Mad Men’s Jay R. Ferguson on Stan’s Big Finale Moment: You ‘Had to Have Seen It Coming’

Vulture   5/19/2015   By Libby Hill

Spoilers ahead for the series finale of Mad Men.

As the world continues to learn how to live in a post–Mad Men world, Vulture got a moment to speak with the representative of one of the show’s most beloved characters: Stan’s beard. Speaking on behalf of his gone-but-not-forgotten facial hair is Jay R. Ferguson, who played Stan Rizzo in the final four seasons of Mad Men. In addition to indulging our beard-related queries, Ferguson also reveals himself as the original “Steggy” ‘shipper and talks us through the difficulties of learning to love again after the magic that was Mad Men.

There was some talk online that the resolution of Stan and Peggy’s relationship was too pat, that it happened too quickly. As someone who was actually involved, did you feel like it was an accurate representation of the characters, or did you feel like it was a little rushed?
Well, from a purely selfish standpoint of enjoying working with Lizzie [Moss] so much, I just wish that we could have had more, just so we could have had more work together, but … [sigh]. I don’t know, I think that if there had been any more buildup to it, it would have been too obvious. To me, I saw it coming a mile away anyway, even as subtle as it was. Really, I think all of the purest fans out there that had been paying attention had to have seen it coming, or at least suspected that it was a possibility. I think that the buildup that some people wanted or felt like it should have had, it’s been having as a slow burn for the last four or five years.

How long have you known that that relationship was heading to that place? And how much of it was just chemistry between actors?
I like to believe that a lot of it has to do with our chemistry. Stan was, from what I’ve been told, only supposed to be around a couple of episodes when he first came on the show. Obviously things changed, and certainly Lizzie and I being such good friends in real life didn’t hurt, as we were able to bring a little bit of that onto the show, but as far as how long I’ve known known, I did not know know until I got the last script.

Oh, wow.
Other people knew, but I told them I didn’t want anybody to tell me anything, I just wanted to let it happen as it happened and then let me find out that way. From my first day on the job, I pulled Matt [Weiner] aside and I said, “So these two are eventually going to hook up, right?” And he looked at me with this look of, like, No, you dumbass, and said, “No! No! You’re way off!” and went into this spiel about how it’s not like that. I think that at the time, he really did mean it. I don’t think he was trying to throw me off. At the time, it was a disgusting thought to him, but I just always felt like it had that feeling to me.

Now, that also is based on never really having had the experience of being on a show that doesn’t necessarily do what you expect them to do. I’m used to the obvious thing happening, and it wasn’t the obvious thing, as it turned out. They ended up together, but it was way more complicated than I thought in the beginning. From what the writers have told me, it was in season six, I believe, that the trigger was finally pulled to put that story into motion. So that means that for my first two seasons on the show, that was not the direction it was heading in.

That’s amazing.
But I had no idea. I had zero idea. I had my suspicions, like I said. When given the opportunity, I would try and play that up a little bit as much as I could without it being too obvious. So I was really delighted. Lizzie and I were cheering secretly for that to happen the whole time as well, so we were really happy.

To just even have a scene in the finale of this iconic show would have been fine. To just be a face without any words would have been fine, but to have what I had, with all of the other stuff they had to handle in that finale, to have been blessed with such an important part of that last episode and last season, really, was just so special to me.

It’s interesting to me that you always saw the relationship between Stan and Peggy like that because I think that warmth came through, even from the beginning, when Stan was kind of a dick. He seemed like a very winning dick, which is not the case with a lot of the characters on Mad Men.
I’m not sure what the initial intention was for Stan on the show, I should probably ask Matt that someday. I would imagine, though, that in the beginning, his presence was supposed to serve as a notice being given that Peggy is coming into her own. Here comes this jokey, misogynistic guy, and she just handles him like a little lackey. I can only assume that that’s the purpose that character was intended to serve. Then it took a turn and became a really great friendship and, like a lot of great romances, this one started with a really special friendship. It’s so great to now not have to play the whole, “Oh, Stan and Peggy? Oh no, are you kidding? That’s a crazy idea!” I’ve been having to do that forever, and it’s been so brutal.

It must be very surreal to be able to talk about the show with such candor and not worry about spoiling anything and being fired. Or worse.
Oh, you can’t imagine. I’ve never had to do that before, and of course, that was the main question that came up in every interview I would do before the finale. And if they were on-camera interviews, then I’d really be nervous because then I’m worried about people reading into my body language, and I’m a terrible liar. It’s not a question that you can just answer with, “No.” You have to elaborate and go into whatever bullshit reason you’re making up that it makes sense that they wouldn’t get together.

One of the things that made Stan such a great character was how he brought a comedic aspect to everything, but I’m also interested because he always seemed a bit like the most together member of the staff. He was very content, which is not something we saw from characters on the show a lot, and which is something Peggy pushed back at a lot because she assumed that meant he was settling. What was it like to have a sense of self-satisfaction within that character when so many of his co-workers were lost?
That’s interesting, I’ve never really thought about it that way, but I agree. When Stan started to let go of his ego a little bit and, not coincidentally, about the time he started to go hippie, the beard and the pot-smoking and all of that stuff, it seemed that about that time he softened up in terms of, he wanted to do good work but he wasn’t as consumed with seeing his name in lights anymore.

Interestingly enough, I was so blessed on so many different levels, but they gave me that line in the finale, of, “There’s more to life than work,” because I feel like that line, it wasn’t just Stan saying that to Peggy, that was a message from the show to the world. It was a very broad statement, and I think that was what Stan had come to embody on the show, the one guy [who balances] doing good work but not letting it consume his life and still having a life outside of the job. Ultimately, that resonates with Peggy, too, when he says it to her, and maybe in some small way, [that] is what helps to encourage her to stay.

Looking ahead, you have a new sitcom coming up called The Real O’Neals. Are you excited to transition to pure comedy?
Yeah, totally. It could not be more of a 180 from Mad Men, character-wise, show-wise, everything. It’s a whole new ball of wax. It’s very exciting and terrifying.

It’s very hard to say good-bye to Mad Men. I’ve likened it to getting your heart broken that first time and you feel like you’ll never love again. You can’t even fathom ever having that feeling again because it was so special and so intense and you’ve never felt it before, but ultimately, you do. I can only hope and pray that I can be honored with that feeling once again down the road in my career because it is a wonderful feeling. So now I’m dating again. Now I’m in that process, and this new show is my new girlfriend. We’re still in the beginning stages, so we’ll see where it goes, but I’m very excited about it.

So the beard is gone. I have seen and can verify that the beard is gone.
The beard is gone.

How long did it take you to grow and maintain that magnificent beard?
Let me see, so, the first season I had it, season six, I believe, it was large. It took maybe two months, give or take, and then I came in and it was too big, so they trimmed it down. But then, somehow, in both halves of season seven, especially in the second one even more than the first, it was even bigger. I didn’t even realize it at the time until they started coming on TV and I was like, Holy shit, man. That thing is just out of hand. It was so large. It was just a mass of hair. I felt so bad for Lizzie in that scene because it’s this wonderful moment of these two characters finally coming together and you assume that there’s two people kissing underneath there somewhere, but you have no idea because visually all you see is this mass of hair covering everything. It’s just crazy, man. So, to answer your question, it took a couple months to grow, and then they would maintain it throughout filming and cut it for me and trim it, keep it looking crazy.

Jay R. Ferguson as Stan Rizzo and Elisabeth Moss as Peggy Olson – Mad Men _ Season 7B, Episode 14

So it’s like a pet, but someone else took care of it. You just had to home it.
Yeah. And then when the show ended, it took me awhile to bring myself to cut it.

Aww.
But I did, eventually, I cut the sides off first and then I just walked around with this humongous, Lebowski-ish goatee that grew to such an absurd length, and then, I mean, I really didn’t want to let it go. And then I shaved the mustache off and I just had this chin thing that was like a foot long, and then it was just like, “Okay, what am I doing?”

