Connect with us

Lifestyle

For once — a true crime story that isn't focused on the killer

Published

on

For once — a true crime story that isn't focused on the killer

Woman of the Hour is Anna Kendrick’s feature directorial debut. She also stars as Sheryl.

Leah Gallo/Netflix


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Leah Gallo/Netflix

In a lot of true crime stories, no one is treated as more interesting than the criminal at the center. Mildly interesting are the police, the journalists, and the family involved. But not the person who got hurt, let alone the people who just barely didn’t get hurt.

In the new Netflix film Woman of the Hour, however, there’s little interest in the thinking or the life of real-life convicted serial killer Rodney Alcala. Alcala appeared on The Dating Game in 1978, where he won a date with aspiring actress Cheryl Bradshaw. But once she met him, Bradshaw got the creeps. She refused to go out with him. Alcala was later convicted of murders committed both before and after the show.

Woman of the Hour stars Anna Kendrick as Sheryl (the spelling is changed, perhaps to underscore that this is a loose interpretation of the real story beyond those basics; the real Bradshaw has remained largely private). Kendrick also directed the movie, her feature debut, from a script by Ian McDonald. This Sheryl is frustrated by her stalled acting career, and particularly by the open lack of respect she’s shown at auditions where men talk to each other about her appearance and her worth as if she weren’t there. She’s about to bail on Los Angeles altogether when her agent gives her news: There’s a job. As a bachelorette on The Dating Game. Hesitantly, Sheryl decides to do it.

Advertisement

Interspersed with Sheryl’s story is that of Alcala, played by Daniel Zovatto, as he lures women into vulnerable positions and then strangles them. If he has reasons, we don’t know them. If he has a past, we don’t see it. He exists here as a menace, as a threat that cannot be understood – it simply has to be navigated.

The film is not interested at all in examining what makes a killer do what he does, as if there is something to unlock that will make it seem reasonable to remove a woman’s pantyhose, wrap them around her neck, and squeeze until she’s dead. Instead, it is interested in the women, and in the social forces that facilitate crimes like these – particularly the ones that allow them to continue even after they could be stopped. Does misogyny motivate violence against women? Of course. Does it enable violence against women in a practical sense by closing off their paths to safety? In this story, yes.

Sheryl’s discomfort from the minute she arrives at the studio goes unnoticed by the callous host (Tony Hale) and just about everyone else – except the woman doing her makeup, who puffs powder onto her face and winkingly assures her it’s OK to do whatever she wants, because she owes the show nothing. It’s the first affirmation she’s had that she does not need to be trapped by the circumstances. Elsewhere, we meet Laura (Nicolette Robinson), a young woman who attends the Dating Game taping with her boyfriend, recognizes Alcala as the man who brutalized a friend of hers, and tries to get someone to pay attention. Laura’s certainty that Alcala is the man who killed her friend is treated either patronizingly (by her boyfriend) or cruelly (by a security guard at the studio). The police give her the runaround. And even after Sheryl becomes convinced that Alcala is dangerous while sharing a drink with him after the taping, she has a difficult time getting herself to safety.

What Kendrick plays so well here is the impossible calculus that can confront a woman (or any person) in her position when she’s frightened by a man (or any person). Do you ignore the hairs that stand up on the back of your neck, because you might be imagining it? Do you pacify him, keep him calm, just try to be nice until you can run? Or do you turn, steel yourself, and tell him to leave you the [heck] alone? When are the risks of being gentle greater than the risks of screaming? Because the film jumps around in time through Alcala’s crimes, we see not only Sheryl’s efforts to make herself safe, but also the efforts of a young runaway (Autumn Best) who does decide to get in his car, and thus has even fewer options.

Kendrick’s direction effectively builds the sense of dread that surrounds this man who is not particularly special, other than that he kills women. There are times when killers — perhaps Ted Bundy is the best example — are recreated on film as if they have a special aura, something mysterious that gives them power over others. Rodney Alcala, in this story, is just a murderer, and the script maintains that being a murderer does not, in and of itself, make you interesting. And he doesn’t keep wiggling out of trouble because he’s brilliant. He keeps wiggling out of trouble largely because the society he lives in is, in many ways, on his side. And contrary to the underpinnings of many crime shows and films, the police do not act with great urgency every time a woman is brutalized. If this version of Rodney has a skill, it’s weaponizing his victims’ desire to be polite and friendly, and getting them to miss the last real chance they have to get away.

Advertisement

There’s a very well done shot near the end of the film in which Sheryl walks across a parking lot, the sounds of her shoes clacking on the pavement. If you have taken that walk, and many of you have, you will recognize it immediately. The whole film, really, is about that walk — and about the mix of luck, choices and a functioning society that might help you take it soon enough to save your life.

This piece also appeared in NPR’s Pop Culture Happy Hour newsletter. Sign up for the newsletter so you don’t miss the next one, plus get weekly recommendations about what’s making us happy.

Listen to Pop Culture Happy Hour on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Lifestyle

‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University

Published

on

‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University

Students walk on the Stanford University campus on March 14, 2019, in Stanford, Calif.

Ben Margot/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ben Margot/AP

When Theo Baker arrived at Stanford University a few years ago, he joined the student newspaper, following the path of his journalist parents, Peter Baker, a White House correspondent for The New York Times, and Susan Glasser, a writer for The New Yorker.

Through his reporting as a student journalist, he eventually broke a story about manipulated data in Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s neuroscience research that helped lead to the university president’s resignation.

Theo Baker’s book, How to Rule the World: An Education in Power at Stanford University was released May 19. In it, Baker describes Stanford as a place where proximity to Silicon Valley gives rise to a parallel system of influence, recruitment and money, with investors looking to identify promising students almost as soon as they arrive on campus.

Advertisement

He told Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep there was “a sort of Stanford inside Stanford,” where elite students are drawn into an “alternate reality” of excess and access to cut corners.

In the interview, he discusses how Stanford is not just a university but also a pipeline where status and power can matter as much as ideas.

We reached out to Stanford University for comment and have not heard back.

Listen to the interview by clicking play on the blue box above.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf

Published

on

OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf
The Italian fashion group behind Diesel and Maison Margiela is taking full ownership of the avant-garde haute couture house, acquiring the remaining 30 percent it didn’t already own. Founders Viktor Horsting and Rolf Snoeren remain creative directors.
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet

Published

on

How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet

The scoreboard shows the results of the women’s singles final match between Iga Swiatek of Poland and Amanda Anisimova of the U.S. at the Wimbledon Tennis Championships in London, Saturday, July 12, 2025.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP

Fifteen points in tennis? Nice. Thirty, 40 — even better. Advantage — that sounds good. “Love” — that also must be great, right? Well, not quite.

As the French Open rolls on and Serena Williams has announced her return to the sport, maybe you’ve been paying a little more attention to tennis. The sport’s scoring system is notably distinct, and can sometimes be hard to grasp for newcomers. But even tennis aficionados might not know why, or how, “love” became the unmistakable callout for zero points. For this installment of NPR’s Word of the Week, we’re exploring how a word that signifies trailing behind got such a sweet name.

“Love” comes from the heart — or an egg?

It’s hard to pinpoint when the first tennis ball went over the net. Tennis is a derivative of lots of other sports, such as “jeu de paume,” a handball game played in France, said JT Buzanga, the collections manager at the International Tennis Hall of Fame museum.

Advertisement

But tennis became a patented, official sport in 1874, said Steve Flink, a journalist whose tennis coverage got him inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. It has retained its unique, mysterious scoring system ever since.

“By and large, the original system has held up almost entirely,” Flink said.

The use of “love” goes back to the late 18th century, said Jesse Sheidlower, a lexicographer. But it was used earlier than that in card games such as whist and bridge. Before the term made its way to tennis, the sport favored plain old “nothing,” or “nil,” he said.

Why love in the first place, though? Historians don’t really know for sure, but there are a few theories.

The French could have something to do with it. Some historians believe “love” derives from “l’oeuf,” which means “the egg” in French. Because eggs are shaped like zeros, terms such as “goose egg” and “duck’s egg” have been used in other contexts to mean zero, Sheidlower said.

Advertisement

It’s also possible English speakers mispronounced l’oeuf as “love.” But Sheidlower isn’t convinced that’s the answer.

“It’s the French equivalent of an English expression. But since that expression doesn’t appear in French, the French word wouldn’t have been used,” he said.

To be sure, France has had a lot of influence on tennis culture, Buzanga said. For example, “deuce” or a game tied at 40 points, comes from the French word for “two”: “deux.” But he prefers another prominent theory: that “love” comes from the idiom “for the love of the game.” Even if a player hasn’t scored, it doesn’t matter, because their heart is in it. It’s the theory Sheidlower said is the most plausible, because the idiom was used by the English before tennis was popularized.

Another variation of the “love of the game” theory is that the word could have come from the Dutch “lof,” or “honor” — or the Latin “amare,” meaning “to love,” Flink said.

But if tennis’ “love” doesn’t come from a French word, the theory at least has a French sensibility.

Advertisement

“I think the ‘for the love of the game’ is kind of romantic,” Buzanga said.

“Love” probably isn’t going anywhere

Tennis used to be a sport of leisure. The style of play has changed a lot over the years; players are more athletic and competitive, for instance, Flink said. But the rules of the sport are more steadfast, he said.

“There’s this incredible, enduring respect for tradition in tennis,” he said. “Changes are not made easily.”

There has been one major change in modern history: the tie-break. Matches can go on and on because players have to score two consecutive points to break a deuce, or by two games to break a tied set. But the onset of television meant matches would have to get shorter if the sport wanted to capture a larger audience, Flink said.

Change even came for “love.” An alternative sprouted up in the 1970s, and is still used today: “bagel,” named for its zero shape, Sheidlower said. Novices may say “zero,” and insiders will understand what they mean, but they “will needle them about it,” Flink said.

Advertisement

But “love” still prevails.

“People kind of like it,” Flink said. “It’s different. Why say zero when you can say love?”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending