Emmy Morning Hosts Will Be Graham, Anderson

The Television Academy announced today the hosts for your Emmy morning announcements. Gilmore Girls‘s Lauren Graham and black-ish‘s Anthony Anderson will announce the 68th Annual Primetime Emmy nominations on July 14, 2016. The Emmy morning nominations will be revealed later in the morning similar to last year’s Los Angeles-friendly timing. The major Emmy nomination announcements will be telecast live on most networks and Emmys.com starting at 11:30am ET / 8:30am PT.

“Television is enjoying the most spectacular run in its history with breakthrough creativity, emerging platforms and dynamic new opportunities for our industry’s storytellers,” said Television Academy Chairman and CEO Bruce Rosenblum. “We are thrilled to have Anthony and Lauren on board to help kick-off what promises to be an extraordinary Emmy season.”

Graham achieved prominence as an actress on Gilmore Girls. She received both Screen Actors Guild and Golden Globe nominations for her work on the series. She has yet to receive an Emmy nomination. Anderson received an Emmy nomination last year for his lead work on black-ish.

The 68th Emmy Awards will broadcast live from The Microsoft Theater in Los Angeles, Sunday, September 18 (7:00-11:00 p.m. ET/4:00-8:00 p.m. PT) on ABC. Emmy Award-winning live television and event producer Don Mischer will executive produce the broadcast hosted by Jimmy Kimmel.

Emmy morning
Photo courtesy of Emmys.com.

Emmy Spotlight: CBS’s ‘Mom’

When we think about the Emmys and sit down to create a list of predictions, there are shows that are filtered out as non-starter options. This is due to a number of factors: critical reception, awards show bait, freshness versus staleness, and, the most recently relevant criteria, the platform on which a show is exhibited. If a show is broadcasted using streaming services (Netflix, Amazon) or on cable television (HBO, AMC) they become instant possibilities. Television shows on network platforms (CBS, ABC) are immediately removed from consideration. This is the era in which we live, but it doesn’t make it right. Unless shows make a unprecedented dent in a genre (instance Modern Family or The Good Wife), they are not even included in the prediction conversation as though network shows are empty and cheap money generators. Because of this, CBS’s original comedy Mom has not been given the chance it deserves by Television Academy voters and award show pundits.

Mom is a throwback to a different time. A time when Friends and Seinfeld were on everyone’s weekly plans. A time when sitcoms were trendy. It uses physical comedy, obvious and self-aware jokes, a laugh track, and a familiar premise in each episode to familiarizes the audience with the characters, settings, and general storylines of the show in a personal way. Mom conquers all of the tasks of a sitcom as it should with industry mogul Chuck Lorre (Rosanne, Two and a a Half Men, The Big Bang Theory, and Cybill) at the helm of the project. Watching Mom is comparable to the Golden Age of Hollywood, where films were routinely manufactured in assembly line fashion and parting from that method was not an option. Mom is the best sitcom on television today, across all networks, managing to keep fresh blood running through the veins of an under-recognized genre.

Mom thrives under the rules of a traditional sitcom. However, an aspect of it keeps fresh in the modern comedic television storytelling of our time: the show is infused a dramatic weight of understanding real-life struggles, specifically those pertaining to addiction. Mom does not glorify the details of the lives of addicts. It understands pain of everyday and matches that with the endeavors faced by those caught in a life resisting addiction. There’s an incredible amount of emotional depth baked into the plots and characters of Mom. The show is able to strike the perfect key in which the drama meshes with the overt comedy.

CBS has created a special show. Mom portrays the hardships of life such as falling off the wagon, losing a loved one, struggling to pay for college, working at a dead-end, low-paying job but submerges those realities in unconcealed laughs and lightness. The Emmys should seize the opportunity to memorialize it as one of the best comedy series of year.

Mom
Photo courtesy of CBS.

Perhaps the longest of all Emmy longshots, Mom has made a difference by using old techniques to manufacture something true, meaningful, and, maybe most importantly, pleasurable. Having fun while watching Mom is an effortless task. Whether you find the jokes to be too easy or lacking in scope, Mom is not the show that will make you feel as your time has been wasted. It’s more than just a competent half-hour CBS sitcom. In fact, the show juggles discussion of social class along with its commentary on addiction as well as being progressive enough to have what is essentially an all-female cast ensemble. The greatest feature of its progressive nature is that it does not look for the credit of hosting a call sheet of all women actors. It normalizes and authenticates the stories of women’s lives in the third wave of feminism where women are allowed to make mistakes, be messy, and admit they hurt while remaining powerful, in control, and happy. All of that without having to be attached to a man.

The most celebrated aspect of Mom thus far in its run has been Allison Janney who has now won two Emmys for playing Bonnie Plunket. Everything you may have heard about this masterful comedic performance is true. As Bonnie, Janney continues to stretch herself on the acting spectrum, proving her indomitable talent as a thespian. The character is a riot on the page, but after Janney funnels her skill as an actress into the character, an uproarious, morally dubious, flawed, sympathetic creature emerges and is unlike any other comedic performance in the mainstream. Janney’s work on Mom is the network equivalent to Julia Louis Dreyfus’ cable accomplishment in Veep. If she keeps winning the Emmy for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series, it’s not due to her name recognition and popularity in the Academy. It’s because Janney is indisputably the best.

Having an actor that’s able to keep up with and measure up to Janney is not a small task, but Anna Faris is up to the challenge and delivers in every one of the 22 episodes all season. Faris is the other half to Janney that completes Mom’s soul. Faris faces much more difficult odds in the Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series category, but she has the terrific work in this past season to prove she’s strong enough to stand with the big contenders of the category.

As mentioned before, the glorious array of actresses in the supporting roles of the show strengthen the series, including Mimi Kennedy, Jamie Pressly, and Beth Hall. Mom also benefits from high-profile actresses eager to make guest appearances this season, including Academy Award winners Octavia Spencer and Ellen Burstyn. (Burtsyn in particular could break through and become Mom’s first non-Janey Emmy nomination for her dense work in the season premiere, “Terrorists and Gingerbread.”)

Mom faces tough odds in its award prospects, outside of Janney, who will most definitely be nominated once again and most likely will win another Emmy for the show in September. But my plea to Television Academy voters is to look outside the box of the shows that have been tailored for them. Mom is worthy of more than the dismissive snarls it receives from pundits. It’s a deep, hysterical, dynamic series with marvelous talent on board.

Guaranteed Nominations
Allison Janney, Supporting Actress

Probable Nominations
Ellen Burtsyn, Guest Actress

Possible Nominations
Comedy Series
Anna Faris, Lead Actress
Octavia Spencer, Guest Actress
Writing

‘Westworld’ Full Teaser Drops, Debut Set for October

The Westworld teaser excites with eerie imagery and moody atmosphere.

HBO finally dropped the Westworld teaser trailer we’ve all been waiting for just before last night’s Game of Thrones. After months of speculation about the troubled production, this official glimpse gives us a good idea of what to expect. Naturally, the trailer offers intriguing visuals vaguely reminiscent of 2015’s Ex Machina. Similar storylines don’t hurt as Westworld apparently deals with sentient robots as well.

Westworld teaser
Photo courtesy of HBO.

The Westworld teaser also offers a look at the performances from stars Anthony Hopkins, Evan Rachel Wood, Jeffrey Wright, and Thandie Newton. James Marsden, Miranda Otto, Rodrigo Santoro, and Ed Harris also star, among others, but they are only either glimpsed or not seen at all in the teaser.

Sidelined during production for rewrites on the final episodes of the first season, Westworld hails from the 1973 film written by Jurassic Park author Michael Crichton. The general story deals with an Western-themed amusement park populated by robots that malfunction and kill park-goers. Kind of like that “Itchy and Scratchy Land” episode of The Simpsons which is, itself, a parody of Jurassic Park. Who says there are no more new ideas?

However, based on this new Westworld teaser, the HBO series may have more on its mind than simply killing visitors. Granted, I haven’t seen the original film, but the trailer features similar theming to Ex Machina. Sir Anthony Hopkins asks a robot, “What are your drives?” The robot replies, “To meet my maker.” He then breaks out into a sadistic laugh.

Check out this “dark odyssey about the dawn of artificial consciousness and the future of sin” when Westworld drops this October.

Riley Keough on ‘The Girlfriend Experience’

Riley Keough talks to ADTV about her complex Girlfriend character and the role of sex in the production.

Earlier this year, Starz unveiled its newest show, The Girlfriend Experience. Each week you could watch as its lead Christine (Riley Keough) joins a prestigious a firm as an intern while studying law. Her classmate introduces her to the world of TGE, where transactional relationships are made, and Christine is drawn into the world. Or you could binge all 13 episodes.

Riley Keough has starred in such films as Magic Mike, The Runaways and more recently Mad Max: Fury Road. I recently had the chance to catch up with the actress and soon-to-be filmmaker – she’s working on a movie – to talk about working with Steven Soderbergh again and what drew Riley Keough to play one of TV’s most complicated characters.

You’ve worked with Steven before on Magic Mike. How did The Girlfriend Experience happen?

Steven had gotten Lodge Kerrigan and Amy Seimetz together, and they were all working on it. They wrote the show, and he brought them on to write, create and direct. It was based on the same subject matter as the film, but he wanted a completely different storyline. So, they took it in, did their own thing, and I was his suggestion. I met with Amy and Lodge, and here I am.

Christine is quite a complex character. What drew you to her?

The cool thing is they let me read four episodes before I signed on, and before we shot the shot I got to read all 13 episodes. He’s always doing interesting things, and I love both of the filmmakers. I loved the idea of the show and Christine. I thought she was interesting and different to what I normally read. You just know when you want to play somebody.

She’s very different to the characters you’ve played in the past. She’s all about empowerment which is something I love about her. Is that right?

She’s very unapologetic about who she is. I think as a woman, it’s such a strong trait.

How do you research someone like Christine?

I didn’t really research anything to come up with her because that was more Amy, Lodge and I figuring out who this person was that was able to do this wild and different job. I met with girls to get the details on how they deal with it and how they feel about it. I didn’t really know that much about the subject. I was interested in their emotions.

Did anything surprise you when you were speaking to the girls?

I wasn’t aware there was a way to a job in which it was enjoyed by the providers. I had thought it was an oppressive situation. I didn’t know that existed. I was educated on the subject. I was really fascinated by it because it was intense and you take on a lot where you have to be the girlfriend of these people. I was completely intrigued by it.

Riley Keough
Photo courtesy of Starz.

What was it like working with Amy, Steven and Lodge on the whole show?

Steven produced it. Amy and Lodge wrote and directed it. It was great that we were all united on the same page. We had the same ideas and there wasn’t a difference in vision really between the two film makers.

Did you have any concerns about the nudity, sex, and masturbating ?

No, I like what it does to people. I like that it makes them think about things and question things. I like that it makes them think about what’s right and wrong. To me, that was a deeper profound reason to me for doing the project. That is just a part of it. I was fine with it and didn’t have the much attention on it.

How did it change how you view relationships and sex?

It made me think a lot about it and the importance put on it. It made me think about intense things and question a lot of things. I didn’t always come up with answers. When you’re doing something so much, you lose something sacred about it.

Who is she?

I think that’s the point of the show for me. I want the audience to decide. I like that we didn’t give them too much. I love letting them feel whatever they feel and not tell them things. I tend to choose projects that do that. That’s something that’s left open to interpretation.

Did you get involved in the creativity?

By the time I was attached, it was close to what I’d say was perfect. In developing Christine, this person, and the whole world, it was a collaborative thing between all of us. We get lucky and had the same taste and agreed on how scenes should go, and there was never a time when we felt differently about things. That’s why I think it turned out great.

Did you read any of the reaction to the show online?

It’s funny with this show. We’re going to do this and it’s going to get a crazy reaction, and that’s the point of it. We’re going to get angry people, excited people, bored people, intrigued people and that was the point. I didn’t go out and read them. I try not to read them because I knew it would have those different reactions, but I did get sent some reviews.

You’re working on a film. How’s that going?

It’s great. It should be done any day now. I can’t say anything yet because I’m still very protective of it.

‘Horace and Pete,’ Crowe’s ‘Roadies,’ and TNT’s Wild ‘Animals’

Episode 81: We’re catching up on Horace and Pete, reviewing three premieres, and offering an early review of next week’s Roadies on this week’s podcast.

This week at the Water Cooler, Joey, Megan, and Clarence take a look at an eclectic mix of television shows. We start with Louis CK’s pet project Horace and Pete, which is getting some minor traction in the Emmy race. We talk about the series and whether or not the Emmy buzz is warranted. If you’ve seen Horace and Pete, tell us what you thought!

We then take a look at three series that have premiered within the last week: TNT’s Animal Kingdom, TBS’s Wrecked, and the fourth season of Netflix’s Orange is the New Black. Finally, we give an early review of Showtime’s upcoming Cameron Crowe series Roadies.

As always, we close with the Flash Forward.

On Friday, Amazon unveiled their latest crop of television pilots. As with last year, we’ll be covering the new crop of pilots on our June 27 podcast. Make sure you clear your calendar to join in the discussion as we slice and dice our way through the two new dramas.

Until then, ENJOY!

02:50 – Horace and Pete
19:10 – Animal Kingdom
30:07 – Wrecked
37:41 – Orange is the New Black, Season Four
42:46 – Roadies
01:03:13 – Flash Forward

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

‘Simpson’ Writer D.V. DeVincentis On ‘Marcia, Marcia, Marcia’

Writer D.V. DeVincentis turned his back on television after a bad first experience. Fortunately for us, he came back to give the world “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia” in The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story.

D.V. DeVincentis first received widespread attention as the screenwriter of two John Cusack films: 1997’s Grosse Point Blank and 2000’s High Fidelity. However, it’s his collaboration with Ryan Murphy and Sarah Paulson that has produced what is perhaps his most acclaimed work to date – producing and writing credits on FX’s blockbuster limited series The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story. We have DeVincentis to thank for the brilliant “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.”

DeVincentis recently returned from New Orleans to conduct interviews for the upcoming second season of American Crime Story, which will focus on the events and horrific aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. He wasn’t able to go into specifics, not because of confidentiality reasons but mostly because it’s not yet a fully formed piece. It will, however, take its cue from The People v. O.J. Simpson by featuring fact-based storylines based on real characters that, undoubtedly, will be used as a springboard to discuss larger, socially relevant themes.

The construction of such a springboard is one of the aspects of The People v. O.J. Simpson that impressed critics, viewers, and hopefully Emmy voters so extensively. The series was, of course, about the O.J. Simpson trial. It was also about race relations, celebrity, justice, and, perhaps most unexpectedly, the everyday struggle of working mothers. This final theme was personified by Sarah Paulson’s blisteringly amazing performance as lead prosecutor Marcia Clark. As strong an actress Paulson is, though, she could not have achieved such heights without the insight and vision of D.V. DeVincentis who scripted the series-best episode “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia,” one of three Simpson scripts in Emmy contention.

DeVincentis

D.V. DeVincentis, you saw a lot of success in with High Fidelity and Grosse Point Blank. How did you get into the John Cusack business?

Well, John and I were old friends. We sort of started doing what we did when we were in high school. We just didn’t know that that’s what we were doing. John became a movie star, and we kept doing things together and kept talking about things. It became a natural progression between what was happening with him and what was happening with me. I started making films and went to film school… It kind of totally made sense.

How did you get involved with writing and producing The People v. O.J. Simpson?

Brad Simpson and Nina Jacobson initiated this project. They thought it was a great opportunity to tell an exciting story but also to delve into a lot of issues through it. They got in touch with Scott [Alexander] and Larry [Karaszewski] who are well known, extraordinary creators of stories based on real events. The People vs. Larry Flint. Ed Wood. On and on. [Simpson and Jacobson] brought them on, and those guys wrote the pilot. They reached out to me – I’d known them for ages through different projects we’d done in the past – and I read the script and loved it. I said, “Hurray, I’m coming on!” Like a shot. Basically, we sat around in a room, and we figured out what this show should be episode by episode and started working on it. And then this thing happened which was Ryan Murphy – this intense force of nature. He read what was going on and loved it and wanted in. That was the next phase.

How did Ryan’s involvement change the rest of the series? Or was it really baked in at that point?

No, it wasn’t baked in at all. It was one of the more interesting experiences of something developing that I’ve ever experienced. It was really fascinating. Ryan came at it with the things that we all know he’s so good at – the sort of big entertainment, the big moments. What Ryan arrived with besides his particular version of showmanship was his previous life as a reporter’s acumen. It was really extraordinary the way he plumed the ideas that we had to find really essential truths and moments and helped us stretch out even further to discuss issues that, lucky for us, arrived in a way that we were able to explore before the show came out. Particularly “Black Lives Matter.” I think that if that national explosion of consciousness had happened after we’d written the show and we’d shot the show without having that on our minds, the show would have been radically different, and not as good, I don’t think. Ryan pushed us in those directions a great deal.

Like I said, there was so much there for us, we were really lucky… The different characters represented so many issues so well without being issues… Marcia Clark and what she went through and the way we got to examine that is totally true and emotional and yet at the same time speaks volumes to what women in the workplace have to go through when they also have children. Right up to the way we saw Hillary Clinton eight years ago and the way we see her now.

Across all episodes, what was the bigger mandate: to adhere to the facts of the very public case or to create higher drama with truly fleshed out characters?

The truth is there was so much there to work with. There’s so much material and research in the [Jeffrey] Toobin book [The Run of His Life] and beyond that we could use to get to know the characters and to get to know the dynamics between them and the conflicts between them. Unlike writing something that’s 200 years ago where you have to create a lot of things, we had a lot to work with and a great deal of understanding that we could get about the real people. We’re always looking to create drama and create conflict, but it was really always in service of getting the dynamics of the story across and the dynamics of the themes across.

Like I said, there was so much there for us, we were really lucky… The different characters represented so many issues so well without being issues… while still being real characters. Johnnie Cochran’s past and his history and the things to which he dedicated his life were on the tip of everyone’s tongue last year. Marcia Clark and what she went through and the way we got to examine that is totally true and emotional and yet at the same time speaks volumes to what women in the workplace have to go through when they also have children. Right up to the way we saw Hillary Clinton eight years ago and the way we see her now. Again, it’s right there.

You’ve written three episodes of People v. O.J. Simpson – “The Dream Team,” “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia” and “Conspiracy Theories.” How were the writing assignments made?

To be honest, it was sort of a long story, and there were a lot of moving pieces. I always was totally dedicated to the idea of writing “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.” It was something that really spoke to me, and I had a lot in my mind about it, even from my own background in being raised by a woman who had a lot of the same burdens and conflicts. I wrote episode three because Scott and Larry had already written episodes one and two. So, there wasn’t a great deal of specificity in who wrote what other than my intense need to write “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.”

Which is a great episode.

Thank you so much. I appreciate that. I’m very happy about it. I have a background in writing and being around while things are made. I was on-set writing after episode two for the rest of the production. I got to stretch out into a lot of different stuff that I’m really proud of and happy about.

DeVincentis
Photo courtesy of FX.

You were submitted for Emmy consideration for writing “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.” That’s the right call… It’s my absolutely my favorite episode of the entire series.

Oh wow, man. Why?

Why? Because it means so much as a father to a young daughter as a husband to a wife to see all the shit she went through. To sort of rehabilitate her reputation which is what, I think, this episode really produced – the writing and Sarah Paulson’s performance. People have such a massively different opinion of Marcia Clark after this series than they did 20 years ago.

Well, I’m glad to hear it because when one looks at what she went through and what she was up against, it’s really just a reflection of the time 20 years ago that she was looked on so badly. She was so picked on, you know? Nobody else in that case had to go through what she went through. You’re right, it’s awful to think how little things have changed. It’s lovely to think that things have changed a lot in the last 20 years, but, you know, stuff still goes on. You must see it with having a daughter and wife…

Absolutely. You mentioned Hillary Clinton… A lot of people comment about her aging and her physical appearance constantly. It reminds me of that moment in “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia” where [Marcia Clark] gets that tight perm and walks into the courtroom feeling good. Everybody is making fun of her. Everybody is staring at her, and she doesn’t realize it until she gets all the way to her desk. The trajectory of Sarah Paulson’s face when she walks out of that elevator to the moment she gets to that desk is absolutely heartbreaking.

I totally agree. From the second I started working with Sarah in episode three, I started to get an understanding of what she was capable of and started to become so completely inspired by how she does what she does. It really became a partnership. Sarah is not only the actress that we all know she is, but she’s also kind of an incredible dramaturge. If she had a note or something that she wanted to discuss, I knew that it absolutely had to be discussed. There was no conversation that she and I ever had about a script or a moment or a beat that did not result in my writing looking better and getting better.

That’s amazing. That’s a great partnership to have.

It really is. It was so incredible. Besides just the acting in that episode, I owe her a great debt towards her getting my writing to where it was.

So, who was responsible for the line “Goddamn, who turned her into Rick James?”

[Laughs] I think somebody actually said it. When I heard that – I can’t tell you where I heard it or saw it – but I wrote it down in bold and was absolutely determined to get that line in. Even though there were times I was worried about the tone of that, but we played with tone a lot in the show in general because there is so much that is.. absurd. There’s a great deal of absurdity in the actual situation.

One of the things I was surprised about with the series was given Ryan Murphy’s predilection to tabloid culture, why was the decision made to not include in the series Judge Ito’s decision to allow cameras in the courtroom. There has been a lot of conversation around that moment, and a lot of people point to that event as being critical to the case. Why was that left out?

Well, I believe that we actually discussed it and wrote it. I just think that we either shot it, and it got cut or… I mean, I almost want to ask, “Are you SURE it wasn’t in there?” I know it was always on our mind, and it was always a big deal that he was very aware that what he was doing was being watched just like everybody. It did completely change the entire tenor of the case, and it was one of the factors that certainly led to so much material showing up in the courtroom…. God, now I want to go back and look and see if you’re wrong. [Laughs]

Maybe I am! I remember watching it, waiting for that moment, because I knew that was going to play into Ryan’s wheelhouse… Maybe I missed it, but I was pretty glued to the screen for all ten hours.

Well, then I’m going with your recollection. [Laughs] It’s a great question. American Horror Story, you know, is a fantasia. I think that Ryan indulges that part of his interests in that show, but he’s also incredibly interested in and passionate about social issues and what’s happening in our country and what has happened in it. I was not entirely surprised to see him more interested in that stuff in this work than in the more fantastical or tabloidy stuff.

Before The People v. O.J. Simpson you wrote/produced a WB show called Dead Last. Are there more TV projects in the future for you other than American Crime Story or is this 100 percent of your time?

Right now, it’s 100 percent of my time because it’s all-consuming. Yeah, I made this show called Dead Last with a couple of friends of mine maybe 15 years ago, and it was the classic ridiculous television experience of going in with one idea and being coerced into changing it into something entirely different. It turned me off of television for a long time until I became one of the last screenwriters to realize I could get much more done on television than I could on film and jumped onto this. As far as what’s in the future, I definitely am hooked on making television. My experience with it has been so rewarding, and, once I come up for air from this next season, I will definitely be trying to figure out what’s next.

Tell me about Where is Rocky II.

[Laughs] Where is Rocky II was one of those calls you get that sounds so crazy that you’re like, “Well, I guess I have to do this.” It’s sort of a creative, semi-documentary about the search for a lost Ed Ruscha sculpture that is rumored to be somewhere in the desert. The film was made by a man named Piere Bismuth who is a fine artist who also had the original idea for the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. He wanted to make a film in which you saw an object being sought but also creators creating a story about the object being sought. So, he sort of prosecuted these two different cases and then blended them together into a film. It’s quite interesting. Even if you don’t like it, I guarantee you it’s not like anything you’ve ever seen. Guarantee.

Where is Rocky II? photo courtesy of The Guardian.
Where is Rocky II? photo courtesy of The Guardian.

I’ll have to check that out. Thank you so much for your time, though. Best of luck to you, and I think good things are coming your way this year because, again, I’m just a huge fan of “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.”

I have to tell you… Thank you. To that, there’s something that’s so gratifying about watching something develop over time for an audience. Watching people watch successive episodes. It’s so different than the movie business where you write something that gets made, it comes out, whatever reaction to it happens in three days, and then it’s over. And, hey, I’m coming after you if you’re wrong about that question…

Fair enough.

He has yet to prove me wrong. 

‘Crossroads of History’ Creator Shapiro On Her Watershed Moment

If you were ever bored in history class, maybe you just weren’t learning the right hilarious anecdotes.

Actress and writer Elizabeth Shapiro’s The Crossroads of History on History takes a look at yesteryear’s watershed moments through a comedic lens, chronicling stories that fell through the cracks of importance, like when Hitler was rejected from art school (twice) or why “Mona Lisa” del Giocondo and her husband refused what many believe is da Vinci’s greatest work.

It mixes real-life history, with some surmising (maybe Lisa just didn’t like her “smizing” look in the painting?), but unlike many in-class lessons, it will most definitely leave you rolling in the aisles instead of sleeping in them. All of the episodes are available for free on YouTube, with guest appearances by notable comedic actors like Paul Scheer, John Michael Higgins, and Justin Kirk.

I chatted with Shapiro about how this short film series came about, truth versus fiction, and what we can gain from these short lessons. With the Emmys expanding the short-form series categories to include Outstanding Actress in a Short Form Series and Outstanding Short Form Series (replacing Short Form Live Entertainment), writer/creator/executive producer Shapiro may be on track to make history herself.

AwardsDaily TV: How did you come up with the idea for The Crossroads of History? Are you a history buff?

Elizabeth Shapiro: I would not say I’m a history buff. I was a humanities major in college and certainly studied history. My aunt is a historian so she’s an honest-to-god history buff. I would say history to me is this fascinating train wreck that I can’t look away from and I’m trying to understand. I grew up watching Mel Brooks and Monty Python, so the idea of playing with comedy and history is definitely something I’m really into, and sadly history provides a lot of great comedic fodder.

I’ve been fascinated by this moment when Hitler applied to art school two years in a row. That moment in time has been really interesting to me for a long time. Just because that must have seemed so mundane. These admissions officers trying to decide who gets into the art school. How could they have known that rejecting this guy, who literally painted still life of pansies and daisies, would literally set him on the path to screwing the entire 20th century? To me, that’s morbid, but it kinda makes me laugh. What is this roller coaster that we are on? These little twists of fate can completely change the entire world. That was the jumping off point and I think in some respects, the fact that I’m not a history buff allows me to look at things through a slightly different lens. I wanted to zoom in so much that you’re really getting the mundane stuff of everyday life that I think humanizes the characters and the stories. The dramatic irony we get is really sad and scary, looking at today’s landscape, that I realize truly one moron can screw up the world.

The Crossroads of HistoryADTV: A lot of it is so naturally funny. In the Smallpox episode, with John Michael Higgins, the fact that his puritan friends suggest curing smallpox by using “the powder of a sole of a shoe of a man who walks a lot.” Did any of these real-life facts surprise you? Did you wonder if anyone laughed at this at the time?

ES: I’m with you. This is just naturally funny, right? I guess it’s a matter of perspective. I look around at things that we do today and think, “I have a feeling that people in the future will be like, ‘What dumb idiots thought it was a good idea to radiate their food?’” But at the same time, yeah, it’s the context of the time. What’s so interesting is that history is told by the victors, so it’s super random. I often think that certain historical characters must have had really good PR people. Why do some people make it into the books and others don’t? It’s been fun for me to bring to life these people who are accidental heroes or villains.

ADTV: What was the research-to-script-to-filming process like? How long did it take?

ES: You’re going to laugh when you learn how little time we had. This is one of the exciting things about doing short form. There’s this incredibly exciting, adrenaline, frenetic, energy to it. We shot the Hitler pilot on spec in March of 2015. Then, we sold the show in October, and Maker Studios ordered eight episodes, which started airing in February on History. In October, I had nothing else written. It was definitely a challenge, but it was also awesome because it forced me and everyone else involved with the show to work on instinct and just be very bold with what we were doing. We didn’t have time to second-guess stuff. It was a thrilling creative experience, even if it probably took a few years off of all our lives. I had some great help, too. Colton Dunn co-wrote some of the episodes, and he’s like written on Key and Peele, you may have heard of it. (Laughs.) And because the production process was so fast, we luckily got all of these incredible people together to lend their talents who weren’t busy at the time. The stars aligned a bit.

ADTV: What did you use for research? Wikipedia? (Laughs.)

ES: (Laughs.) I didn’t use Wikipedia. My main researcher was this woman who has like seven PhDs and teaches at Oxford and we would Skype. She’s intimidatingly brilliant. Serious, serious historical academic. And I would Skype with her and be like, “Um. . .do you think you could do some research on King Louis’s anal fistula for me?” (Laughs.) I felt horrible, right? She did a lot of the research from primary sources. She pulled stuff written by people there at the time and historians. Wikipedia was helpful for the initial thread, but we never relied on it. A lot of times, unfortunately, I’d get really excited about something I read on the Internet, and then when you pulled the thread, you realized it wasn’t that true. People only think it is. There were some stories I had fallen in love with and then had to realize, nah. Too much bullshit about it.

The Crossroads of History
Photo courtesy of History.

ADTV: How much would you say is fact versus fiction in these episodes?

ES: The title cards are all true. I always try to bookend each episode with what we know is factual. These moments are so zoomed in that we don’t totally know what happened, but I try to factor in a lot of facts about that era or facts about those characters. For example, with the pilot of Hitler trying to get into art school. That’s probably not exactly how it happened. But the reason why I wanted to tell the story that way is that we know it really messed him up. Did it make him Hitler? No, he was an asshole to begin with. But when you’re an asshole who’s not well-adjusted, to have your dreams shattered like that, he didn’t take that well. I think there’s something emotionally true, that in that rejection, it set him on a different path. I think that was a really pivotal moment in his life and I think what’s so interesting is to tell the story in an emotionally true way, so you understand what the consequences were. As an audience, we know you shouldn’t tell Hitler to work on his execution. (Laughs.) My first job is to make people laugh. This is definitely a comedy. Don’t write dissertations about this show as your primary research. But that being said, I did really want to draw on as many facts as possible. That’s why we used his real paintings. But as a creator, it’s also really great to have these cracks in the story. Like why the hell did Lisa and Francesco not take the painting home that they paid for?

ADTV: Were you able to find that out at all? (In the Mona Lisa episode, Lisa and her husband reject da Vinci’s painting.)

ES: It’s a mystery.

ADTV: In your story, she just didn’t like the way she looked. (Laughs.)

ES: And I don’t blame her. (Laughs.) She looks kinda weird in it. It also made me laugh because people are people throughout history, and girls, you have to take a thousand photos of yourself to get one you like. I don’t care if it’s Leonardo da Vinci painting your painting. There’s a decent chance you won’t like what you look like. Who knows if that’s how it happened. But it felt relatable in a way that I understand. The amount of information we have is very thin. As an academic, I’m sure that’s super frustrating, but as a writer/creator/actor, it’s super thrilling to fill in the gaps.

ADTV: That had to be a lot of fun.

ES: There are some things I do intentionally to make it anachronistic. With the Hitler episode, I wondered, “Should everyone have German accents?” I decided it would be funnier, and more relatable, to have everyone talk in a more modern and colloquial way.

ADTV: The whole episode reminded me of American Idol.

ES: (Laughs.) That’s hilarious. But again, so immediately you relate it to something that is of now. Something I always struggled with with history is that it’s hard to imagine these people as real people, that I might know in my real life. There’s a certain kind of alienness to some of these figures when you read about them, at least for me. That was a choice early on, for people to feel like they know these people. That’s anachronistic, obviously, but I also think it worked.

ADTV: Oh, I loved it. I thought it was great the way you weaved in those anachronistic details. The joke is that da Vinci didn’t know that Mona Lisa was going to be such a big deal, so it teaches you a bit about how this history applies to the future.  

ES: Exactly. I hope people look at the show and realize that right now consequential things are happening and we don’t even know it. These moments we don’t pay attention to have consequences.

ADTV: Related to that, what do you think Trump’s “crossroads” moment might be?

ES: Oh man. I don’t know. I keep thinking there is going to be a crossroads where people remember this dude was on The Apprentice and had birther conspiracies.

