Connect with us

Entertainment

Sam Waterston talks about his final 'Law & Order' episode and Jack McCoy's 'beautiful exit'

Published

on

Sam Waterston talks about his final 'Law & Order' episode and Jack McCoy's 'beautiful exit'

“It’s been a hell of a ride.”

With those parting words, Jack McCoy stepped down from his job as Manhattan district attorney after decades of public service — and Sam Waterston bid farewell to his signature role on “Law & Order” after 19 seasons and 405 episodes spread over 30 years.

To put this run into perspective, Waterston made his debut appearance as McCoy in September 1994 in the Season 5 premiere of “Law & Order” — the same week that “ER” and “Friends” premiered on NBC. The Dick Wolf procedural — which famously told stories about “the police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders” was already a well-established hit, but it had yet to become a ubiquitous, seemingly indestructible pop culture franchise.

Waterston, who joined the series after the contentious departure of actor Michael Moriarty, helped prove that the format was durable enough to withstand major cast shakeups. Yet he also became the closest thing “Law & Order” had to a central protagonist — the “ultimate conscience of the show,” as Wolf has put it.

Well before male antiheroes took over TV, Waterston played McCoy as a no-nonsense attorney who was passionate about justice but also willing to bend the rules in order to obtain a conviction — a prickly character whose sharp edges were somehow softened by Waterston’s soothing voice and avuncular demeanor. And though McCoy’s personal life was hinted at only fleetingly throughout the series, the character clearly wrestled with private demons (including a proclivity for affairs with his glamorous assistant district attorneys).

Advertisement

A Yale-educated actor who has played Hamlet on Broadway, Waterston admits there was a time he looked down on TV. Initially, he only planned to do a single season of “Law & Order.” But Waterston remained on the series until it was canceled in 2010. He is the rare actor to star in a long-running TV series who managed not to be pigeonholed by the part that made him famous, working continually in the dozen years “Law & Order” was off the air in shows including “Grace and Frankie.” He agreed to reprise his role when NBC revived the series in 2022, anchoring a new cast that included Hugh Dancy as assistant district attorney Nolan Price. But earlier this month, NBC announced that Waterston would be leaving the series, with Tony Goldwyn set to star as the incoming D.A.

Waterston’s farewell episode — written by Rick Eid and Pamela Wechsler and fittingly titled “Last Dance” — follows the case of Scott Kelton (Rob Benedict), a billionaire tech mogul who is accused of murdering a young woman in Central Park. Mayor Robert Payne (Bruce Altman), whose son is implicated in the case, pushes the D.A.’s office to cut a deal with Kelton — or else he’ll support McCoy’s opponent in the coming election. McCoy resists the pressure and decides to try the case himself, urging the jury to rule fairly and without prejudice despite the high-profile defendant. It works: Kelton is convicted. Over a celebratory drink with Price, he announces he’s going to retire so that the governor can appoint “someone with integrity” to the job. In the closing shot of the episode, McCoy stands alone at night outside the Supreme Court building in Lower Manhattan — then walks off into the darkness.

The Times recently spoke via Zoom with Waterston, who will play Franklin Roosevelt in Tyler Perry’s upcoming World War II drama “Six Triple Eight.” At 83, he is eager to tread the boards once again — and to continue working as steadily as he has for the last six decades.

“Actors don’t really get to tell the future,” he said. “But I’m open for business. If anybody’s reading this and thinking, ‘Oh, too bad. He retired.’ I haven’t retired.”

Jill Hennessy, left, and Sam Waterston in a 1995 episode of “Law & Order.”

Advertisement

(Jessica Burnstein / NBC)

Let’s start with the obvious: Why did you decided to leave now?

I always knew that I was going to stay on a short time. I didn’t want to turn on the TV and see somebody else playing the part when the show came back [in 2022] but I knew it was not for the long term. This was always going to be the year [to leave]. And then “Law & Order” designed just a beautiful exit. I couldn’t have been more pleased with it. They gave me this fantastic send-off, with a pop-up delicatessen on the set, called Sam’s Delicatessen. The last shots were all in the courtroom and speeches were made. Dick Wolf showed up. It was something else.

What did you make of McCoy’s decision to step down rather than face likely defeat in an election?

Advertisement

Once he found out that Sam Waterston was leaving, it was pretty much a done deal.

Take me back to 1994, when you were cast on the show. What made the role appealing to you?

Dick Wolf took me out to lunch and persuaded me that it was a really good idea. Ed Sherin was the executive producer in New York, and he set the tone and made it a really interesting place to work. He was a theater director, and he did a lot of work in television. He had the dream of a lifetime to set up a resident theater somewhere, but he said that this was the fulfillment of that dream. And he grew talent, staff, sound guys, focus pullers — people that are now directors out in the world because of him. It was an extraordinary place to be. It was easy to stay, but I always thought I was gonna leave the next year. I kept on signing up for one more season.

It was known for drawing many actors from New York theater.

We used to joke that it was the Café de la Paix of television. You know that saying about the Café de la Paix, “If you sit there long enough, the whole world passes by?” We used to joke, that was what went on [at “Law & Order”]. We had fantastic guest stars, and all kinds of people who then grew up to be stars on their own. Don’t ask me to name them.

Advertisement

One of the things that’s interesting about “Law & Order” is that we never learn much about the characters outside of work. Jack McCoy’s backstory is pretty patchy, even after 19 seasons. Does this present any challenges or rewards to you as a performer?

The reward is that your own life is not used up. A lot of what you can do and what you are as an actor is also not used up. That means that if somebody goes to see you in a play or a movie while you’re doing “Law & Order,” the audience doesn’t think, “Oh, gee, I already saw this.” And the stuff that you do get to do on the show, and in the case of [when I was] playing McCoy, was very intense, very engaging. The quality control at Wolf Films is fantastically high, so it was good stuff.

Do you have a favorite scene or episode from your run on the series?

The episode that hit me the hardest didn’t really have to do with me, it had to do with Steven Hill, who was playing the D.A. [Adam Schiff] in those days. We did a death penalty [storyline in which] his wife was on life support and dying. He was against pursuing the death penalty [in a case], but the state of New York was for it. [In the episode, “Terminal,”] they juxtaposed the execution, which Jack and his assistant witnessed, with Steven Hill sitting at his wife’s bedside as she was taken off of life support. It was unforgettable. It wasn’t just great “Law & Order,” it was great TV and not just great TV, but really, really mighty.

How do you think Jack McCoy evolved over the years? Especially in earlier seasons, he was known for doing whatever it took to get a conviction. Did he mellow with age?

Advertisement

I don’t think he changed. I think being the D.A. was hard on him because he didn’t change, but to do what was necessary to do the job, he had to restrain himself in ways that he didn’t have to before.

You came back to the show after 12 years away. Was that strange?

What was strange was how familiar it was. What was really strange was that our set, for the whole time that I was on the show, had been at Chelsea Piers, on the west side of Manhattan and they rebuilt those sets at a studio in Queens. You walked onto the set and you’re back in the same world. It made the hair stand up on the back of your neck. When I did “The Great Gatsby,” I walked out of a door in Newport, R.I., and walked into a room in London. That was creepy too.

You did plenty of TV before “Law & Order,” including the NBC drama “I’ll Fly Away,” but you were primarily known for movies and theater. Did you look down on TV at the time?

Of course I did. We all had the same prejudices and now, lo and behold, streaming services are the business. We looked down on it, and we were stupid. When I was growing up, theater was the thing. And the movies were looked down upon. How unbelievable is that? We were dumb people.

Advertisement

You have played Abraham Lincoln on numerous occasions (including in the miniseries “Lincoln” and as a voice actor in Ken Burns’ “The Civil War”), What keeps drawing you back to this part?

I always used to say that if you’re an actor, there should be some reward for being plain. I counted that as the reward. [laughs] It was an excuse to go down an endless rabbit hole of fascination with a really extraordinary person. You can’t exhaust the fascination, especially if you like words. I started out wanting to be a Shakespearean actor. That’s all I wanted. And Lincoln had a way with words.

Odelya Halevi, left, as Samantha Maroun, Hugh Dancy as Nolan Price and Sam Waterston in a scene from “Law & Order.”

(Eric Liebowitz / NBC)

Advertisement

I have to point out that you also played Robert Oppenheimer in a 1980 TV series called “Oppenheimer.”

If you live long enough, all the parts you’ve ever played in your life will come back to you being played by somebody else.

As you look ahead at your career, are there roles that you are still hoping to play?

Sure, but there is no planning. Bradley Cooper plans his career. I am not an actor-producer, so I am very much subject to what comes under the door. There are lots of things I want to do. Joel Gray and I want to do “On Borrowed Time,” a play that was made in 1938 and made into a movie starring Lionel Barrymore. I want to do that, but will I get to do it? We’ll see.

How have you been spending the spare time since you finished the show?

Advertisement

It is mind-boggling. There’s never been a time in all the 60 years of my working as an actor — for which I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the people reading this article, and everybody else in the world [who is] watching — there’s really been no time when I wasn’t either working, or really sweating looking for work. This is the first time I’ve walked off a set without thinking, “What the hell am I going to do next?” It was literally a physical feeling that there was a space opening up in my head that I had not even known existed for all those years, space that was taken up by the job or the search for the job. Suddenly you’re free to think about all kinds of other things. It’s intoxicating and makes you feel drunk.

Fascinating. Is it the freedom of not having to learn all those lines?

That’s part of it. “I have these lines, will I know them on the day?” Also, for an actor, it’s got to do with having a piece of your mind occupied by somebody other than yourself — by the character. I haven’t retired, but McCoy has. I don’t know where he is. He’s on a beach in Brazil or something. But he’s not in my head and it’s really quite extraordinary and wonderful. Just wonderful! But I loved [playing McCoy]. Boy, what a blessing.

You and Jerry Orbach were named living landmarks in New York City. Do you have any recollections of working with him, even though you were not often in scenes together?

We weren’t in that many scenes. But we did pass each other in the hall in the studio very often. And he’s one of the most extraordinary and beautiful people I have ever known, certainly in the profession. I broke one of his rules, which was that you never leave a show while it’s running. I’m going around, saying this to anybody who will listen, that I hope that the theater gods won’t punish me for breaking his rules.

Advertisement

Do you ever find yourself in a hotel room or on a plane, watching yourself in old episodes of “Law & Order” and getting sucked in?

My wife likes to watch old episodes of “Law & Order” while she’s cooking. Sometimes I’m passing through the kitchen and I stop and I think, “Why were you so critical of how you looked in those days? Look at yourself now.”

Movie Reviews

Millie Bobby Brown leads frothy sleuthing caper

Published

on

Millie Bobby Brown leads frothy sleuthing caper

A still from ‘Enola Holmes 3’
| Photo Credit: Netflix

Enola Holmes 3sees Philip Barantini (Adolescence) take over direction from Fleabag’s Harry Bradbeer while Jack Thorne (another Adolescence alum) continues as writer from the first two films. The supposed darker take is not very apparent in this tale featuring the consultant detective’s sister.

Based on Nancy Springer’s charming The Enola Holmes Mysteries, Enola Holmes 3 opens with a wedding in Malta. Enola (Millie Bobby Brown), the younger sister of Sherlock (Henry Cavill), and a detective in her own right, as we have seen from the earlier films, is getting married to sweet, idealistic Lord Tewkesbury (Louis Partridge).

Sherlock is in Malta for the wedding which he strongly disapproves, believing Enola will not be able to pursue her career as a detective once she marries and becomes Lady Tewkesbury. Enola has her own doubts about the marriage — not about Tewkesbury but about his world, the people in it and their expectations.

Enola Holmes 3 (English)

Director: Philip Barantini

Cast: Millie Bobby Brown, Louis Partridge, Himesh Patel, Sharon Duncan-Brewster, Henry Cavill, Helena Bonham Carter, Susan Wokoma

Advertisement

Runtime: 105 minutes

Storyline: As Enola prepares to marry Lord Tewkesbury in Malta, her brother goes missing and the game is afoot

When she finally gets into the carriage for her wedding, she realises she is being followed by a masked rider. After a thrilling chase involving the dropping of many bridal veils, the pursuer is revealed to be Dr Watson (Himesh Patel), Sherlock’s flatmate, friend and chronicler (not yet, though). The mask, the good doctor explains, is for allergies.

He was thundering after Enola because Sherlock has vanished, probably kidnapped, as he was working on another case. When Enola’s future mother-in-law, Lady Tewkesbury (Hattie Morahan) also goes missing, the wedding is forgotten as Enola races against time to solve the mystery.

A still from ‘Enola Holmes 3’

A still from ‘Enola Holmes 3’
| Photo Credit:
Netflix

The pieces of the puzzle include the Battle of Khost in Afghanistan, looted gold, the Maltese fight for independence in the person of Mikiel Mizzi (Joe Azzopardi) from the Partito Anti-Riformista, and the criminal mastermind Moriarty (Sharon Duncan-Brewster).

Advertisement

Enola’s mother, Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) and her friend Edith (Susan Wokoma) are skulking around giving Enola invisible support as Eudoria is in trouble with the law for her dynamite-forward ways.

Enola Holmes 3 zips by in a series of frantic action sequences, quips and callbacks. The storybook look is propped up by those amazing pop-ups. Darker themes arrive in lines such as Moriarty saying “There are few British names that are not tarnished with the pain of its empire.”

Brown has created an endearing heroine in her Enola, even if her habit of breaking the fourth wall, while definitely reduced, has gone way beyond twee to be outright annoying. Cavill’s Sherlock is brave and beautiful and just that little bit cross, while Carter’s Eudoria walks the line between gently eccentric and decidedly odd as she dispenses gems of wisdom including “the puzzle is always as devious as the setter.”

Fast, fun and eminently forgettable, this is popcorn entertainment at its most efficient.

 Enola Holmes 3 is currently streaming on Netflix

Advertisement
Continue Reading

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
Advertisement

Trending