I think this is the new stages of grief. Stages of Jay’s post–Mad Men beard.
It was tough to separate.

 

http://www.vulture.com/2015/05/mad-men-jay-r-ferguson-on-stan-and-peggy.html?mid=facebook_nymag

Upfronts 2015: See what LGBT-inclusive shows are coming to broadcast TV

GLAAD   5/18/2015   By Megan Townsend, GLAAD’s Entertainment Media Strategist

Last week, the five broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, The CW, FOX, and NBC) held their annual upfronts event to present their upcoming fall and midseason lineups to press and advertisers. During this week the networks also reveal which of their series will be renewed for new seasons or cancelled. While broadcast will be losing several LGBT-inclusive shows, they’ve also renewed a good number of inclusive series and ordered some exciting new content as well.

Check back this fall for GLAAD’s full Where We Are on TV report analyzing the overall diversity of primetime scripted series regulars on broadcast networks and looking at the number of LGBT characters on cable networks for the upcoming 2015-2016 TV season.

While there isn’t a lot of information out yet – particularly about series with large ensemble casts – we do know of a handful of new LGBT-inclusive series coming to broadcast in the fall or midseason schedules.

ABC has ordered a new comedy series, The Real O’Neals, to premiere in midseason. The series, which is loosely based on the life of Dan Savage, follows a seemingly perfect Catholic family whose lives take an unexpected turn when middle son Kenny comes out. The rest of the family reveal their own surprising secrets and the honesty inspires the family to stop pretending to be perfect and start being real with each other. The new drama Quantico, airing Tuesdays at 10 on ABC, follows a group of recruits going through training at the FBI’S Quantico base when one of them is suspected of being the mastermind behind a devastating terrorist attack on American soil. The group includes FBI trainee Simon who is seen kissing his boyfriend in the series trailer. Check out the trailers for The Real O’Neals and Quantico below.

The CW has ordered a new superhero show, DC’s Legends of Tomorrow, from out executive producer Greg Berlanti (Arrow, The Flash, CBS’ upcoming Supergirl, NBC’s upcoming Blindspot) to the network’s midseason schedule. Legends of Tomorrow will see Caity Lotz return as Sara Lance, a bisexual character who died on Arrow, but is now the “White Canary” after having been resurrected through the mythical Lazarus Pits. White Canary will team up with several other heroes to defeat an immortal threat, and perhaps reunite with her former love Nyssa. Legends will also feature out actors Victor Garber and Wentworth Miller in regular roles.  Check out the trailer below.

FOX has ordered two new LGBT-inclusive series for the fall; the half-hour comedy Grandfathered (Tuesdays, 8pm) and Miami-based procedural Rosewood (Wednesdays, 8pm). Grandfathered stars John Stamos as the ultimate bachelor and a successful restaurateur who suddenly finds himself going from single to father and grandfather in one fell swoop. Kelly Jenrette stars as his lesbian assistant restaurant manager Annelise. Rosewood follows brilliant private pathologist Dr. Beaumont Rosewood (Morris Chestnut) who does for-hire autopsies to find what the police miss. Rosewood’s sister Pippy (Gabrielle Dennis) is the “toxicology queen” of the practice and her fiancé Tara Milly Izikoff (Anna Konkle) works for the practice as a DNA specialist.

NBC has announced that the long-awaited Neil Patrick Harris variety show Best Time Ever with Neil Patrick Harris will air live on Tuesdays at 10 starting in the fall and wrapping in November. The series will combine comedy, music, and game show elements.

Several LGBT-inclusive series were also renewed for new seasons. On ABC, the sitcoms Modern Family and The Middle will return, and reality series Dancing with the Stars will be back for a new season with the out judge Bruno Tonioli. The “Thank God It’s Thursday” block has all been renewed: Grey’s Anatomy and Scandal will return for their twelfth and fifth season respectively,  and How to Get Away with Murder (which recently took home the GLAAD Media Award in Outstanding Drama Series) is returning for a second season. Country music drama Nashville was also renewed for a fourth season, and the most recent season finale included aspiring star Will finally coming out publicly. Canadian police drama Rookie Blue‘s fifth season will premiere this summer.

On CBS, Person of Interest was renewed for a new truncated season, while the third season of the supernatural drama Under the Dome, which includes a lesbian attorney, will premiere June 25. The CW picked up new seasons of The 100, Arrow, The Flash, Jane the Virgin, and The Originals. Cycle 22 of America’s Next Top Model will return August 5.

FOX ordered new seasons of Empire, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Bones, Gotham, New Girl, and The Simpsons. NBC has renewed reality series The Biggest Loser and the Jane Lynch-hosted Hollywood Game Night, as well as scripted series The Mysteries of Laura and The Night Shift. NBC has also renewed the comedy Undateable, but the third season will be aired entirely live. Hannibal‘s third season will premiere next month.

In less happy news, broadcast is losing several LGBT-inclusive series. ABC’s Revenge, which boasted one of TV’s few bisexual male characters in fan favorite Nolan Ross, wrapped its fourth and final season this month. ABC also officially cancelled the sitcom Manhattan Love Story which featured a recurring gay character, Tucker. The CW officially cancelled Hart of Dixie with this month’s fourth season finale serving as the series finale. CBS axed the LGBT-inclusive comedies The Millers and The McCarthys.

Glee‘s final season wrapped up on Fox in March and it was announced that The Following‘s current season will be its last. The network has also cancelled freshman comedies Backstrom, Mulaney, and Weird Loners, as well as freshman drama Red Band Society. Fox also cancelled The Mindy Project which has included lesbian and gay recurring characters, but Hulu picked up the series and ordered a 26-episode new season.   NBC cancelled their LGBT-inclusive freshman comedies Marry Me and One Big Happy, and drama Parenthood‘s final season wrapped in January.

Don’t forget to check back with GLAAD this fall when we release our full Where We Are on TV report analyzing the overall diversity of primetime scripted series regulars on broadcast networks and looking at the number of LGBT characters on cable networks for the upcoming 2015-2016 TV season.

Let us know: what are you going to be tuning in to this fall?

 

http://www.glaad.org/blog/upfronts-2015-see-what-lgbt-inclusive-shows-are-coming-broadcast-tv

TV Power Shifts From Network Biz to Content Ownership

Variety   5/18/2015  by

Content is indeed king.

The transformation of the “TV business” into the “content business” has accelerated to a gallop, forcing the industry to face the harsh realities of trying to run a traditional network in an on-demand world.

The signs of upheaval were impossible to miss last week as the major networks closed out upfront season with 2015-16 schedule presentations that emphasized how much they recognize that there’s no such thing as a status quo anymore.

“The erratic schedules of the past just don’t work anymore,” Fox TV Group chair Dana Walden told the crowd in her first upfront presentation as head of programming. Her partner atop Fox, Gary Newman, vowed that Fox would redouble its efforts to “market (shows) relentlessly and create events that break through and captivate viewers across every platform.”

The sense of urgency emphasized onstage comes at a time when the traditional economic model for broadcast and cable outlets could be charitably described as under siege. The advertising market is in a state of upheaval that shows no signs of settling down. “Day­parts are dead” as an organizing principle for ad buys, Turner Broadcasting ad sales chief Donna Speciale declared at the cable network’s presentation, acknowledging one of myriad ways that business norms are changing for ad buyers and sellers.

Moreover, live television viewing is dwindling to levels that alarm most showbiz CEOs. Younger viewers are spending more time with smartphones and tablets, and less time glued to linear TV channels. The virtual disappearance of reruns in primetime has hiked programming costs for networks while wiping out a once-bankable source of income for writers, actors and directors. And the competition for original series has spread so far and wide that the talent pool of creatives is stretched perilously thin. Just ask any network that has opted to reboot an old movie or TV series after a frustrated search for promising new material.

“How do you create content that connects in a world of total choice?” ABC Entertainment Group president Paul Lee mused. “The era of least-objectionable programming is dead.”