ADTV: I wonder if it’s when he went to the tanning booth for the first time and said, “Give me orange.” 

ES: His signature look. “You know what, I think that my skin and my hair should be the exact same color. No, not natural. Not anything that remotely comes from nature. Really fluorescent.” Yeah, it’s so hard to say what leads to what. On my show, there are some people who accidentally led to great things and people who accidentally led to awful things. The world is much more fragile than we realize, and one idiot can really screw up things for a long time.

ADTV: Do you have other “crossroads” you’d like to cover? The Crossroads of History

ES: I’m hoping we’ll get a second season order. I’d definitely love to do one. There’s no shortage of great stories. It was such a blast. The show aired on History, which launched a new comedy block. That was really fun to be a part of. Not just because I’m a huge fan of the History channel, but also my show splits a half hour with Dan Harmon’s show, Great Minds with Dan Harmon. I’m just a colossal fan of his. It was one of those things that was just surreal, to have one of my first shows ever made alongside his. That was a super honor. To get to do that again would be really amazing. I think there are a lot of fun stories to tell.

And I also think that it’s a way of telling stories that’s a fun hybrid of the traditional and the new. You can see it even in the people who made my show: Maker Studios is the studios and History is the network. You have these two real powerhouses, one more known for digital and one more known for television. And the fact that the show aired on TV but you can find it on YouTube is just really cool. We’ve developed this audience that’s super eclectic. It’s been cool to see the audience have all these great dialogues with each other. They’re so damn smart. I’ve been excited by where that can go. Maybe crowdsourcing future episodes, what they want to see. Everyone from the cinematographer to the production designers blew me away with how much passion they had for telling these stories, even if we didn’t have the kind of budget of bigger shows. Regardless of what happens, I’ve had such a magical experience working on this show and really excited that it’s finding its audience. It’s surreal that the Emmys have opened up to recognize short-form content. It’s an interesting time with the emergence of the Internet as a real player, and for a creator like me, it’s cool to get to work on something that was quickly able to go from conception out to the audience.

ADTV: In like six months’ time, too? That’s amazing.

ES: Amazing-slash-frightening.

 

Sounds like the perfect description for a crossroads moment.

Watch The Crossroads of History episodes on YouTube here and follow Elizabeth on Twitter at @LizzyShaps. 

Emmy Tracker: The 2016 Emmy Ballot Shake-up

The Television Academy revealed the 2016 Emmy ballots on Monday. This caused a great disturbance in the Emmy Tracker.

Thanks to Jalal’s Emmy ballot investigation, a few of the big oddities in 2016 Emmy category placement and submission omissions are now more apparent. One of the more frustrating things about the Emmy Awards is the relative lack of broadly available information on submissions. Sure, there are For Your Consideration ads all over the trades and Los Angeles. Yet, the powers that be in charge of Emmy submissions still like to shake things up. They follow the path of least resistance. Unfortunately, this has consequences on the Emmy Tracker.

Often, these category placements make zero sense. Remember when True Detective season one (the one everybody loved) was a Drama Series? The same series that was a self-contained entity, had a self-contained story, and featured performances from Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey who would not reprise their roles in season two? Remember when it was the very definition of a Limited / Miniseries? Awards specialists at HBO thought they had a shot at the big prize of Drama Series, so they submitted True Detective in that category over the lower-prestige Limited / Miniseries category where it would have most definitely taken home more trophies. Not to worry, though. This year, True Detective season two (the one everybody hates) is safely competing in the Limited Series categories. It’s in no danger of a big nomination haul though.

This year, TBS submitted its Angie Tribeca marathon – a consolidated block of the comedy series’ episodes – as a Variety Special. It stood no chance in the Comedy Series category, but there’s less competition (and less visibility) in the Variety Special category. HBO submitted Lady Day at Emerson’s Bar and Grill in the less competitive Special Class Program where it will still compete against The Wiz Live!, Grease:Live!, and the annual Tony, Oscar, and Golden Globe telecasts, among others. Now, I say less competitive because HBO doesn’t have to push it in the TV Movie category against All the Way and Confirmation.

Finally, on the omissions side, neither Angela Lansbury nor James Earl Jones were submitted for their performances in PBS’s Driving Miss Daisy. Not that either were slam-dunks for 2016 Emmy nominations, but Lansbury now has to fall off the Emmy Tracker. Who replaces her? Maybe Shanice Williams’ plucked-from-obscurity turn as Dorothy Gale in The Wiz Live! has a shot. NBC is certainly campaigning hard for recognition, and it would make a great story. It would certainly be a happier nomination than Rachel McAdams for True Detective season two. I have no issues with her season two performance, but the stink of the overall series makes me less friendly to the idea of it receiving any Emmy nominations.

Emmy FYC: Neil Meron and Craig Zadan on ‘The Wiz Live!’

The Wiz Live! producers Neil Meron and Craig Zadan talk about the making of NBC’s latest live musical sensation.

When Neil Meron and Craig Zadan’s The Wiz Live! aired on NBC last December, it hauled in over 11.5 million viewers and was a huge hit on social media posting 1.37 million tweets during its East Coast airing. One publication wrote that it saved Christmas and critics love it. It currently holds at 91% on Rotten Tomatoes.

If you haven’t seen The Wiz Live!, set aside three hours to watch the genius musical production that is packed with plenty of high notes, stunning costumes and even vogueing. Watch as Shanice Williams slays her role as Dorothy. Her rendition of Home is enough to give you goosebumps in her breakout debut. The whole production is nothing short of enchantment, magic, and talent.

There is no doubt that The Wiz Live! was a great musical feat. It managed to do what no other televised musical production had done before – it got people who wouldn’t normally watch musicals watching. It converted fans. It aired at a time when racial violence was plaguing the airwaves. The Wiz Live! deserves to receive acting and directing nods from the Television Academy. It is a shoo-in for craft nominations for Best Production Design and Costume Design. Have you seen the stunning costumes? The Wiz Live! should also be seen in the Makeup and Hair categories as well as Best Original Music and Lyrics. Expect The Wiz Live! to be a strong contender when Emmy nominations are announced.

Of course, The Wiz Live! would be a faint memory without the dedicated brilliance of producers Neil Meron and Craig Zadan. It’s hard not to look at Neil and Craig’s body of work without having one “I loved that” moment after another. The Oscars – remember when Lady Gaga came on stage and performed that Sound of Music tribute? Chicago. Hairspray. The Sound Of Music Live!. Now we can add The Wiz Live! to that endless list. I recently caught up with Neil Meron and Craig Zadan to talk about bringing the musical extravaganza to live TV.

AwardsDaily TV: Hello you two!

Craig Zadan: How are you?

ADTV: You guys are my favorite people in the world.

Neil Meron: Oh, you say that to everybody.

ADTV: No, no! You did Chicago so much justice. It was my favorite show when I saw it on the West End and then, you did the movie. Now, we have The Wiz!

CZ: It’s true. But, Ruthie Henshall wasn’t in The Wiz.

ADTV: No, she wasn’t. Did you approach her?

NM: [Laughs] No, I think we forgot.

ADTV: Can you stick her in Hairspray?

NM: Maybe [laughs]. If it would make you happy.

ADTV: Ruthie is so sweet. I love her. I’m living in LA, so I haven’t seen her on stage in a while.

NM: I haven’t either.

ADTV: What is she up to?

CZ: I don’t know. She’s recovering.

ADTV: I do have to congratulate you on The Wiz. It’s another one of my favorites. And, I’m not saying this to everybody. I love musicals.

CZ: Well, obviously, so do we. Thank you. We appreciate that.

ADTV: There was so much negativity towards musicals.

NM: That’s so true. Musicals were like a dirty word for a long time.

ADTV: The Wiz was one of the main ones, on social media, that actually saw the shift from negative to positive reactions. What do you think was the cause for that?

NM: I think that The Wiz has some sort of undeniable power. It’s one of these classic stories that is so beloved and then when you put that together with this dream team of artists that were lucky enough to assemble, you get an embarrassment of riches that you would feel bad saying anything bad about it. They are so brilliant individually and collectively.

CZ: The thing about The Wiz for us is sort of that we had a feeling on the show that I don’t think we had on any other show. It felt like the Olympics. It was like each one of these people came out and they did their number and they killed. Then they left and the next person came out and killed. It was like one topping the next, topping the next, topping the next. It reminded me of the Olympics because they were like great athletes coming out. Each one in this cast was just astonishing. We haven’t had that ensemble in a long time. It was just unbelievable. We’re so proud of them because they loved it so much and it was a very interesting experience because they were in love with each other and they loved being there. When they had days off, they came in anyway. They just wanted to be around each other. It sounds corny when people talk about movie sets and stuff like that and say, “it was a love fest,” but in this case it really was. They were like a family. At the end, I’ve never seen actors so sad and they went, “wait a minute, we do one performance live and that’s it?”

rs_1024x759-151201075323-1024.the-wiz-cast.ch.120115

ADTV: You had your reunion the other day at the DGA’s.

CZ: Yes, we did! It was so much fun.

NM: It was pretty amazing. It was a great evening.

CZ: We said it at the time, but one of the other things about The Wiz is that in this moment of time, especially when it was airing, there was so much of a return to attitudes of the 50’s and 60’s in terms of race relations and all these horrible things that were going on in the country. We wanted to put everything on pause and have just a chance to appreciate the talent we assembled. Just to go back to what it’s all about which is just trying to appreciate the goodness in the world and that was one of the things that we were so happy about with The Wiz.

ADTV: I have to commend you on the casting. First of all, I loved her in Chicago, and she was phenomenal in this, Queen Latifah. When did you decide to make the Wiz female? In Wicked, you’ve got a male and, in The Wizard of Oz, it’s a male.

CZ: Yeah, it’s a traditionally male role.

NM: It’s one of those things that we have adopted her. We did Chicago with her and then we did Hairspray with her and then we did Steel Magnolias with her. Then, when it came time for The Wiz, of course she’s always on call. I must say that the phone call was very surprising because we started to say, “Hey, do you know the show well?” and she said, “Do I know the show well? It was the first Broadway show I ever saw! I sat there, as a little girl in the audience, watching Stephanie Mills and when she sang ‘Home,’ I decided that I wanted to become a performer.”

NM: So the emotional resonance of having someone who has that attachment to The Wiz was so remarkable.

CZ: It was Kenny Leon, our director, who came up with the notion that Queen Latifah be the Wiz because she is our go-to girl. We always think of her first, but we had to think about we fit her into this. We love her and want her to be a part of everything we do and we talked about her playing the Cowardly Lion. Then, Kenny Leon said that he thinks she should play the Wiz. There was nothing about that role that suggested any sort of gender so Kenny said, “Let’s make the Wiz a woman,” and we thought it was great. We approached Queen Latifah and she said, “Yes.” She got it immediately.

ADTV: Another great find is Shanice Williams as Dorothy. What were you looking for when you were casting the role and how did you know she was the one? It was another phenomenal performance.

NM: It’s very hard to find people like that because you do an open call and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people show up. You have to depend on them being the right age, the ability to sing those songs, somebody who can act, and somebody who can carry an entire show with no experience. None. When somebody like that shows up, they basically tell you, “This is my part.” They tell you that it belongs to them and it’s theirs and you just go, “Okay, you’ve claimed it, it’s yours.” Shanice showed up and she was able to do all those things brilliantly having had no experience whatsoever.

nup_171910_1150_wide-def3def4a7ad192e23ac32cfffe01a381da1d53d-s900-c85

ADTV: And you couldn’t tell that at all when you were watching her. She looked like she had years of experience.

NM: It’s amazing. I think the day that it dawned on us what we were doing, was the day of the telecast. We were about to start the live telecast and we said to ourselves, “We never even thought about this before, but Shanice is going out there on live television doing the first lead in her life and, my God, we hope that it comes off.” It’s kind of a scary prospect to put somebody on live on network television. We sat there in the truck with the director and with Bob Greenblatt from NBC and were in awe. She just was flawless.

ADTV: So, I want to talk about your casting because you guys are so great at it. There’s never been something of yours I was watching where I thought, “Oh gosh, I wish they’d put someone else in there.” What is your process when it comes to casting?

NM: We look at the material and we think, “what could we bring to this just in terms of creating a sense of excitement and creating a sense for the actor doing something new that they haven’t done before or finding something that is so right that it just fits like a glove.” We just throw everything just up in the air while trying to be true to the material and then try to put a certain spin on it that seems right, but then will cause some sort of want to see to the whole enterprise. That’s what we do.

ADTV: You’ve worked together for so long, and you’re so good at it. What’s the secret to this long-term working relationship that you have that is hugely successful?

CZ: I don’t think that there is a secret. I think that everything in life is about chemistry, everything. It’s like what you were talking about, how you put a cast together. When you put them in one project, they become exciting together and great together. I think the same thing happens when Neil and I work on a project. We just make it happen because we know each other’s taste and we have had the same judgement that we’ve shared on projects for so many years.

NM: And we can also challenge each other too.

ADTV: On the subject of challenges, with The Wiz, what were your biggest challenges in bringing it to life as a live musical performance for NBC?

NM: The Wiz was a particular responsibility because it felt so near and dear to the black community, especially, but a lot of people wanted it to be good. Our particular responsibility was to make sure that we didn’t disappoint and so we just really had to make sure we were making the proper choices in what was right. It’s what we do for every project, but I think we felt a little bit of an extra special motivation to make sure that The Wiz can live for this next generation. It is such an important piece for so many people and has the right message and it is the right time for this message to be out there. We cared so much.

ADTV: Did you follow the reaction on social media? One thing I noticed, and you mentioned it earlier, was that so many people that I know who don’t like musicals were watching this and were so impressed. You turned them!

NM: I was watching Twitter.

CZ: I remember one of the most common things we heard when we did the movie of Chicago was that people would come up to us and say, “Now, mind you, I don’t really usually like musicals, but I loved Chicago.” And it’s sort of been one of those things that like how do you create something that those who love musicals love the project and those that maybe don’t necessarily seek out musicals to watch love the project too. It’s sort of a challenge, but we try to appeal to everybody.

ADTV: Where are you in terms of going to Broadway? How far along are you with that?

NM: There’s a particular problem, which is a great thing for the theater on Broadway, just in terms of the availability of theaters. We’re in the process now where all the planes have lined on the airstrip and are ready to take off. We’re a part of that runway group looking for the right theater.

ADTV: It is all about the theater sometimes.

NM: Yeah, you don’t want to do The Wiz unless it has it’s proper environment.

ADTV: It’s like when they brought back Miss Saigon to London, they needed the right theater for the helicopter scene.

NM: We only have a yellow brick road [laughs].

ADTV: No landing things. What is left out there that you would love to do? Is there anything left? You’ve done the Oscars, and you’ve done great adaptations.

CZ: That’s an interesting question because we always think that there has to be something else because in the musical field. We started by doing TV musicals with Bette Midler in Gypsy and Whitney Houston and Brandi in Cinderella and those musicals on TV. There hadn’t been musicals on TV at that time and we did those and they were really successful, thank God. After that, we said “It’s time for a big screen musical,” and we moved away from the TV musicals and did Chicago and then Hairspray. We did the big screen musicals and then we thought, “Well, there’s room for musicals on TV.” We always wanted to do a series with music in it so we did Smash.

The very next thing we thought was, “What do we do now? Do we go back and TV musicals again?” And we knew that we had done that already and then we thought about the fact that it had been probably around 50 years since they had done live musicals on TV. We thought, “Why not?” It’s been 50 years, it’s time to make it fresh again and so we went to Bob Greenblatt and, to make a long story short, he basically said to us, “You know, if you think of something or find something that we can do together that is unique and special and something that’s not on television right now that we can pull off together, call me.” We told him that we didn’t have to call him because we had been thinking about it and decided we wanted to do a live musical and we had found out that the rights to the show, not the movie, of Sound of Music were available. The Rogers and Hammerstein foundation told us that if we wanted to do a live Sound of Music, they would give us the rights.

We told Bob that we had the rights to The Sound of Music and, on the spot, he said, “Let’s do it.” He didn’t think about it. He didn’t pause. He didn’t need to talk to people. And so we did it. I think that the one thing that we knew was that it was special and unique and hadn’t been done in such a long time, but we never expected 22 million viewers [laughs]. We just never expected it and it was shocking. That was quite a surprise. We even went back and rechecked and rechecked the ratings because we thought they were wrong. We thought that it couldn’t be 22 million viewers, but it was. It was like, “Oh my God!” We’ve tapped into something that people really wanted to see.

ADTV: Then you brought it to the Oscars the following year when you produced it with Lady Gaga and Julie Andrews which was just indelible. That is just a forever moment. There is an audience out there for musicals and Hollywood didn’t think so until you came along.

NM: We turned a dirty word into a beloved word.

ADTV: Next, you’re doing Hairspray.

NM: We’re bringing Hairspray to the next iteration of our live musicals.

ADTV: So you’ve got the casting of Tracy, but what else can you tell us?

NM: We’re currently casting the other roles and hope to have announcements int he next couple of weeks as to who else is joining us. I’m hoping for some very exciting names. We have a kickass cast already.

ADTV: Are we going to see Queen Latifah in Hairspray?

NM: We already did Queen Latifah in Hairspray [laughs], so that’s one thing we won’t go to her for because she’s already done it.

CZ: We have Jennifer Hudson. Let’s review the cast.

NM: Harvey Fierstein is going to be recreating his Tony award winning role as Edna, which we are so happy to do because he created it and he has the particular ownership of it. And we found him an amazing daughter. She is next in line for our discoveries. Martin Short is playing his husband. We have always wanted to work with Marty, and he’s been a long time friend. This seems to be like the perfect role for him. And, of course, Jennifer Hudson, who we’ve worked with several times. She was in Smash, and we worked with her in two Oscars. She’ll be joining us as reinventing the role of Motormouth. Another person that we’ve always loved is Derek Hough and I think we’re just beginning to see his abilities blossom into more than just a dancing star. He’s like a triple threat and he’s going to be able to strut his stuff in Hairspray live.

ADTV: I’m looking forward to that. I saw that on Broadway.

NM: It’s another show just about pure joy and also has a message which, I think, is maybe even more relevant now than when it first opened.

CZ: Going back to your question earlier about when we’ve accomplished something and we feel “okay what’s next, what do we want to do now,” one of the things that Neil and I have privately said to one another is that if musicals work and they last and happen each year, we’d love to do a drama. We decided to do Aaron Sorkin’s A Few Good Men. We’re doing that right after Hairspray. It’ll be the first time there’s been a drama done live in a very, very, very, long time. It’ll be on network television with an incredible cast that we’re in the process of casting right now. We’re very excited about it. Working with Aaron Sorkin has been a dream because we’ve always admired him and wanted to work with him. It’s been a joyous experience

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOUR8DdLhEA

Amy Brenneman Is Thriving on ‘The Leftovers’

Amy Brenneman talks to AwardsDaily TV about The Leftovers‘ Laurie Garvey.

Great acting comes from a few places through the creative process. An actor should first be matched with great writing (Damon Lindelof and Tom Perrotta. Check.). An actor should then be matched with a great director (Carl Franklin. Check.). An actor should finally be matched with the right material, something that truly resonates with that actor and gives them something to dig their teeth into (The Leftovers. Check.) Talking to 5-time Emmy nominee Amy Brenneman revealed a perfect collision of these events that resulted in her astonishing performance as Laurie Garvey, a survivor of the Guilty Remnants who uses her knowledge of their inner workings to successfully (and unsuccessfully) rehabilitate disillusioned members.

Laurie’s journey through The Leftovers season two – particularly her focus episode “Off Ramp” – provides an enormous range for the actress. She’s the vengeful spirit, resentful of the cult’s influence. She’s the proud and determined survivor, eager to share her remarkable story. She’s the concerned mother, realizing she’s pushing her son too far into her dangerous quest. She’s the former psychiatrist, helping her ex-husband Kevin (Justin Theroux) work through a psychotic break.

The amazing thing about Amy Brenneman’s performance is that it never once feels untrue. All of these wild circumstances, no matter how far-fetched they may be, feel remarkably grounded in the human experience. A lot of that is due to the fantastic writing, but you must recognize the extraordinary talent and commitment displayed by Amy Brenneman. As she says in our conversation, there’s nothing else quite like The Leftovers on television today. Logic would tell you that the Television Academy should flock to the series and reward its uniqueness. Yet, it’s a show that sadly struggles for recognition amidst the other great series on air. Should the Academy pay attention, they would be hard-pressed to bypass Amy Brenneman’s stunning work.

Amy Brenneman

AwardsDaily TV: You’ve built a healthy résumé of TV work over the years. How did you get your start in acting, and did your career go in the direction you wanted it to?

Amy Brenneman: You know, I was one of those kids that was in a play when I was 11 and never stopped doing plays. My soul found its home no doubt in plays and in collaboration with people – that’s also what I love. I come from a family of lawyers from New England, so the whole “profession” of acting was a little foggy to me. I always say the one deal breaker for my college/graduate school parents was, if I’d said at 18 I’m going to New York, they would be like, “No, you are not.” [Laughs] So, we all – my brothers and I – went to college. I went to Harvard, and they didn’t actually have a theater major at that point, which they just got one going a couple of years ago. However, there was a ton of theater going on, so we all majored in obviously different things. I was always doing plays, and the kind of plays we were doing were very influenced by The Wooster Group downtown, by theater collectives, and we actually ended up starting a theater company called Cornerstone Theater. So, I travelled around the country for about five years after college and did community-based work and loved it.

I feel like it was an organic progression. There was a moment where it was time to lead that group full-time, and there was also a moment where it was time to try to make a living. [Laughs] But the whole film/television/head shot/agent thing didn’t happen… I didn’t really think about it until I was in my late 20s. And then it was sort of a surprise, to be honest with you. I thought theater would want me, and Hollywood wouldn’t but it was actually sort of the opposite.

ADTV: Jumping forward to your tremendous work on The Leftovers. This show seems to be one of those series with critical acclaim but not broad viewership. It’s fans though are devotees of the material. Why do you think people form such a deep connection to this series?

AB: Well, there’s nothing else like it. I think about The Leftovers in a lot of different ways, and some of it is through my religion major lens. I’m very interested in spiritual systems both individual and collective. I think that Damon [Lindelof] is writing an elegy. It’s really about grief, and in the first season everybody was sort of stunned by grief, literally paralyzed. The second season, everybody gets very industrious. That’s why I love the second season. It’s the opposite of the 4-quadrant entertainment – “It appeals to everybody! Happy! Sad! Young! Old!” [The Leftovers] appeals to one pretty specific swath in the human spirit, but it’s the truth. A dear friend of mine had just lost her father very suddenly. The show came on a month or so later. She always watches everything I do… I was like, “Oh no, you are not allowed to watch it.” Anybody that’s tender, anybody that’s put off by the depth of it… I never try to convince people to watch it. I think it’s like going to church. For people that get it and need it, there’s literally nowhere else to go on television.

ADTV: As you’ve mentioned, you graduated from Harvard after majoring in comparative religion. Do you consider yourself a religious person, and how does that background help you navigate The Leftovers and, more specifically, the Guilty Remnant? 

AB: Yeah, I definitely have a spiritual practice that’s sort of eclectic as most Americans are. I am a theist. I do think about God a lot. It’s really funny too… I’m pretty unstudied formally in terms of acting – I never went to acting school – but I realize that the way what I studied in college and the way that I naturally think, the way that fits in, is that I literally look at a character and, I didn’t realize this until after the fact, but I’ll think, “OK. What is Heaven to this person. What is Hell? What are they striving for? Where is their soul at peace?”

The Guilty Remnant is interesting because all of us, especially in the first season, were like “What do they believe? What are the tenants of their belief?” But it’s really like the Occupy movement. It’s less about what they coalesce around and more what they’re collectively rejecting. I think for Laurie… And again I think this is Tom Perrotta’s absolute parallel to post-9/11… The people were saying, “Go back to normal!” You try to do that, but then you realize the foundations have entirely changed… I think she was about to crack up. I think she was not doing well by her family. She’s a shrink, so she realized she had to remove herself for a while. She realized it’s sort of extreme, but it’s what she had to do. I think Laurie’s journey in that first season is sort of like MLK versus Malcolm X. I think she really saw what she was doing was… confrontational but in a gentle way if you will. Just by their presence, they make people realize things, and people get upset and people do all sorts of things. But [the Guilty Remnant] doesn’t strike back, and I think that, as Patti [Ann Dowd] took over as the season progressed – the ending of the first season when she’s realizing that it’s not what she signed up for… The whole second season is basically revenge.

Amy Brenneman
Chris Zylka as Tom Garvey, Amy Brenneman as Laurie Garvey. Photo: Ryan Green/HBO.

ADTV: Yeah, that’s very interesting. In “Off Ramp,” you have a few (what I like to call) “Breaking Bad” moments – breaking and entering, running over the two Guilty Remnant members, choking the publisher. Was it challenging for you as an actress to play those scenes so that they felt real and truthful given how out of character they were for her?

AB: They didn’t feel that out of left field for her. The stealing of the computer certainly didn’t. She has a goal. She’s fierce. She’s going to get that goddamn computer, and then the hitting of the guys in the car… I did sort of have to talk to Damon about that, talk through it. Honestly, in Laurie’s mind, she gives them a chance. It’s a game of chicken, right? It’s like pressing the button on the atomic bomb. She gave them a chance. You can judge Laurie’s thinking, but, if she’s trying to wake these people up for them to realize they’re being duped just like she was – that they’re in this cult and being used like cannon fodder, she gave them ample opportunity. She slows that car down. There is a definite face-off, and then it’s just a matter of power. She’s desperate to show them that she’s more powerful than this system they are involved in.

ADTV: There’s also something somewhat obnoxious about the Guilty Remnant standing there just staring and smoking. 

AB: Yeah. Well, it’s like she’s not intimidated by them. She comes from them. She gets the whole thing. I think that probably what the audience might have been thinking in season one is that this creepy cult has taken this woman’s family… I think that was the big passing in the night moment between me and Meg [Liv Tyler] because she’s a novice and she’s delicate and [Laurie’s] showing her the ropes, but then she’s the one who becomes the jihadist. Maybe because Laurie has kids or because she’s not very good cult material in the end… Meg just lapped it up.

ADTV: Absolutely, and the parallels between those two characters are fascinating, but I want to get into that in a minute. First, tell me what it was like working with Carl Franklin, who I think is one of the great directors working today.

AB: Ohh, I agree. I agree. It was great. I think we just did a smudge of stuff in the first season. He was a great director for me. He really was. Maybe because he was an actor, he put a lot of confidence in us. He was really lax… There were a couple of moments where he would say to me, “Yeah, I didn’t believe that.” And then I’d laugh because that’s my number one job as an actor – to make you believe it! [Laugh] Have another take there… He was fun. He was playful. There’s a sneaky feminist agenda in this where the women are just really allowed to fly and, in a way, as misguided as they are they have a very, very clear sense and a lot of agency in the world…. I think he’s one of those good directors where it’s not about “action scene,” “love scene,” whatever. It’s all relational. It’s basic stuff. What are you trying to get from the other person? He is a 4-quadrant guy. Male. Female. Young. Old. Black. White. He’s interested in humanity. I loved it. I really, really loved it.

ADTV: So, I want to go back to Laurie’s relationship with her son. I go back and forth on this question of whether or not she is using him in the second season. She pushes him into the Guilty Remnant. She pushes him to take the Holy Wayne mantle. What are your thoughts on her relationship with him?

AB: I think he’s her mirror. You know, it’s funny, early on in the first season… Tom and Laurie were always positioned as seekers. They always had that questing quality. They were interested in different ways of living. Different ways of thinking. The Departure really just exploded your natural tendencies, and Laurie and Tom were the ones to seek out some big new idea. Kind of what we talked about, which you never really see, Tom committing to Holy Wayne – like really going off on this path – probably emboldened Laurie to make a big choice as well. Temperamentally, they’re actually very, very similar. And, you know, you think about Orthodox families… Yes, there’s something very bullying about indoctrinating someone, including a child, but you really think you’re doing it for their own good. There are certainly a lot of religious traditions where children follow because they want to please their parents… They are coerced into the family religious practice. I think there’s a little bit of that where [Laurie’s] like, “We agree that the Guilty Remnant has to be stopped, and I happen to have this beautiful, sensual, smoking-hot, charismatic son, so let’s use that!” [Laughs] I do think it’s genuine. When Laurie realizes that it’s gone too far and she wants to pull him out… I think that actually is genuine. I don’t think she’s a sociopath. So I think it’s very complicated…

ADTV: Yeah, in that episode, he did not disclose what happened between him and Meg – the rape scene. What do you think Laurie’s reaction in that moment would have been? 

AB: Well, I think that would have been the tipping point if for no other reason than to prevent this woman from having any access to him. However, even without knowing [what actually happened], that’s the moment Tom brings up Meg’s name, and my “Spidey-sense” goes up. I think [Laurie] would have absolutely changed the game, which is ultimately what happened because [Meg’s] tentacles go really far…

ADTV: Laurie’s book undoubtedly describes her break from the Guilty Remnant, but we don’t know much about that period in her life. Did you generate a backstory for this to influence your performance in “Off Ramp?”

AB: We don’t get into that, although that moment at the end of season one where I almost let my kid burn up in the fire because of their crazy/loco thing. During the first hiatus, I would have been shocked if I was still a part of the Guilty Remnant, so I think the assumption is that… Jill is my precious Achilles heel. When she shows up at the Guilty Remnant headquarters at the end of season one, it’s like Laurie is a crackhead, and her kid is seeing her in the crackhouse. You don’t see her detach from it, but I think it’s really pretty immediate – “These people are crazy and they led me astray” kind of thing.

What I love about Laurie in the second season is that she reclaims all of her knowledge and awareness as a shrink. The way I kind of lay it out for Kevin about his psychotic break and she lays out her own journey. I told Damon that it’s very rare that you have a character that does sort of an inexplicable thing, a strange thing like joining the Guilty Remnant, and then the next season I have a 4-page monologue where I explain exactly why… in very shrink-y language, in very grounded and undeniable language, I am just laying bare. It’s like in [Going Clear] and Scientology. I’m telling the truth about this secret society, and I think [Laurie’s book] was a good book and was about to be published but she just wasn’t ready for prime time.

Amy Brenneman
Amy Brenneman as Laurie Garvey, Justin Theroux as Kevin Garvey. Photo: Van Redin/HBO.

ADTV: Oh no. Especially not after receiving that call about Susan’s death… So, in closing, I’m not even going to ask about season three because, whenever I do, no one knows or isn’t saying. Instead, what is next for you professionally? 

AB: Before I go to Australia to film season three, I’m writing a theater piece, which I’ve never done before. And then, my husband [Brad Silberling] and I are going to set up a production deal somewhere… I have writers and other people coming to me with ideas. I created a show in Judging Amy and to have that come out of my head… that was a lot of work. [Laughs] I kind of feel like I love working in these different venues, and I feel sort of wide-open to whatever comes next. I am interesting in producing a show that I’m in again because I like that.

ADTV: Yes, and it seems like a really are at time in television history where there are opportunities for women to take that ownership of a series. How are you benefitting from that now? 

AB: It’s amazing! I have a few different writers I’m working with, and one of them can work on spec which is amazing because… there’s a version of that idea that can work on network, there’s a version that could work on cable. It allows us to produce the thing and then find a home for it.

I think I benefited it way back in 2000 when I created Judging Amy.  Because television is not based on the impossible model of movies (seeing what a performer is “worth” in Japan to secure foreign sales, etc), there is more opportunity for everyone who has a good idea and is ready to work hard.  Because of the explosion in streaming, premium and basic cable — all outlets needing material — there is even more opportunity.  Sadly, I think film (at least the business model) is still in the dark ages, which is why all they seem to be able to churn out are Marvel movies!

It’s also important to contextualize “opportunities for women” with opportunities for ANY voice which has been historically marginalized — folks of color, LGBTQ, the disability community, older artists of every stripe.  Sadly, women are not the only group underrepresented!  But the expansion of venues will no doubt mean more opportunity for all of us.

Amy Brenneman and The Leftovers can be seen streaming on HBO Go and HBO Now. Season three is now filming.