Tag: HollywoodReporter

Amélie Hoeferle was a 14-year-old girl waiting for her mom at a Cleveland, Tennessee, coffee shop, when a woman in her 20s approached her for a conversation that would change the trajectory of her life and career.

She’d just finished her homework up and was nearing the exit when the young woman stopped her. “She said, ‘I know this is going to sound really weird, and it’s really freaking me out. I’m writing a screenplay right now and you look exactly how I imagine this character to be,’” a present-day Hoeferle tells The Hollywood Reporter.

Neither Hoeferle or her mother knew what to make of it, but Hoeferle was never afraid of the woman nor scared of the situation. That 20-something woman, writer-director Erica Scoggins, it turns out, was a family friend, so a meeting was set to talk about the script. They spent hours talking and ended up making a short film together.

“That was my introduction to film,” says Hoferle. “We went to a couple film festivals with it and flew to France. Erica’s really the main reason why I thought it would even be an option for me in life to do this.”

Hoeferle, now 24, still regularly keeps in touch with Scoggins. The pair saw each other just weeks before the premiere of the actress’ Prime Video series Sterling Point.

Hoeferle plays Ramona in the Megan Park-created coming-of-age series, which premiered Aug. 5. Sisterhood, something Hoeferle feels deeply about, plays a major factor in Ramona’s story. She and Sterling Point’s other lead character, Ella Rubin’s Annie, spend much of the series navigating their newfound relationship after meeting in the series premiere.

“The concept of finding out you have a sister, but you don’t obviously have a relationship with her, really interested me,” Hoeferle says. The actress has a sister herself — she clarifies they’ve had a more conventional sibling relationship since birth and recently moved in together — so shooting Sterling Point really hit home.

What initially drew her into the project was the complicated relationship between Ramona and Annie. It’s the heart of the story in Sterling Point, and it’s something that Hoeferle and Rubin talked about at length. “Sisterhood between two sisters is so raw, and it’s complicated. It’s a complicated relationship. When it’s good, it’s so good,” she says.

“It feels like you are the luckiest person on earth to get this. I’m going to cry,” she adds, tearing up. Hoeferle admits she’s thinking of her real sister, who she’s thanked her parents for giving her.

On the other hand, “When it’s bad, it’s earth-shattering. It’s like the rug is being pulled out underneath you,” she says.

Hoeferle has a supportive and loving family, but she nonetheless relates to Ramona’s feelings of not having any family outside of Annie. “In those very rare moments where my sister and I don’t get along, it feels like my life is being really challenged, and my stability is being challenged because so much of who I am as a person, I am because of her,” she says.

The feelings are easy to analyze after the fact, sometimes less so on set in front of cameras and a room full of people. Hoeferle found that the days where she and Rubin’s character had tension in their scenes could be particularly hard, because she couldn’t always access what it was like to be in such a fraught situation.

“In those moments, my sympathetic nervous system might be a bit more on fire, and I have less access to what I’m saying, what I’m doing,” she says. “There’s a dolly all around you, and I felt so much internal pressure that day to portraying this in an honest way,” she says. Of one particular scene between Ramona and Annie, she says, “I couldn’t seem to access what that honest way would be because I feel like I almost suppress the memories of me fighting with my sister.”

Those days were exceptions while making Sterling Point, however. “I was very thankful that I got to play a sister and explore that in a different world with different circumstances than my own,” she says.

A big part of what made the experience, and the show itself, work was her chemistry with Rubin. “I wish I had an interesting answer for you, but it was very natural,” she says.

Hoeferle had a feeling from the minute she met Rubin during the audition process that the pair clicked, but she wasn’t always sure of the future. “I wouldn’t even say I had a feeling it was going to be the two of us because I did not have that confidence with myself,” she says.

When the pair met, Hoeferle had pneumonia. She wasn’t feeling the most confident and was soldiering through antibiotics, but she could still feel something special was happening.

“You know when meet someone and you just feel a certain air between the two of you? There was something there with her in the room and it felt right,” she says. “We’re on the same railroad tracks right now. We have the same goal in mind, and that really translated onto set and into the scenes.”

Hoeferle also liked that her character was sad, as odd as that might sound. She was able to show a “real” and “raw” portrayal of depression in a young woman, which enticed her to the role. “[Ramona’s] a sad person, and she has every reason to be,” she says. “She’s gone through things that I have never gone through. She’s gone through more than most 16- or 17-year-olds do.”

Park gave Hoeferle and the rest of the cast much more freedom than most creatives would in finding their own characters. “I’ve done barely anything, so to be in a scene and for Megan to go, ‘Yeah, this is the script, but just go and play,’ was really disarming in the best way,” she says. “There’s just a level of understanding. I felt very trusted.”

