ADTV News - Page 87 of 241 - Awards Daily TV

Taraji P. Henson On Being Cookie Lyon

ADTV discusses the challenges of being Empire‘s Cookie Lyon with Taraji P. Henson, the woman behind the sass

Earlier this year, Taraji P. Henson took home the Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Drama for her portrayal of Cookie Lyon on Fox’s Empire. Cookie is outspoken, fierce, and bold. Henson’s character is a heroine to the 10 million viewers who tune in each week to follow the adventures and saga of the Lyon family. Later this year, Henson will publish her memoir, “Around the Way Girl,” and she will stretch her acting chops with Hidden Figures, an upcoming drama detailing the story of Katherine Johnson. Johnson was the African-American mathematician who helped NASA make huge strides in the Space Race.

I caught up with the actress in Hollywood on an unusually chilly L.A. day to talk Cookie, what she hungers for as an actress, and the challenges in creating such an iconic character.

AwardsDaily TV: How is it filming Empire in Chicago?

Taraji P. Henson: It’s good. I really love the city. They have great food. It’s beautiful in the summer with the lake. I can’t complain. It’s a change of pace. The people are different. They seem a bit more authentic there than here. No one’s chasing stars there.

ADTV: L.A. is a world of it’s own. OK, that last episode of Empire. Oh my God! I’m still picking up my jaw from the shooting and the wedding. The whole season is crazy. I don’t even know where to begin?

TPH: [laughs] Good luck because I don’t either.

ADTV: Congratulations on a great season. What’s it like delivering those blunt lines?

TPH: It’s a lot of fun. She’s my Sasha Fierce. She’s my big sister. That’s what Cookie represents for me, that bold person who speaks up for me when the bully comes.

ADTV: Is that what makes her resonate with the audience?

TPH: I think she represents that for everyone, the voice… that inner fight that everyone has. Sometimes people are afraid to unleash because they need to be politically correct, and we know Cookie is far from anything politically correct.

ADTV: Is that hard for you delivering those lines that aren’t all PC? I don’t care. I’m a Brit so nothing offends me. We say anything.

TPH: I know! I’ve seen TV there. I love it because Cookie gets to say it. She says the things that people are thinking but are too afraid to say. I think that’s why she’s registered and resonates across the board. It doesn’t matter what color, what sex, who they’re sleeping with, they just love Cookie. [laughs]

ADTV: Well, it’s been such a long time since we’ve had such a great character like Cookie on screen. In the 80’s we had [Dynasty‘s] Alexis, then you come along, and she’s bad ass.

TPH: I love it. It was a scary character to take on because I didn’t know how she’d be received. America is tricky. People are tricky. They could turn on you real quick. It was very important as to how I played her. I couldn’t play her as a loud mouth sass because she wouldn’t resonate to most people. I had to figure out a way to make people empathize with her struggle.

I grew up in the hood, so I know what it’s like when you can’t make ends meet working at McDonald’s or a job that pays minimum wage, and all you have is crack to sell to make sure your family can eat, or hustle, or whatever it is you gotta do. When you come from the hood, you don’t have those options. She sold drugs. Was it the best thing to do? No. But what she did was prevent her three sons from becoming statistics. She did what mothers do, she made the ultimate sacrifice.

ADTV: And some of the best scenes are when Cookie goes all out protecting those boys. Where does that emotion come from?

TPH: From a mother’s love. You sacrifice your life getting that child here healthy. I became pregnant in my junior year in college, I was very young. That’s when you party and drink, and do whatever. I didn’t do it. I chose not to. Those are sacrifices I made to bring a healthy child into this world. Once I had him, I had further sacrifices to make, I couldn’t go clubbing because of the type of mother I wanted to be. As a mother you’re always sacrificing because it is your job to make sure these kids are good and they become productive citizens by any means necessary. You want them to survive.

ADTV: How has Cookie changed your life?

TPH: I can’t go anywhere. That’s how she’s changed my damn life. I am now Cookie. Everywhere I go, people ask, “Are you Cookie?” No, I am Taraji. [laughs]. I understand the love they have for her.
“Fans, please understand when you call me Cookie, it reminds me of work.” It’s work.

ADTV: But she’s going down in history as an icon.

TPH: I hope so. She’s the kind of work I’ve always wanted to do. I pray that’s the case.

ADTV: Do you have any scenes that have stood out for you this season?

TPH: The scenes where I slapped all the boys. I think I got Terence one good time, and now they all brace themselves when they see me.

ADTV: You connected?

TPH: Each and every time. [laughs] I have crew members saying, “Can Cookie slap some sense into my children?” They make me Facetime and threaten their kids.

ADTV: What about this relationship between Cookie and Lucious. Every episode they are flipping from love and hate. Last night, I was watching it and they’re on the couch. There was a moment when I thought, “She hasn’t learned from last season.”

TPH: Well, that’s a love you can’t describe. When you’ve been through so much with a person that love never really goes away. You may not love them romantically anymore, but there’s a deep underlying love that you can’t even put into words. When you find that, it doesn’t come often. Cookie and Lucious will probably always date other people, but they will never find that kind of love again.

ADTV: What can we expect in season three?

TPH: [laughs] I have no idea. They tell me nothing. I wish I knew.

ADTV: Ok, I have to talk about her wardrobe, because it’s outrageous. Do you get a say in what Cookie wears?

TPH: I don’t really want a say. I let Paolo [Nieddu] do his job. He really loves me because he calls me his Barbie. I’m a producer as well, so I just know that you hire people to hire their job. I’m an actress. I’m not a wardrobe person. I don’t study the upcoming fashions. That’s why I hire a stylist in my personal life. That’s why you have wardrobe in film and TV. I let that person do their job.

It’s my job as an actor to materialize that. I’ve done my research, they’ve done their research and we marry the two. I have to make it work. I might not like it, but it’s Cookie who’s wearing it. He did the character research. My main concern is fit. Does it fit? If it doesn’t we move on. I think Paolo is quite a genius. The outfits he puts together are ones I would have passed a thousand times in the store, but everything he puts me in, I want. But once Cookie wears it, it’s over.

ADTV: You have an exciting 2016 ahead. Your memoir, “Around The Way Girl,” is coming out which I can’t wait to read. What can you tell us about the title?

TPH: I think people recognize me for being That Girl Around The Way for being tangible to them. I’ve reached this great success in my career, and people say, “You’ve never changed, you still feel familiar. I feel like I know you and you’re my BFF.” I think it’s because I would not allow Hollywood to dictate who I was. Yes, I’m this edgy girl and I speak with this accent, but I am a trained actress. I get paid to play characters. That’s not who I am. It was a struggle to get through the industry like that. When I walked in the room, I was just Taraji from around the way, but they just saw an edgy girl who couldn’t give them characters. I’ve had a lot to prove, but anyway, here we are and I get to tell my story.

I think it will resonate not just with women, or girls, but boys and men because the story is very real. I’m very proud of it.

ADTV: On the subject of Hollywood and its challenges, what obstacles have you faced?

TPH: There are roles that I didn’t get that I should have had, but when you look back in retrospect they weren’t my blessing. They belonged to someone else. I don’t really see them as obstacles. I just work. Hopefully those obstacles lessen, and they become obsolete.

I really can’t say that the industry is tough because I’ve been successful in this business. I can’t say the business has been bad to me. I carpe diem. I was nominated for an Academy Award. Great. I continue to do independent films, and, because I’m a theatre actor too, I hunger for roles that I can sink my teeth in to. I thirst for roles that will scare me. I don’t go for easy.

ADTV: On that note, you have Hidden Figures coming out early in 2017.

TPH: That was the hardest thing for me in life. I am not mathematically wired. She is the polar opposite of everything you’ve ever seen me do. Everything. She is a genius. She’s a mathematician. She sees numbers in the sky. She doesn’t speak unless she has something to say. She’s a very proper woman, and she was hard to play. I’m notch ten in my personal life.

I leave this character who speaks her mind, and then you take me to Katherine [Johnson] where I have two lines in three pages. When I got home, I felt like I’d just worked out because I had to sit on all of that energy. There are scenes with racial tension, and I couldn’t say anything? That was a workout.

ADTV: Did you know about Katherine Johnson?

TPH: No, I didn’t. When I took it on, that’s when I started to hear about her. It was interesting. The movie was perfect timing. I remember reading the script and asking if she was still alive, if so, I wanted to meet her. I remember how regal she was, and how smart she was without saying anything. She was very sharp. She’s 97 1/2. What I found interesting was that, I’m a people watcher, so I was scanning her room, and I saw that she had two Scrabble games under her sofa. I thought to myself, she’s still challenging her brain to think. I wouldn’t even want to play Scrabble with her. She’d make me look stupid.

Watch full episodes of Taraji P. Henson on Empire on Fox.com.

Reid Scott Is Having a Great Year, Even If Dan Egan Isn’t

Reid Scott talks about Veep‘s continued success under a new showrunner and Dan Egan’s future in D.C.

Veep‘s Dan Egan is the most underrated character on HBO’s Emmy Award-winning political comedy. As embodied by actor Reid Scott, Egan’s trajectory on the series has progressed (regressed?) from cocky Deputy Director of Communications in the Vice President’s office to a lobbyist to, most recently, a senior campaign official on President Selina Meyer’s (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) re-election bid. Recently, the series seems to derive a perverse amount of pleasure from putting Scott’s Egan through one embarrassment after another.

I had the chance to talk with Reid Scott about his character on the acclaimed comedy. I wanted to find out if there was any end plan for his ambitious campaign consultant and, ultimately, the show itself. Talking with Scott was very breezy and casual. We talked about his Veep role, the process of creating a great final product, and even his recent voice-over successes.

AwardsDaily TV: Do you think you’ll be able to safely enter a CVS or a Rite-Aid ever again?

Reid Scott: [laughs] I may have to switch to Walgreens.

ADTV: I think everyone will be keeping an eye out for Dan Egan.

RS: Yeah, I’m getting offered jobs at the pharmacy.

ADTV: One of the big questions I wanted to ask you first is when David Mandel came on as the show runner, did anything in the environment on the show change at all?

RS: That’s a great question! Yes and no. It was really an interesting process changing captains, you know, midstream like this. I’ll only speak for myself…I knew David just by reputation, and he had this wonderful rapport and history with Julia [Louis-Dreyfus]. So they obviously were going to come together and have a lot of similar thoughts and similar ideas for the trajectory for the show because they were going to work really well together. So we met David and he was instantly great and so excited, but you know you always wonder like, “Wow can we match the same tone? Can we keep it up? Will it be the same feel?” Especially after season four where we won the Emmy, and it’s kind of like, “We’re really cooking now!” It’s sort of strange to mix it up. And there was certainly a period of some growing pains. You have a whole new staff of writers trying to get used to our voices. We have a really unique process—we do a lot of rehearsal, there’s a lot of improv. So I think we were all sort of wondering how this was going to go. I don’t think those questions got really answered until we probably had, you know, an episode or two in the can. It started to become really obvious that David and his guys really rose to the challenge and they told us how hard it was to really try to pick up where Armando Iannucci and his guys left off. But I think they did an incredible job having seen the first few episodes already. I think from an audience standpoint, you wouldn’t even notice a difference.

ADTV: I was about to say that it was a very, very smooth transition. It’s like nothing ever happened.

RS: It’s incredible, really incredible. And I can’t tell you how difficult of a task that was. We watched these writers not sleeping for days on end trying to get a tone just right, and they rose to the challenge. They really crushed it. I think it’s one of our best.

ADTV: With this being an election year, do you feel like you guys are kind of exposed or in the spotlight since Veep is one of the (or the only) political comedies on television right now?

RS: Yeah. We certainly get asked that a lot. “Are you borrowing from the current election cycle? All the gaffes and the wonderful material must be coming out of that.” You know, Veep has never been the show that does the “ripped from the headlines” kind of thing. Even though it seems like it [laughs]. We used to laugh amongst ourselves that our writers or our cast would come up with some insane scenario and we’d shoot it, and then the next week it would actually happen. And when they see this episode they’re going to think that we took it from the actual headline when we’re actually ahead of this curve. With this election cycle, we weren’t trying to emulate anything, but it’s hard to not be influenced here and there. We’ll let the audience drawn the conclusion. If they see something that they think is completely influenced by the election, then so be it. If anything, we were trying to do our own thing.

ADTV: So we’re not going to see a Trump political figure or some really angry Bernie Bros knocking down the doors to the White House?

RS: [laughs] There’s a little bit there. Every character in the show is some sort of a political caricature. There’s little bits in there, but I don’t think there’s like it’s stridently based on somebody.

ADTV: One of my favorite lines was from the last episode that just aired (episode 3 titled “The Eagle”). Dan realizes Amy’s [Anna Chlumsky] sister does not work for CBS, and Amy walks away from you. You have that great line, “I’m not having a good year.” You just say it to yourself. Can you tell me if Dan’s year is going to improve? Is he a little more humbled this season or is still just kind of a dick?

RS: Man, you get right to it!

ADTV: I recently read an interview where you referred to Dan as a dick, so that’s why I say that [laughs].

RS: Totally! That is nothing new. I mean, look, Dan is nobody if he’s not a dick, so that’s still going to continue. He’s got an interesting ride—I don’t want to give too much away. Most of the fun of Veep is watching everyone try to succeed and ultimately kind of failing. There’s a bit of that on the ride, but Dan…how I say this…Dan’s trajectory throughout the season is really interesting. He gets involved in some stuff that I’ll say is perfect for him and Dan opens up some doors that I don’t think even he thought were available to him.

ADTV: Very mysterious—I like that. With the Amy material and the “hook up gone wrong,” How was it to explore that with Anna Chlumsky?

RS: It was fun. That Dan/Amy is something that has been simmering in the background while it’s never been explicitly said what their exact history is. We obviously worked some stuff out on our own, kind of behind-the-scenes to help us with the characters and whatnot. It’s always been this sort of fun little tension, and I gotta be honest: it’s fun to toy with the audience. “When are they going to hook up?!” “When’s it going to happen?” I can honestly tell you that I don’t know if it ever will. It might. It’s been a fun little element, because those kinds of relationships are fun to explore. Someone that you love, you hate, and between the two of them they realize they work fairly well together. But there’s this competition and this sort of like one-upsmanship. So that can also fuel the libido. It was fun—it was cute.

ADTV: I do feel like if something were to happen and they were to become an item and break up…because of their competitive nature…a break-up between Dan and Amy effectively burn down all of Washington D.C.

RS: Oh yeah! It would just burn the city to the ground.

ADTV: Veep is in its fifth season. A lot of comedies get to that point, and stuff becomes stale. Veep, on the other hand, stuff keeps getting better and better. Is there already a clear idea where the creative team would want to finish things?

RS: You know, that’s a great question. I don’t know. It’s something that’s been bandied about a lot. Back to when Armando was running the show, we always wondered, “what’s the endgame here?”—especially when Selina became president in season four. There was even talk of whether we change the title. What’s happening here?

I don’t think anyone knows, and I think that’s in the style of the show. Even when we show up to shoot (because there’s a decent amount of improv involved), there’s a bit of magic the show has capture in not knowing where we’re going to go. It’s sort of like flying by the seat of your pants—and that’s not to say that the writers don’t have a plan. They have extensive plans. It’s like, here’s the general GPS of the show. How we get there is completely up to us as we discover it, as we shoot it, as we play with the stuff. So, I don’t know. As long as there’s political fodder to explore, the show’s going to have some life. God knows it can go on forever. There’s endless possibilities and endless combinations of how to keep these characters together and what they can do. I’m curious about that myself.

ADTV: Do you know where you’d like Dan to end up in D.C. ? Do you have an idea of where you’d want him to go?

RS: I’ve said before that I won’t be satisfied until Dan catches a sniper bullet in the head walking down 8^th Street. I think that’s such a natural, fitting, and perfect ending of Dan. Whoever he has to piss off to make that happen, I think would be great.

ADTV: You mention a lot of improv. You see all the scenes at the end of the episodes where actors are going through different takes of the show and they’re throwing different stuff out there. Is that something you really like the atmosphere of the shooting? Do you fire stuff over and over again?

RS: Yeah, it’s one of the things, I think, drew all of us to the show in the first place. We were told from the get-go. My first meeting with Armando and Frank Rich was meeting with them in character. And they specifically asked for that. Came in and we ran a couple scenes and then Armando said, “Let’s just talk.” And we were talking for about half an hour to forty-five minutes just in character, and that’s where most of the character came from. Armando knew who the guy was but I sort of filled in all the back story and all the blanks. That sort of atmosphere has continued in that everyone is encourage to contribute—whether it’s a joke, whether it’s a plot point, whether it’s some back story. And for each other’s characters, it’s a really giving and very generous environment. You know, a lot of times actors are very precious about their character or can be selfish and this is almost the opposite. Everyone is throwing in ideas. It’s all about how do we make this scene funny, how do we make this situation funny. It’s exhausting at times. We make a lot of work for ourselves in doing that, but then you see the end result and it’s like, man it’s fun to know that we were all playing jazz together and this is what we come up with.

ADTV: You can tell from just watching the actors that if you throw something at them, every single actor on Veep with throw back at you

RS: Absolutely. You know, it’s classic improv games. It’s “Yes, and…” and heightening the stakes and just passing the ball is what it is. It’s almost like an athletic environment where we all have one goal to win the game. However we get there, let’s just have fun and do it, and everyone be unselfish and make these moments stick. It’s a lot of fun. We have a huge rehearsal process, and I know a bunch of our cast has already talked about that. And that rehearsal process is what makes the show. We find so much in the rehearsal process and we improv so much. Usually what happens is we have the script and we rehearse the script. And then we improv the script and the improvisations make it into the next draft, and then we’re improving on top of that. SO it’s this wonderful combination of structure and free style.

ADTV: I wanted to congratulate you. You were nominated for an Emmy for your voiceover work on Turbo F.A.S.T. Were you always interested in voiceover work, or is that something you just fell into?

RS: A little bit of both. One of my good buddies, Jamie Kailer (Scott’s co-star on TBS’ My Boys), he did a bunch of voices on Robot Chicken, and I was a fan of the show. I pestering him, “How does it work?” He actually got me my first voiceover agent, and it’s really a tough nut to crack. I think I went three or four years before I got anything. It’s a very tight niche of incredibly talented performers, and because it’s voices, most of these men and women can do dozens of voices. You don’t even need a big pool of actors that it’s hard to break in. I got lucky, because a really old friend of mine, Chris Prynoski, of Titmouse (Animation Studios) fame. He and director Andrew Romano gave me a shot. I was completely green. I learned on the fly, and I just love it. It’s one of the most freeing forms of acting you could ever do. You don’t have to worry about the camera and the lights and the hair—you just have to play with the character. I was so surprised and proud to be nominated like that, because other actors in the field are incredible performers.

