Connect with us

Entertainment

Toxic Masculinity and Big vs. Aidan: How 'Sex and the City’s' love triangle has aged

Published

on

Toxic Masculinity and Big vs. Aidan: How 'Sex and the City’s' love triangle has aged

Ballet flats, low-rise jeans and Cosmopolitans are back in style, so it is the perfect time for all six seasons of “Sex and the City” to stream on Netflix. The HBO series, previously exclusively on Max, premiered April 1 on the streaming service, where a wider subscriber base pulled in first-time viewers and rewatchers who are ready and willing to share their thoughts on social media.

This week, there has been increasing buzz about one of the iconic episodes in the series, when Carrie Bradshaw invites Mr. Big, the ex-boyfriend with whom she cheated on her current boyfriend Aidan, to the latter’s cabin.

I couldn’t help but wonder — does Carrie Bradshaw’s Big versus Aidan love triangle still feel relevant?

When it first premiered in June 1998, “Sex and the City, an adaptation of Candace Bushnell’s newspaper column and book, broke a lot of barriers with its depiction of four single women in their 30s and 40s navigating their friendship and vibrant sex lives in NYC. (It also fell short in a myriad of ways, namely in how incredibly white, heteronormative and privileged the characters were. While some of this changed in Max’s “And Just Like That,” for the purposes of this essay, I’m just focusing on the original series, not the films or subsequent spinoff.)

Since airing, it’s been common parlance to declare people specific archetypes promulgated by the show either via the four main friends — are you a Carrie or a Samantha? — or by the type of love interest one embodies — is he your Mr. Big or your Aidan?

Advertisement

Sarah Jessica Parker, as Carrie Bradshaw, and John Corbett as Aidan Shaw in an episode from “Sex and the City.”

(HBO)

In particular, when it comes to Carrie’s love interests, both men were pretty flat characters. Big is the stereotypical, wealthy, charming playboy with serious commitment issues who just needs the right woman to come along and “fix” him. Aidan, in contrast, is the stable, Hallmark Christmas movie boyfriend who would love nothing more than to get married and stay home eating fried chicken — but he can skew boring.

The bad boy versus nice guy trope is a staple of mainstream ‘90s rom-coms. Millennials were raised on a diet of toxic, patriarchal relationships on film and TV, where male characters spend the majority of their time treating female characters horrendously, and then redeeming themselves in the final 20 minutes with one grand gesture. We became a generation trained to wait for our Bigs to catch on to their mistakes, come down the street in a shiny limo, and beg forgiveness. If he hasn’t come back and repented, it’s only because it isn’t our last 20 minutes yet.

Advertisement

But does that trope still work in 2024? I’ve spoken with friends of mine — die-hard Big fans who cheered from our sorority house living room when he showed up at Carrie’s Paris hotel in the 2004 series finale — who are now rewatching the series and wondering why they were so hung up on Mr. Big in the first place. This sentiment has been echoed on social media, with viewers who are rewatching asking if Big has always been this infuriating. Is it just because millennials, now in their 30s and 40s, are at a more stable life stage where we can look back at Big as the walking, talking embodiment of a red flag? Or has society itself shifted away from the Mr. Bigs of the world?

Well, as it turns out, both things can be true.

“In your 20s, your life stage is about searching for identity and collecting experiences. Big was exciting because he was giving Carrie all of these new experiences,” says Israa Nasir, a mental health therapist who treats millennials and Gen Z adults going through life transitions. She says when she first watched the show, she remembers thinking Big was amazing. “But in your 30s and 40s you’re in a different life stage developmentally, you’re more about finding roots. Millennials are rooting down, we’re looking for stability. We can look back at Big and be like ‘Big was a huge red flag, because he couldn’t give her stability, which is required to move through the life stages.’”

This stability versus excitement is a conversation topic in Season 3, Episode 7, called “Drama Queens.” Over brunch, Carrie tells her friends she’s been waking up in the middle of the night sweating because she’s so anxious about the fact that everything with Aidan has been going so well.

“I’m used to the hunt, and this is effortless,” Carrie says. “You’re not getting the stomach flip,” adds Samantha. “Which is really just the fear of losing the guy,” says Miranda, ever the pragmatic one. Carrie admits she’s not used to being with someone who doesn’t do the “ever-seductive withholding dance.” When Miranda says she’s comfortable and safe and happy with Steve, Carrie deadpans, “Are you dating a man or a minivan?” Samantha tells her, “Your relationship is my greatest fear realized.”

Advertisement

From left, Kristin Davis, Kim Cattrall, Sarah Jessica Parker and Cynthia Nixon in HBO’s “Sex and the City.”

(Craig Blankenhorn / HBO)

Nasir says that there is a generational difference in how we are engaging with romantic relationships, just by virtue of the world changing and an increase in emotional literacy.

“A 25-year-old current Gen Z person has way more access to self-help content, personal growth, self-awareness, all of those things that help you define yourself and relationships versus a 25-year-old millennial in the mid-2000s who did not really have that,” says Nasir.

Advertisement

“Millennials inherited a very patriarchal system. Many of us are entering the space of self-awareness for the first time whereas Gen Z is already there so their expectations from a relationship are very different.”

Nasir adds that Gen Zers have changed the gender dynamics of dating. They are much more fluid when it comes to identity and sexuality, they’re more open to polyamory, and they don’t engage in the same debates about who pays, who initiates sex, etc. — themes that are a large part of “Sex and the City’s” plotlines. She says when speaking with her Gen Z patients about relationships, she often thinks about the episode where Miranda bluntly tells two young women that maybe “he’s just not that into you.” It was met with horror when Miranda said that, but Nasir said that kind of factual, upfront, candid conversation is par for the course among the younger generations.

In Nasir’s opinion, society hasn’t replaced patriarchal archetypes, we’ve just added more to the spectrum. And even though there are still a plethora of heteronormative love triangles and television often still adheres to the status quo, nuance has crept in. In Netflix’s “Never Have I Ever,” she points out that the lead love interest, Paxton, is the popular guy but with a sensitive side. Nasir says she sees more of an emphasis on platonic love, an expansion of what a long-term soulmate relationship can be, as depicted in series like “Grace and Frankie” or “Insecure.” She compares it with how the archetype of the woman on television changed and expanded from the ‘50s to the ‘90s. “From the ‘90s to the 2020s, there are more types of relationships that you see. We continue with every generation to add to the baseline,” Nasir says.

Suzanne Leonard is a professor of race, gender and sexuality studies at Simmons University in Boston. “We’ve been in a long, 20-year process of undoing the allure of Mr. Big,” says Leonard, adding that she doesn’t know whether the storylines on television have changed as much as the viewership has. “Audiences are much more aware of the dangers of toxic masculinity and that doesn’t read as sexy anymore. I think you have more sophisticated feminist viewers.”

“It’s sort of seeing what was actually right in front of us the whole time, but we couldn’t see it,” she adds. Leonard partly attributes this shift in our views of romance, this fatigue around brooding, emotionally unavailable characters, to the post-#MeToo moment. (She even points out that Chris Noth, the actor who played Big, was accused by several women of sexual abuse).

Advertisement

“Male power and male violence has been so sexualized and romanticized, and in the ‘90s and early 2000s, heterosexual women were really encouraged to be attracted to that type,” says Leonard. #MeToo created an awareness and reckoning with toxic masculinity that forced people to realize what society pushed as alluring might in fact be red flags.

Our emotional vocabulary around these kinds of relationships has also shifted, as therapy-speak infuses our everyday language. Twenty years ago, we didn’t say someone was “toxic” or “gaslighting” or “love bombing.” “It has been able to give us labels to very normal human experiences,” says Nasir. And when you can identify these experiences, you can manage them better by naming them and walking away.

Last week when “Sex and the City” hit Netflix, there was buzz around how Gen Z would react, with some (correct) predictions that the “Carrie is the toxic villain” debate would ramp up as it did when “And Just Like That” aired. “Carrie is the worst human being I have ever seen,” said one first-time watcher. (In contrast, pop star Olivia Rodrigo proudly wore a “Carrie Bradshaw AF” shirt while performing in New York on April 5.)

Right on cue, first-timers began to react to the love triangle storyline on X, formerly Twitter, and TikTok, expressing how upset they were about the Carrie-Big-Aidan triangle. “Now why would Carrie cheat on Aidan with Mr.Big!” tweeted one viewer. “Personally I think Carrie Bradshaw should’ve been court-martialed for inviting Big to Aidan’s cabin,” wrote another.

Then the “Carrie Is Aidan’s Big” discourse began. It’s a debate that felt familiar — was Aidan pathetic for saying he didn’t feel comfortable with her being friends with Big after she had an affair or was he just setting boundaries? When he agreed to get back together with her, should he have wholeheartedly trusted her, and dropped his identity as the victim? Or was Aidan trying to change Carrie into something she wasn’t, and their lifestyles never would have really meshed anyway? And it wasn’t all anti-Big arguments. Did she belong with Big, so they could be toxic together? And there was perhaps the most cutting tweet of all, “Carrie deserved that post-it.”

Advertisement

Did Carrie belong with Big, so they could be toxic together?

(Craig Blankenhorn / HBO)

Pop culture historian Jennifer Keishin Armstrong wrote the book “Sex and the City and Us,” and says she’s always hated Carrie and Big together. “Mr. Big does not come around in the end; that’s the point of your Mr. Big,” says Armstrong, adding that Carrie shouldn’t end up with either of the two men. She is of the mind that Big was terrible for Carrie, but Carrie was terrible for Aidan.

“Television is trying to reflect real life, but it’s hard to get TV out of your head while you’re living your life. This is part of why Mr. Big and Carrie ending up together upsets me because I think it gives false hope when most relationships like this one do not have a happy ending in real life.” (For what it’s worth, the real Carrie agrees.)

Advertisement

Armstrong says the gold standard on TV is now two people with a real friendship who are also attracted to each other. She sees “The Office’s” Jim and Pam as an influential model of this kind of love.

“I do think relationships have gotten more nuanced than they were in the early 2000s,” she adds. “If we look at the TV side of things, think of ‘Fleabag’, whose entire finale is predicated on a very complex, romantic relationship that doesn’t work out the way we’re hoping in our soul, and it’s beautiful.”

It’s hard to imagine how groundbreaking it would have been to have Big and Carrie’s last conversation be them acknowledging their love for each other but promising, “It’ll pass.”

In the series finale, Carrie has a final message about how the most important relationship is the one you have with yourself — but this message is undermined by the fact that this is also the moment she looks at her phone, and for the first time in six seasons, we find out Big’s real name.

I propose an alternate, healthier ending for Big and Carrie — and it already exists in canon. It’s in Part 1 of the series finale, when she confronts Big for boomeranging back into her life right when she’s moving on.

Advertisement

“You do this every time,” Carrie tells Big. “Every time! What, do you have some kind of radar: Carrie might be happy. It’s time to sweep in and s— all over it?”

Big tells her he made a mistake and insists “it’s different this time,” but Carrie interrupts him to say she is done.

“You can drive this down street all you want,” she says, throwing his signature move back in his face. “Because I don’t live here anymore.”

Advertisement

Movie Reviews

Controversy Surrounds ‘The Raja Saab’ as Makers Allegedly Offer Money for Positive Reviews | – The Times of India

Published

on

Controversy Surrounds ‘The Raja Saab’ as Makers Allegedly Offer Money for Positive Reviews | – The Times of India
Prabhas’s ‘The Raja Saab’ has hit theaters, but early social media reactions are mixed to negative. A netizen claims the film’s team offered him ₹14,000 to delete his critical review and post a positive one instead. The authenticity of this claim remains unverified, while fans continue to share their varied opinions online.

Prabhas-starrer ‘The Raja Saab’ is currently running in theaters; the much-awaited film was released today. The early reviews of the Maruthi-directed film have been receiving mixed to negative reviews on social media. However, a netizen has claimed that the makers of the film offered him money to delete his negative review.

Netizen alleges bribe by the makers

On Friday morning, an X user named @BS__unfiltered posted a screenshot online. He said he received a message from the official account of ‘The Raja Saab’ after posting his review. According to him, the film’s team offered him Rs 14,000. They reportedly asked him to post a positive review of the movie instead. Sharing the screenshot, the user wrote, “What the hell mannnnn!!!! They are offering me money to delete this!!! Nahi hoga delete #TheRajaSaab #Prabhas.” However, the screenshot shared by the user is in question for its authenticity and is not verified. At this time, it is not clear if the message was real or AI-generated. The claim is still unconfirmed.See More: The Raja Saab: Movie Review and Release Live Updates: Prabhas’ film to open big at the box office

Fans share their opinions online

Fans and netizens have been active on social media, sharing their opinions about the film. While some enjoyed it, many expressed disappointment. Another internet user wrote, “A horror-fantasy with a good idea but weak execution. Prabhas gives an energetic & comical performance, & the face-off with Sanjay Dutt is the main highlight. The palace setting is interesting at first, but the messy screenplay, dragged 2nd half, uneven VFX, & weak emotional payoff reduce the impact. @MusicThaman’s music & sounding are one of the positives. From the end of the first half, the story becomes slightly interesting. There are 3 songs featuring Prabhas & @AgerwalNidhhi. Nidhhi has performed well. Some scenes feel unintentionally funny, & the climax fails to impress. Overall, a one-time watch at best. This film gives a lead for The Raja Saab Circus—1935 (Part 2), where we may see Prabhas vs. Prabhas.”

Advertisement

About ‘The Raja Saab’

‘The Raja Saab’ is directed and written by Maruthi. The film stars Prabhas in the lead role. The cast also includes Malavika Mohanan, Nidhhi Agerwal, Riddhi Kumar, Sanjay Dutt, and Boman Irani.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Healthcare cuts, ICE and AI: ‘The Pitt’s’ creator on telling authentic stories in Season 2

Published

on

Healthcare cuts, ICE and AI: ‘The Pitt’s’ creator on telling authentic stories in Season 2

R. Scott Gemmill, the creator and showrunner of “The Pitt,” has always felt comfortable in a hospital.

He initially had ambitions of going into medicine — he studied gerontology, which explores the processes and problems of aging, and did some volunteer work at hospitals. He also took a nurse assistant course.

“I really thought I was going to try and get into a med school,” he said recently while seated in the recognizable lobby of the show’s fictional hospital set on the Warner Bros. lot in Burbank. “I just wanted to have a job and medicine seemed like there was always going to be a need. I’m comfortable in a hospital. I wish I followed through on a certain level because I loved that ability to go in and solve problems. But my writing kicked in and that’s it — I never went back.”

But in TV land’s school of medicine, Gemmill has gone far. He did a rotation at Chicago’s County General Hospital, joining the writing staff of NBC’s popular medical drama “ER” in its sixth season. And now his turn at Pittsburgh Trauma Medical Center, through HBO Max’s “The Pitt,” has been a breakout success, revitalizing the medical drama genre with a fresh spin on the format — each episode tracks one hour in a shift — and energizing its audience with a traditional weekly rollout. The Emmy-winning series returned Thursday for its second season that revolves around a shift on the Fourth of July. But the fireworks arrived well before that, with HBO Max announcing on the eve of the show’s premiere that the drama has been renewed for a third season.

In the hiatus before shooting began on this season’s finale, Gemmill, whose other TV credits include “Jag” and “NCIS: Los Angeles,” talked about the show’s momentum heading into the new season, navigating how personal to get with characters, and introducing a new doctor to the mix.

Advertisement

1

2 A group of medical workers stand around a patient on a guerney

1. Noah Wyle as Dr. Robby in Season 2 of “The Pitt.” (Warrick Page / HBO Max) 2. From left: Sepideh Moafi as Dr. Baran Al-Hashimi, Taylor Dearden as Dr. Melissa King, Katherine LaNasa as charge nurse Dana Evans, Gerran Howell as Dr. Dennis Whitaker and Supriya Ganesh as Dr. Samira Mohan in “The Pitt.” (Warrick Page / HBO Max)

You started breaking Season 2 last January, as people were discovering the show week to week. People love to be critical of sophomore seasons of a breakout hit. How did that shape the second season for you and the writers?

