Chloe Sevigny had a wonderful profile in Variety this week, all about the success of Feud: Capote vs. the Swans, and all of her new work and professional plans. I hesitate to say that this is Sevigny Renaissance because she’s always worked and she’s always done offbeat, indie projects, but it definitely feels like she’s in a new professional era, especially because of Feud. She was great on the show, playing a haughty CZ Guest, who actually maintained some kind of friendship with Truman Capote after the other swans denounced him. Chloe is working on another Ryan Murphy project right now, which is why she was in LA for the Oscars (she attended the VF party) and she had thoughts on all of the Oscar-nominated films. Some highlights from Variety:
Capote never betrayed Guest. “It was easier for her to stay loyal. Truman didn’t throw her under the bus.”
She loved Tom Hollander: “I was like, ‘He’s my new gay best friend,’ until I realized that he had a wife and kids. And I was like, ‘Oh no!’ I’d been pushing up against him. He must have been like, ‘She’s the biggest flirt I’ve ever encountered in my life.’”
Hollander on Sevigny: “I didn’t feel she was flirting with me. One of the wonderful things about ‘Feud’ was, because I was playing a gay man, the relationships with all the ladies in the cast benefited. There was none of the tension that there can be in the straight environment, where everyone is keen to define where they stand. Here I was essentially playing the gay best friend, so it created this relaxed environment where we were all having fun. [Chloe] comes across as a tough, straight-talking New Yorker. There’s a no-nonsense streetwise-ness to her. But then she breaks out with this laugh, and you realize there’s a goofiness to her that’s very appealing.”
Being an Oscar voter: “I’m too honest of a person. I’m only going to vote if I’ve seen everything in a category. I don’t want to just vote for my friends or something.”
When asked about her favorite films of the year: “I like certain aspects of certain things or certain performances, rather than loving anything overall,” she says carefully, before praising “Maestro,” particularly Carey Mulligan’s performance, and Mark Ruffalo’s work in “Poor Things.”
She’s mixed on “Oppenheimer.” “I kind of enjoyed it, but I also felt like it was just white guys doing bad stuff. I guess we’re gonna continue to mine that. As I was watching it, I kept wondering, ‘Am I stimulated by this or am I bored by this?’ I felt somewhere in the middle.” She pauses for a second before adding that she liked Josh Hartnett, the early-aughts heartthrob who plays one of the scientists in the film. “He’s so handsome and natural on the screen. He felt very real in that part, whereas some of the other performances were pushing a bit.”
How she really feels about LA: During a video interview with Elle last month, Sevigny sounded off on all the things she hates about L.A. — there’s too much driving, she hates the terrain and the vegetation, and finds “the sunshine monotonous.” But she insists that her response, which has sparked a whole thing, was more measured. “Despite what the internet might be saying right now, I’ve had a lot of fun in L.A.,” she says, name-checking the beaches and the art scene as highlights of the city. “In that video, right after I went on a rant listing all the things I disliked about L.A., I had a long list of stuff that I loved about it. Of course, they cut that out.”
This was shocking to me as well: “I was like, ‘He’s my new gay best friend,’ until I realized that he had a wife and kids.” Hollander is SO GOOD as Capote, and I could have sworn that he was a gay guy with his girlfriends. Hollander should take it as a compliment that he really absorbed Capote’s energy to the extent where Chloe Sevigny was “BESTIE!” As for her comments on Oppenheimer… I liked the movie, but she’s right and her criticism is valid. It’s a sausage party and yes, filmmakers are going to continue to “mine that” tortured-white-guy thing.
Photos courtesy of Cover Images.
-
- New York premiere of FX’s ‘Feud: Capote vs. The Swans’ season 2 at Museum of Modern Art Featuring: Chloe Sevigny Where: New York, New York, United States When: 23 Jan 2024 Credit: Janet Mayer/INSTARimages.com
-
- New York premiere of FX’s ‘Feud: Capote vs. The Swans’ season 2 at Museum of Modern Art Featuring: Chloe Sevigny Where: New York, New York, United States When: 23 Jan 2024 Credit: Janet Mayer/INSTARimages.com
-
- New York Premiere Of FX’s ‘Feud: Capote vs. The Swans’ at Museum of Modern Art Featuring: Diane Lane, Chloë Sevigny, Naomi Watts, Tom Hollander, Molly Ringwald, Demi Moore, Calista Flockhart Where: New York, New York, United States When: 23 Jan 2024 Credit: Barbara Hine/Future Image/Cover Images **NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN GERMANY**
-
- 96th Academy Awards Vanity Fair Party held at the Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts Featuring: Chloe Sevigny Where: Los Angeles, California, United States When: 10 Mar 2024 Credit: PA Images/INSTARimages **NORTH AMERICA RIGHTS ONLY**
-
- 96th Academy Awards Vanity Fair Party held at the Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts Featuring: Chloe Sevigny Where: Los Angeles, California, United States When: 10 Mar 2024 Credit: PA Images/INSTARimages **NORTH AMERICA RIGHTS ONLY**
I feel that way about all of Nolan’s movies. A bunch of white guys doing stuff. Women get thankless roles in his movies.
And here I thought I was the only one who thinks Nolan is a snooze. Both in his movies and personally.
I had to watch it in parts because I kept falling asleep. Especially when it turned into a senate hearing movie that I didn’t sign up for. Could’ve been a good hour shorter and been a better movie.
I’m going to say nice things today.
1. I love that red look on Chloe
2. I agree with her to a point. I enjoyed Oppenheimer as much as anyone can “enjoy” a movie about a weapon of mass destruction that has only made humanity more unstable. I think Nolan has made better, more creative films more deserving of a Best Picture Oscar. I read a NYT article talking about how for years now the Oscars have been about “dueness” and Nolan was due for his. Yes it was a sweeping biopic that was ingeniously cut with excellent acting and writing. But.
I think you need to put Oppenheimer in context. It is only “white guys doing bad stuff” and inventing a weapon of mass destruction “that has only made humanity more unstable” until you consider that at that particular moment the world was deeply enmeshed in the worst global conflict in human history. A conflict which resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of humans and the genocide of millions more. The priorities were different than she implies. The main focus was ending the destruction before it ended everyone. Forgetting the horrors of the early to mid twentieth century will lead us to further horrors in this one. End of history lecture. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’m well aware of the context. I saw the film in theaters and followed it immediately with Barbie. I definitely needed that pick me up!
People can understand the context, and have a passion for history (and I’m married to a WWII buff so I know way more than I ever wanted to), and still not love a movie.
@Brassy Rebel. Well said.
Of course, you can, Sass! My remarks were meant more for Sevigny than you. “Just white guys doing bad stuff” is pretty reductive I think. And I should add that if anyone thinks I’m excusing the use of the atom bombs on innocent civilians, I am not. That was a military decision. A horrific one. But the bomb was developed in the sure knowledge that Hitler was doing the same. Today we have all kinds of hindsight not available to the “white guys doing bad stuff”. And that context was entirely missing from Sevigny’s very snappy comment. The few WWII survivors still around would have been right to be deeply offended by that quote.
A great deal of the discussion justifying the usage of the bomb is up for debate. The bomb was initiated in the first place to try to outpace the Nazis developing one; as it became increasingly clear to US intelligence agents that the Nazis had fewer resources to develop one, the project still grew in expense and secrecy until utilizing it became the only justification in the mind of certain politicians, whether on Germany or not. Even in 1946 people were writing about this, not just recently. The idea that its use prevented casualties is also problematic. Let’s not forget that the effects of radiation still affect Japanese society today.
Even if this weren’t true, In this film the conflict of WW2 is concentrated into the ego and guilt issues of one man rather than being represented in full. And there were plenty of New Mexicans and indigenous people (and interned Japanese) who suffered from the project.
It’s possible to say that the conflict mentioned was complicated but that the precise message of this film was to highlight a personal struggles and existential journey of yes, a white man.
the conflict of WW2 was concentrated into the ego and guilt issues of one man….because that’s the point of the movie. That’s why its literally called Oppenheimer. It’s not called the Atomic Bomb, its not called World War II for everyone, its called Oppenheimer, and his life story is the focus.
Is the movie about white men doing bad things? Yes (well that simplifies it but yes, as a basic matter.) but those white men did those bad things, so the movie is showing that – and then leaves it to the audience to determine how bad those things actually were. For a movie that is about half black and white, its not black and white at all and I think that’s a large part of the point.
That said…..while I am a big fan of Oppenheimer….I would have liked to have seen Nolan win for Dunkirk or Inception over this one. Cillian Murphy and RDJ 100% deserved their Oscars, and Nolan did….but I do think it was a matter of “he’s due.”
…Yes, Becks, that’s what I’m saying. Concentrating it into his experience is the point of the film. It doesn’t necessarily indicate an inclusive telling of history to do things that way, it doesn’t examine the influences of the bomb on contemporaneous history and it’s not as compelling a story to me. That’s the crux of the white guy criticism.
I’m glad you liked it.
I really appreciate this perspective because I am perplexed and disappointed at the really reductive discourse that keeps surrounding Oppenheimer. I appreciate that the Barbenheimer phenomenon got people back into the theatre to see two excellent and really distinct films – I watched both and it was my first post-2020 visit to a cinema. It was great and I so enjoyed both experiences. But it’s almost like Barbenheimer created this totally false dichotomy that one was somehow anti-feminist. It also seem clear in a lot of the historical discourse that there is a massive prevalence of confusing what is and isn’t an endorsement vs an exploration vs an indictment of historical events. Like you say, the historical relevance of analyzing exactly these historical question is SO unbelievably timely. Are there far too many films being produced that center white men? Absolutely! Of course, always. But I’m sort of blown away that out of the hundreds of films made last year that centered men, most of which didn’t have any narrative value, were poorly written, poorly performed, and certainly didn’t result in the innovation of a host of new filming techniques – that somehow Oppenheimer of all films became the example people want to use for undeserved renown? It’s madness that Greta wasn’t nominated, of course it is, and I have no doubt that that IS very much the result of explicit sexism. But a film that very much also deserved to be nominated was Oppenheimer, and it being justly lauded isn’t why Barbie wasn’t.
Thank you Ponsby! I appreciate your comments personally, I did want to say I do think I would have replaced Nolan’s nomination with The Woman King, as it was very much snubbed!
What the atom bomb did is horrifying to me. But I’m still always gonna prefer we bested Hitler. The other way around would be no coming back from.
Good thing you can’t replace Nolan’s nomination with Gina Prince-Bythewood (she has a name btw) because their films would not have been eligible in the same year. And his nomination and win are well-deserved too.
I get the perspective about “Nolan’s dueness” but I also think there was another school of thought out there that this was Nolan’s most mature work to date as a filmmaker and it was deserving. It isn’t my favorite of his eithers, but I can accept that he won out of merit.
Chloe honestly just seems like a truly miserable person.
Wow, I feel the opposite. She’s delightful.
Forever The ITGirl in that best NYC arriving world.
CHIC is this.
This is exactly why I had and still have zero interest in seeing Oppenheimer. And the amount of awards it got was such a snooze-fest. Rich white men in Hollywood rewarding other rich white men in Hollywood for telling yet another story about white men doing terrible things. It’s so pedestrian and boring at this point.
A thousand times this!! I am not interested in reading or watching anything about a bunch of white dudes doing anything.
My reaction to all the Oppenheimer love was “at least it didn’t go to Killers of the Flower Moon“. The other big white guys doing bad stuff movie of 2023.
Killers of the Flower Moon at least centered indigenous people (if it did it well or not is up to you) and showcased Lily Gladstone. Nothing about Oppenheimer was inclusive or even fully described the damage the Manhattan Project did, either here or overseas.
It’s not a bad film but it is not Nolan’s best work. I knew they were going to give him a ton of awards to soothe his saltiness over Barbie though.
I’m happy for Cillian.
Those two films go hand in hand for me for centering evil white men. Killers of the Flower Moon was worse IMO because it did so at the expense of Indigenous people.
I’m fine being critical of Nolan’s work, but the whole “he was salty over Barbie” stuff is overblown. Even if he didn’t want to compete with it behind the scenes (many directors wouldn’t want to) he has publicly expressed support for Barbenheimer being good for theaters and the industry.
There are plenty of Osage people who did appreciate the film even if others expressed disappointment. I am not indigenous so I will not dictate how they should feel, but the presence of that discourse in the first place as well as launching Lily Gladstone’s career is still worlds away than Oppenheimer.
As far as Nolan being salty – yes, I appreciate his statements in support of theaters but they came after the constant headlines of his disapproval and his attempts to influence changing Barbie’s release date. Furthermore he was pretty ungracious during promo about it. He be a great filmmaker and still be immature (as is the case with most directors).
Directors don’t get awarded based on tenuous perceptions of saltiness from some internet commentators. One of the most vexing comments I’ve ever come across on how the industry works. And speaking of immature directors, prior to Barbie, I know crew members who worked on Lady Bird and Little Women and said a certain someone was rude to deal with.
They’re discussing history. That’s what it looked like. It’s important to know.
I love Truman Capote, but the only thing I’d really heard about this was it started Natalie Portman and Chloe Sevigny, two actresses I either really don’t care for or actively can’t stand to watch. But, Tom Hollander is wonderful and worth enduring Natalie and Chloe. And who knows? Maybe they’re playing characters I’ll enjoy not liking. If there are any other Tom Hollander fans out there, check out the show Rev. It also stars Olivia Colman who is absolute perfection to me.
Not sure what you’re referring to but Natalie Portman and Olivia Colman aren’t in Feud: Capote v the Swans
Naomi Watts is Babe Paley
Chloe Sevigny is CZ Guest
Calista Flockheart is Lee Radziwill
Diane Lane is Slim Keith
Molly Ringwald is Joanne Carson
Demi Moore is Ann Woodward
Natalie Portman isn’t in Feud. You may be thinking of another film
I agree with her, I was taken aback by how it was universally described as groundbreaking.
I dunno, I loved Oppenheimer. Yeah, it’s a movie with white men doing bad things but that’s not what it was about.
To me, it was a cautionary tale about hubris and responsibility. I’ve thought a lot about the scene where they test the bomb and Oppenheimer sees it explode. The awe of of “I didn’t realize the magnitude of this power” and the horror of “oh shit, what have I done?” is all over Oppenheimer’s face.
Yes, of course it was white men doing bad things, because they were factually white men who created this thing and then realised that they had done a bad thing. That was the topic. Regret. I’m sorry but sometimes she sounds really stupid to me.
And also the comment re Hollander. I know he didn’t feel she’d been flirting, but to say he was my new “gay best friend” and I’d been pushing up against him. Really? I think that sounds totally insulting – like gay friends are somehow play things for her, a different category that she can treat differently because they are gay and she’d gone and got herself a new one.Talk about dehumanising. And on a smaller scale, Capote was a white man who did bad things. Most of the swans felt utterly betrayed by the brutal parody and take down of his later writings. I hate it when people think they’re being oh so clever and perceptive but ignorant of their own projects, lives, and attitudes that are less than appropriate.
And just re the flirting and getting too close with Hollander. Think about what she’s saying. She is saying she thought it was ok to be over familiar with him because she thought he was gay. That is totally out of order. You can’t base how appropriate you are with people because of their sexuality. It was ok to be too flirty with him because he’s gay, but not because he’s straight. Wow. This is the workplace, this is a colleague, this is your interpretation of who is and who isn’t appropriate for behaviour that if a straight woman did to a straight man, or vice versa, would be considered questionable. Back off everyone, straight or gay, and respect the workplace.
I agree, sparrow. Am I supposed to differentiate Feud because it’s white people doing bad stuff? Husband and I watched five minutes of Feud only because we couldn’t turn it off faster. I don’t know much about Chloe, but her comments here, especially about Tom Hollander, don’t make me want to learn more.
I’m with you. Seems like the minority opinion around here, but I believe it fully deserved to win Best Picture.
I did too. Do I think it was nolan’s best? I said above that I think he should have won for Dunkirk, but I loved Oppenheimer. The book is called American Prometheus which I think fits. Oppenheimer created something (or “took” something) that had god-like power and then wrestled with the ramifications of that for the rest of his life.
I don’t understand the POV that a movie has to be all things about a topic. This doesn’t have to be the only movie ever made about the making of the atomic bomb. (and in fact it isn’t.)
I agree. I actually learned some things from this movie as well. I knew who he was, I had no idea what was done to him after the fact. I’m not sure why people think that movies, books, music, whatever, should fit into the big box for all. This is the story. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. I didn’t care that it was about white guys doing bad things. I cared to learn more about the story, no matter race or colour. It happened and if the world lately has taught us anything, people are dismissing the past because of bias.
Also, I agree with Becks1, Dunkirk should have been the one he won for. Also, white men doing bad things *shrug*.
I loved the movie and it was exactly what happened, Nolan clearly respects the history of the development of the A-Bomb. I just finished reading a biography called “The Ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Birth of the Modern Arm’s Race” and the information in the book exactly mirrors what’s in the movie. I know some people are complaining that it’s just a bunch of white men doing bad stuff but that simplifies what was a very complex and multi-faceted effort to wrest control of atomic technology from the Nazis who would have used it to turn the world into a global fascist dictatorship, annihilating billions of people.
I’d also recommend ‘A Man Called Intrepid’ by William Stephenson whose codename “Intrepid”, was coined by Winston Churchill. He was a Canadian who established and ran a huge, worldwide intelligence network to fight against Nazi Germany. The book, written by him in 1976, details the race to create the atom bomb and both these books clearly lay out how perilously close the world came to being annihilated and taken over by Hitler.
The truth is sometimes hard to swallow and I know Chloe and some commenters are griping about it being “all white men” but that’s exactly what it was. Once you get into the weeds and details of how dangerous WWII was with the arms race going full tilt and megalomaniac leaders all trying to develop nuclear armaments at the same, you’ll think differently and thank your lucky stars the world didn’t blow up.
I agree that the massive genre of films that include straight white men doing things or saying words is not for me anymore, it’s probably the majority of content I’ve consumed in my lifetime whether I want it that way or not. now I only make space for everything else and I dont care what I miss.
🎯
I’m confused by Capote/Swans. Didn’t this series come out in 2017? Why is everyone talking about it, now?
no it is recent. could you perhaps mean S1 of Feud which was about Bette Davis and Joan Crawford?
I think I’m reliving an event that happened in the future. So odd
Every time I turn it on to watch I swear I’ve seen it before. LOL.
I really like her but honestly that’s a superficial and pretty pedestrian criticism — so many of her biggest films could be described that way if you’re lazy: Zodiac, Dogville, American Pyscho, Brown Bunny….
I think Chloe is correct about Oppenheimer. I’ll add there were too many speaking roles for young, white, male scientists, they all blurred together. Josh Hartnett didn’t blur together and brought energy every time he was on screen.
I love her for many reasons…
She’s talented, and the interview where people thought she bashed the people of LA or whatever (who takes offense at bemoaning “slouchy beanies”) I thoroughly enjoyed.
She was funny, goofy, and down to earth (although as a former New Yorker that now lives in and loves Pittsburgh I might be somewhat biased).
I also felt somewhat disappointed in Oppenheimer. Interstellar is the movie that should’ve won Nolan all the awards (sci-fi is definitely his strength). I love a good movie with situational ethics and bad people doing things (don’t care if they’re white, black, etc) but it just didn’t hit it for me. I wouldn’t call her take reductive, more just her opinion on (what was to me) an underwhelming flick.
I was only mildly entertained by the movie. We stopped watching about an hour and a half into the thing because something came up. That was two weeks ago. Still haven’t bothered to go back to finish it.
Watching Oppenheimer at home and watching it in IMAX is almost literally watching two different movies. I definitely think where you watch it firsts impacts your impression of it.