WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.020 Welcome back to the Deep Dive. We're here again 00:00:02.020 --> 00:00:05.540 taking that monumental stack of sources and trying 00:00:05.540 --> 00:00:08.380 to boil them down into the key knowledge nuggets 00:00:08.380 --> 00:00:11.619 for you, our listener. Today, we are really immersing 00:00:11.619 --> 00:00:14.160 ourselves in the work of Kenneth Lonergan. If 00:00:14.160 --> 00:00:16.320 you want to understand, I mean really understand, 00:00:16.579 --> 00:00:21.420 the art of showing complex, messy, deeply human 00:00:21.420 --> 00:00:24.940 emotions on stage or screen, well, Lonergan is 00:00:24.940 --> 00:00:28.000 your guy. Absolutely. Lonergan, born 1962, New 00:00:28.000 --> 00:00:31.160 York City. He's not just a writer. He's, well, 00:00:31.300 --> 00:00:33.380 he's a whole career study in artistic synergy, 00:00:33.500 --> 00:00:36.240 isn't he? Yeah. He is the definition of a multi 00:00:36.240 --> 00:00:39.840 -hyphenate, a master storyteller known for exploring, 00:00:39.939 --> 00:00:42.619 and I think this phrase nails it, complex emotional 00:00:42.619 --> 00:00:45.520 and interpersonal dynamics. He does what's so 00:00:45.520 --> 00:00:47.700 hard, showing the gap between what people say 00:00:47.700 --> 00:00:49.719 and what they actually. you know feel underneath 00:00:49.719 --> 00:00:51.539 and it's clear right away from the sources we're 00:00:51.539 --> 00:00:53.299 dealing with someone who just refuses to be put 00:00:53.299 --> 00:00:55.380 in a box he's a playwright Pulitzer finalist 00:00:55.380 --> 00:00:57.479 level Oscar winning screenwriter and director 00:00:57.479 --> 00:01:00.159 and yeah sometimes an actor himself he really 00:01:00.159 --> 00:01:02.520 is the complete package and the awards kind of 00:01:02.520 --> 00:01:04.540 back that up that breath you've got an Academy 00:01:04.540 --> 00:01:08.099 Award a BAFTA for film but at the same time He's 00:01:08.099 --> 00:01:10.659 got nominations for three Tonys for his stage 00:01:10.659 --> 00:01:13.359 work, those revivals. It was a Pulitzer finalist 00:01:13.359 --> 00:01:15.599 for drama. I mean, when your career spans the 00:01:15.599 --> 00:01:19.620 Oscars, BAFTAs, Golden Globes, Tonys, you're 00:01:19.620 --> 00:01:21.659 not just doing a lot. You've mastered totally 00:01:21.659 --> 00:01:24.379 different ways of telling stories. So our mission 00:01:24.379 --> 00:01:27.700 today is to trace this really fascinating journey. 00:01:27.799 --> 00:01:30.120 It's sometimes bumpy, right? We'll start with 00:01:30.120 --> 00:01:32.579 those deep kind of gritty New York theater roots. 00:01:32.840 --> 00:01:35.099 We'll look at that signature style. You can often 00:01:35.099 --> 00:01:37.879 just hear it's his dialogue. And crucially, we 00:01:37.879 --> 00:01:41.680 can't skip over those legendary post -production 00:01:41.680 --> 00:01:43.700 battles, the ones that nearly swallowed some 00:01:43.700 --> 00:01:46.219 of his biggest film projects. It's a real roadmap 00:01:46.219 --> 00:01:49.409 from. Off -Broadway angst, you could say, to 00:01:49.409 --> 00:01:52.129 global recognition. Okay, so let's unpack the 00:01:52.129 --> 00:01:54.250 beginnings. Kenneth Lonergan is just fundamentally 00:01:54.250 --> 00:01:56.909 New York. Born in the Bronx, raised in an environment 00:01:56.909 --> 00:01:59.090 that almost seems, I don't know, perfectly engineered 00:01:59.090 --> 00:02:01.129 to produce a writer obsessed with psychological 00:02:01.129 --> 00:02:04.109 detail. It really does. It's that classic New 00:02:04.109 --> 00:02:06.390 York intellectual background, isn't it? Born 00:02:06.390 --> 00:02:09.129 to a psychiatrist mother and a physician father. 00:02:09.289 --> 00:02:11.710 His mother's Jewish, father of Irish descent. 00:02:11.849 --> 00:02:14.550 But the detail that really jumps out, and maybe 00:02:14.550 --> 00:02:16.889 we'll circle back to this, is his stepfather. 00:02:17.240 --> 00:02:20.020 Michael S. Porter, a Freudian psychoanalyst. 00:02:20.099 --> 00:02:25.020 Oh, yeah. That closeness to the sort of mechanics 00:02:25.020 --> 00:02:27.099 of the subconscious, the careful digging into 00:02:27.099 --> 00:02:29.900 trauma. It just feels like it's baked into the 00:02:29.900 --> 00:02:32.560 DNA. of everything he writes. You can almost 00:02:32.560 --> 00:02:34.580 feel that, can't you? That exposure to analysis, 00:02:34.719 --> 00:02:36.479 the idea that there's always something unsaid, 00:02:36.539 --> 00:02:39.639 maybe repressed, driving how people act. It echoes 00:02:39.639 --> 00:02:42.199 so strongly in his scripts. And his education 00:02:42.199 --> 00:02:44.599 kind of followed that artistic path early on, 00:02:44.599 --> 00:02:46.919 too. He went to the Walden School in Manhattan, 00:02:47.199 --> 00:02:50.379 which was known as a progressive private school, 00:02:50.479 --> 00:02:53.840 big on drama. And he started writing there as 00:02:53.840 --> 00:02:56.409 a student. And then he really followed the dedicated 00:02:56.409 --> 00:02:58.629 playwright route, trained seriously at Wesleyan 00:02:58.629 --> 00:03:00.710 University, focusing on playwriting and directing. 