Supergirl moves to The CW and other big Fall moves
Update: Additional series cancellations and orders included below…
Let’s hope that Supergirl Kara Danvers can find some friends to help her move.
Even though many people vocalized that CBS’ Supergirl felt more like a show for The CW (I believe Megan mentioned that a few times on the podcast), I’m not sure how many people actually thought it would move there! Cancellation seemed a lot more possible for the struggling superhero drama (ratings dropped considerably after it debuted last fall), but Entertainment Weekly and other outlets are confirming Supergirl‘s move to a more tween-friendly network. Will this harm the show’s cred even further?
Even though Supergirl is hiring a U-Haul, the show is getting a second season! The highly-publicized crossover with The Flash probably solidified its move, and the show might be moving its production to Vancouver (where the other shows are filmed). This last bit has yet to be confirmed, however.
Will this change the number of episodes in the sophomore season? How will the visual effects look? What’s going to happen to Calista Flockhart?!?!
Aside from Supergirl, here are some other major developments announced today:
ABC’s Castle is finally cancelled after lead Stana Katic left the show at the end of season eight. Initial rumors had Nathan Fillion returning without his co-star. Honestly, this felt wrong to even casual fans of the series. Here’s hoping the two stars are moving to bigger and better things.
ABC cancelled Marvel’s Agent Carter starring Hayley Atwell. This is hardly a surprise given the struggling ratings for the period niche show. The good news is that Atwell’s new series, Conviction in which she stars as a lawyer and former First Daughter, has been greenlit.
ABC dumped two more struggling dramas and surprisingly renewed a few others. Nashville and The Family are headed for the trash heap while The Catch (Megan can rejoice and sharpen her hate-watching skills), the Emmy-winning American Crime, and comedy The Real O’Neals will all return. It will also produce another Shondaland project called Still Star-Crossed which marks Shonda Rhimes’s first foray into period drama. Update: Apparently Lionsgate is shopping Nashville around after the shocking ABC cancellation. Hulu and CMT are the most frequently mentioned options. Can we just start the “Free Connie Britton” campaign right now?
CSI: Cyber, the unfortunate source of a steady paycheck for brilliant Oscar-winning actress Patricia Arquette, has been cancelled. The cancellation also marks the end of the entire CSI series, a billion-dollar property for the Eye.
Fans of The Good Wife have some cheering to do. Emmy-winner Christine Baranski is in negotiation to return in a spin-off focusing on her character Diane Lockhart. Apparently, this new series will air on CBS All Access rather than the traditional network. If approved, it would join another Star Trek iteration previously announced.
FOX has cancelled two of its more promising comedies: The Grinder and Grandfathered. The Grinder is especially surprising given some recent awards heat that stars Rob Lowe and Fred Savage garnered.
The ABC bloodbath continues with The Muppets, cancelled after a single season. The troubled series saw a change in show runner midseason, but that didn’t help. Cue Miss Piggy giving ABC brass a karate slap.
NBC has cancelled a slew of newer shows including Game of Silence, Heartbeat, Crowded, and Eva Longoria’s Telenovela. It is, however, picking up two new comedies: Great News from Tina Fey and Robert Carlock and Marlon from Marlon Wayans. No doubt NBC is still smarting over turning down Fey/Carlock’s Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt a few years ago.
Netflix is apparently moving forward with a second season of its Will Arnett dramedy Flaked. That’s all I have to say about that.
CBS is moving forward with series orders for a host of new dramas and comedies. The new dramatic properties include a TV version of Training Day, Bull (inspired by Dr. Phil), Pure Genius, and a MacGyver reboot. The comedies include Matt LeBlanc’s Man with a Plan, the workplace comedy The Great Indoors, and Kevin Can Wait, a return to television for Kevin James.
ADTV talks to Jonathan Tucker whose run on DirecTV’s Kingdom has Emmy voters talking
For those who’ve never seen it, DirecTV’s Kingdom takes us into the world of mixed-martial arts (MMA) fighting. But don’t let that stop you. The show also is a character-driven drama that stars pop star Nick Jonas as an up-and-coming fighter and Jonathan Tucker as his troubled brother. Critics have taken notice. Tucker’s performance on the series has been called “mesmerizing” and “unreal” by Entertainment Weekly. Jonathan Tucker has even been compared to Oscar-winning actor Christian Bale (The Fighter) in his ability to completely transform his physical appearance to fit a role.
Now in its second season, Kingdom deftly combines family drama and conflict while taking us into the sport of MMA. I recently caught up with Jonathan Tucker to talk about how he trained for the role and what he’s learned from playing a MMA fighter.
AwardsDaily TV: For people who haven’t actually seen the show, tell us a little bit about your character.
Jonathan Tucker: Jay Kulina is a drug-addled son and brother in a fighting family, kind of like the first fighting family, if you will, of Venice, California. He’s a man of extremes, real highs and real lows. He’s always grounded by loyalty and love for those he cares about.
ADTV: One thing I learned from watching the show is that it actually made me appreciate MMA. I’ve watch a little bit of boxing in the past but not MMA. I have some friends who do it, but I’ve never really paid too much attention to it. I learned that it teaches me about brotherhood. Is that something that was the same for you?
JT: Absolutely. Its this kind of extraordinary balance of two things. One, you’re the only person in the cage when you go to fight somebody. Really, it’s not just you against the other fighter. It’s really you against yourself. It’s this deeply lonely experience. There’s no defense. There’s no offense. There’s no running back to pass the ball to or receiver to throw it to. This is just you. It’s you against yourself.
The second part of that equation, is that you can’t get there alone. You have to have that team to cut weight, to train with, to be able to spiritually and mentally be able to prepare yourself for that kind of crucial moment and experience of fighting. That was something I didn’t understand at all, but I’ve gotten to understand that profoundly both as the character and as the actor playing the character. Particularly with cutting weight, my house was filled with fighters who lost weight for the week to finish off those last few pounds and you really can’t do it without that camaraderie.
ADTV: You talk about the physical preparation of it. I read somewhere that you lost like 30 pounds for the role. Usually, that’s something you hear that movie stars do, not often with TV shows. So, it was very physical for you. What was that process like, having to train your body?
JT: It’s a welcomed opportunity because I think, as an actor, part of the craft is being an athlete. It’s being a dancer. It’s being a sort of fighter in your own respect. You have to appreciate and work on your body and how you bring movement. This is that marriage, in a very heightened way, of the physicality and the spiritual in respect to the craft.
