Category: Entertainment

  • ‘Melania’ Producer Marc Beckman on the Jonny Greenwood Dispute, the Tricky Politics of Licensing Stones or Prince Songs, and the First Lady’s Forthcoming Docuseries: ‘I Think Amazon MGM Got a Very Good Deal’

    ‘Melania’ Producer Marc Beckman on the Jonny Greenwood Dispute, the Tricky Politics of Licensing Stones or Prince Songs, and the First Lady’s Forthcoming Docuseries: ‘I Think Amazon MGM Got a Very Good Deal’

    When a dispute arose over orchestral music originally composed for “The Phantom Thread” appearing in the new Melania Trump documentary, “Melania,” aficionados of music, film and politics all stood to pay attention. The subject of licensing music rights is fascinating and thorny enough in its own right. Add to that a member of Radiohead, Jonny Greenwood, and one of today’s top film directors, Paul Thomas Anderson, seeming to have a beef with the nation’s First Couple, and naturally it made headlines.

    Marc Beckman, a producer of “Melania” and Mrs. Trump’s advisor of more than two decades, took to Breitbart News to describe the idea that the music was not properly licensed as “ridiculous” and “a blatant lie.” Now, in a wide-ranging interview with Variety, he’s further delving into the issues involved with that and other music he licensed for the film, with a candid take on just how tricky things can get when you’re procuring music for a movie that is bound to be polarizing. His view, which may not be shared by many Trump detractors, is that the road to the inauguration portrayed in “Melania” is such a non-political, non-ideological story, it’s silly for anyone to object to having their songs or score included.

    The conversation also moved on to other topics related to “Melania.” These include: the vast disparity of reactions between paying attendees and critics; expectations for how the doc will perform when it premieres on Prime Video, and whether that will provide a big payoff for Amazon MGM‘s investment; what form the forthcoming Melania Trump streaming docuseries will take this summer; the duration of the Amazon deal, and what other plans might be in store for his and Trump’s production company, Muse Films.

    On the matter of Greenwood v. Trump, it turns out the sides really aren’t so far apart in their understanding of what happened, even if the Radiohead guitarist-turned-film composer is not that pleased with the result. Everyone seems to agree that “Melania” film properly licensed the “Phantom” orchestral cue from Focus Gramercy Film Music, which is owned by Universal. Greenwood’s real issue is with the film studio, maintaining that he has a clause in his contracts that mandates he at least be contacted when his music is going to be re-used… though he might have little recourse to stop it, even thus informed.

    In any case, it opens a fascinating window into music licensing, with Beckman candidly sharing that he had some successes and some misses as he procured songs for the film — all of which he said were either chosen or at least approved by Melania Trump — landing music by Michael Jackson, Tears for Fears, Aretha Franklin and the Rolling Stones but losing out on Prince and GNR. And yes, he was particularly proud of the “Phantom Menace” music, for its impact and because he considers himself a Radiohead head. (As for whether that would lead him to entertain Greenwood’s request… well, read on.)

    “I feel like I bleed that movie now,” Beckman says of his work on this passion project, “if you cut me open, between that and her book” (also titled “Melania,” released in 2024). “Regardless of all the nonsense back and forth in the media and the politics and all that, we wanted to create something that was unique as a story that has certainly never been told before… not just showing more of the life of a person who has been selective on what to share, but also to do it in what we think is a more rich visual and sonic experience than typical for a documentary.” (The following Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.)

    After all the news about Greenwood and Anderson wanting the “Phantom Thread” music out of your movie, what’s your take on that now?

    It’s funny — Radiohead is one of my all-time favorite bands. For them to have come out publicly and distanced themselves, I think that’s just part of the unfortunate time we’re living in. We went out and created a nice film that doesn’t get into any kind of political policy or anything like that. The music at that moment is so perfect, honestly, I was so thrilled to be able to use it. Obviously, my background is as a lawyer. We work with the best lawyers; this is Melania Trump. We spent top dollars for all that music, and we’re thrilled to have that song included in the film. If they’re trying to distance themselves from us, for political reasons, that’s just unfortunate. But, honestly, I’ll still remain a fan and listen to their music every single day.

    Some composers do have it in their contracts that the rights owner has to alert them about further usage, and some don’t. Greenwood always has it in his contract, according to his camp. Which doesn’t mean he could stop it, once informed.

    On that issue, I found that it was like 50/50 — like half the time, they needed to (inform the composer), half the time they didn’t.

    We were told the Greenwood camp doesn’t mean to sound like they’re demanding that his music be taken out of the theatrical version. It’s more of a request that it be removed for streaming. And I think they know they may not have a legal basis to demand it be taken out… it’s more just a request. Could you see honoring that?

    No, of course not. Please tell him he’s welcome to call me if he wishes to discuss. But that song is in the film forever, regardless of the infrastructure which delivers the content.

    Can you remind us where the “Phantom Thread” music appeared in your film?

    That edgy, kind of nailbiting music right at that moment is so perfect. It’s in that scene where Melania Trump walks in on the president and she helps him on his inaugural speech. He says “peacemaker,” and she says, “peacemaker and unifier,” and then that extends into him using her language at the inauguration. It was so good. They’re (Radiohead) so talented — incredible music. But I’m very proud of what we did with the music in the entire film. It wasn’t easy. People do get political, so it’s incredible that we’re able to get the Rolling Stones and Elvis and Michael Jackson and even the song that we created, “Melania’s Waltz” (by composer Tony Neiman). I think we really pulled it off as far as the music goes.

    “Billie Jean” must have been a must-get — Melania cites it as a favorite song of hers, and sings along to it in the car. Did you have anything that was most challenging to license?

    I’ll tell you on the record, if you want to know. There was music that we tried to get, but sadly, there were politics to it. For example, the guys from Guns N’ Roses split down the middle politically. There was a beautiful song we wanted to use, and one of the guys — I don’t want to name, it’s not fair —said, “You got it. Go.” And the other one was basically like, “There’s just no way.” We needed everybody’s approval to get it in the film. So Guns N’ Roses was definitely a disappointment for us; we all have a lot of respect for Guns N’ Roses. And then there was a song that we wanted to use from Grace Jones; obviously, also a tremendous amount of respect for her. She apparently couldn’t get over the political hurdle, notwithstanding the fact that the film is not a political film. So that was disappointing, too. It’s disappointing when people put politics so far ahead, and that happened a little bit with the film, for sure. [Reps for GNR did not respond to Variety’s request for comment.]

    The president always has songs played at his rallies, and some artists are fine with saying their music is for anybody who wants to use it, and then others have obviously made objections known.

    I’ll tell you something interesting, though. My music roots go deep into classic rock, jazz, blues. If you take some time to research the First Lady, she also loves classic rock, and was brought up a kid in the ‘80s on Pink Floyd and this type of music. she loves. And one thing we learned — like an Easter egg surprise for me in the music with regards to “Melania” — is that we found a lot of the classic rock artists that were true freedom fighters in the ‘60s, who we never thought would go for it, came out and said that they were huge Trump fans. And then we would get blocked by the company that might have the ownership rights of that artist’s music. So, at least on a personal level, it was kind of surprising to hear some of these artists say, “Oh, I actually really like him. You don’t have to come and show me the film or anything. I would be happy to do it.” But then, as you know, these guys are selling their catalogs, and the rights holders are like, “Not a chance.”

    People might think that if it just comes down to rights holders who are looking to maximize the value of their investment, they might not have the same objections that an artist might.

    There’s a reverse on this one too. I think Prince sold the rights to Primary Wave. And the Primary Wave guys were like, “Oh yeah, we’d be happy to go ahead and give you guys the rights to this Prince song,” But in that instance, it’s my understanding that the deal was such that the estate now needs to approve what Primary Wave does with it. Literally we were ready to go, and and this lawyer that manages the estate was like, “Prince would never want his song associated with Donald Trump.” And we’re like, “But it’s not a Donald Trump film! He comes into the movie once in a while, but this is all about Melania. It’s not political.” And that guy blocked it. It’s so ridiculous. [A rep for Prince’s estate did not respond to Variety’s request for comment.]

    At some point, I would love to tell the full story. Some of the old artists that are my heroes said yes, and then we couldn’t get it done because of the rights holders. But it was shocking. Some of the artists you would never think would say yes jumped on it right away. I was like, “Wow, I love this person even more now.”

    Are there any of those unexpected allies whose names you’d feel comfortable sharing?

    I don’t want to, because I promise those people that I wouldn’t hurt them. You could put this on the record. Some of them are afraid that because their fan base is so liberal, progressive, that they would lose their fans. And there’s no reason for me to hurt anyone. I respect their work and that they’re also trying to earn money and take care of their families, so I’d prefer to leave it like this.

    With the Rolling Stones, it’s a unique situation with the the ABKCO years versus the later years. And so when people heard “Gimme Shelter” at the beginning, they’re like, did the Stones sign off on this? But they don’t have to with that part of their catalog.

    Mick Jagger was actually involved. He gave us his blessing, and we were thrilled about that one. We worked very close with them on that. That wasn’t something that we just pulled out. And that wasn’t a political thing. With the Stones, they were just like, “Oh, you’re making a nice movie.” They were like able to get over the hurdle: It’s not politics —  it’s just some story about some woman that is going from being a civilian back into the White House, and this movie looks cool and Brett (Ratner) is doing a cool job and Melania Trump is focused, and let’s do it. We showed it to them and they were impressed. [Reps for the Stones said they couldn’t speak directly to Beckman’s account of the group’s approval, but reiterated that ABKCO owns the song.]

    I hope the takeaway is that, with the music, we kept a good pace. When we wanted to be poignant, like in the Arlington Cemetery scene, it was incredible. The Marine sendoff… I don’t know if you caught the reference, but that piece of classical music was also used in “A Clockwork Orange.” If you go do a little research, it’s pretty cool that we use that song in particular at that moment. [The music is an excerpt from Rossini’s 1817 opera “The Thieving Magpie,” about a wrongfully accused maidservant. It was used during scenes of mayhem in Stanley Kubrick’s film, and plays in “Melania” during a scene of President Biden and his wife leaving the White House for the final time.]

    I think it’s worth knowing that Melania Trump was involved and she selected every single song in the film. She came up with the creative idea (for the movie), but then also worked deep in the production. She was in the edit room regularly, and every single song in that film was selected and approved by Melania Trump. She was very hands-on with the music. When we had “Sunny” at the end [a cover of the 1966 Bobby Hebb pop standard, a European smash in 1976 for the Eurodisco group Boney M.], I thought that was a beautiful, uplifting finale. Melania thought, “This could be a great way to finish the film and keep people upbeat as they’re walking out.” And we’ve heard that people like that.

    When we used Tears for Fears’ “Everybody Wants to Rule the World,” it was her idea to use it without the vocals. She wanted to use the song because it’s perfect, but at the same time, the vocals came out because she didn’t want the vocals competing with everything else in that moment. So she was so deeply involved in song selection and then also how the music was executed. She’s instinctively able to do that.

    Some of the reviews noted a possible irony to the use of “Everybody Wants to Rule the World” — like, does that imply that Trump really does want to be king? —so it seemed like removing the vocals was one way to not have that issue come up so much.

    No, that’s not it. We didn’t put it in there because they were going to D.C. in that scene. We put it in there because it just was a nice, catchy song to have there, and the vocals were removed only because we didn’t want the vocals competing with her voiceover. And that was her idea, a very good idea, actually. … But if the audience wants to take that message away that you’re giving, you know, we’ll play with that all day long. It’s kind of fun. Similar implication with the “Clockwork Orange” song. Kind of cool.

    ‘Melania’ producer Marc Beckman at the film’s White House screening

    Courtesy Marc Beckman

    Let’s talk about how “Melania” played out as a big-screen release. There could have been a choice made along the way to have it just premiere on Prime. Was theatrical always envisioned from day one?

    It was always Melania Trump’s and my plan to launch exclusively in theaters. We wanted to do something that had this type of high-quality, rich cinematic experience. We realized that most of the world doesn’t go to theaters anymore, post-COVID. But we thought we could do something that was groundbreaking creatively, highly stylized, rich colors, interesting audio experience, and that was always our goal. Part of the reason why we selected Amazon MGM was because they understood what it was that the First Lady wanted to achieve creatively and gave us the ability to launch this really wide as far as theaters go, both domestically and internationally. Internationally, we’re in about 30 different countries.

    Did it seem risky at all to go into theaters, knowing there’d be so much attention to box office? The press did go with the angle of how it had a surprisingly good turnout, after the first weekend, but you couldn’t have been certain it wouldn’t go the other way. And there are still stories about how theatrical gross won’t cover the budget.

    Well, I’ve been working with the First Lady in this capacity for over two decades, almost 25 years — pre-Trump presidency, in-between and since. So we’re very sober about how the people that want to get political — the left — would attack, and the right would say it’s the best thing ever. That’s why we did everything we can to create a film that was loaded with integrity as it relates to telling a story that’s never been told before, creating a visual and sonic package that’s never been put together in this way for a documentary before. From a commercial perspective, when you talk about box office, first, we’re proud of the fact that it landed at the highest opening for a documentary in 14 years (excluding concert films), or maybe even more than that. We’re proud that the CinemaScore was an A, and that the Popcorn Meter [on Rotten Tomatoes] was 99% [now 98%]. It’s OK that a majority of the people who went to see it in the beginning were people that were fans of hers. That makes sense; it’s just like a majority of the people that would go to see a Spider-Man movie in the beginning would be fans of Spider-Man. We expected the fans to come out first, so it’s nice that they approve.

    But as far as the commercial performance goes, and I think one of your colleagues wrote about this… I’ve been looking at what Variety‘s been doing, naturally, and I think this might not be isolated to your colleague who wrote about the commercial success of the film. People are not looking at it the way that both our camp is and Amazon MGM’s camp is, to be honest with you. Although Amazon paid us what has been reported as a record-breaking sum for a documentary, I actually think they got a very good deal. And I’ll tell you why. What’s not being recorded is the long tail here. This is a deal that has the film being launched worldwide for theatrical purposes, and then obviously eventually we go to streaming, and the film will be in streaming for many years. And then after that we’re also launching a docuseries, which you might have read about. The docuseries is going to tell a whole different story in a different way, and that will also go worldwide. So, you know, it’s predictable that the investment that Amazon MGM made pales in comparison [to the overall payoff] at the end of the day, given that, first, it’s a fun movie to see, but it’s also historically relevant, so people will probably keep going back to it. I’m sure that with the numbers at the end of the day — from the performance to the numbers that Amazon benefits from as it relates to getting new subscribers to Prime — it will be very successful for them.

    So is it safe you say you think the theatrical release is, to some degree, a very attention-getting teaser that draws attention to the bigger viewership it’ll have on streaming?

    Yeah, I completely agree with that. This movie has become a part of American culture very quickly. People are looking at it in the geopolitical space internationally. All of a sudden, the story about it in the context of Radiohead — the way you and I connected — it’s interesting. It really did become part of the cultural nomenclature. But I think at the end of the day, we really appreciate our relationship with Amazon MGM, and we’re gonna do everything we can on our side to continue to promote and support the success of the film, and then ultimately the docuseries as well, and we’ll make it stick and be a good experience for them. If you look at the Celine Dion numbers with regards to subscriptions on streaming [the 2024 doc “I Am Celine Dion” became Prime Video’s top documentary and was touted as bringing the service fresh subscribers], that was impressive. My goal is to really just be that, and I think we could, so we’ll see what happens.

    Amazon has a limited license on the documentary. Can you say how long that will last, and where the film will live after that? Or will it always stay on Amazon?

    I prefer to not provide specific details out of respect to all the parties involved, but we can tell you it’s a short-term license. Then, hopefully, the film will be performing and the docuseries will perform strong enough so that Amazon will come back to the table and negotiate an extension. I think at that point in time, if some of the other streamers that I spoke with early on in the negotiation are interested in building it out, we would certainly appreciate that and entertain that and go from there. But this deal that we put together with them, it’s a substantial deal, but it’s short-term. Our goal is to obviously monetize this film. That’s why we maintained ownership over it, and that was why we decided to develop this ourselves. Our goal is to have it become an evergreen commercial success for us.

    When do you expect the docuseries you’re working on will arrive on Prime?

    We’re still working out the date with Amazon as far as the launch goes. We’re pretty much almost done with it on the post-production side now. I think, conservatively predicting, mid-summer we’ll launch. We haven’t definitively picked a date yet, but it should be around then.

    Do you feel like the docuseries will feel like a sequel to “Melania,” or be an entirely different animal?

    If you take a look at what we did with Melania’s books, we had two books come out. One was the New York Times bestseller for like 13 weeks, I think, and we call it the trade book. That’s the black book, smaller version, with the white Melania logo on it. Then we launched the collectors’ edition, and one launched pretty much right kind of almost after the other, almost immediately, similar to what we’re talking about here with regards to the film and the docuseries. The collectors’ edition is better quality, coffee-table; it almost has this leather-like white texture on the outside with the black logos, including a lot of photos that Melania personally took that aren’t in the other book. And then the stories are told a little bit differently; both stand on their own. We had really good success with both books because people wanted the collectors’ edition and people wanted the trade edition.

    And that’s how Melania has looked at this film. She doesn’t want to ever put people in a position where they aren’t fully satisfied with any product she puts out. For the docuseries, we are going to launch a piece that really stands on its own, in a very different style as it relates to the story that we’re telling. The story is different as well. Whereas the film was created really deliberately for theaters from the start, the docuseries doesn’t have that same type of approach.

    There’s a lot that we weren’t able to fit in into the film; it’s only an hour and 44 minutes. The docuseries allows for us to go deeper into things surrounding her family, her business, her philanthropy; we can unpack a lot more. You can imagine that if we shot the film for 20 days, there’s a lot that we didn’t incorporate into the film. So we can use a lot of that footage that has never been seen before to tell the story in a way that hasn’t been told yet. … It’s not less as it relates to the overall aesthetic from a video and audio perspective, but the way we tell the story is very different. The docuseries feels more like you would expect a docuseries to feel.

    We were very deliberate with regards to the film about not calling it a documentary because we wanted it to feel like a feature film. That’s why we brought Brett into it. But here, you’ll hear deeper interviews of the first lady talking about topics… In the film you might have noticed she never sat down and was answering questions or looking into the camera in a typical talking-head, warehouse-behind-her type of way. We don’t do that in the docuseries, either, but you get more of the in-depth type of question/answer analysis.

    What in store for Melania’s production deal? Do you see that expanding past the docuseries?

    Our exclusive focus right now is getting the docuseries to a place where it’s perfect. But we have a deal in place. As you know, the First Lady created Muse Films. And when I went out into the negotiation, what I learned across the board is that a lot of these big streamers said to me, “You know, we’ve been ignoring half of the American public for a long time.” You know, we’re not gonna take Muse Films and launch a show about Mitch McConnell and get all political. But I think conservative viewers would like to hear on topics — let’s say lifestyle topics: fashion, art, music, sports, entertainment, even technology — through the lens of a conservative personality. So I can tell you, for sure, we have some stories already that we’d like to leverage. I referenced the bestselling book, for example. Keep in mind, this film only covered 20 days of her life, so I have the ability now to find a partner that can cover her life story. The bestselling book stops for the most part after the first administration. We have all those years following that and beyond, so I think we could create some special content.

    How many hours will the docuseries be?

    It’s not going to be an extensive six- or seven-episodes type of thing. We’re probably looking at two episodes— maybe three episodes — and we’ll figure that out. We’re basing it on quality, more so than time.

    There’s the extremely positive Rotten Tomatoes audience and CinemaScore grades. And then, of course, the disparity has been noted between the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes and the critics’ score [which now stands at 11%]. You must have anticipated that, but feel OK if the core audience felt you delivered.

    We actually wanted to appeal to everyone. That’s why we advertised in places like CNN and MSNBC: We wanted people to know who the First Lady in the United States is. Again, this isn’t a political, policy-oriented message. It’s just a nice story about this woman and her family and philanthropy and business, historically for our country. So we actually really wanted it to go to everyone. But obviously the fans go first, right?

    (With the critics), it’s fine. What really is a critic’s job today? It’s worse than bias. It’s like they’re voting, with political ideology first. There were some critiques I read that didn’t even talk about the film; they only spoke about President Trump. That’s just unfortunately where we are today in society. It would be better for us all if we can get back to being sensible. And this huge disparity that you’re talking about — I did read that it’s the biggest ever in history — is just a sign of the times.

    Look, we had our third reunification of Ukrainian and Russian children with their families this week. And it’s the best work that we’ve ever done. It’s such an amazing thing to bring these people back to their families. And there were people in the media, including CNN for example, that criticized, saying, “Well, it’s not enough kids, not enough people.” Some things really don’t need to be ideologically based. It’s just a nice thing that these individuals are returned with their families, and it doesn’t have to be like a left versus a right thing. It could just be a great story. Everybody should know it, but it doesn’t get covered.

    If you look at this Ukrainian-Russian war, nobody’s really made any tangible advances towards peace, except Melania Trump with these reunifications. Think about it. NATO puts more money into more weapons for Ukraine, and every time there’s more negotiation, you see people saying, “Oh, we’re making progress,” yet the war continues and people are still dying and being disfigured. The First Lady of the United States is actually rescuing people, saving their lives, bringing them back together with their families, and the critics will still bash her because they don’t like her husband’s politics. So it’s not surprising they would do this with the film.

    I appreciate the fact that people are spending an hour and 44 minute of their lives, plus spending some money to go into the box office and see it. … A close family friend of mine said she went as part of a mother/daughter scenario, and her daughter, who’s college-aged, said, “Oh, this is so cool. Melania Trump is business-oriented, but she’s really into her family too.” And maybe that next generation of college-age kids could be inspired to go hard with family and go hard with business and their careers and do something a little bit more. So that’s what I hope for. You know, I’m not a filmmaker. I guess now I am a filmmaker, but I’m not from Hollywood. So I’m grateful that people are willing to give the movie the time of day and walk away with something positive.

  • How Gabriel Basso Talked Netflix Into ‘The Night Agent’s’ Big Season 3 Car Chase

    By the third season of Netflix’s The Night Agent, Gabriel Basso is used to filming on location. The production has traveled from Washington D.C. to Vancouver, to New York and Bangkok; in the latest season, which dropped on the streaming platform Feb. 19, Basso and the crew went to Istanbul to film the first episode. “I was always on the move my entire life, so it’s been easy for me to bounce around, and I love history and experiencing different places and cultures, so that part is really cool to me,” says Basso. “Honestly, the most frustrating thing is the gym: losing a gym routine, having to build a new one. Hotel gyms are super depressing.”

    Basso needs the gym in part because of his heavy stunt work on the series about a clandestine officer who uncovers a government conspiracy. The actor, 31, prides himself in his participation in The Night Agents fight scenes, and this season the production upped the ante with a car chase through the Turkish capital, an extreme underwater brawl and explosions aplenty. Here, he breaks down how it all went down.

    Can you talk about how shooting in Istanbul, on location, influenced this season?

    We shot at an actual soccer game [for the first episode]. We got their first two goals on camera. There’s a scene where Genesis walks by me and I’m supposed to blend in with the crowd, and right when she stood up to do so they scored and everyone was up out of their seats cheering. I was celebrating in the crowd, too. It was so sick. They’re known for being a really passionate fan base, so feeling that energy in the stadium was great.

    Is that the sort of moment where you can really feel the Netflix budget at work?

    Well, we honestly were sneaking shots. It’s because of how passionate they are — we were worried that if we had a big footprint, and they lost the game, they would blame it on us. So we did all handheld cameras, not really any lights, very low profile.

    What felt the most different about season 3 versus the first two years?

    The first season was very chaotic. No one really knew what the show was. We didn’t have proof of concept, really. Season two was our first time in New York and we had the pressure, obviously, from season one. This time we finally figured the show out. Even in season two, when Peter is finally allowed to be a night agent, he was still looking for permission to do what he was hired to do. Now, he’s hit his stride as a character.

    How involved are you in the preproduction phase of the show?

    I’m in the writer’s room process early on. They’ll pitch me the overarching idea for the season, and I’ll give them some ideas.

    From left: Gabriel Basso as Peter Sutherland and Suraj Sharma as Jay Batra in The Night Agent.

    Are you pitching story arcs, or things that are more set piece or stunt work-focused?

    Anything that I think is cool. I pitched the reverse 180 during the car chase scene in Turkey. I went out under the guise of getting some wheel time in a parking lot, and I had Josiah my stunt double hold the camera on the back right pillar. I was like, this shot would be sick, me looking past the lens and then throwing this reverse 180. It went up the ladder and they said no a few times, but I continued to chip away at ’em.

    When they say no to that, is it because of the liability issue of you doing that stunt?

    Yeah. And I say this every time, but I think it should like what you talk about with the NFL — you’re getting paid millions of dollars to take these hits. It’s part of the risk. Of course, I’m not going to do something stupid, and I’m going to train and there should be some level of insurance and liability and everything. Even if something doesn’t work, it’s like OK, he died in pursuit of greatness.

    What does your family think of this line of thinking?

    I don’t ask. I’m sure they wouldn’t love getting a call that I’ve been permanently injured but to me, it’s how did it happen? If I’m speeding down the 101 or the 405 being an idiot, they would hate that. But if it was like, he tried to make film history by doing this — that would be sick.

    Gabriel Basso as Peter Sutherland in The Night Agent.

    Whose idea was the underwater stunt at the end of the season?

    There was a lot of back and forth on that. We did a lot of underwater training and breathing work. Austin Brewer is the stunt guy’s name, we were in the tank for nine or 10 hours just sort of scrapping it out. It was kind of stressful. He had a jacket on, and we were in there for so long that it changed color.

    Did they tell you about that stunt ahead of time, or did you read it when the script came in?

    I think it was originally written that we would fight in the car while it was on land, and then I drove it into the water and swam out of it. We eventually moved the fight underwater after our fight choreographer came up with some really cool stuff and someone pitched the idea of fighting while the truck filled up with water.

    How did you create the explosion that comes after you’re on the dock?

    We had a bunch of water canons that went off after I crawled out.

    Have you ever been scared in the moment?

    No. I think if I was scared I wouldn’t do it. Having your adrenaline pumping isn’t the same as fear. The minute you doubt yourself — they call it target fixation in skydiving, where you’re looking at a tree or a telephone pole thinking “don’t hit that,” and you start drifting there because you’re looking at it. So if you start thinking about the bad scenarios then you’re setting yourself up.

  • Linda Seger, Leading Script Consultant and Screenwriting Authority, Dies at 80

    Linda Seger, who served as a script consultant on films from Peter Jackson, Roland Emmerich and hundreds of others and authored 11 books about screenwriting, has died. She was 80.

    Seger died Feb. 16 of breast cancer at her home in Cascade, Colorado, her husband of 42 years, Peter Le Var, told The Hollywood Reporter.

    Seger began her script consulting business in 1981 based on a script analysis method she developed as part of her doctoral dissertation, “What Makes a Script Work?” Her first book on screenwriting, Making a Good Script Great: A Guide for Writing and Rewriting, was published in 1987.

    Ron Howard was given the book by his father, actor Rance Howard, and he told Seger that he used it on every one of his films beginning with Apollo 13 (1995). Tony Bill (Oscar-winning producer on The Sting), William Kelley (Oscar-winning writer on Witness) and Barbara Corday (co-creator of Cagney & Lacey) are among those who have praised the book over the years.

    Seger was a consultant on Jackson’s Dead Alive and Emmerich’s Universal Soldier, both released in 1992, and Ray Bradbury was a client, too.

    She also was a script consultant on Pasttime (1990) and Picture Bride (1995), winners of Audience Awards at the Sundance Film Festival, and on such other films as Romero (1989), The Long Walk Home (1990), The Neverending Story II (1990), Luther (2003), Mr. Jones (1993) and Dating the Enemy (1996).

    The younger of two daughters, Linda Sue Seger was born on Aug. 27, 1945, in Peshtigo, Wisconsin. Her father, Linus, was a pharmacist and her mother, Agnes, a homemaker and piano teacher.

    She earned her undergraduate degree from Colorado College in 1967, followed by master’s degrees from the Pacific School of Religion and Northwestern and a doctorate from the Graduate Theological Union.

    The prolific Seger consulted with writers, producers, directors and production companies on an estimated 2,500 scripts, 100 produced films and 35 produced TV projects, and she taught screenwriting on six continents and 33 countries, including Russia, Bulgaria and New Zealand.

    She also led seminars for executives at ABC, CBS, NBC, Disney, Embassy Television, RAI (Italy) and ZDF (Germany) and for members of the AFI, the DGA and the WGA before her retirement in 2020.

    Her other books on screenwriting included 1990’s Creating Unforgettable Characters; 1992’s The Art of Adaptation: Turning Fact and Fiction Into Film; 1994’s From Script to Screen: The Collaborative Art of Filmmaking; 1999’s Making a Good Writer Great; 2003’s Advanced Screenwriting: Raising Your Script to the Academy Award Level; 2008’s And the Best Screenplay Goes to … ; 2011’s Writing Subtext: What Lies Beneath; 2019’s The Collaborative Art of Filmmaking: From Script to Screen; and 2020’s You Talkin’ to Me?: How to Write Great Dialogue.

    Seger also wrote the 1996 book When Women Call the Shots: The Developing Power and Influence of Women in Television and Film, featuring interviews with Sherry Lansing, Dawn Steel and Nora Ephron; eight books on spirituality, including 2016’s Jesus Rode a Donkey: Why Millions of Christians Are Democrats; and a 2025 memoir, Unpacking.

    Her husband said her favorite film was Stanley Donen’s Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954).

    Survivors include her half-brother, Fred. Donations in her memory can be made to a cancer charity.

  • Nicki Minaj Shares Trump-Signed Bible on X as Her Account Is Accused of Using Amplification Bots

    Nicki Minaj raised eyebrows and ire among a portion of her fan base after her latest President Trump-related social media post — a signed Bible from the rapper’s newfound political hero — went wide online, the latest in a trend that may indicate the popular rapper’s voice may be seeing some artificial amplification online. 

    The multi-platinum-selling rapper-singer-songwriter, who has been vocal but not exactly outspoken on political topics over her nearly 20-year career, is known equally for her freestyling prowess as her penchant for eviscerating her enemies, in her songs, online, wherever. Recently, Minaj has become a political lightning rod amid an unabashed embrace of MAGA and Trump’s politics, which began to appear on her X page late last year. This rightward slide began in earnest after Minaj delivered a speech in November at the United Nations, advocating for an end to religious violence — freedom from persecution being one political matter on which she’d previously sounded off publicly. 

    This speech caught Trump’s attention, as she favorably name-checked his policies in her speech; given Trump’s history of jumping at opportunities to associate himself with the world of hip-hop, the friendship, or at least a public mutual appreciation, between the two Queens-raised celebrities was born. “I love Nicki Minaj,” Trump told guests at the White House Black History Month reception, calling her beautiful and complimenting her skin and nails. Over the weekend, the gifted Bible Minaj received from Trump brought fresh controversy — partly because Trump was now selling a Bible with his name on it for $1,000, but for Minaj fans, her remark that this was “one of the most meaningful gifts I’ve ever received in my entire life” indicated the red-pilled rapper had gone into MAGAland and was now past the point of no return. 

    Minaj’s Saturday post had significant reach on the X platform, with 14,000-plus comments and more than 117,000 users liking it as of Monday afternoon. Its reach is relevant this week, and likely under a higher level of scrutiny, after a report analyzing the impact of the rapper’s political tweets is the subject of a just-released study from Cyabra, an Israeli disinformation security company that detects fake social media accounts. Minaj’s rightward political turn has been highly publicized, but its outsized amplification on the X platform seems to have caught the eyes of the Cyabra team.

    The percentage of X that is made up of bots, which can range from malicious to useful, has been debated for years. Twitter, which X used to be called, claimed the number was under 5 percent; others have said it’s up to 80 percent of its users.

    The study that the firm published this week, titled “Coordinated Inauthentic Amplification of Political Discourse on Nicki Minaj’s X Account,” looked at the rapper’s X account and who amplifies her political posts of late — the persecution of Christians in Nigeria; a new opposition to gender transition; criticism of Democratic politicians, particularly California Gov. Gavin Newsom; and her support for conservative political figures all entered her sphere of commentary.

    Focusing on her politically related posts and assessing the authenticity of the accounts interacting with them, Cyabra’s study identifies a “materially elevated level of inauthentic activity” in her X account’s comments. Cyabras’s study shows that  33 percent of accounts that engaged with Minaj’s political posts were deemed fake, which is substantially higher than the baseline levels typically seen on social posts. 

    In its analysis of the campaign to amplify Minaj’s posts and her newfound far-right point of view, the firm indicated that the Minaj X campaign’s primary objective had less to do with her embrace of MAGA and more with boosting the rapper’s reputation. 

    “[The campaign was] focusing on reinforcing visible support for Nicki Minaj — particularly in posts that attracted criticism — in order to manufacture the appearance of broad public endorsement and a supportive fan base,” the report states.

    Comments generated by fake profiles in support of Minaj were “predominantly brief, repetitive and low in semantic complexity.” Praising keywords and Minaj-positive hashtags were being used, rather than “original or substantive engagement,” the report found.

    These sham X profiles operated in a coordinated manner, according to Cyabra, with synchronized posting, repeated keywords and messaging that was telling in how consistent it was across multiple X comment sections. The campaign generated significant impact by embedding fake accounts into real user conversations, resulting in 59,001 engagements and substantially increasing the visibility and reach of the amplified content.

    As far as Cyabra is concerned, the Minaj boost campaign was a real success story.

    “Overall, the findings show that the campaign was effective, using coordinated inauthentic engagement to materially influence perceived support and narrative visibility,” the firm concludes in its report.

    The Hollywood Reporter has reached out to Minaj and Cyabra for comment but did not immediately hear back on Monday. 

  • MAGA-Fighting Guthrie Sheriff Has Roots in Reality TV

    MAGA-Fighting Guthrie Sheriff Has Roots in Reality TV

    If the briefings in the Nancy Guthrie kidnapping case sometimes feel like reality TV, that’s because — in a way — they sort of are.

    The man fielding questions at all those press conferences, Sheriff Chris Nanos, doesn’t just run the local police department that’s been investigating the disappearance of Savannah Guthrie’s mother — he’s the off-camera production partner for Desert Law, the A&E docuseries that follows Nanos’ deputies as they patrol more than 9,000 square miles of arid Arizona terrain. “Immersed in the pressure and danger of policing the desert night,” the show’s promo copy describes it, “the series captures a world where the spirit of the Old West still lingers and the fight for order never ends.”

    Nanos himself doesn’t appear in the show — his choice, according to sources close to the series. But that could change next year — although those same sources say the possibility of the kidnapping becoming part of the plotline for season two has not yet been discussed. Still, over these past few weeks, since Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance, Nanos hasn’t exactly been shy when it comes to news cameras. 

    After initially holding joint press conferences with the FBI, he has recently shifted to a series of more personal, one-on-one interviews — a strategy that has occasionally led to awkward exchanges, particularly while conversing with conservative outlets.

    “Let’s just say he did not put out the welcome mat,” Newsmax’s John Huddy tweeted after his Feb. 18 sit-down with Nanos, during which the sheriff, a Democrat, brushed off what he sees as politically motivated criticism. “This isn’t an election campaign — that’s three years down the road.” Nanos’ Feb. 17 appearance with NewsNation’s Brian Entin wasn’t any friendlier. On his YouTube recap, Entin described the pre-interview moment when Nanos set the tone: “You have questions for me,” Nanos told him, “and I have questions for you.”

    Of course, the stakes remain deadly serious: An 84-year-old woman is still missing. But when a sheriff whose department headlines a reality show finds himself sparring with reporters on MAGA platforms, it definitely feels like an unscripted star may have just been born.

    ***

    Also in Rambling Reporter:

    Why despite being a Sundance hit, Courtney Love is reshooting her documentary.

    A look at the one luxury indulgence Jeffrey Epstein was never able to acquire: his own Imax theater.

    This story appeared in the Feb. 23 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. Click here to subscribe.

  • ‘Michael’ Director Antoine Fuqua: Making Michael Jackson Biopic Was “Spiritual Journey”

    ‘Michael’ Director Antoine Fuqua: Making Michael Jackson Biopic Was “Spiritual Journey”

    Filmmaker Antoine Fuqua is sharing his perspective about Lionsgate‘s forthcoming Michael Jackson biopic.

    Michael is set to hit theaters and Imax on April 24 after its release was delayed several times, most recently having been dated for the fall of 2025. Marking his feature debut is Jackson’s nephew Jaafar Jackson in the lead role as the pop music icon. Lionsgate is distributing the movie domestically, while Universal handles the global launch.

    “It’s a very spiritual journey, making a movie about someone like Michael,” Fuqua says in a video that Lionsgate released Monday. “Michael was a big influence on my career as a director, seeing how he refused to get put in a box as just a Black artist only.”

    Fuqua’s movie debuted its latest trailer earlier this month. Michael co-stars Colman Domingo as the singer’s father, Joe Jackson, and Nia Long as his mother, Katherine. Rounding out the cast are Miles Teller, Laura Harrier, Kat Graham, Larenz Tate and Derek Luke. Graham King, John Branca and John McClain produce the film that has a script from John Logan.

    “Michael’s whole life was giving to people this joy of his voice,” Fuqua continues in the video. “When I watched him on TV, he was always larger than life. For me as a filmmaker, it wasn’t a leap to see it in a cinematic way.”

    The Training Day director adds, “I don’t think you can understand Michael Jackson as a human being unless you went back and go on a bit of a journey. He was struggling between his love for his family and his love for his music.”

    Jaafar Jackson as Michael Jackson in the biopic Michael.

    Kevin Mazur

    The Hollywood Reporter previously reported that Michael, initially intended to span the star’s life and have a lengthy run time, had pivoted and would instead end with Jackson leaving his family’s group The Jacksons after the release of his first solo album, 1979’s Off the Wall. According to sources, a second film remains in development that would focus on the rest of Jackson’s career and path prior to his 2009 death.

    Puck reported last year that Michael’s previously planned third act had to be retooled, due to it including a dramatization of an individual who accused Jackson of child sexual abuse. The accuser had a past settlement with the performer’s estate stipulating that he would never be dramatized.

    “Why I wanted to make it is Michael,” Fuqua said during a San Diego Comic-Con panel in 2024. “Michael was a big part of my life growing up, a big influence on my career, an incredible artist — but he was a human being, and we’re exploring that.”

  • Matthew Lillard Says Tarantino Dissing Him Felt Like He Got ‘Punched in the Mouth’ Because He’d ‘Love’ to Be in a Tarantino Movie: ‘Just Kind of a Bummer’

    Matthew Lillard Says Tarantino Dissing Him Felt Like He Got ‘Punched in the Mouth’ Because He’d ‘Love’ to Be in a Tarantino Movie: ‘Just Kind of a Bummer’

    Matthew Lillard told People magazine that he would “love” to be in a Quentin Tarantino movie, which is why it “sucked” when the director criticized him last year along with fellow actors Paul Dano and Owen Wilson. Lillard added: “I think he’s a lovely filmmaker, and to just sort of get punched in the mouth just was kind of a bummer.”

    During a viral interview on “The Bret Easton Ellis Podcast” last fall, Tarantino slammed Dano as “the weakest fucking actor in SAG” and added that “I don’t care for” Lillard or Wilson either.

    “It felt like I had died and was in heaven watching everyone send out their RIP tweets,” Lillard told people about the reaction that followed. “I mean, it was really being a part of your own wake, sort of sitting there living through all the nice things people say after you die… Everyone, from the people at the mall this weekend with my kids to George Clooney and James Gunn and Mike Flanagan, I mean, people have sort of been really generous with telling me how much they loved me and liked my work.”

    Many of Lillard’s former Hollywood collaborators used social media to champion him after Tarantino’s comments went viral. Mike Flanagan, who directed the actor in “The Life of Chuck” and cast him in the upcoming “Carrie” series reboot, called Lillard the “the goddamn greatest.” James Gunn worked with Lillard on the “Scooby Doo” movies and called him “one of my favorite guys (and actors).” George Clooney even accepted a prize from AARP and said that he “would be honored to work with” any of the actors Tarantino dissed.

    Lillard originally weighed in on Tarantino’s comment while speaking at GalaxyCon in Columbus, Ohio. He said “who gives a shit” while also acknowledging that “it hurts your feelings. It fucking sucks. And you wouldn’t say that to Tom Cruise. You wouldn’t say that to somebody who’s a top-line actor in Hollywood.”

    Speaking to Entertainment Weekly last month, Lillard said “it was crazy” to receive so much support from fans and industry names about Tarantino’s diss, adding: “I keep showing it to my wife to convince her that I am worthy, that people still like me. Nobody has to like me. Nobody has to like any actor out there, obviously. It’s personal preference. I am not everyone’s first choice, that is obvious, but to then have that kind of reaction was beautiful.”

    Dano similarly received widespread support from fans and industry colleagues. Speaking to Variety at Sundance, Dano said “it was really nice” to see such a reaction and “I was also incredibly grateful that the world spoke up for me so I didn’t have to.”

  • Live Nation Files Motion to Postpone Start of Antitrust Trial

    Live Nation Files Motion to Postpone Start of Antitrust Trial

    With their antitrust trial tentatively set to start next Monday, Live Nation and Ticketmaster have filed a motion to delay the proceedings so that an appeals court can determine whether two legal questions could “dramatically change” and “substantially narrow” the trial.

    The motion, filed on Sunday and reviewed by Variety, asks for an interlocutory appeal to examine two “critical questions of law” that Judge Arun Subramanian decided last week. Live Nation and Ticketmaster are seeking a review before the trial to avoid a “complex, month-long case” that “may well prove wholly unnecessary.”

    The companies are asking the appeals circuit to consider the court’s decision that the Department of Justice does “not need evidence of actual price discrimination to prove their alleged targeted customer markets in this actual monopolization case,” and that “Plaintiffs [could] proceed with a tying claim without a properly defined market for the tied product.” They argue that if the court finds one or both questions for appeal, it should stay additional proceedings pending resolution of the appeal.

    Jury selection is anticipated to begin on March 2 in the DOJ’s antitrust case, which the government filed in 2024 to break up the companies. Last Wednesday, Subramanian narrowed some portions of the suit but allowed others to proceed in a trial that could substantially change how the ticketing industry operates.

    Following the ruling, Live Nation’s top lawyer wrote a blog post titled “It’s Time to Move On” that urged the DOJ to settle the suit without the company having to sell Ticketmaster. Shortly after publishing the post and sending it to the press, it was quietly taken down from the site.

    “The claim that Live Nation and Ticketmaster are responsible for high concert ticket prices and fees was, and is, false,” wrote Dan Wall, evp of corporate and regulatory affairs. “On the eve of trial, DOJ has no evidence of that, and its argument has become that it doesn’t need to prove higher prices. We’ll see. But the bigger fiction was that this case could or should result in a court order breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster. We’ve always said that was implausible and improper, and yesterday’s summary judgment decision should put that false promise to rest.”

    The trial’s advancement comes in tandem with last week’s year-end earnings report, where Live Nation posted its biggest-ever year amid increased global ticket sales.

  • Wasserman Music’s Turmoil Calms Down as Name Change and Sale Move Forward

    Wasserman Music’s Turmoil Calms Down as Name Change and Sale Move Forward

    Over the last few weeks, as the drama around Wasserman Agency founder Casey Wasserman’s presence in the Epstein files and his professional future have unfolded, misinformation has spread at a rate that is rare even for the entertainment business.

    Complicating matters further is the fact that reliable information can be challenging to find in this rough-and-tumble side of the industry, as nearly everyone with insight either has a dog in the fight or at least something to gain from launching or furthering one narrative or another.

    With that caveat, sources with direct knowledge of the situation tell Variety that, as Wasserman has agreed to sell the agency and the media spotlight has moved to his ongoing status (for now) as chairman of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, things inside its music division have calmed down, as executives (nearly all of whom are bound by contracts) and many of the artists (who are not) take a wait-and-see approach while the company’s name change and sale move forward.

    Sources say the brand change is already in motion and a new name for the agency is expected as soon as next week; however, even under optimal circumstances, the sale will take months.

    While several artists have left — most notably Chappell Roan and Laufey — and several others, including Sara Bareilles, SZA and Imagine Dragons, are said to be in the process of maybe thinking about possibly leaving (hedging intentional), sources confirm that just two agents have resigned: Kiely Mosiman and Jackie Nalpant, Roan’s agents, possibly in solidarity with their artist.

    The process of an artist leaving an agency is often hazy — sometimes they’ll join another agency in a certain area or territory and remain with the previous agency in others, if only for a certain time; one agent spoke of a global superstar leaving one agency, virtually unnoticed by most of the industry, until that superstar announced they had joined a different one, many months later. That haziness often breeds misinformation: Multiple sources tell Variety emphatically that Billie Eilish had already left Wasserman before allegations of Casey Wasserman’s “serial” affairs with junior employees (which he has not commented upon) emerged in 2024, although media outlets and others continue to perpetuate the narrative that she left because of those allegations.

    Similarly, reports emerged last week that another big client, Imagine Dragons, had left Wasserman. However, multiple sources tell Variety that the group began speaking with other agencies, notably CAA, late last year, weeks before the latest tranche of Epstein documents was released, and those talks are ongoing, although the group has not left Wasserman (at least, as of today) and is continuing to speak with them as well.

    It is also not outside the realm of possibility that artists and the two agents could return the agency when it is under new ownership and/or name.

    Indeed, if the key problems — i.e. the behavior of the founder and the fact the company bears his name — are resolved, what’s the issue? That is a question that many of the artists and employees are contending with, or at least putting off until the future becomes clearer. Artists are often fiercely loyal to their agents, who in many cases were the first to spot and promote them, and many follow their agents from one company to another over years. Similarly, agents often travel together from one company to another, sometimes over decades.

    While CAA and UTA were both said to be looking at acquiring Wasserman Music wholesale — and some sources said they were just looking at acquiring pieces — neither prospect appear likely at the moment; sources say a sale to a private equity firm or individual is a more realistic scenario.

    Of course, the company that buyer will be acquiring has some baggage. Wasserman Music is more of a collection of factions than a unified company, many of which are agencies that the former Paradigm Music acquired on a buying spree in the years before it was acquired by Wasserman in 2021.

    What followed that acquisition was a headlong rush for volume led by Wasserman himself, as he worked successfully to make the company a major player: It has more acts at Coachella this year than any other agency. But that kind of growth comes at a significant cost: The music division alone has more than 400 employees, salaries and overhead are said to be considerable, and sources say the profits on booking some of those superstars are unimpressive.

    However, those factors, while formidable, are far more everyday concerns than the ones from which the Wasserman Agency is gradually — apparently — emerging.

    Variety will have more on the situation as it develops.

  • Filmmaker John Patton Ford Wanted ‘How to Make a Killing’ to Say More Than Just “Rich People Are Bad, Period”

    Filmmaker John Patton Ford Wanted ‘How to Make a Killing’ to Say More Than Just “Rich People Are Bad, Period”

    Following the rave reviews and reactions to 2022’s Emily the Criminal, filmmaker John Patton Ford felt like he needed to strike while the iron was hot.

    The South Carolina native made the rounds to discuss the possibilities of what he could do for his sophomore effort. Such a water-bottle-collecting moment was truly a long time coming for the writer-director. He’d been toiling away since the late 2000s in order to get one of his scripts produced. Several projects had fallen apart on or near the one-yard line, but together with his lead actor Aubrey Plaza and what would become her career-best performance, he finally crossed the plane with Emily in 2022. 

    The crime thriller may not have blown the roof off the summer box office, but its strong word of mouth and four Independent Spirit Awards nominations, including Ford’s win for “best first screenplay,” flooded his inbox with opportunities.

    “It was an overwhelming moment that I didn’t quite know how to deal with, to be honest. I felt a lot of insecurity at that time. I felt like I had to get another movie going pronto or else the attention would go away,” Ford tells The Hollywood Reporter

    Within a few months, Ford dusted off an old script called Rothchild that The Black List had recognized all the way back in 2014. Loosely inspired by 1949’s Kind Hearts and Coronets, the tragicomedy chronicles a bastard son named Becket who starts killing off all the estranged family members who stand in the way of the inheritance that he and his late mother were wrongly denied. Like Emily, it’s a film about the desperate measures people take for money.

    “After school, I struggled for a long, long time. Now I’m a white guy with an education; I can only fail so hard. But I wasn’t getting to do what I wanted to do for a long, long time,” Ford says. “It seeped into my pores and took over my personality. I thought it was just never going to end. So I was willing to do whatever it took to get my career going, and hey, big surprise, I make movies about similar people.”

    In 2019, the film nearly got made when it hit the Cannes Market as a Shia LaBeouf-Mel Gibson package for another director. At the time, LaBeouf was riding high on the Sundance sale of his semi-autobiographical drama, Honey Boy, and Gibson was still enjoying some post-Hacksaw Ridge goodwill. However, between Gibson’s checkered history and the title’s similarity to a real-life banking dynasty, controversy seemingly derailed the picture.

    In 2023, the project reemerged with a new title and a new family surname (among other things). Glen Powell and Ed Harris eventually became the new grandson-grandfather pairing of Becket and Whitelaw Redfellow. Ford has repeatedly likened Powell to a cross between Captain America and a golden retriever, but he reveals that there was early concern among executives when Powell showed up to set looking like Steve Rogers, pre-Super Soldier Serum. The actor, as he noted in a THR cover story, lost at least 15 pounds by ingesting a steady stream of bone broth. He even changed his hair color after another coiffure concept was ruled out.

    “When he came on set, he didn’t quite look like Glen Powell — or not how people expected — and some of the executives were actually really concerned at first,” Ford shares. “He also had a crazy wig [initially], and we were like, ‘That’s a step too far.’”

    For a film that ultimately condemns billionaire families who take all they can and give next to nothing back, Ford repurposed a directive he once received during a sales job to define the Redfellow patriarch’s (Harris) unwavering philosophy. 

    “They said [the sales pitch] like it was a lesson that we needed to learn: ‘Your only enemy is your own conscience. If you can turn that off, you can actually succeed,’” Ford recalls. “It is, on one hand, a brilliant thing to say. On the other hand, it’s completely sociopathic. I didn’t want to have a movie that says, ‘Rich people are bad, period,’ and that’s it. I wanted something a little more complex.”

    Below, during a recent conversation with THR, Ford also discusses some of the film’s lingering questions, as well as whether he and Plaza have another team-up in store.

    ***

    Aubrey Plaza as the title character in John Patton’s Ford’s Emily the Criminal.

    Courtesy of Sundance Institute/Low Spark Films

    Emily the Criminal received rave reviews, and it became a word-of-mouth movie among industry people and the audience. Did you go on a water bottle tour as you figured out what to do next? Or did you go straight for this old Black List script of yours?

    I did the tour. I didn’t quite know what I wanted to do next. It was an overwhelming moment that I didn’t quite know how to deal with, to be honest. I felt a lot of insecurity at that time. I felt like I had to get another movie going pronto or else the attention would go away. It’s funny how that works, and it took me a minute. It was maybe two or three months before this project came to light [again], but when it did, I was on that train for as long as it took.

    Both Emily and How to Make a Killing explore the extreme lengths that people will go to for money. Is there a deep-rooted reason why you’re drawn to this theme?

    This is a lot like the Zoom therapy session I had two days ago. The quick answer is: after school, I struggled for a long, long time. Now I’m a white guy with an education; I can only fail so hard. So I don’t mean to paint a picture like I had it rough, but I wasn’t getting to do what I wanted to do for a long, long time. I was living off of an incredibly low amount of money a year in L.A., and I don’t even know how I did that for so long. It seeped into my pores and took over my personality. I thought it was just never going to end. I was cooking in that marinade for so long that I’ll probably be burning off the fumes of those feelings for a while. So I was willing to do whatever it took to get my career going, and hey, big surprise, I make movies about similar people.

    John Patton Ford on the set of How to Make a Killing.

    A24

    When a debut feature is received well, the filmmaker is sometimes miscategorized as an overnight success, and that probably happened with you and Emily.

    Yeah, it was probably about 12 years of trying to get something made. I’d had four projects come together and fall apart. One of them was pretty late into the game, and it was brutal.

    Marty Supreme had the slogan of “dream big.” I just watched a movie called GOAT that also had the “dream big” mantra. Kate Hudson and Hugh Jackman’s recent movie, Song Sung Blue, even has the tagline of “dream huge.” 

    Does it really? (Laughs.)

    It does. But Ruth (Jessica Henwick) makes the opposite point that it’s okay to dream small even though we’re not taught to think that way. Do you think it’s a mistake that so many of us are conditioned to believe that “the right kind of life” involves fame and/or fortune?

    I don’t know if it’s a mistake, but I do know that we have a societal conundrum in the sense that we’re born into this system where you have to grow, expand and earn more. We have a system that is reliant upon growth, or it quite literally won’t work. We measure our success in growth. How much more money are we making? How many jobs have we added? How is the GDP going up? That boils down to the individual, and yet the definition of contentment is literally the sensation of not wanting anything more than you currently have. So how do you reconcile these two things? And maybe that’s just the experience of being a human regardless of what system you’re inside of. I don’t know. But I find it fascinating and compelling. 

    I also find it interesting how hard I work and how many things I’m doing. Does it net out to contentment or security as much as I think it does? Probably not. I’m fascinated by Gen Z and their emerging attitude that they’re just not going to work as hard as previous generations. They’re kind of my favorite generation ever. I’m cheering them on, man. I’m also terrified of them, but I hope it works out.

    The whole movie, Becket is trying to figure out what his mother meant when she made him promise to pursue “the right kind of life.” He assumes it’s material wealth, but do you think his mother would ultimately agree with Ruth? 

    I would probably never speak to that in an interview. I feel like I don’t want to show all the marbles. Is that an expression? I think I just made that up.

    Show all your cards? 

    Cards! Thank you. Who’s got marbles anymore? But I hesitate to get too in the weeds about that. We definitely wanted his mom to provide this canonic text in the beginning, and then for the rest of the story, he’s trying to interpret what she exactly meant by that. For me, it just reflects an overall cultural norm, especially in the U.S. We’re taught from early on about ambition — reach for the stars and dream big, as you said. But what does that mean? What do we do with that? Where does it lead and why? It’s a little mysterious. So these are the questions I was interested in. What did his mom literally mean? I don’t really know. I don’t know any more than the central character does.

    Jessica Henwick as Ruth in How to Make a Killing.

    A24

    I don’t think this movie works without Jessica Henwick pulling off the heart and moral compass as well as she does. Knowing you had so many despicable characters, did you always view Ruth as the movie’s linchpin?

    Yeah, I think so. I saw Ruth as someone who provided an alternative. She’s someone who has a different value system and a different way of living that would provide the central character with a dilemma. Do I want to go in her direction, or do I want to go in another direction? Jess is an incredible actor. She can do anything. But she also has a flavor of that kind of thing in real life. She strikes me as someone who’s really well-adjusted, and she has her passions outside of acting. She’s so great that people keep asking her to be in stuff over and over again, but she’s one of the only actors I know who’s constantly trying not to work. Actors are always doing whatever they can to get booked — except for Jess Henwick. She’s like, “I just want to go backpacking. I just want to go on a solo.” She’s big into outdoor stuff. She’s a super experienced backpacker, and she’s always trying to take these trips. Then she gets cast in something, and she’s like, “Ah! I had all my gear.” She’s the best.

    She and I talked about her future recently, and I definitely walked away worried.

    We can’t let her go. She’s too good.

    Glen Powell as Becket Redfellow in How to Make a Killing.

    A24 Films

    Glen Powell went on the world-famous bone broth diet to lose weight for this movie. What was his reasoning? That Becket was hungry literally and figuratively? 

    That was something he brought to the table. He wanted to look a certain way, and he didn’t want the character to be reminiscent of previous characters he played. I think it’s worth noting that, on arrival, stock Glen, the basic version of Glen, looks like a superhero. The dude is jacked, and his base weight is “jacked dude.” So he didn’t think that made sense for the character. For this person to be an underdog and for him to not be getting what he wants, he felt that it doesn’t make sense for him to look like Captain America. So he went on a crazy diet and lost a lot of weight. He even changed his hair color. When he came on set, he didn’t quite look like Glen Powell — or not how people expected — and some of the executives were actually really concerned at first. He also had a crazy wig [initially], and we were like, “That’s a step too far.”

    Becket’s childhood friend, Julia (Margaret Qualley), keeps close tabs on him throughout the movie, and she’s onto him and his killings before anyone else. Thus, was their initial reunion at the Brooks Brothers-type store really an accident? Could she have been that many moves ahead? Did she already sense that her fiancé Lyle was heading in the wrong direction and start lining up a plan B?

    To me, it wasn’t calculated. It’s just happenstance, and then it kicks things off. But the thing about Margaret is that she’s so overwhelming on camera. She has such confidence that she takes over everything when she shows up, and it’s impossible to look at anything else. And for that reason, audiences are free to project any number of things onto her character. That character is so nuts that you can easily imagine that she had it all figured out and planned. She just has so much confidence that you can build your own narrative off of it. But from my mind, she was just showing up.

    Margaret Qualley as Julia in How to Make a Killing.

    A24 Films

    To put it mildly, Redfellow-type people have been in the news a lot lately, and so I couldn’t help but watch the film through that lens. Thus, Ed Harris’ monologue about ignoring one’s conscience was what I imagine a lot of these wealthy elites learn to do. Were you actually trying to rationalize how many of these people live with themselves?

    Yeah, sure. In that moment with Ed Harris, I didn’t want a movie that says, “Rich people are bad, period,” and that’s it. I wanted something a little more complex. Who is this guy actually? What is his mantra? What is his way of living, and can you criticize it exactly if it works for him? What he says is something that someone said to me once at a sales pitch for this company I was working for, and they said it in an unironic way. They said it like it was a lesson that we needed to learn: “Your only enemy is your own conscience, telling you some kind of story about what’s right and what’s wrong. If you can turn that off, you can actually succeed.” 

    It is, on one hand, a brilliant thing to say. On the other hand, it’s completely sociopathic. Which one is it? History is littered with no shortage of geniuses and incredibly successful people who probably followed that mantra completely, from Napoleon to Henry Ford to you name it. But what were the casualties of that mindset? Yes, they led to great breakthroughs and successes and things that may have helped humanity as a whole, but what did it cost? So I wanted to infuse it with that.

    In a perfect world, what would you do next? 

    I would love to make something more similar to my first movie. I would love to get back to a character-driven thriller, something much more grounded and based in reality. This movie was a huge adventure out into the left field. It’s something I never thought I’d do, and it just felt so different. No regrets, I learned a lot, but I also learned that it is not the comfiest zone for me. Things that are elevated and aren’t quite reality, they’re hard. So now that I have a better idea of what my wheelhouse is, I’d like to get back to that wheelhouse. If Sidney Lumet was born in the ‘80s, what movie would he make right now? That’s what I’m looking for right now.

    Do you think you and Aubrey Plaza will have another story to tell someday?

    Yeah, I love Aubrey. Whatever she wants. I would love to. We’re both a little bit older now. We’d have to figure out what that thing is. We were both raised by lawyers. Both of our parents are attorneys and litigators, and there’s something there. I would love to see her playing an attorney who’s locked into really heated debates with someone. If you’ve been around Aubrey, you know how smart she is and how good she is at arguing. So I’d love to see that. I don’t have a story, but I’d love to see whatever that is.

    ***
    How to Make a Killing is now playing in movie theaters.