Connect with us

Entertainment

If you're a parent, Lauren Greenfield's new doc about teens and social media 'is a horror movie'

Published

on

If you're a parent, Lauren Greenfield's new doc about teens and social media 'is a horror movie'

Documentary filmmaker Lauren Greenfield had spent her day with a group of high school students when a startling revelation came up that compelled her to go home and ask her two sons, then about 14 and 20, a question: “Is BDSM really a trend?”

“Oh, yeah, choking is what we’re told girls want,” she recalled one of her sons saying in reference to the risky sexual practice that some teens engage in.

It was 2021 and Greenfield was in the middle of her latest creative frontier: delving into the lives of the first generation raised on social media.

She was interested in unlocking an intimate glimpse of how social media has shaped adolescent minds after seeing her own kids’ distinctive relationship with it.

“They’re different generations,” she said recently from her office in Venice. “My eldest is a reader, my youngest gets his news from TikTok. Just seeing the difference and being concerned about the younger one being on a lot was part of the inspiration for this.”

Advertisement

“Social Studies,” a five-part series premiering Friday at the Telluride Film Festival in Colorado and arriving Sept. 27 on FX, is Greenfield’s latest foray into documenting teen life in Los Angeles.

Her body of work, which includes 2012’s “The Queen of Versailles” and 2019’s “The Kingmaker,” has long chronicled beauty, wealth and power — and the damaging toll of it in excess.

But she’s held a perennial interest in youth culture: “Fast Forward: Growing Up in the Shadow of Hollywood” is a collection of photos and narratives of Los Angeles youth in the 1990s; “Girl Culture” captured the effects of American popular culture on young girls; and her short film “kids + money” features L.A. teens discussing money.

“When I did ‘Fast Forward,’ which was my first project, I was in a very different phase of life,” said Greenfield, who attended the private Crossroads School in Santa Monica as a teenager. “I was just out of college, just starting my career. I very much identified with the kids.”

But for “Social Studies,” “I came to this project as a mother, in terms of how the kids see me,” the filmmaker said.

Advertisement

Dependence on devices and time spent on social media rose dramatically during the pandemic, as restless, isolated teens looked for an escape. In 2021, the surgeon general issued a public health advisory on teen mental health; however, research hasn’t found a direct link between the crisis and social media use.

Sydney, standing to the right, in her freshman dorm room at the University of Arizona. Her relationship to social media, and the temptation to project a sexualized image, is explored in “Social Studies.”

(Lauren Greenfield / Institute )

Greenfield’s series explores the everyday pressures teens confront that have been intensified by social media, including bullying, body-image issues and comparison culture.

Advertisement

“‘Fast Forward’ was all about media influence and how kids were being changed and impacted by media influence. I called it the influence of Hollywood because I was specifically looking at celebrity and image culture and materialism,” Greenfield said. “I wanted to come back and explore the same subject but with this new influence of social media. It was similar but amplified. Social media was everything I had looked at throughout my career but on steroids.”

The series was largely filmed in Los Angeles and features teens from 10 schools, including Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles and Hamilton high schools. Greenfield shot roughly 1,200 hours of footage over 150 days — covering the 2021-22 school year and some subsequent months. She also recorded the teens’ phone and social media use.

The teens who open up their phones and their lives include Sydney, who grapples with curating her social feeds with provocative videos and images of herself; Ellie, who had a taste of viral fame after her relationship with actor Jack Dylan Grazer (nephew to mega Hollywood producer Brian Grazer); and Jonathan, who volunteers at Teen Line, the nationwide nonprofit hotline. A filmmaker himself, Jonathan sets out on a parallel journey, making a movie about teen life with many of the same subjects while taking part in Greenfield’s documentary.

The series arrives at a pivotal moment. On Wednesday, California legislators passed the Phone-Free Schools Act, which would require public schools to create policies to limit or prohibit cellphone use by 2026. The Los Angeles Unified school board already passed a measure this summer to ban phones on campus; it’s expected to take effect in January.

In a conversation earlier this month, edited here for length and clarity, Greenfield discussed how she treated her young subjects as experts, the ease in capturing teens authentically and why parents should watch.

Advertisement

1 Sydney in "Social Studies."

2 Two girls stare at a laptop screen while in bed.

1. Sydney in “Social Studies.” (Lauren Greenfield / Institute ) 2. Ellie, right, in “Social Studies.” (Lauren Greenfield / Institute )

So much of what you’re after is capturing your subject in a raw and authentic way. And when you’re dealing with kids who have grown up in this digital era, where so much of the image they put out there is curated, I imagine it was challenging to know when you’re really getting the authentic piece.

Surprisingly, I felt like they really brought themselves. I remember the first group session, nobody dressed up. It wasn’t even like school, which is a bit of a fashion show. It was more like camp. People were not wearing makeup, they were not curating outfits.

Advertisement

I remember a long time ago, somebody told me, “If you spend enough time, you really get authentic selves,” because posing or pretending takes a lot of energy, and eventually, it’s too taxing. That’s always been really important to my work, slow journalism. There’s always a process of people becoming more and more comfortable with you. I also started with a little bit of a bigger group than I ended up with, but the ones whose stories I really followed, we became very close, and I depend on that. They have to let me know something is happening so I can go and be there. And so they opened up more and more. I felt like by the end, they really presented their authentic selves.

For this one, everybody knew we’re looking at social media and its impact, and even in terms of who I selected, the kids had to care about that because it’s a lot to open up your lives. I think a lot of the kids felt a sense of purpose in doing that.

Having conversations with teens, particularly ones you don’t know, can be challenging. In addition to one-on-one interviews, you held group sessions. It felt a little bit like “The Breakfast Club.” Kids who maybe wouldn’t ordinarily talk to each other are in this room together, realizing their commonalities. Did you see that as a way to get your subjects comfortable?

I like that you said “The Breakfast Club” because that was a little bit of inspiration. The first seven groups I did, we weren’t even filming them as groups yet. I just wanted to hear what they thought was important, what I should cover, what were the problems. I wanted to be led by them. One of the big impetuses for this is I felt like the kids are the experts. We’ve seen experts talk about this topic, we’ve heard from parents, we’ve heard from tech, we’ve heard from legislature leaders, but I feel like the kids were the experts. One of the things I really tried to do was capture the duality of them being both subjects and experts.

There’s three elements: There’s the vérité — where we see them in their lives, sometimes they’re posturing, sometimes they’re presenting, sometimes they’re with friends, sometimes they’re lying. There’s the interviews where they’re just brutally honest, they break the fourth wall, they tell me the truth. That was really interesting, because also we have their social [media screen capture,] so we see the difference between what they’re saying and what they’re showing. And then the third perspective is the group where they’re talking to each other, and there they also were very honest. Sometimes they said it was almost like therapy; it was a place where they could talk about things that were affecting them all the time.

Advertisement

1 Students sitting in chairs arranged in a circle in a library.

2 A teen boy in a blue shirt speaking to a group.

1. Teens featured in “Social Studies” gather for one of the group discussions held by filmmaker Lauren Greenfield. (Lauren Greenfield / Institute ) 2. Dominic, center, speaks during one of the sessions. (Lauren Greenfield / Institute )

One of the striking elements to the series is that you’ve asked your subjects to screen record their activity on their phone. How important was that piece?

So important. I feel like it’s a time capsule of the culture, the stuff that we captured. It’s really shocking to see how the algorithm works, to see how toxic some of the rabbit holes can be and to see the details of it. In the series, I didn’t want to have it be two worlds, like cut to a screen on black. I wanted a lot of the social that we’re seeing to be on top of the live action. I really wanted to show that these worlds are intertwined, intermixed, multitasking, and sometimes they’re opposing each other. Sometimes there’s fiction and nonfiction. I don’t want to give away too much for the audience, but I think there’s a lot of really shocking content.