The entertainment industry in California won a crucial lifeline when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a $420 million boost to the state’s film and TV tax incentives program into law in 2025.

Now, stakeholders claim that win is in jeopardy thanks to language in a recent state budget bill that was signed into law on June 29. And they’re racing to pass a solution by the end of the legislative session.

“Budget bill SB 122 puts our program at risk by retroactively changing the rules and threatening the recovery efforts of our already fragile industry throughout California,” reads one letter that entertainment unions are encouraging their members to send to legislators. “Changing the rules after the fact creates uncertainty and instability, further disrupting our struggling industry.”

The letter calls for the legislature to exempt the entertainment industry from the bill in question, SB 122. So far, around 350,000 such messages have been sent to legislators from union members, a spokesperson for the Entertainment Union Coalition tell The Hollywood Reporter.

SB 122 extends temporary caps on the use of business tax credits over $5 million in a given tax year and, starting in 2030, enshrines a permanent tax credit cap of 70 percent of a taxpayer’s liability or $5 million, whichever is greater. Practically speaking, that means that if a major studio has earned tens of millions in tax credits in a single year by locating their productions in the state, it could take years to realize the full value of those credits.

For instance Paramount nabbed $37.7 million in tax credits, including for Viola Davis thriller Ascent and a sequel series to the film Clueless, from the California Film Commission in its latest round of incentives. As the studio puts these projects into production, however, it will need to keep in mind that for now SB 122 is capping the amount of credits it can get back in a year to $5 million, with rules slightly modified starting in 2030. Same scenario for Disney, which received $45 million from California to shoot a big as-of-now untitled detective series in the state. Disney can only get back a fraction of the tax credits it earns in California annually.

Critics say this slow payout process will diminish the value of California’s film and television tax credit program which, along with the uncertainty created by this sudden change in policy, could persuade skittish productions to take their business elsewhere.

Legislators including State Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur and Senator Ben Allen — who both carried bills realizing 2025’s tax credit boost — are working on finding a legislative solution. “I am confident that we all can work together to make some changes to SB 122 that continues to allow the film tax credit program to achieve its goals, which is to preserve and grow the film and television industry in California,” Zbur said in an interview.

Sources tell THR that entertainment organizations were blindsided by finding themselves exposed to the tax credit cap. Some were allegedly told that the industry would be carved out from the bill, only to later learn that they weren’t.

To Zbur, it was a matter of simple confusion. “When we were voting on SB 122, I think there was confusion about the details of it. I think members believed that the film and TV tax credit was exempt from the program,” he said. “As it turns out, the exemption that was in the bill was an exemption only to the refundability aspects of the program, which basically meant that the program was not exempt in the end.”

Since the $750 million tax credit was signed into law last year, Los Angeles hasn’t yet experienced a significant recovery in production levels. Still, advocates believe they may soon see a turnaround as projects that earned credits — like the nine TV shows recently awarded $145.5 million to film in California — get going. The budget trailer bill, they claim, will dampen a return to form that has barely gotten started.

“Amending SB 122 is essential to helping to ensure that the next production happens in California rather than in the United Kingdom, Australia, Georgia, Vancouver or Saudi Arabia,” Brigitta Romanov, the president of the California IATSE Council, said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. “For IATSE members, this legislation is about helping to ensure the entertainment industry continues to fuel jobs that feed families and our state’s economy.”

Also threatening momentum for production in California is the Paramount-Skydance Warner Bros. megamerger hanging in the balance. Amid legal fights over the legality of the deal, Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison has threatened to move one or, if he succeeds in merging the companies, two studios out of California if the parties don’t come to a settlement by Oct. 1. The relocation threat may be an unrealistic bargaining tactic, but it’s not calming any nerves about production levels in California.

Within this delicate environment, the fight against SB 122 has become a last-minute scramble, with advocates trying to get an amendment in motion before the legislative session adjourns on August 31. Some kind of solution to resolve industry concerns is expected to be proposed within the next week. 

“Our success in last year’s fight was a direct reflection of the engagement and voices of our members,” at least a couple of entertainment unions have said in messages to members, referencing the 2025 tax credit increase. “We are now asking our members to once again use their voice to raise the concerns about our fragile industry and call for an urgent solution.”

Adam Scott‘s audition tape for The Office is now part of the curriculum in a prestigious acting class, he revealed during an appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. But it’s not all good news for the actor, as he joked his audition is an example of “what not to do.”

On Thursday night’s episode, Scott shared that his daughter participated in an acting program over the summer in New York while he and his family were in town as Scott films the third season of Severance.

On the first day, Scott recalled, the teacher showed Scott’s Office audition and John Krasinski’s Office audition.

“And then he put it to the class like, ‘OK. Let’s discuss why he got the job, and he didn’t,’” Scott said.

Scott added that the teacher “had no idea” his daughter was in the class and that she was “mortified” by the experience.

But Scott has found a silver lining to what happened.

“I’m just happy to know that, like, in a prestigious acting class, I’m the subject of what not to do,” he joked to Fallon.

Ultimately, the teacher realized who Scott’s daughter is: “When she was walking out, the teacher stopped her,” he recalled. “He’s like, ‘Hey, um, do you know one of them? Like, what…’ and then he kind of put two and two together with her last name, and he felt terrible.”

Though Scott didn’t land the Jim Halpert role on The Office, he went on to work with Office writers Mike Schur and Greg Daniels on fellow NBC comedy Parks and Recreation.

Scott told Fallon that he was currently filming the third season of Severance, noting that it had been almost two years since they finished shooting the second season of the acclaimed Apple TV workplace drama.

But Scott was light on additional details, saying he can’t share anything about what happens in the new season, and he doesn’t even know when it will premiere.

Christine Vachon, the prolific independent producer whose Killer Films has backed Happiness, Boys Don’t Cry, Carol and more recently Past Lives, May December and Materialists, said at the Edinburgh Film Festival on Friday that Pedro Pascal is “a revelation” in Todd Haynes’ re-worked gay romance movie.

De Noche, currently in post-production with no release date announced yet, was set to star Joaquin Phoenix before he abruptly pulled out before the shoot began. Vachon previously called the situation “a tragedy” and explained in an industry talk at Edinburgh how she and her long-time collaborator Haynes managed to rebuild the project after Phoenix’s exit.

Host Wendy Mitchell joked: “I actually like [Pascal] better than Joaquin Phoenix anyway,” to which Vachon responded: “I kind of do too!” The tightly-packed crowd at Edinburgh’s Central Hall laughed with them.

Vachon continued: “It wasn’t an easy situation. And as I also stated, it was devastating that Todd didn’t get to make a movie again that year. If you take the […] glass half-full version, and ‘everything happens for a reason’ [perspective], maybe the reason was that this was a role that Pedro was born to play. He is certainly extraordinary in the film, and by the way, so is Danny [Ramirez]. I mean, both of them are a revelation.”

Getting a “do-over” allowed them to find a better shoot location, said Vachon, which showed her everything worked out for the best. Pascal was brought on board via her work with him on Celine Song’s Materialists. “People always say to me, ‘Is he as nice as he seems?’ […] He is. People are so invested. They love him.”

As a titan of independent film production, Vachon — in Edinburgh with her latest film Pretty Babies, directed by Tyler-Marie Evans, who spoke to THR in depth about winning over Vachon just this week — was also probed on the box office success of Obsession and Backrooms this year, two movies that have challenged the status quo in Hollywood. “I do,” she said when asked if she likes the energy coming out of YouTube. “But when we were making movies like Poison [and] Go Fish, we also identified an audience… Back in those days, the LGBTQ audience could go to bars. There were parts of town [where you] could take your leaflets and just go specific places where people gathered and say, ‘Look! We made this! It’s for you.’ That’s just moved online.”

Vachon is extremely buoyed by the current theater-going demographic being made up, predominantly, of people aged under 30. She cannot deny, however, that “we’re at a time of great disruption,” and the queer film landscape is a little rocky with so much division in the U.S. at the moment. “It’s a conundrum right now. We have something like Heated Rivalry which couldn’t be a bigger hit, and we still have politicians campaigning on who gets to use what bathroom. And it’s happening [in the U.K.] too. It’s not like we have the monopoly on [marginalizing] LGBTQ people.”

“I remember when I would go see screenings of Poison or Swoon, which were boy queer [films] and [the theater] would be filled with lesbians because they were like, ‘I guess I’ll go see this.’ But now there is more choice,” she continued. “And the power of narrative to actually change people’s perspectives is stronger than it’s ever been.”

On the toss-up of a box office hit or flop, Vachon confessed she can’t predict the commercial outcome of her movies. She’s actually pleased streaming services can get movies to wider audiences nowadays. “When Todd Haynes’ Safe came out, it didn’t do anything at the box office. People weren’t interested in seeing it. The reviews were a little head-scratchy, like, ‘Not quite sure what he was going for here.’ But in the mid-late ’90s, I can’t remember exactly when, a newspaper [called] the Village Voice, which was incredibly influential at the time, did a survey of every single movie critic in America. What was the best movie in the ’90s? Safe was number one.”

“Sometimes the answer is that people just didn’t want to see it. They just didn’t, and you can’t really put your finger on why it didn’t hit the zeitgeist in that way. Who knows why? It was either too late or too soon. And now, the good thing in my mind [is] we have access to things and [movies] can find their way later. People can discover movies [from] another time.”

Mitchell asked Vachon at the end of the session: “Do you use AI?”

Vachon replied: “Yes,” explaining that she often uses it for synopses — to spare a busy intern from doing the job — or getting restaurant recommendations, such as when she was at the “very expensive” Venice Film Festival with last year’s Late Fame and needed a cheap, nearby spot.

The 2026 Edinburgh International Film Festival runs Aug. 13-19.

Two directors revealed on social media that they declined opportunities to direct episodes of HBO’s upcoming Harry Potter TV series over author J.K. Rowling‘s trans views.

First, writer-director Ally Pankiw (Black Mirror, Ponies) took to Instagram to post a screenshot of an apparent text-message exchange with her agent where she was asked if she would be interested in the high-profile fantasy series.

“I have an instinct on the answer but I feel compelled to ask,” the unnamed agent wrote. “Harry Potter? Hard no?”

Pankiw shot back: “Absolutely fucking not! lol… (But thank you for asking).”

To which the agent replied, “Of course 🙂 … I assumed as much… (And agree).”

Pankiw added in the comments: “It simply is this easy to say ‘no’ to funding transphobia.”

The post inspired director Kate Herron (Loki, Doctor Who) to write in the comments, “They’ve asked me twice and I’ve had to explain my answer is never going to change from a ‘no.’”

Pankiw added in her Story, “Also want to shout out the amazing @herronthatkate who also said ‘no’ … twice! And that’s actually hard!”

The disclosures mark a rare instance of prominent behind-the-scenes creatives revealing they turned down a major upcoming studio production to protest a person involved in the project. An HBO representative for the show had no immediate comment.

Franchise creator and executive producer Rowling’s views on transgender issues have been an issue for HBO and the show’s talent since the series was announced. While Rowling has long denied that she is transphobic, she regularly posts anti-trans rhetoric and has celebrated legal and political developments opposed by trans-rights advocates.

Several actors on the show have spoken out against Rowling. Bel Powley, who plays Potter’s aunt Petunia Dursley in the highly anticipated series, told The Telegraph in an interview published on Monday, “I strongly disagree with J.K. Rowling’s views on gender. I think that the trans community deserve safety and dignity and respect and total acceptance.”

Powley then added, “But I love Harry Potter. I grew up with the books. I am from that first generation of readers and, again, I love magic and spookiness.”

Nick Frost, who plays the Hogwarts gamekeeper Hagrid, said last year, “She’s allowed her opinion and I’m allowed mine, they just don’t align in any way, shape or form.”

John Lithgow, who plays headmaster Albus Dumbledore, has given somewhat conflicting statements on the topic. In April of 2025, he told The Times UK, “Why is this a factor at all?” and, when asked if her stance on trans rights gave him any pause about accepting the role, replied, “Oh, heavens no.” After receiving backlash for those comments, he called Rowling’s stance “ironic and inexplicable” in February at the International Film Festival Rotterdam. But then Lithgow made headlines again in April saying Rowling’s views had been “twisted and misrepresented.”

Paapa Essiedu, who plays Severus Snape in the series, signed an open letter supporting trans rights in the U.K. last year. Responding to an article speculating that she would “fire” the actor from the show, Rowling posted, “I don’t have the power to sack an actor from the series and I wouldn’t exercise it if I did. I don’t believe in taking away people’s jobs or livelihoods because they hold legally protected beliefs that differ from mine.”

When asked about Rowling last year, HBO chief Casey Bloys told The Town podcast, “The decision to be in business with J.K. Rowling is not new for us. We’ve been in business for 25 years” — referring to Warner Bros.’ long relationship with Rowling through the film franchise. “It’s pretty clear that those are her personal, political views. She’s entitled to them. Harry Potter is not secretly being infused with anything. And if you want to debate her, you can go on Twitter.”

The first season of the series, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, premieres Dec. 25 on HBO.

Amid the recent online commentary surrounding Jenna Ortega‘s health and body, her younger sister is coming to her defense.

On Wednesday, a fan of the Emmy-nominated actress took to Instagram to tell people to “mind their own business and leave @jennaortega alone, especially after her recent interview has created so many questions and assumptions about her health.”

The fan’s comments were in response to the wave of discourse on social media about Ortega’s appearance in a recent Esquire video interview, with many fans pointing out her noticeably thinner physique in the footage, comparing it to past videos and photos of the actress.

“She doesn’t owe anyone an explanation her life is her life, and her body belongs to her,” the fan, named Amrita Singh, continued in their lengthy post. “She has every right to make whatever decisions she feels are best for herself without being judged, discriminated against, or subjected to unnecessary speculation. We don’t know what she may be going through, and we shouldn’t assume anything based on appearances or a few comments from an interview. Sometimes the most respectful thing we can do is simply give someone privacy, support them, and let them be.”

“Please, For God’s sake, she is a human being first, before she is a celebrity in the public eye, and I think that’s what people tend to forget. She deserves privacy, peace, and the freedom to live her life without constantly being questioned or analyzed. Stop concerning yourselves with her personal life and asking intrusive, unnecessary, and random questions just leave Jenna alone and allow her to live her life on her own terms,” they added.

Ortega’s sister, Aliyah Ortega, commented on the post, “!!!,” seemingly emphasizing that she agrees with the fan’s perspective. Her sister didn’t appear to add any additional remarks.

The Wednesday star isn’t the only celebrity to be battling online commentary about their body recently, as Ariana Grande has also been at the center of the conversation, especially after the release of her “Petal” music video.

Earlier this month, it was revealed that Grande would be “taking a step back from visibility after she completes the Eternal Sunshine Tour” and “taking a much-deserved break from public-facing work and appearances, which has led to endless, ongoing public scrutiny.”

The singer later clarified that the announcement “was not a reactive or impulsive thing. It was something that I have decided. A plan that I had quietly made a long time ago.”

Ortega is currently busy filming Wednesday season three for Netflix and will next be heading out on the press tour for the dystopian sci-fi adaptation Klara and the Sun, which hits theaters on Oct. 23.

Months after a resolution to the sprawling legal battle over the filming of It Ends With Us, Hollywood power lawyer Bryan Freedman is still dealing with fallout from the case.

Zoey 101 alum Alexa Nikolas won a key ruling on Wednesday in a defamation lawsuit against Freedman, with a court finding that she’s established a probability of prevailing on defamation claims accusing him and those in his orbit of marshaling a smear campaign against her.

Nikolas, founder of advocacy organization Eat Predators, has a long and contentious history with Freedman, who had represented her ex-husband Michael Milosh when she sued the musician for sexual abuse. She had organized protests outside of his offices in 2022 after discovering that he had also been accused of sexual assault in a case that resulted in a no-fault settlement in 1991. Around the time of these protests, a smear site that aimed to undermine her activism — including through assertions that her current husband was a predator — popped up about her.

Nikolas didn’t connect Freedman to the site until Lively sued It Ends With Us director Justin Baldoni and his production company Wayfarer. The thrust of Lively’s lawsuit focused on alleged sexual harassment on the set of the film, but it also accused Baldoni and his public relations team — led by top crisis publicist Melissa Nathan and digital fixer Jed Wallace — of spawning a smear machine that threatened her reputation. This led to sister lawsuits, including one from publicist Stephanie Jones, who claimed that Nathan and Wallace have long engaged in creating smear sites targeting women. That gave Nikolas the ammunition to file a lawsuit, which points to alleged data identifying Freedman as involved in the generation of some of the sites.

In Wednesday’s ruling, Los Angeles Superior Court judge Michael Whitaker rebuffed Freedman’s bid to dismiss the case. He concluded that Nikolas has produced enough evidence to potentially prove the alleged campaign was defamatory.

Among the findings: Nikolas sufficiently demonstrated a probability of proving the allegedly defamatory statements were untrue. This includes a claim on a second smear site about her that she partnered with former California senator Joe Dunn to push others into making false accusations of sexual assault.

Whitaker also pointed to court records across multiple cases in which several plaintiffs describe a “similar modus operandi and common website traffic optimization tactics.”

Freedman had argued that Nikolas can’t prove the assertions advanced in the sites were false and that some were simply statements of opinion, which can’t give rise to a defamation claim. On this front, the court said that the allegations in the site “all imply provably false assertions of fact” that Nikolas is “either a criminal who has committed criminal acts, or she is not.”

Multiple smear sites identified in the case between Jones and Baldoni appear to have evidence of common authorship, including Alexanikolas.net, which claimed she extorted multiple ex-boyfriends by threatening them with manufacturing sexual abuse claims, among other things. In Jones’ case, a cybersecurity expert submitted an expert report indicating that those who created the site about Nikolas may have also created ones about Amanda Ghost, who’s engaged in a defamation battle against Rebel Wilson.

“There is a tangled web of connections between these sites and numerous others in addition to that authored about plaintiff,” Whitaker wrote, noting a “conspiracy to smear various individuals” who had adversarial connections to Freedman’s clients. That not only suggests a motive, the court found, but also indicates that the lawyer may have been “involved in directing or otherwise effectuating all of those alleged smear campaigns.”

Earlier this year, Wilson’s crisis public relations team — comprised of Nathan and Wallace — was heard discussing plans to create anonymous sites that accused Ghost of sex trafficking as part of an alleged smear campaign solicited by the actress against The Deb producer. In a recording obtained by The Hollywood Reporter, Wallace instructed Nathan to assert without evidence that Ghost is a “madame” whose work involves procuring young women for wealthy and powerful men.

“We can’t just do, like, oh, she’s a bitch, she sucks,” Wallace says in the recording. “It’s, like, it’s got to be really, really heavy and connected to something that heavy.”

At one point in the conversation, Wallace referenced the involvement of Freedman, Wilson’s then-counsel in the case. Freedman and Nathan didn’t respond to requests for comment, though they’ve previously denied involvement in the creation of the smear sites.

Over the course of Sally Field‘s storied career, there have been opportunities to discover her character on set (like the ad-lib-heavy Mrs. Doubtfire) and those where it was all on the page (Tony Kushner’s Lincoln script). In Netflix’s, an adaptation of Shelby Van Pelt’s novel that’s sold more than 2 million copies, it was a little bit of both. “Lewis Pullman and I were improvising all the time,” Field says of her primary co-star … at least the one that’s not a CGI octopus. “That relationship was really created out of he and I playing with each other. You can kind of see it in the movie.”

Her Emmy nom for the work isn’t just interesting because it’s her 10th (she has three wins), she’s also the first actress in nearly a decade to earn one for a TV movie. But for Field, who went from ABC’s The Flying Nun to an Oscar winner for Norma Rae early in her career, the medium is something she’s learned not to focus on.

Is there some role or project you’re still itching to do that’s not being presented to you?

My whole life, it’s been very difficult to find projects that I wanted to do. In the beginning, it was very difficult to find projects where they would even let me in the room to audition. I started in situation comedy television in 1964. In those days, they didn’t let you out. You lived and you died on that railroad track. You weren’t getting out. Even after I got to a place where [they’d let me audition], it has always been difficult to find films, characters, stories that I want to be part of me … that I would go, “OK, that’s it. This is the one.” It’s always taken me a long time. I never was an actor that was able to work back-to-back-to-back, doing one project after another. I just had to keep my head down, as they say.

What were the conversations with your team like in those moments where you felt like you weren’t booking what you wanted?

I didn’t think it was their responsibility. They would perhaps come across something that I might like, even if it wasn’t offered to me, maybe they would show it to me. But many times, the things that I finally, eventually did do, I found it. I came after it. Certainly Lincoln was one of them. I fight like crazy. You don’t get delivered things, and at least women don’t and certainly not older women. You don’t get a whole box of chocolate, so to speak, and say, “Hmm, which one do I want today?” It just doesn’t happen.

Was Lincoln the role that you fought the hardest for?

No, I fought hard for Sybil. That was a huge turning point. And I fought hard to get into this movie, Stay Hungry [1976]. That was the first [feature]. It was incredibly difficult to even get in the room. Nobody wanted me there. I could hear [director] Bob Rafelson in the back room yelling at Dianne Crittenden, the casting director, for even letting me sit in the waiting room because I was wasting his time. I had to use that anger as my fuel. It was a long haul to get to my movie career and then to find the things I wanted to do.

You talk about this stigma of working in sitcoms at the beginning of your career. You went back to TV in 2006 with Brothers & Sisters — a time before a lot of other Oscar winners started working in both mediums. Did you feel that the iron curtain was lifting?

I wanted to tell stories that were worth telling. I wanted to act. When I finally transitioned to film, I was able to find Norma Rae, Places in the Heart, Absence of Malice, Mrs. Doubtfire, Forrest Gump, Steel Magnolias and whatever they were. But the industry was changing at the same time. When Brothers & Sisters came along, it just struck me. Those five years, I’m proud of them. It’s about a woman who’s older, obviously, because she’d raised children. I understood that because I had raised sons. Also, I had a gay son who was just coming out or had just barely gotten his feet under him. I got to play a mother with a really great family and a great son [Matthew Rhys] who happened to be gay. And this was a very crucial time in our country when this was not done. I mean, Will & Grace had been done, but it was comedy and very broad.

Matthew Rhys, the onscreen son from Brothers & Sisters who you just referenced, is nominated for two Emmys this year.

Yes! Good for him. He deserves it.

Do you keep in touch with him?

I sure do.

A very important scene in film history for me and several of my friends is you repeating the phrase “The whole time?” in response to learning your husband had been cross-dressing as the nanny in Mrs. Doubtfire. Would you mind telling me a little about filming that scene?

That was me improvising. That whole sequence, we shot it at the end of the film. It was several days in that restaurant. But that moment, that is an ad-lib because the line was [supposed to be] very calm. “The whole time” was an improvisation. Robin [Williams] and I had created a relationship, a world where we improvised a lot. It allowed Mrs. Doubtfire to come alive because it was such a weird circumstance.

I don’t know how much you think about how the work is going to be received commercially or critically while you’re making it, but I’d imagine that many people involved in Mrs. Doubtfire expected it to hit as big as it did. Did you feel that was the case?

I think they thought it would be successful. Robin was at the height of just … brilliance. But I don’t think anyone saw it being as huge as it was. The script wasn’t what was on the page because of what Robin and I were allowed to do by [director] Chris Columbus. We did not want — and Robin felt this strongly, too — the mother to be the villain. We both felt that there were no villains in this divorce. Marriages don’t always last. Sometimes there are no bad guys. It’s time to move on. Without getting in the way of the comedy, it was a delicate dance to allow her to not be mean. She was hurt to lose her marriage, too, but he was impossible. Who could be married to this guy?

Looking back at the whole of your career, what do you feel like the biggest risk you took was?

Everything’s a risk. Otherwise, forget it. If it’s not a risk, then stay home. Easy is overrated.

You and your Lincoln collaborators Tony Kushner and Steven Spielberg saw Oh, Mary! before it went to Broadway. Now that Cole Escola has ceded the role to a revolving door of famous actors, would you ever step back into Mary Todd Lincoln’s shoes?

No, no, no. (Laughs.) Maya Rudolph [just did it], and I couldn’t be in her world. She’s never not great. And Cole is so dazzlingly talented. I think they tried to keep it from them, the three of us were in the audience when we saw it. I can be in awe of it, but I can’t do it.

This story first appeared in an August stand-alone issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe.

The murders of two Alaskan Native women, Kathleen Jo Henry and Veronica Abouchuk, at the hands of serial killer Brian Steven Smith, are centered in ID’s Lost Women of Alaska.

The three-part series narrated and executive produced by Octavia Spencer lays out the vulnerabilities that allowed Smith, who is serving a 226-year sentence for the killings, to prey upon Henry, Abouchuk and countless other native women he and other men are suspected of harming, from remote terrain to racism and biases against sex workers.

“Amplifying these stories is our duty,” said Spencer, who’s nominated for an Emmy for best narrator for her work on the series, during a taping of THR Presents powered by Investigation Discovery. “These women had lives, they have loved ones, and they are human. We are human.”

Right from the beginning, the series lays out the disproportionate number of missing persons in Alaska—roughly 1,300, with only 100 being actively worked on. Were you aware of the situation in Alaska prior to this project?

As a Black woman, I know that our stories here are not prioritized. So it was not shocking, sadly, to me, that these indigenous women were going missing at alarming rates. It’s a systemic failure within our culture to disregard people who are Black and brown. 

The end of the third episode notes that Brian Steven Smith is still being investigated for possibly committing more crimes in Alaska and his native South Africa. Are there any new developments?

Without having concrete evidence, these aren’t his first victims. He was too good at it and had his modus operandi. He went to Alaska because it was a broader playing field, of that I am sure. But the same way that they weren’t vigorously investigating the indigenous women, I can almost assure you that his victims [in South Africa] were Black and aren’t being as rigorously investigated either. 

True crime, as a genre, has been critiqued as sensational. What sets Lost Women apart?

We don’t see this as entertainment. I don’t watch true crime for entertainment. I watch it to gain knowledge, and if I’ve seen something, I want to be responsible and report it. Lost Women, for us, is one about being restorative of lives and voices and bringing some resolution, hopefully, to families. It’s not that we glamorize crime against women. I find it abhorrent. Lost Women is about empowering all women and young girls to be a part of a community that helps each other, that we see each other, that we report, and that we fight for laws that protect us. This is a passion of mine, but not for entertainment, for justice for these victims.

This is your second narration Emmy nomination, both of which were for the Lost Women series. What does that mean to you?

It’s wonderful because it amplifies the story of the Lost Women of Alaska. I always joke and say, “Is my voice the right one to be narrating their stories?” But visibility is something that I can give with my name. And the voice — I’m compelled to use it for good and to tell these women’s stories because they can no longer tell their own stories. So it’s very, very humbling. And it’s not for me. I see this as a nomination for The Lost Women of Alaska.

Watch the full Q&A with Spencer in the video above.

It was just three years ago when Bela Bajaria revealed the internal label for Netflix’s programming ideal, the gourmet cheeseburger. Evoking populist fare with a garnish of prestige, it seemed like the only dining-related descriptor the TV industry would ever need. But there’s a new moniker on the rise, which I learned when a screenwriter friend recently shared their concerns about a project never getting out of development. The rationale? “Oh, they’re only buying white wine thrillers.”

This trio of words is so evocative that it barely needs a definition. Let’s establish one, just to be safe. A white wine thriller can get dark but not too dark. The body count is kept low. A few murders, nothing too graphic. There must be aspirational elements, typically wealthy characters wearing Brunello Cucinelli while emotionally unraveling in Nancy Meyers-worthy kitchens. White wine thrillers are often adaptations of books. And, pivotally, they are centered on female protagonists and marketed with a female audience in mind. The characters may drink white wine. They frequently do. The real implication is that the viewer is drinking it as they watch.

Roots of this label can be traced to Peacock. “It was just after All Her Fault, we were talking about female-led thrillers, and one of the executives called them white wine thrillers,” says Lisa Katz, president of scripted content at NBC and Peacock. “I don’t know what that conjures for you, but I like wine. To me, white wine feels lighter, refreshing, enjoyable. It goes down easy. You don’t feel bad the next day.”

For every person I’ve approached who claims to have never heard the term, there are at least another two who trill with excitement at its mention. And not because the white wine thriller is anything revelatory or new. It’s because there are finally the words to articulate a kind of show we’ve been watching for years. Look back at the female-driven hits of the past decade, and so many fit the bill. Netflix’s adaptation of Elin Hilderbrand’s The Perfect Couple? Quintessential white wine thriller. Hulu’s Nine Perfect Strangers? Big white wine energy. HBO’s The Undoing? Pour another glass of Grüner. In short: If Nicole Kidman is in the mix, keep a corkscrew within arm’s reach. This brings me to Big Little Lies. No series better encapsulates the tenets of the white wine thriller. HBO assembled The Avengers of A-list actresses, put them in stunning homes on the California coast, asked viewers which one killed the shitbag husband played by Alexander Skarsgard, and our cups ran over.

All Her Fault is the latest industry standard for white wine thrillers. The 2025 miniseries, which stars Sarah Snook as a mother unraveling the cashmere mystery of her missing son, is nominated for seven Emmys. It’s a watershed hit for Peacock. Until the recent launch of the Jennifer Garner drama Five Star Weekend, All Her Fault ranked as the most watched original in the streamer’s history. The fact that, in the wake of All Her Fault’s success, Peacock announced in July that it was finally profitable certainly suggests that white wine thrillers are worth the investment.

“It’s such a good phrase because you immediately understand exactly what it means,” says Tessa Coates, the comedian turned showrunner behind Prime Video’s Ride or Die. “But thrillers, when correctly done, are incredibly difficult to pull off. The fact that you enjoy them with a white wine is not a damning thing. White wine makes it clear that we’re here for a bit of fun. If you wanted to be truly damning, you would call it a prosecco thriller. That says, ‘We’re sugar. We’re sweet. We’re silly.’ “

Coates’ series starring Octavia Spencer and Hannah Waddingham skews too comedy and too action to satisfy the white wine criteria, the most comedic-skewing example of the genre likely being Kaley Cuoco’s The Flight Attendant, but Ride or Die is part of a wave of female-fronted hits setting the summer TV narrative. Apple TV has the Anya Taylor-Joy-fronted Lucky, which is said to skew too male to be a white wine. The aforementioned Five Star Weekend is deliberately short on thrills (“It’s possibly more of a rosé,” jokes Katz). And then there’s Furious, on Hulu, a red wine thriller.

Red wine thrillers check many of the same boxes as their sauvignon blanc counterparts. The biggest differences are higher body counts and a bit of grime where you’d normally find the aspiration. Picture Amy Adams in Sharp Objects. Her alcoholic character may have been quaffing vodka from Evian bottles, but that was a red wine thriller all the way. A red wine thriller demands a stronger constitution, a willingness to wake up the next morning with some lingering effects. Those watching Furious — Liz Meriwether and Emmy Rossum’s cat-and-mouse thriller about an Epstein-esque victim taking out her rapists one by one — know the series is not so easy to shake.

“A red wine thriller stains your teeth, it’s tannic,” one producer tells me, noting that white wine thrillers are in higher demand but that some buyers have developed a taste for red. “Peacock and Hulu are definitely looking for white wine thrillers. Netflix and HBO Max might skew more red. And Paramount has absolutely no idea what it wants.”

Paramount appears to be, as a recent THR report detailed, finally turning its attention to women after so many years relying on the work of Taylor Sheridan and his abundant testosterone. All this serves as a reminder that programming for or about women is still spoken of in terms that would almost never be used for men. Male-skewing series don’t suffer such labels, as much as I’d argue for Shane Gillis’ Tires being dubbed a Kirkland Signature comedy. Calling something a white wine thriller could be interpreted as pejorative, if not sexist.

“Looking at these female-fronted shows that are doing so well, they’re all different,” says Larry Salz, an agent and partner at UTA. “I think the danger of boxing them in is the notion of a network going, ‘Well, we already have our female thriller.’ “

Taxonomies, even cheeky ones, can also be helpful. In a marketplace so often defined by confusion, calling something a white wine thriller offers a rare bit of clarity for all parties. “People want to categorize because people are always trying to figure out what audiences want,” says Katz. “What I’ve learned is that you never know what they want. So the only way to approach this is to make something entertaining, something well-executed that will connect no matter the genre.”

This story appeared in the Aug. 12 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. Click here to subscribe.