Links
Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 1:00PM 
Guardian the kids of the controversial Oscar nominated documentary Jesus Camp 10 years later - how are they doing and how do they remember their evangelical childhoods?
ESPN's Bodies issue is out. Check out the gallery. The human body is really so beautiful. But I realize we're not supposed to acknowledge that because people are so angry about the profile at...
Vanity Fair on Margot Robbie. Which is... Honestly I can't see anything wrong with it. Almost every good celebrity profile talks about what the star looks like, and what their big screen appeal is. It's not especially salacious as these things go. I'm stunned that it offended so many people. But me...
Nathaniel... I don't want to live in a world where we cant celebrate movie star beauty
Playbill Kristin Chenoweth doing a reading of proposed Best Little Whorehouse in Texas for the stage? Oh god oh god let this Broadway musical happen. Amen.
Dear Cast & Crew Dear Harry Nilsson -- (great letter re: A Bigger Splash)
EW Five Nights in Maine poster and trailer. Apparently this premiered at TIFF last year. I don't remember reading about it but Dianne Wiest, Rosie Perez, and David Oyelowo are all in it!
Vanity Fair Hive A.I. isn't just all the rage in movies and on television. It's an investor obsession, too.
Twitter Apparently some dumb people launched a petition to have Jesse Williams fired from Grey's Anatomy due to his BET Humanitarian Awards speech
Look at This!
Production has begun on Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool which stars Annette Bening as Oscar winner Gloria Grahame in her final days. Jamie Bell is The Bening's leading man. We hope The Bening is making one last sustained run at winning that Best Actress trophy that's eluded her. Momentum counts for a lot in Oscar races so if it doesn't happen this year for 20th Century Women, maybe it'll happen next year for this biopic of sorts? Though actors win Oscars all the time for playing real life people, the only star who has won an Oscar for playing an Oscar winner is Cate Blanchett as Katharine Hepburn in The Aviator (2004).
Random Emmy Thought
By now you've probably heard that the 7th/8th Game of Thrones season will start shooting later than usual due to weather issues. Different websites have different wording on this news. Sometimes it sounds like just the slightest delay and not worth reporting but for the clickbait traffic. Other articles suggest that this will delay the premiere until late Summer instead of GoT's traditional late spring early summer airing. If the latter take is true that means we'll actually have an Emmy free year of Game of Thrones in 2017. That would be a welcome relief for those of us who hate to see the same shows dominating year after year. Unfortunately they're also splitting GoT into two more super short seasons with only 13 or so more episodes left before the series finale. It worked for Breaking Bad and Mad Men in terms of Emmy statuettes though it was bad for interrupting the natural flow of storytelling arcs (at least with Mad Men - I can't speak to how it affected Breaking Bad). At any rate I stand by my proclamation that these split final seasons are anti-audience and nothing more than a cynical cash grab for advertising dollars, extended media attention, and double the awards that a show should be eligible to receive. It's gross. I wish Emmys would rule against 6 or 7 episodes counting as a full season. There really ought to be some standards and "season" by its very name suggests a few months of time. Six episodes is not a few months of story -- it's barely more than one!
Reader Comments (45)
Best Actress will be a beast this year. Because all the major players have yet to be shown. And the overdue narrative for Bening and Davis will have its share of online fights. Knowing that Annette has lined up backup features for future Oscar seasons is so reassuring. Since she is one nomination shy of securing perennial status with Nick Davis via the best actress category and overall having five which is a big deal for any actor. Annette Bening will join Shirley Booth, Julianne Moore, Viola Davis (this year damn it) of 50 something best actress winners.
It's always a good sign when Bening is shooting another film, and the premise of this film sounds intriguing.
From the twitter outrage I was expecting the Margot Robbie article to be much worse in some way.
Was the writer a little too infatuated and breathless when describing Robbie's beauty - yes but that is so typical. I thought the tone of condescension towards Australia was more irritating.
Does she need so much exposure.
I hope Bening is a nominee/winner someday but she's a bit like Glenn Close hard to warm m too which is the opposite of Viola hence why Foster and Davis won over Weaver in 88.
As Volvagia is about Katie Jarvis' (non-)career, so am I about the Bening and the Ida Lupino biopic that wasn't. Although I guess I can live with her doing Gloria Grahame. Even if that role should have gone to Patty Clarkson.
Couldn't agree more on the issue of shows splitting their last season in 2. It's the TV equivalent of the awful franchise trend.
Bening's movie sounds interesting. I like the title too, but I wouldn't be surprised if they change to something really bland and un-original before release!
