Connect with us

Entertainment

How Jenny Slate swung between laughter and sorrow in 'Dying for Sex'

Published

on

How Jenny Slate swung between laughter and sorrow in 'Dying for Sex'

This article contains spoilers for the finale of FX’s “Dying for Sex.”

Jenny Slate hasn’t quite figured out how to respond when people tell her they found themselves sobbing at the end of “Dying for Sex,” the new FX show she stars in alongside Michelle Williams.

It’s an understandable reaction. The limited series, which began streaming on Hulu on Friday, follows Molly (Williams) as she upends her life when she gets a Stage 4 cancer diagnosis. Rather than stay in a sexless marriage with her husband, Steve (Jay Duplass), Molly decides to dive into a thrilling erotic journey, with the support of her best friend Nikki (Slate), who becomes her caregiver during the last months of her life.

A mess of an actor who adores Molly, Nikki becomes her best friend’s anchor, the grounding force she needs as Molly explores her kinks, her desires and her insatiable need to be wanted and obeyed in bed. Their friendship and mutual caregiving is at the center of “Dying for Sex.” It’s why creators Elizabeth Meriwether and Kim Rosenstock, who adapted the series from the Wondery podcast of the same name, knew it was a tall order to find someone who not only would need to go toe-to-toe with Williams but would need to serve as the heart of the show.

“We needed someone who could be really funny and also just break your heart and almost kind of in the same moment,” Meriwether said.

Advertisement

But that was only part of the equation. “You have to believe that Nikki is a person you would want to die with, that would be the most enjoyable, pleasurable person to spend the rest of your time with,” Rosenstock added.

Jenny Slate, left, with Michelle Williams as Molly, Nikki’s best friend who decides to go on a erotic journey after a Stage 4 cancer diagnosis.

The two said that led to some rather strange casting conversations: “Would we want to die with this person?” they’d ask themselves. And when it came to Slate, the answer was simple: yes.

“I think she portrayed all the messiness of caretaking in such a beautiful way,” Rosenstock said. And that required a nimble comedic performer who could just as easily showcase Nikki’s curdling anger against her boyfriend after he mutes her phone from Molly’s urgent messages as she can dazzle a bedridden Molly with Shakespearean soliloquies and a full-blown one-woman “Clueless” show.

Advertisement

Slate, whose recent work has included roles in “It Ends With Us” and “The Electric State” as well as a Prime Video stand-up special and a book of essays titled “Lifeform,” spoke to The Times about her character, navigating the tonal shifts in the series and what Nikki’s bag represents.
This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

We need to talk about that “Clueless” scene at the hospital where, to cheer up Molly, Nikki begins a mishmash of performances. Not just “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” but a whole throng of moments from that classic Amy Heckerling 1995 flick. Was that written into the script or do you just have “Clueless” in the back of your pocket?

I think a lot of us have “Clueless” in our back pocket. But that was written into the show, and I was delighted by it. Because I completely get it. I mean, I don’t know a lot of millennials who don’t know, “Oh, my God, I love Josh!” I knew a lot of those lines, but I did have to memorize Amber’s. I knew there are a lot of people that would be upset if I messed them up.

Less so with Shakespeare.

Oh yeah, he’s very good. I mean, he’s no Amy Heckerling, but he’s very good!

Advertisement

The scene captures so much of what I found thrilling about the show, especially the way it shuttles between humor and sadness. There’s so much crying through laughs and so much laughter through tears. How did you come to navigate that tonal shift throughout?

For me, one of the signature characteristics of the show is that you don’t get the laughter without the sorrow. As Michelle puts it, Molly’s cancer diagnosis acts as a portal for her to explore the truth of who she is and how she’s operated in the world via her erotic journey. It’s this idea that you don’t have to separate things out. That you don’t have to compartmentalize parts of yourself because they upset you. This show really tries to be as inclusive, emotionally speaking and experientially, as possible. I think that allows for really interesting performances, for unexpected moments in the narrative. But it also allows one to feel very close to the story, because much like life itself, it is going to unfold on its own.

A woman with short black hair in a black strapless dress with her hands in front of her waist.

“For me, one of the signature characteristics of the show is that you don’t get the laughter without the sorrow,” Jenny Slate says.

(Justin Jun Lee / For The Times)

As much as the show is about Molly’s journey, this is also a story about caregiving — about the perils and the sorrows of it but also the kind of joy that can come from wanting to care for someone else, almost in spite of your own wellbeing. What did you learn about caregiving while playing Nikki?

Advertisement

One thing I really loved about this character is that she sees caregiving as something that is really outside her own self definition. Not that she defines herself as selfish. But she doesn’t really look to herself to be the person in the room who’s going to know how to do your taxes. She’s just not the person that is responsible in a sort of pen-and-paper way. But the way that she is deeply dedicated and sure of her love allows her to participate in caregiving as a process that is definitely serious, and she has to learn to pick up the pace on that. But caregiving is also — even if it has an end point because someone has a terminal diagnosis — an open-ended, innovative process. That’s how I approached it. As an actor, I am going to keep myself open. I’m going to learn to innovate the more that I learn about Michelle as a performer and Molly as this character. And I worked with that openness. I allowed Nikki to stay in the moment. Nikki sees caring as an investigative process where you have to give someone room to grow. And so I gave myself room to grow while I was performing.

I think you see it in a prop. At the beginning, we see Nikki’s bag as an agent of chaos, and then it’s sort of this Mary Poppins-like bag, where anything that Molly would need, she’s gonna have it.

Yeah. She doesn’t end up with, like, a Clare V. clutch. Nikki is allowed to stay herself. The bag is still the bag. But the use is different. She doesn’t have to become someone else in order to be the best person she can be for herself and for Molly. But she does have to deal — to use the metaphor of the bag — with what is internal, and to understand that for Molly, a lot of stuff that she’s carrying is just not for right now and needs to go. And same for Nikki. They have different tasks as people, in terms of their growth. But by the end of it, Nikki’s bag has everything for Molly but so does Nikki’s brain. She knows exactly what type of vibrator Molly needs.

It’s what makes those scenes where they butt heads — like on New Year’s Eve, when Molly all but ignores Nikki’s plans (and their fab promlike dresses) to go hook up with a random stranger — all the harder to watch.

I think that’s a really important moment for Molly and Nikki, because even though they’re really bonded and they’re both committed to what they’re doing, they actually need to experience differentiation in order to experience success, whatever that means for both of them. One of the most beautiful things about this project is that there are so many inflection points. There are so many moments of necessary, and specific, and also pretty surprising, change. It’s not just one moment where everything comes to a head, falls apart and then comes back together. The characters are allowed the privilege of a complete ride. And as Molly says when she’s about to die, “It’s not that f— serious.”

Advertisement
A woman with dark hair in a bright blue dress sitting on a bed next to a woman in a red long-sleeve dress.

“The characters are allowed the privilege of a complete ride,” Jenny Slate says. “And as Molly says when she’s about to die, ‘It’s not that f— serious.’”

And that comes from one of my favorite scenes in the final episode, which is when Amy (Paula Pell) explains dying in the most thoughtful, most hysterical way. That line of hers — “Your body knows how to die” — unlocked for me something quite profound about the show and its story.

Because of Paula and her incredible performance, and Liz and Kim’s brilliant writing, it’s like we’re very gently turned toward this thing that we see in life and we see in movies. It’s that people die. But Paula explains it from the inside out. I’ve heard parts of that when speaking to a hospice caregiver in my own life. But Paula’s nurse, Amy, at once makes dying natural and also extraordinary. In the same way that having an orgasm is natural and also extraordinary. It is physical, natural but also intensely personal. And that the body knows what to do and needs to do it. I, as a person, don’t think about dying a lot. But I found myself, while listening to Paula’s monologue, feeling soothed.

Soothing is the perfect word to describe that scene, yes. Especially because it tees up the ending not as depressing or dour but almost kind of uplifting, which is odd for a show concerned with death and dying. What are we to take from that final episode?

I think for Nikki, in the final episode, in that last scene, you see that she’s clearly been able to take a lot about what she learned about herself from being Molly’s caregiver but also just from her love with Molly, from the fact that she could love someone that much. She sees herself as someone with the capability for immense love and connection. And she knows it’s true. She has the proof. She’s proud of it. You see she’s utilized that knowledge in a lot of healthy, positive ways. She’s moving forward, there’s wind in her sails. She’s not in stasis. She’s not like a fossil because of Molly’s death. There are going to be times when she notices that kind of twang of a heartstring because of the experiences she will not be able to have with Molly. I like that the show is honest about that. She’s not better off at the end. She’s just different, and that’s OK.