00:03:00.990 --> 00:03:03.629 Then on to the NYU playwriting program, which 00:03:03.629 --> 00:03:06.349 is pretty rigorous. So you combine those institutions 00:03:06.349 --> 00:03:09.530 with his time at HB Studio and being a founding 00:03:09.530 --> 00:03:12.169 member of the Naked Angels Theater Company. It 00:03:12.169 --> 00:03:15.569 really plants him firmly in that vital, independent 00:03:15.569 --> 00:03:19.090 New York theater scene of the 80s and 90s. But 00:03:19.090 --> 00:03:21.870 before the sort of high art reputation fully 00:03:21.870 --> 00:03:24.550 formed, there are these great, almost jarring 00:03:24.550 --> 00:03:28.270 early jobs. Like after NYU, he worked as a speechwriter 00:03:28.270 --> 00:03:30.110 for the Environmental Protection Agency. Probably 00:03:30.110 --> 00:03:32.949 EPA speechwriter. And then this is the curveball 00:03:32.949 --> 00:03:35.330 that maybe gives you insight into his discipline. 00:03:35.590 --> 00:03:39.169 He wrote industrial shows. That phrase, industrial 00:03:39.169 --> 00:03:42.539 shows, it's such a, well. surprising detail for 00:03:42.539 --> 00:03:44.939 someone who ends up being this major artist. 00:03:45.099 --> 00:03:46.879 Yeah. What exactly were those? Well, for listeners, 00:03:47.020 --> 00:03:48.939 maybe not familiar, they were essentially like 00:03:48.939 --> 00:03:52.479 long form corporate marketing films or internal 00:03:52.479 --> 00:03:54.419 training videos, sometimes described as, you 00:03:54.419 --> 00:03:56.840 know, extended commercials. He wrote scripts 00:03:56.840 --> 00:03:59.560 for clients like Weight Watchers. OK, I have 00:03:59.560 --> 00:04:01.979 to ask about that. How does writing, you know, 00:04:01.979 --> 00:04:04.319 technical scripts about dieting, probably with 00:04:04.319 --> 00:04:07.419 strict corporate notes and deadlines, how does 00:04:07.419 --> 00:04:10.020 that shape? the guy who writes these incredibly 00:04:10.020 --> 00:04:12.740 raw vulnerable dramas later it seems like the 00:04:12.740 --> 00:04:15.020 total opposite of art i actually think it serves 00:04:15.020 --> 00:04:17.939 him maybe profoundly that kind of commercial 00:04:17.939 --> 00:04:22.459 writing it demands extreme clarity rigid structure 00:04:22.459 --> 00:04:24.920 you have to hit specific points in a set time 00:04:24.920 --> 00:04:28.870 it's pure discipline It teaches you how to churn 00:04:28.870 --> 00:04:31.629 out compelling dialogue on a deadline, even if 00:04:31.629 --> 00:04:33.670 the subject matter is totally functional. It 00:04:33.670 --> 00:04:35.949 sharpens that technical engine, which maybe frees 00:04:35.949 --> 00:04:39.069 him up later to just focus on the emotional truth 00:04:39.069 --> 00:04:40.750 because he knows he can structure a scene effectively. 00:04:40.970 --> 00:04:43.949 It's that practical grind before the artistic 00:04:43.949 --> 00:04:45.970 freedom. That makes sense. And the first big 00:04:45.970 --> 00:04:48.110 artistic nod came pretty early on, didn't it? 00:04:48.170 --> 00:04:50.029 While he was still an undergraduate in 1982, 00:04:50.550 --> 00:04:52.810 his first one -act play, The Rennings Children, 00:04:53.089 --> 00:04:55.430 got picked for the Young Playwrights Inc. Festival. 00:04:55.649 --> 00:04:57.079 Yeah, which was cool. Co -founded by Stephen 00:04:57.079 --> 00:05:00.199 Sondheim. Wow. That's immediate high -level validation 00:05:00.199 --> 00:05:03.399 right there. Huge validation. And that potential 00:05:03.399 --> 00:05:06.660 really exploded in 1996 with This Is Our Youth. 00:05:06.800 --> 00:05:09.959 His first major theatrical hit premiered off 00:05:09.959 --> 00:05:12.699 -Broadway. The play is just this beautifully 00:05:12.699 --> 00:05:16.560 specific snapshot of three young adults, Dennis, 00:05:16.779 --> 00:05:20.899 Warren, Jessica, navigating their sort of deep 00:05:20.899 --> 00:05:23.579 -seated malaise and disillusionment in 1980s 00:05:23.579 --> 00:05:26.949 New York. The city itself feels like a character 00:05:26.949 --> 00:05:29.189 in their struggle, you know, trying to find who 00:05:29.189 --> 00:05:31.750 they are, often through really bad decisions 00:05:31.750 --> 00:05:33.949 involving stolen money and drugs. And what often 00:05:33.949 --> 00:05:35.649 gets overlooked about that original run is the 00:05:35.649 --> 00:05:37.769 cast it launched. Mark Ruffalo, who he'd work 00:05:37.769 --> 00:05:39.670 with again in You Can Count on Me. Yep, Ruffalo 00:05:39.670 --> 00:05:41.850 was in it, along with Josh Hamilton, serious 00:05:41.850 --> 00:05:44.009 acting talent right from the start. And the critics, 00:05:44.189 --> 00:05:46.389 they immediately picked up on Lonergan's biggest 00:05:46.389 --> 00:05:48.930 strength, the thing that lasts. His dialogue. 