ADTV: I wanted to close with a random question. Is there any show that you’d like to guest star on? For instance, a small character arc that is completely different than what you’re been doing the last few years on Veep?

RS: The Americans on FX. I am just a huge fan of spy intrigue novels and whatnot. I think the acting between Matthew Rhys and Keri Russell is the best on television. It’s just incredible. I love how dark and moody—the nice, almost languid, pace is so interesting to me. I would jump at that in a heartbeat.

ADTV: I’ve always thought that you’d be a great addition to something like Mad Men. I think you’d look really good walking around in a tailored suit, chain-smoking, in the 60’s and 70’s.

RS: My god, that’s my dream! [laughs]

Veep airs on HBO Sunday nights at 10:30pm ET. Turbo F.A.S.T. is available streaming on Netflix.

Emmy Tracker: Emmy for Vera or Khaleesi?

Two seismic events happened on TV this week. Will Emmy take a closer look at Vera Farmiga or Emilia Clarke?

Naturally, all spoiler warnings apply if you haven’t caught up with this week’s Bates Motel or Game of Thrones. If you haven’t, then bookmark this page, watch both right now, and come back for the update. We’ll be waiting… OK, welcome back (or thanks for being patient if you never left). Both hours of television saw some significant character progressions for actresses Vera Farmiga (Norma Bates on Bates Motel) and Emilia Clarke (Daenerys / Khaleesi on Game of Thrones). No matter how deserving they are, both actresses have been somewhat on the periphery of the awards race this year. So, how will these significant developments play for Emmy voters.

In the case of Vera Farmiga, Bates Motel hasn’t been this hot since it first premiered. A series that progressively increases in quality with each passing season, Bates Motel committed to the event that most fans have long anticipated / dreaded: Norman Bates finally killed his mother. Norma’s season four death capped a very, very strong season for Vera Farmiga. Personally, I’m not sure the character topped last season’s “Norma Louise,” but Farmiga’s Norma character arc was more consistently great and varied this season. Norma struggled with committing Norman to a mental hospital, fought with insurance, and made further sacrifices for Norman’s benefit. If there’s a mother in the Television Academy, then it would be impossible for them to ignore Norma’s plight.

Aside from Farmiga’s well-practiced brilliance where Norman is concerned, she was also given a huge gift by the writing team. She was allowed to fall in love and, shock, be happy. She was legitimately happy and hopeful for the first time in several seasons. These episodes, no matter how short lived they were, were not ironic distances for Farmiga. They were moments of genuine bliss. Moments that saw her share her darkest secrets with husband-of-convenience Romera (Nestor Carbonell). And he didn’t run away. He embraced her. And she melted. Farmiga radiated happiness in a way that Bates Motel has seldom allowed her. Vera Farmiga’s season four performance is a far different performance than she’s given in the series to date. Unfortunately, it’s probably her last lead performance for the series. She’ll undoubtedly be back as “Mother” in season five, but this is really Vera Farmiga’s big shot at Emmy glory.

So, who stands in her way?

House of Cards‘ Robin Wright and How To Get Away With Murder‘s Viola Davis are the lockiest of locks if ever there has been a lock. There’s literally no way they’re not getting back into the nominees’ circle this year. Presuming six slots, that leaves us with four openings. Honestly, perennial nominee Claire Danes (Homeland) is the most likely next nominee with Michelle Dockery, Taraji P. Henson, and Julianna Margulies nipping at their heels. Vera Farmiga has the opportunity to knock any one of those actresses out of contention, in my opinion, although buzz for The Good Wife‘s last season will probably carry Margulies forward. The same could be said for Michelle Dockery, although both were omitted from last year’s Drama Actress race in favor of Tatiana Maslany and Elizabeth Moss. Maslany *could* repeat, but I’m not getting a great deal of love for Orphan Black‘s latest season. Moss isn’t eligible this year.

So, Farmiga leaps ahead of Michelle Dockery for the moment on the Emmy Tracker. Recent buzz for the series and a widespread recognition by critics’ and fans for the impeccable quality of the fourth season should push her forward more than recent years. Earlier in the week, I’d have said it wasn’t possible, but with internet and print buzz at a fever pitch and with Farmiga’s starring turn in The Conjuring 2 coming out just before Emmy voting… You never know. She just may pull off the nomination.

Emilia Clarke has a less complicated path forward. If anything, her recent recent to Daenerys badassery (re: nakedness) has solidified her place among the Drama Supporting Actress six. Downton Abbey‘s Maggie Smith may be knocking at the door, but I suspect Clarke is going to shut the door, nail it, burn down the house, and walk out of the ashes clutching an Emmy in one hand and Smith’s bloodied head in the other. Okay, maybe not the bloodied head piece, but it is Game of Thrones.

Kidding aside, the top six for Drama Supporting Actress feels nearly solidified at this point. Game of Thrones‘ other big badass female Lena Headey has kept her season premiere heat going, and the rest of the season feels promising. You can never bet against Uzo Aduba for Orange is the New Black as she tends to carry the acting love for the entire series. Plus, she’s just great on the show. Joanne Froggatt has been a perennial nominee for Downton Abbey, recently taking Smith’s place in the category where Emmy has before made room for two. The Good Wife‘s final year should see Christine Baranski continue in the category, and it would be foolish to bet against her. She’s never missed out on a nomination for the show. Better Call Saul‘s Rhea Seehorn would be the new nominee in the category, but it just feels so right this year given Kim Wexler’s increased importance in the show and her late season choice between Jimmy and Chuck.

Emilia Clarke is likely to benefit from overall love for the show. I’m convinced to this day that’s why she was nominated last year. There was no other justifiable reason. She simply wasn’t given enough to do other than fawn over Emmy-winner Peter Dinklage. Last season, she was the damsel to be dragon rescued. This season, she’s got the girl power vibe again, standing against the Dothraki herd that kidnapped her and, in the end of episode four, burning down the Dothraki temple of oppression, killing their patriarchal system with one fatal blow. Everyone loves it when Daenerys makes bold moves, particularly Emmy. The scene of her emerging (again) triumphantly from the fires is hard to get out of your head. Plus, she’s naked, so there’s something for the steak eaters in the Television Academy.

Emilia Clarke feels more likely to repeat last year’s nomination in the supporting category than does Vera Farmiga to re-enter an Emmy race she in which she last competed three years ago. Farmiga’s chances feel stronger today than they did earlier in the week, though, so we’re higher on her. She has a tremendous and tremendously loyal fan base that will likely feel energized to keep the drum banging long into the voting window.

It’s likely to change as we’re in a very fluid component of the Emmy nomination cycle without significant milestones / critics’ groups / award precursors to guild us.

But right now, we’re betting on both Vera Farmiga and Emilia Clarke.

Alexandra Shiva and ‘How To Dance In Ohio’

Alexandra Shiva’s (Stagedoor, Bombay Eunuch) latest documentary How To Dance In Ohio takes us inside the world of teenagers with autism. In a beautiful coming of age documentary, Shiva follows three teenagers with autism as they prepare for their formal Spring Dance. With over 200 hours of footage, I talked to Shiva about the challenges of narrowing that down, and the personal experience that inspired her to make How to Dance In Ohio.

AwardsDaily TV: Congratulations on the wonderful documentary, How to Dance In Ohio! It is so inspiring to watch.

Alexandra Shiva: Thank you so much. It was even more inspiring to make.

AD: What I want to know is how did the idea actually come about for it?

AS: Well, my husband and I have a very close friend who have a daughter who is on the spectrum. She’s turning 18 next week and I’ve watched her grow up and she’s more affected and doesn’t speak, but I had a lot of questions about what happens and what coming of age look like for her. Is she going to have friends and what is she going to and what happens and are her parents always going to have to take care of her? A lot of the conversations with her parents were just very fraught with those types of questions. I remember one time her mom said to me, “Do you have to be able to say ‘I love you’ to be a person? What makes you a person?” That was really the beginning and why I was so interested in the subject. I sat and I was trying to figure out how to tell the story in a way that would be relatable. I met a woman who brought me to Columbus and we met Dr. Amigo and he was talking about how he was bringing all his clients there and he was going to spend three months in group therapy preparing them for the prom and I could not think of a more relatable way to tell the story because we all know what it’s like to not know what to say and be afraid and feel insecure and to have something be new. To have these subjects be having in a more heightened way, hopefully allows the viewer into their lives.

AD: What was the biggest challenge in putting the documentary together and making it?

AS: I think the biggest challenge was, more than anything else, trying to make sure that we had the experience of being with them and being there in a way that never let a viewer feel like they were looking at them. I would say the greatest challenges were in the editing because I wanted to structure it so you as a viewer feel connected and they still have agency and the laughs that happen are still generated by them not about them. All of those kinds of things and that was a big dance. It was a really big process of fine tuning how you bring someone in, but not make someone seem like so other that you can’t relate to them anymore. I think that’s a danger often with people who have situations that you can’t necessarily relate to.

AD: That was the thing. Even the first time I watched it, it was like you’ve done such a great job on this because you’re actually laughing with them and not at them. How did you even get them to open up? That must have been hard to get that from them, or was it easy?

AS: I would say that it was by far the most collaborative film I’ve ever worked on because of what they’re struggling with, there had to be a lot of prep. They had to know what we were doing, why we were doing it, if we were going to be in their group therapy session, if there were group therapy sessions about us before we ever got there. When we arrived, there was this town hall meeting where all the parents, guardians, and clients came and asked whatever questions they wanted to ask. They didn’t even ask them directly, they wrote them on note cards and then Dr. Amigo would read them off so it was sort of anonymous. The whole first week we were there, we sat in a room and the four or five clients and I would come in and I would tell them what I did and my camerawoman would show them the camera and explain what she did and where she was going to be in the room. My point is, there was a lot of prep to make them feel as comfortable as possible and the rule was that they could always ask to turn the camera off if they were uncomfortable. They felt like they had that agency and within, I would say, two weeks, most of the clients really didn’t even register us. They did, but they didn’t. I think we were just another person in the room. They didn’t look at the camera like, “oh, a hundred thousand or a million or two million people are going to be looking at me.” They didn’t process it that way so that was interesting, but I also think that the parents and the individuals on the spectrum were really moved to be able to speak about their experience. They wanted to be seen and heard and the idea that we were interested in not only hearing it, but showing other people what it was like to be them was a big force. It propelled their comfort. There was one person who was not comfortable and it was a very interesting experience with her. Marideth did not want to be on camera. Her parents wanted her to and thought that she’d be great and it would be great for her to tell her story and she’s obviously so compelling. The way that she made it work for her was before we would do an interview with her, there was a 45 minute coffee where she got ask me anything and everything. It was like, “where have you been and what language did they speak and tell me about this and do you know that bulldogs have to have C-sections.” Anything she wanted to talk about and then she’d say, “Now I’m fine and now its okay and I can do an interview. We did that for each interview. As we went home to her house, she asked her mother to have us send a list of where we were going to be in her house at every minute. It was like from two to 2:15, we walk in then 2:15-2:30 we’ll put our stuff down then 2:30 to 2:45 we mic you. That was what she needed and that was what worked.

AD: How did you even decide that you were going to narrow in on the three girls, Marideth, Jessica, and Caroline, as the subjects?

AS: We came home with much more footage, we had like 250 hours of footage, and it was a lot and the narrowing down process was not easy. We did have boys that we had focused on and they’re in the getting ready and those moments where people tell you themselves what their difficulties are and what their interests are. I think that the idea really early on in the edit room that prom has this feeling like it’s about the girls and the boys are supporting players. There haven’t been any documentaries about girls on the spectrum. It is five boys to one girl affected by autism so there’s sort of a double invisibility. There was something about Marideth, Caroline, and Jessica and they stood out in a way that it felt like you could really tell this story and bring someone into this experience through different various stages of coming of age. Actually, the person who really inspired the movie is a girl so that didn’t hurt in how that focus happened. The sister of the girl who inspired it saw the movie and then said to her mom, “what’s the name of the girl who reminds me of Lucy?” and it was Marideth who reminded her of her sister. I think there was something about that.

AD: How hard or easy was it for you to actually get the whole documentary off the ground, from having the idea to financing it to getting it made?

AS: It was a long road [laughs]. I actually developed a short first in where I was filming in New York and it didn’t feel right. It felt too much like it was a survey movie where the main character had autism, instead of the main subject being the people that you’re focusing on and not the issue. That was almost four years ago that I started that and then three years ago was when the dance happened. So, three and a half years ago was when I first went to Columbus and then getting investors and doing all that was quite a process. The edit was a year. Documentaries take time and I knew when I started this one that I felt like if it took ten years, it would be okay because I was so invested in what I was doing and, for me, that really has to be the case because it might take that long. Sometimes it’s easier and sometimes it’s harder, but ultimately, it’s not like a twenty day shoot and then you just get it out there the next year. For me, it had to be something that I felt really passionately about and could maintain my interest for years to come.

