Connect with us

Lifestyle

On TV, the Truth Hurts

Published

on

As seen on the information, actual life proper now could be heartbreaking, terrifying, miserable and exhausting. However as leisure? Actual life is sizzling, sizzling, sizzling, child!

The primary few months of 2022 in TV have been a nonstop pageant of ripped-from-reality collection. That juicy journal characteristic you learn a couple of years in the past? It’s a present now: “Pam & Tommy” (primarily based on a Rolling Stone article), “The Lady from Plainville” (Esquire), “Inventing Anna” (New York). We’ve gotten three collection about disgraced tech moguls, primarily based on a e book and two podcasts. We’re getting the Julia Roberts Watergate story, “Gaslit,” primarily based on one other podcast. “The Factor About Pam,” primarily based on a “Dateline” investigation. “Joe vs. Carole,” primarily based on — no, not the Netflix “Tiger King” docu-series you’re considering of however the “Tiger King” podcast you’ll have binged after you watched it.

These collection, not like the sweeps specials and cheapo docudramas of outdated, are typically properly polished. There may be an nearly embarrassing quantity of artistic and performing expertise thrown at them. They usually’re good at getting talked about as a result of they deal with the sorts of personalities and scandals that folks love to speak about.

However what makes them dependable — they’re tales audiences are already curious about, as a result of they’ve been instructed earlier than — makes it arduous for them to be greater than digestible variations of issues that exist already, the video equal of audiobooks. Reality could also be buzzier than fiction proper now, however that doesn’t imply it’s as fascinating.

Why are there so many of those tales now, produced so lavishly? Possibly as a result of drama has been competing for cultural house with nonfiction and documentary for years now, and sometimes shedding.

Advertisement

In 2015, the true-crime documentaries “The Jinx,” on HBO, and “Making a Assassin,” on Netflix, dominated the dialog about TV and, like the primary season of the podcast “Serial,” made precise information. Thence adopted a torrent of conversation-dominating true-crime sagas and scammer tell-alls: “Wild Wild Nation,” “McMillions,” two Fyre Competition documentaries without delay, two Nxivm collection and counting.

In the meantime, scripted TV is in a curious place. There are such a lot of platforms, needing a lot materials, that there’s theoretically extra room than ever for innovation. However the abundance of content material additionally makes TV timid. The surest solution to get individuals’s consideration amid all of the litter is with a twist on one thing acquainted.

In a single sector of TV, which means intellectual-property model extensions from Marvel, Star Wars and the ’90s sitcom catalog. In one other, it means retelling recently-told nonfiction tales. Two audiences, one precept: The umpteenth multipart saga of a not too long ago infamous tech mogul is “The E-book of Boba Fett” for the high-gloss limited-series fan.

As a substitute of the imaginative flights of unique fiction, these collection supply large, showy performances, constructed round eccentric, flamboyant figures. (There are exceptions, like Hulu’s glum and reserved “Dopesick.”) As a substitute of invention, they ship imitation. They’re wealthy with accents, tics and prosthetics. Stars are remodeled into uncanny, Madame Tussaudian replicas in “Impeachment,” “Pam & Tommy” and, coming later this month, “Gaslit,” during which Sean Penn, because the Nixon aide John N. Mitchell, is buried beneath sufficient rubbery jowls to make a minimum of half a Jabba the Hutt.

Peacock’s “Joe vs. Carole” makes use of the presents of John Cameron Mitchell and Kate McKinnon to show Joe Unique and Carole Baskin into even tawdrier cartoons than they had been within the rubbernecking Netflix collection. In NBC’s weird true-crime story “The Factor About Pam,” Renée Zellweger offers a portrayal that goals for “Fargo”-esque darkish comedy however lands nearer to an “S.N.L.” sketch.

Advertisement

Sometimes, the caricature is so transcendently excessive as to develop into artwork in itself, like Julia Garner’s otherworldly interpretation of the Euroscammer Anna Delvey in “Inventing Anna.” The collection itself drags, and I do not know whether it is an correct or accountable rendering of actuality. (It begins with the declaration that it’s a true story, “apart from the elements which are completely made up.”) I do know solely that — a lot as with Poochie on “The Simpsons” — every time anybody however Anna was onscreen, I might restlessly surprise the place Anna was.

However the dazzle of those performances usually hides query marks on the core, as within the season’s unintended trilogy of tech-hustler collection. In Apple TV+’s “WeCrashed,” Jared Leto Letos it up because the WeWork founder Adam Neumann, with a manic depth and an accent someplace between Triumph the Insult Comedian Canine and Gru from “Despicable Me.” However there’s no actual thought of the character past an overweening shamelessness.

Likewise, in Showtime’s “Tremendous Pumped: The Battle for Uber” (primarily based on a e book by the New York Instances reporter Mike Isaac), Joseph Gordon-Levitt is nothing if not all-in because the ride-share entrepreneur Travis Kalanick. However the collection, with its head-thrashing soundtrack and video-game visuals, is all sound and alpha fury. It doesn’t actually develop its focal character past the best way he describes himself within the pilot — as (to make use of a milder time period) a jerk — and he behaves in any scenario the best way you’d suppose a jerk would.

In the very best of the three tech collection, Hulu’s “The Dropout,” Amanda Seyfried is spectacular as Elizabeth Holmes, the younger biotech entrepreneur who claimed that her start-up, Theranos, might carry out a battery of exams on a single drop of blood. It’s an pressing, feral efficiency, imagining Holmes as a bundle of mania and inexperienced juice, dancing off her nerves in personal, hiding her flop sweat behind a husky voice and a Steve Jobs turtleneck.

The story — how Holmes lured in outdated, dumb cash, the bloody Potemkin machinations behind Theranos’s pretend know-how — is jaw-dropping, and the producer Liz Meriwether (“New Lady”) tells it with flash and darkish humor. However that story has already been extensively instructed in information experiences, a e book, an HBO documentary and the podcast the collection was primarily based on. Holmes, in the meantime, stays largely the enigma she begins out as.

Advertisement

Now, it’s completely true that actual life doesn’t all the time offer you neat “Rosebud” explanations; actual persons are usually merely jumbles of unresolved contradictions. However that’s one purpose we’ve drama: to make emotional, if not literal, sense of this type of determine. (Therefore Orson Welles reimagined William Randolph Hearst as Charles Foster Kane.)

When individuals say “Reality is stranger than fiction,” what they imply is that it’s extra inexplicable. It’s random; it’s poorly foreshadowed; each character apart from ourselves is a black field. That is the place, in a narrative, creativeness steps in, to not tie all the pieces right into a neat bow however to supply perception. As a substitute, too many true-life collection as we speak really feel like the scholar in a writing workshop justifying a complicated plot flip with “But it surely actually occurred!” — a line that means that literal actuality is each fiction’s final protection and its biggest aspiration.

And it’s honest to ask whether or not most of those collection develop on the reportage we have already got. Elle Fanning (“The Nice”) will doubtless problem Seyfried in awards season, because the younger lady in “The Lady From Plainville” who prods her boyfriend to kill himself. However the story was already chillingly instructed within the documentary “I Love You, Now Die,” by Erin Lee Carr.

Adam McKay, who explicated from-real-life tales in his movies “The Huge Brief” and “Vice,” entered the truth derby together with his HBO hoops collection, “Profitable Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty,” primarily based on the e book “Showtime” by Jeff Pearlman. I had excessive hopes for it, largely due to how McKay’s podcast, “Dying on the Wing,” used tales about Eighties basketball to make an overarching, righteously livid case in regards to the Reagan period and the warfare on medication.

However “Profitable Time,” whereas aggressively entertaining, is hooked on the exhausting type that marked “The Huge Brief,” filled with display captions, fourth-wall-breaking and ever-changing movie inventory. It by no means stops. It’s by no means boring. But it surely lacks the cohesion and imaginative and prescient of well-conceived fiction. It’s a dunk contest masquerading as a championship collection.

Advertisement

None of that is to say that actual life can’t be the stuff of nice drama. “Mrs. America,” for example, instructed a parallel story in regards to the Nineteen Seventies Equal Rights Modification motion and its nemesis, Phyllis Schlafly, within the course of providing a preview and origin story of the tradition wars of as we speak. Just a few years earlier, “The Individuals v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story” recaptured the racial dynamics of its celeb homicide case and reclaimed the prosecutor Marcia Clark because the sufferer of sexist double requirements. (It is probably not coincidence that these examples have a couple of a long time’ distance on their topics.)

Nonetheless, there’s an even bigger thrill in collection that borrow snippets from actual tales and run wild with them, just like the authorized drama “The Good Battle,” which spins nuggets about troll farms and social media right into a imaginative and prescient of democracy beneath cyberattack. The current season premiere of “Atlanta” turned a true-crime story about an adoptive household right into a hallucinatory fable in regards to the racism of the well-intentioned.

However fiction as of late is up in opposition to a tradition that virtually fetishizes “it actually occurred” realism. The excellence between the goals of fiction and nonfiction are so blurred that professors report their college students utilizing the time period “fiction novel” (what you would possibly know as a “novel”). Cultural journalism has fallen in love with “What [Show or Movie] Will get Proper/Unsuitable About [Person or Event]” fact-checks, the sort of red-pencil criticism that turns artwork into an A.P. topic take a look at.

What’s artwork really obligated to “get proper”? Not details however emotions, human nature, its personal worldview. Its job is to not let you know issues you may search for on Wikipedia; its job is to let you know the factor that you just didn’t know, that you just didn’t know you wished to know, which will depart you questioning what “proper” is lengthy after you learn or watch.

Possibly the very best judgment on TV’s true-story habit is hidden within the sort of comparisons that these collection get. The best praise you may pay one in all these tales, in any case, is that it’s like a “real-life” model of “Succession,” or “Silicon Valley,” or “Scandal.” These fictional collection set the usual exactly as a result of they’re free to comply with not documentary fact, however the fact of their darkish, satirical or outlandish visions.

Advertisement

Does the present glut of reveals about scammers converse to our second? Positive; taken as a gaggle, they’ve one thing to say in regards to the perverse, warping incentives of the trendy economic system. However individually, none is a tenth as shocking or efficient on that topic as “Severance,” a sci-fi parable about employees who’ve their consciousnesses bisected to make them extra productive — a premise that isn’t near literal actuality however feels, in execution, profoundly true.

Actuality has its virtues. However there ain’t nothing just like the pretend factor.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Lifestyle

A member of the 'T-Shirt Swim Club' chronicles life as 'the funny fat kid'

Published

on

A member of the 'T-Shirt Swim Club' chronicles life as 'the funny fat kid'

“The first place I learned to be funny was on the schoolyard trying to defuse this weird tension around my body, says Ian Karmel. He won an Emmy Award in 2019 for his work on James Corden’s “Carpool Karaoke” special with Paul McCartney.

Kenny McMillan/Penguin Random House


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kenny McMillan/Penguin Random House

Comedy writer Ian Karmel spent most of his life making fun of his weight, starting at a very young age.

“Being a kid is terrifying — and if you can be the funny fat kid, at least that’s a role,” Karmel says. “To me, that was better than being the fat kid who wasn’t funny, who’s being sad over in the corner, even if that was how I was actually feeling a lot of the time.”

For Karmel, the jokes and insults didn’t stop with adolescence. He says the humiliation he experienced as a kid navigating gym classes, and the relentless barrage of fat jokes from friends and strangers, fueled his comedy.

Advertisement

For years, much of his stand-up comedy centered around his body; he was determined to make fun of himself first — before anyone else could do it. “At least if we’re destroying me, I will be participating in my own self-destruction so I can at least find a role for myself,” he says.

Karmel went on to write for The Late Late Show with James Corden. He has since lost more than 200 pounds, but he feels like he’ll have a lifelong relationship with fatness. He wrote his new memoir, T-Shirt Swim Club: Stories from Being Fat in a World of Thin People, along with his sister Alisa, who channeled her experience into a profession in nutrition counseling.

“Once we lost a bunch of weight … we realized we’d never had these conversations about it with each other,” Karmel says. “If this book affects even the way one person thinks about fat people, even if that fat person happens to be themselves, that would be this book succeeding in every way that I would hope for.”

Interview highlights

On using the word “fat”

There’s all these different terms. And, you know, early on when I was talking to Alisa about writing this book, we were like: “Are we going to say fat? I think we shouldn’t say fat.” And we had a conversation about it. We landed on the determination that it’s not the word’s fault that people treat fat people like garbage. And we tend to do this thing where we will bring in a new word, we will load that word up with all of the sin of our behavior, toss that word out, pull a new one in, and then all of a sudden, we let that word soak up all the sin, and we never really change the way we actually treat people. …

I’ve been called fat, overweight or obese, husky, big guy, chunky, any number of words, all of those words just loaded up with venom. … We decided we were going to say “fat” because that’s what we are. That’s what I think of myself as. And I’m going to take it back to basics.

Advertisement

On the title of his memoir, T-Shirt Swim Club

T-Shirt Swim Club: Stories from Being Fat in a World of Thin People

T-Shirt Swim Club

Penguin Random House


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Penguin Random House

Thank God for learning about the damage that the sun does to our bodies, because now all sorts of people are wearing T-shirts in the pool. But when we were growing up, I don’t think that was happening. It’s absurd. We wear this T-shirt because we … want to protect ourselves from prying eyes — but I think what it really is is this internalized body shame where I’m like, “Hey, I know my body’s disgusting. I know I’m going to gross you out while you’re just trying to have a good time at the pool, so let me put this T-shirt on.” And it’s all the more ridiculous because it doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t actually cover you up, it hugs every curve!

On how bullying made him paranoid

You think like, if four or five people are saying this to my face, then there must be vast whisper campaigns. That must be what they’re huddled over. … Anytime somebody giggles in the corner and you are in that same room, you become paranoid. There’s a part of you that thinks like, they must be laughing at me.

Advertisement

On how fat people are portrayed in pop culture

Fat people, I think, are still one of the groups that it’s definitely OK to make fun of. That’s absolutely true. … I’m part of this industry too, and I’ve done it to myself. … Maybe it’s less on the punch line 1719964293 and more on the pity. You know, you have Brendan Fraser playing the big fat guy in The Whale. And at least that’s somebody who is fat and who has dealt with those issues. Maybe not to the extent of like a 500- and 600-pound man, but still to some extent. And good for him. I mean, an amazing performance, but still one where it’s like, here’s this big, fat, pathetic person.

On judgment about weight loss drugs and surgery

It’s this ridiculous moral purity. What it comes down to for me is you [have] your loved ones, you have your friends. And whatever you can do to spend more time on earth with those people, that’s golden to me. That’s beautiful, because that is what life is truly all about. And the more you get to do that, the healthier and happier you are. So those people out there who are shaming Ozempic or Wegovy or any of that stuff, or bariatric surgery, those people can pound sand. And it’s so hard in a world that is built for people who are regular size, and in a world that is also simultaneously built to make you as fat as possible with the way we treat food. It’s like, yo, do the best you can!

Therese Madden and Joel Wolfram produced and edited this interview for broadcast. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Beth Novey adapted it for the web.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Lifestyle

Christopher Reeve's Son Will Reeve to Cameo in James Gunn's 'Superman'

Published

on

Christopher Reeve's Son Will Reeve to Cameo in James Gunn's 'Superman'

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

Dining out with a big group? Learn the social etiquette of splitting the check

Published

on

Dining out with a big group? Learn the social etiquette of splitting the check

Let’s say you’re at a restaurant with a group of friends. You ordered appetizers, maybe got a bottle of wine for the table, went all in for dessert … then the bill arrives.

No one is offering to cover the whole tab. So how do you handle the check? Do you split it evenly among everyone at the table? What if you only got a salad while your buddy got the surf and turf special?

Splitting the bill is a fine art. Whether you’re eating family-style at a Korean barbecue joint or having a three-course meal at a fancy restaurant, there should be “a sense of equality in how the check is divvied up” when the meal ends, says Kiki Aranita, a food editor at New York Magazine and the former co-chef and owner of Poi Dog, a Hawaiian restaurant in Philadelphia.

She goes over common scenarios you may encounter while dining out with a large group — and how to dial down the awkwardness by keeping things fair and square.

Advertisement

Scenario 1: I arrived to dinner late. Everyone at the table already ordered drinks and appetizers and are about to order their entrees. What should I do?

When you’re ready to order, tell your server you want your food and drinks on a separate check, says Aranita. “It’s easier to deal with than having to split a check in complicated percentages at the end of the night.”

If you do choose separate checks, tell your server that at the start of the meal, not the end. That way they can make note of everyone’s individual orders. Not every establishment offers this option, but it doesn’t hurt to ask.

Scenario 2: Everyone ordered alcohol except me — and now they want to split the tab fair and square!

Speak up, says Aranita. “Just be like, ‘Hey guys — I didn’t drink.’ Usually, that’s enough for everyone to reconfigure the bill to make it fairer. The problems only arise when you don’t speak up.”

Advertisement

If you are ordering round after round of $20 cocktail drinks, be conscious of the people in your party who didn’t order as much as you. When the bill arrives, “maybe pick up a larger portion of the tip” to make up for your drinks, says Aranita.

Scenario 3: We’re a party of six. Is it OK to ask the server to split the check six ways?

Many restaurants now have updated point-of-sale systems that make it easier for servers to split the check in myriad ways, says Aranita. But it doesn’t always mean you should ask them to do so.

Aranita, who has also been a bartender and server, recommends a maximum of two to four credit cards. Servers “have enough to deal with” when working with a large party, especially on a busy night. And running several cards with different tip percentages isn’t ideal.

“If you’re a party of six, just put down two credit cards” and Venmo each other what you owe, she says. This approach also works out great for that person in your group who’s obsessed with racking up credit card points. 

Advertisement

Scenario 4: It’s my birthday. My friends should pay for my meal, right?

In American culture, it’s assumed that if your friends take you out to dinner for your birthday, they will cover your meal. But that’s not always the case, says Aranita.

If you set up your own birthday dinner, don’t expect to people to pay for you, she says. You picked the restaurant and invited your friends on your terms. So in this scenario, put down your card at the end of the meal. Your dining mates may pick up your tab, but if they don’t, “that’s perfectly fine. You’re saying: ‘I can celebrate me and also pay for me.’ ”

Scenario 5: It’s my friends’ first time at my favorite restaurant. I’m going to order an appetizer that I think everyone at the table will love. We’re all splitting the cost of that, right?

It can be easy to get swept away by the menu at a favorite restaurant, but don’t assume your dining partners share the same enthusiasm for the twice-fried onion rings. “You have to get their consent at the beginning of the meal. Say, ‘hey, is it cool if I order appetizers for the table?’ ” says Aranita. If you forgot to ask this question, assume that you will pay for the order.

Advertisement

This episode was produced by Sylvie Douglis. The digital story was edited by Meghan Keane. The visual editor is Beck Harlan. We’d love to hear from you. Leave us a voicemail at 202-216-9823, or email us at LifeKit@npr.org.

Listen to Life Kit on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, and sign up for our newsletter.

Continue Reading

Trending