Re: Vanity Fair - I haven't read it yet, because I'm all outrage-out today, but I know some people are "offended" by the terrible writing? That's what it seems like at least.
Re: Game of Thrones - I think the split actually makes sense for THIS show because of production issues. It must be a BEAST shooting/organizing everything with its giant cast and multiple locations (and all the post-production work, etc.). I know HBO has wanted MORE than 10 episodes a season, but the creatives actually told them they PHYSICALLY can't. There's also the added wrinkle that maybe, just maybe GRRM will release his next book and yadda yadda. So anyways, yes I think the split year makes sense for this show.
@mark
That's the problem with straight men being the dominating voter bloc actresses who are seen as ice queens have difficulty being celebrated. And those who play ball busters almost never win.
0/1: Barbara Hershey
0/2: Judy Davis
0/2: Jessica Chastain
0/3: Sigourney Weaver
0/3: Michelle Pfeiffer
0/4: Annette Bening
0/6: Glenn Close
I'm not one to gossip, but isn't Margot Robie actually in her 30's? I get a Catherine Zeta-Jones vibe regarding her actual age ("Hello darling - I'm still 34!" - CZJ).
Take a look at shows that've split their final seasons: Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Game of Thrones, etc. Those are the series that are doing the very most to deepen and expand the medium from acting, storytelling, and visual points of view. Sorry, but I can't get mad that their showrunners and powers-that-be release them on whatever timeline they like. We wait a full year between Netflix seasons. The size of a season and format of release has virtually nothing to do with the finished product, so what difference does it make?
The old guard of television is oppressively formalistic when it comes to serialized storytelling. The Good Wife's bid for Emmys across 7 seasons was "we're making 23 hour-long episodes per season and we can't say 'fuck' and we're not cool like the other guys so vote for us on this UPHILL BATTLE we're fighting aloooone!" which to me sounds like sour grapes. Especially from people who get paid so much more than their cable/premium/streaming counterparts. Why is that battle even worth fighting anymore? If the outcome is Juliana Marguiles earning megamillions while Julia Louis Dreyfus wins five Emmys, that sounds fair to me.
It feels like you're applying franchise film rules/fatigue/cynicism to television. The last six episodes of Breaking Bad were hardly Mockingjay: Part II.
I think people are criticizing the Margot Robbie piece because the writing is so embarrassing, I mean...
"She is tall but only with the help of certain shoes. She can be sexy and composed even while naked but only in character."
I think this excellent piece by Jen Yamato at The Daily Beast about Margo Robbie, Renee Zellweger, and Blake Lively says it all about why women are so sick of the tone and content of Male Entertainment writers.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/07/renee-zellweger-margot-robbie-and-blake-lively-exposed-to-hollywood-s-insidious-male-gaze.html
LadyEdith - THANK YOU SO MUCH for linking that great article. I don't think many men get why women are upset by those pathetic articles that surfaced this week
I found the Margot Robbie interview to be so patronising and so much like a wet dream, it was an absolutely cringe-worthy piece. The most infuriating part was the description of Australia as "America 50 years ago", "a throwback country with throwback people" who days are fuelled by long-running soap operas? Sorry, what? Absolutely one of the most bizarre things I've ever read about my country. I didn't realise that having gun reform laws, good healthcare and already having our first female leader of our country was a "throwback."
I feel like we are going back into the 1950's. There are only a handful of women allowed to headline movies, and unless they are in the senior category, they are dissected and judged mainly for their looks. There is also something forever strange about Hollywood movie culture that only allows young women and older women to be celebrated (the Europeans seem to be much more okay with allowing a woman to be a star in her 30's, 40's, 50's). Even though there is ample evidence that women as leads can bring in big money, Hollywood is still largely all about men. What do you expect when a movie studio initially said Meryl was too old at 45 to play a 45 year old in Bridges? Even she had to periodically show up so the studio could "get a look at her" (make sure she was not fat or too old? Do they ask men to do this?). It's maddening, but I am glad the female writers are fighting back.
My understanding is that television split seasons has less to do with artificially extending the shows and more to do with a loophole in the actors contracts. Actors typically sign seven season contracts and if the networks then want to do eight seasons it would cost them a boatload because the actors have a lot of leverage to re-negotiate their pay for the extra season, which can be cost prohibitive if everyone in the cast is demanding more. However, if they instead say they're just making a long seventh season and then spliting it in two they don't need to pay the extra cash. I'm sure if HBO didn't have to worry about that they'd be happy to just do ten episode seventh and eighth seasons.
I realise I'm getting old and she appears in moving that generally don't interest me, but why has Margot Robbie suddenly become so terribly famous?
Sure, she was fine in Wolf of Wall Street, but really the performance just asked her to be sexually confident and keep up with Leo, nothing like the complex female roles that Scorsese has placed in his better films (hello Alice Hyatt, Danielle Bowden, Karen Hill, Ellen Olenska).
She doesn't even has the likeability factor that propelled Julia Roberts or Meg Ryan to international stardom.
I'd be delighted if someone could enlighten me.
It girl 2016. Sports Illustrated looks also have a lot to do with it, sad to say.
Andrew -- i agree that the descriptions of Australia were totally embarrassing... but that is not at all why people freaked out.
Jono -- i dont think we're going back to the 1950s. Women are leading movies MUCH LATER in life then they used to. Remember that at recently as the 1960s Anne Bancroft and Liz Taylor were playing "cougars" in their mid 30s with fake grey in their hair. I think all the turmoil about sexism and gender imbalance is a result of the 24 news cycle and the fact that a lot more people are wising up to the patriarchy.
but i really think it's 100% better for women now than it was in the 1950s. I mean consider Mad Men's depiction of women in the 60s still only secretaries or hatefully bored as housewives.
LadyEdith & Sati -- that's mostly a good article but i wish Yamato didn't feel the need to cherry-pick and ignore certain parts of the article to make her point. To me that's like watching a Michael Moore doc and he's telling the truth but he's cutting into his own argument with theatrics when the argument is strong enough. She writes...
saying the writer only talks about Margot's beauty and not her talent or savvy or her "shrewd career strategy " or anything else but that's false if you read the article. like when he writes and then he goes on to describe the hustle and savvy in auditions and studying successes and failures of other actors, making her move at just the right moment when she could have stayed in a good gig in Australia, and two years of studying accents to make sure her American was top notch.
I'm not saying it's a great article but the reaction to it indicates to me that it was published at exactly the wrong time in the outrage cycle when people were still furious about that Renee Zellweger changed her face story.
I don't know about 100 percent better, but I get your point. Maybe now there is more RANGE allowed among the 5-10 women can greenlight a movie. But overall, women get less screen time than men in movies and most movies are still made by, star, and are dominated by men. I am glad we can have a Jennifer Lawrence, Melissa McCarthy, Sandra Bullock, Meryl Streep range, but there is still a long way to go for gender equality. Don't get me started on the race inequities. Hello Lupita, Oscar winner, but not yet championed by any film director.
Margot Robbie is a gorgeous movie star
Jono -- oh i know. i'm just making a point. i'm a feminist and want a full range of option for women but this week has been exhausting with the outrage. I feel like we need to pick battles rather than being mad at simply everything that rubs any of us the wrong way.
Word.
Nathaniel - I'm all for staying optimistic but the data collected by researchers strains the notion that things are improving for women in film/TV that much...
"Indeed, a massive recent survey by the website Polygraph found that women between the ages of 22 and 31 spoke 38 percent of all female dialogue. The figure dropped to 31 percent for women actors aged 32 to 41 and a meager 20 percent for those aged 42 to 65. Men, on the other hand, received more dialogue as they got older, with those aged 42 to 65 speaking 39 percent of all male lines, compared to 32 percent for those aged 32 to 41, and 20 percent for fellas 22 to 31."
I grew up during the 60's when the roles for women were housewife, secretary, aging parent, and hooker. (both on & off the screen) The rise of feminism in the 70's was a result of women wanting more & better, and not being content with male superiority.
Although women have made enormous strides in terms of equality, I haven't seen this level of discussion about feminism since the 70's, Personally, I think the discontent and impatience that you are seeing on Twitter is a result of the culture in movies and TV still reflecting a male dominance of 70% - 30%. That level of dominance is ridiculous when you look at most other industries. Women are tired of it, and they are tired of the dominance of male critic/reviewers/writers.
Try reading Rich Cohen's articles on Channing Tatum, I guarantee he doesn't treat Tatum the same way as Margot Robbie. Basically these 3 writers mentioned in Yamoto's article have no self awareness about the problem with the male gaze, and treat each of these women as a lesser being than if she had been male. I suggest to you that this means they only make themselves look silly if they keep on. Clearly, if I'm fed up with it, and younger women have even less patience with this treatment, it's not going to go away.
I have nothing to contribute except *slow clap/praise hands @ LadyEdith*
Lady Edith -- i don't want it to away... it's great that people are so fired up about gender and racial diversity progress lately. Y'all know i'd be THRILLED if women had better and more roles. I could care less about actors most of the time. Give me actresses. But neither am i okay with the complete demonizing of writers (which is what some of response pieces resort to. I don't recall anyone hating Owen Gleiberman before this but now he is a "garbage person"? Please.
I guess i just want people to disagree without being so freaking angry and hateful toward each other. The double standards for women and sexism are everywhere. It sucks. But that doesn't mean that every straight white male is inherently sexist or that these particular writers are awful people. I think the combination of the photoshoot (again the writer of profiles usually has zero connection to photoshoots for magazines) for this article, Margot's performance in Wolf of Wall Street -- not the writer's fault but the fault of Margot & Scorsese ;) -- and the anger over Renee Zellweger article (not by this same writer nor for the same magazine) have distorted people's ability to read clearly and not be wildly angry if they see any hint of heternormative sexual objectification.
@ Nathaniel
If you look at IMDB trivia, you will see Margot is the one who wanted to be fully naked in The Wolf of Walk Street.
"Originally, Martin Scorsese offered Margot Robbie to appear wearing a bath-robe during the seduction scene between her and Leonardo DiCaprio. Robbie refused and insisted on doing the scene fully nude; her first in her career. According to Robbie: "The whole point of Naomi is that her body is her only form of currency in this world...She has to be naked. She's laying her cards on the table." Robbie said she had three shots of tequila in succession before shooting the scene to relax. After shooting was complete, Robbie initially fibbed to her family and friends about actually doing the nude scene in order to delay any personal repercussions; claiming C.G.I. was used to superimpose her head on a body-double. She eventually changed her mind and confessed when the film was released."
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0993846/trivia
It was her choice, so how is it anyone's fault?
@BJT
Not only was she fantastic despite the limited material she had in The Wolf of Wall Street, but she was also great in Focus and Z for Zachariah. Educate yourself.
The Wolf of Wall Street**
The Vanity Fair piece is appalling. Completely and utterly patronizing to Robbie, but also just flat out insulting to an entire country (you're wrong when you say "that is not at all why people freaked out" - plenty of people freaked out of that). it's also just aggressively badly written. Like, this is the sort of prose screenwriters come up with when they have a character who thinks they're a great writer but the audience is meant to laugh at them.
Why is she wearing a bikini and posing with her butt out? That was her choice too, right? I think some mixed messages are going on.
Thanks @Olivia, Nathaniel, one of the reasons I come to your blog is because you are believe in gender-equality and racial equality in the industry & in life.
Secondly, I'm Canadian, of course I agree that civility in public discourse is essential and should always be maintained and encouraged. And thankfully TFE embodies that ethic & spirit.
However, while some of the comments towards the male writers may have been over the top, on the whole I haven't found the majority of the response to be quite as bad as you have.
Case in point - check this link out it includes some more light hearted comments:
http://www.pajiba.com/twitter/theres-a-lot-to-hate-about-that-margot-robbie-profile-and-twitters-got-all-of-it-covered.php
Women are ridiculing the prose style, and tone in much the same way that Amy Schumer did with her "last F##kable Day" sketch.
I especially love this quote from Schumer:
“I’ve been doing a lot of press in the last couple of years, and I knew it would be a fun place to satirize a little.” Like how? “Well, there’s a little bit about how, when they profile a girl, it’s always right on the precipice of, like, ‘We almost fu##ked.’ Like, ‘She walked in, and her nipples were just a little hard, and she ordered a whiskey because her throat hurt."
I suspect that these 3 writers are more embarrassed and hurt by the laughter coming their way than any personal insults. So maybe next time they will do better and treat women with a bit more care and respect.
Laughter is always a great medicine.
"Why is she wearing a bikini and posing with her butt out"
She's not posing with her butt pushed out - her butt just looks like that
The cover is pretty but falls into pretty conventional Mad Men advertising (sexy blonde girl in bikini sells magazines and her summer movies). Good luck Pretty Woman.
What does Margot being naked in a movie has to do with anything? It doesn't give the writer the right to write about her like that.
"I'm not saying it's a great article but the reaction to it indicates to me that it was published at exactly the wrong time in the outrage cycle when people were still furious about that Renee Zellweger changed her face story." - that is the thing. It's always 'wrong time' because there are disgusting pieces like those from Variety and VF all the time.
Hayden W. - "Take a look at shows that've split their final seasons: Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Game of Thrones, etc. Those are the series that are doing the very most to deepen and expand the medium from acting, storytelling, and visual points of view. Sorry, but I can't get mad that their showrunners and powers-that-be release them on whatever timeline they like. We wait a full year between Netflix seasons. The size of a season and format of release has virtually nothing to do with the finished product, so what difference does it make?"