AD: What was it like seeing How to Dance In Ohio for the first time? What was it like for the girls when they saw it?

AS: Well, we premiered at Sundance and the deal that we had always made with everyone was that they were going to be the first people to see it; we were never going to show it in public before they saw it. We got into Sundance and then about three weeks before Sundance, I went to Columbus and showed everyone the movie and it was an amazing experience. The movie is based on them, but you’re never sure if someone is going to get literal and say, “That didn’t happen like that.” But, everyone got the essence of what it was and they told me that they felt seen and heard and that was the ultimate goal. It was one of the most important pieces because if that wasn’t there then what have I done? It was thrilling. The other thing that was amazing was that they laughed throughout. We had these little focus screenings for editors and people to give notes and all those places that we had known there was laughter, they were laughing. They were laughing at themselves and their friends and calling out. One thing that was amazing was that there was this guy who didn’t want to be in the movie and in the dance, he was very prominent because he’s very tall, he’s just this blurred head walking around. I was always worried that he would say he wasn’t blurred enough and that he could still tell it was him, but he came up to me at the end of a screening and he said, “you know the places where I’m blurred? Can you undo it because I want to be a part of this?” It was amazing. I still had time to do that because we were finishing the exhibition copy so I had a day or so to pull off his mask. It was just thrilling to hear that.

AD: How rewarding that must be.

AS: It was amazing. They were so courageous and so without any expectations. I don’t know about you, but if someone came to me and said, “I think I’d like to spend three months filming you and then you’re going to have no control over where it goes,” takes a lot of courage to do that. I felt so relieved that it matched up with what their hopes were.

AD: Do you still keep in touch with all the girls?

AS: Oh, absolutely I do! I was just texting with Caroline’s mom last week. The film is on HBOGo and HBONow, but it also has an educational distributor so there are festivals that it goes to. Sometimes I can’t go, but now they go! There was one in Menlo Park and I emailed a bunch of the subjects and said that they want to fly someone there and asked who wants to go. Caroline and her mom and Dr. Amigo went and represented the film! It was so awesome. And, its such a self-esteem boost for her. Her mom was saying that she felt so good about being able to be up there and talk. I keep in touch with all of them. Marideth and I are Facebook friends [laughs] so that’s how we keep in touch, but they’re incredible and doing really well.

AD: What do you want, as a filmmaker, for people to take away from watching the documentary?

AS: To me, there shouldn’t ever be a limit based on what people are capable of. It’s measured and not always going to be qualitative and exact. What I’m capable of is not what someone else is. The idea that these people are capable of far more than sometimes people allow. We’re not all that different, I think that was a big part of the theme. They may be having some of these feelings or respond to things differently, but we all have had that. Hopefully, the next time you see someone acting in a way that’s strange, I would hope that whatever you would take away from it is, “oh that person is just a little different than I am.” Some insight and relating is the goal. I feel like if you can relate, it’s easier to connect. Sometimes you have to really, really show that we can all relate. And for people to love them because I love them. That was all a part of my goal.

AD: What are you working on now?

AS: I have two projects that I’m working on. One’s in pre-production, but I’m not quite ready to talk about it. I can’t talk about it yet because it’s all coming together. I am definitely working on two different projects and I’m very excited. I still feel very connected to this movie and I’m still helping it grow every day. I feel connected to what its doing and who’s liking it on Facebook and who wants to show it in what library and what school and all that stuff.

AD: Are doing any other festivals next?

AS: Thank you. I’m never sure where it is. Kino Lorber is our educational distributor so sometimes I’ll just see it pop up. It was just in Menlo Park and it was in Boston and I feel like its somewhere, I just don’t know where [laughs]. It did all the festivals already so now it’s at schools. To me, that’s really important because the responses from high school kids are more intense than anyone else. I would love for it to be shown in every high school.

How to Dance in Ohio is now showing on HBO. For More Information visit http://www.howtodanceinohio.com/

New TV Trailers: ‘Star Trek’ and Beyond

Star Trek

Fan and advertisers at CBS’s upfront presentation held at Carnegie Hall in New York were treated to a sneak peak at CBS All Access’s revival of the classic sci-fi property. Hannibal‘s Bryan Fuller serves as executive producer and show runner for the series, set to premiere in January 2017. Alex Kurtzman (Star Trek, Star Trek Into Darkness) and Nicholas Meyer (Star Trek II, IV, and VI; Houdini) are also on board. No cast announcements have been made thus far.

The premiere will air on CBS’s broadcast network with the remainder of the series airing on the online pay network CBS All Access.

Other trailers from the CBS and ABC upfronts are included below.

MacGyver (CBS)

Bull (CBS)

Pure Genius (CBS)

Kevin Can Wait (CBS)

Man with a Plan (CBS)

The Great Indoors (CBS)

Training Day (CBS)

Designated Survivor (ABC)

Speechless (ABC)

Time After Time (ABC)

Still Star-Crossed (ABC)

Downward Dog (ABC)

Conviction (ABC)

Notorious (ABC)

Imaginary Mary (ABC)

American Housewife (ABC)

FYC: Rachel Bloom in ‘Crazy Ex-Girlfriend’

Emmy attention must be paid to Crazy Ex-Girlfriend‘s Rachel Bloom.

Even if Crazy Ex-Girlfriend‘s star Rachel Bloom hadn’t won a Golden Globe or a Critics’ Choice award, she would have simply won all of our hearts by dropping these fantastically true and funny lyrics into the canon of self-loathing, parodic songs. Wait… is there a canon of self-loathing, parodic songs?

There should be.

Writes note to self, “Create canon of self-loathing parodic songs. Call it ‘Bloomology.’ “

[padding type=”medium_left”]You ruined everything
You stupid bitch
You ruined everything
You stupid, stupid bitch
You’re just a lying little bitch who ruins things
And wants the world to burn
Bitch
You’re a stupid bitch
And lose some weight…[/padding]

Those are the lyrics from Rachel Bloom’s “You Stupid Bitch” which closes the musical comedy Crazy Ex-Girlfriend‘s, in my opinion, season-high episode “That Text Was Not Meant for Josh!” It’s a perfect song when taken into context of the perfect episode (previously dissected here). It’s also perfectly performed by star Rachel Bloom, an amazingly talented comic actress with enough dramatic and musical chops to pull off one of the trickiest roles – male or female – on television today. It’s a role that has already won Bloom the Golden Globe for Comedy/Musical Actress and the Critics’ Choice for Comedy Actress.

So, you may ask, how can we consider Rachel Bloom an underdog for an Emmy nomination?

Allow me to redirect you to the line where I mentioned Crazy Ex-Girlfriend is a musical comedy. One that airs on The CW. One that, to the detriment of Americans (both middle and coastal) everywhere, reached a series high one million viewers with said episode.

Now you’re with me, right?

Rachel Bloom’s comedic performance reminds me of the age-old adage about women doing everything men do but backwards and in heels. Well, Bloom does everything more famous and higher rated comediennes do but singing and wearing spanx. Take that, OfficialJLD.

Through the arc of the series, Bloom runs through literally all of the emotions and perhaps invents a few new ones that, in fifty-eight years, we will all experience once we’ve raptured.

While Crazy Ex-Girlfriend‘s pathologically likable cast deserves attention for their robust and carefully constructed roles (particularly sidekick Donna Lynne Champlin and part-time lover Santino Fontana), the series awards attention has largely focused on Rachel Bloom. It’s hard to argue with that. Crazy Ex-Girlfriend is fashioned in a highly collaborative creative environment, but the driving passion behind it seems to be Bloom who carries an air of classic Hollywood song-and-dance talent. Even while singing her “Sexy Getting Ready Song.”

To say Bloom’s comedic performance is kind of great is like saying puppies are kind of awesome. It’s a massive, colossal, mind-blowing understatement. Bloom is flat-out brilliant in the role. She tinges each line with a hopeful self-delusion that demands the viewer look twice at nearly everything she says. Not only is she pratfall funny, but she also manages to find the bittersweet moments and nurture those as much as she does her hilariously inventive songs. Through the arc of the series, Bloom runs through literally all of the emotions and perhaps invents a few new ones that, in fifty-eight years, we will all experience once we’ve raptured. It’s the kind of heart-on-your-sleeve performance that recalls the self-effacing work of the great Lisa Kudrow in The Comeback (twice Emmy nominated). You don’t know whether to laugh or look away. Maybe you’re doing both. I suspect that would make Rachel Bloom smile intensively.

Bloom’s early-year awards attention is by no means a guarantee for an Emmy nomination. Emmy watchers remember last year’s Gina Rodriguez issue right? The Television Academy needs to overcome its hesitancy around new talent and openly embrace Rachel Bloom as a comedic actress with intense dramatic chops. She’s created a fully real, three-dimensional woman with deep-seeded insecurities and an overwhelming need to be liked and loved.

An Emmy nomination for Rachel Bloom would be a great and most welcome achievement. It would be a shot of adrenaline to a show that deserves ten times the audience it pulls in now. It would be a celebration of the underdog. It would be something of a Rocky story – that is, if Rocky had boobs and wore Louboutins. It would recognize a series that tries very hard to entertain in an unique and thoughtful way. It would reward a show that dances and sings all on its own.

Even as I write this, the echoes of “West Covinaaaaaaa, Californiaaaaaaa” ring in my ears. Let Rachel Bloom’s name ring on Emmy nomination morning.

Because, if not, then she may slash all your tires, Emmy voters.*

*Rachel Bloom will not be slashing any Emmy voters’ tires, although she may look askew at you at next year’s Golden Globes.

AMC’s ‘Preacher’ Debuts First Four Minutes

The Preacher is coming. So is the blood.

AMC’s Preacher upcoming miniseries is a comic book adaptation produced by Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg. The original comic property is courtesy of DC Comics’s Vertigo brand and deals with the titular preacher looking for God while possessed by a supernatural entity. Clearly, the property fits well into AMC’s The Walking Dead vein as they strive to find a successor to that high-rated series as it begins to age.

AMC’s Preacher stars Dominic Cooper as the preacher. Ruth Negga, Joe Gilgun, and Lucy Griffiths also star. The series premieres on AMC May 22 at 10pm ET.

‘Rocky Horror’ Remake Drops Glossy Trailer

Cue the rumble of angry Rocky Horror fans…

The trailer for the FOX Rocky Horror Picture Show remake debuted last night, and we got to see Laverne Cox in action as Doctor Frank-N-Furter. There’s also a candy-colored Annaleigh Ashford as Columbia and a nearly nude (and vulnerable) Brad and Janet. FOX is probably banking on this version of the beloved cult classic to generate Grease Live! ratings.

Here’s the quandary I face any time I see anything for this remake. I feel like the Rocky Horror-heads are being a bit sensitive when it comes to this production. Yes, Rocky Horror Picture Show is iconic–the the phrase cult classic was born with the original 1975 movie–but fans of the original are vicious in their opinions of any type of re-imagining. Any kind of retelling is going to be met with vitriol, so expect the noise to get louder as more material about the remake becomes public.

On the other hand, RHPS is famous for its honest viewpoints of sexuality and dreaming big. Can FOX’s version do those themes justice? Does anyone remember when Glee performed a Rocky Horror episode? It was squeaky clean and, dare I say it, pretty. So far it appears that this remake is missing something grungy, something dirty. Frank’s duds look too coiffed and fit for a fashion magazine cover. Something sloppy and messy has been edited down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=outmDIi29Bo

Emmy Spotlight: ‘Mr. Robot’ Sneaks Into the Emmys

If someone would have told me a year ago that a show on the USA network was going to win Best Drama Series at the 2016 Golden Globes, I might have said, “Suits has a really big year then?”

Not to knock the channel that’s given us the TV equivalent of beach reads like Royal Pains and White Collar, but drama and USA network have never really gone together.

Until Mr. Robot, that is.

This show came in to the 2015 summer TV season like a computer virus, slowly infiltrating your browser before becoming an all-encompassing being that you just can’t shake. Why? Because it has the mind-bending narrative of Fight Club (even a borrowed soundtrack), but with a paranoid, cyber-vigilante anti-hero for Millennial audiences (the superb Rami Malek).

Without giving too much away, Elliot (Malek) works for a cyber-security firm named Allsafe, while also hacking bad people for fun. He’s recruited by a fellow hacktivist named Mr. Robot (Christian Slater) and a group known as fsociety. But one of the many twists on this show is that fsociety wants to take down E Corp, which is one of Allsafe’s biggest clients, putting Elliot in a bit of a pickle, to say the least.

Series creator Sam Esmail originally meant for Mr. Robot to be a film, but had so much to say that he decided to expand it into a TV series. Will Emmy love this show more than the Oscars ever would? Probably.

Mr. Robot has a lot of things going for it. For one thing, it’s fresh-faced and hasn’t had a “bad” season yet, unlike many of its fellow Best Drama Series nominee contenders (House of Cards, Homeland). It’s also completely original and isn’t a spin-off of a beloved show (Better Call Saul). And even though it’s set in New York City, it’s shot on a grand scale that makes you feel like you’re watching something as epic as Game of Thrones. There’s a sense of foreboding urgency on this show that’s unparalleled.

Rami Malek should most definitely take a slot in Outstanding Lead Actor Drama Series category, as so much of the show relies on his performance. If you don’t believe him as manic depressive morphine addict, the code doesn’t run. Direction is also an important aspect of this show, with a neo-80s style reminiscent of American Psycho.

Guaranteed Nominations

Outstanding Lead Actor Drama Series
Direction
Writing
Music

Probable Nominations

Drama Series
Outstanding Supporting Actor Drama Series
Editing
Sound Editing

Possible Nominations

Casting

TV Deaths: The Killing Joke

TV deaths at this point are a dime a dozen. Are producers enjoying toying with viewers?

This article is going to spoil some major TV deaths that have occurred recently. Consider yourself warned…

So Norma Bates is officially dead. It finally happened.

The thing I’ve been dreading ever single season one of Bates Motel has finally happened. No amount of Twitter campaigning to flip the script over the original material would alter the original intent of the producers. And I have to salute that, honestly. After some high profile returns, it’s almost a breath of fresh air to find someone who dies actually staying dead.

TV deaths are clearly not unusual. They’re handy for revitalizing a stale property or explaining away the absence of a TV star who elevates to bigger and more financially rewarding things or for getting rid of troublesome actors the production couldn’t really afford anyway. And then there are the “TV deaths.” Those deaths that happen as a season cliffhanger that weren’t ever really deaths to begin with.

Personally, I tend to go back to the 80s soaps to classify all sorts of TV deaths. First, there’s the cliffhanger fake or the “Who shot J.R.?” Larry Hagman never intended to leave Dallas, but his shooting jumpstarted a well-performing series into the pop culture stratosphere. That leads us to the second type of TV death: the “Bobby Ewing in the shower” death. This rarity is an admittance on the part of the actor that he/she made a HUGE mistake in leaving a hot role on a medium-hot series for a film career that never materialized. This can also be referred to as the “Pamela Sue Martin gets abducted by a UFO” exit, except Dynasty never brought her back. They recast. Checkmate, bitch. Then, third, there’s the death is death is death, and you ain’t coming back. This is used to thin out an overwhelming cast. See the “Moldavia Massacre” from Dynasty.

There are undoubtedly other examples, but that’s fine. You get yours where you will. I’ll stick with my 80s soaps.

So that leads us to where we are today, and four major character TV deaths that have bubbled up in pop culture over the past year.

The most frustrating and frustratingly awful example of a TV death is that of Glenn (Steven Yeun) on The Walking Dead. Naturally, The Walking Dead isn’t a show afraid to kill off its cast members. Once you start a show with a cop, Rick (Andrew Lincoln), shooting a little girl zombie in the face and then later feature his wife effectively butchered by her own son after she dies during childbirth… Well, all beats are totally off. That said, the tease of “Is he or isn’t he?” dead became incredibly exhausting over the span of a few months. The producers painted Glenn into a corner upon which he could not reasonably escape, but then he did. By shuttling himself under a dumpster. There was no reason to bring that character back. Maybe one, but that’s even more perverse for fans of the comic. This TV death was pointless and insulting. Dead is dead.

Similarly, as much as I love Game of Thrones, “killing” Jon Snow was nothing but a publicity play. It’s not particularly the death in this case that bothers me because I deep-down never really believed he would die. I mean, what else is Melissandre the Red Priestess for anyway? But it’s the ridiculous behind the scenes insisting of the cast and crew that Jon Snow was dead. Well, yeah, technically he died and was later revived, but any casual viewer of the series knew he wouldn’t die. His story wasn’t finished. We still need to find out who his real parents were. Game of Thrones isn’t afraid to thin out the cast (particularly if your last name is Stark or if you’re a direwolf), but this middling commitment to character death is weak and laughable. That said, welcome back Jon Snow. When you reconnected with Sansa Stark, I got goosebumps. Carry on.

Now, onto the deaths with real meat. First, Sleepy Hollow apparently killed off one of its stars Nicole Beharie (Abbie) a few weeks ago. She’s not scheduled to return for a fourth season, so she may indeed be dead. Why did she have to die? I don’t really know, and I don’t really care. I don’t watch the show. But while I do applaud their commitment to shocking the viewers with an unexpected death, it’s still a bit of a mixed bag. Did they really have to kill off an empowered minority female character? Why not the white guy? You can’t tell me they can’t dig up some other historic corpse to return from the dead? Why does it have to be the black girl? This is a mixed bag, in my opinion, but if they somehow magically bring her back in season four, then… Well, I don’t watch it, so no skin off my back. They’ll lose my respect, how about that? OK, they never had it. Dammit.

Finally, the deepest cut of all, Bates Motel killed off its star Vera Farmiga by following the prescription of Hitchcock’s Psycho. Norman Bates didn’t stab or strangle his mother. Instead, he peacefully gassed her, giving her the most graceful death possible. That is, until he dug up her corpse, kissed it repeatedly, and glued her eyes open. It’s a macabre turn even for that show. And it was brilliant. Sure, I’m personally devastated that Vera Farmiga’s Norma is dead. Her arc was straight up classic tragedy, and I may never recover from her death (never recover being until The Conjuring 2 when I can again gaze at her perfect face and not-glued eyes). But I applaud producers Kerry Ehrin, Carlton Cuse, and Vera Farmiga for committing to Norma’s death.

I mean, I TRIED to get them to flip the script, but whatever. I “love” it still even if it breaks my heart. I have to praise the ladies (and gents) with the balls to truly commit to such an impactful character’s death.

Now, did you really have to glue Norma’s eyes like that???

That’s the stuff of nightmares.