#Robin Wright on House of Cards was ~difficult~

[thecrownnet]

The Crown season 3 includes another engaging performance by Ben Daniels, so can we finally appreciate his reign on the small screen?

This column contains discussion about The Crown season 3.

The Crown has brought Ben Daniels back to our TV screens, and it’s about time.

The new season of the critically acclaimed Netflix series has Daniels taking over for Matthew Goode as Antony Armstrong-Jones, the photographer whose marriage to Princess Margaret (now portrayed by Helena Bonham Carter) is in a steadily downward spiral. And while it’s not easy to follow Goode, Daniels does so in shrewdly spectacular fashion. Every time he appears over the course of the ten episodes, you know there’s something going on.

What you probably don’t know is this is what Ben Daniels does in every television role. He steals scenes, if he doesn’t outright command the entire show.

This is his first series regular part since headlining FOX‘s The Exorcist from 2016-2017, and that show deserved more than two seasons, primarily because of its criminally underrated ensemble. Daniels was the catalyst that drove the series as titular exorcist Father Marcus Keane, a force of nature, counter-balanced only by an equal but entirely opposite performance from Alfonso Herrera as his unlikely partner Father Tomas Ortega.

You have to be a little crazy to dance with the devil, and Daniels’ portrayal of Marcus certainly was that, crackling with energy every time he appeared on screen. He was someone we believed could move heaven and Earth to save a soul, because that’s how intense he was. And oftentimes he did it with a well-earned smirk or a wry line, as close to levity as The Exorcist ever got.

At the same time, the Olivier Award winner and Tony Award nominee played Marcus as someone who was broken—who could only battle Hell because he’d been there and back again. Daniels hit every note of pain, frustration, self-doubt and self-loathing to give the character such amazing depth. He showed audiences a full and complicated inner life that, together with his fellow cast members, gave the series genuine heart to go along with all of its demon fighting.

*Spoilers Alert*

His station in The Crown isn’t quite so bleak nor sympathetic; history tells us that the real Earl of Snowdon was as complicit in the failure of his marriage as his wife, and to call their relationship difficult would be an understatement. The 18-year union reportedly included drugs, alcohol and as The Crown season 3 covers, infidelity on both sides. It wouldn’t be hard to find reasons to hate him, and Daniels brings a certain too-self-assured charm that, when necessary, makes him grate on the viewer’s nerves just enough.

But that’s the easy part to play. It’s much harder to drag out the humanizing aspect of the role, to find something that makes us care about Armstrong-Jones or the end of his marriage. Goode was charming, but it’s Daniels whose work is bittersweet, showing us a more vulnerable side even as he gets what he ultimately wanted. After all, if he didn’t care about the marriage being together, we wouldn’t care about it falling apart.

In the season finale, when his mistress Lucy Lindsay-Hogg (played by Arrow‘s Jessica De Gouw) brings Tony evidence of Margaret’s affair, his reaction is not what she expected. “She’s my wife,” he tells her matter-of-factly. “Mother of my children.” It’s a relatively short exchange, but Daniels gives us a glimpse into a man who’s still hurt, even while those wounds are at least partially self-inflicted. He adds that dimension that makes the difference.

This isn’t the first time Ben Daniels has walked the corridors of power, either. He was part of the debut season of Netflix’s House of Cards, playing Adam Galloway, another photographer having another affair, this one with Claire Underwood (Robin Wright). Or go more than a decade backward to The State Within, the BBC America political thriller where he held his own opposite Jason Isaacs and Sharon Gless, and got his hands dirty in all manner of subterfuge.

He knows how to play characters within this complicated world, especially when they’re in messy situations; he’s able to wring every ounce of drama out without being dramatic. Too many actors would go for the jugular straight away, or chew the scenery like a well-done steak, but Daniels is much more sophisticated — he builds to each big moment with every small one. It’s the same way in The Crown; when the marriage finally comes to a head, it’s a shocking, disgusting and yet also riveting explosion.

Which brings us to a character who couldn’t be more different from the Earl of Snowdon. 2019 also marks the tenth anniversary of Law & Order: UK, in which Daniels starred for four seasons as James Steel, the show’s lead prosecutor. He was phenomenal in the role, and while it may not be as high-profile as The Crown, what he accomplished makes it equally worth watching.

It was Daniels’ job to slay the dragon, as Steel’s responsibility was to take each case to court and hopefully come away with a conviction. As anyone who’s watched any Law & Order knows, being the prosecutor is a lot like theatre — it’s monologues, whether delivering an opening statement or a relentless cross-examination. And Daniels brought that same lightning in a bottle to those scenes, bringing out the heroic quality of the prosecutor because we could see in his performance just how much it takes to fill that role. It wasn’t just standing in a courtroom, talking; it never was with him.

And now, eight years after his last episode of that series, it’s easy to see why he’s a perfect fit for The Crown season 3. He can play difficult people like Antony Armstrong-Jones without making them difficult to watch; quite the opposite, in fact, as he finds what makes them worth watching. He has the charm and wit for every public moment between Tony and Margaret, and the intensity to go to some truly eviscerating places in private. As their marriage sinks further toward the point of no return, he sinks his teeth into it and makes it the tempestuous ride it ought to be.

And he deserves to be on a stage as big as The Crown. Ben Daniels is one of a kind, even if he might fly under the radar; hopefully, this series will give him more of the recognition he deserves.

The Crown season 3 is now streaming on Netflix.

[acsversace-news]

Of all the five murders committed by Andrew Cunanan, the most poignant may be that of David Madson because he’s the victim who almost got away.

An architect living in Minneapolis, Madson had everything Cunanan wanted — a promising career, a good dating life, a circle of loyal friends — but didn’t want to work for. When Cunanan forced Madson, who was 33 when he was found dead at a rural lakeside in Minnesota, to flee the scene of the murder of Jeff Trail, his first victim, his doom was sealed.

As the Ryan Murphy reaches its bloody climax in a few weeks, we spoke to Australian actor Cody Fern who plays Madson about what it was like to shoot the series in reverse and to recreate that ghoulish crime scene.

Fern, who is 30, will next be seen in the sixth and final season of “House of Cards” on Netflix.

What was it like filming the storyline backwards?

You start at the most intense sequence and then you get to discover the other end of the pendulum. So it was nice to work backwards. I don’t want to get too airy-fairy, but it was nice to live out the horror of David’s life and then backtrack to something more beautiful.

Did you talk to anyone in David’s family before you started filming?

I didn’t. I’m not sure the opportunity was there.

When we were given the scripts, there was a collective feeling this was difficult to get through, especially for the families. We wanted to stay true to Maureen Orth’s book, the source material, and not stir up anything with the families through unsolicited phone calls. “I’m playing your son or brother though the most horrifying part of his life. Do you want to chat?”

Why didn’t David run?

It’s very easy to look at things objectively and say. “I would do this” or “I would do that.” When you see your best friend [Jeff Trail] murdered, 27 times with a claw hammer, you don’t know how your going to behave. The level of shock. He must have been so afraid.That was the whole linchpin of the character.

From what can be gleaned about David, he was this wonderful, generous human being. When the police were searching his apartment, they found wrapped presents for his nieces and nephews months in advance of Christmas.

You’ve been working in Baltimore on “House of Cards.” What can you tell us about your character?

I can’t say anything. There are so many rumors about my role out there. We’re not allowed to confirm. But everyone is so psyched for Robin [Wright taking over]. I think the show has been about Claire since Season Two. It’s really not a show about one man. Or Kevin Spacey’s indiscretions or his terrible secrets. It’s about Robin and Michael Kelly and Jayne Atkinson.

[wiliamsons]

ROBIN WRIGHT TALKS ABOUT HER FILM “LAND” AMONG OTHER THINGS

The actress has recently given an interview to “LIVE with Kelly and Ryan,” the actress renowned for her performance in the film “Forrest Gump,” has talked about her latest film “Land” and has shared her thoughts on producing the film in Remote Alberta situated in Canada to make the story look more real.

It is a well-documented fact that Robin did really work hard to get the filming of “Land” done. Not only, she had to go to the jungle to film it; she also had to call “bear whisperer” to keep all the cast and crew completely safe from any danger from the wild animals.

Robin Wright, also famous for her role of President Claire Underwood in Season 6 of House of Cards, is playing the double role of director and the lead actress in the film “Land.”  The film explores her character “Edee Mathis” as she moves to a small cabin in the forest battling depression and suicidal tendencies. However, the kindness of the local stranger soon teaches her how to lead her life and gives her a new way and purpose.

However, as she filmed in the locality of Alberta (situated in Canada), she had to take care of the fact that the pet bear of the production team does not get taken away by the local grizzlies, who were taking quite a liking for the animal.

She explained that the team had to do a scene for the film where the pet bear gets eaten by another bear, and it was difficult to keep pet bears on the set because the team had wild bears roaming around the production set all day long.

She explained in her interview to “LIVE With Kelly and Ryan” that her team had to hire a bear whisperer to keep wild beers away because the set did become a little unsafe for everyone present there.

However, Robin Wright has explained that she has no regrets about shooting in the Alberta area of Canada. She explained in the interview that the team had to go there to shoot the scenes in a really authentic way.

She also added that being out there in the wild felt like medicine for her. It is nice to get the city away from your lungs, and she shared that it was a nice feeling for the whole crew to be out there and hear birds and the ruffling of leaves instead of the noise and horns of trains.

In one of her other interviews about the movie, she explained that she was a little reluctant and under-confident about directing the movie. However, she assured herself that she could do it. She had shared that she needed to tell herself that she had to be committed to her confidence and her skills to make it done.

Robin Wright also has experience of directing other independent films and few episodes of House of Cards.

Recently, she has been a pivotal feature of films like Blade Runner 2049, Wonder Woman, and The Dark of Night.

Source- ROBIN WRIGHT TALKS ABOUT HER FILM “LAND” AMONG OTHER THINGS

[themadthinker]

Dune Fancast pt 1, House Atreides

I’ve been kicking around the idea of the upcoming live action Dune movie a lot, but it bugs me that most of the fancasts I’ve seen have all been hella white. Let’s fix that.

Starting, of course, with the House Atreides. Proud, honorable, easily manipulated.

Paul/Muad’dib: Ashton Sanders

Paul is the hardest to get right. He needs to be young and vulnerable, but also capable of great internal strength, and deeply charismatic. He also needs to be an actor comfortable in silence since so much of this portrayal is done through internal monologue. Moonlight’s Ashton Sanders fits the bill perfectly, he’s shown is abilities in all those areas, and is a deeply skilled actor.

Duke Leto: Kanye West

The Duke is fiercely loyal, a military genius, but also proud and foolish. C’mon, think of how fucking dope it would be to have Kanye in that role. Plus, then we could get Kanye doing the soundtrack and FUCK YES.

Lady Jessica: Robin Wright

Lady Jessica needs to be able to encapsulate so much in her performance. She sacrificed a lifetime of training and support in order to give the Duke the son he wanted rather than the daughter she was meant to bear. She deeply loves her adopted Atreides family—but is also arguably the smartest and most skilled person in the novel. Robin Wright’s turn in House of Cards shows she can play the political manipulator in ways that would make the Bene Gesserit proud.

One of the important character beats of Jessica is that she’s eternally labeled as a “Bene Gesserit witch” due to her background and training, and that marks her as an outsider inside the family Atreides. Having a white actress inside an otherwise black cast highlights that.

Thufir Hawat: Jeffrey Wright

Mentat and master of assassins. Eventually corrupted and controlled by the House Harkonnen. Everyone’s favorite blerd Jeffrey Wright could easily bring the living computer and tactician to the screen.

Duncan Idaho: Idris Elba

The gorgeous swordmaster and skilled fighter of House Atreides. Not to copy wholeheartedly from wikipedia, but: “Duncan is described as a handsome man with "curling black hair" to whom women are easily attracted. Paul Atreides notes Duncan's "dark round face" and "feline movements, the swiftness of reflex that made him such a difficult weapons teacher to emulate." Lady Jessica calls him "the admirable fighting man whose abilities at guarding and surveillance are so esteemed."“ So yeah. Idris. Fucking. Elba.

Dr Wellington Yue: Mahershala Ali

“Yueh! Yueh! Yueh!" goes the refrain. "A million deaths were not enough for Yueh!"”

The doctor turned traitor, who broke his unbreakable Suk Imperial Conditioning under the threat of torture to his wife. He also provides ways for the Atreides to survive and strike back. Ali excels at portraying internal strength and conflict. He’s a fucking incredible character, and would be ideal for the most morally grey of House Atreides.

Gurney Halleck: Chiwetel Ejiofor

Paul’s weapons teacher, a skilled musician, and possible secret lover of Lady Jessica. One of the best fighters in the universe, he’s lead to believe that it was Jessica that betrayed the Duke rather than Yue, and almost kills her. Ejiofor can easily play both the romantic/soft side of Halleck, but also bring about his fierce skills and devotion.

Next time: House Harkonnen!

[kentuckertv]

kevin spacey house of cards netflix

Kevin Spacey, House of Cards

Here’s how House of Cards could get rid of Kevin Spacey Late last week Netflix announced that the company was divesting itself of Kevin Spacey: it’s been reported that the actor, accused of a growing number of sexual harassment claims, would likely be written out of House of Cards’ sixth season. Production is halted on the new season after filming two episodes; more episodes had been written. I guess if you work on the show, you may be grateful that you’re not suddenly unemployed. But continuing Cards poses a new problem. Now the challenge for the writers and producers is: How do you make the lead character vanish?

You’ll recall that the end of the fifth season found Spacey’s Frank Underwood resigning his Presidency over to his Vice President/wife Claire (Robin Wright), in return for being pardoned. In the closing moments, Claire is reconsidering that deal; she turns to us, and, as only Frank had done previously, directly addresses the viewing audience, saying simply, “My turn.” Indeed, it may well be Claire Underwood’s turn. That is, if the show doesn’t go in another direction entirely: Variety has reported that the producers are considering the idea of a spin-off centered around Michael Kelly’s aide Doug Stamper. (Does anyone really want to see a Doug show? He’s become such a dry, pleasureless character, all nursed grudges and grim AA meetings.) The difficult trick is, how to erase Frank? If the show has him die (say, of a heart attack), there might have to be a few scenes of mourning, or at least some of the show’s patented insincere sincerity—fulsome praise of the now-late President Underwood from politicians who hated his guts. But would the show risk having it seem as though it was, subtextually, saluting Kevin Spacey—giving him a semi-fond farewell?

Hmmm. What about assassination? Same thing: Violent death tends to enshrine even unsympathetic characters, and you don’t want a halo-glow hovering over the head of even an absent, memorialized Underwood/Spacey. The thought also occurs that, at some point in the increasingly long list of men who’ll have TV work taken away from them due to their dreadful behavior, some TV show or another will be tempted to have that man’s character also commit some terrible act against women, be called out for it, and banished. In the case of Frank Underwood, (former) President of the United States, however, this would carry too obvious an irony: If this fictional President lost his public position for being a sexual predator, viewers would howl that this was unbelievable, given that our real President has been accused of much the same thing and remains securely in office.

But maybe I’m over-thinking it. Perhaps viewers will hold their noses and put up with a season opener that features the announcement of Underwood’s death by natural causes, followed by a brief, oh-poor-Frank mourning period, if it then allows the series to move on briskly. It sounds difficult to make convincing here, but then, I’m not a highly paid TV writer with limitless imagination. Also, the last couple of seasons of House of Cards have had their inconsistencies and implausibilities. (I’m still irritated at the memory of Claire’s lover, that smug speechwriter-biographer who was quickly allowed to camp out for days and weeks in the White House, roaming the halls and raiding the fridge without Secret Service interference.)

When I think about the possibilities going forward, I have to say, they don’t seem appealing. Yes, it might be thrilling to see a woman as hard-edged as Claire Underwood leading the country, but I think the novelty would wear off fast, and if all she did was continue to scheme and glower at the camera, who’d binge-watch that? As much as it seems sad for the once so highly esteemed House of Cards to go out with a whimper, it may be that the most likely way to rid the screen of Kevin Spacey is to film one long episode—the length of a feature film, perhaps—that would salute the victims of Frank Underwood’s terrible behavior, starting with Zoe Barnes (Kate Mara). That episode would suggest that it’s time to do something that will truly punish a man who thrives on power and prominence—shame him, and then permanently shut down the vehicle that chronicled his glory.

[justjoelkinnaman]

Joel Kinnaman on the Future of House of Cards and Shooting Suicide Squad

Parade, 5/26/17 by  WALTER SCOTT  

Swedish-born actor Joel Kinnaman, 37, is back for another season of Netflix’s House of Cards, premiering May 30. He plays New York governor Will Conway, who’s running for U.S. president against ruthless Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey).

What’s the impact of the current political situation on House of Cards?

Current events have made everybody obsessed with political news. I think that’s going to make people even more interested in the new season.

In the promo for season five, the U.S. flag is flying upside down, a distress signal. What’s up?

[Stuff’s] about to go down. In the end of the fourth season, where we were heading into the election and everything was coming to a head, the Underwoods were trailing in the polls and team Conway was poised to take over. It’s going to be a showdown.

Do you think Will’s wife Hannah (Dominique McElligott) is as supportive on House of Cards as Frank’s wife Claire (Robin Wright) is?

I would say in some ways they mirror each other, but the events of the fifth season are really going to force both Claire and Will’s wife to show their true colors.

As somebody who grew up with five sisters, how do you feel about how the show portrays the women’s storylines?

Something that I’ve always loved about House of Cards is that the women are very strong and interestingly portrayed.

You have two new showrunners for season five; is House of Cards going to feel different, or is it business as usual?

I don’t think it’s going to feel very different. A lot of the fifth season was already mapped out, and the new team are fantastic writers. They’ve done a fantastic job with carrying it forward.

What about your next project, also for Netflix, Altered Carbon?

It’s a series based on a novel [with elements of] sci-fi, noir and cyberpunk. You get in-depth theory storytelling with multiple characters that have complicated character arcs, but at the same time, you get the scale of a big-budget R-rated sci-fi movie.

What are your plans after that?

I’m going to eat French fries and juicy burgers with a lot of cheese on them. I’ve been on a super-strict diet for about eight months.

Playing Stephen Holder on The Killing was your breakthrough role in the U.S. What was the transition like for you to go from acting in Sweden to here?

I grew up in Sweden, but I had gone to high school in the U.S., and that helped me find American characters. I think, initially, what was most difficult was feeling as fluent in English and being able to play with the language in the same way that I could in Swedish.You just have all these fragments of characters in your mind that comes from seeing them while growing up—a friend’s parent or a soccer coach—that you carry with you, and then when you get a role and it reminds you a little bit of that person, you meld that fragment with yourself, and it becomes a new character. I didn’t really have the same library of character fragments from the U.S. I think after living here for a few years, I started feeling that, and now I feel more at home here than I do in Sweden. I’m actually almost more comfortable speaking English than I am Swedish, which is really a strange thing. Just today I came from a photo shoot with a Swedish photographer, and I just realized that I’m more comfortable in English than I am in Swedish.

You’re a sci-fi fan, so what was it like then to become part of the DC Comics world in Suicide Squad?

I had such a ball shooting Suicide Squad. That’s more of a comic book, superhero world than a sci-fi world. It’s not the sci-fi thing that was exciting, for Suicide Squad, it was much more of the characters that I got to play around with. The whole cast, we had such a ball shooting that movie, and we all became really close friends. It was fun being in the DC world, being in the same movie as Batman and the Joker. That was fun, but the big takeaway for me was the cast.

What do you do in your downtime?

