Mailbag for January 24, 2025
Morning Show Scarjo nailed it, mitigating against being part of a hit piece, the use of AI in The Brutalist and Emilia Pérez, Grammy predictions, on who might be dressing the First Lady, and more
Dear Squawkers,
My newsletter last week was about Morning Show Scarjo who was about to co-host the fourth hour of TODAY with Jenna Hager-Bush. And this week was the week. So how did she do?
As mentioned, Jenna & Friends is usually on during makeup for me, so I was able to watch a few minutes of Scarlett most days and get a sample of her during the coffee chats part of the show, doing some interviews, and playing games, including a game with her husband, Colin Jost. You can watch that whole segment here. For me, Colin’s appearance wasn’t just about observing their dynamic – they seem cute together – but the bigger takeaway: him showing up for the game showed how game she was for this experience.
Daytime talk TV is personal. I’m sure, by now, we’re all familiar. When you’re reaching out to the same audience every day at the same time, you have to allow them to get to know you, you have to open up, you have to share, you have to, through the screen, make them feel like you are their friend. Otherwise, why would they keep coming back?
This is why it’s not uncommon for talk show hosts to bring on family members and loved ones. Oprah, for example, constantly mentioned Stedman, and Stedman was around, not a lot but enough to become a supporting character. Regis Philbin was always talking about Joy, his wife. So much so that Joy subbed in for Kathie-Lee Gifford when she was his co-host. Kelly Ripa, before Mark Consuelos became her official co-host, pretty much introduced him to a whole new audience that didn’t know him from soap operas.
Scarlett jumped right into this. From the first coffee chat on her first episode, she was telling stories about her children, her past dating life, what she’s like in an argument. Take it from someone who’s been in that chair, this is exactly how it’s done.
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
She was also quite strong during the interview segments. It didn’t sound like she was just waiting for her turn to ask the question – she was jumping in on answers, because that’s how a real conversation works, she wasn’t afraid to interject but interjected in a way that advanced the discussion. She was curious and funny, and while she wasn’t super smooth on the extros and throws to break, I mean, literally it’s her first time hosting a live morning talk show, these are technical skills that she can learn.
And, what I found even more impressive is that though she is, obviously, the biggest star in the room, the Scarjo who was on TODAY did not feel like the one who goes to the Oscars and is on a group chat with the OG Avengers. She was accessible, so accessible that when she and Jenna were interviewing Nicole Scherzinger, there was never the sense in the segment about, um, who was more famous. Scarlett was generous and engaging and gave Nicole her due.
Plus, she was goofy. Again, you have to be on daytime TV. There is no space to be too cool for school – and the best talk show hosts are willing to get a little corny when required. Morning Show Scarjo was corny, dressing up in costumes to compete in prize games with viewers, or voluntarily making herself look or sound silly, like when she and Jenna took a Broadway vocal lesson from Nicole.
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
I know Scarlett can sing – she’s released an album or two – but she wasn’t showing off her vocals here, she was, endearingly, trying to be funny. And willing to try the weird food which, yes, sometimes that’s the job on daytime.
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Like I said, she was game, SO FUCKING GAME. More game than I expected. Game enough to get her ears pierced on live TV as a gesture of friendship with Jenna.
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Seriously, Scarlett Johansson served a giant helping of Show Your Work this week on TODAY. To the point where even the wardrobe was a lesson in understanding what the job was. The outfits? Serviceable, inoffensive, unremarkable. As a talk show guest? Of course, you bring it. For her though? When people know her to be a glamorous movie star and she’s trying out a new thing on morning television as a host? Admittedly at first, I was underwhelmed by the looks, because she’s SCARLETT JOHANSSON, but as each day went by, I appreciated the strategy: she was dressing as lower case Scarlett Johansson, the “Friend” in “Jenna & Friends”. She wasn’t there to blind everyone with star power but to be part of the team. I don’t usually fuck with her stylist Kate Young, but credit to her and to Scarjo for understanding this assignment.
As to where this assignment will take her? I can’t imagine people at NBC wouldn’t have noticed how appealing she’s been this week. The feedback on social media has been amazing. Definitely keeping an eye on this one.
But let’s end this on some gossip. Because I’m going to show you something and if you didn’t know about this before, I know you’ll pick up on its gossip significance right away. There are three tweets in this thread.
