Connect with us

Lifestyle

To become the 'Maestro,' Bradley Cooper learned to live the music

Published

on

To become the 'Maestro,' Bradley Cooper learned to live the music

Bradley Cooper plays composer Leonard Bernstein in Maestro.

Jason McDonald/Netflix


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jason McDonald/Netflix


Bradley Cooper plays composer Leonard Bernstein in Maestro.

Jason McDonald/Netflix

As a child, actor Bradley Cooper was so fascinated by music conductors that he asked for a baton as a birthday gift. He remembers whirling his arms around in his bedroom — and feeling like a wizard.

“There was something magical about being able to physically move to a rhythm,” he says. “And then, in my imagination, [to] be able to perceive that I was actually harnessing and commanding that music. I mean, it was really like a magic trick, every time.”

Advertisement

Cooper channeled that energy as the co-writer, director and star of Maestro, a film about the internationally famous composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein. Widely considered the first great American conductor, Bernstein led the New York Philharmonic from 1957 to ’69, and also composed classical music, as well as music for Broadway and film.

Cooper says conducting as Bernstein in the film was tricky: “I had no desire to imitate what he was doing, because that would have been a soulless, in my experience, endeavor.” Instead, the actor consulted with conductor Yannick Nézet-Séguin, who helped him find his own rhythm on the podium.

Nézet-Séguin is the artistic and music director of the Philadelphia Orchestra, music director of the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, and music director and principal conductor of the Orchestre Métropolitain in Montreal. Though he was 15 when Bernstein died, Nézet-Séguin refers to the conductor as, “hands down, always my greatest conducting model.”

“I always felt even when I was a teenager, that this is the way I wanted to express music on the podium, just expressing with all my body and not being shy of showing my emotions on the podium,” Nézet-Séguin says.

For Nézet-Séguin, Bernstein’s influence is both professional and personal. He notes that Bernstein’s sexuality — he was married to a woman but also had relationships with men — helped open doors for others in the classical music field.

Advertisement

“The fact that he lived this and didn’t hide it completely, well, it allowed people like [conductor] Michael Tilson Thomas or like me to now live it fully, have husbands,” Nézet-Séguin says. “This is … one of the many reasons why this film is so important. It’s not so much that it’s about a bisexual or a gay character, but more about how complex it is.”

YouTube

Interview highlights

On the centerpiece of the film, the final movement of Mahler’s “Symphony No. 2”

Advertisement

Nézet-Séguin: This, just from a logistics point of view, for a conductor, it’s the most complex. Now, this specific moment also comes at the very end of a very long symphony that’s about 90 minutes long. So you’re almost one hour and a half into blood and sweat and tears of some of the most soulful and profound music that’s ever been written. And as a conductor, you have to keep your mind cool because you need to still direct the traffic … well, but also be completely emotionally involved in the meaning of this music.

Cooper: There’s this incredible video of Lenny conducting this piece in 1973 in Ely Cathedral with the London Symphony Orchestra, which is exactly what we replicated. But I always knew that I wasn’t going to just imitate what he was doing. It was actually finding that middle ground. And Yannick was in particular so supportive of me, as Lenny, finding whatever that mode of conducting is, which was, of course, infused entirely by not only the interpretation of the score, which is what we did in terms of tempo, but also in terms of his gesticulating and all of that. But having it be original because the goal was to conduct in real time this piece and record it.

On the theatricality that Bernstein displayed while conducting

Cooper: Bernstein himself, he was often asked about his antics, as you know, on the podium. And he would always talk about how it was all about his relationship to the orchestra, and to the musicians that he was making music with, and not about him performing for the audience. … At any moment, [he] was always just completely in the music.

Nézet-Séguin: Maybe it’s something that Lenny had been accused of in his lifetime. Because, of course, he was a completely larger than life person and therefore a larger than life conductor. … Well, I can say really, like Bradley just said, that no orchestra in the world would respond to a conductor who would be theatrical in [that] way of performative for an audience. This is something that many people forget. They think that the conductor is so aware of the audience that they do something for them. But then orchestras smell that miles away and they stop looking at the conductor, and then therefore the conductor cannot have a career, or at least not a career in the scope that Bernstein did.

Advertisement

On Bernstein’s signature jumping on the podium while conducting

Cooper: Yeah, there’s wonderful photographs of him levitating above the podium and many recordings of one being able to hear his feet stomping on the podium after having been a foot in the air. So, yeah, that was one of his trademark sonic gifts to his conducting.

Nézet-Séguin: It’s still taught that conducting should be this and that, and in a box, and not too much of this, and not too much of that. And I don’t want here to insult any great conducting teachers around the world. They’re doing amazing work. But sometimes we forget that conducting is about just living the music. And at that moment, that’s what Lenny taught all of us in a way. At that moment, the music is jumping. … It’s almost like the whole world is waking up. So one needs to illustrate that and why not jump, you know? As long as it’s organic.

Cooper and Nézet-Séguin on the set of Maestro.

Jason McDonald/Netflix


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Jason McDonald/Netflix


Cooper and Nézet-Séguin on the set of Maestro.

Jason McDonald/Netflix

Advertisement

On conducting with an open mouth

Nézet-Séguin: I cannot imagine conducting [with my] mouth closed, especially not when there’s a chorus. I mean, conductors, we don’t sing. … Lenny did that a lot and I think we all do it, because it’s kind of breathing. … It’s letting even more the sound feeling open, when we let our mouth open. … The arms are open, the heart is open, and therefore the mouth is just opening up — all that’s possible for one of the greatest climactic moments in the music.

Cooper: I did notice that I opened my mouth a lot, just conducting to a recording of anything. And thank goodness Lenny did that. In the video from 1973, as I recall, he’s only opening his mouth when he’s actually saying the words of Mahler’s “Resurrection” that the chorus is saying. … What’s in the movie is the last take. The way it went down is I really messed up the whole first day, because I had entered into it with fear and 99% of the movie I went into fearlessly. But I had set up all of these cameras really thinking that deep down I wasn’t going to be able to conduct it and I’d have to edit, create a scene out of in the editing room. And so I went into it already fearful. And obviously when you do that, you can be struck by fear and then not be able to succeed. And so I was behind tempo. I forgot to cue people and I messed up. And then the second day, which we weren’t even supposed to shoot that scene, I brought in the techno crane, which is a manner of filming from outside into the hall, and I created one single shot, which is what it always should have been. So because I really let loose that last take and I did an audible prayer in front of everybody to Lenny, thanking him and thanking them, and we did it one more time. And I really allowed myself true abandon and that’s why my mouth was open. And that’s sort of more than I would have liked – but it was so pure and real that I thought, “No this is it. This is it. And it is 100% authentic.”

Lauren Krenzel and Thea Challoner produced and edited this interview for broadcast. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Meghan Sullivan adapted it for the web.

Advertisement

Lifestyle

Sunday Puzzle: New newsmakers of 2025

Published

on

Sunday Puzzle: New newsmakers of 2025

On-air challenge

Every year around this time I present a “new names in the news” quiz. I’m going to give you some names that you’d probably never heard before 2025 but that were prominent in the news during the past 12 months. You tell me who or what they are.

1. Zohran Mamdani

2. Karoline Leavitt

3. Mark Carney

Advertisement

4. Robert Francis Prevost (hint: Chicago)

5. Jeffrey Goldberg (hint: The Atlantic)

6. Sanae Takaichi

7. Nameless raccoon, Hanover County, Virginia

Last week’s challenge

Last week’s challenge came from Joseph Young, of St. Cloud, Minn. Think of a two-syllable word in four letters. Add two letters in front and one letter behind to make a one-syllable word in seven letters. What words are these?

Advertisement

Challenge answer

Ague –> Plagued / Plagues / Leagues

Winner

Calvin Siemer of Henderson, Nev.

This week’s challenge

This week’s challenge is a numerical one from Ed Pegg Jr., who runs the website mathpuzzle.com. Take the nine digits — 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. You can group some of them and add arithmetic operations to get 2011 like this: 1 + 23 ÷ 4 x 5 x 67 – 8 + 9. If you do these operations in order from left to right, you get 2011. Well, 2011 was 15 years ago.  Can you group some of the digits and add arithmetic symbols in a different way to make 2026? The digits from 1 to 9 need to stay in that order. I know of two different solutions, but you need to find only one of them.

If you know the answer to the challenge, submit it below by Thursday, January 8 at 3 p.m. ET. Listeners whose answers are selected win a chance to play the on-air puzzle.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Lifestyle

Daniel Tosh Sells Lake Tahoe Estate for $10.75 Million

Published

on

Daniel Tosh Sells Lake Tahoe Estate for .75 Million

Daniel Tosh
Sells Lake Tahoe Home for Millions

Published

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

What worked — and what didn’t — in the ‘Stranger Things’ finale

Published

on

What worked — and what didn’t — in the ‘Stranger Things’ finale

Sadie Sink as Max Mayfield.

Netflix


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Netflix

Yes, there are spoilers ahead for the final episode of Stranger Things

On New Year’s Eve, the very popular Netflix show Stranger Things came to an end after five seasons and almost 10 years. With actors who started as tweens now in their 20s, it was probably inevitable that the tale of a bunch of kids who fought monsters would wind down. In the two-plus-hour finale, there was a lot of preparation, then there was a final battle, and then there was a roughly 40-minute epilogue catching up with our heroes 18 months later. And how well did it all work? Let’s talk about it.

Worked: The final battle

The strongest part of the finale was the battle itself, set in the Abyss, in which the crew battled Vecna, who was inside the Mind Flayer, which is, roughly speaking, a giant spider. This meant that inside, Eleven could go one-on-one with Vecna (also known as Henry, or One, or Mr. Whatsit) while outside, her friends used their flamethrowers and guns and flares and slingshots and whatnot to take down the Mind Flayer. (You could tell that Nancy was going to be the badass of the fight as soon as you saw not only her big gun, but also her hair, which strongly evoked Ripley in the Alien movies.) And of course, Joyce took off Vecna’s head with an axe while everybody remembered all the people Vecna has killed who they cared about. Pretty good fight!

Advertisement

Did not work: Too much talking before the fight

As the group prepared to fight Vecna, we watched one scene where the music swelled as Hopper poured out his feelings to Eleven about how she deserved to live and shouldn’t sacrifice herself. Roughly 15 minutes later, the music swelled for a very similarly blocked and shot scene in which Eleven poured out her feelings to Hopper about why she wanted to sacrifice herself. Generally, two monologues are less interesting than a conversation would be. Elsewhere, Jonathan and Steve had a talk that didn’t add much, and Will and Mike had a talk that didn’t add much (after Will’s coming-out scene in the previous episode), both while preparing to fight a giant monster. It’s not that there’s a right or wrong length for a finale like this, but telling us things we already know tends to slow down the action for no reason. Not every dynamic needed a button on it.

Worked: Dungeons & Dragons bringing the group together

It was perhaps inevitable that we would end with a game of D&D, just as we began. But now, these kids are feeling the distance between who they are now and who they were when they used to play together. The fact that they still enjoy each other’s company so much, even when there are no world-shattering stakes, is what makes them seem the most at peace, more than a celebratory graduation. And passing the game off to Holly and her friends, including the now-included Derek, was a very nice touch.

Charlie Heaton as Jonathan Byers, Natalia Dyer as Nancy Wheeler, Maya Hawke as Robin Buckley, and Joe Keery as Steve Harrington holding up drinks to toast.

Charlie Heaton as Jonathan Byers, Natalia Dyer as Nancy Wheeler, Maya Hawke as Robin Buckley, and Joe Keery as Steve Harrington.

Netflix


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Netflix

Did not work: Dr. Kay, played by Linda Hamilton

It seemed very exciting that Stranger Things was going to have Linda Hamilton, actual ’80s action icon, on hand this season playing Dr. Kay, the evil military scientist who wanted to capture and kill Eleven at any cost. But she got very little to do, and the resolution to her story was baffling. After the final battle, after the Upside Down is destroyed, she believes Eleven to be dead. But … then what happened? She let them all call taxis home, including Hopper, who killed a whole bunch of soldiers? Including all the kids who now know all about her and everything she did? All the kids who ventured into the Abyss are going to be left alone? Perfect logic is certainly not anybody’s expectation, but when you end a sequence with your entire group of heroes at the mercy of a band of violent goons, it would be nice to say something about how they ended up not at the mercy of said goons.

Worked: Needle drops

Listen, it’s not easy to get one Prince song for your show, let alone two: “Purple Rain” and “When Doves Cry.” When the Duffer Brothers say they needed something epic, and these songs feel epic, they are not wrong. There continues to be a heft to the Purple Rain album that helps to lend some heft to a story like this, particularly given the period setting. “Landslide” was a little cheesy as the lead-in to the epilogue, but … the epilogue was honestly pretty cheesy, so perhaps that’s appropriate.

Advertisement

Did not work: The non-ending

As to whether Eleven really died or is really just backpacking in a foreign country where no one can find her, the Duffer Brothers, who created the show, have been very clear that the ending is left up to you. You can think she’s dead, or you can think she’s alive; they have intentionally not given the answer. It’s possible to write ambiguous endings that work really well, but this one felt like a cop-out, an attempt to have it both ways. There’s also a real danger in expanding characters’ supernatural powers to the point where they can make anything seem like anything, so maybe much of what you saw never happened. After all, if you don’t know that did happen, how much else might not have happened?

This piece also appears 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.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending