When The Studio was nominated for all those Emmys, I looked at the reaction statements from all the nominees. I don’t understand why nobody thanked Sal Saperstein.
It’s really disrespectful. I was obviously let down by the lack of mention. I can only assume that they’re gonna save that for when they eventually win.

You should probably talk to them before the show.
Yeah. We’re gonna do an awards-campaign thing where I’m gonna personally visit every nominee and tell them what’s at stake if they forget to mention Sal.

Have you compared notes with your fellow acting nominees Martin Scorsese and Ron Howard?
I have not checked in with those guys yet. But I did see Marty’s reaction on Instagram and he seemed to be genuinely flattered. I just hope those guys get a break. It’s been tough for them in show business, and I think it would just be nice for Ron and Marty to have some kind of recognition in this industry at some point.

It’s kind of crazy, because The Studio got five of the six nominees in guest actor and one in guest actress, and yet I didn’t think, “Oh, wow, that’s a lot.” I thought, “Why didn’t Sarah Polley and Olivia Wilde get in too?”
Honestly, truly, yes. Like, I’m thrilled for everyone. Zoë is incredible — she gave it her all. But those two in particular, Sarah and Olivia, I thought were arguably the two best guests we had all year. So they’ll have to come back in Season 2.

Do you have a wish list for Season 2?
In terms of actors, I think Leo would be very funny. I know he doesn’t like to do a ton of stuff, but he is the biggest movie star around, still. Timmy C. would be great. Get some Chal going, Chal in the chat.

And then, you know, I do love the directors we have on. So let’s keep that train going. Would love to see Steven Spielberg on there. Would love to see the Coen brothers. Bigelow, PTA. Quentin!

Come on, QT, get on here!

You’re aiming high. But I guess when you start with Scorsese in the first episode, why not?
Literally, we have Scorsese, Charlize and Steve Buscemi in the last [scene]. So it’s like, we have to heighten, which is tough.

Making the show, it must be a kick to have this endless cycle of people coming through and doing these killer guest spots.
Oh, yeah. Season 1, because it’s a new show, sometimes you have to pull a little bit harder to persuade people, but hopefully now people will see that if you come on the show, you’re gonna have fun. You’re gonna look cool or look like you have a good sense of humor about yourself. So hopefully it’ll be even easier to get some of the folks for Season 2.

Plus they might get an Emmy nomination.
The odds are you will get an Emmy nomination, so why not? And we give you your own half-trailer. And the craft table’s great.

When you got the scripts, did you have a sense of “OK, I know who Sal is” from the start?
Yeah. I love the way that (Rogen and Goldberg) write, and I love the way in one or two lines early on, you can tell what this character is all about. The first time you meet him, he’s like, “Hey, do I smell like vodka? I was out partying with Pedro Pascal all night.”

Right away, that said to me, “You know this guy. You’ve had drinks with this guy. This guy made an inappropriate joke when he came to the set to visit.” This is a party guy who loves his job, who has maybe overstayed his welcome a little bit.

Have people in the business told you, “Oh, yeah, I know lots of Sals”?

Oh, yes. And I’ve heard from some guys who are Sals who are like, “Hey, man, that was so funny, really great character.” And I’m like, “Yeah, it’s kind of based on you a little bit.” (Laughs)

You’ve already won “Celebrity Jeopardy!“and “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” How would winning an Emmy compare in terms of satisfaction?
I mean, winning those was incredible. Being able to give that money to charity was a dream. They’re different levels of happiness, but I’m humbled and honored to even be in the conversation. Also, I could sell the Emmy and use that money for charity, so it would be like being on one of those shows.

I wonder if maybe we should start a new EGOT-style acronym for Emmy, “Jeopardy!” and “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.“
I would call it EGOG. Replace the T in Tony, which is tough. I’m not doing Broadway right now and I don’t see it happening in the foreseeable future. But, you know, Emmy, Grammy — ’cause I have my collection of spoken-word poetry that’s coming out — Oscar and then game show. So EGOG is what I’m trying to get started.

I was thinking of being more specific and doing something like JEM for “Jeopardy!,” Emmy and “Millionaire.“
Oh, that is good. So “Jeopardy!,” Emmy, “Millionaire” and then we need one more. I think these are both very viable. 

This story first appeared in the Down to the Wire: Comedy issue of TheWrap’s awards magazine. Read more from the issue here.

The post Ike Barinholtz Has a Bold Wish List for ‘The Studio’ Season 2 Cameos: Spielberg, Leo and Tarantino appeared first on TheWrap.

The film charts a cross-country trek made by Will Ferrell and his close friend Harper Steele, a former “Saturday Night Live” head writer who recently came out as a trans woman. Early in their journey, they phone their “SNL” pal Kristen Wiig and ask her to write them a theme song that’s a little folky, slightly jazzy, uptempo but not too up, sort of twangy, kind of country and will make you cry.

Their repeated but futile attempts to get back in touch with Wiig to check on her progress become a running theme throughout the movie, until the song pops up during the credits and pretty much checks all those boxes.

“The actual conversation was longer (than what you see in the film),” Wiig said. “They originally listed every type of music that you could possibly imagine. We had talked about making that version, but it would’ve been a crazy song that made everyone anxious.”

Instead, Wiig and composer/producer Sean Douglas sat down with “Will & Harper”director Josh Greenbaum to fashion the song in Douglas’ home studio.

“We started by talking about what it was going to be like, what themes, what styles we were going to use,” Wiig said. “I was extremely moved by the movie because Harper is an old friend, so it was a very emotional thing for me. And we didn’t want the song to just be a joke, but we wanted it to have some lightness, some humor.”

While he was editing the movie, Greenbaum said he struggled to find the right tone: “If I let things become too comedic, the film would not do justice to the pathos and emotion of the story. But if I stripped the film of all things comedic, I’d be incredibly disingenuous to the very funny people that Will and Harper are.”

In the studio, the songwriters reached for that same balance. “The biggest challenge was to make sure we were walking the line of celebrating the movie and the real emotional journey that they go on together, but also wanting to be funny,” Douglas said. “I was probably overly eager because Josh is so funny and Kristen’s famously funny. I was like, ‘What if we said this? What if we said that?’ And then you’re like, what are we really talking about here? You have to make sure the core of it stays true.”

Douglas started throwing out melodic ideas on the piano, and the song’s opening lines — “Harper and Will go west/Just a couple old friends and a couple brand-new breasts” — came quickly. (Douglas and Wiig are credited with writing the music, and all three with writing the lyrics.)

“We had a certain groove going and the first couple of lines, and then we were off and running,” Douglas said. “Everyone was kind of passing the ball back and forth, and we had a song by the end of the day.”

The movie and song, by the way, underwent an awards transition. “Will & Harper” received enough of a theatrical release to qualify for the Oscars last year, but not enough to lose its Emmy eligibility. Last December, the movie made the 15-film shortlist in the Oscars’ Best Documentary Feature category, and “Harper and Will Go West” did the same in the Best Original Song category.  

An Oscar nomination in either category would have stripped the film of Emmy eligibility – but because it wasn’t nominated, it lived to resurface at the Emmys several months later.

A version of this story appeared in the Down to the Wire: Comedy issue of TheWrap’s awards magazine. Read more from the issue here.

The post First Rule of Writing the Emmy-Nominated Song ‘Harper and Will Go West’: Don’t Be Too Funny appeared first on TheWrap.

He received one nomination for producing “Sly Lives! (aka the Burden of Black Genius),” an alternately exhilarating and wrenching look at the protean funk musician Sly Stone, who took his music to the heights and then was destroyed by the excess that came with success; another for serving as co-music director of “SNL50: The Homecoming Concert,” the Peacock special drawn from the 50th anniversary of “Saturday Night Live”; and the third for Outstanding Directing for a Documentary/Nonfiction Program for another “SNL” special, “Ladies and Gentlemen … 50 Years of SNL Music,” a two-hour tribute to the musical artists who have performed on the long-running late-night comedy show.

A drummer, DJ, writer, producer, professor, bandleader and filmmaker who has spent more than 30 years leading The Roots — 16 of those as the house band on “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon” — Thompson got into directing with the 2022 documentary “Summer of Soul (…Or, When the Revolution Could Not Be Televised),” which won him the Academy Award for Best Documentary. In its aftermath, he received lots of offers for different projects and wound up working simultaneously on “Sly Lives!” and “Ladies and Gentlemen.”

That last project opens with what might be the most invigorating seven-and-a-half minutes on TV this past Emmy season. Beginning with an array of “SNL” hosts introducing their episode’s musical guests, it turns into a wildly eclectic mashup that merges Taylor Swift and Billy Preston, Run-DMC and Hall and Oates, Rick James and Duran Duran … Lots of people might have the idea to intercut Queen and David Bowie’s “Under Pressure” with Vanilla Ice’s “Ice Ice Baby,” which samples the earlier song’s bassline; maybe only Questlove would think to throw Dave Matthews, Fine Young Cannibals and Michael Bolton (!) in there as well.   

The mashup, which probably uses close to 100 different performances (I lost count a few minutes in), is an insane history lesson with a killer backbeat, so we asked Thompson how he did it. At one point, he pulled out his phone and showed his database with scores for every “SNL” performance.

We’ll let him tell it in his own words from here.

The Beginning

“There’s this one site totally dedicated to just the introductions. ‘Ladies and gentlemen,’ and then the artist. So it’s like Patrick Stewart saying, ‘Ladies and gentlemen, Salt-n-Pepa!’  So I was like, ‘Wow, I wonder if I can start this thing off with just a super mix of a bunch of ‘Ladies and gentlemens.”’

“Having been at ‘The Tonight Show’ for 16 years, I know the game when it comes to music clearances, because of walk-on songs and all that stuff. Like, the first time I got in trouble with 30 Rock (NBC) was because I didn’t clear the one-note sting from ‘Law & Order: SVU.’ It literally is a registered song.”

“I already knew that I had my dream version of what I’d like to do, but there’s no way in hell that’s gonna happen. So I did the safest version, almost the flattest version of that. It was just like, let me just go through time. Let me grab Gil Scott-Heron, and I’ll grab something from ’79 and something from ’80, and maybe I’ll just move every five years.”

“But John MacDonald, my editor, we’re like twins. We grew up sort of in that Bomb Squad, Public Enemy mode. And there’s a duo from Australia called The Avalanches. They did a record called ‘Since I Left You’ with 4,000 samples from TV, movie music … I had interviewed them on my podcast and they told me that they cleared everything. They had three or four music clearers.”

“I was like, ‘How did you get away with it? How did you explain it? How did you get to past the red tape of ‘You used my song, I want $19,000?’ They said they explained to people that it was like an art project – and once people saw it as an art project, and not just like someone’s stealing my music to make their No. 1 rap song, then all of a sudden it was like, ‘Yeah, that’s kind of cool. I wanna be a part of this.’”

“After that, John convinced me to do this for real. He’s like, ‘Man, let’s just do it first, and make it so great that they’re bound to clear it.’ And I was like, ‘All right, let’s do this.’”

The Process

“The way that we structured it, I joke that this is my ‘CSI’ crime board, with pictures and pieces of yarn connecting them and all that stuff. I went through every song ever performed on the show, be it in a sketch or a musical performance. And for every song, I took a note on my phone and gave it a score. If it was a perfect performance, it got 5. It were notable, I gave it 4. All the fast songs, all the slow songs, all the different genres.”

“I went through about three to seven episodes a day for an entire year. And then, because I think like a DJ, I would think, ‘This song’s 112 BPMs and it’s E flat minor, but the bridge is in G and that way we can connect to the next song.’”

“It’s how I construct a DJ gig. And then when we had a good five minutes, I was like, ‘Wait. Before we do any more, I don’t want them to be like, ‘This is impossible to clear.’ Let me show them first.’ So I played it for NBC and their jaws dropped. I said, ‘Guys, what do you think? Is this gonna be a clearance nightmare?’ And they were like, ‘It absolutely is gonna be a clearance nightmare. But just do it as you see fit.’”

“But I was talking about doing a 14-minute thing, and they said, ‘14 minutes is a lot, so try to whittle this down to seven minutes.’ I was like, ‘Seven?!’ In my mind, it should be 16 minutes. But let’s not bore people. Seven minutes is fine.”

The Clearance Nightmare

“So we did a good seven minutes, and they were like, ‘Well, good news and bad news.’ ‘Just gimme the bad news.’ ‘Well, 24 songs did not clear.’”

“And I was like, ‘Show me the songs.’ They showed me the list, and I said, ‘Oh, I have this guy’s number, I have this number … Dude, gimme a month.’”

“For a few people, I had to physically fly out and show them. They were like, ‘Wait, you flew all the way out for this?‘”

“I physically showed them the thing and put it in context. I was like, ‘Dude, this is history. This thing’s gonna be here forever long after we’re gone, and I don’t think anyone’s doing this again.’ They were like, ‘Yeah, you’re right.’”

The One That Got Away

“That’s how we were able to clear everything, with the exception of Pavarotti. There’s a brilliant moment where Pavarotti is doing something with Mary J. Blige. The only thing I couldn’t get. And if I had access to the estate to just say, ‘Look, it’s just two seconds…’”

The Happy Place

“I was doing this on the weekends at the same time that I was doing the Sly Stone movie, so all week I was taking in that pain and that darkness. After three months of that, I couldn’t wait for Thursday and Friday and Saturday so I could work on ‘SNL’ and just do something fun. For me, it was my happy place. I needed it to get away from the pain.”

The post How Questlove Put Together the Insane Montage That Opened His ‘Saturday Night Live’ Music Documentary appeared first on TheWrap.

So now that we’re halfway between the announcement of the nominations and the beginning of final voting, it’s time to look back at that list and see how many of my wishes came true.

Spoiler alert: not many.

Wish 1: “Pleasant surprises of any kind”

This was aimed at the Outstanding Comedy Series and Outstanding Drama Series categories, where I worried that most of the nominees were all but locked in. And yes, all those locks got nominations: I mentioned seven top contenders in the drama category, all of which were nominated, and three possibilities for the final slot, one of which – “Paradise” – did get in and was the closest thing to a surprise. Pleasant, yes. But not very surprising.

In the comedy category, it was more of the same. The shows that seemed likely to get in, did. The ones that seemed to be potential upsets, didn’t.

Fortunately, voters delivered some enjoyable twists in the acting categories, foremost among them the nominations of Uzo Aduba for “The Residence” and Jeff Hiller for “Somebody Somewhere” in comedy and Sharon Horgan for “Bad Sisters” in drama.  But in the top program categories, not so much.

Wish 2: “An impressive showing by broadcast networks”

Well, this didn’t happen – especially not in drama, where I pointed out that the onetime broadcast network dominance of the top category had long since been erased by the streamers and cable outlets that routinely grab all available slots. I was hoping that “Matlock” might lead a minor resurgence: “It’d be nice if the networks that have given us acting contenders from ‘Matlock,’ ‘Elsbeth,’ ‘High Potential,’ ‘Will Trent’ and others could get a little love from voters this time around,” I wrote.

Well, here’s your resurgence: One nomination for “Matlock,”  for star Kathy Bates; one for “Will Trent,” for choreography; nothing for “Elsbeth” or “High Potential”; and, for the fourth year in a row, nothing for any broadcast show in the drama series category. “This Is Us” remains the only broadcast show to break into the category in the last 14 years.

The broadcast networks still do well in the reality, variety and comedy categories, but you wouldn’t call their showing impressive.

Wish 3: “A somewhat wacky mixture in the TV-movie category”

The weirdest Emmy category is known for pitting Weird Al Yankovic against gritty dramas and Dolly Parton Christmas movies, but this year’s lineup isn’t quite as daffy as it often is. There’s “Rebel Ridge,” a gritty action thriller set in a small town from indie filmmaker Jeremy Saulnier; “Nonnas,” a dramedy from Stephen Chbosky based on the true story of a Staten Island restauranteur who staffs his kitchen with grandmother chefs; “The Gorge,” a sci-fi thriller with a hint of romance; and “Mountainhead,” “Succession” creator Jesse Armstrong’s satirical comedy about four billionaires dealing with a global crisis from a mountain cabin. The biggest change of pace might be “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy,” the fourth Bridget Jones movie and the first not to premiere theatrically.

It’s a modest mixture of genres and tones, but you probably wouldn’t call it wacky.

Wish 4: “Actors from more than five programs in the supporting acting categories”

A mixed verdict here. For the last several years, the supporting categories have often as not been filled with multiple nominees from the same handful of shows. Last year, five shows were responsible for all 14 supporting nominees in the drama categories, and six shows provided all 12 of the supporting comedy nominees.

My guess was that if anybody was taking bets on the number of shows that would furnish all of this year’s nominees, the over/under would be about 5.5 in drama and a little higher than that in comedy. “I wouldn’t necessarily bet on the over,” I wrote, “but I’m certainly wishing for it.”

If I had bet on the over, I would have lost money in drama and won it in comedy. The drama categories had even more category-hogging than last year, with only four shows taking all 14 nominees: seven for “The White Lotus,” four for “Severance,” two for “Paradise” and one for “The Pitt.” Comedy, though, doubled that, with “The Studio” and “Shrinking” earning three supporting nominations each but the other eight noms coming from an additional six shows.

The post I Made an Emmys Wish List, But Will My Wishes Come True? appeared first on TheWrap.

Those were some of the lessons from Tuesday’s announcement of the 77th Primetime Emmy Awards nominations, which were announced by Harvey Guillén and Brenda Song on Tuesday morning in North Hollywood. With the number of submissions declining for the second consecutive year, many major categories had fewer nominees than usual, but that didn’t stop voters from dropping in a handful of surprises and from showing just how much they loved the second season of “Severance,” the runaway leader in nominations with 27, three more than last year’s big winner, “Shōgun,” received on its way to breaking the Emmy record for wins in a single year.

In recent weeks, Dan Erickson and Ben Stiller’s twisty sci-fi series had seemed to be losing some momentum to the first-year drama “The Pitt,” but the nominations suggested that we underestimate “Severance” at our own risk. Of particular interest were the show’s nine acting nominations, which was more than the presumed juggernaut “The White Lotus” and trailed only the 10 acting noms for first-year comedy “The Studio,” which had so many delicious cameos that it almost ran the table in the guest actor category by scoring nods for Bryan Cranston as a crazed studio head and Dave Franco, Ron Howard, Anthony Mackie and Martin Scorsese as themselves.

“The Pitt” and “The Studio” were two of the four new shows that managed to land series nominations, with “Paradise” joining “The Pitt” in the Outstanding Drama Series category and “Nobody Wants This” joining “The Studio” in Outstanding Comedy Series. The four series nominations for first-year shows followed four years in which five or six freshman shows made the cut each year; the last time fewer than five got in was 2020, when “The Mandalorian” was the only new  show to do it.

In a way, that’s because the stop-and-start nature of recent TV production, caused by the pandemic and the strikes, means that many past nominees and winners have taken longer than usual between seasons, which led to this year’s influx of past nominees returning to the race after not being eligible for a year or more. “Severance” was foremost among those, returning three years after its first season, but it was also joined by “Andor,” “The Diplomat,” “The Last of Us” and “The White Lotus.”

That last show did well, with its 23 nominations tying it with “The Studio” for third most, trailing only the 27 for “Severance” and the 24 for “The Penguin.” But in the supporting actor and actress categories, where all but one of the show’s 20 eligible actors were submitted, the show’s third season didn’t do quite as well as Season 2 did two years ago. That season scored four supporting actor and five supporting actress nominations, while this year Mike White’s series had to settle for three supporting actors (Walton Goggins, Jason Isaacs and Sam Rockwell), four supporting actresses (Carrie Coon, Parker Posey, Natasha Rothwell and Aimee Lou Wood) and one guest actor (Scott Glenn).

Still, “The White Lotus” contributed mightily to the seemingly obligatory case of Emmy category-hogging. In the drama categories, only four shows – “White Lotus,” “Severance,” “Paradise” and “The Pitt” – supplied every one of the 14 nominees, continuing a trend that has plagued those categories in recent years. (The comedy supporting categories were more equitable, with eight shows sharing those nominations.)

Elsewhere on the ballot, the final season of “The Handmaid’s Tale” showed that the series has pretty much dropped off Emmy voters’ radar. For its first season in 2017, the adaptation of Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel became the first streaming show to win Outstanding Drama Series, and continued to rack up nominations even when it was only eligible for “dangling episodes” rather than full seasons. But after Season 4 received 21 nominations in 2021, Season 5 was almost completely ignored by voters, garnering only a single nom for star Elisabeth Moss.  And its final season suffered a similar fate, with a guest actress nomination for Cherry Jones its only recognition.

Another series that might have been expected to get a boost was “Saturday Night Live,” which concluded its 50th season. On one hand, the statistics say that the landmark season was snubbed by voters, with its seven nominations being the fewest the long-running series has received since 2009, when it began a 16-year streak of averaging more than 15 nominations per year. But the anniversary season brought a bunch of “SNL”-adjacent programs, all of which received nominations: 12 for “SNL50: The Anniversary Special,” six for “SNL50: The Homecoming Concert,” three for “SNL50: Beyond Saturday Night,” two for “Ladies and Gentlemen… 50 Years of SNL Music” … So voters still love all things “SNL,” even if they don’t love “SNL” itself quite so much.

With final voting beginning in late August, the nominations appear to set up some real showdowns. In the comedy category, the 23 nominations for “The Studio” seem to make it a strong rival to defending champion “Hacks,” which suffered a notable miss when Paul W. Downs didn’t get a supporting actor nomination that was considered a lock. (But then, “Hacks” wasn’t a favorite last year when it upset “The Bear” for Outstanding Comedy Series, either.)

In drama, “Severance” would seem to have smooth sailing, considering it leads its presumed rival “The Pitt” in nominations 27-13. But nomination totals can be deceiving, and this looks like a close race to the end. And in the limited series category, “The Penguin” showed unexpected strength with 24 nominations, but another 13-nom show, “Adolescence,” is sitting in the same spot as last year’s winner, “Baby Reindeer,” with enough key noms to hang onto its frontrunner status.

Final voting doesn’t begin for more than a month, and the 77th Primetime Emmys don’t take place for almost two. There’s a long road ahead for everybody.

The post Emmy Nominations Analysis: ‘Severance’ and ‘The Studio’ Dominate, but Does That Make Them Frontrunners? appeared first on TheWrap.

That’s the outlook for the 77th Primetime Emmy Award nominations, which will be announced on Tuesday morning by Harvey Guillen and Brenda Song. With the number of entries in many categories slipping for the second year in a row, Television Academy rules dictate that the number of nominees will also drop, leading to pitched battles for the remaining slots and inevitable cries of “Snub!” when the nominations are revealed.

Our stab at prognostication suggests that “Abbott Elementary,” “The Bear,” “Hacks,” “Shrinking” and “The Studio” will all do well in the marquee comedy categories; “The Pitt,” “Severance” and “The White Lotus” will be among the most-nominated dramas; and that “Adolescence” will top “The Penguin,” “Dying for Sex” and “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story” in limited series. But will we be right? Emmy voters may be creatures of habit, but they also throw surprises our way every year.

It’s important to note that in almost all categories, the number of nominees is determined by how many programs or people qualified. A category with more than 20 submissions gets an automatic five nominees, but that number goes up at intervals: 81 entries gets the category a sixth nominee, 161 delivers a seventh  and 241 brings an eighth. (Outstanding Comedy Series and Outstanding Drama Series get an automatic eight nominees regardless of how many shows qualify.)

Of the 20 categories covered in this story, 10 will presumably be the same size as last year, while two (supporting actor and actress in a comedy series) will be bigger and eight (lead actor and actress in drama and comedy, supporting actor and actress in limited series, talk series and scripted variety) will be smaller. But that presumes that there won’t be any ties, which can expand or contract categories and usually affect a handful of the 100-plus categories every year.

Last year, for example, the number of entries called for five nominees in the lead acting categories for comedy, but those categories ultimately had six nominees each.

Confused? The Emmys wouldn’t have it any other way. But with that in mind, here are our best guesses about what we’ll hear on Tuesday morning.

Comedy Categories

Outstanding Comedy Series
Five of last year’s nominees in this category – “Abbott Elementary,” “The Bear,” “Only Murders in the Building,” “What We Do in the Shadows” and the 2024 winner, “Hacks” – are back in the running, and it’d be surprised if they don’t all make the cut again. (The final season of “Shadows” might be on the bubble, but the rest seem safe.)  At least two of the remaining slots are likely to go to new comedies, with “The Studio” and “Nobody Wants This” having more heat than “Agatha All Along,” “The Four Seasons” and “Running Point.” But it also feels like it’s time for the second season of “Shrinking” to land the nomination that eluded its debut season two years ago.

Number of nominations: 8

Predicted nominees:
“Abbott Elementary”
“The Bear”
“Hacks”
“Nobody Wants This”
“Only Murders in the Building”
“Shrinking”
“The Studio”
“What We Do in the Shadows”

Watch out for: “Agatha All Along,” “The Four Seasons,” “Poker Face”

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series
Two years ago, this category had only five nominees, and Jeremy Allen White won for “The Bear” over Jason Segel for “Shrinking” and Martin Short for “Only Murders in the Building,” among others. This year, it’s too early to predict a winner, but White, Segel and Short will likely take three of the five slots.

But can the formidable likes of 16-time nominee Steve Martin, 18-time nominee Ted Danson and 11-time nominee Steve Carell grab any of the leftover spots? Among the actors who stand in their way are Seth Rogen, a clear favorite for “The Studio,” Adam Brody for “Nobody Wants This”  and Matt Berry for “What We Do in the Shadows,” which brought him a nomination last year. In other words, this is a very competitive category.

Number of nominations: 5

Predicted nominees:
Adam Brody, “Nobody Wants This”
Seth Rogen, “The Studio”
Jason Segel, “Shrinking”
Martin Short, “Only Murders in the Building”
Jeremy Allen White, “The Bear”

Watch out for: Ted Danson, “A Man on the Inside”; Steve Martin, “Only Murders in the Building”; Matt Berry, “What We Do in the Shadows”

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series
Jean Smart has won for the first three seasons of “Hacks.” Quinta Brunson has been nominated for the first three seasons of “Abbott Elementary,” and won in 2023 when she didn’t have to go up against Smart. Ayo Edebiri won for the first season of “The Bear” in the supporting-actress category and was nominated for the second season in lead.

Those three feel like locks, with contenders for the last two slots including past nominees Natasha Lyonne (“Poker Face”), Selena Gomez (“Only Murders in the Building”), Tina Fey (“The Four Seasons”), Uzo Aduba (“The Residence”) and Kathryn Hahn (“Agatha All Along”) and the remarkably un-nominated Kristen Bell, who’s apt to find that “Nobody Wants This” will bring her a plaudit that eluded her on “Veronica Mars,” “Gossip Girl” and “The Good Place.”

Number of nominations: 5

Predicted nominees:
Kristen Bell, “Nobody Wants This”
Quinta Brunson, “Abbott Elementary”
Ayo Edebiri, ”The Bear”
Natasha Lyonne, “Poker Face”
Jean Smart, “Hacks”

Watch out for: Uzo Aduba, “The Residence”; Selena Gomez, “Only Murders in the Building”; Kathryn Hahn, “Agatha All Along”

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series
The supporting comedy and drama categories have enough entries to warrant seven nominees, making them this year’s biggest acting categories. For comedy actor, that means there will be room for past nominees Ebon Moss-Bachrach for “The Bear,” Paul W. Downs for “Hacks,” Tyler James Williams for “Abbott Elementary” and Bowen Yang for “Saturday Night Live,” but also for Ike Barinholtz for “The Studio” and the certified legend Harrison Ford, who seems to be having a lot of fun being a hot new comedy actor in “Shrinking.” The final spot could go to Colman Domingo for “The Four Seasons,” but it may be likelier to be filled by one of Ford’s co-stars, either Michael Urie or Brett Goldstein, who might have gotten a little boost when “Ted Lasso” announced its return.

Number of nominations: 7

Predicted nominees:
Ike Barinholtz, “The Studio”
Paul W. Downs, “Hacks”
Harrison Ford, “Shrinking”
Brett Goldstein, “Shrinking”
Ebon Moss-Bachrach, “The Bear”
Tyler James Williams, “Abbott Elementary”
Bowen Yang, “Saturday Night Live”

Watch out for: Colman Domingo, “The Four Seasons”; Matty Matheson, “The Bear”; Michael Urie, “Shrinking”

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series
Sorry, Meryl, there’s no room for you. Could it be true that a category with seven nominees wouldn’t find a spot for Meryl Freakin’ Streep? Well, maybe. Hannah Einbinder (“Hacks”), Liza Colon-Zayas (“The Bear”), Jessica Williams (“Shrinking”) and the unstoppable “Studio” double shot of Catherine O’Hara and Kathryn Hahn all feel inevitable, which leaves two slots.

Those two could easily go to Sheryl Lee Ralph and Janelle James from “Abbott Elementary,” both of whom have been nominated for every season of their show. If that happens, Streep could miss out on another nom for “Only Murders in the Building,” and others who are left out could include Chase Sui Wonders (“The Studio”), Megan Stalter (“Hacks”) and the late Linda Lavin (“Mid-Century Modern”).

Number of nominations: 7

Predicted nominees:
Liza Colon-Zayas, ”The Bear”
Hannah Einbinder, “Hacks”
Kathryn Hahn, “The Studio”
Janelle James, “Abbott Elementary”
Catherine O’Hara, ”The Studio”
Sheryl Lee Ralph, “Abbott Elementary”
Jessica Williams, “Shrinking”

Watch out for: Linda Lavin, “Mid-Century Modern”; Meryl Streep, “Only Murders in the Building”; Chase Sui Wonders, “The Studio”

Drama Categories

Outstanding Drama Series
In contrast with the comedy category, where most of last year’s nominees are once again in the running, the main drama category is almost entirely bereft of 2024 nominees. “Slow Horses” is the only one of last year’s contenders to be eligible, which could be good news for new shows like “Landman,” “Paradise,” “Your Friends & Neighbors” and especially “The Pitt,” the one freshman series that seems guaranteed to receive a nomination.

The real competition in this category will come from past nominees that weren’t eligible last year but are now back in contention: “Andor,” “The Last of Us,” “Severance,” “The White Lotus,” “The Handmaid’s Tale” …

“The Pitt,” “Severance,” “The Last of Us” and “The White Lotus” feel like the category leaders, with “Slow Horses,” “Andor” and “The Diplomat” likely nominees as well. That leaves one open spot that could go to “The Handmaid’s Tale,” a past winner that has often shown surprising strength with voters; “Landman,” Taylor Sheridan’s best shot at finally landing a series nomination;  “Squid Game,” a  big winner in its first season in 2022; or “Paradise,” the cautionary and timely series from “This Is Us” creator Dan Fogelman.  With the Emmys embracing international work in recent years, we’ll go with “Squid Game.”

Number of nominations: 8

Predicted nominees:
“Andor”
“The Diplomat”
 “The Last of Us”
“The Pitt”
“Severance”
“Slow Horses”
“Squid Game”
“The White Lotus”

Watch out for: “The Handmaid’s Tale,” “Landman,” “Paradise”

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series
Noah Wyle (“The Pitt”), Adam Scott (“Severance”) and Gary Oldman (“Slow Horses”) are locks in this category – and in a year with only 77 eligible entries, that leaves room for only two more nominees. (If there had been four more entries, the category size would have been bumped up to six.) Pedro Pascal was killed in the second episode of “The Last of Us,” but he returned in flashbacks and had enough of a presence to probably earn a nomination, just as Brian Cox was nominated in this category for the season of “Succession” in which he died in Episode 3.

But who else? It could be Sterling K. Brown for “Paradise,” Diego Luna for “Andor,” Billy Bob Thornton for “Landman,” Eddie Redmayne for “The Day of the Jackal,” Jon Hamm for “Your Friends & Neighbors” or Lee Jung-jae for “Squid Game,” the show that gave him a win in this category three years ago. We’ll go with Brown, who already has 10 Emmy noms for six different shows. But is that unfair to Hamm, who has 18 previous noms for six shows?

Number of nominations: 5

Predicted nominees:
Sterling K. Brown, “Paradise”
Gary Oldman, “Slow Horses”
Pedro Pascal, “The Last of Us”
Adam Scott, “Severance”
Noah Wyle, “The Pitt”

Watch out for: Lee Jung-Jae, “Squid Game”; Diego Luna, “Andor”; Billy Bob Thornton, “Landman”

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series
Is it 2023? That year, the nominees in this category included Melanie Lynskey for “Yellowjackets,” Elisabeth Moss for “The Handmaid’s Tale,” Bella Ramsey for “The Last of Us,” Keri Russell for “The Diplomat” and Sharon Horgan for “Bad Sisters,” all of whom are eligible again this year. (They all lost to “Succession” star Sarah Snook, who is not eligible.)

Moss and Russell are likely to be nominated again this year, as is Ramsey for carrying the Pedro Pascal-less “The Last of Us.” But Lynskey is on the bubble, because the category has to make room for Britt Lower from “Severance” and Kathy Bates from “Matlock.” Other strong contenders include Kaitlin Olson from “High Potential,” Nicola Coughlan from “Bridgerton” and Keira Knightley from “Black Doves” – but room for them is scarce because barring ties, this category will only have five nominees for the first time since 2008.

Number of nominations: 5

Predicted nominees:
Kathy Bates, “Matlock”
Britt Lower, “Severance”
Elisabeth Moss, “The Handmaid’s Tale”
Bella Ramsey, “The Last of Us”
Keri Russell, “The Diplomat”

Watch out for: Nicola Coughlan, “Bridgerton”; Melanie Lynskey, “Yellowjackets”; Kaitlin Olson, “High Potential”

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series
There’s one big question looming over the supporting drama categories: How much “White Lotus” can two categories hold? The show’s first two seasons dominated the categories, earning eight nominations in 2022 (when it was classified as a limited series) and nine in 2023 (when it moved to drama). Can the show grab more than half the categories’ total nominations again? With 20 different actors from the show submitted for consideration, and more than a dozen of them with a real chance of being nominated, some serious category-hogging is quite possible. (Then again, “Severance,” “The Last of Us” and “The Pitt” could grab multiple nominations as well.)

In the supporting actor category, the “White Lotus” contenders begin with Walton Goggins, Jason Isaacs and Sam Rockwell, all of whom are pretty much guaranteed to be nominated. Castmate Patrick Schwarzenegger might well join them, with Sam Nivola a longer shot. A pair of actors from “Severance,” John Turturro and Tramell Tillman, are likely to join them, while Zach Cherry and even Christopher Walken have the chance to up the count for “Severance.” Outside of those top two shows, “Slow Horses” is in the mix with Jack Lowden (aiming for his second consecutive nomination) and Jonathan Pryce, while Patrick Ball could add one for “The Pitt.” And don’t rule out Bradley Whitford for “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

Number of nominations: 7

Predicted nominees:
Walton Goggins, “The White Lotus”
Jason Isaacs, “The White Lotus”
Jack Lowden, “Slow Horses”
Sam Rockwell, “The White Lotus”
Patrick Schwarzenegger, “The White Lotus”
Tramell Tillman, “Severance”
John Turturro, “Severance”

Watch out for: Patrick Ball, “The Pitt”; Christopher Walken, “Severance”; Bradley Whitford, “The Handmaid’s Tale”

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series
This is the category where “The White Lotus” has totally dominated in the past, taking five of the seven nominations for Season 1 and five of the eight for Season 2.  They have a sextet of actresses who could well land nominations in Carrie Coon, Parker Posey, Aimee Lou Wood, Leslie Bibb, Michelle Monaghan and Natasha Rothwell, with Sarah Catherine Hook having an outside chance as well – but given this year’s competition, it’s likelier that Coon, Posey and Wood will be their show’s representatives in the category.

They’ll probably be joined by Katherine LaNasa and Taylor Dearden from “The Pitt,” Allison Janney from “The Diplomat” and Patricia Arquette from “Severance,” though upsets are possible from Isabela Merced from “The Last of Us” and “The Handmaid’s Tale” co-star Ann Dowd, who is so formidable that she’s getting her own spinoff.

Number of nominations: 7

Predicted nominees:
Patricia Arquette, “Severance”
Carrie Coon, “The White Lotus”
Allison Janney, “The Diplomat”
Katherine LaNasa, “The Pitt”
Parker Posey, “The White Lotus”
Aimee Lou Wood, “The White Lotus”
Taylor Dearden, “The Pitt”

Watch out for: Leslie Bibb, “The White Lotus”; Isabela Merced, “The Last of Us”; Natasha Rothwell, “The White Lotus”

Limited Series and TV Movie Categories

Outstanding Limited or Anthology Series
Last year, we bemoaned the fact that the limited series category didn’t get the same dispensation as the top comedy and drama categories, which are guaranteed eight nominees regardless of the number of entries. This year, it doesn’t feel quite so urgent to expand the category beyond the five slots its 33 entries calls for, because the field seems a little thinner than it has in many recent years.

That said, the top contenders are a mix of limited series that have been around since last year and ones that have dropped in the last three months of the eligibility period. The first group includes “The Penguin,” which has won lots of previous awards and looked like the frontrunner until recently; “Presumed Innocent,” the most high-profile David E. Kelley project since the Emmy juggernaut “Big Little Lies”; “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story” from Ryan Murphy, a reliable Emmy magnet; “Disclaimer,” a thorny prestige drama from director Alfonso Cuaron; and “Say Nothing,” a period drama about the Troubles in Northern Ireland that flew under the radar until picking up some momentum in recent months.

The late-breaking series are headed by Stephen Graham and Paul Thorn’s “Adolescence,” which became Netflix’s 2025 version of last year’s “Bad Reindeer”; “Dying for Sex,” which won raves for actresses Michelle Williams and Jenny Slate; and “Black Mirror,” the British anthology series that used to win lots of Emmys when the Television Academy allowed it to submit individual episodes as TV movies.

‘Adolescence,” “The Penguin,” “Monsters” and “Dying for Sex” are the likeliest nominees, with “Black Mirror,” “Disclaimer,” “Presumed Innocent” and “Say Nothing” grappling for the last slot.

Number of nominations: 5

Predicted nominees:
“Adolescence”
“Black Mirror”
“Dying for Sex”
“Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story”
“The Penguin”

Watch out for: “Disclaimer,” “Presumed Innocent,” “Say Nothing”

Outstanding Television Movie
One of the oddest Emmy categories features a wide range of films with little in common: “Rebel Ridge,” an action thriller by indie director Jeremy Saulnier, is going up against the Peabody-winning Disney movie “Out of My Mind,” the fourth installment in the “Bridget Jones” series (albeit the first not to premiere theatrically) and “Succession” creator Jesse Armstrong’s made-in-a-hurry black comedy “Mountainhead,” among others.

Those four films seem to have the best shot at nominations, while the fifth slot is a total tossup from a field that also includes sci-fi (“The Gorge,” “Star Trek: Section 31”), heartwarming tales with lots of food (“Nonnas,” “The Supremes at Earl’s All-You-Can-Eat”),  dramas about personal discovery (“Am I OK?,” “The Life List”), a Paul Feig sequel with Anna Kendrick and Blake Lively (“Another Simple Favor”), an action flick starring Viola Davis as a kick-ass president (“G20”) and a 2024 John Woo drama about a professional assassin that shares a title with the 2023 David Fincher drama about a professional assassin (“The Killer”).

Number of nominations: 5

Predicted nominees:
“Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy”
“Mountainhead”
“Nonnas”
“Out of My Mind”
“Rebel Ridge”

Watch out for: “Am I OK?,” “Another Simple Favor,” “The Gorge”

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Limited or Anthology Series or Movie
Colin Farrell has already won Critics Choice, Golden Globe and SAG Awards for “The Penguin,” but he has a formidable rival in “Adolescence” co-creator and star Stephen Graham. Cooper Koch, who plays Erik Menendez in “Monsters,” is one of the year’s two breakout TV stars with Cooper in their name, while Paul Giamatti wins points for bringing unexpected humanity to the darkness of “Black Mirror.” But you can’t discount Kevin Kline, Brian Tyree Henry, Jake Gyllenhaal or Nicholas Alexander Chavez for their work in “Disclaimer,” “Dope Thief,” “Presumed Innocent” or “Monsters,” respectively.

Number of nominations: 5

Predicted nominees:
Colin Farrell, “The Penguin”
Paul Giamatti, “Black Mirror”
Stephen Graham, “Adolescence”
Jake Gyllenhaal, “Presumed Innocent”
Cooper Koch, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story”

Watch out for: Nicholas Alexander Chavez, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story”; Brian Tyree Henry, “Dope Thief”; Kevin Kline, “Disclaimer”

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Limited or Anthology Series or Movie
Cristin Milioti (“The Penguin”) and Michelle Williams (“Dying for Sex”) are the top contenders here, but this is also the category where “Disclaimer” is likeliest to be recognized with votes for the iconic Cate Blanchett. And there’s a pretty good chance that Blanchett will be joined by fellow Oscar winner Renee Zellweger, who could add an Emmy nomination for playing Bridget Jones to the Oscar nod she got for the role 24 years ago.

Kaitlyn Dever is also in the running for “Apple Cider Vinegar,” as are Ellen Pompeo for “Good American Family” and Amanda Seyfried for “Long Bright River.” But the Irish series “Say Nothing” feels as if it gained just a little late momentum, which could work to the benefit of Lola Petticrew.

Number of nominations: 5

Predicted nominees:
Cate Blanchett, “Disclaimer”
Cristin Milioti, “The Penguin”
Lola Pettigrew, “Say Nothing”
Michelle Williams, “Dying for Sex”
Renee Zellweger, “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy”

Watch out for:  Kaitlyn Dever, “Apple Cider Vinegar”; Ellen Pompeo, “Good American Family”; Amanda Seyfried, “Long Bright River”

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Limited or Anthology Series or Movie
Here’s the year’s other breakout star with Cooper in his name: Owen Cooper, a British teenager who’d never acted professionally before his wrenching debut in “Adolescence.” He’s a lock for a nomination, as is Javier Bardem as the doomed Menendez patriarch in “Monsters.” Both of them could be joined by castmates, Ashley Walters from “Adolescence” and Nathan Lane from “Monsters,” though Walters might have the better shot. Beyond that, we expect Rob Delaney (“Dying for Sex”), Rhenzy Feliz (“The Penguin”) and Peter Sarsgaard (“Presumed Innocent”) to land nominations over Clancy Brown (“The Penguin”) and Wagner Moura (“Dope Thief”).

Number of nominations: 6

Predicted nominees:
Javier Bardem, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story”
Owen Cooper, “Adolescence”
Rob Delaney, “Dying for Sex”
Rhenzy Feliz, “The Penguin”
Peter Sarsgaard, “Presumed Innocent”
Ashley Walters, “Adolescence”

Watch out for: Clancy Brown, “The Penguin”; Nathan Lane, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story”; Wagner Moura, “Dope Thief”

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Limited or Anthology Series or Movie
“Adolescence” should continue to assert its dominance here, with Erin Doherty as a child psychologist and Christine Tremarco as an anguished mother both in good shape. “The Penguin,” “Monsters” and “Dying for Sex” should also add to their totals with nominations for Deirdre O’Connell, Chloe Sevigny and Jenny Slate, respectively. The final spot could go to “Disclaimer” actresses Lesley Manville or Leila George (playing the younger version of Cate Blanchett’s character), or to Ruth Negga from “Presumed Innocent” – but voters have loved “Black Mirror” for years, and Emma Corrin has a standout episode.

Number of nominations: 6

Predicted nominees:
Emma Corrin, “Black Mirror”
Erin Doherty, “Adolescence”
Deirdre O’Connell, “The Penguin”
Chloe Sevigny, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story”
Jenny Slate, “Dying for Sex”
Christine Tremarco, “Adolescence”

Watch out for: Leila George, “Disclaimer”; Lesley Manville, “Disclaimer”; Ruth Negga, “Presumed Innocent”

Talk, Variety and Reality Categories

Outstanding Talk Series
The drop from 14 eligible shows last year to 13 this year dealt a serious blow to this category, because it reduced the number of nominees from four to three. And when you consider that  “The Daily Show” (22 total nominations) and “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” (eight noms, plus another 10 for its predecessor “The Colbert Report”) are prohibitive favorites to be nominated, that only leaves one additional slot.

“Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and “Late Night With Seth Meyers” are responsible for some vital late-night humor these days and both have multiple previous nominations, but “Everybody’s Live With John Mulaney” has become a hit for Netflix and “Hot Ones” is one of the, um, hottest entries in the field in recent years. Unless “The Daily Show” or Colbert have lost their luster with voters, the math here is pretty much impossible.

Number of nominations: 3

Predicted nominees:
“The Daily Show”
“Jimmy Kimmel Live!”
“The Late Show With Stephen Colbert”

Watch out for: “Everybody’s Live With John Mulaney,” “Hot Ones,” “Late Night With Seth Meyers”

Outstanding Scripted Variety Series
This category only had six eligible entries this year: “After Midnight,” “Fantasmas,” “It’s Florida, Man.,” “Last Week Tonight With John Oliver,” “Saturday Night Live” and “Studio C.” Emmy rules say that a category that small should be killed and its programs folded into a different category, but it has now existed for five years with only two or three nominees. Unless a tweak in voting somehow makes room for a third nominee, the two are all but guaranteed to be “Last Week Tonight” and “SNL.”

Number of nominations: 2

Predicted nominees:
“Last Week Tonight With John Oliver”
“Saturday Night”

Watch out for: “After Midnight” (but really, you don’t need to watch out for anything else here, unless the category expands)

Outstanding Reality-Competition Program
Can a new competition program break into the Emmy category that goes back to the same shows more than any other? Season 1 of “Beast Games” might hope so, but there’s no unseating defending champion “The Traitors” and five-time winner “RuPaul’s Drag Race.” And the other contenders include “The Amazing Race” (21 nominations and 10 wins), “Survivor” (seven nominations, but only one in the last 18 years), “The Voice” (13 noms) and “Top Chef” (18 noms). Maybe the closest thing to a surprise will be when “Survivor” uses its momentum leading up to its own 50th season to edge past “The Voice.”

Number of nominations: 5

Predicted nominees:
“The Amazing Race”
“RuPaul’s Drag Race”
“Survivor”
“Top Chef”
“The Traitors”

Watch out for: “The Voice,” “Beast Games”

Outstanding Host for a Reality or Reality Competition Program
Alan Cumming is the reigning lord of the category – or the laird, given his Scottish roots and the castle from which he reigns over “The Traitors.” RuPaul is an eight-time winner who’s not going away. And Jeff Probst has one of the weirdest track records ever: He won in 2008-2011, taking the first four awards in the category’s existence, then didn’t get another nomination until his 12-year drought ended last year. All of them may well be joined but a couple more of the usual suspects.

Number of nominations: 5

Predicted nominees:
Alan Cumming, “The Traitors”
Kristen Kish, “Top Chef”
“Shark Tank” hosts
Jeff Probst, “Survivor”
RuPaul, “RuPaul’s Drag Race”

Watch out for: Phil Keoghan, “The Amazing Race”; “Queer Eye” hosts; Alfonso Ribeiro and Julianne Hough, “Dancing With the Stars”

The post Emmy Nomination Predictions 2025: How Will They Find Room for All Those ‘White Lotus’ Actors? appeared first on TheWrap.

Some actors swear by intimacy coordinators, with Dakota Johnson and Michelle Williams praising their work on “Materialists” and “Dying for Sex” recently. Some prefer not to use them, a decision that Mikey Madison made for her Oscar-winning performance in “Anora.”

And some actors are puzzled by them. Richard Gere, who became a star in the late 1970s and early ’80s in a string of sexually-explicit films like “American Gigolo,” “Looking for Mr. Goodbar,” “An Officer and a Gentleman” and “No Mercy,” falls into this camp, judging by a recent Wrap interview with the stars of the Paramount+/Showtime series “The Agency.”

Michael Fassbender and Jodie Turner-Smith, who played a CIA agent and a Sudanese professor who’d had a love affair while he was working undercover in Africa, talked about how they loved having an intimacy coordinator for their love scenes. Gere, who played the chief of the agency’s London office, asked them how it worked, and said he had never worked with one and seemed skeptical of the whole idea.

When TheWrap mentioned that intimacy coordinators didn’t exist when he was making his 1980s films, Gere agreed and said, “I don’t think it would’ve worked then, to tell you the truth.”

Fassbender, Turner-Smith and Jeffrey Wright disagreed and tried to explain to Gere why coordinators are so valuable, while he shared his experiences working without them.

The full exchange is below. It begins after Turner-Smith had been talking about how much she enjoyed working with Fassbender on the series.

MICHAEL FASSBENDER: We had the intimacy coach as well. Which, I got to say, I’m happy for that. A lot of the time, directors won’t say what they want you to do and you’re left to your own devices. But it’s kind of like doing a fight sequence now. It’s like, “OK, are you comfortable with me touching your breast or ass?” Or whatever it is. The guidelines are down and then you can shoot super fast.

RICHARD GERE:  So how did it work? I’ve never worked with one.

FASSBENDER:  You sit down and the director has to say, “I want to see this amount of nudity. This is ideally what I would like to see.” The intimacy person’s there to say, “OK, this is what is agreed.” And then you discuss exactly what you’re going to do. “Are you fine with being kissed on the neck?”

JODIE TURNER-SMITH: You figure out all the boundaries. And then, like Michael was saying, it’s like a fight. It’s like having a stunt choreographer, which is why I think it’s so important.

There has been a lot of (skepticism about coordinators), and I get it because I think when this position first arose, a lot of times it could feel like there’s another person now just making it more awkward. But when the job is done as it should be and when it’s offered in the way that it should be offered …

First of all, I think that no actor or actress should ever be in a position where a director comes to them and says, “Do you want an intimacy coordinator or not?” It should just be there for them, like a stunt coordinator. You would not do an unrehearsed stunt. It doesn’t make any sense.

It needs to be treated in the same way. And I think when the actors have an understanding of the boundaries, then you can be safe and you can do what you are doing. I just think it’s really irresponsible to not have that for the actors or to put the actors in a position where you are telling them, “Oh, you make the choice.” No, this is the person that should be there for that.

FASSBENDER:  One hundred percent.

They did not have those in those movies you were making in the ’80s, Richard.

GERE: No. I don’t think it would’ve worked then, to tell you the truth.

FASSBENDER: I disagree. You just never know what another person is uncomfortable with. And especially for women, maybe in that time it was very rarely a negative time.

GERE: But we talked about it then. I mean, that’s 40 years ago, but that’s not the last time I’ve been involved with scenes like that. And we talked about it. It wasn’t like, “OK, you two go at it and we’ll see what we get.” You still have angles, you still discussed the whole process. I just think …

JEFFREY WRIGHT: It can be a slippery slope, depending on who’s involved.

GERE: Depending on who’s involved, for sure.

FASSBENDER: I’ve had that, though, where it’s like, “Off you go, guys.”

GERE: I’ve never had that.

FASSBENDER: It’s stressful and it’s uncomfortable, and I guess I never had the confidence to say to my partner, “Are you cool with me doing this?” I never had that dialogue ’cause it felt uncomfortable. So now you’ve got this sort of mediator.

GERE: See, in the ’80s we were comfortable that way.

FASSBENDER: Which is cool. If you’re doing it yourselves like that, great. But if one person feels pressure that they’ve got to …

GERE: Sure.

FASSBENDER:  … and they don’t feel like they can speak up because people will say, “Oh, this person’s difficult now,” I think that’s a danger. Whereas if you have this sort of referee or mediator and clear guidelines have been set down, it’s better.

TURNER-SMITH: They can also be a person who is supporting and figuring out the choreography of the scene. That’s the other thing as well. A scene like that can be its most beautiful and poetic when there is choreography, you know?

And I have to say as a woman, because I’ve had the experience of both there not being intimacy coordinators and then seeing that happen. And I know that for myself, for some reason I’m always being asked to take off something or do something like that. For me, this has been a great thing because even as comfortable as I’ve always been with nudity or with anything that’s sensual or sexual, when you are doing it in that context, it just becomes different and you just need a lot more safety.

FASSBENDER: Or more power in the situation.

TURNER-SMITH: Yes. Even if that person is not the one who’s coming up with the choreography, if the actors are doing that themselves. When I worked with Michael, he’s so experienced, he knows what he’s doing. You don’t necessarily need someone to come in and say, “OK, now you should put your hand there and do that and that.” But that person is there to make sure that the the proper amount of respect is being exercised on the set.

I mean, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve done something where it was meant to be a closed set and it was not a closed set at all. And even that is difficult as an actor and especially as a woman. These little things, these little nuances, it’s about safety.

The post Richard Gere Doesn’t Think Intimacy Coordinators Would Have Worked in the ’80s appeared first on TheWrap.

But Peacock’s new TV version, created by Ronan Bennett, is different — partly because it’s a continuing series, so you expect its title character to survive, and partly because the Jackal is played by Eddie Redmayne, whose innate likability means that we’re bound to root for him at least some of the time.

Redmayne’s Jackal is meticulous and relentless, but one of the conceits of the show is that the British detective who’s out to get him, played by Lashana Lynch, is as remorseless as her target, and almost as willing to bend the rules. Between that dynamic and the Jackal’s increasingly conflicted personal life, the series weaves a tangled web, morally and legally.

The last time we spoke, it was for the movie “The Good Nurse,” where you played Charlie Cullen, a real-life nurse who was responsible for a string of deaths. Both that project and this one play off your nice-guy persona. We just tend to be on your side.
It’s interesting that you say that, because I think the reason I got cast is that Brian Kirk, our director, had seen “The Good Nurse.” I don’t want to relate fiction to reality, but the thing I found in (director) Tobias Lindholm’s take on that piece is that it never gave you an easy reason as to why Charlie Cullen did these things. I think as human beings, to feel comfort we need to know, “Oh, this person had a trauma, and that’s why he did it.” But that lets us off the hook somehow. And I find qualities of sociopathy in the Jackal and in Charlie that somehow connect these two polar-opposite lives.

There is a moment late in “Jackal” when your character meets up with an elderly couple who help him out. As we were watching it, I turned to my wife and said — and this was just a guess — “I think he’s going to kill those nice people, but I’m still rooting for that guy.”
I didn’t know the extremity of what he was going to do when I signed on. They sent me the first three episodes, and the targets in those first couple of episodes were people that you didn’t necessarily have empathy for. But that was the threading of the needle: How do you do such appalling things and yet still keep people engaged?

I found that there was space to find this inner life in him that remains while he’s being pulled apart. And he’s also someone who is so meticulous. I think we all relate to that moment when a curveball is thrown and your plan is completely dismantled, seeing how you try to survive.

What was it about those three episodes that interested you?
They arrived in my inbox and “The Day of the Jackal” was the title. That was one of my dad’s favorite movies, and one of three or four VHS movies in our house when I was growing up. As those scripts arrived, there was a moment of trepidation, because you don’t want to butcher something you adore, but what I read was so different. It was contemporized, but it had the qualities I loved in the original movie.

It was a ’70s thriller, so it was kind of analog rather than from the digitized age that we’re in. I loved the feeling of those earlier Bond movies where you would set things up and then watch the dominoes fall. Also, there were so many challenges in those episodes. It was like an actor’s playground: languages, disguises, physicality, action. So I jumped right in and signed on as a producer.

When you had three scripts, did you know where the story was going?
I asked not to know because I was so excited by the scripts coming in. But also, when I signed on, I joined as a producer. And this whole experience has been a massive learning curve for me. For years I’ve worked quite intimately with directors and producers I’ve worked with. I’ve always been allowed a kind of input, I suppose. But this was really seeing behind the curtain in an intriguing way. It was a rigorous process but a rewarding one.

I always wonder about actors who get involved in TV shows on the basis of a couple episodes. When you get a script for Episode 6, do you ever think, I wish I had known that about this guy in Episode 1?
Yeah. I mean, I did ask what the general arc was. But the truth was that I assumed the next seven scripts were arriving in the next two weeks. And that was not the case. (Laughs)  

It’s not specific to television. I’ve worked on films where there is a release date and the script’s not ready, and you go in not knowing the entire arc of something. What I found complex about this one was that I could do all this prep for the first three, and then suddenly things were arriving: different prosthetics, different languages, and now you’re shooting and you’re on the hoof. So I had to juggle prepping with shooting.

You talked about how meticulous the character is. And it’s fun to watch it a year after seeing the David Fincher film “The Killer,” where Michael Fassbender plays a very different but equally meticulous assassin.
It was really funny, that. We were already shooting when that film came out, and I remember the original opening was the Jackal doing a plank (setting up a shot at his target). He checks his Apple watch. And my initial instinct was, it can’t be an Apple watch. This guy is an analog guy in everything. I find that intriguing, because in this world that we’re living in now, when it is all online, the way to disappear is to be completely analog.

And I remember that when I saw the trailer for “The Killer,” it was Michael doing a plank and looking at his Apple watch, checking his pulse. I was like, “OK, thank God we made that change.” But I’ve also found it interesting that there seems to be a revival in this type of genre, whether it’s “Jackal” or “Black Doves” or “The Agency.”  

But again, one of the things that appeals to me about playing Jackal is that as a British kid growing up, I always loved these sorts of characters. And yet the Jackal, because there being something specifically old-school about him, I felt this might be something I could do. Whereas I don’t necessarily have the physical heft to play the butch-er spies. (Laughs)

The character is living a double life that his family does not know about. Do you feel like he really does love his wife and son and is committed to them?
On one hand, there is a ruthlessness and a lack of morals and a kind of refined, terrifying elegance. And then there’s this family man, and I believe both of those things are true. In some ways, I saw him as an addict. I think he believes it when he’s saying that this is his last job. But the idea of him just sitting there in his beautiful house with his beautiful wife and child reading a book for the rest of his life, I just don’t see it happening. (Laughs) There is a pull, and also his virtuosity. I relate to the addiction of doing something you love. It’s very rare to find a job that fulfills you and is more than a job. So I was trying to draw on my own passion for acting, I suppose.

At the end of Season 1, the character comes right out and says what his two goals are going forward. I assume that’s where we’re going in Season 2?
Those are the initial aspirations. I’ve just seen the first script, and what I love is that it’s staying true to the character, but the ambition seems to have inflated. The second I read it, I thought, “When can we start?” But we’ve got a few more to write.

So are there still things for you and the audience to learn about the Jackal?
Oh, I think there’s a s–tload. (Laughs) I think we’ve only scratched the surface of him.

A version of this story first appeared in the Drama Issue of TheWrap’s awards magazines. Read more from the issue here.

The post Eddie Redmayne Explains the Art of Getting People to Root for a Ruthless Killer in ‘The Day of the Jackal’ appeared first on TheWrap.

Michael Fassbender plays Brandon Colby, a top CIA operative better known as “Martian” who’s been summoned back to the organization’s London office after years of living undercover in Africa; Jeffrey Wright is Henry Ogletree, the CIA London Deputy Station Chief; Richard Gere is James Bradley, the London Station Chief who reports to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia; and Jodie Turner-Smith is Dr. Samia Fatima “Sami” Zahir, who was in a relationship with Martian when he was stationed in Africa and shows up unexpectedly in London, forcing him to hide his continuing interest in her.

The espionage genre is very popular on TV right now. What’s the appeal?
MICHAEL FASSBENDER: I think there’s a lot of mystery around it. When you’re doing stuff like this, you have access to a world that you’re trying to represent. But for the most part, we don’t know what it’s like. And the stakes are the highest they can be. It’s an opportunity to peek behind the curtain, and I think that’s endlessly fascinating.

And I suppose it feels timely when the world seems particularly chaotic.
RICHARD GERE: I talked to the writers about that. What is our agenda? I mean, what Trump is doing is challenging. What are we supposed to be doing, and who’s going to control us? Who are the adults in the house back in Washington and Langley? This definitely should be part of what we engage with on the show.

JEFFREY WRIGHT: If you look at the end of Season 1, Martian betraying the U.S. on behalf of the U.K. has even more multidimensional resonance now than it did when the show came out. There’s an additional tension that didn’t exist then between the U.K. and the United States, and the EU and the United States. That alone brings up a whole different set of potential scenarios going forward. It’s just the accelerated nature of change on the geopolitical landscape right now.

Jodie, were there particular reasons the show appealed to you? Your character’s not in the building with these guys, but you certainly have a window into that world.
JODIE TURNER-SMITH: I do like that I’m always in the room, even when I’m not there. I thought that was interesting, to make that kind of an impact. It’s not about how much screen time I have. It’s about the way that I get to watch this really incredible performance unfold from Michael and this dynamic between these guys happen. I think it’s very compelling, the story between Martian and Samia. It feels good to be the sort of very human element of all of this.

GERE: She’s probably the only example of purity in this.

TURNER-SMITH: Absolutely, yeah. These guys are all cutthroats.

GERE (To Fassbender): Actually, your daughter, Poppy (India Fowler), has a similar purity, too.

FASSBENDER: Yeah.

When they bring Poppy into the CIA office to protect her, Martian is shocked and upset that she has been exposed to that side of his life.
FASSBENDER: Well, it’s one of the most horrible things that he does. He makes her complicit for his own ends. He’s been pretty much absent in her life for six years, and then to come back, manipulate her and get her to be part of this lie was really a clinching sign that he is a sociopath.

All of his relationships, in both his work life and his professional life, appear to be built on lies.
FASSBENDER: One of the lies that stood out for me the most was the first scene with Poppy (when she comes to the London apartment the agency has prepared for him). She’s like, “Oh, where’d you get the place?” And I’m like, “Some guy who lives in Cape Town owns it. I think he’s a sculptor and artist.” That’s such a weird lie. It doesn’t mean anything. Lies are just interwoven in his reality. It was a piece of information about the character that he’s just [lying] indiscriminately.

The relationship between the three CIA agents has clearly been going on for decades, to the point where you three have a shorthand that comes from things we don’t know about. Michael, Jeffrey and Richard, did you work together to establish those relationships?
WRIGHT: Between all three of us there’s history, and as I understand, we’ll get into it in the second season to ramp up the betrayal and the tension that exists between Henry and Martian. But as far as trying to figure out something together, no. It’s all in the script.

GERE: Yeah, it’s in the script.

WRIGHT: And I think you just kind of dig it out as you go about it on the day. I think we were able to find that between one another and make similar assumptions about how they exist relative to one another, just based on what we read on the page.

TURNER-SMITH: I think this is exceptional casting, though. The three of you, your scenes together are so interesting. And the tension that you’re holding, the relationships, the weight, the game that’s being played is so interesting to watch.

FASSBENDER: Thank you. When you’re working with people who do their homework and who know what they’re doing, it’s more interesting sometimes not to discuss things. To see what the person’s going to bring you in the scene, and to be awake and alive and respond to what they bring to the scene.

WRIGHT: We understood pretty quickly that we were working on the same equation when we showed up in the morning. We talked through things and asked questions of one another and the director, whoever the director was on a given day. And we found that we were in the same universe. It doesn’t always happen like that, but we were able to mesh in that way.

GERE: We all work pretty much the same way. It’s surprising. That doesn’t always happen, for sure. It can be somebody who’s got a completely different way of approaching the work, but we all pretty much worked the same way.

It feels like a show that trusts the audience by not providing as much exposition as viewers might usually get.
FASSBENDER: The audience has got to lean in a little.

WRIGHT: There’s a respect for the level of interest and knowledge from the audience. You know, this is not necessarily for the low-propensity, low-IQ voter. It’s for people who are interested in the world around them and somewhat attuned. (Pauses) I used that more as disparagement of Steve Bannon, who uses that term “low-IQ voter.”

FASSBENDER (Laughs): This is the first time Bannon has been brought up in one of our interviews.

WRIGHT: This is the first. But that’s the phrase he uses for their target audience. You know, these things are not existing in a vacuum. And a certain level of awareness enhances the experience, for sure.

A version of this story first appeared in the Drama Issue of TheWrap’s awards magazine. Read more from the issue here.

The post ‘The Agency’ Stars on Why the Espionage Drama Feels Timely in the Trump Era appeared first on TheWrap.

Bates’ latest role is the title character in Jennie Snyder Urman’s “Matlock,” which borrows its name from the Andy Griffith legal drama from the 1980s and ’90s but knowingly subverts it in the process: Bates’ Madeline Kingston, aka Matty Matlock, solves cases just as Griffith’s Matlock had done, but it turns out that she’s playing the role of Matty in order to infiltrate a law firm that hid evidence on behalf of a pharmaceutical company that was complicit in the opioid-related death of her daughter.

The series is the most successful new show on broadcast television this season, and it could well bring Bates, who is 76, a rare Emmy nomination for a lead role. (So far, 10 of her 13 Emmy noms for acting have come in supporting and guest categories.)

I was sitting one table away from you at the Critics Choice Awards in January. And when you won the Best Actress in a Drama Award for “Matlock,” the room seemed completely thrilled, and you seemed absolutely shocked.
I was gobsmacked. I was sure that Anna Sawai (from “Shōgun”) was going to win. I never thought in a million years I would win. That’s why I didn’t get all dressed up. People thought I’d come from riding a Harley or something.

Has “Matlock” been a surprise for you in other ways, too?
It’s been a surprise in every way. I’m surprised that the material is so wonderful, and surprised that Jennie is consistently someone I love working with, and surprised that (CBS Entertainment President) Amy Reisenbach and (CBS President and CEO) George Cheeks and (CBS Studios President) David Stapf are such wonderful people, and that the cast gets along so well. And surprised, of course, at what a tremendous audience response we’ve had. It’s just unbelievable, right?

When I watched the first episode, I thought it was going to be a law show with a different case each week until the last few minutes of the show, when your character’s real intentions were revealed. And that changed everything. What was your reaction when you first read it?
It was exactly the same. I had no expectations, and I had not seen Jennie’s other show, “Jane the Virgin,” which I hear was very successful. As I began to read, I thought, “Oh, I’ve done this before, and I don’t know if I’m interested in playing another lawyer.” And then when I got to the twist at the end, I thought, “OK, now we’re talking about a character that has a cause.” It just blew everything wide open. And it was also about the opioid crisis, which I know from personal experience. Years ago, when I had breast cancer, I wanted to have more medication, and my doctors were very reluctant. And now I understand why. That’s how 90% of people get addicted, because of injuries or surgery. So it’s been a very sobering journey.

Knowing that, did you respond to the script immediately?
They gave me a script on Friday, and I met with Jennie on Monday. I liked her very much, and we settled down right away and got to work. I had a million questions that I had written down over the weekend. When I sat down, I remember saying to her, “I love this. Don’t change a word. Let’s talk about this character.” And then I just dove right in.

What kinds of questions did you have?
I have the list here somewhere. I keep everything. Let me see if I can find it. (A minute later) Found it! (reading) How do you see this character, Matty? What would Matty have to do to create her character? What about her age? I’m 74, that’s too old for a daughter. What does her husband do? How rich are they? How did they make their money? How many episodes have you written? Can I see them? Who will be directing the pilot? Where do you see the series going after the first season? Does Matty solve the case during the first season? And I said to Jennie, “I don’t want this to start out unique and turn into ‘Boston Legal.’” I wanted to know, Will Matty be arguing in court? Who else was in the cast? Will we have rehearsal time? That is really important to me.

(Laughs) So that’s good, right? All of those questions. I ran across this list of questions recently and I went, “Whoa, I’m really granular.”

Has that been typical for you over the years?
This one was very unusual because of Jennie and who she is. She wants to know everything that’s going on, and any questions that I have, she gets back to me right away. She’s very transparent. I can sit and talk to her, and that has not always been the case. I don’t want to go into details or name any names, but that has not always been my experience. Often times you’re cast, and the next time you see the creator is on the set. And maybe I didn’t push hard enough to say, “Look, I want to sit down and talk to you about this.”

Matty is consistently dismissed and underrated because of her age and her gender. Has that happened to you in Hollywood?
I don’t want to beat a dead horse, because I’ve talked about this before, but yes. I thank God for Ryan Murphy, because he really helped me rejuvenate my career after being sick with cancer. At that time, when I had my mastectomy back in 2012, I was feeling like my career was over.

I remember when I got sick, I said, “I don’t feel like a woman.” And my doctor said, “You have the Y chromosome, you’re a woman. Every cell of you is a woman.” But I think especially when you have your breasts removed, it’s difficult for a woman. I was older and I just felt, “This is it. I’m done.”

And “Harry’s Law” (a 2011-2012 show starring Bates) had been canceled, specifically because (then NBC Entertainment Chairman) Bob Greenblatt said at the TCAs, “We cannot monetize this show with an older audience,” even though we had amazing numbers. I found it very unfair and very disconcerting. And I can’t tell you how many people I’ve run into over the years who have said, “What happened to ‘Harry’s Law’?”

So it’s lovely to be able to have “Matlock” satisfy all those people that were upset about “Harry’s Law.”

You have done a huge range of things over the years. Are you happy with where your career took you, or do you have regrets?
I would have obviously loved to do more leads, more meaty roles like (the 1995 film) “Dolores Claiborne,” which unfortunately did not get the attention we deserved that year. I also think, candidly, that my weight played a part of that. I do look back and regret that we were not able to do “’night, Mother” after we had done it on Broadway. (Bates and Anne Pitoniak were nominated for Tony Awards for their performances in the Pulitzer Prize-winning play, but Sissy Spacek and Anne Bancroft were given the roles in the 1986 film version.) I have regrets when I look back and think, “Gee, I wish I could have done this, I could have done that.” But there we go. I don’t regret the four Oscar nominations.

So with the success of “Matlock,” where do you want to go from here?
I’d love for “Matlock” to run for five years or more. I love working on it and I want to see where Jennie goes with it. And if there is a wonderful movie role that comes down the pike during hiatus, I would love to do that. But I would need to do something great if I was going to do a film. And other than that, I’m just really enjoying this TV schedule.

A version of this story first appeared in the Drama Issue of TheWrap’s awards magazine. Read more from the issue here.

The post Kathy Bates Thought Her Career Was Over – Then ‘Matlock’ Left Her Gobsmacked appeared first on TheWrap.