It’s not about losing 30 pounds. It’s more about losing 30 pounds and then gaining 30 pounds and then losing 20 pounds and gaining 20 pounds. It’s a seesaw going up and down while always keeping up that fighting regimen in the gym. So, that part is hard because this isn’t a 2-month movie. This is basically a 6-month journey and, a lot of the time, if you’re going to be cutting weight as a fighter, you’re going to cut for a week or two before a fight. But, because episodes take as long as it takes to do the shoot, if we’re going to be cutting weight for a week in the story, its going to be four weeks on the show. That’s a real battle of will with yourself to either not eat or to be eating quite a bit.
ADTV: Did you actually have any side effects from it at all?
JT: Oh yeah [laughs]. Try not eating for a few days, and it takes almost until the end of the first day and you’re extraordinarily grumpy and uncomfortable. You try to have that be a part of the work. The most important thing about the conversation of the experience of shooting the show is that all of this, the physicality and the fighting and the extremes of the training and getting your body ready, it’s really just a means in which to tell the story of these characters and to reflect them in an honest and authentic way.
ADTV: How many hours are you training for a day?
JT: It’s not how long. It’s how intensely you’re doing it. I’m sure you go to the gym, and there’s people who go every single day and they work out for an hour every single day and nothing seems to change. It really just has to do with the intensity of the training and how hard you’re willing to work when it seems like you’re body is not willing to give you any more. You kind of step further than you ever thought was possible and then you start to see the results. But, it’s also the same thing with acting. You want to keep putting yourself in uncomfortable positions. You have to be able to discover what your weaknesses are as an actor or as an athlete or as a fighter. That’s the first big goal, what are your blindspots and what can you work on? When you recognize that and it’s a little scary, how do you address it?
How do you put yourself into a place, while extraordinarily uncomfortable, you’re going to be becoming a better actor and better human being and better athlete and better whatever you might be. Those are the things are very exciting for me as an actor. Is there an accent that I haven’t worked on and how scary is that and can I find a place where I’m going to put myself on the line and really address this? And different characters and different practicalities and different body work and spiritual work and all those sort of things, if you’re feeling comfortable, there’s something wrong.
ADTV: There’s one scene that really stays with me so much. It was the scene when you and Frank are together. Jay just won his belt and Alvey comes to see him and he finally sees that moment that his son is actually a champ. What was it like filming that scene? There wasn’t music in the background, there was no noise, it was just an intense and deep moment.
JT: It was one of the harder scenes for me, and by for me, I mean for Jay, because all of the sudden there’s this sense of validation and pride that has nothing to do with who I am as a human being and everything to do with that piece of hardware. It really reflects their relationship and the characters in it because it’s like “Here I am, and I’m your son and you should be proud of me for just being your son. Having won this fight, you ask me to lose all this weight as my father, instead of allowing me to fight at the weight that would have been healthy. You ask me to do this even though you never ask me to go to rehab and never ask me to get clean and never ask my mother to get clean, but now, all of the sudden, like a 10-year-old boy with a sense of ‘fatherly pride’ because somehow I won. I have this really good gut feeling that you wouldn’t have had that same love and compassion if I had lost.”
That was the difference between Jay and my dad. My father has an extraordinary inability to see himself as the world sees him and to see the world as it really is. The line that would address that scene is the one from the first season when I set this family dinner up and surprise my father with it and during that dinner we had a kind of big explosion and I said, “I’m a fuck-up, but at least I know I’m a fuck-up.” My father is a fuck-up and can’t acknowledge it, and it’s that inability to see himself that makes the scene with the belt at the end so painful.
ADTV: There are so many scenes, but that one stays with you because of the way they shoot it and the characters are great. What are some of your favorite moments or highlights from the season?
JT: As an actor, you feel so lucky to have a character who has these extremes in a world of highs and lows. This isn’t going to the supermarket. It’s going to the supermarket when it’s getting robbed and to be put in that situation with this character is everything you ever wanted out of the role in the high school play. It’s not larger than life. It’s life when it’s large. That is really, really scary because you’re coming into a scene like, “Okay, well I’m opening this door and I’m going to open it like 15 to 20 times and every take I open it for the first time, and I’m going to see my mother passed out, maybe potentially dead from a heroin overdose.” That’s such great, meaty material and how is my character going to respond to this? But then, on the day, you’re like, “Oh my God, I’m going to be opening this door 20 times, for the first time, with my mother potentially dead having overdosed on heroin.” The world itself presents a lot of dichotomous feelings and emotions and experiences.
ADTV: How has the MMA community reacted to your role in this? Have they been favorable?
JT: I could not be more honored by their enthusiasm for the character and the veracity of the character and the world that Byron Balasco, our showrunner, has created. What’s really great is that it has top-to-bottom support, like from the owners of the USC all the way down to the guys who are sleeping in gyms to train with no family support or financial means. The support and the acknowledgment of the truth of the characters has given me so much honor.
ADTV: What’s next for you? What are you up to now?
JT: I had a great time, in between the hiatus last year, doing the final half season of Justified, which was such a thrill for me because I’m such a big fan of the show. In terms of talking about being uncomfortable, that was such a daunting offer to get because I’m such a big fan of the show, and I love these actors and it’s the final season and [I was] the big final bad guy and it was critical that I honored the fans of this show and, in doing so, you have to really do something dynamic. How do you not go over the line? That was an exciting thing to do.
This hiatus, I’m doing a few episodes as Low-Key Lyesmith on this new Starz show called American Gods with Bryan Fuller. I’ve worked with him in the past, and I love him very much. That’s again one of those things where I’m playing a god and there’s all these rules, in terms of the Greek and Norse mythologies, of what you’re allowed to do and not allowed to do. But you’re also playing a god who can kind of do anything he wants. The boundaries are much further and wider than other opportunities. This is a fun chance to take some big leaps and risks and I’m excited about it.
ADTV: What can you tell us about your involvement in the Pegasus Fund?
JT: I’m thrilled that you’re asking me about it! I kind of feel like given how much is given, much is required. A number of years ago having graduated from my high school, which was a boarding school in Ojai (I’m originally from Boston), I was able to recognize the fact that I had been really privileged with my education. My parents sacrificed quite a bit of luxuries in life to send my sister and I to really extraordinary schools. There was an issue I had seen a number of times with students in under-served communities coming to private secondary school environments and struggling a lot with the environment, the geography, the spirituality, and transitions from their own communities. So, what we do, in terms of adjusting that problem, is work with a national charter program to take the top performing students and send them to a summer camp to help them adjust. We’re getting them in the fifth and sixth grade and commit to three summers as a means to have them bridge that geographic, social, and spiritual transition and introduce them to high school. It’s the most gratifying thing I’ve ever done.
Jonathan Tucker can be seen next on season two of DirecT’s Kingdom, which continues June 1 at 9pm ET on Audience. For more information on The Pegasus Fund, click here.
Oscar-winning composer John Williams will receive the 44th AFI Life Achievement Award
Imagine that infamous scrolling Star Wars opening text displaying silently. Think of Superman taking flight without that tell-tale march. Consider Indiana Jones fighting Nazis to the expertly choreographed sounds of whip cracks and gunshots. Try and reimagine Close Encounters of the Third Kind without its nearly unparalleled blend of visual and soundtrack. Or even Hedwig flying through Hogwarts with only the wind to accompany her.
And perhaps, most famously, try and imagine that iconic Jaws fin without the six basses, eight celli, four trombones, and tuba.
These film soundtracks, among dozens of others, help construct the very fiber of great, timeless cinema, and we have Oscar-winning composer John Williams to thank for them. In recognition of his extreme talent, the American Film Institute (AFI) announced today that Steven Spielberg will present Williams with the 44th AFI Life Achievement Award. To continue the honor, TNT will present the AFI Life Achievement Award: A Tribute to John Williams, an hour-long special featuring clips from his most famous scores as well as presentations from the private tribute scheduled for the Dolby Theater in Hollywood on June 9.
The special comes at a strange time for me as I’ve recently started revisiting the 84-year-old Williams’s work, rediscovering not only the famous scores but also the lesser known but equally great work like The Sugarland Express. I’d come to a strange realization – that I have physical anxiety over his mortality. I can’t imagine entering another movie theater with the knowledge that I would no longer hear a new score of his. The thought has caused me some serious heartache.
So now is the perfect time to celebrate his work as the AFI recognizes its first (and long overdue) composer. I mean how is it possible that a man with 50 Oscar nominations (five wins), six Emmy nominations (three wins), 25 Golden Globe nominations (four wins), 65 Grammy nominations (22 wins), and seven BAFTAs could possibly feel under appreciated?
AFI Life Achievement Award: A Tribute to John Williams airs on June 15 at 10pm ET on TNT.
Can Fargo withstand the Emmy hurricane that O.J. Simpson is shaping up to be?
Fargo season two started off the Emmy season last fall as an undeniable powerhouse. Stepping back into a 70s setting to tell a backstory only hinted at in the Emmy-winning season one, the series struck an immediate chord with critics. Metacritic ranks it at an excellent 96 (season one received an 85). The kinder, gentler Rotten Tomatoes awarded it a perfect 100 percent across 59 television critics after recognizing season one with a 98. With an extremely TV-friendly cast boasting Kristen Dunst, Patrick Wilson, Jesse Plemons, Jean Smart, and Ted Danson, among others, Fargo seemed at the time unstoppable in the 2016 Limited Series Emmy categories.
But one thing it does not have on its side is time.
The first installment premiered in a very Emmy friendly late spring window. It was heavily buzzed, solidly rated, and eventually ranked in 18 Emmy nominations, best FX’s other big miniseries to American Horror Story: Coven‘s 17 nominations. Even though it won only three awards, it still took home the Emmy for Outstanding Miniseries.
By comparison, Fargo season two premiered in the fall to heavier critical acclaim but slightly lower ratings, down nearly one million viewers on average season over season. No matter. People loved what they saw, and the first half of the season blisteringly captured the fictitious massacres set in the Midwest in 1979. The performances. The writing. The direction. People seemed to fill out their Emmy ballots back in October. Nothing could top this? Right?
But then things started to look a little dimmer as the end of year awards season started to roll around. The Golden Globe television awards had originally recognized the first season with five awards, but season two only garnered three. They somehow omitted seemingly certain nominees Jean Smart, Ted Danson, or Bokeem Woodbine from the supporting categories where Colin Hanks and Allison Tolman had factored in with season one’s recognition. But the Golden Globes aren’t everything, and their supporting categories ridiculously lump together miniseries, drama, and comedy performances.
This didn’t feel like a snub until the Screen Actor’s Guild completely ignored season two. Granted, season one didn’t heavily factor in after receiving only one nomination for Billy Bob Thornton. But the SAG’s failed to recognize anyone from the cast. Even Bill Murray (playing himself in A Very Murray Christmas) and Kristen Wiig (The Spoils Before Dying parody film) managed nominations over the more deserving Kirsten Dunst and Jesse Plemons. The Critics’ Choice Awards somewhat helped their cause with eight nominations, up from season one’s five citations. That, though, comes with a huge asterisk – the Critics’ Choice shifted their television awards to the end of 2015, narrowing the eligibility window to six months. Fargo season two was pretty much the biggest thing to air in the category during that period.
It even managed to beat The Wiz Live! which wasn’t even a limited series.
And then FX, the same network that airs Fargo, debuted The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story in early February. That, coupled with an intoxicating start to American Crime, seemed to take all the air out of Fargo‘s sails. And I haven’t even mentioned the completely shark-jumping series conclusion where the UFO shows up…
All that aside, though, Fargo still shouldn’t be damaged in terms of Emmy nominations. Emmy wins are another story, but we’re talking nominations today. Fargo season two should still be able to come close to matching season one’s Emmy haul, but it will not exceed it. The 2016 acting races are far more competitive this year, particularly since O.J. Simpson boasts some five or six supporting actor contenders alone. They’re likely to shut out many of the Fargo contenders, if not all of them. If there’s any justice Jean Smart will be recognized for her (too?) subtle work as the Gerhardt family matriarch. She’s been unfairly ignored all season long. Emmy would be classy to finally recognize her treasure of a performance.
Fargo season two’s status as a period piece should help too. Costumes, art direction (just for Plemons and Dunst’s maze-like basement alone), and cinematography will all recognizethe series. It will still be a stretch to match 18 nominations. The competition this year is just too tough.
I’m not blaming the UFO, though. O.J. Simpson, though… My finger’s pointed squarely at you.
Guaranteed Nominations
Limited Series
Kirsten Dunst, Lead Actress
Jean Smart, Supporting Actress
Direction
Writing
Cinematography
Casting
Probable Nominations
Patrick Wilson, Lead Actor
Jesse Plemons, Supporting Actor
Editing
Sound Editing
Makeup
Music
Possible Nominations
Ted Danson, Supporting Actor
Bokeem Woodbine, Supporting Actor
Cristin Milioti, Supporting Actress
Jeffrey Donovan, Supporting Actor
Nick Offerman, Supporting Actor
Adam Arkin, Supporting Actor
The trailer for Orange is the New Black season four dropped today, offering very few concrete details about the plot of this season (all we know is that there’s an influx of inmates) but a whole lot of new faces and one-liners. Season four returns just as Emmy ballots are out for season three.
Lots of favorite recurring characters aren’t in the trailer. Alex (Laura Prepon) is notably missing, even if her voice can be heard. Other MIA actresses include Natasha Lyonne and Ruby Rose. Even Taryn Manning (who’s had some personal troubles in the news) doesn’t have much to do in the trailer, except utter this cryptic line: “Do you know the difference between pain and suffering? Pain is always there but suffering is a choice.”
Overall, the show looks like it’s getting back to its dark and gritty self, as opposed to the season three spiritual one.
ADTV talks to The Good Wife‘s Chris Noth about his seven seasons on the Emmy-winning show
It’s the morning after the series finale of CBS’s The Good Wife, and after seven years, the show has come to an end. Its star Chris Noth is in Budapest filming Tyrant, and I caught up with Noth after a long day of filming his new show to reflect on playing Peter Florrick, The Good Wife, and fly swotting…
“I have to warn you I’ve missed EVERYTHING! I haven’t seen any of it.” Chris Noth tells me before we start. “I finished the episode on the Friday and I was on a plane to Budapest on Monday. I don’t know what the hell is going on, except THE SHOW IS OVER!.”
He jokes.
ADTV: Did you think it would last this long? Seven years is a long time.
Chris Noth: Oh never. I was just surfing the wave. I didn’t know the wave would be that long of one. I was happy to keep riding it. I loved working with the Kings who are such wonderful producers. I loved the cast and the way they used actors from the New York Stage. But I was a glorified guest star. Not being a regular allowed me to do plays and other things at the same time which was important to me. It was great to come back home to The Good Wife after I had gone off on my own sojourns. How was it? (the finale) [laughs]
ADTV: I stayed off social media, especially as it was airing on the East Coast, and I really loved it.
CN: Well, I know what the ending was, and I love it too. The last moment with Alicia (Julianna Margulies) standing at the end of the corridor in the back kitchen where we had so many scenes together, she’s in this sort of purgatory that I found really fascinating and interesting.
ADTV: Do you have a favorite plot line that stands out that you really loved?
CN: I liked running for Governor and the intrigue around that. I didn’t enjoy being under house arrest. The scenes with Eli and his conniving ways were a lot of fun too.
ADTV: On the political note, how did you feel about the parallels of Alicia and Peter to Bill and Hillary Clinton?
CN: You know it’s very tenuous. I don’t think you could really ride that horse. It’s fun to think, and I’m sure that maybe they had an impulse of something like that. Certainly it wasn’t mimicking their relationship, but you know a political marriage and two very powerful smart people, that all makes sense.
I think that was a fortuitous moment in contemporary history that that relationship bore fictional fruits for us, but that’s as far as it went.
I heard Hillary was a fan of the show by the way.
ADTV: She is. She listed it as a favorite last year. So, how did Peter change over the years?
CN: Oh man. I’m not sure this particular animal in him changed his stripes that much. I think people become more of who they are as time goes on instead of changing.
[Up to this point, a fly in the room has been annoying Chris. He finally manages to swot this fly. It’s a proud and amusing moment when he finally swots the fly with his script].
So, I think he adjusted when he had to, for survival. Peter gets a bad rap. My character doesn’t always fare too well with journalists. They all think of my character as pretty much a scumbag [laughs].
ADTV: But you know, that is a testament to your acting. I mean, you’ve created some of the most iconic characters on TV and in 20 years we’ll be looking back on Mr. Big and Peter Florrick.
CN: It’s really hard to still have people ask me questions about Mr. Big. I’ve exhumed that from my psyche.
ADTV: He’s still haunting you to this day?
CN: Oh God yes! Even here in Budapest, people come up to me with cameras. I have a very good disguise, thou, so I’m able to get away with walking down the street.
ADTV: Something that’s a great testament to you and Juliana is the way your work dynamic is. It resonates with the fans and then you have those epic fights on screen. Were those scenes challenging?
CN: I remember one early fight when we both really went for it. The Kings thought it was too harsh that early. They thought it was too Virginia Woolf. We had to reshoot it. Through that marriage, I feel they were held together by the emotional scar tissue of their past and present. I think their battle was an essential part of their relationship. Her not really being able to forgive him. Then after a while, Peter resenting that he still has to prove himself to her. They were a match for each other intellectually and everything else.
Peter and Alicia made a lot of adjustments so they wouldn’t have to make the final leap that they did at the end, which was her saying, “That’s it. I want a divorce.” They did everything through the seasons not to do that but not actually live as a married couple. Their marriage is a fascinating evolution. Just when you think they’ve had enough of each other, something happens and they’re suddenly close again.
By the end, by finally giving in I think they opened themselves up to each other in a way they hadn’t in a while and found an intimacy in a shared past.
ADTV: After the finale, what would you see as the future for Alicia and Peter?
CN: I have no idea. [laughs]. I’m too busy in a fictional Mideast country trying to prevent a war.
ADTV: The Good Wife has such a loyal fan base. Do you ever read what they say?
CN: I’ve heard, but no, I’m really out of the loop of all of that. I can’t do it. I don’t mean it derogatorily, I simply don’t have the time to see what they like and don’t like. I just figure they hate my guts. [laughs].
ADTV: No. They love you. You know what they do? They write fan fiction about how they yearn for Alicia and Peter to be.
CN: Oh really? That’s funny.
ADTV: Well, it must be nice to be away from it all, especially in Budapest.
CN: You’re right. It’s a magical city. It has embraced its past and instead of tearing it down, you see a lot of the older people mixing with younger people. The scars of war and revolution are on the faces of buildings but they kept the outer structure and rebuilt the inside. It’s a beautiful city.
It’s fun to be away from the hullaballoo. You know I wish I could have gone to that [The Good Wife] cast party.
ADTV: Aww. Maybe they’ll throw another party just in your honor. OK, so let’s talk about Tyrant. Aside from being a fly killer, what can you tell me about that?
CN: [laughs] He’s a very interesting guy with a lot of emotional baggage, which as a General you can’t expose. The show allows for me to have a very interesting backstory with his marriage and what he’s doing in Aberdeen, representing America and trying to help out. I think it’s a really different kind of show.
We have a fantastic international cast from all over the Mideast and London with a great group of talented people. It’s so far from what I’ve been doing on The Good Wife, for me, Tyrant is a nice leap. I like obscure shows such as The Knick and Peaky Blinders. I think Tyrant is like that. It’s obscure and still waiting for a bigger American audience, which it deserves.
ADTV: I’ve not seen Peaky Blinders, but I’ve heard of that.
CN: Now, you’ve got to see it. [laughs] An American is telling you, a Brit to watch it. I put Tyrant in that category. It’s a well-kept secret.
ADTV: One last closing note, would you be friends with Peter?
CN: Yeah! I would I’d have a drink and smoke a cigar with him. He’s got a good sense of humor. I would.
The series finale of The Good Wife aired Sunday night. Tyrant airs on FX.
Ret Turner, a major television costume influence in the 1970s and 80s, died from undisclosed causes last Wednesday at his home in West Hollywood. Turner was 87.
The oldest working member of the Costume Designers Guild, Turner achieved his start in Hollywood in the NBC wardrobe department after heading to Hollywood to become an actor. He ended up running the department. He rose to fame in the 70s alongside Bob Mackie and Ray Aghayan and designed for some of the highest profile variety series of the era. The Sonny and Cher Comedy Hour. The Donny and Marie Show. Mama’s Family. Carol & Company. Turner had a hand in all of them.
Ret Turner received 23 Emmy nominations in his storied career. He won five of them for Carol & Company, Las Vegas-An All Star 75th Anniversary Special, Diana Ross… Red Hot Rhythm and Blues, Mama’s Family, and Mitzi… Zings into Spring.
Now that CBS’s The Good Wife has tried its last case, will Emmy’s verdict be a good one?
On Sunday, The Good Wife concluded its seven-year run on CBS. As a show that has won five Emmys, has been heralded by critics consistently since day one, and has built up a loyal fan base, the end of The Good Wife is a loss for the medium and art form of television. As most “sophisticated” audiences have flocked to “cool” cable shows, The Good Wife was practically the the last man standing of esteemed network dramas. With current Emmy standards being what they are, it’s quite possible The Good Wife’s two Emmy nominations for Outstanding Drama Series in 2010 and 2011 may be the final time a network show is ever taken seriously in the Emmy’s most prestigious category.
Despite often pushed aside for audience-pleasing, intense cable shows, The Good Wife’s quality was a constant. More than just being relentlessly outstanding, creators Robert and Michelle King’s television masterpiece grew deeper, richer, and more complex as it aged. There has never been a show like The Good Wife, and it’s doubtful anything widely broadcasted in the future will ever resemble it. Its elegance, intelligence, and maturity cannot be replicated.
Having a reputation such as that does not come easy. The Good Wife began as a half-serialized, half-procedural political, legal drama. Back in 2009, it looked like much of other television that was broadcasted by the big networks at the time, but the show still towered over others because of the smart, nuanced writing. As television changed, The Good Wife had to change along with it as well as the expectations of audiences and critics. It had to become darker, take more risks, and play with the formal and social aspects of the show. The result is something more profound and original than the cable shows The Good Wife had to compete against for the past seven years.
The Good Wife is an extremely clever show, presenting discussions of moral ambiguity, feminism, politics, social issues, betrayal, consequences from decisions, and the clear yet pliable uses of the law. It has never been a series to ply the audience with simple answers to any of the topics it presented, and in fact, it rarely took the lead to tell the viewers which characters were right or wrong. Couple these areas of narrative focus with character development that was concise and sharp enough to kill, The Good Wife’s writing, largely conducted by the Kings, was formidable, unpredictable, and intricate. The show bent genres and mastered tone, structure, and communication like few others before it. Every time The Good Wife accomplished a goal, it established new challenges for itself, one of which was subjectivity as a storytelling technique and it became a valued trademark of the series.
The ending of The Good Wife, as expected by many of fans who know the Kings’ love for symmetrical story arcs, conveyed the evolution of Alicia Florrick over the past seven years. There were details swirling around about Peter’s trial, some melodrama with Alicia’s love interest this season, but The Good Wife remained close to its heroine (or anti-heroine, some would argue), which is where the show has always been no matter what other kind of dramatic plots were going on. The Good Wife is the story of Alicia Florrick and how she’s developing and changing into what she wants to be. Rather than being a show about earth-shattering, adrenaline-inducing events, it’s a show about the transition period in life and how characters react to seismic events. The manner in which the Kings wrote The Good Wife is in the same vein as many of Virginia Woolf’s novels where the journey is more important than the destination and the story is about the time that passes during the hours of the day.
***The following paragraphs will contain spoilers from The Good Wife’s final episode.***
The finale, entitled “End,” continues this strategy. As they have in the past, the Kings disregarded all of the hanging questions audiences have been making predictions about for months about the conclusion of the show. Will Alicia and Peter divorce? Will Alicia end up with Jason? Will Alicia and Diane’s all-female name-partner firm materialize? Is Peter guilty of political corruption? The Good Wife gave no clear answers to any of these questions, which has frustrated some viewers and critics. I see it as a strength of the show and something that it has always executed well. It’s never worried about the romanticized, Hollywood endings…it’s too smart for that. “End” allows those questions about Alicia’s fate fall into place wherever the viewers see her after her the final scene. The Kings leave The Good Wife open to interpretation, yet there is a definitive ending put forth about who Alicia has become, for better and worse, that makes this show complete.
