ways. What he does is obviously — the penetrating nature, is a masculine thing, but at the same time, that freedom and the liquidity of that femininity was very important too. That last scene, it was interesting. That first time we did the scene, there was a lot of my mom there. Then when I had to let it go and I had to just respond, suddenly dad showed up. And that was really wild. There’s a bit of that warring energy with Victor all the time, and that was really surprising.
Villarreal: There was also the the detail that people really picked up on, which was the drinking of the milk. How did that inform you as you played Victor?
Isaac: Once his mom dies, he gets stunted. He never grows from that point on. His body grows. What he’s doing, his intellect grows, but emotionally, he stays that little boy that’s been hit in the face by his dad and rejected. And rejected by his mom because she died. It’s not rational, but that’s what it is. He’s orphaned. That’s also why mom feels so present. He’s just always looking for her. He’s always looking for her everywhere, everywhere, everywhere. The milk is just looking for her. It’s just comfort. La lechita. It’s also very funny because it’s so simple too. He likes playing with the saint-sinner thing, this guy that paints himself as the victim. He’s not a drug addict. The only thing he does is milk. And milk’s good for you, right? He starts off as Jesus Christ and ends up as Charles Manson. That’s what that milk does.
Villarreal: Do you have a sense — especially with a little bit of hindsight now, though I know you’re still in the whirlwind of it — what the character of Victor has done for you?
Isaac: What was surprising is that he is a sadist, but in like the Marquis de Sade kind of way. That wasn’t something that I thought about, but as it progressed, what was surprising to me was the pleasure that the character was giving me. For someone that is so dark and has such capacity for cruelty, the fact that he just felt so good, it was so free and so energized and kind of joyful. And I asked Guillermo at one point, I was like, “Maybe something’s wrong here? Because, like, shouldn’t it be a little darker and heavier?” He’s like, “The movie tells you what it needs.” You listen to the movie, and this is somebody that doesn’t have any doubts. And that feels pretty good to not have any doubts, until he crashes. He wakes up from this dream, this fever dream of no consequences. There’s no consequences, nothing matters, the rule of nature is dominance and cruelty, and actually pain is the same as pleasure. And the more perfect the crime, which is against something that’s virtuous and innocent, the more perfect an act that is, philosophically, nihilistically. So that is pure freedom. Pure freedom and pure pleasure, it’s like f— it. To play somebody like that, and to allow myself to be blind to the feeling of consequence and to just shoot like a rocket, that was incredibly freeing and pleasurable. Then suddenly to stop back and look back and be like, “Oh, what an awful thing. What awful things he did. He couldn’t see what he was doing.” But in the moment, that was unexpected.
Villarreal: We talked about the intensity of filming that last scene. What was the scene where you just felt so free and happy or excited?
Isaac: Creating the creature. Creating the creature was just like the rain coming down, the running up and down the stairs in the little high-heeled boots, the screaming at Christoph Waltz, you know, and his body flying down and him being like, “f— it, gotta throw him in the freezer, gotta keep this thing moving.” That energy, you know, climbing up the tower, putting the spear up there. He’s like a Gothic hero, a Gothic superhero. That kind of mutability within the character — it’s kinda like what I was saying about the artist. It’s like, “This I know; I know how to do this, and if I can do this, everything will make sense.” So that moment of just purely going for that thing, that was a really exciting moment. And also in that set, in Tamara [Deverell’s] incredible set, with Dan [Laustsen’s] lighting and Guillermo sitting there in the corner like this little crazy Mexican Buddha, just wanting more, more, more, that was electrifying. Pardon the pun.
Villarreal: I’ve wondered what it’s like walking into one of his creations, those sets. I can’t imagine. It feels like you’re in a dream.
Isaac: You do, and what’s the most incredible thing is that he’s surrounded himself with people for the last 30 years that are like an extension of himself. Through a process of elimination, he’s gotten these people that are just as passionate, just as detailed, and have ownership of the movie. The set decorator, the painter, the greens person that puts the moss in is like, “Do you see where I put the moss right there? You see the moss right there?” That kind of artisanal passion over it. So you walk in, sure, it’s inspiring for the imagination, but it’s also inspiring as a crafts person to be like, “OK, how do I bring the same amount of detail and passion and love for it?”
Villarreal: I’m asking this teasingly, but what’s the worst thing about Guillermo as a director? Is it that he wants so many takes, or is it that he just thinks you can do anything?
Isaac: I was gonna say what was challenging was to have somebody quilting the movie as we were shooting it. So that you would do a take and sometimes it would go straight into the edit and he could show you it in the movie itself. And as an actor, that could be tough because you’re like, “Oh, I’m not ready to see that yet.” But he was making it as it goes because the camera was always moving, so he needed to see that it was always connecting to the next thing. I had never experienced that before. For instance, that last scene, we did it, the next day he came in, and it was all edited with some temp score on it and I saw it, I was like, “Oh no, I don’t think that’s… “ But in that case, it was good that I saw it and had that reaction because we got to have another go at it. But it is dealing with like, “How much do I want to see? How self-conscious am I?” But it’s his openness. He’s not afraid.
Villarreal: Was he open with Jacob having his dog Layla on set?
Isaac: Yeah. That’s the thing. He was just free. He was really free. He’s like, “Whatever you need, man. Whatever anybody needs, that’s it.” He would embrace everything. Every mistake, he’d embrace.
Villarreal: Before we wrap things up, we’ve talked about swirling in this space of loss and renewal. In addition to tapping into that with “Frankenstein,” your wife, who’s a filmmaker, Elvira Lind, has this documentary, “King Hamlet,” where she documented a very transformative period in your life as you dealt with the loss of your mother, but also the birth of your child, while working on a staging of “Hamlet.” How has it been to sort of live in this space and have these parallel moments between these two projects?
Isaac: In a way, it’s like the father and the mother of these projects here. And the strange synchronicity of when they’re coming out at the same time, it’s kind of a beautiful thing, because “Frankenstein” is this massive thing, it’s very expressive, it has a lot of people, so much energy behind it. Having to do that and then flying to New York and showing a small group of people this tiny little movie made by just a handful of people, mostly my wife, this incredible documentary filmmaker, but made by her again by hand about this really small, quiet time of a play that we did that maybe a few thousand people saw, there is something quite grounding about that. It also feels generous because it’s about something that she’s made. But also it’s about showing a little peek for anybody, but also for artists as well, at what it costs sometimes and what it takes and how this particular family dealt with all this happening and the desire and the need to process it and create something out of it.
Wunmi Mosaku in “Sinners.”
(Warner Bros. Pictures)
Mark Olsen: “Sinners” obviously opened earlier in the year, and it’s really just hung in there. It’s a movie people are still talking about. What does it mean to you that the movie has already had such an enduring life?
Wunmi Mosaku: Oh, it means so much to me. I feel like you take a job because you believe in it and you trust the filmmakers and you’re excited, and then you get on set and you do your best and then all of a sudden you remember that it’s going to be out there and people are going to judge it and they might not like it and they may not like you and they might not respond to it. And we would turn to each other sometimes and be like, “Do you think they’re going to feel how we feel about this? I really hope so.” Because we really felt like it was so special. And so seeing the reaction has been so affirming and pretty magical because it’s not always the case that it translates the same as how it feels for you, that the audience feels that too.
Olsen: And what do you think it is that audiences are responding to? Mosaku: I think Ryan Coogler, his way of creating art is always based in truth and connection and honoring the people on the screen and the people that they represent in and around his life. And so I feel like people are responding to the fact that it feels truthful. Even though it’s got horror aspects and a musical aspect, it really just has heart and depth and it’s about community, it’s about freedom, it’s about the price of freedom. It’s about so many things that affect people every day. Capitalism, selling out, cultural appropriation. It’s deep and it’s layered, and it’s all rooted in truth.
Olsen: And now when you say that as you were shooting the movie, it felt special to all of you — can you describe that for me? What do you think you were feeling as you were shooting the movie?
Mosaku: I felt a deep connection to my ancestry, to my purpose, to how what I do today will reverberate in the future. My lineage, my child’s future. I just felt the film links the past to the present. It links West African traditional spirituality and it connects it to hip-hop and blues and all these different types of dance and culture. It feels kind of sprawling and encompassing of the Black diaspora experience. And it makes you feel connected to everyone in the diaspora. I felt really awakened to my position in that web of creativity. And artists like Ryan, who have this visionary, revolutionary way of creating, they just kind of feel like guiding lights, diamonds, in this web of us. It feels like, “Oh wow, he really is this jewel to be cherished, and I’m connected to that now.” So it was very multilayered, the connection I felt.
Olsen: That does sound like more than just a typical day at work. Mosaku: There was nothing typical about it. It felt like, vibrationally, it changed all of us.
Olsen: As I understand it, when you auditioned for the film, you were given this seven-page scene that introduces your character of Annie. It’s you and Michael B. Jordan’s character of Smoke, and from that scene you thought the film was a romantic drama. What did you make of it when you found out what the movie was really about?
Mosaku: Ryan explained the movie to me in and around the scene, and my mind was blown because it made complete sense, but it came completely out of left field for me. I had the themes that we see in the movie of the evolution of blues to modern-day music and ancestors and future ancestors, they weren’t quite there when he was explaining it to me, but it was there in the spirit of what he was explaining to me. So I knew it was epic and that there was depth, but then there was also vampires. I can’t explain how he explained it, but I felt the weight of all of the themes and messages, and it seemed to work with the idea of vampires coming in and taking blood. It was a surprise, but it made sense. I was completely hooked and in from the first scene, but his description, I was like, “This is genius.”
Olsen: I like the idea that you were still able to process your story in the movie, Annie’s story, as that of a romance. Even with everything else that’s happening in the film, there still is that story at the core of it. Mosaku: Because he only works with truth. Even in a fantastical world of vampires and spirits, he still works within the truth of relationships and character dynamics, and so their love is the community, the love and the bond between all of the characters, that is the heart of the movie. Sammie’s desire to leave the plantation and see the world, that’s the heart of the movie. These two people who love each other dearly and are insatiable for each other but can’t be together because of racism and the color of their skin, that heartbreak is the heart of the movie. A woman who just wants to sing and is young and is married to this old church type — that line I think is cut from the movie, but Jayme [Lawson]’s character says he’s older, church type — and she just wants to be completely free on the stage. That she gets to explore and to have this thrilling night in the community in the juke joint, I mean that’s the heart of the movie too. These relationships are the beating heart.
Olsen: But there’s something I’ve heard you talk about, that Annie relates to the character that most of us know as Smoke, as both Smoke and Elijah, his given name. Can you untangle that for me? It’s really compelling to think that she is relating to both sides of his personality. Mosaku: Well, everybody has a representative, right? Like, this is my representative. And then there’s Wunmi at home without the glam, the truth. So yes, she met Smoke. She fell in love with Smoke, but she knew Elijah. In Yoruba, we have your given name and then you get given an Oriki name, and the Oriki name is a pet name that your grandmother or your mom would call you and when they call you by that name, when you hear someone speak your Oriki name, you can’t say no. It’s like, “That person knows me like no one else, and they’ve used this name for a purpose.” So almost like Elijah is his Oriki name because everyone knows him as Smoke. He has his defenses up, he has his heart guarded, Smoke’s been through war, Smoke’s been through the gangster stuff in Chicago, but Elijah lost his daughter. So when she calls him by his name that’s like calling his Oriki. Olsen: You’ve spoken as well about how much you feel you’ve learned about yourself in playing this role, that it changed you. How so? Mosaku: I mean, even the fact that I can talk about Oriki names. I didn’t have an Oriki name. I didn’t understand the meaning of the Oriki name until I really just kind of immersed myself more in my culture that I feel like I had no choice in not being a part of. I came to England when I was 1½, and you try and assimilate, you try and fit in. And that is at the expense and the tax of your birth culture. And that’s something people don’t really pay attention to, what’s lost in order to feel safe in another culture. Researching Annie, I had to look back at where I’m from, because she’s a hoodoo priestess and hoodoo is a derivative of Ifa, and Ifa is the traditional Yoruba religion. That is where my people come from. That is part of my survival, that’s why I’m here. Their knowledge, their belief systems, that is why I’m here. And so having to research that just opened up a whole treasure trove of truth for me and inquiry and self-reflection and self-love and admiration of all the people that came before, the difficult decisions my parents made, and then the difficult decisions I’ve had to make in navigating being an immigrant in another country.
Olsen: What does it meant to you to connect with that part of yourself?
Mosaku: I’m unable to put it into words. It’s changed me profoundly. It’s changed my relationship to the world, my culture, my home. I feel inspired in so many different ways to reconnect, feel connected. I’ve been doing Yoruba lessons for five years, and only in the last year has it really stuck. And I think the sticking is because of the exploration, the real exploration, not just an intellectual “trying to learn a language.” It’s unlocked something emotionally in me. The language is sticking.
Olsen: “Sinners” is rooted so specifically in the world of the Jim Crow South here in America. Was that still something that you could relate to? Were there aspects of the story that still felt familiar to you?
Mosaku: Yeah, I can relate to being Black in America, I can relate to being Black in a different culture. But there’s a lot of research that has to be done. A lot of people in the cast were pulling upon the people that they knew in their history and their ancestry, whether it was Ryan and his uncle James who inspired the movie or Miss Ruth [E. Carter, costume designer, who] said my dress, the velvet dress was inspired by a picture of her grandma in a velvet dress on the stairs with her grandfather. They have different things they can pull on that are really from the time and the people. I do research in a different way, because I don’t have that same history to pull from, but I have an admiration and a love of the African American culture. My daughter’s African American. So I feel I have a respect and a duty to do my research, not just for my character work but for my family. I can relate to aspects, but I don’t have that shared cellular memory that the rest of the cast do.
Olsen: So what did you draw on for research? Mosaku: I spoke to hoodoo priestesses and that was really my main research, was kind of the faith, because that is who she is. That’s her foundation. And that’s her power. So that was my main research. Obviously, researching the era, Prohibition, Jim Crow South, the Great Migration. For me it’s about respect and honoring as truthfully as I can, if someone has trusted me with this role. And also I’ve said no to roles that I don’t think should be played by Black Brits or Nigerians. I’ve said no to roles that I think should be specifically for African Americans. There’s something about Annie that feels really close to me and really important to me, and I think she’s like a bridge, and I do think of myself sometimes in that way, of in the middle. I’m someone who was born in Nigeria but was never raised there, someone who was raised on a land that has never felt like my own, and then someone who’s come here and has, not inherited, but I have a daughter with this inherited history. And so I have a responsibility for her to understand all three aspects, and then I’m sure there are more aspects of her history that I am yet to figure out what they are. It’s my responsibility to understand that and guide her with it.
Olsen: When you’re shooting these kind of stories or dealing with sort of heavy topics, do you have anything that you like to do at the end of the day to pull yourself out of it?
Mosaku: I talk to my husband and I spend time with my daughter. I speak to my family. I go home.
Olsen: And I don’t think I’m spoiling anything, but I want to be sure to ask you about your last moments in “Sinners.” It’s deeply moving. You reappear in the film as a vision to Smoke. You’re nursing your infant daughter. Can you talk to me about that moment in the film and what it means to you?
Mosaku: It’s purity. He drops his representative, he drops Smoke. He has to drop Smoke in order to join us. The initial cost of this never-ending life as a vampire, it sounds like there’s a glamour to it, there’s a capitalism to it. Stack and Mary are still young and beautiful but there is such a great cost. They never get to see the sun, they never get to hold their loved ones again. And actually they’re not truly free. Whereas Smoke and Annie have chosen true freedom that fully incorporates everything that they love truly. It’s not money, it’s not eternal life, it’s not eternal darkness. They are basking in the sun with their ancestors and it’s purity, it’s love, it’s freedom.
Olsen: I have to ask you about the musical number where sort of the past and the future sort of collapse in on themselves. What did that read like in the script? And what was it like to be on set that day?