Advertisement

Movie Reviews

Stream It Or Skip It: ‘The Home’ on Starz, a paranoid thriller where Pete Davidson gets trapped in a creepy retirement home

Published

on

Stream It Or Skip It: ‘The Home’ on Starz, a paranoid thriller where Pete Davidson gets trapped in a creepy retirement home

The Home (now streaming on Starz) pits Pete Davidson against the residents of a creepy retirement community, and it isn’t exactly a Millennials-vs.-Boomers clash for the ages. “Best generation, my f—in’ dick,” our headliner mutters under his breath at one point, and that’s an accurate representation of this quasi-horror movie’s level of articulation. Filmmaker James DeMonaco (director of the first three The Purge movies, writer of all of them) takes a halfway decent idea and turns it into an uninspired, vaguely brownish-colored movie version of the stew you make out of all the leftovers in the fridge, and that you can’t revive with just a little more salt.

THE HOME: STREAM IT OR SKIP IT? 

The Gist: Hurricane Greta is about to slam into this community, and this movie would love you to come to the conclusion that it’s the result of the collective might of boomers’ farts after they ate too many Wagyu tenderloins basted in the metaphorical gravies wrung from the pores of younger generations. Maybe that’s why Max (Davidson) is so skinny, but it’s definitely why he’s so P.O.’d. He breaks into a building and expresses his angst via some elaborate graffiti art that gets him arrested – again. His foster father finagles a deal for him to avoid jail time by performing community service at the Green Meadows Retirement Home and that doesn’t seem too bad since he’ll be a janitor and not a nurse on diaper duty. And at this point it’s established that Max has some trauma stemming from his foster brother’s suicide, the type of trauma that’s requisite to pile atop any and all protagonists of crappo horror movies at this point in the 21st century.

It’s worth noting that Green Meadows is a halfway-decent retirement community – not as posh as the one in The Thursday Murder Club, and not as repugnant as you might expect for a low-rung horror flick. BUT. There’s always a BUT. He arrives at the home and looks up and sees peering out a window the face of a gaunt old man with eyes that ain’t quite right. I’m sure it’s nothing! Management gives him the nickel tour, and gives him the first rule of The Friday the 13th Murder Club: DON’T GO ON THE FOURTH FLOOR. And yes, that’s also the second rule of The Friday the 13th Murder Club. Max will stay in a room at the home so he can be available 24/7 in case the job requires a 2 a.m. mop-up, and also so he can have lucid dreams that may or may not actually be dreams about weird shit happening around these here parts.

But everything goes fine and Max quietly manages his trauma and nothing incredibly gross and/or violent happens and he lives happily ever after the end. No! Actually, he catches a glimpse of old people in bizarre masks having miserable sex, and hears horrible screams of agony coming from, yes, the fourth floor. Max seems to be getting along OK, and even makes a couple of friends, like Lou (John Glover), who summons Max to clean up a big mess of feces when it’s actually a little welcome party for the new super. Ha! Max also has conversations about Real Stuff with Norma (Mary Beth Peil), both sharing the pain of the people they’ve lost. Eventually the fourth floor misery noises get to be too much and Max picks the lock and investigates, and it’s full of wheelchair-bound elderlies in states of drooling, semi-comatose madness. After Max gets his hand slapped for violating the first/second rule, that’s when the bullshit ramps up. Let’s just say this bullshit has some Satanic vibes, and poor Norma doesn’t deserve what happens to her, although Max seems ready to do something about all this.

PETE DAVIDSON THE HOME STREAMING
Photo: LionsGate

What Movies Will It Remind You Of? The Home is sub-Blumhouse drivel nominally referencing things like Rosemary’s Baby, Eyes Wide Shut, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest  in order to make it seem smarter than it is. Other recent scary movies set in nursing homes: The Manor, The Rule of Jenny Pen.

Performance Worth Watching: A moment of praise for the makeup and practical effects people, who provide The Home with more memorable elements than any of the cast performances.

Advertisement

Sex And Skin: A bit. Nothing extensive. But definitely unpleasant.

THE HOME STREAMING MOVIE
Photo: Lionsgate

Our Take: In The Home, DeMarco tries a little bit of everything: flashbacks, dream-sequence fakeouts, jump scares, body horror, surveillance-tech POVs, occult gobbledygook, creepy sex, conspiracies, climate change dread, generational divide, paranoia, deepfake-ish dark-web weirdness… it goes on, and none of it is particularly compelling or original. It’s most effective in its grisly imagery, with a couple of memorable deaths that might tickle the cockles of horror connoisseurs, and DeMarco’s generous deployment of pus and eyeball gloop shows a variation on the usual bodily fluids that’s, well, I don’t know if “satisfying” is the right word, but at least we’re not drenched in the same ol’ blood and barf. Small victories, I guess.