To that end, the shift in focus from renting to owning shows is the single biggest change evident in all that was said and spun at the upfronts. Content-
licensing to digital and international outlets has become a crucial part of the profit mix for scripted series. To make the most of those opportunities, networks and their vertically integrated parent companies need unfettered control of the shows they run — and that means ownership. That focus is clear in the higher volume of shows proportionately, compared with last year, that ABC, NBC and Fox ordered from sibling studios. It was unquestionably a tougher environment this year for new and returning series orders for free agents Warner Bros. TV and Sony Pictures TV.

In his remarks on a quarterly earnings call on May 6, 21st Century Fox chief operating officer Chase Carey articulated a clear mandate for the network, which is digging out of a ratings downturn. “We … need to control a much wider set of rights to the content we distribute. The days of slicing and dicing rights are over,” he said. “In order to create the best consumer experience and maximize the value of our content and networks, we need to … create our own product.”

It’s no accident that Fox’s highly regarded TV studio chiefs, Walden and Newman, were given oversight of network programming last year after a management shakeup. The fortunes of networks and studios under a single corporate roof are intertwined more than ever before. And the power is shifting to those who produce content — rather than to those who manage the distribution pipes.

To be sure, vertically integrated congloms have been focused on exerting 360-degree control of their programming for years. But in the current environment, ownership has become an imperative, because profits are harder to come by through advertising sales in first-run linear telecasts — the old-fashioned way networks did business. To drive the point home, TV honchos are bracing for an upfront sales market that will likely suffer a drop in total volume of dollars committed to advance buys on broadcast and cable nets for the second year in a row.

“There’s no question that we’re seeing a new advertising reality here, because money definitely has migrated out of traditional media into new media, which is one of the reasons why we’ve shown such an interest in new media,” Disney chairman-CEO Bob Iger told investors on May 5 (although he was quick to praise ABC’s track record this year, and asserted that “the upfront is going to be just fine for our network”).

In a world where viewers are increasingly setting their own schedules, networks no longer can afford to carry the programs that used to be found in lower-profile “hammock slots” on the schedules. To survive, shows have to be buzzy enough (“undeniable” was the watchword among execs) to be sought out by viewers who may only sample them through on-demand platforms. That shifts clout to creatives — hence the reign of “uber producers,” a la Shonda Rhimes, Dick Wolf, Chuck Lorre, J.J. Abrams, Howard Gordon and Greg Berlanti.

As tough as it is to field a new show in this crowded climate, the major congloms are investing more than ever before in original content, particularly in dramas, which travel well around the world.

That’s quite a shift from the heyday of “Friends,” “Seinfeld” and “Home Improvement,” when comedies were the Holy Grail for studios, because even a
reasonably successful sitcom was sure to be wildly profitable in syndication. Today, with half-hours harder to break and dramas generating so much traction, the investment in comedy programming is declining, as is clear from the decrease in half-hour series orders this cycle.

Overall, the broadcast networks are buying more shows, scripted and unscripted; even summer schedules are now stocked with originals. Plus, there’s a gold rush for original programming sought by the same digital and cable nets that have eroded the Big Four’s audience.

Indeed, the original content arms race among Netflix, Amazon and Hulu in the past year has been good for Hollywood, as even A-list talent is flocking to the commercial-free playground of SVOD. ABC Studios is building a Marvel dynasty at Netflix. Warner Bros. TV is producing an animated “Green Eggs and Ham” series for Netflix and a J.J. Abrams-Stephen King collaboration, “11/22/63,” for Hulu. Sony Pictures TV is firing up drama “Mad Dogs” with Shawn Ryan for Amazon and unleashing Baz Luhrmann on “The Get Down” for Netflix.

The growing returns from content licensing have been a big part of CBS Corp.’s strong financial performance over the past few years. Owning successful shows has helped transform the Eye from a company that was largely dependent upon advertising revenue just a few years ago to one that now reaps 49% of its gross from non-advertising sources — chiefly content licensing plus carriage and retransmission consent fees from multichannel video programming distributors. Since content and distribution revenue are much more predictable than income from the cyclical swings of the advertising market, the better balance of revenue sources has greatly improved the Eye’s standing on Wall Street.

From a corporate perspective, CBS sees its network and studio operations as two sides of the same coin. “The network is like the mother who gives birth
to the asset with the studio,” said CBS Corp. chief operating officer Joe Ianniello. “As the asset grows, it becomes more of a studio product, but you’d never know if it would have been successful without the network.”

The CBS Television Studios division produced 30 more hours of programming in the first quarter of this year than it did in the comparable period a year ago. That means an investment of $60 million to $90 million now (assuming an average cost of around $3 million per hour), in the hopes of larger returns over a longer period down the road.

Call it the Lucy Principle: In recent years, CBS has made about $15 million a year on licensing deals for “I Love Lucy,” a show last produced in 1957.

“Ten years ago, there was a lot more risk for us in estimating revenue from our shows,” Ianniello said. “The changing business model and the increase in
international and SVOD gives us much more certainty on what we can expect to make. That gives us a lot of underlying flexibility. Our cost of capital goes down, our stock price goes up. The risk profile has changed.”

 

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/tv-power-shifts-from-network-biz-to-content-ownership-1201499840/

Hollywood ignores red states. It doesn’t seem to matter.

The Washington Post   5/15/2015  

CBS’s “The Big Bang Theory”

If it comes down to winning Emmys or having a large audience, Peter Liguori, the CEO of Tribune Media, would prefer the audience.

Tribune Media owns WGN America, which has original series including “Salem” and “Manhattan,” and plans to add more. Speaking at a conference, Liguori laid out his vision for what these shows could be.

“If you look at HBO and FX, there’s a big focus on Emmys,” he said, according to the Hollywood Reporter. “Emmys don’t necessarily create return on investment. Those types of shows play to the coasts. I want to be able to create great programming that creates buzz that is accessible to middle America.”

Liguori was talking about television viewers. But to political obsessives, when someone talks about the coasts and middle America, what’s left unsaid but very much implied is “liberal elites” versus “flyover country” — red states versus blue states. But does TV really break down that way, and is getting a “return on your investment” as easy as putting together red-state-friendly shows like “Duck Dynasty” or a Ronald Reagan biopic?

Not necessarily. Below are the seven most-viewed primetime network shows for the week ending May 3, according to Zap2it. For six of the seven — all except for “The Big Bang Theory” — the top-rated show, Democratic viewers outnumber Republican ones, according to another set of data from 2012.

Political affiliation of viewers of top-rated television shows

by percentage

Screen Shot 2015-05-28 at 3.31.54 PM

In fact, according to the fall 2014 GfK-MRI Survey of the American Consumer, a slightly larger percentage of TV viewers identify as Democratic than Republican, about 34 percent to 31 percent, respectively, with about 31 percent identifying as either independent or having no party affiliation (numbers that echo America as a whole). There are other highly rated shows that skew Republican, including “The Blacklist” and “NCIS,” but when it comes to the top-rated shows, their audiences lean a little to the left.

Entertainment Weekly and Experian Marketing Services looked at the most Republican and Democratic shows in January. The full list is interesting and worth looking at, if you’re into that sort of thing, but here’s a sampling of shows from their list with the highest percentage of their audience that identified with a party, according to the GfK survey.

Shows with audiences that skew more Republican

by percentage

Screen Shot 2015-05-28 at 3.33.41 PM

Shows with audiences that skew more Democratic

by percentage

Screen Shot 2015-05-28 at 3.34.59 PM

Republicans are more likely to watch “Duck Dynasty,” which we knew, and “Scandal” and “Project Runway” have very Democratic audiences, which also makes sense, given the thrust of the shows. But who knew that HGTV, with its “Love It Or List It” and “House Hunters,” was so beloved by Republicans? Or that “Glee” is so evenly divided (independents did not watch that show, it turns out)?

The data show reaching “middle America” on TV isn’t a simple red state-blue state thing. We’re a lot more of a purple country than dual-color presidential election maps can show, with coastal Republicans who enjoy Emmy-winning shows and “flyover country” Democrats watching “The Voice,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” and “Survivor.” For television executives who want to reach a wide audience, that means attracting viewers of all political persuasions.