Mosaku: It read very much like it felt when you watched it. I had read a version without the future and past ancestors, where it was just about the two brothers and their women and reconnecting and it was beautiful. I loved it. And then before the read-through, we got given another draft, and it had the ancestors and the roof going on fire, and I threw the script down and I ran into my living room and was like to my husband, “Oh, my God, oh, my God, it’s amazing, it’s amazing. I think this is the most amazing thing I’ve ever read. I think it’s the most amazing thing that’s ever going to happen onscreen.” That’s how it felt. And on the day filming it, it very much felt magical. Sammie and Delta Slim have this scene where Delta talks to him about his gift and where it comes from. It comes from the homeland, it comes from your ancestors, it comes from home, Africa. And it’s such a powerful gift and to really guard it with all he has. Then Miles [Caton], who plays Sammie, is talking to the the older guy, Papa Toto, who plays his past ancestor. Who has the little guitar behind him, I don’t know what it’s called, like the original guitar. And he’s behind him in the scene, and then I kind of wander over to them, and Papa Toto basically does the exact same speech, never having read the script, to Miles about his gift and where it comes from and like how he should cherish it and keep it protected. That’s what they’re both talking about, protecting their gifts. And I was just like, “Oh, my gosh, this is magical. He doesn’t even know that this is the scene in the script.” It was a really special day.
Olsen: I’m going to ask this as politely as I can, but I found “Sinners” to be a much bawdier movie, it’s a much more sensual and sexy movie, than I expected. I’m curious how you found those scenes in the script and in particular what it was like for you shooting your scene with Michael.
Mosaku: It explores so many different emotions and feelings. It feels palpable, it feels tangible, it feels like it’s pulsing. It also feels kind of inevitable. Again, it just felt true, and it wasn’t difficult because we created such a safe space for everyone, and there’s no nudity in it, and it just feels really sensual and safe.
Olsen: What was it like shooting scenes with Michael where he’s playing both Stack and Smoke? I would imagine just him having to switch out for the scenes, how did that impact the rhythm and the momentum for the rest of you? Mosaku: It was pretty easy for us, honestly. We didn’t have to do anything. Michael had a stand-in, Percy Bell, and both would learn both twins’ lines, and then Michael would shoot as Stack, and Percy would do Smoke, and we would lock this, we would rehearse it, rehearse it, rehearse it, and then shoot it, shoot it, shoot it, find the one we liked and lock it. So then, if this is Percy and this is Stack, what they would do is he would go get changed, be Smoke, and we would kind of mime the scene. It was really harder for Mike, I don’t know how he did it. We would kind of mime the scene. They would play the scene back so he was responding to us in the real time of the scene that they had chosen. That was it. That was the only scene that we were going with. And then he would trace Percy’s steps and physique to make sure he wouldn’t step on Stack or whatever. So it was very easy for us. Like, we just had to play the scene. And I honestly don’t know how Mike did it. I have no idea how he did it.
Olsen: What has the response to the movie been like for you professionally? Do you find that you’ve gotten some offers? Are you finding yourself in rooms that maybe you wouldn’t have been in before? Mosaku: Everyone has been so complimentary and lovely about the movie. I think work has come from it, and I was in a room at the Governors Awards with Tom Cruise and Debbie Allen and Phylicia Rashad. I was like, “Well, this is new.” Me, Jayme [Lawson], Hailee [Steinfeld] got awarded one of the Elle Women in Hollywood awards yesterday, which was again really surreal, like, “Oh, hey, Jennifer Aniston. Hey, Rose Byrne. Hey, everyone. Hi, we’re in this room with you. Cool.” So a lot of really lovely things have come of it. Very grateful.
Olsen: And what does it mean to you that it’s for this movie in particular? Mosaku: This is the movie that just keeps on giving. I loved it from the first time I read those seven pages and I have grown as a person, as an actor, as a mom, as a wife. And now I’m experiencing this, which is really lovely, really nice. Olsen: You also have an upcoming role in “The Social Reckoning,” Aaron Sorkin’s sequel to “The Social Network.” Is there anything you can tell us about your role in the movie? Mosaku: I have no idea what I’m allowed to say about it. I’ve not been prepped on press for that yet, so I’m sorry. Olsen: You shot your part? Mosaku: I’ve shot a lot.