Usually, I prepare for my next project. That’s how my life is. Preparing for roles is usually a lot of fun. I don’t have that much downtime, but I like to go traveling. That’s my number one hobby. My wife and I go to places we haven’t been before.

I read that you once said living in New York City was your dream. Is that still the case?

No, that dream’s dead, but that was a long time ago. There was one time when I thought that I would probably end up in New York, but I’ve got to say, to me, L.A. won. I’m so happy I live in Venice [California], and I’m not going anywhere. I go surfing in the morning, I go hiking, there’s just so much to do here. The weather’s good, and I’ve got a lot of friends. To me it’s the best place in the world. I like visiting New York for a couple of months, but for living, this California lifestyle is unbeatable.

What do you see as your biggest challenge?

My biggest challenge is to always continue to grow, to keep challenging myself, and to live just 10 percent out of my comfort zone.

[ohvasparetime]

Joel Kinnaman on the Future of House of Cards and Shooting Suicide Squad

Parade, 5/26/17 by  WALTER SCOTT   

Swedish-born actor Joel Kinnaman, 37, is back for another season of Netflix’s House of Cards, premiering May 30. He plays New York governor Will Conway, who’s running for U.S. president against ruthless Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey).

What’s the impact of the current political situation on House of Cards? 

Current events have made everybody obsessed with political news. I think that’s going to make people even more interested in the new season.

In the promo for season five, the U.S. flag is flying upside down, a distress signal. What’s up?

[Stuff’s] about to go down. In the end of the fourth season, where we were heading into the election and everything was coming to a head, the Underwoods were trailing in the polls and team Conway was poised to take over. It’s going to be a showdown.

Do you think Will’s wife Hannah (Dominique McElligott) is as supportive on House of Cards as Frank’s wife Claire (Robin Wright) is?

I would say in some ways they mirror each other, but the events of the fifth season are really going to force both Claire and Will’s wife to show their true colors.

As somebody who grew up with five sisters, how do you feel about how the show portrays the women’s storylines?

Something that I’ve always loved about House of Cards is that the women are very strong and interestingly portrayed.

You have two new showrunners for season five; is House of Cards going to feel different, or is it business as usual?

I don’t think it’s going to feel very different. A lot of the fifth season was already mapped out, and the new team are fantastic writers. They’ve done a fantastic job with carrying it forward.

What about your next project, also for Netflix, Altered Carbon?

It’s a series based on a novel [with elements of] sci-fi, noir and cyberpunk. You get in-depth theory storytelling with multiple characters that have complicated character arcs, but at the same time, you get the scale of a big-budget R-rated sci-fi movie.

What are your plans after that?

I’m going to eat French fries and juicy burgers with a lot of cheese on them. I’ve been on a super-strict diet for about eight months.

Playing Stephen Holder on The Killing was your breakthrough role in the U.S. What was the transition like for you to go from acting in Sweden to here?

I grew up in Sweden, but I had gone to high school in the U.S., and that helped me find American characters. I think, initially, what was most difficult was feeling as fluent in English and being able to play with the language in the same way that I could in Swedish.You just have all these fragments of characters in your mind that comes from seeing them while growing up—a friend’s parent or a soccer coach—that you carry with you, and then when you get a role and it reminds you a little bit of that person, you meld that fragment with yourself, and it becomes a new character. I didn’t really have the same library of character fragments from the U.S. I think after living here for a few years, I started feeling that, and now I feel more at home here than I do in Sweden. I’m actually almost more comfortable speaking English than I am Swedish, which is really a strange thing. Just today I came from a photo shoot with a Swedish photographer, and I just realized that I’m more comfortable in English than I am in Swedish.

You’re a sci-fi fan, so what was it like then to become part of the DC Comics world in Suicide Squad?

I had such a ball shooting Suicide Squad. That’s more of a comic book, superhero world than a sci-fi world. It’s not the sci-fi thing that was exciting, for Suicide Squad, it was much more of the characters that I got to play around with. The whole cast, we had such a ball shooting that movie, and we all became really close friends. It was fun being in the DC world, being in the same movie as Batman and the Joker. That was fun, but the big takeaway for me was the cast.

What do you do in your downtime?

Usually, I prepare for my next project. That’s how my life is. Preparing for roles is usually a lot of fun. I don’t have that much downtime, but I like to go traveling. That’s my number one hobby. My wife and I go to places we haven’t been before.

I read that you once said living in New York City was your dream. Is that still the case? 

No, that dream’s dead, but that was a long time ago. There was one time when I thought that I would probably end up in New York, but I’ve got to say, to me, L.A. won. I’m so happy I live in Venice [California], and I’m not going anywhere. I go surfing in the morning, I go hiking, there’s just so much to do here. The weather’s good, and I’ve got a lot of friends. To me it’s the best place in the world. I like visiting New York for a couple of months, but for living, this California lifestyle is unbeatable.

What do you see as your biggest challenge?

My biggest challenge is to always continue to grow, to keep challenging myself, and to live just 10 percent out of my comfort zone.

[lol-jackles]

Do you like Kevin Spacey's performance? How would you comment on his act?

Spacey is one of those whom I rate as extremely good actor.  Now, there’s a reason that he almost never plays a romantic leading man.  He doesn’t project empathy very well, he’s better in roles that require cold-eyed intelligence or a bit of vile energy.   His window from ‘95-'99 was just unbelievable, though.  Now let me veer off topic for a moment, it’s a crime that actress like Robin Wright still has not any Oscars…she consistently overshadows Spacey in all their scenes in House of Cards, that’s not easy when Spacey has a showy role and hers is more subtle and understated, the most difficult type of acting is subtle, nuanced acting, like the one Wright is famous for.  Then I remembered that mediocre actors who got lucky with ONE role like Reese Witherspoon, Jamie Foxx, Halle Berry have Oscars, while actors consistently prove they have real talent over and over again (Robin Wright, Paul Giammatti, Glenn Close and many others) have not won Oscars.  The difference? Campaigning and being thirsty for it. You have to really want it.

[ericfruits]

Netflix is moving television beyond time-slots and national markets

IN THE heyday of the talkie, Louis B. Mayer, head of the biggest studio, was Hollywood’s lion king. In the 1980s, with the studio system on the wane, “superagent” Michael Ovitz was often described as the most powerful man in town. Now the honour falls to someone who used to run a video store in Phoenix, Arizona.

Ted Sarandos joined Netflix, a DVD-rental firm, in 2000. In 2011, when Netflix was first moving into streaming video, he bought “House of Cards”, a television drama starring Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright and produced by, among others, the film director David Fincher, for $100m. The nine-figure statement of intent was widely derided as profligate, showing that Netflix might be a source of cash but scarcely offered serious competition. A mail-order video store could hardly be expected to take on networks and studios which took decades to build and were notoriously difficult to run.

Get our daily newsletter

Upgrade your inbox and get our Daily Dispatch and Editor's Picks.

Instead it has become an industry in and of itself. Mr Sarandos, Netflix’s chief content officer, and his colleagues will spend $12bn-13bn this year—more than any studio spends on films, or any television company lays out on stuff that isn’t sport. Their viewers will get 82 feature films in a year when Warner Brothers, the Hollywood studio with the biggest slate, will send cinemas only 23. (Disney, the most profitable studio, is putting out just ten.) Netflix is producing or procuring 700 new or exclusively licensed television shows, including more than 100 scripted dramas and comedies, dozens of documentaries and children’s shows, stand-up comedy specials and unscripted reality and talk shows. And its ambitions go far beyond Hollywood. It is currently making programmes in 21 countries, including Brazil, Germany, India and South Korea.

Mr Sarandos buys quality as well as quantity with his billions. From Mr Fincher on, he has hired directors both famous and interesting, including Spike Lee, the Wachowski siblings and the Coen brothers. He is building a bench of established television hit-makers: Ryan Murphy (creator of “Glee” and “American Horror Story”) and Shonda Rhimes (creator of “Grey’s Anatomy” and “How to Get Away with Murder”) both recently signed up. David Letterman has come out of retirement to do a talk show. Barack and Michelle Obama have signed a production deal, too. The money helps: Mr Murphy’s deal is reportedly worth $300m; Mr Letterman is said to be getting $2m a show. But so does the company’s growing reputation. “They want to be on the channel that they watch,” Mr Sarandos says.

In the first quarter of this year Netflix added 7.4m net new subscribers worldwide. That gave it a total of 125m, 57m of them in America. With an average subscription of $10 a month, those customers represent some $14bn in annual revenue which the company will plough straight back into programming, marketing and technology—along with billions more that it will borrow. Goldman Sachs, a bank, thinks that it could be spending an annual $22.5bn on content by 2022. That would put it within spitting distance of the total currently spent on entertainment by all America’s networks and cable companies.

Enticed by such prospects, the market values Netflix at $170bn, which is more than Disney. Some analysts see this as outlandish for a company yet to make a profit, which has $8.5bn in debt and hasn’t even had that many hit programmes. Its competitors, though, see it as a call to arms. It was the prospect of building a similarly integrated producer, purchaser and distributor of content that led AT&T, a wireless giant, to buy Time Warner for $109bn. If Comcast, America’s largest broadband provider, buys most of 21st Century Fox from the Murdoch family for more than $70bn, it will be to a similar end—and if the Fox goes to the mouse house instead, it will be because Disney knows that to compete with the new giant it needs to own even more content than it already does.

Amazon, Apple, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram are all developing programming efforts of their own. “The first thought on everyone’s mind is how do we compete with Netflix?” says Chris Silbermann, managing director of ICM, an agency that represents a number of people who have signed huge deals with Netflix, including Ms Rhimes and the comedians Jerry Seinfeld (another $100m deal) and Chris Rock (two comedy specials for a reported $40m). “Apple wouldn’t even be thinking about this business if it wasn’t for Netflix,” says Mr Silbermann. “Neither would Fox be in play.” Rupert Murdoch chose to break up Fox to get out of Netflix’s way. Jeff Bewkes, the former chief of Time Warner, acknowledged after agreeing to sell his company that Netflix’s direct connection to the consumer gave it a huge advantage.

Nobody can watch everything...

For Mr Bewkes that was quite a reversal. At the beginning of this decade he poured scorn on the idea that Netflix could be a competitor, comparing it to the “Albanian army”. “He did not believe that the internet was going to be material for a very long time,” Reed Hastings, co-founder and chief executive of the Albanian forces, recently told The Economist in Amsterdam, Netflix’s European headquarters.

What Mr Bewkes missed, but Mr Hastings did not, was not just that the wireless internet would become a reliable conduit for high-quality video, but that in doing so it would change the rules of television. There would be no time slots and no channels, no waiting until next week to see whom the Lannisters betray or the Good Wife sleeps with. Given big enough pipes—in September 2017 Netflix streams were taking up 20% of the world’s downstream bandwidth, according to Sandvine, a network-equipment firm—a company would be able to offer every one of its customers something he wanted to watch, whenever and wherever he wanted to watch it, for as long as he wanted to.

That company would need two things: a big, broad, frequently renewed range of programming; and an understanding of its consumers deep enough to serve up to each of them the morsels most likely to appeal. This mixture of breadth and depth, of content and distribution, of the global and the personal, is the heart of Netflixonomics—the science of getting people to subscribe to television on the internet.

One of the reasons that Netflix is spending in such haste is that Netflixonomics is a winner-takes-most proposition. People can only spend so much time being entertained by television. If you can provide them with entertainment they genuinely enjoy for that length of time, they will have little reason to pay anyone else for further screen-based entertainment—though they may splash out more for sport, and put up with adverts for news, real or fake. Being big early thus constitutes a first-mover advantage. And the dash towards size has the helpful side-effect of driving up rivals’ production costs at the same time as it eats into their revenues. Netflix is “intentionally trying to destroy us, the existing ecosystem,” says one Hollywood executive.

Todd Juenger of Sanford Bernstein, a research firm, says Netflix could have 300m subscribers by 2026, with revenues per subscriber of $15 a month; that suggests $24bn in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation and an enterprise value of at least $300bn, Mr Juenger argues. With investors expecting further growth on top of that, its market value would be a lot higher.

One far-reaching effect of Netflixonomics is that it has changed the calculus of whether a show or film is worth making. The company has identified some 2,000 “taste clusters” by watching its watchers. Analysis of how well a programme will reach, draw and retain customers in specific clusters lets Netflix calculate what sort of acquisition costs can be justified for it. It can thus target quite precise niches, rather than the broad demographic groups broadcast television depends on. Decisions about what projects to pursue, and whether to make them, are up to the executives in Hollywood; Mr Sarandos has 20 people working for him who have the coveted power to “green light” a project. But the boffins at headquarters in Los Gatos help set the budgets.

Once a show is ready for delivery, it is up to executives in Los Gatos like Todd Yellin, vice-president of product, to work out how to get it to the appropriate users and check that they are, in the corny parlance of the company, “delighted” by it. Netflix customers will scroll through 40 or 50 titles on their individualised homescreen, he says, before they choose a title. The choice can come down to details like the poster art, which Netflix tweaks algorithmically according to the aspects of a film or show that would appeal most to a given user.

The combination of personalisation and reach makes the Netflix homescreen the most powerful promotional tool in entertainment, according to Matthew Ball, a digital-media analyst. It lets the company get better results for a lesser-quality show than its peers can by showing it only to those who will like it. Most readers of The Economist will not have heard of “The Kissing Booth”, a romantic high-school comedy released in May. Critics hated it. But it has been seen by more than 20m households; millions of teenagers targeted by algorithms seem smitten by its leads, Jacob Elordi and Joey King.

Its quantitative understanding, and personalised marketing, of niche projects has seen Netflix revive cancelled shows with loyal fan bases, such as “Gilmore Girls”, and take up shows others turned down, such as “The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt”. It has got Emmy nominations for the A-list cast of a show about a pair of elderly women, jilted by their gay husbands, making sex toys (“Grace and Frankie”). Documentaries like “Wild Wild Country” became hot not just by word of mouth, but by being pushed on the homescreen, poster by individualised poster.

...but everybody can watch something

Netflix can take risks on such projects because failure costs it less than it does others. It does not shepherd users towards shows their co-clusterers have hated, so few come to distrust the brand because of seeing things they really do not like. Stinkers do not impose the opportunity costs of a poor performer in prime-time; no other shows have to be cancelled because the network could not programme Wednesday nights. The stuff for which there is no market just disappears.

Cheap, personalised, advertising-free, binge-released video is widely seen as having hastened a decline in audiences for broadcast television, thus doing a great deal of damage to television advertising. It has also led millions of American households to dispense with pay-TV. Americans aged 12-24 are watching less than half as much pay-TV as in 2010, according to Nielsen data; those aged 25-34 are watching 40% less. Networks devoted to scripted entertainment or children’s programming, as opposed to news and sports, have been hardest hit.

To stay in the game, cable networks and other streaming services have commissioned hundreds of hours of high-quality scripted programming, providing an unprecedented glut of good television drama. This has in turn been bad for cinemas. Ticket sales in America and Canada declined by more than 20% between 2002 and 2017—and by 30% on a per head basis. American studios are now either in the blockbuster business—the five Disney films released so far this year have made over $4bn worldwide—or devoted to low-budget offerings best enjoyed with a crowd, like horror.

Netflixonomics is also changing the way shows make money. Netflix usually buys up exclusive worldwide rights to the shows it makes and acquires, paying a mark-up over production costs. Creators forgo lucrative licensing of their shows to secondary markets because, in Netflixonomics, there are no secondary markets. That produces handsome upfront deals, but offers much less to the producers if they make something that outperforms expectations. And the bigger Netflix’s share of the market, the less generous its upfront deals may need to be.

Feel what the community feels

So producers are delighted to see competitors trying to emulate Netflix’s model of integrated production and distribution. Under AT&T, its new owner, HBO is expected to accelerate its move away from its premium-cable base towards direct-to-consumer streaming. It is investing more in shows developed outside America, too, and unwinding partnerships with foreign distributors so that it can stream its own wares worldwide. It will spend over $2.5bn on content this year—as will Hulu, a US-only streaming service co-owned by four studios and best known for its drama “The Handmaid’s Tale”. Apple has hired Hollywood executives to build out a television offering to which it has committed at least $1bn so far. YouTube—which is more watched than Netflix, but accounts for less of the internet’s bandwidth because of its lower definition—also has a subscription service alongside its much larger free-to-view business. Disney is pulling its films off Netflix and launching its own streaming service next year, hoping that its roster of Pixar, Marvel and “Star Wars” movies, not to mention copious princesses, gives it a must-have edge.

Amazon seems perhaps the best placed to compete globally. Its video service is already available pretty much everywhere Netflix is. Amazon Studios will spend more than $4bn this year on content. The company’s boss, Jeff Bezos, has said he wants Amazon to have hits as big and buzzy as HBO’s “Game of Thrones”. To that end the company paid $250m for the rights to make a “Lord of the Rings” TV show. But for Amazon, video will always be part of a bigger strategy. For Netflix it is everything.

Netflix’s investments beyond America give it an edge over all its competitors that goes beyond sheer size. It has started turning non-English-language shows into hits: “Money Heist”, a Spanish crime-caper series, and “Dark”, a piece of German science fiction about missing children, have both been watched by millions in the US, Mexico and Brazil. Nine out of ten people who watched “Dark” were from outside Germany. Upcoming releases include “Sacred Games”, Netflix’s first series in Hindi, and “Protector”, a Turkish superhero story. This summer “Jinn”, a supernatural teen drama in Arabic, will begin shooting in Amman and Petra. These shows will be dubbed into a range of other languages, as Netflix’s English-language shows are—and that range will include English. Americans are not accustomed to dubbing (outside of 1970s Bruce Lee films). But those watching “Dark” and “3%”, a dystopian Brazilian thriller, seemed to prefer it to subtitles.

By offering shows more out-of-the-ordinary and expensive than companies looking just at local markets can normally afford, these shows are meant to make Netflix an enticing premium product. They also allow it to sniff out the best writers and directors. In June Baran bo Odar and Jantje Friese, the creators of “Dark”, signed up to make more shows for Netflix.

The company’s growth in international subscribers—up 48% in 2016 and 42% in 2017—suggests the strategy is working. Goldman Sachs, which is at the bullish end of Netflix assessments, finds that subscriber growth correlates with the rate at which newcontent is added. But Netflix faces several potential challenges. Its easy-sign-up subscription model is also easy to cancel. Netflix does not discuss its churn rate, but MoffettNathanson, a research firm, estimates it to be about 3.5% a month. That is much higher than pay-TV (around 2%) and wireless providers (closer to 1%). A second problem is its thirst for bandwidth. In markets that lack net-neutrality protections (such as America), dominant internet providers might decide to give their own streaming services precedence over Netflix. Aware of such risks, the company is increasingly persuading internet and pay-TV distributors like Comcast, T-Mobile and Sky to bundle its service with theirs, an about-face for some of these incumbents.

There are other ways to stumble. Entertainment companies are exposed to public concerns about behaviour at the top. Netflix dropped Mr Spacey from “House of Cards” after allegations of sexual misconduct and recently got rid of a senior executive over his use of a racial slur; there is no way to insure against future scandals. And if the economy were to turn, reducing both consumers’ appetite for paid entertainment and investors’ appetite for junk bonds, a company which is valued entirely on the basis of putative profits after 2022 would be badly hit. Such a setback would slow Netflix’s growth—and give deep-pocketed competitors like Amazon or Apple time to eat into its leads in inventory, tied-up talent and personalisation.

Some think that, even without such a setback, Netflix’s prospects are being exaggerated. In April MoffettNathanson declared that it could not justify Netflix’s share price “under any scenario”. It did not advise selling the stock, though, noting that investors believed in the Netflix story. Shares have risen by 38% since then, as Netflix reported one of its strongest-ever quarters of subscriber growth.

Sitting in Amsterdam, Mr Hastings appears unconcerned about competition. He argues there is room both for competitors to succeed and for Netflix to continue winning more screen time. He is instead looking towards the challenges of success—those that will arise when Netflix becomes a large presence in societies around the world. “What happened when Televisa used to be like 80% of the Mexican television market, what was it like then? What was their relationship with government, with the society?” Mr Hastings asks. Or Globo, a Brazilian media powerhouse. “How did they get along with their societies when they’re so strong? You have to be gentle obviously as you get that big. How did they pull that off?”

The world’s first global television giant may yet get to find out.

This article appeared in the Briefing section of the print edition under the headline "The television will be revolutionised"

https://ift.tt/2yPYVW9

[sutzrainbow]

I’m pretty sure I’ve got my fancasting all sorted out for The Wingless Dragon & the Crystal Cage, so for anyone who’s remotely interested, here is the Royal Family of the Fairy Kingdom of Perenna, which is a big focus of the story.

They don’t all look related - that’s partly to do with the dolls they were based on - but since magic’s involved, let’s just say that fairies have strange genetics that sometimes result in odd hair and eye-colours unrelated to the parents. The most important sisters - that being the four oldest, Belisema, Floramaria, Serafina and Rosalind - all look like a fairly good match to their parents and that’s what’s important.

Not all of these fancasts are actors - because child actors with a specific look are thin on the ground, the younger the characters got, the more I switched to models. But all the older members of the family have actors.

So, without further ado, in age order:

Robin Wright as Morrigan, Queen of Perenna - I selected Robin for Morrigan because of her breakout role back in the 80s as Princess Buttercup. I get a kick out of her starting as a fairytale princess, and now being a literal fairy queen. But I also selected her because she’s great at being regal, noble, dignified, and a politician. She’s in a show at the moment called House of Cards which I haven’t seen a full episode of, but absolutely showcases what a badass she is. I would compare Morrigan personality-wise to Bluestar from the Warriors saga, but like Bluestar, she isn’t infallible. In many ways she actually serves as an antagonist in the story, but not because she’s evil. She gets trapped between her duty and her family when her loyalty to both pulls her in different directions. That’s a key part of the plot and something my protagonist, Debra, has to sort out. But while the conflict of the story revolves around this great big mistake, Morrigan is actually a very good queen. She’s kind and fair, but very firm.

Rufus Sewell as Arthur, King of Perenna - Rufus is the newcomer to the cast because for a while I had Kenneth Branagh in my head as Arthur - but since I’d already cast Mila Kunis and Riley Brown, I realised that I needed someone with “darker” looks in the family to produce Bela and Ros. Then I saw a lot of footage of Rufus playing Lord Melbourne in Victoria and everything fell into place. He was perfect. So, like Lord M, he’s practical and dignified and stately, but also gentle. His main conflict in the story is that he is second-in-command behind his wife, Morrigan, and halfway through the story Morrigan makes this dreadful decision which he knows is wrong. He feels unable to support her with it, but he has to because that’s his job, and every time he gently tries to push her in the right direction, she clings onto her decision even tighter. He’s not a pivotal character, but he is very influential on the people around him.

Mila Kunis as Princess Belisema “Bela” (22) - I’ll admit this is mostly down to seeing Mila in swanky dresses in Jupiter Ascending, and the fact that she’s got a wonderful brooding look about her, especially with the right eye makeup. Belisema is the Anakin Skywalker of the family: she’s a character who started off with arguably noble intentions, but then became corrupted by her power and ambition.

Rachel Hurd-Wood as Princess Floramaria “Flo” (19) - I got a shock recently when I looked at Rachel’s resume to see how she was doing and saw a picture of her. My literal response was, “OMG THAT’S FLO!”. Her face and expressions are absolutely right and she even dyed her hair the right colour recently! Also just like Rufus and Robin, Rachel is very good at being noble and dignified, but also kind and open. Flo is almost a secondary main character of the story, because she goes through a lot of development. She became the heir soon after her older sister’s defection, and while she’s very dedicated to her duty, it often overwhelms her. Also her mother is a tough act to follow. But then her fiancé is kidnapped, along with a powerful weapon; the entire kingdom is under threat, and her mother, for once, makes a mistake. Flo then has to step up and all but impeach her mother to do what needs to be done. It’s a very difficult and painful process for her.

Georgie Henley as Princess Serafina “Sera” (16) - Sera’s technically meant to be sixteen and Georgie is nearly 23, but what the hey, Dawson Casting for the win. I’ve always loved Georgie ever since I first saw her in the Narnia series. Obviously she’s had experience playing a queen, not a princess, but I also love her because she’s delightfully quirky, so she’s a perfect match for Sera. Serafina is the third-born, and thus knows a lot about the conflict involving her older sisters. She and Flo are very close and it’s Sera’s firecracker attitude that gives Flo the courage to start taking action against their mother’s bad decision. Any snark involving the sisters will often come from her or Verity.

Riley Brown as Princess Rosalind “Ros” (11) - Rosalind is protagonist Debra’s best friend and the animal nut. Riley was one of the first people I fancast in my head. I randomly searched for “girl with black hair” because my doll has that, and stumbled upon this extraordinary ethereal-looking girl. Riley models with her sister Misty, who is stunningly beautiful as well, but not quite as striking. Rosalind is at an awkward stage: not quite child, not quite adult. She was close to her sister Belisema (they both take very much after their dad) so was hurt very badly by her betrayal. Despite this, Rosalind is a sparky optimist most of the time with a determined streak.

"Brooklyn” as Princess Fernanda “Fern” (8) - I wasn’t able to discover this girl’s full name, but I loved her sweet, demure look which is perfect for Fern. Fern is probably the quietest of the sisters; she doesn’t talk much and is a keen botanist - probably because plants don’t talk (not even in this magical world) and don’t expect her to talk back. She’s less involved with the plot than the older sisters, but she is quite aware of what is going on.

“Carlee” as Princess Verity (7) - Verity is one of the youngest princesses, along with her twin sister Ellie. Much like her older sister Sera, Verity is a little firecracker, full of fun and snark, hence why I chose this girl “Carlee” (wasn’t able to find her surname) who has a wonderfully mischievous face.

??? as Princess Eleanor “Ellie” (7) - Though technically a twin, Eleanor was born after Verity, and thus is the very youngest of the sisters. She revels in this probably more than she should, as she has the least responsibilities, and is a bit babyish for her age. That said, she’s also got a strong sense of justice and loves to help people, and when the chips are down she can actually be very sensible and responsible. Once again I couldn’t find this lovely child model’s name, but her looks are perfect for Ellie, with her white-blonde hair and pale blue eyes.

The Wingless Dragon & the Crystal Cage (C) me. The actors aren’t, obviously.

[ryancalderon03908ggl]

Diane Lane Had to Change Her Retirement Plans for House of Cards

Diane Lane and Greg Kinnear sure made life difficult for Robin Wright's Claire Underwood in the final season of House of Cards. "Somebody's got to take her down," Lane...

[acsversace-news]

It’s quite possible you had never seen Cody Fern before. The young Australian actor has only a few credits to his name. But Fern is unforgettable on FX’s The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story as Andrew Cunanan’s second victim and good friend, David Madson. Viewers saw David’s murder in episode 4, but due to Versace’s backward structure are now able to see the beginnings of the relationship.

EW talked to Fern, who was recently cast on the final season of House of Cards, about landing this major break and acting in this true-crime saga.

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: How did you get this Versace role? CODY FERN: I was actually in London at the time because I was working on a feature film that I was writing and directing. So I was in London because I went to work on the script with my writing partner. I was in a little bit of a rut in terms of where I was as an actor. I was always up for big roles, and it was always between me and one other. I was really selective about the work I wanted to do. I was frustrated because I wasn’t getting the gig. It always came down to star name, this that and the other. So I actually decided I was going to take a year off from acting and just focus on writing and directing. I had jokingly said the only thing that was going to put this production on hold would be if Ryan Murphy, HBO, or David Fincher called. So it’s funny now.

You grew up in Australia. Were you aware of the Versace murder? Being from Australia is isolation from this story in once sense, but I also think it’s a generational divide. I knew there was Gianni Versace, but I didn’t even know Versace had been murdered. So I was new to the story as a whole. Before I started filming, I read Vulgar Favors. So I came to know everything as I was actually in the story, and that was phenomenal. I think it’s something the series does so brilliantly in the kind of switch-and-bait of we think we’re entering the world of one killing, but we’re actually entering into this story that hadn’t been told: There are four other victims that nobody knows about.

Was there any thought to reaching out to David’s family? I considered reaching out to the Madson family. First and foremost, we have Maureen Orth’s book. Second, you have Tom Rob Smith, who’s phenomenal as a writer. There was some discussion whether it or not it was appropriate for the actors to reach out to the families because it’s really dredging something up. I think everyone had a sense of wanting to protect the families from that kind of exposure. There are survivors of this tragedy and they are the family members, and it will be up to them as to whether or not they watch the series, so I think we wanted to keep it as their decision. I didn’t approach the Madson family out of respect. But when you have Tom Rob Smith’s writing and Maureen’s research, you’re in a good place.

Tell me about episode 4, which was the most intense for your role. The entire hour is a building sense of dread, ending with David’s death. How was that shoot? Emotionally, it was incredibly fraught. It was a huge upheaval. It was something I couldn’t separate being on set and taking the work home. It really affected me psychologically. It was so dark. At the same time, I felt so supported and so free to explore and to take risks and to really go there. So in one way it was the easiest thing I’ve ever done because Ryan works in a particular way where he selects every single person he’s working with. Being on set, it runs like a family so you feel very protected and very safe and nurtured. But then, of course, emotionally it’s one of the most taxing things because not only are you dealing with the literal things David is going through, but he’s also going through an incredible amount of shame that has built up since he had conscious thoughts. I think that was something that was also a layer we wanted to bring to the show, in dealing with homophobia and internalized gay shame. So that was the hardest thing to deal with.

The murder of Jeff Trail and the hostage situation that ensues was its own particular beast, but I had Darren [Criss] to act opposite. He’s so unhinged and so brilliant. I never knew what he was going to do or what choice he was going to make. It was a wonderful experience, but it was also incredibly difficult.

The way the show is structured, you basically have to create your character backward. Like we meet David at the breaking point of his relationship with Andrew, and in tonight’s episode we see the beginning. That must have been a great challenge as an actor? I actually preferred it in a strange way because what we see of David is somebody who’s at the end of his rope in his friendship with Andrew. Pretty soon on, Jeff is killed, so you have a character that is thrown into complete emotional disarray. So you get to explore the extremes of what David is feeling, the end of what he is as a human being. It was easier to find the crystal of who David was and what he was willing to fight for. Episode 4 really explores the arc of shame and his feelings of complicity in this murder, and he has been in the closet for so long and thought it was a sickness that brought this about. At the very core, David is fighting for what is right and what is good. Finally, fighting for his life in a way that says, “I’m not going to go down for this thing just because you say I am.” It meant that working backwards, I knew the very essence of who David was as a person. Then you get to form chemistry as actors, between Darren and myself. We became such good friends. We went through such extreme things together.

It was just announced you’re joining House of Cards. I’m over the moon. I’m thrilled. House of Cards I’ve watched since the first day. I was shaking the first day meeting Robin [Wright] because she’s such a powerful figure to me in the course of who I’ve become as an actor. It’s thrilling.

Can you tease anything about your character? There have been rumors about who my character was. I read an announcement saying I was the lover of Kevin Spacey’s character, which is completely inaccurate and false. That’s not the case. But I can also tell you I’m NOT a good guy.

[floydblackburn22611zc]

Diane Lane Had to Change Her Retirement Plans for House of Cards

Diane Lane Had to Change Her Retirement Plans for House of Cards Diane Lane and Greg Kinnear sure made life difficult for Robin Wright's Claire Underwood in the final season of House of Cards. "Somebody's got to take her down," Lane... https://ift.tt/2PBLJeH

[marionbentley278]

Diane Lane Had to Change Her Retirement Plans for House of Cards

Diane Lane Had to Change Her Retirement Plans for House of Cards Diane Lane and Greg Kinnear sure made life difficult for Robin Wright's Claire Underwood in the final season of House of Cards. "Somebody's got to take her down," Lane... https://ift.tt/2PBLJeH

[gabrieldaniels50156l]

Diane Lane Had to Change Her Retirement Plans for House of Cards

Diane Lane Had to Change Her Retirement Plans for House of Cards Diane Lane and Greg Kinnear sure made life difficult for Robin Wright's Claire Underwood in the final season of House of Cards. "Somebody's got to take her down," Lane... https://ift.tt/2PBLJeH

[charlesbrewer48125s]

Diane Lane Had to Change Her Retirement Plans for House of Cards

Diane Lane Had to Change Her Retirement Plans for House of Cards Diane Lane and Greg Kinnear sure made life difficult for Robin Wright's Claire Underwood in the final season of House of Cards. "Somebody's got to take her down," Lane... https://ift.tt/2PBLJeH