David Barie contributed to this post.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/15/is-hollywood-losing-viewers-by-neglecting-red-states-not-really/

22 Things You Know If Tegan And Sara Were Your Teenage Idols

This is where the good goes.

BuzzFeed 5/13 by Flo Perry

1. Tegan and Sara are the definition of lesbian royalty.

http://ihateteganandsara.tumblr.com/post/56124553489/tegan-sara-recall-weighing-whether-to-be-out

2. They were there for you in the dark years where you just needed some really good-looking lesbian twins to look up to.

3. They made you realise that queer women could be seriously cool.

4. They could even be cool when rocking the wispy mullet.

Could you be cool and rock the wispy mullet? Probably not, but at least now you know it’s possible.

5. They showed us that all lesbians make mistakes sometimes.

Seriously, Sara, blonde? What were you thinking.

6. Your heart broke when they appeared in The L Word.

Everyone was sharing their memories of Dana () and Shane when they both got stoned and went to a Tegan and Sara concert. A-mazing.

7. They were definitely your style icons.

https://instagram.com/p/eaP5Y9xqRb/

8. You pride yourself in being able to tell them apart.

They part their hair in different directions and only Tegan has a chin piercing. DUH.

9. But you could never pick a favourite.

http://always-on-fire-for-sara.tumblr.com/post/115896710837/sara-has-a-best-friend-in-every-city-if-you-know

“I’LL BE YOUR ‘BEST FRIEND’ SARA.”

10. You appreciate all their albums in different ways.

  

Sure their early stuff was a bit alternative, but you still listened to all of it on repeat.

11. Your friends didn’t always share your obsession.

They were wrong.

12. You watched all of their interviews on YouTube.

http://gaytegan.tumblr.com/post/116960417616/tegan-and-sara-high-five-ing-on-this-just-out

They are TOO CUTE.

13. You know they they pulled off Bieber hair better than Bieber ever could.

14. You overrelated to their kind of weird lyrics.

You might have even written them out in an ~artistic~ font.

15. Or you used their lyrics to tell all your friends how your truly felt.

https://instagram.com/p/2XJBk4GPE5/

~Deep~

16. You love how cute their relationship is.

http://quinrella.tumblr.com/image/118218083787

“Why don’t I have a lesbian twin to share beanies with?”

17. You were kind of pissed when Glee covered “Closer”.

Wasn’t even in a classic season of Glee, and it wasn’t about Santana and Brittany.

18. If they came to your town you definitely went to see them live.

https://instagram.com/p/oAP23Qwiew/

19. Sara’s cat totally melts your heart on Instagram.

https://instagram.com/p/0yTDynmFdj/

20. They showed you it was cool to be proud.

21. And cool to fight for your rights.

https://instagram.com/p/2YyJYqsdFk/

22. You’re still kind of in love with them today.

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/floperry/i-felt-you-in-my-legs?bffb&utm_term=4ldqphn#.xdWkbqgb4

 

The ‘Moneyball’ Network

Amazon has turned last-dibs status into a competitive advantage.
The New York Magaizne   5/6/2015   By Adam Sternbergh

Pitching a new TV show to networks and studios, explains Ben Watkins, a showrunner for Burn Notice, is a bit like applying to college, where you sit down and think, What are your reaches? What are your safety schools? What are your fallbacks? “It’s the same with TV outlets,” he says. It’s not controversial to say that when Amazon Studios was started, in 2010, it was no one’s idea of TV’s Harvard. In fact, back then, Amazon was best known for soliciting scripts from anyone, to be submitted through its website. (Only two such shows — a comedy called Those Who Can’t and a kids’ program called Gortimer Gibbon’s Life on Normal Street — even made it to the pilot stage.) By 2013, when Amazon Studios released its first slate of original pilots developed more traditionally, it still seemed not quite ready for the Ivy League. The only show from that batch that you have likely heard of is Alpha House, created by cartoonist Garry Trudeau, and that’s probably because at one point you thought, Hey, look, John Goodman’s doing a show on Amazon. The programs that weren’t picked up were even more forgettable.

So when Watkins was shopping his new project, Hand of God, he had a few outlets in mind — his reaches, his safety schools, his fallbacks — and, given his show’s content, he expected some level of pushback from all of them. Hand of God is, to put it mildly, potentially controversial. It follows Pernell Harris, a grizzled, foulmouthed, prostitute-frequenting judge, played by Ron Perlman, who believes he’s receiving visions from God that will aid him in tracking down his daughter-in-law’s rapist, encouraged by the ministrations of a charlatan Evangelical and helped by the muscle of a Scripture-quoting psycho. “I fully anticipated that whoever decided to make the show would ask me to change the title,” says Watkins. “I fully anticipated they’d be wondering, Once this show hits the air, who’s going to mobilize and protest against it?” Given Perlman’s previous involvement with FX on the hit show Sons of Anarchy, and FX’s reputation for edgy material, Hand of God seemed like (maybe) a good fit there — but it didn’t mesh with the channel’s programming needs at that particular moment. Other outlets were interested, but discussion got bogged down with the changes that might be required. Then Watkins met with Amazon. All they said was, he remembers, “We want to take a shot.”

After the one-hour pilot debuted in August 2014, Watkins was pleased with the online response. He had no idea about the actual viewership numbers — Amazon not only doesn’t share them with the public but also doesn’t share them with the show’s producers: “We just want them to focus on making fantastic shows,” says Amazon Studios head Roy Price — but Watkins was cautiously optimistic. Then he got called in to meet with Price; Morgan Wandell, the head of drama; and Carolyn Newman, a development executive. They discussed the success of the pilot. Then the execs mentioned its more controversial elements, which had aroused some outcry online. Watkins got nervous. One of them asked, “Do you plan on hitting those same hot-button issues if the show goes to series?” Watkins got a little more nervous. He worried the fate of the series was hanging on his answer.

“Well, that is kind of what the show has to do,” he told them.

“Good,” said Price. “Give us more of that.” Then he ordered nine more episodes.

Since its founding, Amazon Studios has been playing a kind of TV version of Moneyball. To compete with companies with bigger staffs, more prestige, and a more established track record, Amazon has had to look for an unexploited competitive advantage — and Price thinks he’s found it in simply making the shows no one else is willing to make. “There’s something exciting about an idea that no sensible network executive would do,” he says. “That’s an excellent sign that you’re in uncharted waters. And that’s where we should be.”

This might seem like empty rhetoric, if not for the fact that Amazon’s surprise flagship show Transparent has been a huge critical success, winning a Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Comedy (Jeffrey Tambor) and another for Best Comedy Series, as well as the hearts of dozens of vocal TV critics surprised to see something so original on TV. (Not to mention from Amazon Studios.) On paper, Transparent, which is about a prickly L.A. family with a gender-transitioning retiree dad, is not anyone’s idea of a surefire win. It’s the kind of show that no network would touch, premium cable would likely approach with caution, and only an upstart outlet looking to make some noise would move quickly to snatch up — which is exactly how it played out for creator Jill Soloway. “The broadcast networks have to represent the interests of potential advertisers,” she says. “So brands need to like the show.” As for the upper echelons of premium cable, “HBO and Showtime were both interested, but no one was saying, ‘We have to make this right now.’ Amazon did. They wanted to let me shoot it right away. I didn’t really want to be in the mix with Showtime or HBO buying ten other pilots and developing them, and maybe a year later I find out if they’re going to shoot my pilot or not.”

Transparent is an unusual case, because it wasn’t just an intriguing idea Soloway had stumbled on. It was, in fact, an intensely personal story for her, since her father had come out as transgender. After she wrote the script and presented it to TV outlets, her plan was, if everyone passed, to make it herself as an independent movie. So Amazon made her a highly unusual offer. It agreed to finance the pilot and, if the studio didn’t order the series, Soloway could get the footage back, which she could use toward her movie. “It literally felt like a production grant,” she says.

The subsequent success of Transparent offered a new way forward for Amazon. The studio’s initial programming strategy had less to do with producing innovative shows than it did with promoting an innovative way of choosing shows; basically, Amazon would present pilots to the world, and you, the viewer, would have some say in which ones got picked up. However, of the slate of pilots released in February 2014, which included Bosch (a cop show based on the popular series of books by Michael Connelly, with a built-in fan base) and Mozart in the Jungle (originally developed for HBO, and starring Gael García Bernal), both of which were picked up, Transparent was the lowest-rated show by fans. Still, Amazon knew what it had on its hands: a chance to finally stand out. “We really, really did not want to have a bunch of shows that seemed like the best shows that didn’t make it onto CBS’s or NBC’s schedule,” says Price. “Honestly, if you put together a network comprised of that kind of thing, no one would care about it. It wouldn’t have some value. It would have no value.”

The problem with Transparent, as a blueprint for Amazon, is that it’s a difficult process to replicate — a project born of a creator’s singular personal story and never really intended for TV at all. Still, says Joe Lewis, the head of comedy, “we can ask ourselves, What was the inherent nature of that show? It started with a person who’d both run a TV show and directed an independent film. Can we find another one of those?” Post-Transparent, Amazon saw an opportunity to become something different: auteur TV. This means embracing a philosophy that’s as much about making bets on people as on programs. “Do I think we can find the next Transparent?” Lewis says. “I’d be upset if we didn’t find the next ten of them.”

This approach has already led to new comedy projects from name-brand auteurs like Steven Soderbergh and director David Gordon Green (Red Oaks), Whit Stillman (The Cosmopolitans), and, most recently, the name-brandiest of all, Woody Allen (whose show is so far titled, inevitably, The Untitled Woody Allen Project). It’s too soon to know how well this is working: Red Oaks was ordered to series, The Cosmopolitans is in limbo, and the Woody Allen show will be whatever it will be, whenever it arrives. “With some people,” says Lewis, “it’s worth it to roll the dice and let the person surprise you.” It’s worth taking a risk on whatever Woody Allen will do, if only so you can tell the world Woody Allen is doing it for you.

To attract auteurs, Amazon Studios has positioned itself as an underdog that strives to be hands-on and personal. Courtesy of Amazon

A common affliction among fledgling TV outlets is the curse of the First Big Hit. Looking to make a name, you pick through other outlets’ leftovers, you take a few big swings, then, it is hoped, you stumble on a standout show or two that will define your identity. It’s The Sopranos and Sex and the City for HBO; Weeds and Dexter for Showtime; House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black for Netflix. Then you spin your wheels, spending all your resources trying to replicate that formula. “What happens with some of these companies is they start off having to make a splash and find that thing that’s going to put them on the map,” says Watkins. “What gets lost as they get more successful is that trailblazing attitude.” In other words, you luck early into Breaking Bad and Mad Men, then you wind up greenlighting Hell on Wheels and Turn. “Look at HBO — 20 years ago, they were airing Dream On,” says Richard Greenfield, a tech and media analyst at BTIG. “Look how long it took them to go from Dream On to The Sopranos to Game of Thrones. This is never an easy road, and it’s littered with failures.”

For Amazon Studios, though, the most pressing question in all this may be, Why bother? Unlike Netflix, which is making the logical transition from content-delivery service to content-creation-and-delivery service, Amazon Studios is just one limb of a multi-appendaged beast. Amazon Prime, the subscription service that gives you exclusive access to Transparent and other original shows, started in 2005 as a yearly fee that offered you free two-day shipping. It’s not an obvious evolution from that business model to one that involves producing TV shows about transgendered older men. Amazon does not reveal the number of Prime members — in the tens of millions is its coy answer — but an outside survey revealed that Prime members spend about twice as much at Amazon as other shoppers do. There’s also a constant corporate imperative to get more subscribers. In 2011, Amazon added streaming video as a Prime benefit, licensing movie and TV-series rights from existing studios as an added incentive to join up. “Media and entertainment has always been an important part of driving overall consumption on Amazon,” says Greenfield. “It used to be DVDs and CDs. It was a way to get you in the door. And as you morph from a world of ownership to one of access, it was natural for Amazon to pivot to the access-to-content game.” Now, however, licensing fees are increasingly expensive, bidding is increasingly competitive, and there are so many entrants in the streaming-content arena — Vudu, Google Play, Hulu, and so on — that, as Greenfield says, “iconic original programming that’s exclusive to you is the only way to differentiate yourself.” Which means all you have to do is create iconic original programming. Simple, yes? Yet Amazon Studios sees this situation as another kind of Moneyball advantage. Amazon doesn’t have a schedule to fill. It only needs a few select hits that a core audience will be passionate about. “As we like to say around here, we’re not in the business of being 10 million people’s third-favorite show,” says Wandell. “We’re in the business of making someone’s favorite show.”

The other challenge is distinguishing yourself from all those outlets now trying to create iconic original programming. Amazon has already found a way to differentiate itself from its most obvious competitor, Netflix, which has leaned more heavily on splashy acquisitions, such as original name-brand superhero shows and the Tina Fey–created–and–produced comedy The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, which was originally developed by NBC. While Netflix made a deal for Marvel’s Daredevil and others, Amazon made a deal with Spike Lee — which, of course, sends its own kind of message to both viewers and creators. But it’s a tricky path to navigate: Branding yourself as the consistent source for singular visions is borderline oxymoronic. And, of course, a lot of those singular visions won’t pan out. Neither Red Oaks nor The Cosmopolitans was as well received as Transparent.

To attract auteurs, Amazon Studios has positioned itself as an underdog that strives to be hands-on and personal; for example, it has a relatively bare-bones staff of development executives and a reputation for eliminating the one thing that universally drives creators bonkers: excessive overnoting. Soloway deals with feedback from just one executive at Amazon. Explaining this, she almost can’t believe it. “Usually, a show is a braid of what you want, what the studio wants, and what the network wants,” she says. “It’s just because there are a lot of people at each of those levels you need to deal with. For me right now, that number is one. It’s one person. His name is Joe.” She likens it to a ’70s indie movie studio. Of course, it’s a boutique studio that happens to be cosseted inside the daunting behemoth that is Amazon — which, from the creators’ point of view, gives it more creative independence. “If you go with Netflix, they do one business. They deliver content,” says Watkins. “Amazon has this huge corporation, where original content is just a small portion — which gives them some freedom.”

The spirit that informs Amazon Studios is in many ways the same spirit that informs the divisions of Amazon that came up with the Kindle, the Amazon Fire phone, and the Amazon Echo (a piece of hardware that sits in the middle of your living room, listens to you, and answers your questions, like Siri, if she lived inside a vase). Amazon’s Kindle is a hit, the Fire phone is a flop, and Echo is far from making it to the market — but the approach to developing each is always the same: Spend money. Spend more money. See what happens. And unlike in, say, the world of publishing, where Amazon has developed a reputation akin to that of the Death Star, in the TV world, the stability of the mother ship grants the nimble studio division the license to take risks like Hand of God. As he works in L.A. on the show’s first season, Watkins understands his boundary-pushing show may now exist theoretically as part of some larger consumer-ecosystem strategy. “If you’re at Amazon, and you watch an original show, they’re able to follow your shopping patterns,” he says. “Do you go order a Ron Perlman movie because you’ve seen the show and now you want to watch Hellboy? All that stuff goes beyond just how many eyeballs are on it.”

If all that means he gets to make the show he wants, with the title he wants, for people who are going to push him toward controversy rather than argue he should pull back, he’s all for it. “Even when they’ve expressed slight concerns — this feels risky, or this is definitely out there — they’re open to it,” Watkins says of the new season. “They always say: ‘Let’s do it. Let’s take a shot.’ ”

 

 

*This article appears in the May 4, 2015 issue of New York Magazine.

http://www.vulture.com/2015/05/amazon-tv-moneyball-network.html?mid=twitter_nymag

Websites in India Put a Bit of Choice Into Arranged Marriages

Transforming India’s Concept of Marriage

http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/asia/100000003623623/morphing-indias-concept-of-marriage.html?action=click&gtype=vhs&version=vhs-heading&module=vhs&region=title-area

In India, urbanization, education and the rise of matrimonial websites are challenging centuries-old traditions of arranged marriage.

By Vikram Singh on Publish Date April 24, 2015. Photo by Video by Vikram Singh/Photo by Daniel Berehulak for The New York Times.

NEW DELHI — For thousands of years, fathers in India have arranged the marriages of their children, and Garima Pant — like an estimated 95 percent of her millennial peers — was intent on following this most Indian of traditions.

Her father found a well-educated man in her caste from a marriage website that features profiles of potential mates and presented his choice to her. And that was when her rebellion began.

“I don’t think so,” responded Ms. Pant, a 27-year-old special education teacher, after seeing a picture of a man with streaks of color in his hair. So her father picked another profile. “Are you kidding?” And another. “Ugh.” And dozens more.

When a profile of a man who intrigued her finally appeared, Ms. Pant broke with tradition yet again, finding the man’s cellphone number and secretly texting him.

Her boldness made the match. By the time the fathers discovered that their families were of the same gotra, or subcaste, generally making marriage taboo, their children had texted and emailed enough that they were hooked. Months later, the couple exchanged vows with their fathers’ grudging blessings. Theirs was one of a growing number of “semi-arranged” marriages in which technology has played matchmaker, helping whittle away at an ancient tradition, but with a particularly Indian twist.

Slide Show|10 Photos An Arranged Marriage With a Back Story http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/world/asia/india-arranged-marriages-matrimonial-websites.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share#slideshow/100000003630144/100000003630150

In a society where marriage is largely still a compact between families, most parents, especially fathers, are in charge of the search for a mate, including by scouring the now ubiquitous marriage websites for acceptable candidates. But a growing number, especially in India’s cities, now allow their children veto power. Even siblings have begun weighing in; Ms. Pant’s younger brother became an early booster of the man she would eventually marry after seeing his profile photo with a black Labrador retriever.

Human rights activists have welcomed the evolution as a significant change in the status of women worldwide and are hoping even poor, rural families begin to allow marriages based on choice.

Each year, they note, roughly eight million mostly teenage brides marry men chosen entirely by their parents, with many meeting their grooms for the first time on their wedding day. Refusals can be met with violence and, sometimes, murder. In one case last November, a 21-year-old New Delhi college student was strangled by her parents for marrying against their wishes.

The shift away from fully arranged marriages is being driven in good part by simple market dynamics among Indians who have long seen marriage as a guarantor of social status and economic security.

For centuries, fathers sought matches among their social connections, often with the help of local matchmakers who carried résumés door to door. But village-based kinship networks are fading as more families move to cities, and highly educated women often cannot find men of equal standing in those circles. Under such strains, families have sought larger networks, increasingly through matchmaking sites.

The websites — India now has more than 1,500 — nationalize the pool of prospective spouses, giving parents thousands more choices while still allowing them to adhere to longstanding restrictions regarding caste and religion. (Candidates who fail to identify their caste get far fewer responses, matchmakers and marriage brokers say.)

The system works, analysts say, because India’s young people remain exceptionally open to their parents’ input on mates.

“Intergenerational relationships in India aren’t hostile. Our teenagers don’t have angst. They don’t rebel or misbehave with their parents,” said Madhu Kishwar, a prominent feminist author and a professor at the Center for the Study of Developing Societies in Delhi. “And the reason marriages in India are more stable than those in the West is because families are actively involved.”

Still, by allowing the Internet to nudge its way into the marriage equation, parents are increasingly surrendering control. On BharatMatrimony.com, which says it helps nearly 50,000 people in India get married each month, 82 percent of male profiles are posted by the prospective grooms rather than by their parents, up from 60 percent five years ago, said Murugavel Janakiraman, the site’s founder and chief executive. Among women, the share of self-postings is at 56 percent, up from 30 percent five years ago.

“Twenty years ago, parents chose the matches,” Mr. Janakiraman said of those who have embraced technology in the marriage hunt. “Now parents are largely playing supporting roles, and the brides and grooms are in the driver’s seat.”

But even as social mores shift, relatively few young Indians, including those who demand more of a say in their marriages, are straying too far from tradition. Dating — or at least openly dating with parents’ consent — is still relatively rare. And many of those who choose semi-arranged marriages say that romantic love, the head-spinning Bollywood kind, is not their goal. Compatibility is, as is a sense of control over one’s destiny.

“I wouldn’t say that I’m head-over-heels madly in love with my husband,” said Megha Sehgal, a flight attendant. “But he gives me a lot of comfort, and I see a friend in him.”

The percentage of semi-arranged marriages has grown to an estimated quarter of all marriages in India, according to a survey, while just about 5 percent of matches are considered “love marriages,” in which couples unite with little parental consent. The survey was conducted by the International Institute for Population Sciences and the Population Council.

Indeed, many families involved in both old and new forms of arranged marriages see falling in love before marriage as threatening. Those with money sometimes hire private investigators to ensure that a prospective spouse does not have any ill intentions or has not already fallen in love then broken off that relationship in favor of an approved match.

“Fifteen years ago, most of my investigations revolved around checking out the family,” said Sanjay Singh, a private detective in Delhi. “Now they’re mostly concerned with whether the other person is already involved with someone else.”

For poor, rural women, the notion of even semi-arranged marriage is still mainly out of reach — a fact that human rights activists say leaves girls especially vulnerable.

“Marriage is the single biggest risk to Indian girls,” said Joachim Theis, chief of child protection at Unicef in India, which says that the country has a third of the world’s child brides. “They drop out of school; they lose their freedom; they are under the control of their husbands and mothers-in-law; they lose their social network; and they are more likely to die and are 10 times more likely to be victims of sexual violence than unmarried adolescent girls,” he said.

Many of the deaths are linked to disputes over dowries demanded by the grooms’ families.

Those urbanized Indians shifting to semi-arranged marriages say the change could not have happened nearly as quickly without the growth of matrimonial websites and the proliferation of cellphones, which have given young Indians a way to converse away from the prying ears of their families.

As prospective brides and grooms increasingly take a role in their courtships, the marriage websites’ formulas for suggesting possible mates have had to change, said Gourav Rakshit, chief of operations at Shaadi.com, the largest such site.

“We have seen marked shifts in people using compatibility factors for their searches instead of only the more restrictive parameters of the past,” like wealth and caste, Mr. Rakshit said.

In the end, Garima Pant, whose cellphone became a tool of rebellion, mainly got her way. She insisted on meeting her future husband, Manas Pant, alone before making a decision, a once-rare demand that is now routine in semi-arranged marriages.

A date was set for Café Turtle in New Delhi’s upscale Khan Market, and Ms. Pant agreed to drive Mr. Pant (whose surname was coincidentally the same as hers).

Mistake.

“I was 20 minutes late picking him up, and he hates it when people are late,” Ms. Pant said.

Mr. Pant, 28, a marketing professional for technology companies, had a slightly different take: “Actually, she was 25 minutes late,” he said. “Then she hit a car.” But he was already committed to marrying her, and she was impressed by his reaction.

“He said, ‘Well, we’re off to a good start,’” she said. “It was a joke, and I thought, ‘O.K.’ I’m not saying I heard bells or anything, but it was the right thing to say.”

After a two-hour date, she dropped him off and drove home, where her father, mother and brother were eagerly waiting in the living room.

That night, Mr. Pant texted: “I’m telling my father to go ahead. OK?”

It was the equivalent of a man in the West going down on bended knee. The families would still have to meet, and horoscopes would have to be consulted. But in a monumental change, nothing could happen without Ms. Pant’s approval.

She texted back, “Yes.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/world/asia/india-arranged-marriages-matrimonial-websites.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share#

To My Literary Agent, Re: “Look Who’s Back”

The New Yorker   5/8/2015   By John Kenney

“Look Who’s Back,” a satirical novel by the German author Timur Vermes, imagines Adolf Hitler waking up, Rip Van Winkle-style, on the streets of Berlin in 2011. He’s mistaken for an actor and becomes a talk-show host and a YouTube phenomenon. Since it first appeared in Germany in 2012, the book has sold two million copies in that country.

the Times

Dear Sally,

How funny is Pol Pot? I’d wager he’s funnier than a lot of people think. So imagine this idea for a novel: it’s present-day Los Angeles. Santa Monica, say. On a park bench, a man wakes up. It’s Pol Pot. Except, because it’s Santa Monica, there are a lot of guys asleep on benches, and on the bench next to Pol Pot is Lon Nol. (Except, for some reason I haven’t figured out yet, neither recognizes the other.) They become friends when they figure out they’re both from Cambodia. Turns out they both love the weather in L.A. and don’t miss the humidity of Cambodia at all. At first, no one recognizes them, because (a) it’s Los Angeles and (b) neither is very recognizable. They get jobs at a Starbucks and, eventually, customers start thinking they look familiar, but, because it’s Los Angeles, everyone just assumes that they’re character actors or extras on “The Good Wife.” Problem is, every time someone orders a cappuccino, Pol and Lon think the person is saying “Kampuchea,” and it triggers something, and they kill the person. Maybe not literally, though. Maybe they just shout “Kampuchea!” and it becomes a hilarious new thing that people say, and it goes viral, and they have a show on Amazon Prime about two guys trying to make it and not kill anyone in L.A., “Togetherness,” but with a cast capable of killing everyone in Los Feliz. I think it could be funny but also serious, with a message, though at present I have no idea what that message might be. Let’s talk.

***

Hey, Sally,

Haven’t heard from you since I sent that Pol Pot idea, which you probably guessed I wasn’t serious about (unless you liked it, and then I very much was). But I’ve been thinking a lot about mass murderers and how funny they are in a satirical-but-with-a-deeper-meaning way. So. It’s present-day Moscow. On a park bench, almost frozen to death, is Josef Stalin. Why is he not dead in the Kremlin Wall Necropolis? No idea. But there he is, alive, in a swanky neighborhood, near the Patriarshiye Ponds. He’s in a bad mood because (a) he’s freezing to death and (b) the neighborhood now has an H&M and a Panera Bread, and he’s wondering why there’s so much “stuff” on the shelves. People recognize him, of course, but assume he’s an actor. Somehow, he gets a job at a TV station. He works the night shift. The station shows reruns of “Magnum, P.I.,” and Stalin becomes obsessed with Tom Selleck because they have identical moustaches and thick, wavy hair. He loves T. C. and Rick, but finds Higgins deeply annoying, and decides that, when he meets Magnum, he will have Higgins purged. Eventually, Stalin finds his way back to power, but Russians don’t notice any difference from Putin and assume Putin has grown a beautiful moustache and gotten hair plugs, which no one wants to mention.

***

Hi, Sally,

Left you a bunch of messages but haven’t heard back. Your assistant said you guys are no longer representing me? She’s funny. Anyway. What about this? Just one word: Pinochet. Followed by more words. It’s present-day Williamsburg. General Pinochet wakes up on a park bench, outside a cold-press coffee shop. He’s in full-dress uniform. No one thinks this is odd. In fact, people ask where he got the marvelous epaulets. He enters the coffee shop and is surrounded by men with beards and women with tattoos. He assumes he has wandered into anti-establishment headquarters. He mentions this to the barista. The barista says, “No, man. This is the establishment.” He is heartened by this. A Rihanna song is on the radio. Pinochet likes it. Near him sit two hip-hop record producers. They notice that Pinochet has jotted down, Dat ain’t cold, dat’s Chile. They sign him to a record deal that instant. On the flight to Los Angeles to record the song, Pinochet throws them both from the plane. He’s soon recognized for who he really is and takes a job at Goldman Sachs, where he becomes the head of fixed income within six months and, for some reason, earns the nickname Chet the Pants Man.

***

Hey there, Sally,

I’m actually outside your office. It’s raining. And I really need to use the toilet. Can you guys buzz me up? I know you have one of those security cameras and can see me. Haha. In the meantime, I have what I think is a very exciting idea for you: he was funny. He was funny-looking. He was Heinrich Himmler. Head of the S.S. His middle name was Luitpold. How great is that? It’s present-day Scarsdale. Himmler wakes up on a bench. Three members of the boys’ varsity lacrosse team happen to be walking by, and Himmler says, “Stop. Are you Jews?” Well, this is a mistake, as one of the boys is Mike Schneider, a six feet four all-Westchester defenseman, who got in early decision to Duke and will most likely start on the team in the spring. Mike can bench-press four hundred pounds and picks Himmler up by the larynx. Before blacking out, Himmler wonders why there are no S.S. guards to be seen, just fit women in yoga pants. Mike, who’s a sweet kid, feels bad for hurting the old guy. He buys Himmler a Coke. After practice, which Himmler watches excitedly, rooting for Mike but also occasionally shouting anti-Semitic slurs, which Mike gently corrects by saying, “Dude, seriously, you can’t say that stuff,” Mike shares some of his music with Himmler. They listen to the Indigo Girls song “Watershed,” off the “Nomads Indians Saints” album. Himmler asks to hear the song over and over and is deeply moved, saying, in an awed whisper, “Not even Leni Riefenstahl could sing like this.” Himmler undergoes an immediate change of personality and later helps Mike take second prize in his oral-presentation class, with a speech titled, “What Hitler Was Really Like—And It Wasn’t Good.” At a party for Mike’s graduation, the family dog, a German shepherd, chases Himmler into the street, where Himmler is struck and killed by a truck. The truck is carrying kosher food. The dog’s name is Luitpold.

 

 

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/to-my-literary-agent-re-look-whos-back?mbid=social_facebook

How to Make a Good Film About Writing

New Republic   5/9/2015  By Oliver Farry

In Wim Wenders’s very earnest new film Every Thing Will Be Fine, James Franco plays a young writer, Tomas, who is involved in a fatal accident and can’t seem to decide if it has affected him badly or not. The inference one is probably expected to draw is that it has had an adverse effect, but literary success follows, so maybe it was not such a bad thing after all. When challenged at one point in the film about his books after the accident being better, Tomas says, in a scene that might have been culled from a daytime soap: “I’m a writer. With every book I write I hope to get a little better. That’s all there is to it.”

Wenders used to make beautifully wistful films about social misfits, nostalgia, and lack of belonging. That was way back in the 1970s and 1980s. These days, a few serviceable documentaries aside, his work is of a far lower stamp. Every Thing Will Be Fine does not quite plumb the depths of his career nadir, The Million Dollar Hotel, a 2000 collaboration with Bono, but it takes itself way too seriously for such an insubstantial film. Part of the problem is Franco in the main role, who despite how much he might say it on screen, does not pass muster as a writer, and certainly not a critically-acclaimed one. Franco in real life is a published author, but he is also an artist and a filmmaker, none of which he is particularly accomplished at (his two Faulkner adaptations, As I Lay Dying and The Sound and the Fury, were as pointless as they were bloodless and thankfully barely noticed by anyone). He is more campus dilettante than Renaissance Man, but another problem with Every Thing Will Be Fine is that watching mournful films about writing and writers is just not much fun. Few writers in history, the good as well as the bad, have led interesting lives (as recent events have shown, they are sometimes not even very smart) and their craft is a particularly undramatic one.

Another recent film, the French thriller A Perfect Man, directed by Yann Gozlan, makes writing very dramatic indeed by portraying it as fraudulent. Mathieu, played by Pierre Niney, is a twenty-something aspiring novelist gifted with the industriousness common to budding writers who don’t realize how untalented they are. He knocks off a novel in a hurry, probably without even rewriting it, sends it off to a Left Bank publishing house and receives a suspiciously abrupt rejection letter. He loses faith until, one day when working as a removal man, he stumbles upon a rather gripping war diary left behind by a recently deceased veteran of the Algerian War. Sensing an opportunity, he types it up and submits it as a novel. It is a roaring success, the reviews dythrambique, as the French would say, and he lands an improbably sexy young literary critic (Anna Girardot) for a girlfriend. She grants him access to the French haute bourgeoisie and the royalties on the book allow him to live comfortably until his publishers get antsy about the delay on his “difficult” second novel. Mathieu then starts getting anonymous threatening letters from someone who appears to have seen through his ruse.

A Perfect Man is a silly, enjoyable caper that is deliciously trashy but nonetheless resolves the conundrum of making a none-too-convincing character’s literary success credible. Not that it’s terribly original— its storyline is similar to the 2012 Bradley Cooper film The Words, which in turn has been accused of plagiarizing a Swiss novel from a decade earlier. And while A Perfect Man cannot be considered too realistic, it does provide a palpable sense of the fear and shame one gets from going a sustained period without writing.

The better, more enjoyable films about writers tend to externalize the writerly angst in a heightened, almost baroque fashion. John Torturro’s Barton Fink struggles to write on his first job in Hollywood and winds up being framed for a murder. Two of the more accomplished Stephen King adaptations, Misery and The Shining, play on the anxiety of literary fame and writer’s block, respectively. In Rob Reiner’s Misery, bestselling novelist Paul Sheldon (James Caan) falls into the clutches of Annie Wilkes, a deranged fan played by Kathy Bates. Sheldon is promptly, ahem, “persuaded” as to the folly of killing off his bestselling character, Misery Chastain, and by immobilizing him with some heavy-handed tactics, Annie sees to it that he has no distractions from his writing.

In Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1981), writer Jack Torrance takes on the job of winter caretaker of the Overlook Hotel in the Rockies, bringing his young family with him. He is convinced that the isolation and the light workload will be conducive to getting to work on his novel. It is a feeling familiar to many writers, convinced that a retreat will be the catalyst to productivity. The reality turns out to be somewhat different, with Torrance stalling for weeks on end and eventually being driven to madness, apparently by ghosts of the hotel’s past. Jack works through his writer’s block by typing “all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” repeatedly, and he also takes to writing on the walls of the hotel. Though Stephen King himself disliked the film, it is, in its particular over-the-top fashion, a fine parable of thwarted literary effort. The fact that Jack, in his madness, turns on his wife (Shelley Duval) and young son is a barely sublimated portrayal of the writer who allows devotion to their work to destroy their relationship with their family.

One of the great over-the-top films of this type is John Carpenter’s Lovecraftian In the Mouth of Madness, a critical and commercial flop on its release in 1995, but which is a brilliantly horrific account of the power of the writer. In this case, the writer, a reclusive horror master Sutter Cane (Jürgen Prochnow), is absent— he has gone missing, and his publisher assigns an insurance investigator, played by Sam Neill, to locate him. Cane’s books have been known to induce violent hysteria in some readers and it appears his latest magnum opus, In the Mouth of Madness, is the deadliest yet. The film is part satire of the publishing industry and part white-knuckle thrill ride, and is a hugely enjoyable example of a small sub-genre of film where manipulative writers confuse and terrorize their characters.

Alain Resnais’s 1977 collaboration with David Mercer, Providence, stars John Gielgud as an ageing novelist who conceives of his relationship with his family in a series of imagined “drafts.” This approach was later used in a rather clumsier way by Marc Forster in Stranger than Fiction (2006), in which Emma Thompson was the puppet-mistress of a bemused everyman played by Will Ferrell. The recent Norwegian film Blind (directed by Eskil Vogt) features a novelist who has recently lost her eyesight and who projects her fantasies and suspicions through her writing, imagining her husband cheating on her with a younger woman, upon whom, on a whim, she bestows sudden blindness.

More successful still is Spike Jonze and Charlie Kaufman’s Adaptation, in which two screenwriting brothers, a fictional version of Kaufman and his even more fictional identical twin sibling Donald, are living together while pursuing wildly different projects. Charlie is tasked with adapting Susan Orlean’s 1998 non-fiction book The Orchid Thief, about rare-orchid poaching in Florida, while Donald is attending Robert McKee seminars and is pitching a trashy thriller to a Hollywood studio. The pair end up collaborating after Charlie runs aground, and they encounter Orlean, played by Meryl Streep, and the film diverges sharply, or rather desists from attempting to follow, her original text. The screenwriting credits for Adaptation are shared by the two brothers, making Donald Kaufman, along with the Coen brothers’ editor Roderick Jaynes, one of the few fictional people to be nominated for an Oscar. It is also one of the few instances where real-life authors have been integrated into the meta-textual fabric of a film (Guillaume Nicloux’s 2014 mockumentary The Kidnapping of Michel Houellebecq is another). One imagines the rarity of this happening is less due to reticence on the part of authors than the fact that most writers are simply not recognizable enough for the conceit to be fully effective.

One of the main problems with films about writers is that the films are too often very inarticulate when talking about books. This is clear from some of the worse films of the sort, such as biopics of Sylvia Plath (Sylvia, 2003) where Ted Hughes, played by Daniel Craig, actually tells the young Plath (Gwyneth Paltrow) to ‘write what you know;’ and Iris Murdoch (Iris, 2001), where Murdoch’s lectures are rendered rather gauche by Richard Eyre’s terribly middle-brow direction. Jane Campion has made two of the better literary biopics in An Angel at My Table (1990), in which Kerry Fox plays the troubled New Zealand writer Janet Frame, and Bright Star (2009), which dramatizes the relationship between John Keats and Fanny Brawne. The first succeeds because it is based directly on the first volume of Frame’s memoirs, the second because it doesn’t concern itself overly with writing, focusing instead on the tale of doomed love.

Elsewhere, even films that have a credible writerly presence—such as Ethan Hawke’s Jesse (Hawke is another real-life writer) in the Before Sunrise trilogy— can’t escape sounding silly when talk turns to books, as a clunky conversation about Jesse’s work demonstrates in the third film Before Midnight. Curtis Hanson’s adaptation of the Michael Chabon novel Wonder Boys on the other hand undercuts the pomposity of the literary world, having a fabulously self-regarding Updikesque character played by Rip Torn (his opening words in a conference speech are “I… am… a… writer”). When Michael Douglas’s creative writing professor Grady Tripp shows the manuscript of his long-awaited second novel to a student played by Katie Holmes, she is disheartened to find the 2,000 page behemoth is nigh unreadable, bogged down in superfluous details, such as “horses’ dental records.” Wonder Boys is an intelligent but light-hearted campus romp, its setting a site of literary ambition, both hopeful and frustrated (why else do creative writing MFAs exist other than to give a living to impecunious writers, themselves graduates of the same courses?) and it is as funny as the better Woody Allen films about writers (of which there are many, from Love and Death to Midnight in Paris).

One of the few better “serious” films about writing is the 2006 Norwegian film Reprise, directed by Joachim Trier and written by Eskil Vogt, director of Blind. The film recounts the contrasting fortunes of two childhood friends who attain literary fame at around the same time, one of them turning away from it after a bout of depression. Reprise is particularly good at talking about literature in a way that most films about writers aren’t. Erik, Phillip, and their circle sound like real writers in their conversations among themselves and also in their TV appearances, parroting Knausgaardian axioms about creating one’s own literary destiny by living it out. It is as annoyingly pretentious as it is credible, but these are convincing young writers, possessed of a certainty they are radically reinventing literature from the cocoon of the world’s most comfortable society. Joachim Trier doesn’t spend any time showing us his heroes’ efforts at writing— the drama takes place at margins of writing: the bravado, the anguish of poor reviews, and the withering confidence of the afflicted writer. Reprise is a good film about writers because it recognizes that much of the stuff of writing and literary circles is, well, talk. And unlike many other such films, it can talk that talk.

This article was originally published on New Statesman.

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121754/how-make-good-film-about-writing