Most will take issue with the casting of Davidson, who in the majority of his roles to date has yet to show the intensity that anchoring a thriller like The Home demands. He puts in some diligent effort in the role of the guy who routinely goes what the eff is going on around here?, and his work is a cut above merely cashing a paycheck, which isn’t to say he’s necessarily good. Miscast, maybe. The victim of half-assed writing, more likely, this being a paranoid creepout that never gets under our skin, with attempts at cheeky comedy that fizzle out and social commentary that dead-ends into obviousness. Having Davidson piss and moan about “F—ing boomers” ain’t enough.

The plot works its way through its hodgepodge of this ‘n’ that plot mechanisms to get to a conclusion that’ underwhelming and over the top at the same time; the initial bit of exhilaration quickly dissipates and we’re left with the sense that the movie just hasn’t been good or diligent enough in its storytelling and character development to earn this catharsis. It’s just spectacle for its own gory sake. This mediocrity might just inspire Davidson to retire from horror movies.

Our Call: Hate to say it, but 1.7 decent kills does not a horror movie make. SKIP IT.

Advertisement

John Serba is a freelance film critic from Grand Rapids, Michigan. Werner Herzog hugged him once.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

House committee report questions distribution of FireAid’s $100 million for L.A. wildfire relief

Published

on

House committee report questions distribution of FireAid’s 0 million for L.A. wildfire relief

The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday released a report after its own investigation into FireAid, the charity founded by Clippers executives that raised $100 million for wildfire relief efforts in Los Angeles last January.

The investigation — led by Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) under committee chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) — began in August when Kiley “sent a letter to FireAid requesting a detailed breakdown of all non-profits that received money from FireAid.” Kiley expressed concern that the money had gone toward local nonprofits rather than as more direct aid to affected residents.

FireAid promptly released a comprehensive document detailing its fundraising and grant dispersals. After reaching out to every named nonprofit in the document, The Times reported that the groups who successfully applied for grants were quickly given money to spend in their areas of expertise, as outlined in FireAid’s public mission statements. A review conducted by an outside law firm confirmed the same.

The new Republican-led committee report is skeptical of the nonprofit work done under FireAid’s auspices — but cites relatively few examples of groups deviating from FireAid’s stated goals.

Representatives for FireAid did not immediately respond to request for comment on the report.

Advertisement

Out of hundreds of nonprofits given millions in FireAid funds, “In total, the Committee found six organizations that allocated FireAid grants towards labor, salaries, or other related costs,” the report said.

The committee singled out several local nonprofits, focused on relief and development for minorities and marginalized groups, for criticism. It named several long-established organizations like the NAACP Pasadena, My Tribe Rise, Black Music Action Coalition, CA Native Vote Project and Community Organized Relief Efforts (CORE), whose activities related to fire relief they found “unclear,” without providing specific claims of misusing FireAid funds.

The report — while heavily citing Fox News, Breitbart and New York Post stories — claims that “FireAid prioritized and awarded grants to illegal aliens.” Yet its lone example for this is a grant that went to CORE, citing its mission for aiding crisis response within “underserved communities,” one of which is “undocumented migrants” facing “high risk of housing instability, economic hardship, exploitation, and homelessness.”

The report said that $500,000 was used by the California Charter Schools Assn., Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, LA Disaster Relief Navigator, Community Clinic Assn. of Los Angeles County and LA Conservation Corps “towards labor, salaries, or other related costs,” which the committee said went against FireAid’s stated goals.

Yet the examples they cite as suspicious include NLSLA using its FireAid grant to pay salaries to attorneys providing free legal aid to fire victims, the Community Clinic of Los Angeles “expanding training in mental health and trauma care” through grants to smaller local health centers, and the L.A. Regional Food bank allocating its funds to “mobilize resources to fight hunger.”

Advertisement

The report singled out one group, Altadena Talks Foundation, from Team Rubicon relief worker Toni Raines. Altadena Talks Foundation received a $100,00 grant from FireAid, yet the report said Altadena Talks’ work on a local news podcast, among other efforts, “remains unclear” as it relates to fire relief.

The report’s claims that “instead of helping fire victims, donations made to FireAid helped to fund causes and projects completely unrelated to fire recovery, including voter participation for Native Americans, illegal aliens, podcast shows, and fungus planting” sound incendiary. Yet the evidence it cites generally shows a range of established local nonprofits addressing community-specific concerns in a fast-moving disaster, with some small amounts of money possibly going toward salaries or overhead, or groups whose missions the committee viewed skeptically.

FireAid still plans to distribute an additional round of $25 million in grants this year.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: A Home Invasion turns into a “Relentless” Grudge Match

Published

on

Movie Review: A Home Invasion turns into a “Relentless” Grudge Match

I’d call the title “Relentless” truth in advertising, althought “Pitiless,” “Endless” and “Senseless” work just as well.

This new thriller from the sarcastically surnamed writer-director Tom Botchii (real name Tom Botchii Skowronski of “Artik” fame) begins in uninteresting mystery, strains to become a revenge thriller “about something” and never gets out of its own way.

So bloody that everything else — logic, reason, rationale and “Who do we root for?” quandary is throughly botched — its 93 minutes pass by like bleeding out from screwdriver puncture wounds — excruciatingly.

But hey, they shot it in Lewiston, Idaho, so good on them for not filming overfilmed Greater LA, even if the locations are as generically North American as one could imagine.

Career bit player and Lewiston native Jeffrey Decker stars as a homeless man we meet in his car, bearded, shivering and listening over and over again to a voice mail from his significant other.

He has no enthusiasm for the sign-spinning work he does to feed himself and gas up his ’80s Chevy. But if woman, man or child among us ever relishes anything as much as this character loves his cigarettes — long, theatrical, stair-at-the-stars drags of ecstacy — we can count ourselves blessed.

Advertisement

There’s this Asian techie (Shuhei Kinoshita) pounding away at his laptop, doing something we assume is sketchy just by the “ACCESS DENIED” screens he keeps bumping into and the frantic calls he takes suggesting urgency of some sort or other.

That man-bunned stranger, seen in smoky silhoutte through the opaque window on his door, ringing the bell of his designer McMansion makes him wary. And not just because the guy’s smoking and seems to be making up his “How we can help cut your energy bill” pitch on the fly.

Next thing our techie knows, shotgun blasts are knocking out the lock (Not the, uh GLASS) and a crazed, dirty beardo homeless guy has stormed in, firing away at him as he flees and cries “STOP! Why are you doing this?”

Jun, as the credits name him, fights for his PC and his life. He wins one and loses the other. But tracking his laptop and homeless thug “Teddy” with his phone turns out to be a mistake.

He’s caught, beaten and bloodied some more. And that’s how Jun learns the beef this crazed, wronged man has with him — identity theft, financial fraud, etc.

Advertisement

Threats and torture over access to that laptop ensue, along with one man listing the wrongs he’s been done as he puts his hostage through all this.

Wait’ll you get a load of what the writer-director thinks is the card our hostage would play.

The dialogue isn’t much, and the logic — fleeing a fight you’ve just won with a killer rather than finishing him off or calling the cops, etc. — doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny.

The set-piece fights, which involve Kinoshita screaming and charging his tormentor and the tormentor played by Decker stalking him with wounded, bloody-minded resolve are visceral enough to come off. Decker and Kinoshita are better than the screenplay.

A throw-down at a gas-station climaxes with a brutal brawl on the hood of a bystander’s car going through an automatic car wash. Amusingly, the car-wash owners feel the need to do an Idaho do-si-do video (“Roggers (sic) Car Wash”) that plays in front of the car being washed and behind all the mayhem the antagonists and the bystander/car owner go through. Not bad.

Advertisement

The rest? Not good.

Perhaps the good folks at Rogers Motors and Car Wash read the script and opted to get their name misspelled. Smart move.

Rating: R, graphic violence, smoking, profanity

Cast: Jeffrey Decker, Shuhei Kinoshita

Credits:Scripted and directed by Tom Botchii.. A Saban Entertainment release.

Running time: 1:34

Advertisement

Unknown's avatar

About Roger Moore

Movie Critic, formerly with McClatchy-Tribune News Service, Orlando Sentinel, published in Spin Magazine, The World and now published here, Orlando Magazine, Autoweek Magazine

Continue Reading

Trending