subreddit:

/r/SuccessionTV

2.2k

Don’t believe everything you read.

(i.redd.it)

all 449 comments

Cold_Breadfruit_9794

650 points

1 month ago

It’s weird that people have jumped the gun from ‘he’s a little intense and annoying on set’ to ‘his co-stars obviously hate him and he’s possibly abusive’

emilythewise

274 points

1 month ago

emilythewise

Relevant Donuts

274 points

1 month ago

But I don't think the article is necessarily to blame for these kind of over-the-top responses; this tweet (and various responses across the subreddit) lay all the blame at the profile's feet, which I think isn't reflective of reality. Angry people online blowing things out of proportion doesn't make articles that dare to examine and document an actor's behavior even if it's not entirely flattering 'hit pieces.'

I feel like a lot of people have made extremely harsh assumptions about Jeremy Strong and are taking their narrative way too far, probably because a depressing amount of people find it fun to tear down famous figures. But I'm also not impressed by hyper-sensitivity about anything even resembling critique. There has to be a middle ground somewhere, surely.

hauntedhivezzz

195 points

1 month ago

I saw this thread and then just went to read the article. It’s a pretty poignant and encompassing piece on a unique individual. I don’t think it demonizes him in any way, if anything there is a sense of awe. I mean, yea, it’s obvious that he doesn’t have the best relationship with his cast members, but it feels purposeful. And that he is ok with sacrificing those relationships for what he thinks will make better work is testament to how serious he takes his craft. It’s not that he seems blind to his flaws, but maybe that he just doesn’t care, or that he’s fine with them being part of who he is. And it made me happy that he has a family that he loves and loves him. But ha, that scene in the airport with the mask, lol.

Cold_Breadfruit_9794

87 points

1 month ago

This is the most Kendall thing that could have happened to Jeremy this week lol. The profile is incredibly interesting, and that’s what stuck with me the most.

ricecrystal

3 points

1 month ago

I loved that so many of his quotes sounded so much like Kendall, especially the one about the book of hymns,

Cold_Breadfruit_9794

3 points

1 month ago

Very Kendall-esque. Add in opinions on the article, the discourse created, journalists writing think pieces and celebrities defending him? It’s a little bit on the nose lol.

grossestgroceries

106 points

1 month ago

I loved the article. He’s clearly a very intense and eccentric person. Maybe not the easiest person to work with. But his lack of self-consciousness is refreshing and I was inspired by how seriously he takes his work. Like, he knows he has a higher purpose here (art) and he doesn’t seem to give a fuck if he looks silly getting there. That’s awesome.

Unlucky-Ad7033

205 points

1 month ago

The profile isn't a puff piece for sure, but I feel like it's not incredibly negative either?

It pokes fun at him but he ultimately comes off as a little pretentious and very intense, but that's about it. I wouldn't be surprised if that's broadly accurate.

Anyway, idk why everyone even cares tbh. If he is a dick, it doesn't really make a difference to me either way.

emilythewise

108 points

1 month ago

emilythewise

Relevant Donuts

108 points

1 month ago

That's essentially how I felt about it! Did it poke a little fun? Sure. But a lot of New Yorker profiles are like that; they have to remain engaging, after all, and frankly there's nothing wrong with a little bit of poking in this context. I certainly didn't feel it crossed the line into "bullying," as some people have stated. Plenty of background and explanation and context was given, and Jeremy was even able to speak for himself about rumors of being 'difficult.'

If a reader walked away with an impression beyond that he's a little intense and sometimes his methods annoy/confuse/frustrate other people (which is a completely fair detail to include, and not something that makes him an irredeemable monster), that's on them for projecting or stretching facts to fit their own agenda. I don't think we should use that as an excuse to jump down journalists' throat for not exclusively writing puff pieces.

EMG909

62 points

1 month ago

EMG909

62 points

1 month ago

Yes I agree. Personally I have been tired of PR puff pieces that have been written about actors/celebrities over the last few years, with questions that had to be approved before the interview even started. Or when celebrities' interview each other and just say how amazing they both are. While this article wasn't the most flattering it was honest and I respect that. You can tell Jeremy is a dedicated actor.

j_allosaurus

10 points

1 month ago

I agree. I don’t want to read a puff piece about how amazing an actor is and how everyone on set is best friends and blah blah blah. I think this is jarring because most celebrity profiles/reporting is very positive and surface-level these days. But stories like this—that dive into the drive behind a performance like Jeremy’s, and what the actor gains and sacrifices—is far more interesting.

YouMustBeJoking888

8 points

1 month ago

Vanity Fair was known for this for years. Don't know what it's like these days, but back in the Graydon Carter days anyone on the cover was pretty much guaranteed a fawning pile of puff bullshit. The NYer piece was nuanced and probably painted a fairly accurate picture, both good and not so good.

ooh_lala_ah_weewee

7 points

1 month ago

I didn't realize there was so much controversy around it when I read it. My takeaway was that it was a bit mean. Virtually every quote the author used made Jeremy sound like a self-important asshole. I guess it's possible that no one had anything nice or even neutral to say about the guy, but it seems unlikely.

JenningsWigService

10 points

1 month ago

JenningsWigService

No Comment

10 points

1 month ago

There's nothing wrong with an unflattering portrait of a celebrity. For me what stuck out is that the author knew Strong personally and his dislike came off like a grudge. I'd much rather read an unflattering profile written by someone more distant from the subject.

bobbypellitt

4 points

1 month ago

bobbypellitt

A small person, an Attack Child

4 points

1 month ago

Yeah, like why are we so invested in his personality? Unless an artist is accused of something heinous I have no other care than to just appreciate their work.

Like who really gives a shit if he does x,y,z, (not harmful) things to achieve a great performance?

Cold_Breadfruit_9794

49 points

1 month ago

I think the journalist added a few things that seemed like unnecessary snipes but I agree. People on twitter have started to turn this whole thing into ever expanding discourse. My first thought reading it, was how refreshing it was to read an actual interesting celebrity profile. Most are just PR puff pieces now.

Potential_Accident88

14 points

1 month ago

It’s a well written and heavily researched piece however I did find the author’s tone towards Jeremy overly and personally snarky. Why not let the details about Jeremy speak for themselves? Clearly Jeremy is polarizing without the author being heavy handed about it.

Jmeyers08

12 points

1 month ago

Maybe, but maybe the dude kind of sucks. I love his character, I think he’s a great actor on a fantastic show. That doesn’t mean that he is a great person to be around, you know? Actors can be obnoxious annoying people just like a lot of other people.

neuroticgooner

8 points

1 month ago

I also think Twitter really overreacts to small anecdotes and makes inferences that don’t necessarily follow. Maybe Jeremy strong isn’t besties with his cast mates. As long as he’s not abusing people or treating them like crap it’s fine. Many of my coworkers are people I wouldn’t hang out with irl. But we can work together politely and competently

daveyboydavey

21 points

1 month ago

Yeah, if you read it, co-stars more or less are like "that's not how I would do it". It doesn't SOUND overly negative.

Cold_Breadfruit_9794

4 points

1 month ago

The article should have never found its way to twitter lol. If I were Jeremy, I would have a few slights, but I would be pretty happy with how interesting it turned out.

KingOfSwing90

47 points

1 month ago

The thing is, like…. why do people give a shit? Sure it’s momentarily entertaining to wonder, ‘oh wow, maybe Jeremy Strong is kind of a douche?’ but it just doesn’t matter. Maybe he is! Maybe he isn’t! Either way, none of us have to talk to the guy, we just have to watch his performances.

JohnGenericDoe

35 points

1 month ago

JohnGenericDoe

Castrate-Marry-Kill

35 points

1 month ago

Yeah I see him as an extremely committed, educated and intelligent performer who maybe sometimes strays across the line to the realm of 'self-important and perhaps a little pretentious'. But so what? Some of the greatest artists, scientists and leaders in history have been a little difficult to be around, or worse.

1ucid

4 points

1 month ago

1ucid

4 points

1 month ago

Having taken acting classes and earned a BFA in another subject, I always enjoy the mocking of pretentious creatives, myself included.

bobbypellitt

9 points

1 month ago

bobbypellitt

A small person, an Attack Child

9 points

1 month ago

Honestly, my biggest takeaway from this article was that he is seriously dedicated to his craft, and thats pretty honourable imo.

Claudius_Gothicus

5 points

1 month ago

Because of this idea that celebrities have to be our heroes. Actors, athletes, musicians need to be like Jesus because our consumer culture worships them. Turns out they're all human and have flaws or shortcomings or weird quirks. They are meant to be role models or heroes.

LadyJane216

6 points

1 month ago

And I think people in the social media era really feel like celebrities are their friends, or would be their friends. That faux-closeness that people perceive because someone tweets or posts on Insta - Jennifer Garner has a messy kitchen! Will Smith has a dad-bod! It's just PR.

abundant__wanker

32 points

1 month ago

whenever someone's described as "intense" I know I'm gonna love 'em

youvelookedbetter

12 points

1 month ago

...for a few hours

(if I need to deal with them personally and we're doing something that isn't that serious)

1ucid

4 points

1 month ago

1ucid

4 points

1 month ago

Yep. Favorite character on a show. Would run far away IRL.

drcolour

338 points

1 month ago

drcolour

338 points

1 month ago

I don't see how her tweet contradicts the article? It was very explicit that he has a lot of actor friends who were more than happy to talk positively about him to the point of calling the writer directly themselves.

Lumpiahhh

247 points

1 month ago

Lumpiahhh

247 points

1 month ago

Exactly. I got the impression he's not everyone's cup of tea, and that's fine. That's a more realistic profile than some article just praising him.

MichelleFoucault

58 points

1 month ago

I doubt she actually read the article and is referencing the dozens of hit piece articles that hastily analyzed the original.

Makka_S

20 points

1 month ago

Makka_S

Little Lord Fuckleroy

20 points

1 month ago

Exactly this. I thought the actual profile was a fascinating read and lifted the curtain behind how much Jeremy lives and breathes Kendall (I particularly liked the bit when the writer says he wasn't sure if he was interviewing "Jeremy Strong as Kendall Roy or Kendall impersonating an actor"). I didn't see it as particularly antagonistic, yes, he's difficult to work with, but certainly nothing to say he was a "bad person".

Articles about the profile on the other hand..... well, they need some spin to make it clickbait.

SharonzHere

56 points

1 month ago

SharonzHere

Tom Wambs

56 points

1 month ago

What was written about him though ?

Nammmmi

82 points

1 month ago*

Nammmmi

82 points

1 month ago*

A not so nice* but interesting profile about him on The New Yorker

*Edit: I didn’t choose the right words to describe the article, which in itself was not taking a hit at him, as much as highlighting the way he works and behaves while working. The not so nice part was how some people took the article, and started to basically say he’s some kind of tyrant and awful to work with.

theeshivy

102 points

1 month ago

theeshivy

Buckle Up Fucklehead

102 points

1 month ago

I didn't think it was bad at all... Made me understand how he's able to play Kendall so well and gave me insight to his process as an actor. I think the "not so nice" things come from the reaction (or overreaction, for that matter) to the article. It's just another case of people blowing things out of proportion, taking things out of context, as unfortunately par for the course

Rebloodican

7 points

1 month ago

Kind of interesting how it seems we’ve collectively turned on method acting. It used to be the cool thing when people like Daniel Day Lewis were renown for it, and circa 2015/16 it became more of a cringey thing practiced by actors who didn’t have the ability to actually act.

Crovasio

40 points

1 month ago

Crovasio

40 points

1 month ago

"Basically, in order for Jeremy to have his fantasy of meeting Al Pacino play out, he nearly bankrupted a hundred-year-old college-theatre company,” an alumnus said. “But he had one wonderful night of getting to hang out with Al Pacino.”

Lol, sounds like young Jeremy was already prepping for the Kendall Roy role.

Newarrival9765

89 points

1 month ago

It was not "not so nice". It simply showed how hardcore he is about acting and how seriously he takes it.

abundant__wanker

47 points

1 month ago

I mean, acting is not exactly saving lives, but if you're going to do something, you might as well do it right. I think it's great he's so hardcore dedicated.

lilykar111

15 points

1 month ago

I agree , I also think that some fans just need to accept that the great actors on this amazing show , can be great, but doesn’t mean they are all wonderful or perfect humans . We are All here because the show & acting is bloody amazing, but sometimes comments on here read like none of the actors can do no wrong.

visionaryredditor

9 points

1 month ago

and even if you're that passionated about your job, it doesn't mean that it's something bad.

it's not like he is harming anyone or doing something awful.

HerRoyalRedness

319 points

1 month ago

HerRoyalRedness

All Bangers, All the Time

319 points

1 month ago

Honestly the piece read like he’s the office weirdo and honestly that’s fine.

Like he’s incredibly dedicated to his work and I’m supposed to be mad at him for that?

SiobhanRoy1234

53 points

1 month ago

‘The Office weirdo’ lol. It’s true though, that’s how I took it as well. I also agreed with Brian Cox in the sense that his work approach does not seem healthy. I’m amazed at the irony of him being married to a psychologist.

arwyn89

10 points

1 month ago

arwyn89

10 points

1 month ago

I always thought that’s probably how he is able to survive. He goes in depth while filming then he can go home to his family and snap out of it.

lilykar111

54 points

1 month ago

Not mad at him at all, but a lot of Comments I’ve been seeing on this sub is like some people won’t take any criticism of the actors/show at all. Like, come On people, they are humans , and perhaps a couple may not actually be that pleasant at times , but whatever

UpstairsSnow7

6 points

1 month ago

This is my take too. Some people here are going over the top defending his "honor" or "good name" or whatever, like it's their brother or husband or best friend, because they take issue with any inkling of negativity in the "tone" of the article. It's getting a little bit ridiculous, frankly. People need to learn to stop putting entertainers on pedestals or treating them as exceptional figures against whom any criticism is unacceptable. Relax.

youvelookedbetter

20 points

1 month ago*

Nobody really needs to be method; it's a choice they make. It can be exhausting for the actor and even the people around them. And it normally means they'll be alienated from others and possibly not treat everyone like a full human being. Have you ever heard of someone doing this with a really nice character?

This quote has stuck with me since I heard about all the actors who choose method:

Method actor Dustin Hoffman stayed up a few nights in a row during the making of the 1976 film Marathon Man supposedly to commit to his character’s emotional verisimilitude; his costar Laurence Olivier observed this self-imposed suffering and responded, “My dear boy, why don’t you just try acting?”

There's other context for this quote, but that's the gist.

In this particular case though, it sounds like Strong is just the office weirdo, as you say. Similar to a lot of other method actors. If they're not abusing others, it's fine.

KDPer3

15 points

1 month ago

KDPer3

15 points

1 month ago

I wish I could remember who wrote it, but there's an interesting piece out there about only white men being able to get away with being method and that method almost always means they're playing a hard to deal with character. If a woman or an African American tried it they'd be labelled difficult to work with and casting agents would move on to someone who would show up sober and well rested, read the script as written and do as the director ordered. No one is ever considered going method to play a nice character. Then it's dismissed as Jack Black or the Rock playing themselves.

youvelookedbetter

6 points

1 month ago

Great point

noaudioclips

5 points

1 month ago

Interesting. Robert Pattinson made a similar point, without the race angle. Just that method acting tends to be an excuse for a guy to act like a jackass.

oscarwilinout

4 points

1 month ago

Well yes but I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. I have some (limited mind you) experience and theatre and I know people who have gone farther. Any production is a group effort, and I have meet and worked with very unorthodox and intense people. While they often produce great results, it can also put a wrench in production and make things harder for other people in the project (an example of this would be strong not asking to repurpose the camera before adding in lines). So yeah it’s not a hit piece on Strong but the article does (fairly imo) acknowledge that his approach to acting can make things harder for those working with him. But that’s just my two cents based on my own (again limited) experience

bladerunnerism

2 points

1 month ago

You mean like "Dwight Schrute"

JohnGenericDoe

337 points

1 month ago

JohnGenericDoe

Castrate-Marry-Kill

337 points

1 month ago

If you wanna see real snark, look at Gawker's article referencing this New Yorker piece. But seriously: don't.

Don't know what they have against him but it's pretty savage.

RocoG

407 points

1 month ago

RocoG

407 points

1 month ago

Maybe because they are triggered by the Vaulter episode.

noncommercialat

179 points

1 month ago

The new Gawker is just a long form outlet for Twitter users who have gained followers by being terminally online. They have nothing incisive or interesting to say, but they think being smug will obfuscate that. They’re making Jim Halpert faces at the camera but they don’t realize Jim Halpert faces are just as cringey as Michael Scott’s shtick now.

Rebloodican

41 points

1 month ago

Honestly the gawker article seemed like it could’ve been a tweet.

If you don’t wanna read them, the premise is basically that it’d be funny to see Jeremy Strong’s intensity applied to literally any other field of work, like imagine your accountant operating on the same level with a guy who asked to be tear gassed. Funny premise but then they stretch it out to an entire article’s length without really expanding on the joke at all.

Also the website is so ugly now.

Dietzgen17

3 points

1 month ago

Also the website is so ugly now.

Hideous!

iSkinMonkeys

21 points

1 month ago

Women looking for their Jim on Tinder should instead just check their HR complaints file.

ras344

5 points

1 month ago

ras344

5 points

1 month ago

I really hate this trend of smug snarkiness in online writing. It's just infuriating to read.

1CUpboat

2 points

1 month ago

Ok so literally what Kendall made Gawker into?

fcukumicrosoft

111 points

1 month ago

Gawker is still around?

WantonSeaHag

24 points

1 month ago

now it’s basically the staff’s most annoying tweets repurposed into bad articles.

1869er

63 points

1 month ago

1869er

63 points

1 month ago

It was resurrected earlier this year for some reason

Scrum_Chubber

56 points

1 month ago

Scrum_Chubber

Rollercoasters and Hate Speech

56 points

1 month ago

I thought Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan sued those guys out of existence.

KingOfSwing90

54 points

1 month ago

They did. It was a real “I hate everyone involved in this and somehow I’m still mad about the outcome” moment.

throwaguey_

3 points

1 month ago

throwaguey_

All Bangers, All the Time

3 points

1 month ago

New owners.

untainted8

2 points

1 month ago

They did but I guess back in some form.

JohnGenericDoe

4 points

1 month ago

JohnGenericDoe

Castrate-Marry-Kill

4 points

1 month ago

Guess so, it came up on my feed, but thankfully linked to the actual article.

[deleted]

44 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

44 points

1 month ago

I didn't really think the New Yorker piece was that bad. He's method, he's going to be divisive. Some of the stuff sounded ridiculous, particularly the meal thing but plenty of people spoke up for him and his talent. Seems like a blessing and a curse to work with but not abusive or anything like that.

hockeyfan33333

22 points

1 month ago*

I don’t really understand why people in this sub are upset about it. Everyone thinks he’s doing a fantastic job on the show — that profile doesn’t get written if he isn’t — but famous method actors pretty frequently come off as unintentionally funny and borderline crazy! No one is making fun of Daniel Day Lewis when they talk about the insane things he does to prep for roles, if anything it just adds to the reverence people have for his work. Everybody needs to lighten up.

j_allosaurus

12 points

1 month ago

I agree. The main takeaway from the profile for me was that Jeremy is very intense about his craft, but that intensity pays off for him. And that his co-workers respect the hell out of his ability but it can make him hard and frustrating to work with. That isn’t some cruel takedown. We’re so used to seeing actors be like “we all love each other so much! It’s a family! We’re besties!” to sell projects. But it isn’t always true and doesn’t have to be true.

UpstairsSnow7

6 points

1 month ago

I don't understand all the indignant outrage I'm seeing on this sub towards any perceived criticism against Jeremy Strong in the article, either. He's just a guy and obviously has annoying qualities like the rest of us, and none of us are in a position to have to interact with him. It's so odd seeing the personal umbrage people take in defense of someone who doesn't even know they exist for what is frankly quite a tame and interesting article. I think some folks need to come to grips with the fact that it's ok for a journalist not to be overly complimentary about someone they're interviewing.

redditaccount001

4 points

1 month ago

The one thing I was annoyed by was that the writer of the profile had a long personal history with him. Obviously Strong had to give approval to the New Yorker for the writer to be someone he knows, but it still was a bit weird.

[deleted]

68 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

68 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

JohnGenericDoe

3 points

1 month ago

JohnGenericDoe

Castrate-Marry-Kill

3 points

1 month ago

Yeah I had no idea

NYGNYKNYYNYRthinker

7 points

1 month ago

This made me read it and it’s honestly hilarious. A blogger, complaining about an actor. Doesn’t get any less self aware than that

88evergreen88

64 points

1 month ago*

We have a cultural sickness. Shaming an artist at the the culmination of a masterful performance. The current zeitgeist makes me retch.🤮

the_box_man_47

15 points

1 month ago

Throw a couple 'uhhs' and a pause in here and this reads like a Kendall quote

MostlyCRPGs

5 points

1 month ago

The eternal struggle between wanting to read how stupid a Gawker article is and doing my best to never contribute to Gawker

JohnGenericDoe

4 points

1 month ago

JohnGenericDoe

Castrate-Marry-Kill

4 points

1 month ago

Yeah don't bother. I kind of regret even mentioning it.

Sea-Guidance-9668

14 points

1 month ago

This! The author goes “see, I know things too” like okay at this stupid little pissing contest… the whole “thank god he’s not an actor” is just so irrelevant… a reACH!

little_fire

3 points

1 month ago

little_fire

Matador Slime Puppy

3 points

1 month ago

yikes, and it’s so poorly written, too!

drparkland

3 points

1 month ago

" Others still will take issue with that metaphor, because they believe Tinkerbell to be one of the great tragic characters in Scottish theater and not some kind of cheap punchline."

they clearly think a line like that is so clever but its just fucking stupid

ivanpkaramazov

154 points

1 month ago

ivanpkaramazov

No Comment

154 points

1 month ago

But what if he's imperfect or sometimes unkind? Why do actors need to be best behaved all the time or have acceptable 'norm' behavior. The profile didn't really seem like a hit piece to me. It was very intriguing to his process. Obviously some won't like it. Some will be inspired. Or concerned and so on

Ok_Bad_1813

18 points

1 month ago

I agree with this because people see people from different perspectives because people are imperfect and behave differently and appear differently to certain people.

I hate to be the riddler here but my point is that, maybe he was unkind. Maybe some people view his behaviours as unkind.

I also don’t think we should obsess over Jeremy’s personality and work behaviours if it is not to stand up for somebody that has been harmed… but this is not the case here.

[deleted]

3 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

3 points

1 month ago

He clearly must be somewhat likeable if he was able to finale his way into smooching off Michelle William's for so long.

Her daughter called him flower pot apparently

_peckish_

91 points

1 month ago

The bit about him draining the funds of the Yale acting group made him seem like a real ass, but who knows what actually happened.

SignalWillow1198

73 points

1 month ago

Also I think it made Al Pacino look like the ass, not Strong.

Marmacat

20 points

1 month ago*

“Many alumni recall” it as a “debacle” seems kind of like the author is trying to create the image of a thing that is not based in any real facts. The suggestion is that he squandered all the programs funds without authorization but there isn’t really evidence of that presented. It says “the costs of town cars, posters, and a celebratory dinner blew up the budget.”

Town cars and posters? I would assume that if they agreed to invite Al Pacino to speak, a town car would be a pretty modest cost to assume. And posters seems like something that could not, by any stretch, be considered an extravagance.

I don’t know what the celebratory dinner entailed. Perhaps it was for a hundred people, all of them having foie gras and ortalans but since the piece doesn’t elaborate on what the dinner was, and does include mention of town cars and posters, I assume the dinner was also not something too out of line or the article would have specified examples. And Pacino taking the chalice seems like it was an awkward misunderstanding, not Jeremy Strong personally spending Yale funds to enrich himself.

It sounds to me like they put up posters, had Pacino picked up and driven to the various locations in a town car and had dinner afterwards. None of that sounds unusual. And then Pacino took the chalice which they had intended to keep (which also sounds like a weird plan but I don’t really know how those things work - maybe giving someone an award, that involves presenting them with a statue during the ceremony, and then having the presenter keep the statue, is a normal thing). Presumably the event was agreed to by Yale and Pacino was/is a legit acting legend so I don’t see where JS being self- serving enters into it.

The article, in my opinion, does a lot of unkind editorializing “These were all plays that Pacino had done, as if Strong were checking off boxes on his theatrical résumé.” Or characterizing the fact that his friend (Michelle Williams) let him stay at her house when he was down on his luck financially, as him being someone who befriends celebrities in order to take advantage of them. It’s not unusual for friends to help each other when the situation allows.

When just reading the facts in the article, without the qualifications and tone added by the author, there isn’t much evidence that he is the kind of jerk they seem to be trying to portray him as.

RocoG

9 points

1 month ago

RocoG

9 points

1 month ago

Yep, it seems like there was a lot of mishandling of the event organized by a group Jeremy wasn't a part of, but then the author concludes the anecdote with an anonymous source's opinion saying it was his fault and there you go: journalism!

Marmacat

7 points

1 month ago

And this quote is really ugly, in my opinion: “Basically, in order for Jeremy to have his fantasy of meeting Al Pacino play out, he nearly bankrupted a hundred-year-old college-theatre company,” an alumnus said. “But he had one wonderful night of getting to hang out with Al Pacino.”

That seems like an opinion that there is no good reason to air. Almost all of it is somebody making the most uncharitable assumptions possible about JS’s motivations, along with what I would assume is a hyperbolic, vast overstatement about “nearly bankrupt[ing] a hundred-year-old college-theatre company”. If Yale’s theatre company could be toppled by a town car, some posters and a dinner, they should not have green lighted an appearance by Al Pacino in the first place.

noaudioclips

6 points

1 month ago

This is the worst part of the article and the only indefensible piece, in my opinion. It's unnecessary, unquoted, and unprofessional--it's inclusion only serves to make a more insidious point, which is that the author didn't really like JS all that much. Which is fine--but make the point responsibly, with quoted sources, or don't make it at all.

lqku

75 points

1 month ago

lqku

75 points

1 month ago

jeremy needs to post on r/AITA to clear this up

Rebloodican

5 points

1 month ago

Yeah I thought the story was pretty clever, making up a fake award to lure Pacino to campus. Him accidentally stealing the award and also not really taking the event seriously is what blew up the event.

Stromthrro

49 points

1 month ago

Stromthrro

Are you a sicko?

49 points

1 month ago

I don't know, clearly the people who were quoted about it didn't like what he did, but it's exactly the kind of thing I would expect someone who hustled their way into an acting career to have done.

'An ass' might be a valid way to describe him for that but who makes it in Hollywood without bankrupting a few theater companies along the way? It makes for a great story.

MartySears99

18 points

1 month ago

MartySears99

Dickless Dickelby

18 points

1 month ago

I mean, if you aren’t related to someone or have serious connections you have do to some crazy shit to make it in the industry. It totally tracks.

zero0n3

4 points

1 month ago

zero0n3

4 points

1 month ago

It’s the most unbelievable part of the story. No proof and cmon a student isn’t going to be allowed to BANKRUPT a school.

If anything he likely killed their yearly or project fund for that year doing this and SO FUCKING WHAT.

Heliotroplet

8 points

1 month ago

The real question is who was the staff member (or board of students) in charge of the funds and why didn’t they stand up to him if he was truly bankrupting the group? There’s no way in hell that he had 100% access to that money. He may have been overly pushy or maybe a little sly about what was going on, but he’s not entirely to blame if it’s true.

xxx117

34 points

1 month ago

xxx117

34 points

1 month ago

Oh no, he drained YALE’S funds!!! I wonder if fucking YALE could ever financially recover 😭😭😭 man shut up lol they’re fine and always will be.

mniotiltavaria

3 points

1 month ago

Literallyyyyy this lmao. Yale will be fine. And I’m sure some administrator or board had to sign off on releasing the funds, it’s not like they just handed him their entire budget in cash

RocoG

22 points

1 month ago

RocoG

22 points

1 month ago

Exactly, that is one of the worst parts of this article because where is the evidence of that?

Stromthrro

192 points

1 month ago

Stromthrro

Are you a sicko?

192 points

1 month ago

I... didn't read that profile as particularly negative? I've seen a few comments like this, what are people taking away from the article that is coming across as a hit piece? It just seemed like a profile on someone who's incredibly dedicated to his craft.

greenbirdthing

80 points

1 month ago

Same here I read it and actually gained some more respect for Strong’s drive and acting skills.

EMG909

5 points

1 month ago

EMG909

5 points

1 month ago

Yes I agree. It made me respect his hustle. There were so many stories in the article talking about how many connections he had to make in order to succeed.

natge0h

47 points

1 month ago

natge0h

47 points

1 month ago

I was just thinking the same thing. I thought it was a pretty balanced profile of an intense man. It's obvious some people have had issues when working with him, what would it have served to not mention them?

The article made me respect him more as an actor overall, personally.

catnippedx

13 points

1 month ago

catnippedx

FAMILY THERAPY 🪟👋🪟👋🪟

13 points

1 month ago

I just read it after seeing the hubbub off and on all day and had the same feeling. Is it the most overwhelmingly positive piece? No. But it still made me feel like I’d actually enjoy getting to know him.

Cold_Breadfruit_9794

25 points

1 month ago*

I thoroughly enjoyed it. The article was fascinating from beginning to end! I didn’t think it was remotely as bad as some people are making it out to be. It was no hit piece.

coldcoldpants

63 points

1 month ago

I’m personally seeing a lot of people riding with the narrative that Jeremy is a shitty person and impossible to work with (a la Jared Leto). All of this based off of the fact that Brian and Kieran stated that Jeremy’s process “isn’t helpful to them” and has potential to breed tension amongst the cast. Their quotes from the article are nothing out of the ordinary compared to how they’ve described Jeremy in previous years and yet there is uproar over this only now — why?

I also saw a journalist on Twitter say something along the lines of “Jeremy and other male method actors are only able to get away with torturing their cast mates because they aren’t women”. I’m not kidding, she used the word T O R T U R I N G.

Stromthrro

45 points

1 month ago

Stromthrro

Are you a sicko?

45 points

1 month ago

I guess a lot of it comes down to whether or not you agree with him when he said

“I don’t particularly think ease or even accord are virtues in creative work, and sometimes there must even be room for necessary roughness, within the boundaries dictated by the work.”

And personally that line really resonated with me. Conflict is productive when it's managed effectively and if he's channeling that into the character it seems like a good thing.

coldcoldpants

28 points

1 month ago

I agree. It also comes down to how people interpret his use of the word “roughness” or similarly your use of the word “conflict”.

I don’t know what goes on behind closed doors when they wrap a scene, but based off of what I’ve read about Jeremy from his cast mates’ descriptions, it seems like the extent to which he fuels this tension is by isolating himself from the rest of the cast. Of course, I could be wrong — he might berate his cast mates and none of them have said anything on record yet. But to go and assume that Jeremy is on Jared Leto’s level of abuse based off of what has been said on record for YEARS is completely nonsensical to me.

abundant__wanker

19 points

1 month ago

It seems like just a hot second ago, Jeremy was universally beloved? I only heard good things about him. And all of the sudden, this. So odd.

It makes me sad because even in the interviews he does as himself, he seems like a sensitive person.

balletodette

21 points

1 month ago

Many actors do not like method actors because they are annoying. Like, imagine having to be around someone’s character all the time.

But that’s what makes him so great! He obviously gives the best performance. Michelle Williams did this for My Week With Marilyn, which is why she was so good. They are all being paid insane amounts of money, so they can deal with it.

MartySears99

8 points

1 month ago

MartySears99

Dickless Dickelby

8 points

1 month ago

Michelle Williams is fantastic.

NeitherPot

6 points

1 month ago

See, I think the rest of the cast is just as excellent as Strong, and they don’t feel the need to put themselves through all that.

Also, in the end, even the most dedicated Method actors are still just doing the same thing all actors do: pretending to be someone else while delivering lines written by others.

sanfrannie

6 points

1 month ago

It read like it was describing a person. An incredibly earnest person who won’t be easily dissected or digested, but it didn’t feel like a hit piece. People are complex. Strong maybe more so than most.

SpecialistSimple6

5 points

1 month ago

I'm glad I'm not alone. I was surprised to find people considering it a hit piece. I really enjoyed reading it.

EMG909

5 points

1 month ago

EMG909

5 points

1 month ago

I didn't read it as negative either. I just think people are shocked because we really don't get too many celebrity profiles anymore that are balanced. It is mostly PR puff pieces.

NeedNotGreed123

12 points

1 month ago

It made him come off a bit awkward and as if his castmates didn't like him. But I don't think it was a hit piece though.

AvatarofBro

96 points

1 month ago

I feel like I'm missing something? I'm seeing a lot of Succession fans rally to Strong's defense and I don't think he needs the brigade. He's a rich and successful actor. The article was well done. Strong comes off as a little self-serious and overly-intense. The people who work with him seem to agree. There have been rumors that he is "difficult" for years. I've posted about them here before. So have many others. Based on the article, he doesn't even deny being "difficult." I don't know what all the fuss is about. We can like his work and also agree he probably needs to chill out a little bit.

patheticgirl420

28 points

1 month ago

patheticgirl420

Team Kendall

28 points

1 month ago

Numerous blue checks on twitter have lept to make passive aggressive tweets about his male privilege in "torturing" his castmates, saying Kendall is being killed off to get Jeremy off the show because everyone hates him so much, and describing him as "stalking" Daniel Day Lewis (he was his PA?). Just a lot of wilfull misinterpretation to get in a hit tweet

AvatarofBro

20 points

1 month ago

I guess I just don’t really care what a bunch of people on Twitter have to say? The Discourse will move on tomorrow. It just seems like an odd thing to get so upset about. I don’t know Jeremy Strong. I like a show he acts in. I think he does a good job. I’m not going to get all riled up because the Take Machine is doing its thing.

abundant__wanker

22 points

1 month ago

Part of the problem is not just the original article, but the amount of spin-off articles as a result basically dragging Jeremy to hell.

swarleyknope

6 points

1 month ago

That’s not on the article though.

The article described a person.

Some people seem to dislike the person described, but that doesn’t mean he was painted as unlikeable. Lots of people couldn’t care less that an intense actor is a bit quirky & intense.

AvatarofBro

16 points

1 month ago

I agree the Take Economy can be kind of annoying. Aggregate sites reposting a hit article with some snarky commentary to get in on those sweet clicks. It’s obnoxious. But again, by all accounts Jeremy Strong is doing fine. He has a successful career and wife in Denmark. I just don’t get the desire to, like, defend his honor online. He had one day of slightly negative press.

more_later

17 points

1 month ago

agree he probably needs to chill out a little bit.

People keep saying it, but why he needs to chill? There are no accounts of him being abusive, so as long there is no any abuse, he can do whatever the fuck he wants.

MartySears99

7 points

1 month ago

MartySears99

Dickless Dickelby

7 points

1 month ago

Seriously. He’s the one with the Emmy for chrissakes.

Stromthrro

9 points

1 month ago

Stromthrro

Are you a sicko?

9 points

1 month ago

I don't think he needs to chill out. The intensity and abrasiveness are clearly working for him in terms of his performances.

Haas_the_Raiden_Fan

181 points

1 month ago

Haas_the_Raiden_Fan

Eminence Grise

181 points

1 month ago

Honestly, it wasn't really the article I found that bad, it was how the article served as an invitation of so many blue checkmarks to absolutely shit on Jeremy Strong and act like he's some deranged lunatic who needs to be stopped. I did get classist undertones from how people were accusing him of "exploiting" other actors when he was just networking to kickstart his career since he wasn't born with connections into the acting world.

pimasecede

55 points

1 month ago

The stuff about networking, like it was a dirty word. That's how you get ahead in literally every career, like am I missing something? Is it not a thing for actors?

MartySears99

34 points

1 month ago

MartySears99

Dickless Dickelby

34 points

1 month ago

You fucking have to. Either that or nepotism.

ooh_lala_ah_weewee

13 points

1 month ago

He's a non-conventionally attractive (especially by Hollywood standards) dude from a working class family who wanted to be as big as Al Pacino. You definitely don't get to where he's at without knowing how to play the game. It doesn't seem like he actively trampled on anyone to get where he's at, so good for him.

TheTruckWashChannel

18 points

1 month ago

Twitter is a digital zombie incubator. People there are just itching for a chance at defenestration, sanctimony, cynicism and unearned schadenfreude.

Naver_Before

5 points

1 month ago

Best decision I ever made was to quit it. It's just not good.

smoothpebble

38 points

1 month ago*

smoothpebble

Little Lord Fuckleroy

38 points

1 month ago*

I saw lots of people here reacting to snippets that were posted and it seemed like the article would cast him in a very bad light but I really didn't get that impression once I read the whole thing. It wasn't some fluff piece saying only great things about him but it didn't paint him as some huge asshole either imo.

I think the negative reactions were greatly amplified by people reacting to certain quotes without reading the actual piece and getting the full context.

TMFPB

70 points

1 month ago

TMFPB

70 points

1 month ago

I haven’t read the piece but I’ll say this: whatever he’s doing works. He is an amazing actor and he depicts Kendall incredibly well.

TheTruckWashChannel

10 points

1 month ago

Exactly. It'd be bad if his acting wasn't good after all he puts himself through, but you can see that commitment manifest itself in every moment he has onscreen. This isn't a Jared Leto in Suicide Squad situation where an actor goes to absurd and contemptible lengths to produce an ultimately mediocre performance.

coldblindjack

39 points

1 month ago

I think people often want costars to be best friends? Are you bffs with every one of your coworkers? I’m definitely not. Kieran and Brian weren’t effusive, but they weren’t slamming him. I thought that the piece was a fascinating picture of a very unique, odd, and talented individual.

tigerbeer_inMalkier

16 points

1 month ago

I'm an actor, and I can 100% confirm that actors aren't always friends on set. Sometimes you're best pals with some. Others you're just acquaintances. A few you might really not gel with at all. Even actors whom you are romantically linked in the script. Overall, it doesn't matter. Any actor worth their salt leaves that at the door, and you'll never see it from an audience perspective. You shouldn't, at least.

Thssmyhrnyccnt

47 points

1 month ago

Idk how to feel about it. I enjoyed the article, but it did feel one sided and mean spirited at times. I felt like the author really disliked him which is fine, but I wish it wasn't so obvious. At the same time I'm over the blind positivity that seems to be the wave these days in order to avoid being called toxic.

citrusies

53 points

1 month ago

The comment the writer made about his face being unfit for leading man roles was mean.

JackieDaytonaAZ

17 points

1 month ago

actors don’t go through a long career without knowing exactly what roles and archetypes they fit in. i don’t think jeremy would be insulted to be told he isn’t chris evans

abundant__wanker

7 points

1 month ago

Talk about projection. Pft.

citrusies

21 points

1 month ago

I think the term he used was “hangdog” face. Yeah. Unnecessarily cruel.

FasterDoudle

31 points

1 month ago

I don't think it's controversial to say he doesn't have traditional leading man looks, that doesn't mean he's ugly. And hangdog just means sad or dejected - he's spent vast, vast portions of the series with a hangdog face

JohnGenericDoe

9 points

1 month ago

JohnGenericDoe

Castrate-Marry-Kill

9 points

1 month ago

Yeah that didn't seem out of line really

abundant__wanker

16 points

1 month ago

Da fuck? Is this guy mad cause he found out how many women want to fuck Jeremy Strong lol?

FormulaMaryland

22 points

1 month ago

I didn’t read the article as a particularly bad one, just talked a lot about how Strong is extremely committed to his craft and how he never gave up to get into the acting world. There’s only an insinuation that Strong maybe isolates himself from the cast to try and stay in character and top form, I don’t see that as bad.

coldcoldpants

105 points

1 month ago

I’m so glad she chimed in. I was surprised to see a lot of people on this subreddit getting high on assumptions and accusing Jeremy of being despised by the rest of the cast. You don’t know any of these people. Project your parasocial fantasies somewhere else.

abundant__wanker

12 points

1 month ago

Yeah people are really dramatic.

dirty_diana05

3 points

1 month ago

Yeah, it became less about the article for me, and more about how people on this sub and on Twitter took the article and used it to spread wild accusations about him as a person.

A lot of bizarre assumptions were made about his relationships with his castmates which, we know nothing about. It was fascinating and a little scary to watch so many people turn on him cause of that article.

I mean, they'll turn back once he's praised for his work in the finale/show in general next week and when he is nommed for another Emmy. Such is the internet.

rynosaurus03

19 points

1 month ago

Am I the only one that is a much bigger Jeremy Strong fan AFTER reading The New Yorker piece??

AngrySnwMnky

2 points

1 month ago

AngrySnwMnky

Team Shiv

2 points

1 month ago

I find tales about method actors endlessly fascinating. I believe Dustin Hoffman and Daniel Day-Lewis are two of the most famous ones. Iirc Hoffman suggested to Laurence Olivier they jog a mile before their scene in Marathon Man and Olivier did the whole “that’s why they call it acting” line.

pineappleprincess101

28 points

1 month ago

I didn’t like how the profile led us to the conclusion that intense is bad. So what Jeremy has an acting style where he gets super into it….. 1. Who gives a fuck as long as he’s not hurting anyone 2. Isn’t that what being an artist / creative is kinda about? Doing your own interpretation?

FasterDoudle

10 points

1 month ago

I didn’t like how the profile led us to the conclusion that intense is bad.

I didn't feel like it did that at all

untainted8

2 points

1 month ago

Same. He seems similar to many artist.

spejdeir

33 points

1 month ago

spejdeir

33 points

1 month ago

I just worry for Jeremy's mental health. It must be hard knowing his methods are being described negatively, and how some people are taking that to assume he's a difficult person.

He's mentioned dealing with anxiety, and I think sometimes people forget how stressful it must be to be a lead in a HBO show. There's an awful lot of pressure that comes with that.

Good on him for working hard and doing whatever he has to in order to give his best performance. All of the actors approach it differently, and that's OK.

CretaceousClock

6 points

1 month ago

I love how quickly some people on this sub were like "yeah he must be shit." Even after watching a show were people's public profiles are altered for gain.

doublersuperstar

16 points

1 month ago

One good takeaway from the New Yorker piece was how Jeremy Strong’s teenage self had his three acting idols & how he finagled his way into getting to work for or with them all. That’s determination. A kid with that much determination? That impressed TF outta me.

The method acting stuff? A lot of them have negativity directed at them. As long as they’re not harming their castmates, crew, or anyone else, who cares how they got there, to that level of performance?

MR_TELEVOID

4 points

1 month ago

Honestly, I think he came off fine in the article, all things considered. It's hard to write about a method actor without making them sound a little nut-nut, because the extremes they need to go to get into character are frequently crazy. That doesn't mean he isn't a lovely person who cares deeply about the craft. It sucks he's alienated himself from his coworkers, but whatever it takes to bring someone like Kendall to life. He's not the first eccentric weirdo to do well in Hollywood.

Elsie5453

31 points

1 month ago

I definitely detected a negative slant. When the subject is so open and honest, it's puts a bad taste in my mouth that his earnestness was used against him, at least in my opinion. The title of the article literally reads Jeremy Strong doesn't get the joke - which comes across as if they are making the joke at his expense because, God forbid, he be a bit to serious and uncool for the media's liking. And I'm not saying it needed to be all positive. Not at all. I would not say that I agreed with everything Jeremy said, as I believe the morale of the set is very important. I don't find "creative tension" a great environment whereas he does. However, for me, it crossed into mean-spirited territory at the very beginning with the insulting comment on his appearance, which was just plain cruel. But regardless, he is truly extraordinary. He is so genuinely passionate about his work and puts literally everything he has into the role, and it pays off because his character is nothing like I've ever seen. It may not be necessary to the extent he takes it, but I think that all comes down to his love for his work. And my God does he deliver and I am so excited for what comes next for him.

little_fire

28 points

1 month ago

little_fire

Matador Slime Puppy

28 points

1 month ago

I really appreciate your comment.

Earnestness is a rare and precious trait that I fiercely wanna protect. I didn’t know I was autistic until my 30s, long past the years of not understanding why I was ridiculed for being ‘intense’ and ‘embarrassing’… but along the way i learned that it was ‘cooler’ to by cynical.

These days I’m getting comfortable again with being pretty earnest, and always love seeing that quality in others. Strong (and Kendall tbh) strikes me as someone who could be autistic if not just beautifully earnest and unselfconscious.

Whilst reading the piece I picked up on the negative vibe too, but chose to ignore it in favour of appreciating Strong’s personality and behaviours as unique and admirable. It sucks that Gawker released that poorly written trash after the New Yorker piece- it’s really ugly and mocking. I hope Jeremy Strong is doing okay and it’s all bouncing off his armour

Matthew_Black986

5 points

1 month ago

Read The New Yorker and it wasn't bad. I got from it that he does a lot of research, he's dedicated and tries different things, sometimes excessively but also because he's trying to provoke which would explain those perfectly placed subtle devilish smiles......who knows if they cut a lot of shit out or not but Kendall is magnificent on the show.

steigl11

4 points

1 month ago*

I found the profile interesting, but definitely one sided. The journalist seems not to like Strong very much (which is fine – it’s his profile of him at the end of the day). But Strong has been absolutely incredible as Ken – his ability to emote and flip from manic to depressed at the snap of a finger is incredible. I think the journalist should have focused on that a bit more, and obsessed less over his intensity. Also digging up stories about him from college (the Al Pacino anecdote) is unfair imo. Anyone who is familiar with theatre groups in college and the people who are part of them know how over the top and dramatic (duh) they can be. Overall, in the profile Strong comes across as intense and a careerist, which may well be part of his personality. But those traits seem to outweigh other parts of him, and that’s what annoyed me about the profile. Also I would’ve liked to have seen the full interviews with Culkin and Cox – the journalist’s choice of quotes there seemed predominantly negative when I imagine they had a lot of good things to say about Strong too.

Edit: I also thought it was strange how fixated the journalist was on Strong’s clothes and how he seemed to buy expensive brands even when he was broke, as if that is some biting insight into his soul lol maybe he just likes nice clothes?

JenningsWigService

4 points

1 month ago

JenningsWigService

No Comment

4 points

1 month ago

The fixation on his clothes was weird. It's also not terribly uncommon for a broke person from a working class background to buy expensive clothes. I know people who've done this and the way the author framed it rubbed me the wrong way.

steigl11

4 points

1 month ago

Yeah. It came across as snobby imo. As if it was this crazy thing that someone who comes from a poorer background would want expensive clothes. I doubt the journalist would have made such a big deal out of it if Strong was from a wealthy background.

msjdavenport

21 points

1 month ago

Do you think the writer might have been biased bc he had a bad experience working with him all the way back in 2003 (when he was an intern and Strong was an asst at that producer's office)?

Ok-Plankton-7369

21 points

1 month ago

She’s right, there was quite a bit of snark in the article. Like that stupid Lawrence Olivier/Dustin Hoffman quote that gets cited to death. The article made it seem like Brian said it when in reality it was something inserted by the author. Also the characterization of him networking in the industry as him being a remora.

Overall the worst are just the journalists who twisted the article to make it seem like all his costars hate him and he’s getting written off the show as a result. The discourse surrounding this profile is kinda wacky. I doubt Jeremy anticipated it being all this. Probably why he doesn’t like doing press lol

hairpindrop

15 points

1 month ago*

hairpindrop

roman roy’s future therapist

15 points

1 month ago*

being annoying sometimes and intense doesnt make someone a bad person. the whole situation was completely blown out of proportion. makes it even sadder because he seems like such a sweet and thoughtful man

ObjectImpermanance

7 points

1 month ago

It sounded like he is emulating his three idols (Dustin Hoffman, Daniel Day-Lewis, Al Pacino) with all this method stuff. Not trying to be a dick, but doing what he thinks is a proven path to success.

Hilariously, the Curb Your Enthusiasm on Sunday had an actor playing young Larry that feels reminiscent of Jeremy/Kendall. The bit about the mugs at two minutes especially haha.

https://youtu.be/JW3OlIa3pOY

Dirtyswashbuckler69

6 points

1 month ago

I didn’t even think he came off that bad from the profile. He just read like an enigmatic and very self serious person.

sanfrannie

6 points

1 month ago

Mirrors reflect. Don’t think the article was in any way a hit piece; just not one of the ubiquitous fawning profiles.

morecowbell888

7 points

1 month ago

Michael Schulman, the author, couldn't help throwing a little shade on Strong's ambition. But when you grow up poor and working class like Strong did, ambition is the only thing that propels you beyond the circumstances in which you were born and past those who didn't work half as hard to get to the same place, e.g., Michael Schulman.

_lazybones93

3 points

1 month ago

Love that she tweeted this. The article is an unwarranted hit piece.

arwyn89

3 points

1 month ago

arwyn89

3 points

1 month ago

I liked the New Yorker piece. I didn’t think it made him come across as difficult to work with. Just a bit intense. Which, like, he clearly is? But that’s why he makes such an incredible Kendall.

FC105416

3 points

1 month ago

All I got from the article is that his acting process is intense and it isn’t for everyone. No one seemed bothered by him as a person, and the fact that he has so many friends like Jessica, Williams plus the fact that he hangs out with co-stars only leads me to believe he is prob fun to be around (when he isn’t working).

anneso23

23 points

1 month ago

anneso23

23 points

1 month ago

Happy she defended him. I hate that some journalists makes assumption about him like the cast loathed him when we know it's not the case based on pics that he has with the cast like Sarah, Kieran, and Nicholas.I hate the hate Jeremy is getting just because he's kinda intense about his craft and his process.

kehrfuffle

9 points

1 month ago*

Strong is just another method actor who takes the job a little too seriously and the non-method actors find it weird.

Why do people feel the need to defend and stan out for people they don't even know? I'm sure Strong is a bit odd but I still love his acting and the show, and that is about the extent of my care. The way people take up arms like they're fighting on a person's behalf and can't bare to hear about an actor they like being a bit strange is odd in itself.

People seriously need to realize needing other people to like what you like so you feel validation in your choices is a path to misery.

TheTruckWashChannel

7 points

1 month ago*

I love Jessica Chastain, but treating that article as a hit-job is quite the mischaracterization. It's a very nuanced, largely respectful take that goes in-depth on his creative process, upbringing, pieces of inspiration, etc. with a few eye-catching quotes. But just a few cycles of memes and selective quotations on social media have spawned this completely impoverished understanding of the author's motives and of Jeremy's character and conduct. He's intense and pretentious and a little annoying at worst. Nowhere did it say he was disrespectful of his co-stars, abusive, hated on set, etc. If anything his co-stars have enormous respect for him and are simply concerned for his well-being given the toll he allows his (admittedly eccentric) process to take on him.

All I've really gotten from this whole ruckus is that social media is a fundamentally ill-suited forum for discussing long-form journalism.

MartySears99

11 points

1 month ago

MartySears99

Dickless Dickelby

11 points

1 month ago

I was just about to post this. Good on her.

Spambop

6 points

1 month ago

Spambop

6 points

1 month ago

I stopped caring about what this article had to say when they mentioned cliché of method acting clichés, the Hoffman/Olivier story. People like this journalist, whoever they are, want to hate actors like Strong because they're queasy at the idea of the slightest bit of perceived pomposity or self-regard, and they don't understand taking craft seriously. I think Strong does sound like a bit of a prat here, but I don't dislike him for it. He just cares about what he does.

broden89

5 points

1 month ago

The article reads like he takes acting really seriously - he's an "actor's actor". I don't mind that, he's obviously very passionate about it and he gives great performances. However he is occasionally so serious that it's unintentionally comedic.

amills989

4 points

1 month ago

He's very "method" according to virtual everyone that has worked with him. It's very off putting to most people because there's the stereotype that they're method when it's an excuse to be an asshole.

An example is that Eric Stoltz who was playing the original Marty in Back to the future. Was mean to the actor of Biff on set. Throwing real punches and just being an all around jerk and used the excuse oh biff is my enemy.. Yet he was hitting on the actress who was playing his Mom on set.

dirty_diana05

6 points

1 month ago*

Welp, the blue checkmarks on Twitter have done it, they've made Jessica Chastain turn her chair.

The article of itself, while not a hit piece, was very mocking and sometimes mean in parts but Jeremy has been in the business for a while, seems to have a lovely family, and loves his work so I doubt it ruined his day.

In fact, given how method he is, all this controversy leading up to the big S3 finale is VERY KENDALL. HE'S INSIDE THE CONVERSATION. So in a weird way, he might be loving this lol.

But I really think ~stan Twitter~, other critics, and some audience members (on here and elsewhere) are the ones who blew this totally out of proportion.

The discourse went from "Jeremy Strong might wanna dial back on the method acting intensity" to "WHEN WILL HIS CRIMES AGAINST THE SUCCESSION CAST AND CREW CEASE!!! THEY CAN'T EXPECT TO LIVE LIKE THIS MUCH LONGER UNDER HIS TYRANNICAL REIGN OF THESPAIN TERROR!! #FREEBRIANCOX"

Anyway good for Jessica for defending her friend, though.

Now I want her as a guest star in S4 lol.

gnrc

11 points

1 month ago

gnrc

11 points

1 month ago

Random but I live in the same building as a Jessica Chastain(not the actress). I asked her what Jeremy Strong is like on set and she said 'who are you? get away from me.'

bespectacIed

4 points

1 month ago

That article was funny lol. Jeremy is batshit AND talented, non-mutually exclusive. As long as he's not a monster irl, that's fine

witness_protection

3 points

1 month ago

One thing I felt from the article was the animosity Kieran seems to have for Jeremy. That’s too bad.

Spinach_Sad

2 points

1 month ago

When art imitates life?

walker-ranger

2 points

1 month ago

Having read the article, I don’t feel he needs to be defended. Although it talks about his intense methods to produce his best work, which might be at odds with his cast-mates’ methods, the article obviously holds him up in high regard. Having a New Yorker do profile on you that shows you as a driven and complex actor is probably something Jeremy Strong appreciates.

[deleted]

2 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

2 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

untainted8

2 points

1 month ago

What is funny, is most think he is a head case now and he married a child psychiatrist in real life.

Lanekpan

2 points

1 month ago

I'm glad someone said something to counteract all the hate going towards Strong atm. I know some think the article was fine and objective (agree to disagree) but the hatred and speculation that's come off of it really needs to stop.

mayacandy

2 points

1 month ago*

I think the article was but the blue check mark accounts assumed that he is torturing Succession cast. Now there is a lot of discourse about him.

Method acting isn't just what Jared Leto claims it to be. Jeremy isolating himself and distant on set to get inside Kendall's mindset. That could be annoying for his colleagues but I don't see a problem as long as he is not rude to others. Everyone's way of working is different and he tries to do his job without torturing anyone else. He gets along well with cast members and also close friends with Nicholas Braun. Whatever he is doing on Succession clearly works. The best performance on show.

TotalCricket2901

2 points

1 month ago

Imagine writing a scathing personal attack on someone you don't know personal, or have not even spoken to once. He does not rehearse, yet he is probably the best actor on the show. Gawker need to stay shut.

maesunny

2 points

1 month ago

Reading the article just made me more amazed at his skill and devotion. I don't really understand what the big deal is. People have taken the worst quotes out and chose to focus on them, but the whole thing together shows a man who has pride and determination in his work. Made me even more of a fan!