I only just picked up on it because I was looking into what Scarjo’s next two or so years will look like beyond Jurassic World. Eleanor the Great is her feature directorial debut. The timeline is interesting, though, and I am so curious to know exactly when the deal between Scarjo and Wayfarer was initiated.
Because filming happened last February and wrapped a couple of months later, in April. The announcement about Wayfarer co-financing Scarjo’s film came near the end of February 2024, around-ish or just after filming started. And also just six weeks after Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni had that all-hands meeting to discuss her list of terms before returning to work on It Ends With Us. Coincidence or conspiracy?
At some point, when Scarjo is ready to release this film, there’s going to be a premiere. As one of the production companies involved in the film, Wayfarer, and its representatives, will certainly want to attend the premiere. Which means…is there a future in which Scarjo might pose on the red carpet with Justin Baldoni, who is suing her ex-husband Ryan Reynolds and his wife Blake Lively????????????????
Discuss in the comments.
Time for the mailbag now.
Question from various people across various platforms:
Will you be writing more about the recent Vanity Fair cover story about Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?
Lainey’s Answer:
The Vanity Fair article came out last Friday, not enough time for me to write a thoughtful post about it. And also, I was dealing with my ma’s hospitalisation all last weekend so I couldn’t give it my attention. Monday was doomsday and then the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni mess required a lot of bandwidth. So those are all my excuses.
Excuses and scheduling aside though, the editorial answer to this is that I’ve been noodling with a few ideas, bits and pieces that I’ve been jotting down, that haven’t fully come together yet. But it looks like the beginning of a longer essay that’s better suited to The Squawk, as one our weekly newsletters. Sorry about the delay but I don’t like to rush this kind of writing. Will keep you posted on my progress.
Question from Eleanor:
Having read the VF piece at the weekend about H&M and knowing you have been asked to contribute to more in depth gossip reporting in the past, what's your process around deciding whether to add your voice and participate in a story? From memory, your engagement has been general analysis about the story/subject matter rather than specifics. Is there ever a concern that you might be asked to contribute to a hit piece and if so, how do you mitigate against that?
Lainey’s Answer:
When I’m asked to comment on a story by another writer for another publication, I don’t have any control over how they use what I say. I can only control what I say. And make sure that I’m quoted properly. This is why my participation in these situations is coordinated and supported by a member of the communications team at CTV here in Canada where I am an on-air personality. Since I appear on the network, it’s my publicist’s job to protect me, which I appreciate. So they often listen in on these calls to ensure that when the article comes out I am properly represented, and we can, if necessary, go back to the transcript of the conversation I had with the journalist to check that those words did indeed come out of my mouth. Or that if there is something attributed to me that I didn’t say, they can correct it right away and have it fixed.
Funny you ask because a fuckup actually happened with the Vanity Fair piece – but it wasn’t Vanity Fair’s fault, it was the fucking Mirror in the UK. Jacek was the one who caught it because he has LaineyGossip on Google alerts (as obnoxious as this might seem to you, it’s a professional requirement in my position). And last weekend, he got an alert linking to an article that the Mirror had posted about the VF Harry and Meghan story. They attributed this quote in the VF piece to me:
“I still think they’re the most entitled, disingenuous people on the planet. They moved away from England to get away from the scrutiny of the press, and all they do is try and get in the press in the United States.”
For the record, here’s how it actually reads in Vanity Fair:
“I still think they’re the most entitled, disingenuous people on the planet,” the Montecitan says. “They moved away from England to get away from the scrutiny of the press, and all they do is try and get in the press in the United States.”
The Montecitan said it, not me. It’s pretty clear. But that quote, which ends with “United States”, is then followed by:
“Lui says the most common criticism she hears about Meghan (though she notes it’s true of Harry as well) is “you can’t cherry-pick the good parts and leave out the bad parts” of fame. However, she points out, “all celebrities do this. ‘Don’t take photos of me. Oh, but here, let me step out, conveniently, and get papped. Only give me good reviews of my movie or my album. And if you don’t like my music, I’m gonna post on Instagram that you’re so shitty as a reviewer.’”
So whoever wrote that article in the Mirror has a reading comprehension problem, didn’t double check, and lazily published a post claiming I said something that I didn’t. I am not a Montecitan. And the reason my name was in that part of the article is because I was actually countering the Montecitan’s criticism of Meghan and Harry by saying that getting attention and complaining about it is what all celebrities do, we shouldn’t be holding it just against them. Just a reminder, then, that the Mirror is trash.
Anyway, about my process in deciding whether or not to contribute to a story – this was Vanity Fair, and about a couple that we have covered extensively at LaineyGossip, so it tracks with our work. There have been many times where I’ve been asked to comment on topics that I either have no interest in and don’t feel like I can add anything insightful or don’t feel informed enough about or I don’t want the headache over, and I have declined.
Probably the most important factor is the impact of my contribution on LaineyGossip.com. We want more people to read our work. We would like the people who read our work to be just as curious about the questions we’re asking, and just as nuanced in the conversations we’re having. Every time I comment for a story, it is my hope that whoever ends up reading that comment sees the name of our website next to the quote and clicks the link to come directly to us for more insight.
Question from Fernanda:
I think this is a Mailbag question, but it may be old news then: how does the AI conversation affect The Brutalist's chances at the Oscars, if at all? Do voters care? And how about Emilia Pérez's?
Sarah’s answer:
For reference, Fernanda is asking about The Brutalist editor Dávid Jancsó revealing that he used AI software Respeecher to correct Adrien Brody’s and Felicity Jones’s Hungarian pronunciation in the film. Director Brady Corbert added that the technology was only used “specifically to refine certain vowels and letters for accuracy”. Jancsó further elaborated on the process, saying that he basically took their recorded dialogue, and recordings of himself, a native Hungarian speaker, saying the same lines, fed both data sets in Respeecher, and used the software to tweak the actors so they pronounced everything correctly. Plus, generative AI tool Midjourney was used to produce some of the architectural renderings seen at the end of the film.
Also, in Emilia Pérez, Respeecher was used to “extend” Karla Sofía Gascón’s vocal range by blending her singing voice with French singer Camille, who co-wrote music for the film. (Maria also used Respeecher to blend Angelina Jolie’s voice with Maria Callas’s, but that hasn’t gotten as much heat because there aren’t Oscars on the line.)
People probably have different lines on this, but for me, AI should not be used to usurp human labor. We’re just not cool and groovy enough to wipe out whole job descriptions, let alone industries. We don’t have the social safety net to support the people who would be affected by wholesale diminishment of their livelihood. My caution around AI isn’t a fear of the future, it’s fear for what happens to people displaced by this technology. Just look at the rust belt in America. Robotics permanently shrunk the human labor force in manufacturing, and there are communities across the country that simply never recovered from the loss of those jobs.
This time, we have our eyes open, we know what can happen when we let technology take over human jobs, and unlike last time, we don’t have newer technology to create newer jobs (industrialized nations shifted from manufacturing economies to knowledge economies in the latter 20th century. There is currently nothing to replace the knowledge economy). We’re at the top of the downhill descent toward a world where human labor simply will not be the same ever again. In some ways, that might be good! But it is going to require us to rethink social safety nets and what we expect from and want for a human populace that sees employment permanently shrinking. Anyway!
Will this hurt the Oscar odds of The Brutalist or Emilia Pérez? Probably not. I think WAY more people are using AI in Hollywood than anyone wants to talk about, especially for technical shit like editing dialogue and creating singing voices. AI will become like digital beauty work—everyone does it and no one talks about it. And if the use really is as Dávid Jancsó describes, making a tedious process he was already doing faster and easier, then I’m okay with it. I don’t begrudge craftsmen their tools. I just worry about the day the tool becomes the craftsman.
Question from Ketri:
Not sure if MC is fair game for mailbag questions but I was thinking about the Grammys coming up--does MC have any predictions or hopes for which nominees will walk away as winners?
MC’s Answer:
Hi Ketri!
With the Grammys less than two weeks away, I’m anxiously waiting as well to see what’s gonna happen. In terms of winners, for me it’s always a toss up between who I think SHOULD win and who I think will win. I’ll give specific predictions of the 4 general categories below but generally, I do hope to see women taking away the majority of the awards. 2024 was the year of women in music, and I really hope to see the Recording Academy acknowledge that (and maybe give some awards to someone other than Taylor Swift lol).
One thing that my little millennial heart is dreaming of is the Best Pop/Group Performance category because Ariana Grande is nominated with Monica and Brandy for “the boy is mine (remix)”. Should they win, it would be both Monica and Brandy’s second Grammy, and their first since they won in 1999 for the original version! But that category is STACKED with artists like Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, Charli XCX and more, so this one seems like it might need a miracle. But let’s get into the big 4…
Album Of The Year: I think it’s a toss up between Billie Eilish and Beyoncé. After Jay-Z’s speech referencing B not ever receiving the award, it almost feels like it’s now or never. On the other hand, Billie Eilish released one of the most critically acclaimed and successful albums last year. I see this going either way.
Record Of The Year: This one is tricky, because every song (aside from The Beatles “Now and Then”) was a giant this year. I’m talking cultural movement and iconic pop culture moments were created from the songs on this list. I want to see this one go to Beyoncé or Sabrina Carpenter.
Best New Artist: Chappell Roan seems to be the favourite for this one, at least if we consider the chatter online and other music shows. If it’s up to me, the ONLY person who should be winning this award this year is Doechii. Sabrina Carpenter is nominated but it makes no sense (to me at least) because she is on her sixth album; it’s almost as if this award turned into “Best Breakthrough Artist” but that’s just me lol.
Song Of The Year: I would want to give this to “Good Luck, Babe” by Chappell Roan; but with Bruno Mars and Lady Gaga’s “Die With a Smile” being nominated I wouldn’t be surprised if they win. The Grammy’s have never heard a Bruno Mars song they didn’t throw awards at.
Question from Patty:
Last term the fashion industry stayed at arms length from Trump and his family. What do you think will happen this time around?
Lainey’s Answer:
José Criales-Unzueta just wrote a piece about this for Vogue Business after what happened on Monday. He noted that Melania Trump’s decision to wear Adam Lippes could mean that she’ll be championing more American designers this time around the way previous First Ladies have done for labels and/or creatives who were platformed from the White House. This is a departure from the last time she held this position, as it’s noted that her wardrobe then consisted of a lot of European designers but that her looks were “acquired at retail” aka not custom.
That was, in part, due to the fact that there were many designers who simply refused to dress her. Will that change? Well, considering that the Arnault family was at the inauguration, and they’re in charge of LVMH, and so many fashion houses are part of that conglomerate, it’ll be interesting to see…what access she will have this time. Like what happens if CEO Arnault gently presses Maria Grazi Chiuri at Dior to custom something for Melania? How will the creative directors respond? If, that is, she goes back to European labels and doesn’t stay committed to uplifting American fashion.
Staying on the American side, though, in 2017 she wore Ralph Lauren at the inauguration. And that led to big backlash against RL…for about five minutes. I say this because Oscar de la Renta dressed both Ivanka and Usha Vance over the last week. And there’s been a lot of criticism on social media about that, too. How long will that last? Longer than the backlash against Ralph Lauren? Or…um…probably shorter? If you’re an executive at Oscar de la Renta, and you look to the Ralph Lauren example, how worried are you? People did not stay mad at Ralph Lauren, just like they did not stay mad at Balenciaga, just like they did not stay mad at Dolce & Gabbana.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not encouraging any designers (not that my encouragement would matter) to get in Melania’s closet. But my point is that the worry eight years ago about backlash probably isn’t as acute and probably isn’t as intense. Because eight years later, even though they tried to make it a boogeyman, cancel culture does not exist. They weaponised the myth of cancel culture to mobilise a movement that rendered ineffective any legitimate callouts and criticisms – in the most depressing and terrifyingly spectacular way. As in all the way (back) to the White House.
Question from Suzanne T:
I have tried to research this on my own but not found any sufficient answers. Can you please tell me what is the difference between executive producers, producers, co-producers and line producers? And why do some of them have p.g.a behind their names and others don't. What needs to happen to get the p.g.a designation? What's the hierarchy of all these producers? What do they do to get labeled as one and not the other?
Sarah’s answer:
It can get shifty because producers can get into crediting disputes just like writers, but broadly speaking, this is how it breaks down.
Producer: This person shepherds the film from start to finish. They are responsible for source material, whether it’s finding something to adapt or backing an original script to production. They hire the director and oversee the entire production from soup to nuts, including financing. They deal with the studio and financiers, and eventually go out and find distribution, if it’s an independent production. Producers win Best Picture because they are seen as the person most responsible for the totality of the production.
Executive Producer: Money, studio, and distribution people. An EP can also be a person who found the source material but did not oversee the full production itself, such as an actor who options a book but passes actually producing it off to someone else (think Reese Witherspoon’s plethora of EP credits for books her company has optioned). But mostly, EPs are money people or studio/distribution people. That’s why there are often so many of them, it takes a lot of money to make a movie.
Co-Producer: Works on a narrower remit within the production, such as a person responsible for overseeing the post-production workflow on a film. They have some independence to act within their designated task but still report back to the producer at the end of the day.
Associate Producer: Works more specifically under the supervision of a producer or co-producer. Not an assistant, but not NOT an assistant. Usually less coffee fetching but still handling lower-level tasks and doesn’t have much autonomy, as they are direct reports to someone higher up the food chain.
Line Producer: Day to day logistics, such as budgeting, scheduling, set logistics, workflow management. Could also be described as a production manager. Sort of the meat and potatoes gig of producing. A producer will delegate a LOT to a line producer.
Who gets “the Mark”? The “pga” which appears after a producer’s name is decided by the Producers Guild of America, within their arcane rules and regulations for what counts as “performing the majority of the producing functions” on a film. A person with “pga” after their name is eligible for PGA membership.
Basically, think of it like this: the director is the captain of the ship. But the producer runs the shipping company, and the co-producers, associate producers, and line producers work under them to make sure the ship doesn’t sink because the captain is almost always an insane person.
PS: In TV, showrunners are credited as EPs though their duties reflect more of a film producer’s role (plus writing).
Question from Susan H:
I’ve been thinking & discussing this interview since I saw it. It comes across as having a complete lack of empathy for his current partner. While we never know what discussions have happened behind closed doors (and that’s none of our business) I’d love to know if - when a celebrity is giving answers like this - would you ask questions to open the opportunity to come across a bit better?
Lainey’s Answer:
Susan is referring to a rapid-fire style interview that Guy Pearce did with The Guardian in which he was asked “what or who is the greatest love of your life?” And he answers:
“My ex-wife, Kate, was the greatest love of my life, but I’ve moved on from her now and the greatest love of my life is my child, Monte.”
The last time there was an update on Guy’s personal life, though, he was linked to Carice van Houten, and Monte is their child. Which is why Susan, and many others, were side-eyeing his response. Not sure if you all saw this because it just came out on Wednesday, but Carice has clarified, posting a message on IG stories saying that she and Guy have not been together “for years” and that they are “great friends” and “love each other very much”.
So his answer is not all that shitty when you consider the circumstances. These circumstances, however, were obviously not widely known. Guy Pearce and Carice van Houten aren’t top of gossip mind. There aren’t a lot of people sitting around trying to get up in their business. That’s why everyone, including The Guardian’s reporter, probably just assumed that he and Carice were still a couple.
Could the reporter have asked a follow-up question? Sure. But it’s also possible that these questions were submitted via email the way it’s laid out. Guy’s interview is part of a regular feature at The Guardian called “The Q&A”. And there’s a consistent style that’s maintained – it’s a question and an answer, there’s no flow, no connective tissue to the questions, really, and also, from what I can gather, everyone gets the same set of questions every time. I’ve just looked at the last four and Guy answered the same questions that were asked of Nick Frost and Marcus Brigstocke, the two people who were featured before him. That’s the fun and the risk, I guess, of agreeing to this format.
So in my opinion, that’s on Guy’s publicist to understand this and to guide him to an answer that wouldn’t open up this kind of situation. If he doesn’t have a publicist, well, I guess, this is the consequence.
That wraps up another week and it was a huge week in the chats – THANK YOU for coming here and checking in on each other and debating respectfully and hearing each other. One of my favourite things to do now on my commute is just scroll through your comments and catch up on everything you’ve been sharing. You have given me some self-care!
Keep squawking and keep gossiping,
Lainey, Sarah, and Michael
If Wayfarer deliberately chose to back ScarJo's film because of her enmity towards Blake and Ryan, that is a level of diabolical I can barely comprehend.
“Basically, think of it like this: the director is the captain of the ship. But the producer runs the shipping company, and the co-producers, associate producers, and line producers work under them to make sure the ship doesn’t sink because the captain is almost always an insane person.”
Hilarious, laughing out loud at that last clause.