Totally in agreement with you. Also, Game of Thrones only dominated the Emmys last year whereas for the rest of the years it has only being nominated and won for a handful of tech categories and Peter Dinklage from 2011-2014. It has lesser episodes in the last 2 seasons because the showrunners has already made clear that it is gearing to the final act, and have already planned out the storyline for it beforehand. Combining all 13-15 into 1 is not possible due to the enormous budget of GOT and also they want to keep the last 2 seasons free of bloat.
Game of Thrones is one of the best TV series that has come by in recent years, weaving fantasy, political intrigue, family dysfunction and warring noble families into one helluva drama. It gives complex, meaty roles not only to the main cast, but even the supporting/guest actors have brilliant character arcs written for them to work with (Diana Rigg, Charles Dance, Conleth Hill, Jerome Flynn, Rory McCann, Natalie Dormer!!!) and they all excel wonderfully. The female characters are varied and unique but still complex and strong in their own ways, and are probably some the of the best on television right now. Granted its not perfect (Dorne..) but on the contrary I do feel the Emmys are not nominating the other actors enough outside of Peter, Lena and Emilia and I hope more of them will get their due credit at the Emmys by the time the show ends.
I think that Rich Cohen's smarmy style is equal opportunity! Here he is in VF, drooling over Nic Pizzolatto: "He was 37 but somehow ageless. He could’ve stepped out of a novel by Steinbeck. The writer as crusader, chronicler of love and depravity. His shirt was rumpled, his hair mussed, his manner that of a man who’d just hiked along the railroad tracks or rolled out from under a box. He is fine-featured, with fierce eyes a little too small for his face. It gives him the aura of a bear or some other species of dangerous animal. When I was a boy and dreamed of literature, this is how I imagined a writer—a kind of outlaw, always ready to fight or go on a spree. After a few drinks, you realize the night will culminate with pledges of undying friendship or the two of you on the floor, trying to gouge each other’s eyes out." Blecch!!!
With Game of Thrones they really neened 13 episodes to end the series and they have siad they just can not make more than 10 epsiodes in a year. They also need the budget of 2 seasons. They really are seasons 6 and 7 not one season split in two, this is not the usual sitsuation and no reason to dislike it.
Feminism is needed like never before. <cueing up Helen Reddy LP>
I would also add that unlike film, there are no *distribution* penalties to lament about unorthodox release schedules for television. It's not like fans don't have access to Mad Men because the showrunners decided to split up the final season. It's not like fans paid more money for it. I really cannot see how this trend is a problem for viewers in any way.
I'd rather have great shows to watch than a pristine, perfectly aligned Emmy ballot. I think Nat is overestimating how much Emmy recognition matters to these people, anyway.
I guarantee you Vince Gilligan called a meeting to say "I will accept no fewer than SIX Emmys for the final season of Breaking Bad." Or "Jon Hamm will accept no fewer than TWO shots at an Emmy win for the finale of Mad Men." Etc.
"...that Gilligan *never* called a meeting..."
Hayden W -- Matthew Weiner himself, creator of Mad Men, bemoaned the split for how it affected the story and the arc in progress. Sometimes business decisions are anti-viewer. And hogging awards in two separate years when you only made one year's worth of material is gross. Sorry but i'll never be convinced otherwise. I miss the days when some stars pulled themselves out of races because they thought they had been amply rewarded. Everyone is so greedy now.
it's also not true that split seasons don't have financial impact on viewers. Many people buy subscriptions to seasons on iTunes and Amazons or buy seasons on dvds... so in the case of "split seasons" they pay twice. And premium cable subscriptions cost money so it's another way too milk money for an additional year and keep the viewer if that's their favorite show.
I should also add that, splitting 13-15 episodes into the last two seasons of GOT is not " interrupting the natural flow of storytelling arcs ". For audience who have watched the series from S1-S6, it is quite clear that an arc has been formed for each season. (SPOILER ALERT!) Season 7 has to deal with quite possibly the last human Big Bad, which is Cersei before having an all-out final war with the The Night King and Wights that are coming from Beyond The wall in Season 8. So in a way, each season has its own story arc to process.
Oh yeah, I always hate when the best shows on TV do what they can to generate buzz/revenue (especially from advertisers, minus that small added costs you described that fans pay). That might actually mean we get more of them. If only Mad Men had the consistency and reliability of The Big Bang Theory. Imagine seeking out and keeping track of the shows we love!
And while we're at it, more sexist, terribly written profiles of female stars, please.
Mobdro app android download
There is am application which let you watch online TV
Check taptv