Television

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      The Spies of ‘Slow Horses’ Are ‘as Useless as Everyone Else’

      by

      Will Smith, the showrunner, discusses the comic spy thriller, which returns for its fourth season on Wednesday and is up for nine Emmy Awards later this month.The British spies at the center of the Apple TV+ series “Slow Horses” aren’t particularly handsome, or efficient, or disciplined. They’re rejects from MI5, consigned to a dark, dingy London office run by Jackson Lamb (Gary Oldman), a slovenly, scotch-swilling, flatulent burnout. Early in Season 4, which premieres Wednesday, Lamb objects when a new no-nonsense MI5 officer (Ruth Bradley) handcuffs him during an investigation.“I’d rather not take any chances with a man who looks like he gropes people on buses,” she tells him.“You’re being hurtful about my appearance,” Lamb mutters. “I might have to call H.R.”Will Smith, the showrunner, knew he had been handed a gift when he was enlisted to ride “Slow Horses.” Based on the series of Slough House novels by Mick Herron, the TV adaptation has the kind of biting humor and dysfunctional, high-stakes office politics of two shows Smith wrote for under Armando Iannucci, “The Thick of It” and “Veep.” It also has Oldman, sinking his teeth into his first starring TV role, and Jonathan Pryce, who takes center stage in the new season as an old spy descending into dementia (which creates complications in the espionage world).Then there’s the short, bluesy theme song, performed by some bloke named Mick Jagger. Already a fan of Herron’s books, Jagger was happy to join the party.In July “Slow Horses” received nine Emmy nominations, including nods for best drama, lead actor in a drama (Oldman) and writing in a drama (Smith).Each season of the series unfolds in a quick, six-episode burst. The latest follows Pryce’s David Cartwright and his cocksure, generally overmatched Slow Horse grandson, River (Jack Lowden), as they try to keep a rogue ex-CIA agent (Hugo Weaving) from unleashing hell.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 200 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      America’s New Female Right review – this lazy BBC documentary fails to tackle dangerously extreme views

      by

      I am going to go out on a limb and say that most Guardian readers who watch a BBC documentary called America’s New Female Right are unlikely to be in accord with the views espoused therein. We are not going to empathise with statements such as: “Women getting the right to vote has led to every form of degeneracy,” “Feminism was absolutely created to destabilise the family [and] western civilisation,” and: “Feminism is a thousand times more toxic than the ‘toxic masculinity’ we hear so much about.” We are unlikely to agree that “Satan’s agenda” is to destroy the nuclear family structure in order to control society.All these statements are uttered – with certainty and apparent sincerity – by women championing rightwing causes, often in a way that seems to run counter to what we would consider their best interests.The presenter, Layla Wright, has three main interviewees. There is the online influencer Morgonn McMichael, 24, who says she wants only to be a stay-at-home wife and mother. She believes that encouraging women to move into the corporate world is to encourage them to go against “our inherent nature”.There is middle-aged Christie Hutcherson, who leads Women Fighting for America – an online and slightly smaller real-life troop of volunteers who patrol parts of the US-Mexico border and livestream what they find. Wright accompanies her as she finds a rough camp created by people crossing. “What a great little setup they’ve got here,” she notes for her audience, gesturing towards propane tanks and mosquito repellent. She and her companions ignore the scattered children’s toys in favour of the “camo gear” they unearth (mainly sensible rucksacks) and talk of “high‑value targets being smuggled in”. “Do I think there are any innocent individuals in this camp? That would be a no.”Third is Hannah Faulkner, 17, who came to her particular brand of fame three years ago when she organised a Teens Against Genital Mutilation rally in her native Nashville, Tennessee, supporting a ban on medical intervention for young transgender people. She is one of several siblings homeschooled by devoutly Christian parents – her father is a former pastor – and is increasingly embraced as a darling of the right.There is so much to unpack with each of them (especially Faulkner). It’s a fascinating subject that deserves attention and rigorous interrogation of all the factors at play, especially with subjects as bright, articulate and confident as these (again, especially Faulkner). What we get instead is a cheap, shoddy programme apparently thrown together in 10 minutes, presumably on the grounds that everything and everyone is so obviously awful and evil and bad-bad-bad that it is enough just to film them, show Wright’s pained face occasionally and have her lob in a few wet questions to show that she is still listening and still on the side of right (which is, of course, left, not right).Sinister music is played in certain scenes, in case we are in danger of forgetting which side “we” are on – all of us, without doubt, without question, without occasionally wondering if the “other side” might have half a point buried in there that might be worth pulling out and examining in the light.It’s so lazy. “Point and weep” documentaries are only half a step removed from the “point and laugh” kind that commissioners have supposedly left behind as we move into a more sensitive, sophisticated era.If you are going to interview people such as McMichael, Hutcherson and Faulkner, you need a presenter who is capable and unafraid of going toe to toe with them. These are people with sincerely held beliefs. You need someone with the intellectual and temperamental firepower to challenge them – someone who is not afraid to, in British terms at least, be “rude” to their subjects and see if they can really defend assertions that are otherwise allowed to stand as truth. At one point, Wright tries to stand up to Hutcherson – who comes across as a bully, with “illegal immigrants” the perfect, self-serving target – but it’s the unfairest of fights.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionYes, some things said here are extraordinary – but only to the ears of those who are already on side. Without going further, the BBC is doing just what the influencers and ideologues it is condemning do – preaching to the choir and failing to move along the conversation. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      ESPN and ABC Go Dark on DirecTV in Feud With Disney

      by

      The outage struck on Sunday, cutting access for many DirecTV viewers to the U.S. Open tennis tournament on ABC.Disney’s channels went dark on DirecTV on Sunday, leaving millions of subscribers to the satellite TV service without access to marquee networks like ESPN and ABC and cutting off viewership to the U.S. Open tennis tournament.The dispute means that most of DirecTV’s roughly 11 million U.S. subscribers can’t watch ESPN; the ABC broadcast network, which airs the U.S. Open, was also blacked out for many customers.The outage is the latest instance of a routine dispute between a television programming company and its distributor resulting in a service disruption. Typically both sides must agree to new terms every few years, and failure to do so risks alienating customers who have grown increasingly disenchanted with having to pay for traditional TV. In the long run, these carriage disputes are unprofitable for both parties, and they are usually resolved in a few days.The contracts are usually written so they expire at periods of peak viewer interest, giving both sides an incentive to reach a deal before the channels go dark. Disney’s dispute with DirecTV was the latest example: the outage began on the eve of Labor Day, cutting off access for many customers who were settling in for the long weekend.Disney has found itself at the center of other disputes with TV distributors fed up with paying high fees for channels like ESPN when the company is spending lavishly to produce shows for Disney+ and its other streaming services. A year ago, Disney was locked in a standoff with the Charter cable system that was resolved after the two agreed to a pact that gave Charter’s customers access to Disney’s streaming services at a lower rate.The early hours of carriage disputes quickly involve lots of finger-pointing, with both sides blaming the other for making unrealistic financial demands that deprive customers of the channels they are paying for. In the streaming era, TV programmers sometimes encourage viewers to find their shows and events on a service like Hulu or Fubo that stream live sports.In a statement, Disney said it believed DirecTV was offering to pay too little for its programming.“We invest significantly to deliver the No. 1 brands in entertainment, news and sports because that’s what our viewers expect and deserve,” said the statement, from Dana Walden and Alan Bergman, co-chairmen of Disney Entertainment, and Jimmy Pitaro, the chairman of ESPN. “We urge DirecTV to do what’s in the best interest of their customers and finalize a deal that would immediately restore our programming.”Rob Thun, DirecTV’s chief content officer, said in a statement that Disney is shifting content to its streaming services, while expecting higher prices from distributors.“Disney is in the business of creating alternate realities, but this is the real world where we believe you earn your way and must answer for your own actions,” Mr. Thun said. He added: “Disney’s only magic is forcing prices to go up while simultaneously making its content disappear.” More

    • 188 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      The Best Movies and TV Shows Coming to Disney+, Max, Hulu and More in September

      by

      “Fight Night: The Million Dollar Heist,” “A Very Royal Scandal,” a “Walking Dead” spinoff and “Agatha All Along” arrive.Every month, streaming services add movies and TV shows to their libraries. Here are our picks for some of September’s most promising new titles. (Note: Streaming services occasionally change schedules without giving notice. For more recommendations on what to stream, sign up for our Watching newsletter here.)New to Amazon Prime Video‘A Very Royal Scandal’Starts streaming: Sept. 19Earlier this year, Netflix debuted a movie called “Scoop,” about the complicated negotiations that led to Prince Andrew’s headline-making 2019 interview with BBC Two’s “Newsnight,” covering his relationship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The three-part mini-series “A Very Royal Scandal” tells the same story in a little more detail, with a screenplay from Jeremy Brock (the co-writer of “The Last King of Scotland”). Michael Sheen plays Prince Andrew, while Ruth Wilson plays Emily Maitlis, the interviewer, who kept pressuring the prince with follow-up questions, asking him to account for all the time he had spent with Epstein over the years.Also arriving:Sept. 10“The Money Game”Sept. 24“Evolution of the Black Quarterback”Melissa McBride as Carol Peletier in “The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon — The Book of Carol.”Emmanuel Guimier/AMCNew to AMC+‘The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon – The Book of Carol’ Season 2Starts streaming: Sept. 29When this spinoff of “The Walking Dead” was first announced, it was supposed to be the story of the soulful hunter Daryl Dixon (Norman Reedus) and his hard-edge pal Carol Peletier (Melissa McBride) venturing into new territories together in a zombie-ravaged world. But when that territory turned out to be Europe, McBride had to drop out for what was described as logistical reasons. Her Carol made a cameo at the end of Season 1 though; and she is now on board for Season 2 (as well as an already announced Season 3). This new season will find Carol searching for her friend in France, while Daryl reluctantly gets more involved with the twisted political situation overseas, trying to help some good people make things better.Also arriving:Sept. 6“The Demon Disorder”Sept. 7“All You Need Is Death”Sept. 12“The Tailor of Sin City”Sept. 13“In a Violent Nature”Sept. 16“Candice Renoir” Season 10Sept. 20“Dandelion”Sept. 26“Wisting” Season 5Sept. 27“Oddity”Sept. 30“The Bench” Seasons 1-2We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Maybe We Are Asking Presidential Candidates the Wrong Questions

      by

      If the goal of the CNN interview with Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota was to relitigate the campaign controversies of the last month — to get the candidates to talk about the major narratives of the election so far — then it was a rousing success. Harris easily dispatched questions about her identity and gave a strong defense of President Biden’s record. Walz, likewise, made short work of the charge that he had misled the public when he spoke about using one fertility treatment when it was actually another, similar treatment.But if the goal was to learn something about a prospective President Harris — to gain insight into how she might make decisions, order priorities and approach the job of chief executive — then I think the interview was not a success. Not so much for Harris or the viewing public.It might be interesting to journalists to know how Harris explains her changing views from 2019, when she ran for the Democratic nomination, to now, when she is the nominee. But it is not at all clear to me that it is interesting to viewers, who may be less concerned with how she deals with the question and more concerned with the actual substance of what she wants to do as president. A soft-focus question about a photograph, however iconic, seems less valuable than a question about Harris’s view of the presidency now that she’s spent almost four years in the passenger’s seat as vice president.Speaking for myself, I am less interested in hearing candidates navigate controversies or speak to narratives than I am in hearing them talk, for lack of a better term, about their theory of the office. How does a candidate for president conceptualize the presidency? What would she prioritize in office and how would she handle an endless onslaught of crises and issues that may, or may not, demand her attention? How does she imagine her relationship with Congress and how would she try to achieve her goals in the face of an opposition legislature? How does she imagine her relationship with the public and what value does she place on communication and the bully pulpit? Are there presidents she most admires — and why? Are there presidential accomplishments that stand out and how so? What are the worst mistakes a president can make? Why do you want this job in the first place?I can think of other questions along these lines, but you get the gist. To know what candidates for president think about the office and their role in it is, I believe, a better guide to what they may do in the White House than almost anything else. The only thing better is prior experience. These kinds of questions may not make for the most scintillating television, but I think they could provide the kind of insights that could actually help Americans decide what they want out of a national leader.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      How Dana Bash Handled Past Interviews With Kamala Harris

      by

      Vice President Kamala Harris’s interview on Thursday with Dana Bash of CNN is the first major unscripted moment of her young presidential campaign. But it isn’t her first encounter with Ms. Bash.The CNN political anchor has interviewed Ms. Harris on three occasions in the past few years. In those past meetings, Ms. Bash was a firm-but-fair interlocutor: sometimes granting Ms. Harris time to meander through lengthy answers, and sometimes pressing her, repeatedly, when the vice president equivocated on tough issues.It was Ms. Bash, in 2022, who elicited Ms. Harris’s memorably odd description of herself as “the daughter of a woman, and a granddaughter of a woman.” (The anchor was asking about the vice president’s reaction to the Supreme Court opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade.)In the same interview, Ms. Bash pushed Ms. Harris on the Biden administration’s plans to secure abortion rights in the wake of the ruling. The vice president declined to give a full-throated endorsement of the strategies floated by Ms. Bash, like challenging state laws or an executive action.“But what do you say to Democratic voters who argue, ‘Wait a minute, we worked really hard to elect a Democratic president and vice president, a Democratic-led House, a Democratic-led Senate. Do it now,’” Ms. Bash asked.“But do what now?” Ms. Harris replied.A 2021 interview at the White House, conducted at a distance because of pandemic protocols, appeared less tense. Ms. Bash asked Ms. Harris about being the first Black and Indian person to serve as vice president — “How is that bringing itself to bear in the White House?” — and seemed to agree with Ms. Harris’s contention that Congress should act to restrict certain gun rights.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      ‘The Rings of Power’ Season 2 Premiere Recap: All That Glitters

      by

      The new season picks up roughly where Season 1 left off — with most of the same strengths and flaws.Amazon released the first three episodes of Season 2 of “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power” at once; read the recaps for Episode 2 here and Episode 3 here.Season 2, Episode 1: ‘Elven Kings Under the Sky’When last we visited Middle-earth in the Amazon Prime Video series “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power,” our heroes were recuperating from two massive blunders. An army of Númenóreans had failed to prevent the orc-father Adar (Sam Hazeldine) from establishing the shadowlands of Mordor in the realm formerly known as the Southlands; and the regal elf warrior Galadriel (Morfydd Clark) had failed to recognize that Halbrand (Charlie Vickers), the man she intended to install as the Southlands’ rightful king, was in fact her sworn enemy Sauron, in human form.Good effort, everyone. But not exactly a rousing success.The same could be said of “The Rings of Power” itself, which had a first season that delivered a lot of what its creators, J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay, said they had intended: blockbuster-level special effects and scenery, spectacular action sequences, an epic sweep and a deep exploration of the fantasy world created by the author J.R.R. Tolkien (arguably even deeper than any of Peter Jackson’s gargantuan “Lord of the Rings” and “Hobbit” movies).But what the show failed to deliver was the kind of “Game of Thrones”-level cultural buzz and critical acclaim that such an expensive project needs to survive. So just as Galadriel and her allies have a lot to prove as Season 2 begins, so do Payne, McKay and their “Rings of Power” cast and crew.In the season’s first three episodes, released all at once on Prime Video, very little has changed in the creative team’s approach to telling a story. The action picks up roughly where Season 1 left off and continues in the same basic format, with each episode following just a few of the show’s many story lines, in long sequences that resemble chapters in a book. (It takes all three episodes to bring back every character and plot from the previous season. If you’re anxious to find out what’s happening in Numenor, you’ll have to wait a couple of hours.)The flaws of Season 1 are still evident, right from the start. The novelistic approach leads to some sections that drag on too long; and the series on the whole can feel a bit over-serious and leaden. That said, the Season 2 premiere also contains everything that worked well in the previous season: the visual splendor, the wide narrative canvas, the rich performances and the complex consideration of how and when to wield extraordinary power.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      ‘The Rings of Power’ Season 2, Episode 2 Recap: Strange Weather

      by

      The Stranger tries his hand again at magic but with mixed results. For now, Sauron does it better.Amazon released the first three episodes of Season 2 of “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power” at once; read the recaps for Episode 1 here and Episode 3 here.Season 2, Episode 2: ‘Where the Stars are Strange’The Halbrand heel-turn at the end of “The Rings of Power” Season 1 brought focus to a story that, to a degree, had lacked a clear antagonist. Yes, Galadriel had sensed Sauron was still alive; and yes, she had persuaded the Numenoreans to secure the Southlands against Adar’s orcs, as a bulwark against whatever Sauron might have in mind. But this big enemy, while having a name, still remained somewhat theoretical.To quote “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” at times last season it was hard to hear Galadriel’s plans without asking: “Who versus? Who are we doing it versus?”As Season 2 began, the existence of Sauron had been confirmed. But because he fled after helping forge the first three rings of power, at this point he remains — to our heroes at least — a chilling shadow, not a present threat. So this season’s second and third episodes, while revealing some of Sauron’s secret schemes, also returns to some of the minor villains and complications introduced in Season 1, showing how the elves, dwarfs and humans still have a lot of conflict to sort through, internal and external, before they can unite to vanquish their Big Bad.Here are five takeaways and observations from Episode 2:Those weird witches are back!Remember how at the end of Season 1, the Stranger had to protect his harfoot friends from three mystics dressed in white who referred to him as “the Dark Lord?” This was a clever bit of misdirection from the “Rings of Power” writers, meant to keep the viewers from catching on too quickly that Halbrand was secretly Sauron. But the incident also helped the Stranger remember that he is actually of the Istari, an ancient order of wizards who in various forms have often intervened in the affairs of Middle-earth.In this season’s second episode, those mystics return to their home base to report to the Dark Wizard (Ciaran Hinds) on their encounter with the Stranger. The sequence is one of the show’s most visually inventive to date, involving a woman bleeding onto the floor while surrounded by hundreds of butterflies — the form the mystics dissipated into after the Stranger violently attacked them — which flutter about and then reconstitute into a different woman.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More