00:05:49.089 --> 00:05:52.189 Absolutely. Greg Evans at Variety noted the conversation 00:05:52.189 --> 00:05:54.970 was finely written and that Lonergan's ear is 00:05:54.970 --> 00:05:57.629 unfailing. And the key is the dialogue isn't 00:05:57.629 --> 00:06:00.009 polished. It's conversational, right? Full of 00:06:00.009 --> 00:06:01.750 interruptions, people talking over each other, 00:06:01.829 --> 00:06:04.509 non sequiturs, jokes that kind of fall flat and 00:06:04.509 --> 00:06:06.649 veer into something heavier. That ability to 00:06:06.649 --> 00:06:09.009 capture how people actually talk, especially 00:06:09.009 --> 00:06:12.069 when they're trying desperately to avoid talking 00:06:12.069 --> 00:06:14.730 about something painful. That's what defines 00:06:14.730 --> 00:06:18.629 his realism. So if this is our youth kind of 00:06:18.629 --> 00:06:21.329 established Lonegan's voice, that sound of young, 00:06:21.370 --> 00:06:23.870 maybe privileged New Yorkers wrestling with their 00:06:23.870 --> 00:06:26.769 own morality, his next big one, the Waverly Gallery 00:06:26.769 --> 00:06:30.629 in 2000, really cemented his focus. The complexity 00:06:30.629 --> 00:06:33.209 of family dynamics across generations and the 00:06:33.209 --> 00:06:35.730 tragedy of memory loss. This one's seen as his 00:06:35.730 --> 00:06:38.209 definitive stage breakthrough, right? And it's 00:06:38.209 --> 00:06:40.689 deeply personal, based on his own grandmother's 00:06:40.689 --> 00:06:43.329 art gallery in Greenwich Village. Exactly. The 00:06:43.329 --> 00:06:45.170 whole story revolves around a family trying to 00:06:45.170 --> 00:06:47.370 cope with a matriarch, Gladys, who's in those 00:06:47.370 --> 00:06:49.930 heartbreaking early stages of dementia. It's 00:06:49.930 --> 00:06:52.490 just a profoundly intimate look at decline. It 00:06:52.490 --> 00:06:54.310 sounds incredibly difficult to watch, but also 00:06:54.310 --> 00:06:56.829 necessary. What makes it so powerful, I think, 00:06:56.829 --> 00:06:59.709 is that it refuses easy sentimentality. The family 00:06:59.709 --> 00:07:01.550 members, the daughter, the grandson who narrates 00:07:01.550 --> 00:07:04.350 there. frustrated they're loving sure but they're 00:07:04.350 --> 00:07:07.350 also deeply imperfect in how they handle gladys's 00:07:07.350 --> 00:07:09.670 deterioration they're not saints not at all and 00:07:09.670 --> 00:07:12.089 gladys isn't just a victim either she's still 00:07:12.089 --> 00:07:16.709 vibrant demanding but also you know slowly vanishing 00:07:16.709 --> 00:07:19.529 it's complex it must demand incredible realism 00:07:19.529 --> 00:07:22.350 that verisimilitude in both the writing and the 00:07:22.350 --> 00:07:24.430 acting which is what the critics highlighted 00:07:24.430 --> 00:07:26.250 wasn't it charles ishwood said something like 00:07:26.250 --> 00:07:28.310 anyone who's lived through this awful process 00:07:28.310 --> 00:07:32.199 with a relative would be Awed by the verisimilitude. 00:07:32.300 --> 00:07:34.560 Of both Eileen Heckart's acting and Lonergan's 00:07:34.560 --> 00:07:37.819 writing. Yeah. It's that raw, painful honesty. 00:07:38.439 --> 00:07:40.620 Capturing the moment -to -moment reality of this 00:07:40.620 --> 00:07:42.879 kind of mundane tragedy, that's what pulls you 00:07:42.879 --> 00:07:45.339 in. And the ultimate proof of its depth. It was 00:07:45.339 --> 00:07:47.439 selected as a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize 00:07:47.439 --> 00:07:50.139 for Drama. Right. Reaching that level, pollist 00:07:50.139 --> 00:07:51.939 or finalist, it signals that this isn't just 00:07:51.939 --> 00:07:54.259 a successful off -Broadway show. It's considered, 00:07:54.300 --> 00:07:56.259 you know, a lasting piece of American literature 00:07:56.259 --> 00:07:59.240 about fundamental human experiences. And he kept 00:07:59.240 --> 00:08:01.120 going. He followed up pretty quickly with Lobby 00:08:01.120 --> 00:08:03.759 Hero in 2001, which premiered at Playwrights 00:08:03.759 --> 00:08:06.579 Horizons. This one shifts focus a bit, doesn't 00:08:06.579 --> 00:08:10.579 it? From family intimacy to ethical dilemmas 00:08:10.579 --> 00:08:13.379 in a really confined space, a New York City apartment 00:08:13.379 --> 00:08:15.829 lobby. Lobby Hero is fascinating. It's just a 00:08:15.829 --> 00:08:18.790 brilliant study in moral ambiguity, played out 00:08:18.790 --> 00:08:21.930 almost entirely through conversation. The main 00:08:21.930 --> 00:08:24.670 guy, Jeff, he's a security guard, the lobby hero, 00:08:24.790 --> 00:08:27.269 but he's totally directionless. Okay. Then he 00:08:27.269 --> 00:08:29.769 finds out about some shady stuff involving his 00:08:29.769 --> 00:08:32.929 boss, the head security guy, and a rookie cop. 00:08:33.230 --> 00:08:36.049 And suddenly he's stuck with this complex choice. 00:08:36.549 --> 00:08:39.070 Protect himself or do the right thing. So it's 00:08:39.070 --> 00:08:41.559 less about... big dramatic action and more about 00:08:41.559 --> 00:08:44.379 that internal struggle, that paralysis of conscience. 00:08:44.700 --> 00:08:47.360 Does he act or does he just watch and rationalize? 00:08:47.360 --> 00:08:49.299 Exactly. The action is almost all internal. It 00:08:49.299 --> 00:08:51.919 comes out through layers of dialogue, evasive, 00:08:51.919 --> 00:08:54.700 nervous, self -justifying talk. Lonergan uses 00:08:54.700 --> 00:08:57.120 that cramped lobby space to force these characters 00:08:57.120 --> 00:08:59.399 into conversations they can't avoid, trapping 00:08:59.399 --> 00:09:01.620 them in their own moral knots. Makes sense. And 00:09:01.620 --> 00:09:03.340 he wrote other plays later, too, The Starry Messenger 00:09:03.340 --> 00:09:06.490 in 2009. Hold on to me, darling. Yeah, hold on 00:09:06.490 --> 00:09:08.190 to me, darling. It was 2016, starred Timothy 00:09:08.190 --> 00:09:10.649 Olyphant originally. But here's maybe the most 00:09:10.649 --> 00:09:13.769 impressive thing. The real testament to Lonergan's 00:09:13.769 --> 00:09:17.470 lasting power, something very few modern playwrights 00:09:17.470 --> 00:09:20.149 really achieve. The Broadway revival phenomenon. 00:09:20.470 --> 00:09:22.929 His plays just keep coming back, not as museum 00:09:22.929 --> 00:09:26.190 pieces, but as living, breathing drama. The frequency 00:09:26.190 --> 00:09:29.529 and the success of those revivals says so much 00:09:29.529 --> 00:09:32.649 about... the structural integrity and the just 00:09:32.649 --> 00:09:35.570 timelessness of his dialogue. This is our youth 00:09:35.570 --> 00:09:38.129 got its big Broadway revival in 2014. Right. 00:09:38.250 --> 00:09:40.649 Earned a Tony nom for best revival. That's almost 00:09:40.649 --> 00:09:43.049 20 years after its premiere. And the theme still 00:09:43.049 --> 00:09:46.009 hit hard. And the cast they pull for these revivals, 00:09:46.090 --> 00:09:49.009 often a huge star is eager to sink their teeth 00:09:49.009 --> 00:09:51.750 into his language. Lobby Hero came back in 2018, 00:09:52.009 --> 00:09:54.049 another Tony nomination for a revival, and it 00:09:54.049 --> 00:09:55.970 was a massive showcase for actors like Chris 00:09:55.970 --> 00:09:57.970 Evans. Captain America himself. Yeah, and Brian 00:09:57.970 --> 00:10:00.330 Tyree Henry. Both got Tony nominations for their 00:10:00.330 --> 00:10:02.429 performances. It suggests the writing itself 00:10:02.429 --> 00:10:04.570 is such a solid, detailed foundation that it 00:10:04.570 --> 00:10:06.230 just elevates whoever steps into those roles. 00:10:06.309 --> 00:10:08.769 It speaks volumes, absolutely. And then the Waverly 00:10:08.769 --> 00:10:11.980 Gallery revival in 2018. Broadway again, starring 00:10:11.980 --> 00:10:14.620 Lucas Hedges, Joan Allen, and the legend Elaine 00:10:14.620 --> 00:10:18.639 May as Gladys. Wow. That production got another 00:10:18.639 --> 00:10:21.259 Tony nomination for Best Revival. And Elaine 00:10:21.259 --> 00:10:23.700 May actually won the Tony for Best Actress in 00:10:23.700 --> 00:10:26.320 a Play, her first competitive Tony. For a play 00:10:26.320 --> 00:10:29.220 written back in 2000, that just validates the 00:10:29.220 --> 00:10:31.120 script's enduring emotional core, doesn't it? 00:10:31.200 --> 00:10:33.720 Totally. It proves the material doesn't really 00:10:33.720 --> 00:10:37.639 date. And just recently, 2024, another high -profile 00:10:37.639 --> 00:10:40.490 revival. off -Broadway this time, of Hold On 00:10:40.490 --> 00:10:42.710 To Me Darling, starring Adam Driver. Adam Driver. 00:10:42.950 --> 00:10:45.429 Okay. It seems like Lonergan's plays have become 00:10:45.429 --> 00:10:48.230 sort of modern classics, like Shakespeare or 00:10:48.230 --> 00:10:50.289 Chekhov, maybe stuff actors just want to keep 00:10:50.289 --> 00:10:52.809 returning to for that deep character work. Yeah, 00:10:52.850 --> 00:10:55.330 absolutely. But even with this deep stage commitment, 00:10:55.570 --> 00:10:57.870 Lonergan made this remarkably smooth and flexible 00:10:57.870 --> 00:11:01.190 crossover into Hollywood. initially as a screenwriter 00:11:01.190 --> 00:11:04.389 for hire, showing this almost shocking ability 00:11:04.389 --> 00:11:07.110 to handle wildly different genres. This is where 00:11:07.110 --> 00:11:08.929 you really see that contrast, right? The Pulitzer 00:11:08.929 --> 00:11:11.289 finalist playwright versus the working Hollywood 00:11:11.289 --> 00:11:14.230 pro. He wrote the script for the huge hit comedy 00:11:14.230 --> 00:11:17.529 Analyze This in 1999, De Niro, Billy Crystal, 00:11:17.690 --> 00:11:20.570 that needs sharp commercial dialogue, a specific 00:11:20.570 --> 00:11:23.250 kind of genre timing. Totally different muscle. 00:11:23.509 --> 00:11:27.250 And then the very next year, 2000. He's a co 00:11:27.250 --> 00:11:29.629 -writer on the live -action family comedy The 00:11:29.629 --> 00:11:31.710 Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle. Rocky and 00:11:31.710 --> 00:11:33.929 Bullwinkle. Yeah. I mean, the distance between 00:11:33.929 --> 00:11:37.230 the existential dread of the Waverly Gallery 00:11:37.230 --> 00:11:40.350 and the goofy metahumor of Rocky and Bullwinkle. 00:11:41.000 --> 00:11:43.500 It's kind of staggering. I find that transition 00:11:43.500 --> 00:11:45.279 fascinating, though. It kind of confirms what 00:11:45.279 --> 00:11:47.200 you said earlier about the industrial show's 00:11:47.200 --> 00:11:50.360 discipline paying off. He could just deploy his 00:11:50.360 --> 00:11:53.259 writing skills effectively, efficiently across 00:11:53.259 --> 00:11:55.840 whatever the industry threw at him, proving he 00:11:55.840 --> 00:11:58.779 wasn't just like a new artie dramatist. Exactly. 00:11:58.779 --> 00:12:01.340 He had the commercial chops. Yeah. But the real 00:12:01.340 --> 00:12:03.899 shift, the moment he truly brought his two worlds 00:12:03.899 --> 00:12:06.820 together, was his directorial debut. You can 00:12:06.820 --> 00:12:09.139 count on me in 2000. Right. He directed his own 00:12:09.139 --> 00:12:12.210 script. And he brought back two key people from 00:12:12.210 --> 00:12:14.629 his theater world, Laura Linnea and Mark Ruffalo. 00:12:15.100 --> 00:12:18.139 Playing these deeply flawed siblings grappling 00:12:18.139 --> 00:12:21.000 with life after their parents died. And the film 00:12:21.000 --> 00:12:23.620 was a massive critical success right off the 00:12:23.620 --> 00:12:26.620 bat. Huge. Earned Lonergan his first Oscar nomination, 00:12:26.960 --> 00:12:29.659 best original screenplay. And the sources just 00:12:29.659 --> 00:12:32.080 list this incredible sweep it made on the indie 00:12:32.080 --> 00:12:35.620 circuit. Independent Spirit, L .A. Film Critics, 00:12:35.759 --> 00:12:38.159 National Society of Film Critics, New York Film 00:12:38.159 --> 00:12:41.559 Critics, Sundance, Toronto, Writers Guild. They 00:12:41.559 --> 00:12:43.779 all recognize the originality, the emotional 00:12:43.779 --> 00:12:46.049 honesty of. that script. And it was also really 00:12:46.049 --> 00:12:49.269 key here is the immediate buy in from established 00:12:49.269 --> 00:12:52.309 masters. Martin Scorsese was the executive producer 00:12:52.309 --> 00:12:55.509 on You Can Count on Me. Scorsese. Wow. That connection 00:12:55.509 --> 00:12:59.090 is significant because Scorsese, he values complex 00:12:59.090 --> 00:13:01.889 character driven stories, even within big genre 00:13:01.889 --> 00:13:04.269 movies. And that partnership led straight into 00:13:04.269 --> 00:13:06.789 one of the biggest historical epics of that decade, 00:13:06.870 --> 00:13:09.769 didn't it? Lonergan co -wrote Scorsese's Gangs 00:13:09.769 --> 00:13:12.519 of New York in 2002. Yep. And that got Lonergan 00:13:12.519 --> 00:13:14.899 his second Oscar nomination for Best Original 00:13:14.899 --> 00:13:17.120 Screenplay. So it raised this interesting question 00:13:17.120 --> 00:13:20.080 then. What exactly did Lonergan bring to a huge, 00:13:20.080 --> 00:13:22.360 sprawling, historically dense film like Gains 00:13:22.360 --> 00:13:24.139 of New York, a script that had like multiple 00:13:24.139 --> 00:13:27.059 writers involved? Give it his skills. The general 00:13:27.059 --> 00:13:29.620 thinking is he was brought in to ground the massive 00:13:29.620 --> 00:13:32.620 scale with those small human moments, to make 00:13:32.620 --> 00:13:34.799 the dialogue of the ordinary people, folks in 00:13:34.799 --> 00:13:37.639 the Five Points, feel authentic, real and, you 00:13:37.639 --> 00:13:40.519 know, dramatically efficient. Blending his theatrical 00:13:40.519 --> 00:13:43.399 realism into that epic scope. Okay, so if the 00:13:43.399 --> 00:13:46.320 first film, you can count on me, made Lonergan 00:13:46.320 --> 00:13:49.799 a critical darling, his next directing project 00:13:49.799 --> 00:13:52.740 became legendary, but not really for its brilliance 00:13:52.740 --> 00:13:56.659 initially, but for that devastating five -year 00:13:56.659 --> 00:13:58.700 legal and artistic battle that almost killed 00:13:58.700 --> 00:14:01.620 it. The whole saga of Margaret. Oh, Margaret. 00:14:01.720 --> 00:14:03.820 This is maybe the defining conflict of his career, 00:14:03.899 --> 00:14:06.820 isn't it? The ultimate clash between the artist, 00:14:06.960 --> 00:14:08.799 especially maybe a theater artist used to total 00:14:08.799 --> 00:14:11.519 control, and the commercial realities of Hollywood. 00:14:11.740 --> 00:14:13.960 Margaret. Psychological drama. Stars Anna Paquin, 00:14:14.059 --> 00:14:15.919 Matt Damon, Matthew Broderick. It was filmed 00:14:15.919 --> 00:14:19.399 way back in 2005. but didn't come out until 2011, 00:14:19.679 --> 00:14:21.960 a six -year gap between filming and release. 00:14:22.259 --> 00:14:24.340 That's almost unheard of for a finished movie. 00:14:24.500 --> 00:14:26.860 We need to unpack what exactly caused that massive 00:14:26.860 --> 00:14:30.340 delay. It was pure post -production hell, driven 00:14:30.340 --> 00:14:33.000 by this intractable fight over the running time. 00:14:33.539 --> 00:14:35.879 Lonegan submitted a cut. The reports say it was 00:14:35.879 --> 00:14:38.460 around three hours long. The producers focused 00:14:38.460 --> 00:14:40.279 on commercial viability, wanted something much 00:14:40.279 --> 00:14:42.519 shorter, closer to two and a half hours, 150 00:14:42.519 --> 00:14:45.019 minutes. They argued the three -hour version 00:14:45.019 --> 00:14:48.080 was just... unmarketable so the fight was literally 00:14:48.080 --> 00:14:51.740 about like 30 minutes two and a half hours versus 00:14:51.740 --> 00:14:54.379 three why couldn't they just compromise because 00:14:54.379 --> 00:14:58.440 for lonergan his style needs that time It relies 00:14:58.440 --> 00:15:01.659 on letting awkward moments linger, letting characters 00:15:01.659 --> 00:15:03.759 stumble towards realizing something emotionally, 00:15:03.980 --> 00:15:06.779 including dialogue that might seem extra, but 00:15:06.779 --> 00:15:09.279 actually builds the messy texture of real life. 00:15:09.419 --> 00:15:11.360 Right. Cutting 30 minutes wasn't just trimming 00:15:11.360 --> 00:15:14.039 fat for him. It was sacrificing the core realism 00:15:14.039 --> 00:15:16.600 he felt was essential. So this led to multiple 00:15:16.600 --> 00:15:18.759 lawsuits, several different editors being brought 00:15:18.759 --> 00:15:20.980 in, none of whom could create a cut that satisfied 00:15:20.980 --> 00:15:23.000 everyone. That must have been just creatively 00:15:23.000 --> 00:15:25.460 crushing. The sources paint it as a real battle 00:15:25.460 --> 00:15:27.710 of wills, forcing the artist into... courtrooms 00:15:27.710 --> 00:15:31.029 to defend aesthetic choices. It perfectly illustrates 00:15:31.029 --> 00:15:34.309 that friction. Lonergan's deeply empathetic, 00:15:34.309 --> 00:15:37.190 complex vision, smashing up against the studio 00:15:37.190 --> 00:15:39.509 system's need for efficiency, for broad appeal. 00:15:39.710 --> 00:15:42.230 He wasn't just fighting for scenes, he was fighting 00:15:42.230 --> 00:15:45.129 for the pacing, the emotional weight that defines 00:15:45.129 --> 00:15:47.610 his whole approach. But what's so fascinating 00:15:47.610 --> 00:15:50.250 is how it ended up. The critical vindication 00:15:50.250 --> 00:15:53.259 eventually. Despite the messy rollout, the film 00:15:53.259 --> 00:15:55.600 got barely any marketing, often played in really 00:15:55.600 --> 00:15:58.379 limited release in that shorter cut. It developed 00:15:58.379 --> 00:16:00.759 this legendary cult status among critics and 00:16:00.759 --> 00:16:04.139 film fans who actively sought out the longer 00:16:04.139 --> 00:16:06.779 preferred director's cut. Absolutely. The film 00:16:06.779 --> 00:16:09.340 got reappraised by major critics who basically 00:16:09.340 --> 00:16:11.740 argued that the complexity Lonergan fought for 00:16:11.740 --> 00:16:14.149 was the film's strength. And its importance really 00:16:14.149 --> 00:16:16.690 got cemented when Margaret ranked 31st in that 00:16:16.690 --> 00:16:20.070 big BBC poll in 2016 of the greatest films of 00:16:20.070 --> 00:16:22.809 the 21st century so far. That is just a staggering 00:16:22.809 --> 00:16:24.970 turnaround for a film that was shelved for six 00:16:24.970 --> 00:16:27.029 years, almost destroyed by its own production. 00:16:27.210 --> 00:16:29.610 It proves that Lonerbin's relentless commitment 00:16:29.610 --> 00:16:32.009 to his vision, even if it cost him career momentum 00:16:32.009 --> 00:16:34.909 at the time, was ultimately recognized as vital 00:16:34.909 --> 00:16:37.750 by serious film thinkers. So following that whole 00:16:37.750 --> 00:16:40.809 protracted trauma of Margaret. Lonergan comes 00:16:40.809 --> 00:16:44.690 back in 2016 to write and direct what many people 00:16:44.690 --> 00:16:47.789 consider his, well, flawless cinematic masterpiece, 00:16:48.309 --> 00:16:51.590 Manchester by the Sea. This film was huge. It 00:16:51.590 --> 00:16:54.289 really felt like a cultural moment. Starred Casey 00:16:54.289 --> 00:16:58.250 Affleck, Lucas Hedges, Michelle Williams. Focusing 00:16:58.250 --> 00:17:01.600 on this man just haunted by past tragedy. forced 00:17:01.600 --> 00:17:04.000 back to his hometown to deal with his brother's 00:17:04.000 --> 00:17:06.660 death and becoming guardian to his nephew. The 00:17:06.660 --> 00:17:09.019 whole setup just felt tailor -made for Lonergan's 00:17:09.019 --> 00:17:11.619 gift for showing people stuck, emotionally paralyzed. 00:17:11.700 --> 00:17:13.680 And the critical reception was just overwhelming. 00:17:14.319 --> 00:17:16.819 mostly because Lonergan delivered this unflinching 00:17:16.819 --> 00:17:19.220 but still deeply compassionate portrait of grief. 00:17:19.500 --> 00:17:21.660 David Fier at Rolling Stone nailed it. I think 00:17:21.660 --> 00:17:24.319 praising the film for proving Lonergan is practically 00:17:24.319 --> 00:17:26.720 peerless in portraying loss as a living, breathing 00:17:26.720 --> 00:17:29.019 thing without resorting to the vocabulary of 00:17:29.019 --> 00:17:31.299 grief porn. That phrase, avoiding grief porn, 00:17:31.359 --> 00:17:33.319 that feels really key to understanding Lonergan. 00:17:33.380 --> 00:17:35.220 How does he do that? How does he achieve that 00:17:35.220 --> 00:17:37.339 balance, avoiding sensationalizing the pain? 00:17:37.619 --> 00:17:40.039 Mostly, I think. through dialogue and unexpected 00:17:40.039 --> 00:17:43.519 humor. In Lonergan's world, tragedy is almost 00:17:43.519 --> 00:17:47.000 always undercut by the mundane, awkward reality 00:17:47.000 --> 00:17:49.559 that life just keeps going. Right. You see it 00:17:49.559 --> 00:17:52.579 in Manchester by the sea. Scenes with huge emotional 00:17:52.579 --> 00:17:54.900 tension are often broken up by characters trying 00:17:54.900 --> 00:17:57.420 to deal with, like car trouble or scheduling 00:17:57.420 --> 00:17:59.460 problems or just awkwardly trying to make small 00:17:59.460 --> 00:18:02.279 talk. The humor comes from their failed attempts 00:18:02.279 --> 00:18:05.160 to be polite or functional while their insides 00:18:05.160 --> 00:18:07.839 are collapsing. Yeah. That deflection, that's 00:18:07.839 --> 00:18:10.279 how real people cope, isn't it? Rather than launching 00:18:10.279 --> 00:18:13.660 into big, dramatic, perfectly scripted breakdowns. 00:18:13.680 --> 00:18:16.180 So the main character's paralysis, Lee Chandler, 00:18:16.259 --> 00:18:19.180 played by Affleck. It's not about loud, dramatic 00:18:19.180 --> 00:18:21.579 suffering. It's the quiet, constant inability 00:18:21.579 --> 00:18:24.940 to just exist normally. The trauma has made him 00:18:24.940 --> 00:18:27.339 basically incapable of being social. Precisely. 00:18:27.339 --> 00:18:29.579 And in classic Lonergan style, he even popped 00:18:29.579 --> 00:18:32.420 up in his own film. A tiny role listed as just 00:18:32.420 --> 00:18:34.859 a Manchester pedestrian. Oh, really? Yeah. He 00:18:34.859 --> 00:18:36.859 stays involved in his own universe, even in these 00:18:36.859 --> 00:18:39.690 tiny ways. And this film, Manchester, it really 00:18:39.690 --> 00:18:42.009 represented the peak, didn't it? Where his commercial 00:18:42.009 --> 00:18:44.690 success and critical acclaim totally aligned. 00:18:44.930 --> 00:18:47.549 It led to that huge awards hall that just cemented 00:18:47.549 --> 00:18:50.009 his place in film history. Oh, absolutely. Manchester 00:18:50.009 --> 00:18:53.529 by the Sea was recognized everywhere. Lonergan 00:18:53.529 --> 00:18:56.210 won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, his 00:18:56.210 --> 00:18:58.049 third nomination in that category, finally the 00:18:58.049 --> 00:19:01.170 win. And he won the BAFTA for Best Original Screenplay, 00:19:01.230 --> 00:19:04.450 too. Plus, he was deservedly nominated for the 00:19:04.450 --> 00:19:06.910 Oscar for Best Director. This film wasn't just 00:19:06.910 --> 00:19:09.269 about affirming his writing. It recognized him 00:19:09.269 --> 00:19:12.150 as a top -tier director, capable of getting career 00:19:12.150 --> 00:19:14.769 -best performances and handling incredibly sensitive 00:19:14.769 --> 00:19:17.650 material with total mastery. The sheer number 00:19:17.650 --> 00:19:19.789 of critics groups awards he won, Dallas -Fort 00:19:19.789 --> 00:19:21.950 Worth, National Society of Film Critics, you 00:19:21.950 --> 00:19:24.190 name it, just shows how widespread that recognition 00:19:24.190 --> 00:19:27.190 was. And since that Oscar win, Lonergan's continued 00:19:27.190 --> 00:19:29.509 to kind of expand his range, hasn't he? Showing 00:19:29.509 --> 00:19:31.470 flexibility, not just writing original stuff, 00:19:31.609 --> 00:19:33.690 but also tackling adaptation, which is a whole 00:19:33.690 --> 00:19:35.509 different skill set. And keeping up his acting 00:19:35.509 --> 00:19:38.230 career, too. Yeah, his adaptation of E .M. Forster's 00:19:38.230 --> 00:19:40.930 Howard's End in 2017 is really interesting. He 00:19:40.930 --> 00:19:44.089 adapted this classic 1910 novel into a four -part 00:19:44.089 --> 00:19:46.730 miniseries for BBC Stars with Hayley Atwell. 00:19:47.490 --> 00:19:49.690 Adapting a period piece like that with all its 00:19:49.690 --> 00:19:52.670 heavy social commentary, it presents huge creative 00:19:52.670 --> 00:19:55.500 challenges. For sure. The difficulty with adapting 00:19:55.500 --> 00:19:58.480 a novel from 1910 is that the social rules, the 00:19:58.480 --> 00:20:01.299 subtle politics, they can feel really alien to 00:20:01.299 --> 00:20:03.900 a modern audience. Or worse, just seem outdated 00:20:03.900 --> 00:20:07.180 or problematic. How did Lonergan navigate that? 00:20:07.630 --> 00:20:09.890 He actually talked about it directly. He emphasized 00:20:09.890 --> 00:20:12.269 sticking to the authenticity of the source rather 00:20:12.269 --> 00:20:15.089 than trying to revise it for modern tastes. He 00:20:15.089 --> 00:20:17.230 said, and I'm paraphrasing slightly, something 00:20:17.230 --> 00:20:19.450 like, you don't want to be apologizing for a 00:20:19.450 --> 00:20:21.410 book written in 1910, but you also don't want 00:20:21.410 --> 00:20:23.170 to write stuff just to tell the audience you 00:20:23.170 --> 00:20:25.289 disagree with these old views. That quote sums 00:20:25.289 --> 00:20:27.329 up his whole approach perfectly, doesn't it? 00:20:27.369 --> 00:20:30.089 Respect the context. Whether he's writing about 00:20:30.089 --> 00:20:33.150 80s slackers, contemporary grieving dads, or 00:20:33.150 --> 00:20:35.430 a Doherty in England, the goal is always that 00:20:35.430 --> 00:20:37.579 verisimilitude showing the... characters as they 00:20:37.579 --> 00:20:40.460 really were or are without imposing some external 00:20:40.460 --> 00:20:43.299 modern judgment on them. Exactly. And we also 00:20:43.299 --> 00:20:45.579 see Lonergan still popping up in supporting acting 00:20:45.579 --> 00:20:47.980 roles, often collaborating with other directors 00:20:47.980 --> 00:20:50.960 known for sharp dialogue. Yeah. In 2022, he played 00:20:50.960 --> 00:20:53.779 Dr. Hookstratten in Noah Baumbach's White Noise. 00:20:53.920 --> 00:20:56.059 Oh, yeah, I remember that. Kind of an intellectual 00:20:56.059 --> 00:20:58.579 eccentric type. And more recently, he was Herbert 00:20:58.579 --> 00:21:01.079 Greenleaf in that amazing Netflix series Ripley 00:21:01.079 --> 00:21:04.750 in 2024. Even when he's just acting, he tends 00:21:04.750 --> 00:21:07.730 to play these roles with a kind of intellectual 00:21:07.730 --> 00:21:10.990 weight or maybe quirky, slightly off -kilter 00:21:10.990 --> 00:21:14.009 characters. It fits the Lonergan persona somehow. 00:21:14.289 --> 00:21:16.349 It does. And circling back to his directing reputation, 00:21:16.890 --> 00:21:19.190 Justin Chang of Variety noted that Lonergan is 00:21:19.190 --> 00:21:22.069 always a superb director of actresses, specifically 00:21:22.069 --> 00:21:24.589 pointing out how he gives the women in his ensemble 00:21:24.589 --> 00:21:27.009 their due in Manchester. And we definitely saw 00:21:27.009 --> 00:21:29.650 that with Elaine May's Tony win for Waverly Gallery. 00:21:29.950 --> 00:21:32.079 His skill with actors, especially actors, It 00:21:32.079 --> 00:21:33.940 really flows from the strength of the roles he 00:21:33.940 --> 00:21:36.599 writes. The characters are just so richly drawn, 00:21:36.700 --> 00:21:39.440 so emotionally resonant on the page that they 00:21:39.440 --> 00:21:41.420 become these powerful vehicles for performance. 00:21:41.720 --> 00:21:44.519 And finally, his status as a serious cultural 00:21:44.519 --> 00:21:46.779 figure. It's been recognized outside showbiz, 00:21:46.779 --> 00:21:50.420 too. In January 2020, he was appointed visiting 00:21:50.420 --> 00:21:52.759 fellow and artist in residence at Kellogg College, 00:21:52.940 --> 00:21:55.960 University of Oxford. Oxford. Wow. That's a huge 00:21:55.960 --> 00:21:58.799 academic nod to his contribution beyond just 00:21:58.799 --> 00:22:02.170 entertainment. So to kind of wrap this up for 00:22:02.170 --> 00:22:04.890 you, our listener, to synthesize Lonergan's really 00:22:04.890 --> 00:22:09.130 varied career. The key takeaway feels like consistency. 00:22:09.609 --> 00:22:12.250 His foundation is always rooted in that sharp, 00:22:12.309 --> 00:22:14.589 emotionally complex and maybe above all dialogue 00:22:14.589 --> 00:22:16.930 driven theater. That stagecraft, that almost 00:22:16.930 --> 00:22:19.390 uncanny ability to listen to how people really 00:22:19.390 --> 00:22:21.109 talk and maybe more importantly, how they don't 00:22:21.109 --> 00:22:23.430 talk. It translates with incredible power and 00:22:23.430 --> 00:22:25.650 naturalism to film. He's an artist whose earliest 00:22:25.650 --> 00:22:27.970 work, stuff written decades ago, is still essential 00:22:27.970 --> 00:22:30.089 viewing, essential reading today. He gives us 00:22:30.089 --> 00:22:32.609 these incredibly complex characters who are often, 00:22:32.650 --> 00:22:34.430 you know, fundamentally decent people, but they're 00:22:34.430 --> 00:22:36.900 just tragically bad at handling. their own feelings 00:22:36.900 --> 00:22:38.720 or communicating them to the people they love. 00:22:39.039 --> 00:22:41.779 The defining mood in a Lonergan piece is often 00:22:41.779 --> 00:22:44.500 that awkward, stumbling attempt at connection 00:22:44.500 --> 00:22:47.000 or maybe reconciliation that ultimately just 00:22:47.000 --> 00:22:50.180 fails, leaving the characters in this profound, 00:22:50.359 --> 00:22:53.680 quiet isolation. And it's his refusal to judge 00:22:53.680 --> 00:22:56.079 these flawed people that makes the work hit so 00:22:56.079 --> 00:22:59.299 hard. And that deep compassion, that nonjudgmental 00:22:59.299 --> 00:23:02.940 eye on broken families, repressed feelings. It 00:23:02.940 --> 00:23:05.039 brings us back to that final provocative thought 00:23:05.039 --> 00:23:06.990 we want to leave you with. We mentioned it way 00:23:06.990 --> 00:23:10.009 back at the start, that key biographical detail. 00:23:10.569 --> 00:23:12.769 Lonergan's stepfather was Michael S. Porter, 00:23:12.970 --> 00:23:15.470 a Freudian psychoanalyst. Right. And when you 00:23:15.470 --> 00:23:17.970 look across Lonergan's career from the generational 00:23:17.970 --> 00:23:20.369 pain in the Waverly Gallery to the emotional 00:23:20.369 --> 00:23:23.490 shutdown in Manchester by the sea, you consistently 00:23:23.490 --> 00:23:26.569 see families battling these deep, internal, often 00:23:26.569 --> 00:23:28.809 totally silent traumas. They're constantly doing 00:23:28.809 --> 00:23:30.630 psychological work, but they're doing it badly, 00:23:30.769 --> 00:23:33.319 stumbling through repression and avoidance. The 00:23:33.319 --> 00:23:35.420 sources suggest his characters are often performing 00:23:35.420 --> 00:23:38.099 a kind of Freudian acting out right there on 00:23:38.099 --> 00:23:40.920 screen or stage, desperately trying to process 00:23:40.920 --> 00:23:43.319 what's buried, what's too painful to actually 00:23:43.319 --> 00:23:46.500 name. So does that intimate maybe secondhand 00:23:46.500 --> 00:23:49.859 knowledge of psychoanalysis? Does that inform 00:23:49.859 --> 00:23:52.559 his uniquely compassionate approach? I really 00:23:52.559 --> 00:23:55.140 think it might be the secret ingredient. It feels 00:23:55.140 --> 00:23:58.619 like spending a life adjacent to that deep psychoanalytic 00:23:58.619 --> 00:24:01.779 thinking trained Lonergan's ear, not just for 00:24:01.779 --> 00:24:03.940 the words people say, but for the enormous, often 00:24:03.940 --> 00:24:06.019 heartbreaking truth hidden in the words they 00:24:06.019 --> 00:24:08.779 don't say. It's the silent battles, the psychological 00:24:08.779 --> 00:24:11.539 defenses, the attempts to dodge emotional truth 00:24:11.539 --> 00:24:14.579 that really define his best work. The depth of 00:24:14.579 --> 00:24:16.759 that unsaid dialogue. That's what you should 00:24:16.759 --> 00:24:18.299 listen for next time you watch or read something 00:24:18.299 --> 00:24:20.859 by Lonergan is that invisible trauma that links 00:24:20.859 --> 00:24:22.900 his earliest plays right through to his Oscar 00:24:22.900 --> 00:24:23.500 winning films.