The Young and the Restless Recap: What Did Mariah Do?
Here is the latest The Young and the Restless spoiler promo:
A Deal With The Devil: Victor (Eric Braeden) meets up with Phyllis (Michelle Stafford) and asks what information she has for him. She refuses to reveal anything until he promises her something in return.
A Marriage in Turmoil: Tessa (Cait Fairbanks) and Mariah (Camryn Grimes) are in trouble. Tessa begs Mariah to forgive her and maybe go to family counseling so they can work through their issues. In tears, Mariah says it isn't Tessa who needs to be forgiven.
It's Party Time: Claire (Hayley Erin) tells Nikki (Melody Thomas Scott) and Victoria (Amelia Heinle) she wants to throw a party to help change Victor's mind about Kyle (Michael Mealor).
Previous The Young and the Restless (YR) Promo:
What are you looking forward to next week? Sound off in the comments! Watch the video clip below and keep checking back for the latest The Young and the Restless spoiler promos!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Ken Jennings: Trivia and ‘Jeopardy!' Could Save Our Republic
When I first stepped behind the host lectern on the quiz show 'Jeopardy!,' I was intimidated for two reasons. Most obviously, I had the hopeless task of filling the very large shoes of Alex Trebek, the legendary broadcaster and pitch-perfect host who'd been synonymous with the show since 1984. But I was also keenly aware that the show was one of TV's great institutions, almost a public trust. Since I was 10 years old, I'd watched Alex Trebek carve out a safe space for people to know things, where viewers get a steady diet of 61 accurate (and hopefully even interesting) facts every game. And I wondered: Even if 'Jeopardy!' could survive the loss in 2020 of its peerless host, could it survive the conspiracy theories and fake news of our post-fact era? Facts may seem faintly old-timey in the 21st century, remnants of the rote learning style that went out of fashion in classrooms (and that the internet search made obsolete) decades ago. But societies are built on facts, as we can see more clearly when institutions built on knowledge teeter. Inaccurate facts make for less informed decisions. Less informed decisions make for bad policy. Garbage in, garbage out. I've always hated the fact that 'trivia,' really our only word in English for general-knowledge facts and games, is the same word we use to mean 'things of no importance.' So unfair! Etymologically, the word is linked to the trivium of medieval universities, the three fundamental courses of grammar, rhetoric and logic. And much of today's so-called trivia still deals with subjects that are fundamentally academic. Watch a game of 'Jeopardy!' tonight, or head down to your local pub quiz, and you're sure to be asked about scientific breakthroughs, milestones of history and masterpieces of art. Trivia, maybe — but far from trivial. There might also be questions about pop lyrics and sports statistics, but even those are markers of cultural literacy, the kind of shared knowledge that used to tie society together: the proposition that factual questions could be answered correctly or not, that those answers matter, and that we largely agreed on the authorities and experts who could confirm them. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Can Pop Culture Be Political … and Good?
transcript Can Pop Culture Be Political … and Good? Can Hollywood still tell great stories? Can movies be political without being tedious? When entertainment is dominated by franchises, is creativity still possible? My guest today, worked on some of the best movies of the early 2000s. Now he's responsible for one of the best TV shows of the 2020s. He makes art that I consider left-wing and also, quite brilliant. Tony Gilroy, welcome to Interesting Times. Thank you for having me. It's a great pleasure. And I want to start by congratulating you on what I personally think a large number of critics, and a sizable fraction of the viewing public consider the most successful Star Wars production, maybe since the original trilogy. There's a lot of material to be compared with. So it's a big thank you. Good. So you've been frank in the past, about not having been an intense Star Wars guy, before you got pulled into this universe and into this work in this project. And I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about what it's like to come into a story, a franchise. Were you saying to yourself, 'I'm going to do something inside a franchise that no one has done before'? Or were you saying, Sure. Definitely. 'Look, there are other models here of how Christopher Nolan's Batman,' or something like that. No, I'm always trying to do something that I haven't seen before. That is going to be unusual. So no, I had no- I was very much not into any other model. I was very into striking new ground. And the other thing that I was being offered was a five year piece of history on that calendar that you probably know pretty well. I think you're a big fan. I have that five year tranche of history that takes you up to the first scene in Rogue One. It's the story of, for listeners and viewers who are not huge Star Wars fans- The story that Andor tells is the story of the rise of the rebel alliance, how you get to the point in the original Star Wars where Luke Skywalker comes in and there's already this rebellion ongoing against the empire, and you're telling a very, very political story. Well, that was the offer. The offer was, when I looked at it, it's the canvas that was being offered was just a wildly abundant opportunity of to use all of the nonfiction and all the history and all the amateur reading that I'd done over the past 40 years, and all the things I was fascinated by, all the revolution stuff that not only I would never have a chance to do again, but I really wondered if anybody else would ever have a chance to do again. When are you going to be able to have as we've ended up with a 1,500 page. I think of it as a novel, really, a 1,500 page novel that is trying to deal with as many aspects of authoritarianism and fascism and colonialism and rebellion and coalition and sacrifice and all of that? I think this is a good place to pivot more to a discussion of politics and art, because Andor is it's telling a political story in a way that goes beyond anything Star Wars has done before. It's not just the world of Skywalker family and the Jedi Knights. It's a world of bureaucrats and senators, politicians and so on. So talk a little bit about what is this world that you're showing. What is the political world that you're depicting in this show? The five years that I've been given are extremely potent. You have the empire really closing down, really choking, really ramping up. The Emperor's building, the Death Star. 'The rebellion on Gorman was a front from the start.' 'A cover to strip mine the planet for some mineral that they need.' 'Fronting for what?' 'A weapon.' They are closing out corporate planets and absorbing them into the state. They are imperialistically, acquiring planets and taking what they want. They are. The noose is tightening dramatically. There still is a Senate. There are senators that are speaking out. Impotently. 'I believe we are in crisis.' The Senate has been all but completely emasculated by the time this five year tranche is over. And there are revolutionary groups, rebellious groups, and people who are acting rebelliously who wouldn't even know how to describe themselves as part of any movement. There are a completely wide spectrum of unaffiliated cells, I guess, and and activists that are rising independently across the Galaxy, and at the same time, you have a group more, more restrained politicians who are trying to make an organized coalition of a rebellion on a place called Yavin, which will end up being the true end of the true victory of the rebel alliance. I wanted to do a show all about the forgotten people who make a revolution like this happen on both sides, and I want to pay equal... I want to take equal interest and spend as much time understanding the bureaucrats and the enforcers of the rebellion. I think one of the fascinating things about fascism is that when it's done coming after the people whose land it wants and who it wants to oppress, and whoever it wants to control, by the time it gets rid of the courts and the Justice, and by the time it consolidates all its power in the center, it ultimately eats its young. It ultimately comes after its own. It consumes its own proponents. That's just reading about the last days of Mussolini a month ago. And it's just like, right out of the people get lost and get hung out to dry. So I want to pay as much attention to the authoritarian side of this, the people who've cast their lot with the empire, who get burned by it all. So is Andor a left-wing show? Because this is something that I've said a couple times in my writing about it, using it literally as an example, as a conservative columnist of a work of art that I think of as having different politics from my own that I really, really like. And I've had friends, especially on the right, come back to me and say, 'Oh, it's not left-wing or right-wing. It's just a TV show about resistance to tyranny.' But I think you've made a left-wing work of art. What do you think. I never think about it that way. It was never I mean, I never do. I don't, but it's a story. But it's a political story about revolutionary the empire. Do you identify with the empire. No, I don't, but I don't think that you have to be left-wing to resist authoritarianism. But I see the Empire as you just described it. It's a fascist. It's presented as a fascist institution that doesn't have any, Communist pretense to solidarity or anything like that. It's fascist and authoritarian. And you're meditating on what revolutionary politics looks like in the shadow of that. I mean, who. So you talked about all this history that you brought in. So what. Talk about that history a little bit. I mean, I've had a very I'm my education is very, very spotty and not college graduate and but completely autodidactic. I grew up in a house with an amazing library. And I've been a very active reader my whole life, and I've done just an incredible number of deep dives in my life where I've become obsessed with all kinds of different things, and I've made my own syllabus and I mean, I probably read Stefan zweig's Marie Antoinette when I was 15 or 16 years old and started a French Revolution Jag. And then I probably revisited that. I probably revisited the French Revolution half a dozen times in my life, and probably the last thing I read was oh, there's a great novel. Hilary Mantel's a place of greater safety. Oh Yeah. No, it's a terrific book, amazing book. And so I've done that. And I was obsessed with the Russian Revolution. And then the literature on that has expanded over time and the show trials and how have you ever seen house of government. It's just an incredible book. And different times, different things will come out. Oliver Cromwell, Zapata, the Roman revolutions, I mean, my syllabus for the show is it just goes back too far and too deep. It's just something I've always been fascinated in. I don't think of the show as a left-wing show, and I. I don't want you to think that I came on the show. I said before I saw the opportunity to use all this material and to dig into all these things. But that is not how I write. It's