Advertisement

It was weird because we wrote [Season 1] without any feedback. Not just wrote it — we shot it and produced it. We had started thinking about Season 2 before people had responded. It was a slow build. I felt like the healthcare professionals found us first, then spread through word of mouth. We were just moving forward with what we thought were the next stages of these characters’ lives. It wasn’t until later on that the accolades came and there was more pressure then. When we first started, we didn’t know if anybody was going to watch or not. We had finished it without any pressure whatsoever because nobody had weighed in on it. It was a very rarefied situation, which was nice. We hope for the best. And it seemed to work out OK. There’s a little bit of concern going into the second season because we were successful, you wonder, can you maintain that? But we try not to focus on that, and just really focus on the characters and the stories and do what we did the first season — tell really authentic, strong stories.

The season picks up 10 months after that initial shift where we met everyone. How did you decide on the time jump, landing on July 4?

It really came from wanting to have Langdon [Patrick Ball] back, so I knew he had to do about 10 months of rehab. Then we were looking at what time of year would that be. We’re also somewhat limited by when we shoot in Pittsburgh. We decided to do the Fourth of July because it comes with a bunch of shenanigans.

Season 2 opens with a helmet-less Robby riding in on a motorcycle.

The motorcycle goes back to some part of Robby’s past. We don’t really talk about it, but it has a link to his father, and his father being a tinkerer of old cars and Robby needing a vacation, a hiatus of sorts. Pennsylvania is a no-helmet law [state]. And some of us who have motorcycles sometimes enjoy riding them without a motor helmet. It’s not a smart thing to do, and it speaks to Robby’s current attitude of a certain amount of carelessness on his part.

Advertisement

Yes, we learn that he’s going to be taking a three-month sabbatical. How soon will we discover what led to that? Is it an amalgamation of different things?

Yeah, he’s long overdue for a vacation. He knows that something’s not working in his life and this is one way he thinks that he can fix things.

How did you land on Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump in Canada as his choice for a getaway?

It was a place I knew about and it just sounded like an interesting place for him to go that has some foreboding associations with it.

Two doctors observe a medical procedure being performed.

A new doctor, Baran Al-Hashimi (Sepideh Moafi), center, is brought in to oversee the ER unit on the eve of Dr. Robby’s (Noah Wyle) three-month sabbatical.

(Warrick Page / HBO Max)

Advertisement

The season introduces a new character, Dr. Baran Al-Hashimi, played by Sepideh Moafi, who’s going to be taking over when Robby is out. She’s an advocate of generative AI and trying to get everyone on board with this idea of saving time with charting. What were your conversations with doctors in the field about that topic and what intrigued you about how healthcare professionals are thinking about this technology?

She’s someone who’s a little different with her approach, a little more contemporary and forward, as opposed to Robby; he bridges contemporary medicine and old-school medicine with his relationship that he had with Dr. Adamson, who showed him a lot of the old-school techniques that he still has in his wheelhouse if he needs them. AI is pretty much here to stay and it’s infiltrating every aspect of our lives — medicine is no exception. I would say it’s still in its infancy in the ER, but there are ways that it’s trying to be implemented. Like any other tool, it has potential to be used wisely and potential for disaster. We’re not really exploring the disastrous side of it yet but just what the realities are. The fear is that it will make the doctors more efficient, especially with things like charting, but then will that time go back to the patients or will they just have to see more patients? And so they’ll have even less time. That’s the challenge at this point.

How do you feel about it in your own industry?

I try not to think about it. I guess I’m probably in denial more than anything. I don’t have any place for it and I don’t really want to really know too much about it at this point.

Advertisement

We see a lightness to Robby this season. He’s involved in a situationship at work. This is a workplace drama. It hasn’t shown us the interior lives of its staff beyond the nuggets they share during their shift. How much do you want the viewers to know about them versus how much do you want your actors to just understand their characters?

It comes with the job. He’s not a monk. He’s in a relationship of convenience more than anything. I don’t think he’s a long-term planner. The fact that he hasn’t had a vacation in forever is proof of that. Robby is very good at putting on a good face until he’s not. I think what we’ll see over the course of the season is that facade start to slide.

It’s a process. The 15-hour nature of the show limits how much of that information you can dole out organically, but it also allows you to be authentic in terms of how much you actually learn about someone in a day. Most of us not just spilling our guts and saying our life story to the people we work with. As we start the season, we’ll think about: What is the journey we’re going to take this character on, and what information needs to be learned in order to achieve that? And then what medical stories will help maybe bring that out. You do it in little layers.

Is there something coming up that you think will be particularly illuminating?

There’s some stuff about Robby. We pulled back a lot on it, but we’ll learn a little bit about him. We’ll learn some things about Whitaker [Gerran Howell]. We know what Langdon is going through, his marriage.

Advertisement
A man wearing a baseball cap walks with an envelope in his left hand

After taking leave to seek treatment for prescription drug addiction, Dr. Frank Langdon (Patrick Ball) returns to work in “The Pitt.”

(Warrick Page / HBO Max)

To stay on Langdon — physicians and people in the healthcare profession are vulnerable to addiction for a variety of reasons. What was important for you in that storyline and what did you want to explore through him?

To show somebody who’s made a mistake and was doing their best to hide it as is sometimes the pattern of behavior. I don’t think most people enjoy their addiction. So, seeing someone who’s doing their best to try and heal themselves. Just because you’re going through the program and doing the steps, it doesn’t mean everyone’s going to welcome you back with open arms. There are still some bad feelings and you have to mend some bridges and fences along the way.

It’s not just Robby and Langdon. Langdon feels he owes a sort of mea culpa to almost everyone he works with, especially Santos [Isa Briones]. And whether or not she’s willing to accept that is debatable. Robby, obviously, has some really strong feelings about it because Langdon was his student, and he made Robby look kind of stupid. Robby is angry at himself for not seeing it.

Advertisement

How are you figuring out who’s going to shuffle in and out?

Some of it’s based on the reality; for instance — I was thinking of this today — next season would be Whitaker’s third year, so he has one more year to stay here, and then he would have to go. It’s really about where they are in their careers and what makes the most sense story-wise.

I want to talk about some of the procedures and cases that we’ll see this season because they’re pretty gnarly. Do you keep a log of cases and try to figure out how they can fit into the story as you go?

We never really start with the medicine. Sometimes we say the medicine is the wallpaper that reflects everything in the room, but what’s going on between the characters is really what’s at stake, and it’s either something going on between them and the patient, between the doctors and nurses, or internally. Ideally, it touches on a little bit of everything.

When we came back, I probably had 150 ideas of just cases. I don’t know how many of them we actually did. We had never done a hot toddler story, [where a child was overheated] but that is something that’s a real problem. That was one where we knew we were going to try and do that story, but whose is it going to be? Who does it reflect most? Then we work backwards into it. We pull from everywhere — things we think of, things we’ve heard, things we imagine. We don’t really do ripped-from-the-headlines, but we do things that seem like that because a lot of times we’re talking to professionals, asking them what was concerning them. What do they worry about? We’re extrapolating their concerns. That’s what happened with [Season 1’s] measles story. There was no measles outbreak when we wrote that story, but we knew, based on what was going on, that there would be eventually, and we just happened that the timing was in our favor.

Advertisement

Is there like a line you won’t cross in terms of squirm factor? Have you had to pull back?

I don’t think so, because we’ve never done anything for the sake of that. We’ve never done anything that’s not done in the ER. As long as it serves a story and a character, then I think it’s fair. We do something big for the finale that Abbot [Shawn Hatosy] and Robby are doing with a bunch of others — it takes all hands on deck. I’m interested to see how that comes out, and I’ve seen elements of it now that are terrific.

Can you share more of what kinds of topics or cases we’ll be seeing this season?

We did a sexual assault, [and] we’re looking at how budget cuts are affecting healthcare. There’s a story about someone who’s been rationing their insulin and the downsides of that.

When the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law by the president, did you have a lot of calls with professionals?

Advertisement

Oh, yeah, because it’s a huge issue. You figure out with the changes in the Affordable Care Act, if you suddenly have 8 to 10 million people that don’t have insurance, what’s going to happen is they’re going to stop going to their doctors. Anything that was an issue is going to get exacerbated by not being treated. So, where do they end up? Well, they’re going to end up in the ER, but they’re going to be even sicker than they would have been. We’re going to get more people, and their conditions are going to be worse. It only makes what’s already a strained system even more likely to break. Because we were just starting to shoot in the summertime, we could make some adjustments, but I don’t remember going back and changing things. We saw it coming.

I know there had been some discussion about an ICE story? Will we see that this season?

Yes, we have some ICE agents show up, and how that affects people in the hospital. That’s been a tricky one to try and get right without being heavy-handed and being fair to everyone on both sides of that conversation. What else do we do this year? Some fun stuff. The kind of things you would expect over the Fourth of July weekend.

How do you feel about the shipping that’s taking shape with “The Pitt” fan base?

I’m not on social media, I’m not really a part of that. My writers would tell me about things like that. The Langdon-Mel of it — I’m like, he’s married. That’s more of a big brother relationship. And Abbot and Robby — I just sort of shake my head. Our show’s not really like that. It’s not a show where people are sneaking off to have sex in a closet or anything. Those things are very subtle. And we do see a little bit this season between a couple of people, but it’s very much secondary because it’s not something we actually see, per se.

Advertisement

Just as he did last season, Noah Wyle is writing again this season. He’s also directing. Tell me what it’s like when you have the lead of your show involved in different aspects of the show’s creative elements?

It’s really great because he’s up to speed on everything. And because he is the centerpiece of the show, I rely on Noah a lot for guidance and help figuring out how to steer through all the icebergs. He’s a good writer and he’s a good director, and it just adds a whole other level to the writers room, in terms of the connection between us and the set. He’s there right up until, basically, we start shooting. Even when we are shooting, if he has a day off, he’s in the room or we’ll do meetings at lunchtime so he can join in and weigh in. It was Noah’s idea to do the Shema prayer for his breakdown. That was a very coordinated effort because I knew I was asking a lot of him. That’s what’s really nice about having Noah be a writer and a director. He has the vernacular to have these conversations about what he needs from me to get him to where he needs to be. It’s a very symbiotic relationship.

A man leans against a door frame inside a hospital

R. Scott Gemmill on the pressure that comes with having a breakout hit: “There’s a little bit of concern going into the second season because we were successful, you wonder, can you maintain that? But we try not to focus on that, and just really focus on the characters and the stories and do what we did the first season — tell really authentic, strong stories.”

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Do you ever worry about him being overextended?

Advertisement

Yes. That’s why I don’t mind when he has a day off. But he’s just gonna fill it with work.

In Hollywood, when something’s a success, there’s an immediate impulse to figure out a way to broaden that success. Has there been talks of spinoffs, ways to build out the universe?

No, not really. We’ve talked about doing a night shift. In time, maybe that’s something we’ll explore. The show still has lots of life in it, so I wouldn’t want to distract from what we’re doing now. But I think there’s a potential to do all the craziness that comes out at night.

Like Dr. Al-Hashimi, you’ve had experience being the newcomer joining a well-oiled machine. Tell me about becoming a writer on “ER” in Season 6.

I hated it when I first went on. They had done so many stories already, and there were multiple stories told per episode, so they had gone through so many stories that it seemed like anything I suggested was already done. They all felt like Ivy League professors and I was a college dropout; I felt like I so didn’t belong there. I remember calling my wife and saying, “I hate this. This is horrible. I should never have left ‘Jag.’” But over time, I found my way and found my voice on the show.

Advertisement

That was the season with one of the episodes I revisit often — when Dr. Carter (Wyle) gets stabbed.

I remember having a big debate over whether Kellie Martin’s eyes should be open or closed. I was adamant that she had to have her eyes open. I’m glad I won, but that was intense. The whole show was very intense.

George Clooney has teased that he would be open to the idea of appearing on “The Pitt.” Could you see a world where that happens?

I take that with a grain of salt but, hey, I’m up for anything. I’ll try anything once.

What I appreciated about the season finale last year, especially in this world of TV where you feel like you need to have this epic cliffhanger, was how true to life it felt. Since you’ll be shooting the finale in January, what can you share about how you’re thinking about it?

Advertisement

There’s something really fun at the end of this season. I hope that we do it as a little Easter egg for the fans in the finale, so I’m looking forward to doing that.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Greenland 2: Migration’ Review: Gerard Butler in a Post-Apocalyptic Sequel That’s Exactly What You Expect

Published

on

‘Greenland 2: Migration’ Review: Gerard Butler in a Post-Apocalyptic Sequel That’s Exactly What You Expect

Desperate migrants are forced to leave Greenland after a malevolent force makes their island uninhabitable. No, it’s not tomorrow’s headline about Donald Trump, but rather the sequel to Ric Roman Waugh’s 2020 post-apocalyptic survival thriller. That film starring Gerard Butler and Morena Baccarin had the misfortune of opening during the pandemic and going straight to VOD. Greenland 2: Migration (now there’s a catchy title) has the benefit of opening in theaters, but it truly feels like an unnecessary follow-up. After all, how many travails can one poor family take?

That family consists of John Garrity (Butler), whose structural engineering skills designated him a governmental candidate for survival in the wake of an interstellar comet dubbed “Clarke” wreaking worldwide destruction; his wife Allison (Baccarin); and their son Nathan (now played by Roman Griffin Davis). At the end of the first film, the clan had endured numerous life-threatening crises as they made their way to the underground bunker in Greenland where survivors will attempt to make a new life.

Greenland 2: Migration

The Bottom Line

It’s the end of the world as we know it…again.

Advertisement

Release date: Friday, January 9
Cast: Gerard Butler, Morena Baccarin, Roman Griffin Davis, Amber Rose Revah, Sophie Thompson, Trond Fausa Aurvag, William Abadie
Director: Ric Roman Waugh
Screenwriters: Mitchell LaFortune, Chris Sparling

Rated PG-13,
1 hour 38 minutes

Five years later, things aren’t going so well. Fragments of the comet continue to rain down on the planet, causing catastrophic destruction. The contaminated air prevents people from going outside, and resources are becoming increasingly scarce. But there are some plus sides, such as the bunker’s inhabitants still being able to dance to yacht rock.

When their safe haven in Greenland is destroyed, the Garritys, along with a few other survivors, are forced to flee. Their destination is France, where there are rumors of an oasis at the comet’s original crash site. And at the very least, the food is bound to be better.

Advertisement

It’s a perilous journey, but anyone who saw the first film knows what to expect. The Garritys, along with the bunker’s Dr. Casey (Amber Rose Revah), run into some very bad people, undergoing a series of life-threatening trials and tribulations.

Unfortunately, while the thriller mechanics are reasonably well orchestrated by director Waugh (Angel Has Fallen, Kandahar) in his fourth collaboration with Butler, Greenland 2: Migration feels as redundant as its title. While the first film featured a relatively original premise and some genuine emotional dynamics in its suspenseful situations, this one just feels rote. And while it’s made clear that the crisis has resulted in people resorting to cutthroat, deadly means to ensure their survival, the Garritys have it relatively easy. All John has to do is adopt a puppy-dog look, put a pleading tone in his voice, beg for his family’s help, and people inevitably comply.

To be fair, the film contains some genuinely arresting scenes, including one set in a practically submerged Liverpool and another in a dried-up English Channel. The latter provides the opportunity for a harrowing sequence in which the family is forced to cross a giant ravine on a treacherously fragile rope ladder.

Butler remains a sturdy screen presence, his Everyman quality lending gravitas to his character. Baccarin, whose character serves as the story’s moral conscience (early in the proceedings she spearheads a fight to open the shelter to more refugees despite the lack of resources, delivering a not-so-subtle message), more than matches his impact. William Abadie (of Emily in Paris) also makes a strong impression as a Frenchman who briefly takes the family in and begs them to take his daughter Camille (Nelia Valery de Costa) along with them.

Resembling the sort of B-movie fantasy adventure, with serviceable but unremarkable special effects, that used to populate multiplexes in the early ‘70s, Greenland 2: Migration is adequate January filler programming. The only thing it’s missing is dinosaurs.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending