3.5/5 stars

While the tragicomic tale of midlife crisis in Rob N Roll represented a welcome change of pace from the plain silly offerings typical of this time of the year, Hit N Fun tells a bittersweet and at times almost philosophical story that again feels like it is striving to separate itself from all those Lunar New Year comedies.

When high-flying advertising executive Elsa (Louise Wong Dan-nei) first meets washed-up actress Carrie (Gigi Leung Wing-kei) at an audition for a menopause product commercial, the two don’t exactly start off on the right foot.

Can “This Is Us” collaborators Dan Fogelman and Sterling K. Brown reunite without making viewers cry?

It’s possible in the new TV world of Fogelman’s creation, Hulu’s “Paradise,” which stars Brown as CIA agent Xavier Collins, who is suspected of killing the president, Cal Bradford, played by James Marsden.

But did he? Or is someone else responsible? And is that the only question we should be focused on?

For six seasons, Fogelman’s “This Is Us” had viewers on their emotional toes with the time-jumping drama that told the sentimental story of a family across decades, infusing it with twists and turns uncommon to the genre but inherent to life. With “Paradise,” Fogelman puts his affinity for twists and turns to use, this time in a political conspiracy thriller. There may be less tears, but a death hangs over this series, too. In true Fogelman fashion, though, the final moments of the pilot reveal there’s also something bigger at play: This story is set inside an underground community funded by a tech billionaire, played by Julianne Nicholson, after a massive catastrophe threatens the extinction of the human race.

“Ironically, it’s a show that’s pretty void of politics completely, even though it’s about a president and it also — I don’t think it necessarily lectures on things like climate change — it’s just you watch a series of events unfold,” Fogelman says. “I’m not smart enough to write anything with an agenda. I just write. But clearly, there are things in the ether and there are things in the air right now that are underneath the show.”

And the questions that drive the season, according to Fogelman, won’t overstay their welcome.

“I wanted to serve a complete meal to people that watch a show in the first season,” Fogelman said. “A big challenge we had during ‘This Is Us’ was it was not a murder mystery, but it had this one mystery that was propulsive — it took us 14 episodes to answer it. With the time it’s taken to get things back on the air, and also just what the conception of the show is, I felt it was important that by the end of the first season, all eight episodes, you should have every question you’ve asked answered.”

Three of the season’s eight episodes are now streaming. During a recent sit-down in Los Angeles, Brown and Marsden spoke about the show’s big twist, how they would respond to crisis their characters confront, and backside acting.

Dan typically keeps things close to the vest when it comes to his twists and reveals. How much did you know about that final twist at the end of the pilot?

Brown: He didn’t tell me anything. He just wants you to read it. And this is something that he does in general. He doesn’t really tend to pitch things out because I don’t think he wants anybody’s notes. He just wants to present them [with the script] and say, “This is what the show is gonna be. If you like it, great. If you don’t, I’ll go somewhere else.” So I read it and really just enjoying the world of it — very similar to how I was enjoying “This Is Us” — then you get to the end of it, and your mind just goes [eyes grow wide]. I couldn’t believe he did it to me again. I did not see it coming. Kudos to him for always finding a way to make something rich that much richer.

Marsden: His [Dan’s] interest and curiosity about the human experience, and the range of experience we can have, and the confusion with emotions and relationships and the complexities of relationships, is this real fertile ground for him. No matter how ornate and spectacular or destructive or whatever the circumstances are within the plot, the core of that in a Dan show is the humans, it’s the relationships and how they’re affected by all of that.

At the end of the first episode, Sterling, your character is told some top secret security news, which is that the world is nearing the extinction of the human race. Can you keep that secret, Sterling?

Brown: I would be worried how people would react. I would probably be prone to tell people who I knew would be like, “OK, I’m gonna tell you something that’s gonna be crazy, but I need you to use this information for your benefit without sort of freaking out.” There would probably be some people that I would share it with, but it would be a very small group because that’s an enormous responsibility. And if you would have just blasted it out, it probably wouldn’t have been the reaction that you want from the world at large either. It’s a very difficult predicament to hold that.

Marsden: Yeah, I would have real regret if I didn’t and it negatively affected the people I care about. But I guess what we get into in the show a little bit is like, “OK, well, if you can keep this secret, then it will benefit you? Is that even fair?” My instinct would be that: I’m telling you this, but if the response to this is a panic or telling the wrong person, we’re gonna be f— even quicker.

Brown: You could have had to take me out, bro. If I didn’t feel well with this information, you might have been like, “All right, he’s off the [CIA] detail.”

Marsden: Are we looking at this like it’s terminal? Like, there’s no Paradise hope? I think I would probably not say.

Sterling K. Brown stars in the new Hulu series, “Paradise,” as a CIA agent suspected of killing the president.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

It’s almost too timely to ask this question in light of recent events, but how do you think you’d react in a moment like that? The fear, figuring out what you would take with you if faced with it.

Brown: It’s interesting because the [Los Angeles] fires just transpired … so my heart goes out to everybody who’s dealing with that. I had a few friends lose their homes. You know about the folks from “This Is Us,” [former co-star Milo Ventimiglia lost his home, and Mandy Moore’s sustained damage in the fires earlier this month] but a buddy of mine from Stanford who’s a lawyer, his home of about 12 years burned to the ground. I was actually out of the country shooting [a project]. We have this Marco Polo group thread and I was like, “Dude, what is the process like of deciding what you take? What are the things that you absolutely want to hold on to?” He’s like, “Dude, I left thinking that I was going to go back to the house. I didn’t even have a chance to really get all the stuff that I wanted.” So my wife and I started this conversation: What would I take? And she started getting mad at me about the things that I decided to take. And I was like, “There’d be a few mementos, but I really need my workout clothes because I need to work out the next day.” And she’s like, “You can go buy some more.” That’s where my head went. But it is a moment of analytical paralysis because it’s so big to consume. I guess you have to give yourself a thought experiment or otherwise you’re just frozen in that.

Marsden: I was out driving and as I was driving back to my house — there in the Hollywood Hills was the Sunset fire, so we evacuated as well; obviously nothing near [as bad as] Palisades and Altadena, but I remember being washed over with a sort of worrisome calm. It was like, “OK, you’re down here, you’re not up there.” I hate to say this because people lost their houses and things and valuables and children’s photos. But for me, it was like, “My kids are safe, my family is safe. I’m OK. There are others in way worse positions than I right now and I’m gonna be all right.” I didn’t feel compelled to race up there and try to get things out. Maybe that’s shock or some sort defense mechanism, or shutting down.

James, you have played a real president before, John F. Kennedy — so, you had something to emulate and build from in playing that. What were the conversations like with Dan as he talked about the kind of leader Cal would be, especially in a moment of crisis like this?

Marsden: He did bring up Kennedy a couple of times in the context of [how] the man was a great communicator, he was the smartest guy in the room, but he knew to surround himself with other very exceptional individuals. But ultimately he would put that through his decoder and his processor and do what was right for the people. I think Cal’s similar in that way. We never were trying to recreate. It wasn’t like a blueprint from a U.S. president we were taking, but it was more about who is this person as a human being. I found it really interesting that Dan told me that he [Cal] has the job, but he doesn’t really want the job. He’s here because he’s been conditioned to become that by his family. That was a really interesting template to dive off of creatively as a character because OK, what makes this guy tick? What interests him? What sort of regrets does he have about mistakes he’s made in his life, and how can he figure out a way of fulfilling the promises that maybe he hasn’t really been so great at holding true to. There was real great evolution of the character through the show, and that was exciting to me, that it was a person, it wasn’t a president.

Sterling K. Brown and James Marsden in Hulu’s “Paradise.” “There was real great evolution of the character through the show, and that was exciting to me, that it was a person, it wasn’t a president,” Marsden says.

(Ser Baffo/Disney)

I know this idea has been percolating with Dan for about a decade and the show doesn’t necessarily intend to touch on the political points of the current moment. But time has caught up — whether it’s concerns with the climate right now or what’s unfolding on the political stage.

Brown: Yeah, it’s hard not to notice. I do think the show asks a very interesting question regarding who holds real power. What is the nature of that real power? The strange bedfellows of capitalism and politics, and should they necessarily be so closely intertwined with one another? Do we need a little bit more separation? I think the show, or at least I argue that the answer to that is, yes. I was listening to something on my IG [Instagram] the other day [that said something like] the 400 wealthiest white people had the collective income of all the Black people in America; the collective 1000 richest white people in America have the collective resources of all African Americans and Latinos in America. And I’m like, “Wow” [eyes grow wide]. So, is government for the people or is government for the people that are able to fund the campaign? I think the show tangentially touches on that little bit. In terms of climate, I think the show is saying, “You gotta take care of this planet, man.” We cannot be cavalier. We’ve got a lot of people giving us a lot of warnings of what is going to happen if we don’t change.

Marsden: It’s harrowing. Nobody wants this to be the case. And what do we do? And how do we separate the facts when there’s so much misinformation? Is this a reality that we’re going to have to accept at some point or is it not?

So, you’re told that there’s an underground community happening in Colorado and you’ve been selected. Are you likely to go or would you be like, ”I don’t want to be underground.” And what necessities or essentials do you want there with you?

Marsden: Your people. If you can’t have your people, I’m staying.

Brown: I agree with that. If it’s a matter of life or death, I’m going if I can take my people with me. If I’m going to be alone by myself, without my kids and my wife, I’d rather be with my kids and my wife, and we’ll all go to heaven.

Marsden: I feel like, if this would have happened, it’d have to be a very quick lottery. As much as your survival instinct kicks in, and you want to go and have all your people in — and then you’re there, watching the rest of the world perish. I would be feeling so guilty and terrible, but also happy that you have your people.

James Marsden plays the president in a pre- and post-apocalyptic U.S. in Hulu’s “Paradise.”

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

And the chili cheese fries, which are apparently a must in this makeshift world.

Brown: That are not made with real milk. The lack of animal product is tough, but we can’t be releasing methane up in a cave. It’s not a good look.

Sterling, the third episode’s final moments has a reveal of a different sort for you: your backside in the shower scene. I wondered what both your reactions were in reading that in the script. Was that a twist you expected?

Marsden: I’m an admirer of the human physique, male or female. Thank God it’s him.

Brown: [laughs]

Marsden: And I thought I was in shape!

Brown: You are in shape. You’re in great shape. I focus on the posterior chain. It’s important to me. A lot of power lays in the back.

Marsden: What is the posterior chain?

Brown: Posterior chain is everything up and down the backside of your body and the posterior.

Marsden: I have a posterior ch—. Not a fully developed chain.

Brown: James’ [character] is dead. But if James is free, and as I go to the writers room, if there’s a possible flashback, hopefully we can get him back for Season 2 if and when we get picked up to work for that butt shot.

Marsden: I could work this thing out for 20 years and I would never look like this man.

Rating: 7.5/10

Spoilers ahead for “Presence”.

The ghost haunting trope: one of the most — if not the most — stereotypical horror tropes to have ever become popularized.

Given how stereotypical it is, it might even be tempting to argue such a trope is irrelevant in our modern age of convoluted psychological thrillers, weird vampire sex movies and disturbing body horror.

On one hand, you’d be right to have that argument; ghost hauntings are just not good material for films that are meant to be scary.

On the other hand, there’s always a lot of artistic value that can be gained from subverting a traditional trope for an ulterior purpose, and that’s exactly what “Presence” does best. Although it doesn’t exactly deliver on the traditional horror or thriller that you’d expect, the perspective “Presence” takes on this traditional trope is intriguing and — for all its faults — uniquely innovative.

The main feature — or gimmick, depending on how you look at it — of “Presence” is its unique cinematography. The film is shot from the first-person perspective of the ghost, spirit, presence or whatever the hell it is that’s haunting the house in the movie. Although it does run the risk of becoming gimmicky at times, the shot does much more to help the film than it does to hurt it.

There are times when the special shot is touching, giving us insight into a unique character arc that involves a sort of posthumous redemption for one of the main characters. Then there are also times when you just have to laugh because it’s so obvious that the creators of the film are self-aware of how weird it is to film from the first-person perspective of a ghost. 

For example, there’s one scene where the main character and her boyfriend are undressing together, so the ghost starts destroying her closet to stop them from having sex. It’s things like this that make the new shot perspective unique and funny without being obtrusive or ruining your enjoyment of the movie.

However, the new shot does come with one absolutely huge issue: It is tasked with carrying the entire movie.

There are a lot of problems with this film. The dialogue is some of the worst I’ve ever witnessed, almost all the characters are completely insufferable, and — although the plot has some interesting existential themes — it is fairly stereotypical and forgettable.

Even so, there are times when “Presence” comes remarkably close to finding solid footing in its own right. The relationship between the father and daughter in the film is touching, and there are a few scenes that seem relatively realistic, dialogue-wise. But then you’ll just have a random subplot opened up about tax fraud that’s never followed up on. Also, why the hell do you need to have a subplot about tax fraud in a thriller movie in the first place?

It’s difficult to fault anyone in particular for some of these issues; it is a ghost haunting movie after all. Still, the burden is on studios to produce good films, and they just aren’t nailing a lot of the fundamentals here.

This is why it’s so difficult to accurately judge “Presence”. Although it does have a lot of issues that would have me throw out almost any other film, the unique style taken by the movie almost demands a watch. It’s at least nice to see something innovative in the industry from time to time, and this movie is certainly a leader in that department.

So, I think as my final verdict, I’ll have to say this: Go watch it, but don’t expect greatness; instead, expect a unique and innovative film with plenty of its own faults. It’s not perfect, but it’s different. And sometimes, that’s enough.

Kaleb Blizzard is a philosophy sophomore and opinion writer for The Battalion.