Advertisement

And my hope for the series, ultimately, is that it leads to some kind of regulation. “Fast Forward” was about the early loss of innocence in the ’90s. Now, there’s no innocence. There’s no childhood. You can’t keep your child from seeing devastating things, and they can’t even keep themselves from it, in the sense that the algorithm is going to take you by the hand, and whatever you’re curious about, feed you more and more stuff, and whatever your weakness is, it’ll pull you further into that. And the companies that are creating the algorithm are not doing it with the kids’ best interest in mind. They’re doing it with the interest of keeping them engaged on the platform.

The other theme that’s gone through all of my work, which came back here with a vengeance, is addiction, because it’s really addictive. I struggled with my own son to give limits. But what I realized when I was doing this is, it’s not fair to ask kids to regulate themselves. It’s like opiate addiction.

With fictional depictions of teen life — whether it’s “Euphoria,” “Thirteen” or even “Beverly Hills, 90210” — it’s easy to say, “That’s the extreme, it’s not really like that for teens. But the first episode of this series is pretty jarring.

A portrait of a blond woman with glasses.

Filmmaker Lauren Greenfield: “My hope for the series, ultimately, is that it leads to some kind of regulation.”

(Marcus Ubungen / For The Times)

Advertisement

When I was doing feedback screenings, I showed [filmmaker] Nicole Holofcener, and after the first episode, she said, “This is a horror movie.” I don’t think it’s a horror movie for kids, though. I think that kids — and also 20-somethings, because I did some feedback screenings with those groups — see themselves. I think the kids are saying: “We need to talk about this.” There’s one part where Sydney’s mom’s like, “I don’t want to go in my kids’ TikTok.” But what I’m trying to do is say, “We need to be in this business. We need to have them share their experience.” What I love is that the kids are the ones who are saying, “This is concerning.” They’re saying, “You need to pay attention.” By the way, the parents — and I’m guilty of this myself — are posting on Facebook, I did this, I did that, but not always realizing how toxic it is.

Right. Sydney’s mother talks about her own social media use, specifically Facebook. How much did you want to hear from the parents?

At first, I wasn’t planning on including the parents. I thought it was going to be more like Charlie Brown, where the parents don’t understand and they’re in the background. Sydney’s mother was a really important voice. I feel like the parents are responsible, loving parents for the most part and yet have no idea. It’s not that they don’t want to help their kids, it’s like they don’t know what’s going on and they don’t know how.

With Sydney’s mom, there was a scene that I filmed where Sydney’s mom was like, “Don’t wear that short skirt outside.” She is an enlightened woman who doesn’t like the sexualization, but it’s a really hard thing to come down on because there’s a feeling among girls, and I’ve seen this in my own capturing of feminism and new feminism, where girls feel like showing their bodies is their right and their self-expression and they want to own that. And from my generation of feminism, I feel like that is not your voice and that it may feel like self-expression, but actually, it’s making the body the primary expression of identity. I don’t think it is good for either girls or boys.

I really tried to not fault the parents because I feel like I also did not know what was going on with my kids. Like I said, I have to sit down at the table and be like, “Is BDSM really a trend” to my teenagers? I was sure they were going to say no, and when they said yes, I almost fell out of my chair.

Advertisement

What were those conversations like to get parents of the teen subjects in the film on board?

I think a lot of them looked at my other work and could see this isn’t entertainment. It’s purpose-driven, and not everybody opted in, but the ones who did saw it as an interesting opportunity. We started talking to kids and parents in spring 2021 and we didn’t start [filming] until August 2021. I’m really grateful to the kids and the families because it was a lot to ask.

What is the push and pull of wanting to provide this anthropological look at teen life today while, in turn, asking them to put themselves out there on, arguably, a more mainstream platform as a TV series?

For one, in terms of choosing kids, of course, one of the big subjects around social media is fame. And one of the things I was looking at was fame as a value and how values have shifted. Even when I was doing “Generation Wealth,” I was really struck by, when you ask kids what they want to be when they grow up, they say rich and famous instead of a particular job. So when I was looking for kids, I did try to correct for not bringing in kids that wanted to be in this project to be famous. It wasn’t as much of an issue as I thought, because I don’t think any of them thought that this was a way to be famous.

A teenage boy, holding a video camera, films a peer scrolling on her phone for his documentary project

Jonathan films Sydney, 18, in her bedroom. He’s a videographer at his school and began to chronicle the other students in the group for his own documentary.

(Lauren Greenfield / Institute )

Advertisement

One of your teen subjects, Jonathan, also felt inspiration to make his own film, and there’s a bit of parallel documenting that happens. What piqued your interest about his approach or his perspective?

It’s a big thing when you allow yourself to be in a documentary, so I feel like everybody has to get something out of it. And lots of the kids were makers. Jonathan was the videographer for the school, and that was one of the things that was appealing about him. Plus, he had a different relationship with social media. He wasn’t a poster; I didn’t want everybody being big posters. And he was very serious about his filmmaking. And he wanted to interview kids from our group. He was on this parallel journey with me.

Jonathan offered a lot; he’s a very empathetic person in a time of narcissism and a culture of narcissism, and I think he’s part of what we need. Empathy is another antidote to narcissism and focusing a lot on yourself and being in this feedback loop with yourself.

What do you want audiences to take away after watching this documentary?

Advertisement

Empathy, connection. When they say at the end, “Here we are without phones; we’re just talking” — it’s so great. One time when I was watching that, I almost just started laughing because it’s like a revelation— we’re without phones, we’re talking and it’s so amazing.

It’s a really hard time to grow up. I do think kids show resilience and wisdom, but they do that in the face of a really challenging environment, and ultimately, the adults are responsible for this environment. That’s what I hope we take away: We need to do something about it, to protect kids, because it’s just not fair to ask them to protect themselves.

Entertainment

When, unlike our upcoming 250th anniversary, a bicentennial mattered to orchestras

Published

on

When, unlike our upcoming 250th anniversary, a bicentennial mattered to orchestras

A century and a half ago, Richard Wagner was running out of cash as he was preparing to stage his four momentous nights of opera known as the “Ring Cycle” when he got a message from the Women’s Centennial Executive Committee in Philadelphia. It offered him a princely $5,000 (around $150,000 today) to write a triumphant 12-minute orchestral score to open the Centennial Exposition in Fairmont Park celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

On May 10, 1876, Theodore Thomas, perhaps America’s most famous conductor at the time (he would go on to head the New York Philharmonic and help found the Chicago Symphony), led the premiere of Wagner’s “Grosse Festmarsch” with a 150-member orchestra, its brass and percussion so impressive that the addition of cannon fire Wagner suggested was not needed. The crowd was said to number well over 100,000. President Ulysses S. Grant attended and invited Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil to join him along with members of Congress and Supreme Court justices for what remains a unique Declaration of Independence spectacle and debacle.

The “Centennial March,” as it came to be known, turned out to be dreck. Even Wagner, who carelessly tossed it off in a couple of weeks, said the best thing about the score was the fee, which he had demanded to be paid in gold. But what sounds like something AI might come up with if asked to write a pompous march in the style of Wagner began the American obsession with celebrating the Declaration of Independence, the words and deeds of our presidents, our very democracy with the assist of the symphony orchestra and opera.

One hundred years later, the country was awash with federal, state, city and philanthropic funding for a music-happy bicentennial of exceptional ambition. “With millions available in hand and more money to come,” Time Magazine wrote in 1975, “the Bicentennial is the biggest bonanza for the American composer since Hollywood discovered the musical.”

Advertisement

And so it was. The centerpiece was the National Endowment for the Arts Bicentennial Orchestra Commissioning Project. That funded America’s six top orchestras to each commission a major work that all six would play. In addition, the NEA offered further support to 34 American orchestras for dozens more new scores.

Everyone got into the act. The New York State Council of the Arts alone sponsored 68 commissions. Orchestras everywhere came up with striking projects. The Pittsburgh Symphony, for instance, premiered L.A. composer John LaMontaine’s opera/oratorio “Be Glad Then America” that featured the folk singer Odetta as the Muse of Liberty and enlisted ROTC students to reenact the Battle of Lexington overhead the orchestra.

The National Symphony commissioned symphonies from Roy Harris and William Schuman as well as Alan Hovhaness’ “Ode to Freedom,” a lovely short violin concerto written for Yehudi Menuhin. The list goes on.

We are obviously not seeing or hearing much like that in a semiquincentennial year when our government’s green gets the most attention for promoting algae. Even so, the NEA does indeed have an “America250” project (though it does little to publicize it, let alone fund it on the scale of 50 years ago) that is promoting more than 50 artworks. In music, they range from the Montgomery Symphony’s premiere in February of Nkeiru Okoye’s oratorio “A Time for Jubilee,” commemorating the 60th anniversary of the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery civil rights marches, to a New West Symphony premiere last weekend of Michael Christie’s “A Ronald Reagan Portrait” at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum.

The major East Coast orchestras are paying some attention. The New York Philharmonic premiered David Lang’s luminous “the wealth of nations.” The National Symphony got the most attention in its attempt to commission Philip Glass’ “Lincoln” Symphony, which the composer pulled in opposition to an un-Lincoln-like presidential takeover of the Kennedy Center. Glass then gave the rights to the Boston Symphony for a July 5 first performance.

Advertisement

The National Symphony did pull off the premiere of Peter Boyer’s “American Mosaic,” and it was to the Altadena composer that Philadelphia, this time around, entrusted its Declaration of Independence commemoration. Boyer’s multimedia oratorio, “A Hundred Years On,” was given its premiere by the Philadelphia Orchestra last month at the orchestra’s outdoor summer home, the Mann Center.

Upcoming will be a few repeat performances. Next month, “the wealth of nations” lands at the Aspen Festival, as does the “Lincoln” Symphony at the Cabrillo festival (with an L.A. Phil performance next season). “American Mosaic,” of which the Pacific Symphony was a co-commissioner, had its West Coast premiere in Costa Mesa last month and was scheduled to be performed at the Hollywood Bowl by the National Symphony in August, but that has now been replaced by Dvorak’s commonplace “New World Symphony.”

None of this comes close to comparing with the attempted civic zest of 1976. The NEA made it a matter of admirable policy that commissioned new works get multiple performances. Yet despite several of these being substantial works by some of our most noted and venturesome composers, few bicentennial commissions have survived. Even odder is that many of the composers did not necessarily feel compelled to explore nationalist themes. For them, American liberty implied freedom to simply write the kind of music they cared about.

The six works for the six orchestras were David del Tredici’s irresistibly over-the-top “Final Alice” (Chicago Symphony), Elliott Carter’s arrestingly impenetrable-on-first-hearing “Symphony for Three Orchestras” (New York Philharmonic), John Cage’s irrepressibly come-what-may “Renga” (Boston Symphony), Morton Subotnick’s brilliant electronic-landscaped “Before the Butterfly” (Los Angeles Philharmonic), Leslie Bassett’s introspective “Echoes From an Invisible World” and Jacob Druckman’s abstract-modernist “Chiaroscuro” (Cleveland Orchestra).

No orchestra has brought back its commission over the last half century, and only Chicago and New York recorded their commissions. No recording at all exists of L.A.’s, although Subotnick’s inventive uses of electronic music with a standard symphony orchestra went on to have considerable influence. None of these works, it appears, are likely to be heard anywhere in America this year, with one sort-of exception.

Advertisement

An explanation for that may be that, while 1976 was a fraught time for America — the country was recovering from the Vietnam War, we had a president and vice president who were not elected, there was runaway inflation, etc. — the music of the time represented optimism. Many works around the country explored new electronic music technology. It was the year Glass wrote “Einstein on the Beach” and Steve Reich created “Music for 18 Musicians” — the composers’ first masterpieces — demonstrating that Minimalism mattered.

That sense of liberation is clearly behind Del Tredici’s “Final Alice,” an hourlong romp around the ending of “Alice in Wonderland” for superhuman soprano and orchestra. It is so obsessively and addictively wild that its tamest moments sound like Richard Strauss on LSD. It does have a cult following although performances are few and far between.

Cage’s score is an abstract work based on the Japanese form of collective poetry known as renga, in which each poet attempts to write a line that is as distant as possible in meaning from the preceding line. Cage translates that to an independence of instrumental parts. While “Renga” can be performed alone Cage further suggests it be played along with an actual bicentennial work he wrote separately, “Apartment House 1776.” That is what Boston and the other orchestras did.

Indeed, “Apartment House” got the lion’s share of bicentennial attention and ridicule. When Zubin Mehta conducted it at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, the L.A. Philharmonic did not take it seriously and many walked out on it.

The work features four vocal soloists who represent Native American, Sephardic, African American and Protestant religious traditions, along with instrumental music based on early American hymn tunes. Everything is cut up and put together through chance operations into what Cage called a Musicircus. Under the circumstances “Renga” was hardly noticed, although two decades later, “Renga” came into its own when Michael Tilson Thomas famously conducted it with the San Francisco Symphony and the surviving members of the Grateful Dead.

Advertisement

Still the idea that “Apartment House” need not stand alone, that our traditions and those of long-ago Japan belong together, represented for Cage a future for America. We need not act like a superpower, he noted, but merely be one nation, no more and no less, among many.

We are obviously not that nation. A half-century later, “Apartment House” tends to exist mainly in its own right. An excellent London new music ensemble calls itself Apartment House. Detroit Opera recently staged it with a 2026 need to give the singers the opportunity to select their own music rather than reflect on our heritage. If American music in 1976 represented a collective, inquisitive, inventive American spirit of discovery, the semiquincentennial in the age of social media has become more about the individual identity.

As a sign of how we think about ourselves, the Los Angeles Philharmonic begins its Hollywood Bowl season five days after the 4th with a program of American music conducted by Thomas Wilkins that opens with Valery Coleman’s “Fanfare for Uncommon Times,” which was written five years ago.

But for now, the work that stands out is Lang’s “the wealth of nations.” It balances harsh thoughts of how the promise of capitalism has failed society and how racism remains with music of stunning beauty and glory, to gently but forcefully show us, in our age of American dissatisfaction, the direction in which we might go to make us proud again. It needs many performances.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Sender

Published

on

Sender

In Sender, writer-director Russell Goldman’s high-anxiety debut, the filmmaker expands on his 2022 short Return to Sender, in which Allison Tolman starred as a woman who receives packages she didn’t order. That may not sound like a premise that would result in a paranoid, darkly comedic thriller, much less a feature. But in extending his story from 18 minutes to just over 90, Goldman follows a maddening scenario involving an online retailer called Smirk, a fictionalized Amazon counterpart. More significantly, he captures the frenzied mindset of his protagonist, who grapples with staying sober and several other major life changes—all compounded by a layer of justifiable paranoia brought on by the endless packages. Goldman’s tweaky style and elusive scripting create a peculiar, out-of-whack presentation that destabilizes the viewer, firmly placing us in his main character’s perspective. However, by the end, the journey through this cine-manic headspace doesn’t add up to much, and the potential character study at the center feels somewhat lost in the mechanics of the conspiracy. 

Britt Lower (AppleTV’s Severance) stars as Julia, who has just lost her job and moved into a rental home to get her life on track. She is backed financially by her overbearing sister Tatiana (Anna Baryshnikov), who occasionally comes nosing around to verify that Julia doesn’t backslide. And she doesn’t. Julia attends regular Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, where she meets the steely Whitney (Rhea Seehorn), who isn’t interested in being her sponsor. But at home, Julia receives a Smirk package with her brand of lipstick. The problem? She didn’t order it. She calls customer service, and the representative doesn’t help much before telling her, “Be sure to stay alert and aware.” Wait, what? Sender is loaded with nagging, unplaceable details like this. They’re often amusing, intriguing, and exasperating in the same moment. But these pieces don’t complete a whole picture, at least not a narratively satisfying one. 

The Smirk packages, delivered by the outwardly helpful, nice-guy driver Charlie (David Dastmalchian), contain a random assortment of objects, from drum kits to protein powder. The squirrelly Julia, already coming apart at the seams from her recent drama, doesn’t know what to make of it. She’s convinced there’s some plot against her, perhaps by someone at Smirk. To what end, she doesn’t know. But Goldman gives us a glimpse of the long-term consequences of her ordeal in the prologue, which features Jamie Lee Curtis (also a producer) as Lisa, a woman in circumstances similar to Julia’s. Lisa’s response to receiving a box of soil with a broken shin pad (with “Can’t Can’t Can” scrawled on it) entails an attempt to suffocate herself with the bubble wrap, only to do far worse with a sharp edge of the shin pad. To show Lisa’s fate, Goldman’s imagery becomes twisted and surreal but also cryptic. 

Sender’s disorienting mood is matched by a skewed formal presentation. Cinematographer Gemma Doll-Grossman’s wide-angle lenses and arch angles might feel at home in a Ken Russell or Terry Gilliam feature such as The Devils (1971) or 12 Monkeys (1996). Julia’s half-remembered drinking binges, accented by blurry close-ups, suggest she may have slept with any number of coworkers. She can’t remember, and it embarrasses her. Her rental is dressed in simple if shabby décor, which gives way to Julia’s erratic collage-like overhaul. Melisa Myers’ stuffed production design makes the most of heightened colors and banal, cluttered rooms that lend a normality to the bizarre, ever more disturbing predicament. Nathan Ruyle’s erratic music delivers what must be described as a soundscape rather than a traditional score, with collusive sound effects and tones driving our certainty that Julia is onto something. Along with Marco Rosas’ discordant editing, Goldman’s technical approach effectively reflects Julia’s fragmented, sleep-deprived mind. But his work as a writer hasn’t done enough to justify this level of technique. 

After Julia makes a revelatory discovery that small cameras have been embedded in the products from those mysterious packages, the eventual explanation about what has been happening and why strains logic and underwhelms. It also raises even more unanswered questions. Although well-made and acted—Lower and Seehorn should be on track to movie stardom—Goldman’s script could have used another draft to better work through what unfolds. Sender doesn’t give us enough of its characters’ inner lives beyond the situation at hand, so Julia, Charlie, Tatiana, and Whitney feel like devices in a scenario rather than well-drawn human beings. Even so, Goldman fills his film with deeply broken people who try to gain control of their lives by controlling others, exposing and preying on their weaknesses. Despite the material’s potential resonance, Goldman’s style is overpowering. Still, his kernel of an idea and the way he explores it demonstrate his clear skill, and for much of Sender, its sheer oddball energy earns admiration.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Entertainment

Danny Glover reveals Alzheimer’s diagnosis, says family has his back

Published

on

Danny Glover reveals Alzheimer’s diagnosis, says family has his back

“Lethal Weapon” star Danny Glover has revealed he has been living with Alzheimer’s disease for years.

In an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt that aired on the “Today” show on Wednesday, the 79-year-old actor and activist opened up about living with the disease. According to People, he received his diagnosis in 2023, which was not long after he was awarded an honorary Oscar in 2022.

“I could live with it, in a sense,” Glover says of his condition, which has been affecting his movement, speech and memory. “I’m sure as it advances, things are going to be different and changing.”

A neurodegenerative disease, Alzheimer’s is a type of dementia that affects memory, thinking and behavior and worsens over time, according to the Alzheimer’s Assn. Holt reports that more than 7 million Americans over 65 are living with Alzheimer’s, with Black men suffering at a rate double the national average.

Advertisement

Glover and his family say the Hollywood icon is sharing his story now to “have ownership of his life” and to help remove the stigma around the disease.

“They’ve got my back,” Glover says of his family’s support.

Besides his portrayal of L.A. police Det. Roger Murtaugh in the “Lethal Weapon” film series, Glover is known for roles in movies including “Places in the Heart” (1984), “The Color Purple” (1985), “To Sleep With Anger” (1990), “Angels in the Outfield” (1994), “Dreamgirls” (2006) and “The Last Black Man in San Francisco” (2019). He’s also been a vocal advocate for social justice and humanitarian causes both in the U.S. and abroad.

He was the recipient of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award in 2022.

“I don’t feel like it’s the end of my life,” he said in his interview with People about living with Alzheimer’s. “There’s work to do.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending