Mailbag for February 21, 2025
Oscar plans for Live Chat and Coverage, Lorne Michaels mythology, can editing really change a movie, Rosé's candid interview, actors who never blew up, Hollywood's Trump silence, and more
Dear Squawkers,
Before we get into the questions, let’s talk about Oscar plans!
The live chat will be open here at The Squawk on Oscar Sunday March 2nd starting at 6pm ET which is one hour before the show starts. Sarah and Duana will be watching the arrivals and hanging with those of you who want to join for red carpet coverage either on TV or on the various streams…
Hopefully the stream you choose will be the one I’m on?
ETALK LIVE AT THE OSCARS will be streaming on ETALK’s YouTube channel at 6pm ET and I’ll be broadcasting with Liz Trinnear from our exclusive balcony position while our anchor, Tyrone Edwards, will be on the carpet. We’ll have six camera angles at our disposal from various points on that carpet – limo, photo walls, wide pan shot, right below our balcony which is just next to the stairs that the stars go up to go into the Dolby, and view straight up the stairs. We’re approaching this like sports play-by-play and we have such an amazing team with us in LA and back in Toronto working together to pull this off.
So, while I know you have so many choices and outlets, please consider watching our version! We will remind you again, many times (sorry!) at LaineyGossip and here at The Squawk in the coming days, and we’ll link to the ETALK YouTube in the live chat thread on the day.
Immediately following the Oscars, we’re going live again for ETALK AFTER THE OSCARS from the rooftop of the Hollywood Roosevelt to recap the show, who won, who didn’t, and the moments in between. This can be watched on CTV, CTV.ca, CTVNews.ca, and the CTV app. And will be available to stream once it’s over on Crave, CTV.ca, and the CTV App.
For more information on ETALK’s coverage, the press release came out yesterday. Thanks in advance for your support!
Let’s check the mail…
Question from Meghan:
I'm curious about the "Lorne's Canadian Best Friend" skit on SNL 50. Is there any gossip that that it was Vanessa Bayer (underrated, IMO) and Fred Armisen taking the (gentle) shot at Lorne? Are they favourites, don't give a shit, have been at odds, or is it a nothing burger?
Lainey’s Answer:
Sarah addressed the sketch in the chat under this question, writing that it was “a recurring bit they did on Update, where they were the ‘friends’ of dictators and would gossip about them in that tone of voice. The joke is that Lorne is a dictator.”
So this was Lorne in on the joke, or the truth. Because he definitely knows what his reputation is, and that’s part of his arrogance – he’s aware that a lot of people think he’s cruel, an unforgiving boss, sometimes even ineffective, but not only will he not change, he’ll flaunt it in a sketch he clearly signed off on. Most pop culture nerds, by now, know of the Lorne Michaels mythology, and even though I certainly think he upholds some problematic workplace standards, and models an outdated leadership style, I also find him endlessly fascinating because of the way he’s managed his own celebrity… much better than so many celebrities.
Lorne is an enigma. He’s never been tempted to explain himself. Most of what we know of him has been pieced together by other people talking about him. The more they talk about him the more we want to hear. That’s not to say that Lorne isn’t thirsty for attention – but he’s thirstier for his show than he is for himself. Or at least understands that the glory of the show is what brings glory to him and not the other way around.
The other part of the question was about “favourites”. This is where the juice is. Vulture published a great piece last week, “After Lorne”, about what might happen to not only SNL but “American comedy” when Lorne is eventually gone.
It is largely about Lorne’s influence, how he manipulates, cajoles, slips and slides to get what he wants. And, of course, how he manages. Much of the attention, annoyingly, that came out of that article was about the Taylor Swift anecdote. Which is why so many people missed this part, so much more intriguing:
“A clear hierarchy has always existed at SNL. Last fall, during a series of photo shoots for this magazine with cast members from all 50 years of SNL, Seth Meyers surveyed the assembled group during one shoot — which included Jimmy Fallon, Tina Fey, Kenan Thompson, and Steve Martin — and exclaimed, “Lorne’s ten favorites!” Another shoot later on included a different group: Rachel Dratch, Chris Kattan, Joe Piscopo. When Tim Meadows walked in, unaware of Meyers’s earlier comment, he said, “What is this — Lorne’s LEAST favorites?”
The piece goes on to describe how Lorne actively encourages a “competitive environment” and is all about mind games with the staff and the talent.
You don’t have to have spent a second behind the scenes at 8H to know that Lorne has favourites. If you watch the show regularly, you catch on pretty quickly.
Most of us, even if you don’t work in the business, probably understand what it’s like to NOT be a boss’s favourite. And some also understand what it’s like to actually BE a boss’s favourite. The easy assumption is that being a favourite is preferable to being a not favourite. With bosses like Lorne Michaels, though? Both are uncomfortable, because even when you’re his favourite, according to all these people who’ve been through that place over the decades, and Andy Samberg and Bowen Yang’s “Anxiety” sketch, Lorne makes you feel like being the favourite is fleeting, that he can go cold on a dime. And he will.
Can you ever truly be a favourite when you’re made to feel that insecure?
That, I think, is the essence of what a “favourite” is: temporary. In any royal court and in the monarchy that is Saturday Night Live, favouritism is a weapon wielded by the ruler.
Question from Laura:
Thinking of the Mickey 17 article and the IEWU drama or going back to the Snyder cut (which I never compared to the original) - are there any deep dives about how editing can make or break a movie? Can editing really make that big of an impact to completely change a movie?
Sarah’s answer:
YES, editing can COMPLETELY change a film. A frequent metaphor I use for filmmaking is a ship, and if we go back to the ship metaphor, the director may be the captain of the ship, but the person with their hand actually on the wheel is the editor. Ideally, the director and editor are in lockstep formation, sharing a vision and on the same page about what they’re doing. Really successful directors tend to have longstanding relationships with their editor(s), such as Martin Scorsese’s enormously successful, decades-long collaboration with Thelma Schoonmaker.
Speaking of Thelma, who is an absolute legend in the field and has edited some of the greatest films in the American canon, here is a convenient compilation of some long form interviews she has done about her craft. You can learn a lot from Thelma.
A great and conveniently recent(ish) example of how editing shapes a film is Iron Man. Jon Favreau famously “found” the film in the edit, which is not really what happened, as they had a clear story from the beginning and always knew the conclusion they were heading to, but what Favreau and editor Dan Lebental did was basically take the film’s temperature with multiple edits. Given the success of Batman Begins, there was some pressure to make Iron Man in that dark, gritty mold, so Lebental cut a version of the film with no jokes, he used all the straight takes. Favreau didn’t love it (nor did anyone else), so he then cut a version with all the jokes. But that didn’t work, either, the film was goofy, and Tony Stark seemed like a cartoon character. So they Goldilocks’d it and split the difference, underpinning the film with the dramatic context of Tony’s captivity and trauma, but using a lot of RDJ’s most verbose takes, turning Tony into a motormouth who covers his hurt with humor. Voila, a hit film and iconic character is born.
The problem with something like the Snyder cut is that it has nothing to do with editing, it was a failure of WRITING. Zack Snyder KNEW he would never get a nearly four-hour film into theaters, but he did not revise his script accordingly. It’s the same thing Ridley Scott pulled with Napoleon, not revising his script into something viable for theaters, only Apple TV+ was willing to humor him with a director’s cut that went straight to streaming because it’s basically two for the price of one to them, or, it must have looked that way before Napoleon bombed in theaters.
A good script and a good editor can make a dipshit director into an Oscar winner. But a bad script with a good director and a good editor is still going to be a bad script. Editing is so important, but Iron Man gave birth to the “we’ll find it in the edit” attitude, which deemphasized the importance of good writing in film. If it’s not on the page, you’re never going to find it in the edit, because it’s just not there to be found. Ideally, editing winnows a film down to the best version it can be, but that best version has to exist somewhere in scripting.
For more on editing, check out Every Frame a Painting’s video essays on “How does an editor think and feel”, visual comedy, and space and time.
Question from Leah:
This was asked about in the chats - but what does Lainey think of the Rose interview with E Alex Jung on the Cut? It seems so much more candid than what I expect, esp. from a kpop star! Also - she's allowed to have bfs by her fans? Is that her western fans or do the blackpink girls get more leeway on having a private/romantic life?
Lainey’s Answer:
I love any E Alex Jung interview, and as I’ve always said, the best interviewers set themselves apart not in the first question but in the follow-up. For me, in his interview with Rosé, it’s that whole section where he keeps probing about identity, getting her to articulate what it’s like for her to have been born to Korean parents in Australia, then going to Korea as an adolescent, and balancing the “English” and “Korean” parts of herself. Rosie, by her own admission, is different when she speaks Korean, is in Korea. And it’s really the first time she’s described herself like this. But also, so relatable to those of us born to immigrant parents and then returning to the motherland.
You’re right, this is definitely not the usual style of interviews that she would have participated in during the earlier part of her career and certainly not typical of the interviews that happen in Korea. And this is not a judgement, it’s simply a difference in culture and how much and how deeply things are shared.
Rosie is super expressive here in English because, well, as she says, she’s a “chameleon”, she’s learned to adapt, she now intuitively understands that the way to give good interview in English, in a publication like The Cut, with a journalist as skilled as E Alex Jung, would be to let the English, or western, part of her personality dominate.
About her personal life and her boyfriends, whether or not she’s “allowed” to have them, one of the many advantages of BLACKPINK’s success is more control over her own destiny and therefore less control by the label, and also ostensibly less worry about whatever possible fan disappointment might arise. I mean she’s 28 years old; it would be unreasonable at this point if she hadn’t had any romantic entanglements.
Still… it’s not like she’s ever really gone public with anyone. A couple of years ago, when she was rumoured to have been dating Kang Dong-won, she was 26/27 and he was 42 or so at the time, K-fans in particular were pretty nasty to him online. So she might talk about EX-boyfriends but let’s not go as far as current.
I was surprised last year and thought things might be changing in K-pop when aespa’s Karina and Lee Jae-wook actually confirmed that they were dating right away. Didn’t last long though because almost immediately K-netz accused him of cheating on his girlfriend (which wasn’t ever proved) to get with Karina and then five weeks later they announced their split.
Which makes Jennie and V that much more of an anomaly when they were together – because while there was alllll kinds of mess online about their relationship, they did manage to ride that out for a while until, reportedly, Tae had to prepare to enlist. Speaking of BTS, though, obviously I dedicate my life to anticipating their comeback but if I’m talking from the side of my brain that’s a gossip first (gossip means culture studies, remember!) and not a stan, there’s nothing I would love more than to see Jennie and V get back together and date openly when they get discharged.
As for Lisa and Frederic Arnault, she’s probably the most open of all BLACKPINK members with her relationship and even then, by Hollywood standards, it’s quiet. If there’s backlash against them, I don’t know that it’s as sharp as it would be if Frederic was Korean. And he’s super protected himself by virtue of being a billionaire who owns so many of the luxury brands that are coveted in Korea. It’s hard to bitch about your idol dating someone when you just put money in his pocket when you bought that handbag.
Question from Fernanda:
After reading Sarah's post about Danny Ramirez being a movie star, I got curious… Were there any actors you thought would blow up but did not make it big? If so, what happened to them?
Sarah’s answer:
Juno Temple! She blew me away in a 2009 film called Cracks and I thought she’d be a star, but it took her over a decade and Ted Lasso to get her any recognition at all. And I’m still waiting for her Cracks co-star Imogen Poots to be a bigger deal, ditto for Bel Powley.
There’s also an Australian actor, Callan McAuliffe, who was very good as the young Gatsby in Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby, but like Bel and Imogen, he hasn’t found that singular breakout role yet. He did a stint on The Walking Dead (after everyone stopped watching it) and he’s starring in the new season of The Mayfair Witches, so he’s still working, but again, not at the level I expected 10+ years ago. They’re all still working, it’s not like they’re failures, but sometimes you see someone and think they’ll be big, and then they never get that breakout role. That’s the element of luck that shapes careers.
Question from Kate:
Some celebrities have been vocal in the past against Donald Trump, but where are they now? I know there is a lot going on in the world, but I can’t help but feel like Hollywood has ignored the fact that their president is threatening to annex Canada on a near daily basis. There are plenty of Canadians in Hollywood - where are they? Am I just missing something because there is SO MUCH NEWS to keep track of?
And…
Question from Charlotte:
Any tips for dealing with the constant existential dread?
Sarah’s answer:
These are related to me. To Kate’s question, there is so much news it’s overwhelming, but more than that, we know for sure now that Trump is vindictive and absolutely is wielding the federal government to punish his enemies. I think people are a demoralizing combination of defeated and scared, and that goes for celebrities, too. Also, social media has fractured, a lot of people left Twitter and didn’t migrate to a new platform, or maybe went to a platform you’re not on, too.
And to Charlotte’s question—unplug. I used to start my weekend mornings with a little bed rot and doomscrolling, but I have forced myself to stop (by moving my phone charger to my desk outside my bedroom, which means my phone is not in reach of my bed anymore). I’m happier for it. Along with that, I’ve upped my volunteer hours in my community. The problems are myriad and feel big and insurmountable, so I’m just trying to put my energy into my community and contribute to solutions that actually feel tangible.
Question from Alex:
I’m new to the paid subscriber base (and so glad to be here!) and would love some archive reading recommendations. In the world of gossip, some topics are true time capsules, but others are evergreen. If you could highlight five to ten evergreen pieces from the archive that new subscribes should read, what would they be?
Lainey:
Welcome and thank you! Both for your subscription and this question because even though people might not agree with every word we write here at The Squawk, we work hard to write those words. So we appreciate the opportunity to promote them and get as many people reading as possible.
I’ll start with the gossip and two of the more personal pieces I’ve written here about being a gossip columnist who becomes the gossip and then what happens when you have to confront the ghosts of your bad gossip. This second post was pegged to Justin Timberlake’s arrest.
A more fun Justin Timberlake article to write was about the “Young Fame Effect” and how we don’t talk enough about how that applies to him.
Staying with the fun, two related newsletters about the Beckhams. Part One was about David Beckham’s hair and how each of his hairstyles represented an era for him and Victoria. Part Two was about their annus horribilis in 2004 and their corresponding looks.
Staying with the nostalgia, here’s a fashion post about how the 90s informed so much of what gossip is now.
More nostalgia – gossip in photos and the celebrity photos we will never forget.
Next, in honour of the person who inspired the name of this Substack, The Squawk – my ma the Squawking Chicken has retired from Chinese zodiac horoscopes, but I did write last year about the red string theory and dragon mythology in Chinese culture.
Back in October 2024, everybody was talking about Nobody Wants This. And Duana wrote about Kristen Bell making a whole career out of being a total dick.
And then a piece from September 2023 that, well, might need an update considering, um, the hell that has descended upon us. It’s called “The Sliding Doors of Taylor Swift”, about Taylor’s friendships, with cameos by Blake Lively and… Ivanka Trump!
There’s been a lot about Taylor at The Squawk. This is the essay I wrote after seeing The Eras tour in Toronto and somehow I ended up at Elvis Presley.
Another double – to commemorate the anniversary of Twilight, I wrote about “Our Twilight Beginnings”, and how Twilight brought me and Sarah together and Sarah followed with a great piece about Twilight’s impact on Comic-Con.
This one is an all-timer for me: “The Aspiration and Illusion of Pop Culture Girl Power” is a banger by Sarah.
And finally…
Our two most-read newsletters here at The Squawk. The former champion, on Matt Damon and Ben Affleck and a viral catchphrase, “Which Could Mean Nothing”.
It was dethroned recently by “Meghan & Harry: Influence & Service” which is currently the most-read post here at The Squawk.
Now… Alex… do you promise to read them all?!
We’re heading into Oscar week, usually the craziest of the year. But also what we’ve been anticipating for months! Thanks for staying with us and lighting up the chats and making The Squawk a part of your routine!
Keep squawking and keep gossiping,
Lainey and Sarah
The comments about dictatorial bosses who can turn on a dime and suddenly become cold and unreachable put me in mind of what Jennifer Garner said about Ben Affleck in that (notorious) vanity fair article in 2016 that you reference all the time - "When his sun shines on you, you feel it. But when the sun is shining elsewhere, it's cold. He can cast quite a shadow". Charisma, the likes of which have propelled people like Lorne Michaels and Ben Affleck to the heights they have reached, certainly has a duality to it. Know someone else who was described in a similar way? Henry the IIIV. Just sayin'......
Re: Lorne - Having worked for a couple narcissistic bosses, I really related with this notion of the seesaw between favourite and least favourite. In my experience, the fall from ‘grace’ is often swift and complete. To say nothing of the general toxicity, it creates a workplace focus more on the pleasure of the leader than the work itself. Shudder!