What’s represented in the brilliant finale is the cynical, harsh, reality with which the show has always defined itself. There are no happy endings. Will Gardner, The Good Wife royalty who was killed in the fifth season, returned for the finale last night to guide Alicia on decisions about her life. He tells her two things that are especially poignant and revealing about the show’s nature. “Nothing is ever over.” “Things were never simple.” Apply these two concepts to “End” and the series at large, and the messages should begin to crystalize, especially in the final sequence, which is possibly one of the most viscerally emotional, perfectly realized scenes in the series’ history.
The closing moments of the series – with a humiliated Diane slapping Alicia after Peter resigns from the governorship – are astonishing. They, of course, parallel this scene to the first sequence in the pilot where Alicia slaps Peter after standing beside him at a press conference. Through events that transpire over the duration the episode, Alicia uses Diane, her law partner and previous mentor, as collateral damage in the same way Alicia herself was used in the beginning of the series through the exposing of Peter’s extramarital affairs. Alicia began the series as “the good wife,” being humiliated publicly as a result of a political move. She makes Diane into “the good wife” by embarrassing her with Diane’s husband’s affairs with a young student, all for the sake of winning Peter’s trial. When she asks Lucca to go after Kurt in cross-examination, Alicia is so consumed with her own feelings and motivations that she fails to see she sacrificed Diane’s dignity just as her own dignity was sacrificed with the original scandal.
This is the morally grey tendency, not categorical behavior, Alicia has developed over the seven seasons, even though she’s taken control of her fate in other, more empowering ways. The repercussions of Alicia’s betrayal come in the form of a slap in the final scene of the show after Alicia has not taken Peter’s hand again at the podium (symbolizing her growth out of “the good wife” role) and her failed attempts to find Jason (which would have been a “happy ending” for her). After Alicia regains composure from being slapped by Diane, she straightens her jacket and walks on. Though she does not get a “happy ending,” there is an optimistic conclusion written in there beneath the tragedy. Alicia will continue to go on, grow, and become more in control of her fate and happiness, even if she is somewhat morally flawed.
Alicia in “End” is different than Alicia in the pilot. She still struggles existentially with the reverberations of the past and life’s continual incompleteness, but she has grown into a fierce, independent warrior who is capable of shaping her own fate, while the cunning hunger for power she has acquired has inoculated her from seeing the cold fact that her decisions have ruthless consequences.
When it comes to Emmy consideration, The Good Wife suffers from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s on CBS at a time when shows on HBO and AMC are in style, and politics do matter when it comes to industry acclaim. The Good Wife was arguably the best show on television for a long while. Once it started to change and evolve with the time and grew into a giant, the Emmys recoiled and barely acknowledged its skills outside of the acting categories. It’s in a similar boat as The Americans. For the past two seasons, it has been undeniably impressive, yet the Emmy judges fail to take it seriously in consideration. The realist portion of the fandom might ask, “Why now?” If The Good Wife was not on Emmy’s radar for seasons five and six, there’s no logical explanation for it to recognized this year.
But, if by some move of fate the Emmy judges look at the reputation it has sustained for the past seven years and want to celebrate its farewell, they would most likely look to Julianna Margulies for Lead Actress in a Drama Series (who has won this award twice for the show), Christine Baranski for Supporting Actress in a Drama Series (who has been nominated for every season of this show thus far), or Robert and Michelle King for their writing in the finale (who were nominated for writing the pilot, and have been treated kindly by the WGA for the past few years). Certainly a Drama Series nomination would be more than deserved – I would argue the show is owed it after the snubs for The Good Wife’s glory period – but is unlikely considering new voting methods and the Emmy judges’ habit of retaining incumbent nominees.
Margulies and Baranski are two of the most respected veterans in the business and if they appear on the ballot they could certainly be singled out as winners by their peers in the Academy, especially since they a few had career-best episodes this season. The Kings, on the other hand, may be able to squeeze out a nomination if the Television Academy reflects positively on the show’s run. I’m skeptical about making any broad statements since Kings’ have submitted tour de force episodes to Emmy judges for the past two years and were offensively ignored.
The television void left by The Good Wife will be large and desolate. It was the one of the few shows in television’s golden age that were led by women, discussed socially important issues, and employed a poised and polished stature while other shows cashed in for blockbuster moments. To fans, to critics, to Emmy judges, if there is one show to never forget, it’s The Good Wife.
Guaranteed Nominees
Alan Cumming, Supporting Actor
Christine Baranski, Supporting Actress
Probable Nominations
Julianna Margulies, Lead Actress
Guest Actor (TBD)
Possible Nominations
Writing
Drama Series
Casting
Cinematography
Episode 75: We welcome a special guest to take a look at the 2016 Comedy Emmy race
On this week’s Water Cooler Podcast, the Cooler gang welcomes fellow AwardsDaily TV contributor Jalal Haddad as we dive into the main categories in the 2016 Comedy Emmy race. Since many of last year’s nominees aren’t eligible this year, there are several slots to fill in most categories. We take a look at who stands to benefit most from these vacancies and what wild cards could pop up this year. Think Niecy Nash, last year’s surprise nominee in the Supporting Actress category.
We also discuss a recent rule change in the way nominees are displayed in each category. Jalal is a bit of an expert in this one, so he leads the discussion as we explore the change and ask what impact it will have on the final ballot.
Emmy contender Donna Lynne Champlin takes the traditional Rhoda/best friend role into the modern era with great success on The CW’s Crazy Ex-Girlfriend
Theater and television actress Donna Lynne Champlin is a refreshing Hollywood rarity. In sharing her experiences on The CW’s critically acclaimed comedy Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, Champlin gushes about the improvisational set and about working with Golden Globe-winner Rachel Bloom as if she were a 20-year-old ingenue on her first big break into television.
And that’s half-true. Crazy Ex-Girlfriend is Donna Lynne Champlin’s first recurring role on a major series, but she’s far from the young starlet who typically portrays Champlin’s level of unbridled enthusiasm. That’s not to say she’s ancient – far from it – but it is extremely refreshing and promising to see a 40-plus actor hit it big in an unlikely role on an unlikely series.
Donna Lynne spoke with me fresh from fourth-week rehearsals for her upcoming stint as Hortensio in Phyllida Lloyd’s (Mamma Mia, The Iron Lady) all-female take on Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew at Central Park’s Delacorte Theater. It’s clear she’s an actress enjoying blossoming success in both television and theater. Plus, her enthusiasm and passion for acting resulted in a supporting role in Alexandre Payne’s 2017 film Downsizing alongside Matt Damon and Kristen Wiig.
As the Emmy nomination window approaches, some insiders are starting to whisper about the potential strength of Crazy Ex-Girlfriend and its crazy great cast, including Donna Lynne Champlin. While star Rachel Bloom has most of the Emmy heat for the series, there’s always room for surprises in the Comedy Supporting Actress category.
Just think back to last year’s surprise nominee Niecy Nash (Getting On). A deserving Emmy nomination would be a great way to cap Donna Lynne Champlin’s crazy great year.
AwardsDaily TV: So, Donna Lynne Champlin, tell me how you prepared yourself for a dual career in theater and television?
Donna Lynne Champlin: I kind of didn’t honestly. I pretty much was straightforward theater. I actually majored in musical theater at Carnegie Mellon and then I did a semester at Oxford where I was on scholarship to study in Shakespeare and Chekhov. So, I was pretty focused on theater and happily so.
Once I got an agent, I started going out for day player stuff like auditioning for “cop on Law & Order.” It wasn’t really until a few years ago on this web series called Submissions Only, written by Andrew Keenan-Bolger and Kate Wetherhead, and they’d seen my theater work since they were both theater people. It’s a really funny series, sort of a behind the scenes series about what it’s like to be a theater actor in New York. They’d asked me to come and do this funny bit in season two that lead to a series regular role in season three. It was this wonderful way for me to learn the ropes, not only learning about on-camera logistics but also these amazing guest stars (Joel Grey, Harriett Harris). It was such an education watching these heavy hitters come in one after the other and watch them work. It really opened something in me where I became more receptive. Before that I’d never considered on-camera work before. Crazy Ex-Girlfriend was the first series regular part I’d ever auditioned for in my career.
ADTV: That’s so interesting because you show such a comfort level on camera and deep camaraderie with the cast. I would never have known that that was your first big role.
DLC: Oh, thank you! I’m not going to lie to you for the first couple of episodes… You know, I’ve always been comfortable with the acting, but I was very nervous about the logistics of everything. It was a very big learning curve for the first four or so episodes, and I was just so grateful because the directors and crew were so patient and kind and understanding. The first episode, I felt like I was in a foreign country, and our AD gave me this great book [Strike the Baby and Kill the Blonde: An Insider’s Guide to Film Slang] so I could understand all the terms and what the hell everybody was saying. Just the blocking was so different and nuanced than from the theater. On stage, you have a foot here or there to hit the mark or be in the light, but on television you have to be within the inch. I’m not ashamed to admit that it was a learning curve. I messed up a couple of shots ’cause I didn’t know what I was doing. (laughs)
But by the grace of the Crazy Ex-Girlfriend cast and crew, they ushered me through what I needed to know. I thank God every day that I had the opportunity to learn the ropes on this show. Everyone is just extraordinarily kind and funny. I learned later that my nickname on set was “sabotage,” and somebody told me by accident. They were horrified that I found out, but I thought it was the funniest fucking thing I’d ever heard in my life. I’m getting t-shirts made!
ADTV: So, how did the show come to you? How did you find out about Crazy Ex-Girlfriend?
DLC: You know, it’s not a very exciting story. It was through a standard submission, and because it was on camera, I had this freedom in the audition thinking they would never cast me. It was kind of crazy because the sides for Paula were so similar to how I actually speak. Plus, it was so surprising that there was a role for a not thin, middle-aged woman that was three dimensional and not just a dramaturgical device. So that was shocking, and I just walked in and was completely myself.
After the audition, I called my agent and said, “I had the time of my life. They’ll never call me back, and I wish them the best.” And then I got a call back. I went in and had the same second experience. My third audition was my big test, and Rachel [Bloom, star and co-creator] was there with Aline [Brosh McKenna, co-creator] and we just had a ball. We tapped into this playful energy where Rachel kind of gave me this look like “We’re going off-script a little bit. Are you coming with me?” I was like “Oh I coming. I’ve packed a bag. Let’s go!”
ADTV: With the character of Paula Proctor, did you imagine a backstory for her as you were prepping?
DLC: Well, in the theater, you know the whole play before you get the audition. A pilot is kind of a one act play. I didn’t really find the character in the pilot until I got to California and got into a room with [the creative team] when we had to work out that hairpin turn Paula makes in the pilot [going from suspicious near-antagonist to best friend material]. At that time, we were shooting for Showtime, and it was only a 30-minute pilot. We had even less time to sort of work out that hairpin turn with Paula.
So, Rachel and I sat in this random office room and did a bunch of improv of the scene outside the party where the whole thing flips around. Fifty percent of that scene came from the original material, and the other half came from the improv I’d done with Rachel. It was really so wonderful and very unexpected because I’d been brought into the process and make that hairpin turn less tight. I think in the original script, Rebecca hadn’t technically lied to Paula from the get-go… but I think we added the definite lie so that we could touch on it again in the last scene where I tell her I’m just busting your balls because you lied to me [a theme that is echoed later in the series]. That whole line about Rebecca being so brave, that came from the improv as well.
ADTV: My personal favorite episode of season one is “That Text Was Not Meant for Josh!” One of the things I like best about it is where you explore the emotions and stability of Paula’s marriage. How did you prepare for such an emotional and true episode?
DLC: Personally, I was engaged before my current husband to another man. We went to couple’s counseling, and I just had a personal relationship… where you do everything you can, you break shit, you break a law… and at the end of the day you either move forward or you break it off. I, personally, had a similar relationship [to Paula’s], and in my life we ended up parting ways. When we did the couple’s counseling scene, I asked the props department for a pillow because every time I went to couple’s counseling I always took a pillow and pressed it against my stomach. It’s just visceral for me… I felt like I needed protection. That’s why when you see me in that scene I’m holding a pillow because when I went to couple’s counseling I always had to have that pillow on my stomach to protect myself from what was going to come up.
ADTV: That’s really great and such a huge personal touch in your work.
DLC: It’s the environment that’s created on set by the crew and by the writers. I know that I can [improv] and nine times out of ten they’re going to go along with it. I don’t think it’s like that on every set. I think most sets are like “Do what the script says and shut up!” (laughs) I’m able to do that because our set is very open to allowing the actors to bring our personal ideas and touches. That was a very particular memory for me…
ADTV: So given the improvisational nature of the show, what’s it like approaching it as a musical and all of the preparation that has to go into that?