completely antithetical to the way I write. I write very, very small. I trust my instincts are going to take me someplace larger if I'm doing it right, but it's really almost exclusively all about character. I'm a really, really. I plot through dialogue. I go very, very deep, and you can see how many characters I have and how many I'm carrying. And I don't think of it as pushing or promoting or anything, in fact, the ideology. But you're rooted. But in the end, I mean, in the end, you're rooting. Look, I guess here's how I here's how I think about it. I've had versions. So this is a show to story about where you are rooting for revolutionaries against a fascist regime. You, as you said, you're not. You're not rooting for the empire in the end. But then it does. So that, to me is the political foundation of the work. And that's why I use the term left-wing, not because you have a 10 point list of revolutionary demands that you. Tony Gilroy support, but you're telling a story in which basically you're on the side of the radicals and the revolutionaries. But then at the same time, and this is why I think it is effective art. What I think you've been able to do, maybe coming out of all of this autodidactic reading is give people a window into why the radicals, even if you're rooting for them, you can see how things can go wrong. That is what I really like about the show's approach to politics is that there's no ever. What's fascinating is there's no. And in particularly in the second season, I was really eager to get into the idea of particularly for and using Stellan Skarsgard character luthen as the and Forrest Whitaker's character as the original gangsters and the difficulty of integrating the ancestors of radicalism into a coalition and watching a coalition try to come together. But I never there's never anybody, I don't think, who ever espouses an actual ideology of what they want to achieve at the end, other than to please leave US alone, stop killing us, stop destroying our communities. Don't build the Death Star and kill us. There's not AI never have AI never have a character. I don't think stand up and say, this is the Galaxy that I am trying to build and this is what I want to see. Now that's fair. And that is, in fact, literally the argument that some of my more libertarian friends who love the show have made to me saying oh, this is ultimately a show about localism and leaving us alone against the depredations of tyranny. But talk, talk a little bit about how you portray the people who serve the empire, though I am, I'm with everybody on the show. I have to say, without sounding like a t-shirt or a cliche. I mean, I have to live through every single one of them to do it properly. I have to really feel for every single person on the show. And there's no shortcut to that other than to empathetically dive into every person's point of view and every person's, every person's insecurities. And I'm as invested in partagaz and and Deedra meero and syril as any of the other characters on the show. I mean, and these are just again, these are the characters who are imperial in various ways. Gestapo say they're Gestapo. Yeah, exactly. I don't. I don't have the luxury. That sounds so. That's so glib. I just don't I don't have any other way to work other than to fully be with everybody that I'm writing for and taking care of. And then as a dramatist, I also have actual human beings who are doing this that are vivid and alive for me. And, and so your empathetic response to the character is also then as an element of transference to the people that are playing the parts. And I don't know any other way to do it. I just go back to your last point about before we move on from it. Yeah I think if there's any ideology in the show at all that is expressed, that seems consistent through the whole thing, and it is something that I think and I don't know where that I don't know where it lines up. I think it would probably be just as confusing for you to try to make a left right marker on it, but I feel the disruption of community and the destruction of community and all the varieties of community, whether it's on a large scale with colonialism or if it's on a small scale with a city and a town or a family, or the Empire in the show is consuming and destroying communities everywhere. And the concept of community is the universal. I think that's the universal flag that I can fly all the way through the whole show and feel comfortable with. I mean, to me, what you've just described, the mentality of always trying to see the world through your character's eyes, through each character's eyes, right. Even when they're on opposing sides, even when they represent a community destroying perspective that you yourself are against, is the key to doing successful art about politics. But it's tremendous. It seems tremendously hard, I think, for people to do in the sense that when I think about most art that tries to capture American politics, certainly. But any kind of politics that gets close to the present moment, certainly there's just a failure of a conspicuous failure of empathy for anyone who's not on the same side as the screenwriter, the novelist, the filmmaker, and so on. That's my sense of things. And again, it's one reason that I appreciate Andor, I think. Do you think that they're like in terms of cinema, modern cinema or modern TV. Do you think there are other shows and movies that tackle politics that you admire, that you think, pull this off, this kind of cross political empathy. I don't know. I don't want to I don't know if I want to answer that by giving a list of shows. Maybe I'm going to push deeper on that. I'm going to push a little. That's even better. Please push deeper. I'm going to push deeper on that. Like I heard, I have to study up a little bit to come on a podcast like this with an interview like this, because it's a very serious. It's a very serious. No, the bar is higher. This is. No, this is no, it's seriously, man. This is a trickier conversation than most of the ones I have to have on this. I listened to the podcast that you did with the I don't the gentleman's name, the one who's trying to revive the vibe shift into the right. Jonathan Keeperman. Yeah, right-wing, publisher. Yep. Why is- why is, not just Hollywood, you can say, why is Hollywood for the last 100 years, been vaguely been progressive or been liberal? I think it's a much larger. I'll go farther and say, why is almost all literature. Why is almost all art that involves humans trend progressive. Let's stick with Hollywood. You can't make a living as an actor or as a writer or a director without an the higher degree of empathy that you have, the more aware you are of behavior and all kinds of behavior, the better you're going to be at your job. We feed our families by being in an empathy business. It's just baked in. You're trying to pretend to be other people. The whole job is to pretend to be other. And what is it like to look from this. And people may be less successful over time at portraying Nazis as humans. And that may be good writing or bad writing. And there may be people that have an ax to grind. But in general, empathy is empathy is how I feed my family. And the more finely tuned that is, the better. I am at my job. And that is what actors do. I have to play. I'm going on. I'm going on Broadway. I'm playing a villain for six months. I got to live in that. I'm playing the slave. I'm playing the fisherman. I'm playing the nurse. I'm the murderer. You have to get in there. You have to live lives through other people. I think that the simple act of that transformation and that process automatically gives you a more what I would describe as a more generous and progressive point of view. It just has to. And I don't see how you can buy if you're going to reissue the Hardy Boys or something, or try to twist a nod and say that Melville or the Coen brothers or made a piece of right-wing art because you see something in there. I think it really Mrs. the larger point of the struggle that movement is going to be up against. Does that make any sense to you. I mean, yeah, I think that is the view of many, if not most people who work in the arts that I've had sustained conversations with about politics, why art tends to be liberal or progressive coded and so on. I think just to speak up on behalf of the conservative critique, I think you would say a couple of things. One is that liberalism and progressivism itself is in 21st century America is a power structure, a set of assumptions, views about who's good, who's bad. It passes a certain kind of judgment on the past. I think that can be antithetical to serious art, that you get a lot of progressivism where it's like, the moral arc of the universe is always bending in a particular direction, and everyone in the past who had different views is benighted and wrong. And so on. And that is its own failure of empathy and understanding, I think, and one that progressives are particularly prone to. So the empathy for the empathy for events is what you're saying. No, the empathy for people who existed, who had views that contemporary progressives now considered consider benighted, for instance Yeah, but I'm trying to make a deeper point. Well, but you're asking me why. I'm saying just the act of the job, just the act of the day to day work puts you. It doesn't matter. The ideology there may be exceptions to all across the spectrum, but in general, the act of pretending to be someone else. Or many actors don't like to use the word pretending, and writers don't like to use the word pretending. The act of inhabiting or becoming someone else in any iteration, in any historical setting. Just that simple transformation and the work that goes into that until the point where you can access it immediately, that act, I won't put it. I'm very eager to put it in a religious context for you because I know that's I know what a strong flavor that is on this show. It perhaps not religious, but it is an act of transformation that is, it's more than a magic trick. And it doesn't put you it doesn't necessarily put you in an ideological, it doesn't cast your vote, but it does open your mind in a way that forces you to think twice about the person who's sitting next to you on the bus. And I guess what I'm just trying to suggest is that some people do it better than others. Some artists do it better than others. And, and but there is also a pattern where art that is made in an environment where people share a particular worldview, where it fails the test, you're setting it right. The test of empathy is often when it's confronting people who hold views or represent ideas or institutions or anything else that contemporary progressives don't favor. So just to give you an example, right. And again, you don't have to agree with this because don't have to criticize any of your colleagues in the business. But if you go back and watch a movie like the shape of water. Guillermo Del Toro's movie that won Best Picture, at the beginning of what we now think of as the great, the great awokening. That's a movie where in a way, it's a very empathetic movie. It's a movie about how a band of outsiders, minorities, non-humans and so on band together to defeat an evil authoritarian figure. But the evil authoritarian figure is supposed to be like the evil representative of white Christian McCarthyite masculinity. And Michael Shannon has does it, in a way, a very good job of portraying the role. But as I sit there watching the movie, it's a movie that absolutely has no empathy for anyone outside its circle of virtuous outsiders. It has no sense of what it would, what would actually be like to be, a patriotic in that picture. Yeah O.K. Good, good. I don't think it's a subtle. I don't think it's a subtle picture. And I think it's doing what. What will I hit. I mean, what will I come back with. Let's talk about in the Heat of the Night. Let me know. Let's talk about in the Heat of the Night for one second just to pick a. O.K, I don't know. I mean, in the Heat of the Night, the Rod Steiger character, the Southern Sheriff, couldn't be more of a cliche as the movie starts. Couldn't be more of a living caricature of what we all expect and lives on those expectations. As the movie tracks along, and as some great writing and great directing and great acting gets done. You gradually become to realize that everybody involved in that picture is absolutely as invested in him as they are in Sidney Poitier. And they're absolutely invested in that character as much as they are in any other character. And the whole thing is alive. And the difference between shape of water is it wants to be Gothic. I'm not sure what Guillermo was going for there. It's a different kind of movie. But when people really care about it, they get there, I don't know. Well, let me give. I agree with you completely about in the Heat of the Night. Let me give you an example from your own work. Which is, I think, the best movie that you made. You've only you've only actually you've directed three movies. How many movies have you directed. Three movies. Yes 3 movies. So So they're all good, to be clear. But the best of them are, I think, by general consensus, is Michael Clayton, which is a movie stars George Clooney as a lawyer who's a fixer who ends up dealing with a case of corporate malfeasance where a company poisoned essentially poisoned a town, poisoned kids. And one of his colleagues has a crisis of conscience, played by or essentially has a mental breakdown driven by a crisis of conscience. And this is, again, I would describe this as a movie I love. I love Michael Clayton. I would again describe it as kind of a left-wing movie. It's a movie about how why they're evil. Why is that O.K. Because the foundation of the movie and I would say this, if you make a movie, if you make a movie, that's about where the moral foundation of the movie is that the American military is awesome and kicks ass. I might love that movie or I might dislike it, but I would call that a kind of right leaning movie. And if you make a movie about how evil corporations are poisoning your children, I call that a left-wing movie, right? But what I want to get to is the villain in that movie is played by Tilda Swinton. Terrific performance. And to me, you create her and she creates the character to write in a way that is again, fulfills the goal of creating a character who you're rooting against, who's obviously the bad guy, but who is deeply human, fascinating, bizarre, totally relatable in various ways, again, in a way that I think lots of movies that have a political perspective fail at. And that's all I'm getting at. I think that there is a way in which you can make a movie that has a political point of view that captures the fullness of reality, and it's hard to do, and you do it well, and not everyone does. This isn't even a question. I'm just. I'm just. I'm trying to. I'm trying to get you. Yeah all right, well, let me respond to that. I think you might have an opening statement in on Andor just because it is essentially there's a lot of politics and fascism is identified and but I just it's funny, I just saw Clayton for the first time in 18 years. The night before last. Really they had a screening in La. Yeah, they had a show print and we were out promoting Andor and they tied it in with that. I hadn't seen it in 18 years, and I in a packed theater just two nights ago and saw it again. So it's fresh in my mind. I really don't I'm going to really push back against left wing on that picture. I don't understand at all what is left or right about poisoning people with a pesticide and lying about it. I don't think anybody on the right wants to be if I was let's keep my politics out of it. But if I can't see myself ever, in any iteration of myself, identifying with the corporation that has been fighting a class action suit for poisoning people and. But that's what. But wait, Tilda Swinton's character is so she's such a lost person. She has to practice being herself. So you can imagine the volume of legal issues. It's quite substantial. And as general counsel, what I do, what our in-house department does, she's completely if there's a political element about the movie, I think at all, it's Tilda Swinton trying to falsely approximate what she thinks may be male corporate behaviors. You might be able to make an argument about that, but Yeah, who wants to defend pesticides. I don't think it's left or right at all. I think it's about people. And I think I mean, I think I'm a moralist, if you want to know the truth. I mean in the number one definition, not the number two definition, but I think I really in the end, I think there's a moral code that I have and I think that gets expressed a lot, but it's impossible for me to see Clayton as an ideological thing. I mean, well, it's just that this is the last thing I'll say, because I want to ask you a different question about Michael Clayton. The last thing I'll say is just. But do you. Of course, of course, of course. You don't identify with the corporation that's using pesticides to poison the children. Well, then. But that's your alternative. Left right. If I made if I made a movie, let's say I made a movie. And it was about a English department, faculty that was led by African-American lesbian professor that persecuted a virtuous Catholic, conservative academic and got him fired. I would feel like I'd made kind of a right-wing movie. But then I could say oh, well, what are you on the side of persecuting? Persecuting Catholic intellectuals? No no one's on that side. Well, no, but who you choose as your villains does have political implications. That's all I'm saying. So let me ask you a different question about Michael Clayton, which is this. Go ahead. So why didn't you make more movies like Michael Clayton. It's been 18 years. Why are there duplicity came out after that. And then you did a Bourne movie and then you got sucked into the Star Wars universe. But I watched that movie. I was like, I could watch five more movies, 10 more movies like that from Tony Gilroy. I mean, well, that's AI mean, if you look at my if you look at my complete CV, it's pretty chaotic. And you could tell that I as to go back to what we said before, I'm always looking. I don't really want to do anything that I've done before. Why I really wanted to make duplicity. I really had a gasp making it. I went from there to legacy. I really tried to give. I'd been on the Bourne. I've been with the Bourne franchise for many years and that's its own shambolic success. And I wanted to give them a Marvel universe in a way. We really had a way of doing that there was just too much bad blood and too much confusion, that it didn't work. The life of a screenwriter, the life of a writer director. I have not been able to pick and choose what I've wanted to do. I have had many films shot down from under me, know most of them. And that's well, that's the core of the question. So I grew up younger than you. I grew up in the 1990s, which meant that for me, as a teenager, someone who was not as crazed about the movies maybe as you were, but who liked them a lot, and they were a big part of my life hanging out, going to the movies on weekends. I took it for granted then that you would have serious movies for grown UPS, fun original movies, a movie you worked on. Devil's advocate. The Pacino. Keanu right. So that was the kind of movie that going to the movies meant you were going to see a big movie star giving you a big speech, playing Satan in a Manhattan skyrise. Wow Oh yeah. Yeah step on up, son. Come on. That's good. You got to hold on to that fury. That was great stuff. And to me, the big change in American pop culture in the last 20 years is that the world that made movies like Michael Clayton, movies like devil's advocate possible has just gone away. And I'm wondering if you agree with that. It just seems incredibly hard going. You stopped going to the theater. You stopped going to the theater. Well, I started with a capital Y. I stopped going to the theater. No, I take that personally because I do have a lot of kids, and I don't get to the movie theater. You don't know it is my fault personally. Totally no, I mean the. Oh, man. I've been around so long. I've seen this whole thing. I've seen all these dynastic changes happen and ridden it through. The economics are just what they are. And Michael Clayton existed in that moment where the model on that movie is, if I could get a movie star whose full freight price was basically the cost of the movie, and they do the movie for free, I had a movie. I mean, even at that point, if George is going to come in, I think the movie cost 20. I think George was getting 15, 20 at that point, and he waves his fee. He owns the picture. That's how that movie gets made. That model began to degrade over time, and now it's an impossibility. I mean, now Clayton is an absolute streaming show. Well, there aren't movies. There aren't movie stars anymore. That's There are no movie stars anymore. No, there are no movie stars. And so all of these things have changed. So my father did. My father was in the same business. My brothers were in the same business. I have grown up on this my whole life. It's prenatal for me and one of the major, most important things carved in stone that I know. It does no good to complain about the weather, man. You got to go out. You got to. You got to see what's there. Now I don't want to I grew up my brothers and I grew up and my friends and I grew up with a generation of writers before US, Great writers and great producers and directors and whatever. But they many of them, became embittered by the changing landscape and the changing topography of what had happened. And that's a lesson that I've taken away. I'm staying flexible. I want to work. I want to be obsessed. I want to work on something that I'm into. What gives you hope right now. Like, do you think do you think that we are just stuck in a world where can maybe make something great inside a franchise. But mostly movies for grown UPS are over. Or are you do you think things are going to get better. I don't man. Better, I think there's a couple. There's a couple, there's a couple really significant things. I mean, I just personally I have a movie that I'm hoping to get greenlit very soon that's very much that I go back and direct, and it's about movie music and it's certainly not Clayton that it's a thriller, but it's very much in the same scale. And it's very ambitious and unusual and it's and and I think you'd find it if I get to make it, I think you'd say oh, this is the thing I was talking about. But Yeah. What's new and good. I'll tell you what's good. What's good is time. The two major developments, I would say, are the best developments in recent years is one is Tony Soprano because prior to Tony Soprano, every writer who ever went into a pitch meeting or ever dealt with an actor, there was always a note. Can we make this character more sympathetic. How do we make how do we make Ross more sympathetic. Should we give you those notes. I get those notes from my producers every week. You had a dog. If you had a dog there, a puppy, it would be a lot better. After Tony Soprano, people really began to realize something that had already been staring at them, which is that characters need to be fascinating and have to be relatable in some way, but they have to be fascinating more than anything else. And sympathetic is wasn't the characteristic that everybody wanted. I think that's a huge tectonic development. I think the other development that's probably more significant is time, the ability to tailor the size of the Canvas or build a house to the lot and appropriately is an incredibly liberating creative. Development that's transformative. I have a story. Does it really want to fit into a 3. Three hours. Does it really want to fit into seven hours. Does it really want to be 24 episodes. Is it really just a movie. I think how shows are delivered time will now be. It's just I mean, I can't stress how. It's almost as if you added perspective to painting it's shadow or something. It's really like that's a really major development. Now, all that said, all that happiness and everything, that's great. And I listen to your I podcast, I was talking to people in La the last couple of days. I've heard some just absolutely Gothic dire information or prognostication about I don't know how to deal with that. I don't know how to think about it. I don't know what you did with it. When you finished that podcast, what did you think when you were done with that podcast. Did you want to go out to the parking lot and scream or what I didn't fully believe it. That's the truth, right. I don't think the world's ending in 2027. I think with the movies it's a question about I hope you're hope I'm right. I hope I'm right too. We'll find out. I hope you're right, man. But to me, the question with the great question is an audience question for your business. If you get an AI that can generate 1,500 simulated versions of Michael Clayton or Andor and let's be honest, it'll be 1,500 simulated versions of a Marvel movie or Star Wars show. And the actors aren't real, and there's no actual screenwriter behind it. Do people want that. And I think that they don't in the end, that even if most people watch Andor, don't know who Tony Gilroy is, in the end, they want to think that there is a mind and a human being behind the story, just as they definitely want to think that you're talking about the work your actors do that it's like it's Tilda Swinton and George Clooney playing those characters. Even in an age when movie stars have declined, people want to think they don't want AI simulacrum playing a fictional character. And this may be my total naiveté, but I do think that's what it comes down to for Hollywood. With it's does the audience accept the substitution of whatever I can do for what you can do. And I'm hopeful that they don't. I mean, I think that's I'll talk about that for one minute, but I think it's subsidiary to well, maybe people will have nothing else to do to watch because they won't have any jobs and they won't have anything. I mean, or maybe it's a Chinese. No, I. I 2027. Yeah no, I mean it's so terrifying. There won't be a movie business. I don't want to be I mean, one of my I think, personal philosophy that I've and it's not something again, it's not an agenda I put in. I find out forensically what you really think when you go out and sell your picture. It's really an odd thing. And over time, I've really become more aware in these kind of conversations and post facto, what I've really been doing. And one of the things I feel I've really been doing, I think human behavior and human insecurities and just all the things that make us chaotic, complicated beings, has always had a corrosive effect on every technology and weapon and everything that's been thrown in its way. I think it's like water. It leaks down and it rusts. It's managed to wonderfully rust out all of the things that have been thrown at it before. I don't know if this is one that we can beat in your scenario. Maybe it's true. Maybe live theater will become just this cult like thing. Maybe because maybe there'll be some huge, incredible Renaissance of return to an acoustic community in every way, shape, or form. I don't know, but I am not sanguine about the next corner we're going to turn, and that's something I have. No, I don't we have no frame of reference for that. So absent that I would try to be optimistic I suppose. So that's a dark place Tony. So give me some light. Give me some advice right now. Set aside I just the movie industry without the total transformation, just the movie and TV industry that you're in right now. Give me advice for the young Tony Gilroy or the would be Tony Gilroy, the would be screenwriter, Director, whatever else of 2025. What would you tell them. Well, I give the same advice. All these people come and kids come and whatever. I mean, it's simple. They're young, they're eager, they're eager to learn. No, but I mean, have something to say. It's just people can't be doing this job because they think it's cool or the money's good or whatever. I mean, there's no point in this. You have something to say. The optimistic other thing is, where do you ever go. What? supermarket. What train ride. What bus. What do people talk about everywhere. They talk about what are you watching. What are you seeing. Did you see this. What episode are you on. The amount of narrative that is being consumed and I guess the leisure time liberation and the accelerated just the delivery systems that can bring it to you. I mean, narrative is an essential food group to the human experience, and it has never not been. Thus will that go away because it's a machine doing it. I don't know how will machines do it. Will they do it better. Will people accept that I have no idea. But people, man, we tell ourselves stories in order to live. I mean, a lot of times I'll tell writers if they're telling me, one of the things I always say is it's really good to tell your story. If you're working on something, it's a campfire story. I mean, the best writers are people that could sit down. I could sit down. And I really think confidently with a little bit of lead time and and and a vodka in my hand at a campfire, I can hold your attention. I can really hold your attention. That's really valuable. That never ends. So that seems to be proven. Well then, well then we'll if the AI 2027 scenario is real, we'll agree to meet up around the campfire in the post-apocalyptic ruins. And you can tell me a story, Tony. And until then, thank you so much. Thank you, I will Thank you so much. Below is an edited transcript of an episode of 'Interesting Times.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player below or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. Ross Douthat: From New York Times Opinion, I'm Ross Douthat and this is 'Interesting Times.' American pop culture is in trouble. The Hollywood dream factory has gone stagnant, recycling the same stories time and time again. Giants like Marvel seem too big to fail, but they've lost the ability to tell us new and surprising stories — with one notable exception. The 'Star Wars' serial 'Andor' has somehow managed to pull off originality within the constraints of a familiar franchise, pleasing obsessive fans and critics alike. Part of its originality is that it has an explicitly political and, to my mind, left-wing perspective on its world, without feeling at all like tedious propaganda. My guest today is the showrunner behind 'Andor,' Tony Gilroy. We're going to talk about how exactly he made 'Star Wars' great again, how art and politics interact in a show about radicals trying to defeat fascism, and whether Hollywood can tell stories for grown-ups again. So, Tony Gilroy, welcome to 'Interesting Times.' Tony Gilroy: Thank you for having me. Douthat: I want to start by congratulating you on what I personally think a large number of critics and a sizable fraction of the viewing public consider the most successful 'Star Wars' production, maybe since the original trilogy. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
A Biotech Start-Up Promises Immortality. Is It All a Fraud?
NOTES ON INFINITY, by Austin Taylor In Austin Taylor's debut, 'Notes on Infinity,' the campus novel is reimagined as a start-up fairy tale: Two college students from different worlds meet, spend their days and nights enjoying a heady exchange of ideas, drop out of school, found a wildly successful company, and flame out in scandal. Zoe, a driven and polished undergraduate chemist at Harvard, takes up with Jack, who at first seems to be a flaky genius in the grand tradition. Together they hatch an idea for prolonging human life, and name their biotech company Manna. One of them is keeping secrets, however, and the speed of their success doesn't allow either the time or inclination to reflect. Readers will see Theranos and a bit of FTX in the novel's inspiration, allusions that serve to dramatize the psychology of ambition and denial, how fraud can begin as a desperate, temporary fix, and then grow as the cost of the deception builds and builds. Taylor doesn't make her founders' initial lie explicit until after their fall from grace, leaving the reader to suspect that the whole business has to be rotten but not knowing exactly how or where. Mostly the pages turn themselves, but at times the familiarity of the plot can be grating. This is the challenge of basing any narrative on current events: When you think you know where a story is going, it's harder to see the characters as people. The messy, complex bond between Zoe and Jack gives the events greater texture and dimension, though: They lie to protect not just themselves, but each other. In this campus novel, the allure of tech entrepreneurship has altered the social hierarchy, to a point. Jack is befriended by a rich student named Carter, whom he later overhears justifying their relationship to his rich friends as they place bets on which of their awkward, outsider classmates will be 'the next Zuck.' When your peers place bets on your future, you become not a friend, but an instrument of their strategy. After some initial throat clearing, Taylor's fast-paced writing captures the pressure of start-up culture, and the ease with which a founder can be separated from their own creation. Zoe and Jack divvy up their responsibilities to match their perceived talents: Jack as the chaotic scientist, Zoe as the articulate, organized and elegant face of Manna. All public scrutiny will fall on her, while Jack will enjoy the benefits of the tech visionary stereotype. This fits neatly with their respective upbringings: Zoe's father is an M.I.T. professor and her mother is the renowned hostess of his 'living room seminars,' where 6-year-old Zoe 'would sometimes answer one of his rhetorical questions or proposals in a small, high voice: 'Your reasoning sounds flawed,' or 'Did you check your math there, Daddy?' Everyone thought this was adorable.' Jack grew up poor and neglected in central Maine; Harvard is his chance to escape, until he wants to escape it, too. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