DLC: Well, it really depends on the number. “After Everything I’ve Done For You” was the most choreographed. That was the first one I’d even had choreography one. Coming from the Broadway musical world, there’s a huge difference in the amount of time we have. I think for my finale number, we had like three hours of rehearsal. In a stage musical, that would have had hours and hours dedicated to it. Even then, you rehearse in a room, but you don’t get to see the set because they’re still building it hours before you step onto it. I got on the set and realized my shoes were slipping, so we had to modify tons of choreography because of that. You have to be willing to let go of all that and be flexible to say “OK, we’re going this way.” The theater training comes in extremely helpful with that. When you’re filming numbers like that, you kind of have to treat it like you’re on a theater in the round. You have to really make sure you have all your angles covered because they may be whizzing around you with the camera. All up in your nook and crannies.
ADTV: I actually think Paula fits comfortably into the sitcom tradition of the best friend. I’m thinking about Rhoda or Ethel from I Love Lucy. What do you think Paula brings to that tradition? What does she bring to the table that’s different?
DLC: There’s a few ways I think she’s different. Just the way she’s written is different because she’s sexual. Generally if you see a sidekick best friend female, they’re not allowed to be sexual. They’re paired with the lead female who is usually sexual. [Paula] breaks that fallacy of two women not being allowed to be sexual at the same time. They’re not in competition for the same man at the same time. It’s interesting to see two women who are both sexual and not fighting over the same guy. I don’t really think that’s ever been done. The sidekick is always very safely asexual.
ADTV: Oh, that’s really interesting. I hadn’t thought of [Paula] that way. In fact, it’s quite the opposite because Paula’s so in love with the concept of Rebecca being with Josh that she’s usually scowling at Greg or every time his name is mentioned.
DLC: I know, but it’s also really fun though that Paula fully admits she wants to jump his bones though. That’s the element that I think is different. She’s like “Look, he’s a nice guy, and he’s not for you. But I wish he was a search term on porn sites because he’s half Italian, and I would throw that man down in a second if I wasn’t married.” The think I love about Paula is that she’s not cut and dry. She doesn’t have ninety degree angles which usually the second banana is. She’s got her own fallacies and her own weaknesses… Another thing that I love is that I am a size 14. I am 45 years old. And neither my age nor my weight is ever mentioned. In any way. Positive or negative. It’s just not an issue… There aren’t any lines like “Whew, I’m gonna be late for my Weight Watchers meeting!” There’s no apologizing or even commenting on how I look when my type is not a common one on television. It’s really great that I’m on a show that doesn’t comment on that.
[quote_box name=””]Another thing that I love is that I am a size 14. I am 45 years old. And neither my age nor my weight is ever mentioned. In any way. Positive or negative. It’s just not an issue… It’s really great that I’m on a show that doesn’t comment on that.[/quote_box]
ADTV: Yes, that is really great. She doesn’t have to pay penance for eating that doughnut with Rebecca. So, what’s next for you in season two? What do you think is the next evolution for Paula as a character?
DLC: You know, I have no idea. I literally just got an email from the creative team asking for ideas on musical numbers if it works with our storyline. They’re going back into the writer’s room soon, and I sent my email. Aline wrote back and said, “We’ve got a lot of plans for Paula that I think you’ll be very happy about.” I don’t know, but apparently they think I’m going to be very happy next season.
ADTV: I love what you’ve described about the behind the scenes of Crazy Ex-Girlfriend. I love the collaborative nature.
DLC: It’s really is great. I don’t really have anything to compare it to since this is my series regular role, but I do get the sense that our show, our set, our writers are uncommonly open and generous. I don’t think it’s like this on other shows. I guess that’s why we have a long list of guest stars that want to come on the show. Word has gotten out that our show is a blast. It’s like going to summer camp! A really well run theater camp! That word has gotten out and a lot of heavy hitters have asked The CW to come and play.
ADTV: So, what’s next for you as an actress outside of Crazy Ex-Girlfriend or Taming of the Shrew? What would you like to do as an actress in your next stage?
DLC: Well, I just wrapped some work on Downsizing, the new Alexandre Payne film. That was just thrilling. And again I was so grateful to have had a full season of Crazy Ex-Girlfriend behind me before I walked onto an Alexandre Payne set. I would really love to explore more feature or indie film stuff. I would love to experience that. This whole television thing has been such a happy surprise and such a wonderful adventure that it’s opened my mind. You know, why not investigate film work and see what that’s like? I had so much fun on the Downsizing shoot. I had a scene with Matt Damon and Kristen Wiig, and they were the nicest people – they could not have been nicer. I’d love to explore more opportunities like that if the chance arises. I love theater though. Just coming back to Shrew has been just great. I’ll never forget where I came from.
ADTV: So, thanks so much for taking the time to talk to me. I know you’re in the middle of rehearsals for Shrew, but I do have to ask before I go… When you’re not rehearsing Shrew and when you’re not making movies with Matt Damon and Kristen Wiig, what are you watching on television? What are your favorite shows right now?
DLC: Ohhhhh… I love Schitt’s Creek. It took me like three or four episodes to really get into it, but I love it. I love Game of Thrones. I love Silicon Valley. I love that whole HBO Sunday lineup, honestly. I like Lucifer. I like to watch our show, and then I like to watch Lucifer. I think the lead [Tom Ellis] is marvelous. What else do I watch? I don’t have much time. I think The Grinder is hilarious, and who know who else likes that show? Carol Burnett. Carol Burnett likes our show and The Grinder.
ADTV: Have you met her?
DLC: Oh yeah! I played her on Broadway. She wrote a play based on her life, and I played her. We actually know each other very well. We’re very close. She’s a big fan of Crazy Ex-Girlfriend and of Rachel [Bloom].
ADTV: Oh you’ve got to get her on the show.
DLC: We all would, but she’s so busy. She’s got a book tour and then she’s coming back to Broadway in the fall. That lady never stops!
The CW’s Crazy Ex-Girlfriend will return in the fall for a second season. Season one is currently available free for a limited time on iTunes for a For Your Consideration Emmy campaign. Donna Lynne Champlin can next be seen in Shakespeare in the Park’s The Taming of the Shrew at The Delacorte theater from May 24 through June 26.
