“I don’t want it to sound like a tautology” isn’t the kind of concern audibly shared at most sports panels, but while explaining how bad defenses play bad defense leading to bad results on Slate‘s live “Hang Up and Listen” podcast, that was exactly what Mike Pesca was worried about. Rather than describe or comment on the action, their first discussion of the evening focused on whether the playoffs were too “irrational.” Logic and reason continued to play a significant role in their analysis. Stefan Fatsis sat at his laptop and quoted DVOA — Tim Tebow hadn’t just played another game, he’d widened his sample size — and Pesca railed against the “logical fallacies” in comparing arbitrary statistics.

All of that meshed perfectly with the addition of Nate Silver to the panel for an interview segment. Silver was choppier when discussing himself and his own progression, but became more animated and passionate when the discussion turned to his work with statistics and prediction models both in sports and politics. Just as Hang Up and Listen’s discussions shied away from stereotypical sports blowhard culture, Silver diverged from the pomposity of political punditry. Silver focused a great deal on explaining the limits of statistics, how important it is to know those limits exist, and accepting them. He cited his 2008 numbers which gave Hillary Clinton a 16% chance to win New Hampshire (as opposed to the 9% other polls were running.) On the one hand, he was 7 points higher than others; on the other hand, he had still only predicted a 16% chance.

The evening closed with a discussion on coaches. Here, too, the back and forth did not hinge on any particular coach, but asked the background question “Do coaches carry too much importance in our society?” Fatsis discussed his own experience coaching his daughter’s youth soccer team, and Josh Levin wondered whether college coaches were basking in the reflected veneer from youth coaches. Pesca called out football announcers for treating college coaches like ethical leaders, making explicit the division between Hang Up and Listen and mainstream sports coverage, a chasm that was implicit throughout the entire podcast taping.

What They Said

“They are, in audio form, what Slate aspires to be in print every day.”
- Slate’s Editor, David Plotz, introducing the live podcast.

“Some precedent is always broken, if you define things narrowly enough… eventually every player is a special snowflake”
- Nate Silver would have a problem with us claiming that this is the best Nate Silver quote to ever run second in the Panel Nerds’ “What They Said” section. In January.

“The enlightenment triumphed” – Josh Levin’s take on the Patriots sound defeat of the Tim Tebow led Denver Broncos
- Stefan Fatsis views Bill Belichick as a modern day Thomas Aquinas.

“You develop fluency… If you’ve learned Spanish, you should be able to learn Portugese.”
- Nate Silver’s analogy for how he used his baseball modeling in politics.

“It’s actually reasonable”
“No, it’s not. It would be reasonable if it were true”
– Stefan Fatsis and Mike Pesca debate the NFL’s explanation of the Greg Jennings non-fumble fumble.

What We Thought

• The podcast did an excellent job of taking advantage of the live format, giving their live audience more than the people listening. For different segments, they had queued up video clips to show the crowd what they were referring to. The extra effort made being there more special.
• Another thing that made being there more special is City Winery itself. We’d been there before, but we were again reminded how beautiful a space it is. If you’re in New York and have never been there, you should go.
• As long time listeners of the podcast, we had imagined a mental picture of each correspondent. Incredibly, each member of the trio, matched our imagination and their roles on the podcast perfectly. Pesca and Fatsis faced each other, flanking Levin, seeming like a pocasting odd couple. Pesca, burlier, leaned back in his chair, freely sharing quips and jokes while Fatsis sat across from him, slighter, more serious, sitting at the front of his chair, with the kind of perfect posture from beginning to end that would make our mother proud.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.
Panel Nerds don’t like…The Look Through
We’ve all been in conversation with someone in a crowd and we see their eyes search the room for other people to talk to rather than engage in the conversation at hand. Don’t ask the panelists if there are other Slate podcasters in the audience. Don’t look through them! Enjoy the podcasters sitting there in front of you.

One of the great things about Saturday Night Live is that, even though it’s in its 37th season, every episode delivers fresh new sketches and comedy. The same can be said for panels covering the show. We’ve previously heard head writer Seth Meyers discuss the show at another panel, and recently covered Jason Sudeikis moderating another, but the entertaining material we got on Sunday afternoon from the show’s team of writers was all brand new.

The show’s production schedule and process are well-documented, yet always worth rehashing for the audience on hand. A team of 15 writers (9 men, 6 women); Wednesdays are the key day when sketches are accepted or declined; it’s a loose environment that allows for creativity and collaboration; Lorne Michaels is a supportive boss; and, yes, it’s all performed live. Changes can occur on the fly leading up to the show – “the script department hates us the most,” joked Meyers.

Topical sketches have a greater chance of making it onto the show, the writers say, but that’s never a guarantee. Sometimes the time that news breaks can impact whether – or how – SNL tackles a story. Marika Sawyer pointed out that last week Herman Cain benefited from two bigger stories (Rick Perry‘s gaffe, Penn State scandal) overshadowing the sexual harassment charges against him. They have to guess on Monday afternoon what people will be talking about later in the week; nevertheless, they wind up writing new material with what’s happened over the course of the week.

They rely heavily on the audience at dress rehearsal on Saturday evening to telegraph what’s working and what’s missing the mark. Their approval is reflected through their ratings – which the writers claim doesn’t influence them – but another gauge  is Internet reaction. The writers say that SNL was made for YouTube well before YouTube even existed. After all these years, it continues to connect with new viewers and to cater to the times.

What They Said

“If it dies in that room, the last thing you want is for it to go and die in front of America.”
- Seth Meyers says that the meritocracy of the writers’ room can save them all embarrassment

“Lorne empowers writers to produce the piece… it helps make your vision come to life.”
- Bryan Tucker and the rest hold their boss in high regard

“You don’t know how to write for ratings, really.”
- Colin Jost answers only to the comedy gods

“Everyone cross-pollinates, which is new. People collaborate with each other.
- John Mulaney believes this cast has good camaraderie

What We Thought

• Steve Gaydos did a fantastic job keeping the conversation moving, making the most of a large panel, and encouraging the audience to participate (squeezing in a remarkable 15 questions during the Q&A). He’s a veteran moderator, as he indicated at the top of the panel, and it sure showed.
• From listening to the writers break down their sketches, it’s clear that a lot more thinking and fine-tuning goes into jokes than audiences appreciate. A sketch this past weekend included an Of Mice and Men reference.
• They insist that if a host falls flat (about once a season, they say) it’s not always the host’s fault. They occasionally get untrained non-performers to work with them. And for the failing entertainers, John Mulaney explained that hosting is not a natural thing to do, outside of their comfort zones.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like… Palin Obsessers
For the most part, the questions were all excellent. One question came about Sarah Palin, a reliable source of laughs during the past presidential election. But that was several seasons ago, and Palin has largely become an afterthought as we gear up for the next election season. There are more promising characters and recurring bits to focus on now. It’s time to leave Palin behind.

Judy Gold took the stage with questions about Gilbert Gottfried’s childhood, career, and life. The mostly older crowd, though, was there for the “f-cks.” Gottfried told stories from his new book, “Rubber Balls and Liquor” (read it again, you’ll get it), about his first jokes, his grandmother, dropping out of high school and his first performances; but he was at his best and the crowd at their happiest when he was looser, riffing and, working blue.

After going through his biography, the conversation turned to Gottfried’s controversies: his censored jokes about Pee Wee Herman’s masturbation at the 1991 Emmys, his 9/11 jokes at the Hugh Hefner Friar’s Club Roast, and, most recently, his Twitter jokes about the Japanese tsunami. Gold asked Gottfried if he had any regrets, or if anything was off limits. Gottfried answered both with an immediate and resounding “no,” and, as if to prove the point, retold each controversial joke for the audience’s sake. The audience simultaneously cringed and laughed.

Gottfried has embraced his controversies in persona and interviews to the point where his outlandish behavior has become part of his cachet. The audience was delightfully horrified at his Holocaust jokes, each different synonym he used for female genitalia, and his reporting of how long his masturbation sessions last. Fittingly, for the last question of the night, an older woman asked him to tell the “Aristocrats” joke (NSFW). To uproarious laughter, Gottfried giddily and intricately detailed exactly who was filling up what crevice, and in so doing, Gottfried filled his own niche, providing the faux outrage the audience craved.

What They Said
“The people who get the joke don’t need an explanation. Those who don’t get it won’t understand the explanation.”
- Gilbert Gottfried explains his lack of explanations

“I do realize the tragedy. That’s where the jokes come from!”
- Gilbert Gottfried views comedy as tragedy’s roommate (the kind who sticks out his tongue as his roommate cries)

“That was the first time I ever jerked off to the Diary of Anne Frank”
- Gilbert Gottfried, on Natalie Portman. We did not ask him when the second time was

“It was up between me and Liam Neeson… Of course I, at the time, was up for Schindler’s List”
- Gilbert Gottfried dishes on how backroom Hollywood dealings go down

What We Thought

• Judy Gold was well prepared as interviewer but we thought she could have kept the format looser. She mostly eschewed segues to move forward chronologically. Interviews don’t have to be in life order, and it was fun to see Gold and Gottfried banter. We would have been happy to see more of that.
• Gottfried’s points about media were spot on. He railed against the hypocrisy of news anchors telling him privately how much they enjoyed his jokes and denouncing them publicly on camera. He also pointed out how many more people see his “controversial” jokes once they’re re-aired on the news and online.
• The discussion about Gottfried’s time on Hollywood Squares ended up touching on one of our favorite game show clips of all time. It was great to be reminded of it:

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.
Panel Nerds don’t like…Cause Gauze
Gilbert Gottfried is there to talk about his life, his work, and his comedy. Just because you have something in the news you’d like to complain about, that doesn’t mean you should ask Gilbert Gottfried about it. In an interview where he didn’t once discuss current events, why bring up Occupied Wall Street?

Even after 40-plus years on the air, Sesame Street remains a mainstay of public programming, but it’s actually become a big part of pop culture, too. On my walk to a screening of Being Elmo: A Puppeteer’s Journey, I passed a man in a giant Elmo costume in Times Square, and then afterwards I heard a man with a trombone play the Sesame Street theme song on a subway platform. First thing this morning I spotted a blog link to an old video of James Earl Jones appearing on the show.

People young and old love Sesame Street. That what part of the reason that filmmaker Constance Marks decided to make her film focused on Kevin Clash, the man behind (and underneath) kids-favorite Elmo. Clash had more to offer than just a hand, the writers said. Old footage helped “illuminate” different parts of his life which lent themselves well to a narrative forming around a young man’s love for entertaining, writer Justin Weinstein said.

Kid aren’t the only ones fooled by the mystique of Elmo, producer James Miller said; reporters will often lean the camera in the direction of the Muppet’s mouth when interviewing Clash. Then the filmmakers panel gave way to a panel of Sesame Street performers, with Clash remaining on stage. Roscoe Orman, who plays Gordon, said he admires the puppeteers not only for making the Muppets come alive but for their abilities to keep their hands raised for so long.

It’s remarkable that Elmo has resonated so strongly with children considering he’s so minor in comparison to some of the other, bigger Muppets. But it’s what he represents, the panel agreed, that has made him the program’s most popular character. Toward the end, Clash and his fellow puppeteers gave a short demonstration of the fun that they have on the set by getting into their characters with Muppets in hand. The puppeteers matched the expressions they gave to their little friends, keeping them active and moving at all times. Both Clash and Elmo were having a great time doing it.

What They Said
The film was “structured around the notion of ‘what did Kevin want to be?’”
- Philip Shane says that the writers of Being Elmo were struck by their subject

“Mr. Rogers made me feel good about myself and Sesame Street‘ made me laugh.”
- Puppeteer Fran Brill describes how the kids’ show helped keep her hopes high while seeking theatrical work

“I think puppetry is something that has evolved so tremendously through Jim Henson and ‘Sesame Street.’”
- Roscoe Orman is amazed by what he sees at work every day

“As the kids were learning through the characters, the parents were learning through the actors.”
– Kevin Clash explains how the show reaches all audiences

What We Thought

• Why does Elmo talk in the third person? someone asked Clash. “It’s just the way Elmo talks,” he responded. Ordinarily, we wouldn’t accept this type of answer, but in this case it was okay.
• Ron Simon did a nice job allowing these two panels, massive in both size and energy, speak for themselves. We’ve never seen two separate panels operate back-to-back like this, and Simon was what made it possible to gain from them.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Cleverness Causing Confusion
One woman asked Clash if he’d “seen Elmo’s cousin up at Lincoln Center” yet. After a few moments of confusion, Clash and the rest realized that the lady was talking about “War Horse,” a show that has marvelous puppeteering. Clash confessed he hadn’t seen it, but hopes to. It’s not a bad thing to ask about – entertainers are probably drawn to others doing similar things. But if you’re going to ask a question, it’s better to be straightforward with it so everyone is on the same page.

The audience was treated to a screening of the 1985 classic “Wall Street” before this panel convened. But based on the direction the conversation went repeatedly, we should have been treated to “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” the 2010 sequel. That’s because moderator Thane Rosenbaum cited the sequel – a film many of us had never seen – much more often than he looked to the original for specifics to discuss. Movie spoilers aside, chitchat about a movie other than the one that was just shown leaves the audience in the dark.

What was particularly disturbing about this decision is how meaty the original film is, particularly in light of recent events and the growing Occupy Wall Street movement. To Rosenbaum’s credit, he did ask the others about OWS, but Stone and Pressman didn’t take the bait for as long as he (and we) may have hoped. Stone could have given more than his short responses, but Pressman was almost entirely silent throughout. It left Rosenbaum struggling to come up with new questions and to rephrase others to make them clearer in hopes of eliciting longer answers from his subjects. All it did was lead to some strange and awkward moments with the audience craving something else.

Stone did make some connections between then and now, describing “the greed era” he recognized in development in the early 1980s when bankers began to trade with selfish interests in mind. Pressman acknowledged that the original title for “Wall Street” was “Greed.” Today, Stone says, he’s inspired by what’s happening in downtown New York to fight perceived greed, but he hopes that a similar uprising will come to Washington, D.C., but centered around money in politics.

Main character Gordon Gekko has become a transcendent figure, they all agreed. Young businesspeople idolize him, Pressman added. It’s no surprise then to discover that it was easy for them to get financing for the 2010 sequel. Maybe someday we’ll go see it. We heard good things about it.

What They Said
“The speculation that went on was irrational. It was ‘Alice in Wonderland.’”
- Oliver Stone says that at times bankers can live in a fantasy world

“I hope all of these guys have a conflict in their heads because they deserve it.”
- Oliver Stone does not hold the CEOs of banks in very high regard…

“The complexity that Gekko has stands apart because it is so complex.”
- Edward R. Pressman thinks that there’s more to the character than meets the eye

“You don’t ever change what you know to be truth.”
– Oliver Stone takes issue with directors who don’t document fact correctly

What We Thought

• Is it just too hard to ask a director and producer to recall the experience of making a movie 25 years ago? If that’s the case, then the original “Wall Street” was a poor choice for this film festival. It’s a pity, too, since there’s a great deal to talk about surrounding this film. There aren’t any two people more equipped to participate in that discussion than Pressman and Stone. But on Sunday it seemed like there could have been two people who could have been more prepared or interested.
• It’s a small thing, but Stone’s microphone hit the fritz at times, which was distracting. The audience was never at a loss to hear what he had to say, but his volume levels came and went. At one point Rosenbaum shot a glare to the booth. We were happy to see it because at least he was recognizing that this was impacting people’s impressions.
• We rarely leave a panel early but after sitting for three hours we’d had enough. If the panel had been going better, we may have stayed. After an hour of chatter and a two-hour movie, though, we chose to follow some dozen others and make our way for the door.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Missing Your Out
Once it became clear that Stone and Pressman weren’t going to give long responses to his questions, Rosenbaum could have turned to the audience earlier as a source for new chances. Instead, Rosenbaum rephrased already used ones and brainstormed additional questions to pose to the panel. Using the audience to help bail himself out of a jam is a good way for a moderator to fix a sinking ship. We appreciate it when it’s done, too, because it allows us to help rather than witness helpless hopes fore reform. Part of why we decided it was time to leave stemmed from lack of knowledge of when the Q&A would set in. Had it earlier, we likely would have stayed, just to see what people wanted to hear more about.

Are newspapers dead?

That’s the question Myron Kandel posed at the top of the discussion with two deans for journalism programs. The implication rested on dark days for the industry; but based on how Nicholas Lemann and Stephen B. Shepard responded to that and similar questions throughout the night, there’s certainly reason to be optimistic.

They didn’t deny that journalism has seen better days, with much still up in the air about how it’ll support itself in the future. However, they quickly denounced the notion that all hope is lost, and reassured the audience that the new skills that their students are learning could resurrect, reshape, and rescue struggling news organizations.

Shepard predicts that digital news will continue to go the way of charging for content and that it’ll prove profitable. Lehmann believes that  it’ll be a “blended product” that succeeds with both aggregation and some original reporting. And the metrics for success are changing, too. In the past, traffic was the key indicator of a site’s popularity. Now, though, engagement is becoming more important, as advertisers look for more value from their audiences. It has opened up opportunity for niche sites that have built-in target audiences, advises Shepard.

We used to rely on news anchors and editors to determine the biggest news of the day. Now, we each choose for ourselves, and have the abilities to deliver our selections to others. What hasn’t changed is that people still rely on those they trust to help curate the news. And since there are more media options now than ever, everyone can find and design his or her own diet. Although it might be time to begin worrying about fragmentation…

What They Said
“At this moment newspapers aren’t dead…don’t write the obituary yet.”
- Nicholas Lemann warns not to jump to conclusions

“People want to share, and that’s the most radical change.”
- Stephen B. Shepard points to social media as a gamechanger for journalism

“One of the things the Internet did was pick apart the newspaper bit by bit.”
- Nicholas Lemann says that have more sources to get the information and resources we used to find inside of newspapers pages

“Pre-primary season is a very bad time to judge political reporting.”
– Stephen B. Shepard isn’t worried about the discourse right now

What We Thought

• We don’t think that journalism deans would have spoken so fondly of the digital news game just a few years ago. Despite the economic hardships that the industry has endured, it seems that the hardest times are behind us.
• Kandel and the audience were a bit more concerned about the future of news than the panelists were. The “good old days” of journalism might be a figment of people’s imaginations, as news outlets have always been forced to adapt to the times. More access to information has helped more than it’s hurt.
• Lemann made a an intriguing point about how political reporters today have gotten “lazy” and have taken their cues from consultants  instead of the grassroots people who surround campaigns. Choosing to go the consultant route we could miss out on some of the best stories coming out of an election. Seeing more students hitting the round running would be a good thing.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Forced Eulogizers
During the panel, news came out that Apple’s recently-resigned CEO Steven Jobs had passed away. Some people found out via their blackberries during the event (what’s that say about the future of news delivery?). One woman shared the news with the panel and asked them for their first reactions to Jobs’s death. We were saddened, yes, but this wasn’t the venue to discuss Jobs. And the panel, before responding, made it clear that their feelings about Jobs – and about Apple – were separate from the issues at hand for the evening. Technology has made an impact on journalism and could be part of its future. And Jobs deserves to be praised for his role in making all of that possible. Still, those appreciations didn’t belong at this time and place.

This perennial panel, which is part of the annual NY Television Festival, brings together host Jason Sudeikis with some of late-night’s great comedy writers. We attended and greatly enjoyed this event two years ago, but worried that it could be repetitive. After all, the same questions tend to come up time and again with these panelists (“How do I break into comedy?” “What’s your average day like?” and so on). Thankfully, Sudeikis had our best interests in mind and kept things moving in new and interesting directions.

This became most clear when an audience members asked how long it took for the panelists to feel they’d gotten good at the craft of comedy. A the panel began to answer a different question – namely how they got their start – Sudeikis quickly interjected and restated the audience members’ question. Everyone was better off for it.

For those who did want to hear about the basics behind these shows, the panel acquiesced. Interesting tidbits included: Fallon’s show brings in NBC touring groups to test the show’s material each afternoon; Colbert writers work in pairs, and everyone has a stint working on everything and with everyone else; SNL actually has those crazy hours you hear about, but partly because of tradition at this point. When Sudeikis answered questions – whether the audience, the panel, or he himself posed – other members of the panel moderated the discussion, asking followup questions. They all seemed to be genuinely interested in what Sudeikis had to say about his show and his field.

What was most interesting was to compare what bonded these different guys, despite having different networks, approaches, aims, and audiences. A.D. Miles separately said that you can’t focus on ratings and you have to just move on once a sketch crashes and burns. In both cases, the rest of the panel nodded accordingly. On the other hand, though, they all gave remarkably different answers about what drove them into comedy – for some it was a bad TV show, others it was a great one.

For most of them, it took a while from the time they were hired until they felt they really had a handle on how to do their jobs well. With the exception of Miles who was hired to be head writer, the rest of them all had to work their way up the ladder to get to the top. Now, they say, they’ve grown from those experiences and continue to hustle to gain the approval of their higher-ups.

What They Said
“We just Google what the trends are and start writing jokes.”
- A.D. Miles jokes that his writing team’s process for finding inspiration (although we suspect it’s at least half-true)

“We know it’s good when we hear the sound operators in the back laughing.”
- Justin Stangel wants to get real laughs from outsiders, not just pats on the back from fellow writers

“[We try to] get the arguments just right as well as the jokes just right.”
- Steve Bodow has a lot to think about when writing a segment

“Ultimately the idea and the piece are what dominates over personality.”
– Jason Sudeikis outlines what makes for a great sketch

“It was like a magic trick; I didn’t know how they were doing it.”
– Barry Julien describes his first exposure to The Onion

What We Thought

• We liked how casual this panel was, and how obvious it was that these guys actually liked each other. They all work in the same industry and must see each other as competition, but they do all seem to value what the others do for a living. They’re clearly all humbled that they get to do this for a living day in and out.
• Discussion several times turned to digital media. Miles mentioned he considers what could go viral, the Letterman writers check Twitter to see who’s being funny, and Sudeikis encouraged people to get online and make their own stuff if they wish to pursue a career in comedy. The Internet has clearly helped shape the future for the industry.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Inspirational Seekers
Whenever we cover comedy events, we encounter the same questions over and over: Who inspired you to go into comedy? In reality, the true answer to this open-ended question is more than likely the comedian’s childhood cracking people up. And he chose to stick with it long enough to make a career out of it. But he’s obliged instead to name others who came before him. We’ve heard the same names mentioned a lot over time – Richard Pryor, George Carlin, David Letterman, Eddie Murphy – and rarely does this question ever lead anywhere other than just lists of famous comics who broke barriers and boundaries. This panel quickly glossed over it in favor of talking about which late-night hosts let the first guests stick around on the couch for the show’s second act.

David Denby began his hour-long ramblings by recommending this summer’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes. While this might seem like a strange film recommendation from the renowned New Yorker critic,  he wanted to make clear off the bat that he doesn’t dismiss or despise all blockbuster action films with CGI graphics on shallow principle. Sometimes he does like these types of movies. But it’s another era of films that Denby really longs for. A major shift has taken place in Hollywood in terms of what gets greenlit, which has translated into “dispossession,” Denby said.

Movies must succeed worldwide these days, and to achieve that there have to be big-budget theatrics and memorable over-the-top scenes that will have non-English speakers amazed. That’s why, Denby said, it’s so hard to sell dialogue-driven films, such as comedies. He said that the younger generation that grew up gobbling up familiar franchises (through remakes and sequels) might not ever develop a sense of – or desire for – traditional elements of film like drama, wit, irony, and more. Drama requires limitations and consequences, he pointed out, and the superheroes in blockbuster movies don’t exhibit any.

It’s not just the industry that’s changing, though. Critics have been let go, and more bloggers are cropping up as sources of reviews. Denby worries that the bond between critic and reader – particularly on the local level – has been lost. Again, rather than denigrate bloggers for contributing to the decline of higher society and thought, Denby defended some of them as being “erudite.” He does wonder whether younger people today are interested in reviews, or if they just simply trust the word of their friends before setting out for the theater. Digital technology and marketing have influenced what we put on the screen, too.

The King’s Speech winning the Academy Award last year was an “anomaly,” Denby said; these smaller, adults-oriented movies are long-shots at repeated success. In previous generations, filmmakers strived to make great films, without stopping to think about what target audience they had in mind for it. Now, Denby said, we only get those during “Holocaust season” toward the end of the year when all of the serious ones come out at once. Well, look at the success of The Help over recent weeks, he noted. Could this be the start of a shift back?

What They Said
“Criticism operates in a business environment that it can’t ignore or deny.”
- David Denby says it’s impossible to separate movies from the studios behind them

“You can’t even sum it up because it doesn’t mean anything.”
- David Denby pokes fun at the plots to some of Hollywood’s biggest recent box-office draws

“The liberation of the fantastic in the last 20 years has led to the routinization of the fantastic.”
- David Denby has seen enough of the same effects at play time and again

“I haven’t cried at the movies in a long time.”
– David Denby longs for the days of yore

What We Thought

• We predicted that someone would ask Denby during the Q&A to name his favorite movie. We’ve been to enough of these kinds of events to know what people will want to know. We were also correct that Denby would name several movies and directors in his answer (The Godfather, The Marx Brothers, Preston Sturges.)
• Denby demonstrated both his smarts and his sense of humor during his time on stage. At one point, he went into a hilarious riff about what it’s like to sit inside an average theater and to deal with all of the sights, smells, and delays that come with the experience.
• He said that he believes A.O. Scott is the best reviewer The New York Times has ever had. At first we were taken aback by this suggestion until we realized we couldn’t really toss any other names out there as contention.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Overflatterers
An amateur filmmaker in the audience expressed how excited she was to address Denby by thrusting praise at him for his contributions to the film world. We appreciate Denby for who he is and what he’s done, but at the same time he’s not Scorsese. He’s reviewing the films, not making them. Had this woman been an aspiring film reviewer, we would have understood her adoration for the subject on the stage. Instead, her flattery came across as a bit much – and, because of it, we didn’t even catch what her actual question was after that.

The Onion has come a long way since it started in Madison, Wisconsin, two decades ago, and the writers are (half-jokingly, as always) seeking the recognition they so rightfully deserve – in the form of a Pulitzer Prize. Their grassroots campaign, being led by the fictional Americans for Fairness in Awarding Journalism Prizes, has drawn some much-coveted attention online. Although more senior editors Joe Garden and John Krewson could speak about the paper’s stoic rise, it was the younger staffers Will Tracy and Seth Reiss who represented this ongoing campaign. It’s clear that they take great pride in the history of the publication, and in this effort to get them their due.

Every week, the staff considers around 400 headlines, hoping to eventually whittle that number down to 14 and then assign stories to writers accordingly. During staff meetings, there’s a collaborative discussion to get all of the ideas out there. The staff says that since there are no by-lines and they all deeply care about the success of the paper, there’s no holding back of ideas. It’s no wonder then that throughout this panel the various editors spoke over one another, not trying to upstage each other, but excited to share their thoughts, impressions, and examples with the audience. You got a real sense of how loud and chaotic their staff meetings must be.

What is surprising, though, is that not everyone on the paper’s editorial team comes from a strong comedy background. Katie Palmer previously worked at Foreign Policy before joining the staff. Palmer and the other editors consider more than just the humor inside the stories – they want to convey the right “mix” of stories within each issue. Garden confessed that they fret over the freshness of their stories – from staying on top of the news to holding back from piling on one subject – more than readers would ever notice or realize.

They use social media for several purposes. First, it allows them to tell jokes that wouldn’t have necessarily made it into the paper otherwise. Second, they can tease a funny line that could be used at a later point in the form of a longer piece. Finally, Twitter allows the writers to discover the obvious observations that people are making upon breaking news, and they can tailor their approach to avoid making similar jokes. The writers also stress the importance to know the target of their jokes, without automatically setting for the easy targets. Rather than try to be funny, they say, aim for a dryer delivery. And keep to a baffled, Midwestern tone throughout. They agreed that’s where the humor really comes from.

What They Said
“I was told I didn’t have the disposition to be an actual journalist because I actually like to sleep at night.”
- John Krewson reflects on why he left his college paper to work on a satirical one instead

“It’s funnier in print to me, turning the page and seeing what’s there.”
- Will Tracy defends print journalism, in the name of comedy

“We try to separate the political biases from the actual writing.”
- Katie Palmer believes that the publication stays equally fair to – and mocking of – both sides

“That’s not that interesting…if it was that interesting, I would have asked the question.”
– Anderson Cooper jokingly takes issue with Reiss’ decision to begin a response with “Here’s something interesting…”

“I was upset, I was mad at these people, and I was not kind to them.”
- John Krewson remembers how he felt when he wrote an infamous post-9/11 article about the al Qaeda bombers

“The problem with the previous president is that it was too easy. The jokes came on a silver platter.”
- Joe Garden says that George W. Bush gave them a lot to work with

What We Thought

• Moderator Anderson Cooper was a riot. He went toe-to-toe with these hilarious people, even issuing some zingers of his own at their expense. Cooper showed a great deal of comfort with the material, the panelists, and the audience.
• Who are the people in the headshots and photographs in the paper? Mostly those they have come across, or family members of staff members. And one old yearbook. We enjoyed seeing how proud they were that they could sneak the same pictures into multiple issues.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Geekdom for the sake of geekdom
Obviously an event like this one will draw an underground crowd of geeks. We weren’t surprised to see such a young (and pale) crowd at the Paley Center. So here’s a note for those who may not have been outside in a while: When you ask a very specific question about something the rest of us probably don’t know anything about, begin it with some explanation or orientation. You’re entitled to ask about a radio show you listen to run by The Onion media empire. But at least inform us that it’s a radio show. Thankfully, Garden understood the potential for befuddlement and proceeded to fill us all in on what “Doyle Redland” was.

Some are calling David Carr the “breakout star” of Page One, the documentary that takes you inside The New York Times‘ newsroom. But for us who have seen Carr participate in two panels before, his performance in the movie didn’t come as a surprise.

During both the screening of the film and the panel that followed, Carr was the main attraction. We’ve pointed out before how Carr’s tone and delivery come with a certain calmness that sets the audience at ease and, in turn, calls for a certain trust from his onlookers. Those skills probably help him in his reporting, and have thrust him into the spotlight when he and others discuss Page One. No wonder he’s such a frequent panelist at media events.

At the top of this panel, Keller admitted that on his first viewing several months ago, he believed that the movie was far too long at 90 minutes. Rossi said that he wanted to include more than just The Times‘ media department, he wanted to showcase the  “moment of great crisis across the board” for the entire journalism field. This is what Carr called a “Death Valley moment” where no one – even Times reporters – really knew what was in store for the nation’s top newspaper, and whether it could survive tough economic times and uncertainty.

For all the changes that journalism is enduring now, Gay Talese said he believes that to do it right you have to be out in the field. Technological advances have definitely changed things, Talese said, but he recalled being advised when he was a budding reporter to shy away from the telephone. The panelists all have a great sense of honor for the legacy of the newspaper, Talese even rebuffing a suggestion that he was a pioneer for The New Journalism. He said that even he learned it from his predecessors. Talese said that he still reads The Times every day, which takes him two hours.

So will The Times live on? Rossi isn’t sure if journalism will remain the same on a new platform. Carr, however, thinks The Times will survive, even if only as a status symbol. When you’re on your iPad, he said, it’s impossible to tell if you’re reading The New York Times or not. Echoing this sentiment were two people sitting in front of us at the event who made it difficult to tell if they were tweeting about the panel on their iPhones or just checking their email.

What They Said
“One thing we have in this family is the belief in freedom of the press even if it’s all about the press. And that’s a great tradition.”
- Gay Talese praises the Sulzbergers for their commitment to the paper

“I got sent down to Katrina but it was after the gossip columnists but before the architecture critics.”
- David Carr says that while he enjoys his media beat, it’s not exactly the most pressing one at the paper

“He would never have let The Daily Show in.”
– Bill Keller jokes about David Carr’s news judgment being better than his.

“I didn’t aspire to be a foreign correspondent because the story really was New York. The story was America.”
– Gay Talese kept his interests local

“[Brian Stelter] is really like an avatar for the new media, even establishing his own brand within the paper.”
– Andrew Rossi was impressed by the work ethic of the media reporters he shadowed

What We Thought

• Keller did a great job in a short amount of time asking the right questions. He focused on Carr and Talese for their reactions to the film and thoughts on the future of journalism, while turning to Rossi for the outsider perspective. It was a panel that could have gone the other way, being that Rossi was out of his element on a panel with three journalism veterans, but Keller managed to incorporate Rossi in when he could shed some light, too.
• In the Thank Yous at the closing of the film, we couldn’t help but notice that alphabetically, “The White House” came just before “WikiLeaks.org.” If that doesn’t speak to the current media landscape, we don’t know what does.
• Carr said that Jayson Blair was one of his close friends at The Times when he first arrived there. It seems to still shake him how someone could get away with that at The Times.

PANEL RULES!

This panel didn’t feature any audience questions, possibly an effort to get the audience out at a decent hour. After two hours of sitting, we were somewhat relieved to be sent on our way.

Josh Radnor, director, star, and writer of Happythankyoumoreplease, which comes out this week, said that he hoped to make a movie that was “real,” “sincere,” and full of “grace.” While the clips they screened from the movie conveyed that sentiment, it was Radnor himself who echoed the point with his friendly demeanor and classy attire to boot (he “suited up,” as one member of the crowd pointed out).

Radnor, who was behind the camera for the first time, credited  his cast for making his work easy. Originally, Radnor didn’t intend to direct the film but said that he couldn’t imagine having to transfer his vision to someone else. Especially because he’d be there on the set and likely be “annoying” the director the whole time anyway. Malin Akerman, who stars in the film, said that Radnor was a natural and brought his story beautifully to life. After reading the script once, she fell in love with her character. Even a year-and-a-half since shooting the movie, it’s obvious that Akerman still feels connected to that character, Annie.

For his part, Radnor stated that he was happy to be able to cast not only some well-known actors but also ones who understand what it’s like to go outside themselves. For instance, Tony Hale plays a more serious part in this film than Arrested Development fans will be used to, but one they should warm up to by the film’s end, Radnor said. That’s true for the director, too. It might be hard for some people to see Radnor in a different role apart from “Ted Mosby” on CBS’s How I Met Your Mother, but over a short period of time audiences will undoubtedly want to get to know more Radnor characters.

So often at these press events, someone will raise his or her hand and ask for advice on how to break into Hollywood. Ordinarily, the actor will give a polite but curt response about working hard and pursuing a dream. Radnor, however, gave a complete answer with his life story complete with the highlights and setbacks he ran into along the way. Ultimately, he said that the best thing to do is to enroll in graduate school and to take the studies seriously. Read everything you can, learn as much as possible. It was the most honest and realistic answer to this common question we’ve ever heard from someone famous.

We’ll gladly add on one more piece of advice, based on Radnor’s performance: Enjoy what you do.

What They Said
“I love New York and I don’t hate Los Angeles.”
- Josh Radnor says that many people think they have to choose a city, when you can simply love both

“So much of this business is bluffing.”
- Josh Radnor responds to Akerman’s revelation that she had to convince Radnor she could take on the lead role

“These are the films that are the heart and soul of acting.”
– Malin Akerman praises independent, small films for supplying something different than Hollywood does

“The kind of movies I want to watch and to do as a director are about real people doing real things.”
– Josh Radnor believes in telling the truth

What We Thought

• Katey Rich did a good job as the moderator for the panel. It was clear from the start that Radnor and Akerman have done a bunch of these types of events before, and come along with some recognizable chemistry between them. It made Rich’s life simple. She did her part with some well-researched and thought out questions that delved into the actors’ backgrounds and motivations.
• We shouldn’t have been surprised, but we couldn’t help but chuckle after the talk was over when Akerman got the attention and adoration of more audience members looking for an autograph than Radnor did. Her Watchmen followers probably track her to every movie event.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Rabblerousers
Just because Radnor stars on a show that airs on the same network as Two and a Half Men doesn’t mean he should be asked for his thoughts on Charlie Sheen. If he did feel a certain way toward the controversial actor, do you think Radnor would say so in public at a taped event? Radnor fielded the question with the proper hesitance and agility, saying that his show has nothing to do with Sheen’s. Then he let out a distinct “Oof” before moving on to the next question.

It’s a subject some of us choose not to discuss or think about anymore. Not because it makes us uncomfortable, but because it’s been exhausted over the past few years. And because it’s difficult to fully understand. If there were a time to bring up the financial crisis, however, Michael Lewis and Ira Glass are the ones to lead the discussion.

Glass, one of the best interviewers out there, can make a heavy topic like finance come alive. He clearly has an affinity for Lewis, who he declares is one of the few journalists who does fact-based reporting while clearly having a good time doing it. Glass was at the top of his game, engaging with Lewis, reacting to both his answers and his implications, as he sought closure and a villain to blame for the economic downturn. But what Glass said he found in Lewis’ book, The Big Short, were “heroes” in the form of bankers.

How’d Lewis pull that off? He made the characters likable. Lewis said that was easy because he genuinely did like the characters he covered in the book, and simply outlined their positive attributes. While impressed with Lewis’ achievement, Glass couldn’t held but be a bit disappointed that Lewis wouldn’t identify the “bastards” who caused the economic decline. When he admitted he wanted to “hate somebody,” Glass got a round of applause from the approving audience. Once pushed, Lewis said that the ratings agencies are at least partially at fault, arguing that they were “foolish, if not a bit crooked.”

Contrary to what we might hope, Lewis doesn’t think that many people willingly knew that the entire mortgage-backed security operation was a “scam.” He was able to get inside some of the biggest and most well-known banks thanks to contacts he made as a result of of his first Wall Street book, Liar’s Poker. A generation of young, ambitious students fell in love with the Wall Street that Lewis had depicted and chronicled, and they rewarded Lewis with access to interviews and information for his book. Lewis injected life into what might seem to be a complicated, boring business story in a way few others can.

What They Said
“I’m always attracted to the idea that there’s value in the things people aren’t looking at.”
- Michael Lewis looks for stories that others don’t stop to see

“Ignorance has been seen as an excuse.”
- Michael Lewis believes that someone needs to take responsibility for the crisis

“The most annoying thing about this financial crisis is when people say nobody could have predicted the crisis.”
– Ira Glass thinks that it’s possible to understand what bankers were doing wrong

“There’s going to be another financial crisis in a decade. The question is just what it is.”
– Michael Lewis hopes that we won’t be as blindsided by the next one

“Where do they pay kids who don’t know anything lots of money? Wall Street!”
- Michael Lewis says that some young people were drawn to banking after they read Lewis’ Liar’s Poker

What We Thought

• We can’t praise Glass enough. He asks very direct questions without sounding too leading. It’s hard to not give a long-winded response to provocative and probing questions. His many years of experience pay off every time he does an interview.
• Lewis revealed that he’s at work on a sequel to Moneyball. He said he spent three years following prospects in the minor leagues, to see how Billy Beane’s players turned out. It astounded us how much time Lewis puts into researching and preparing and making his books. There’s a reason he’s at the top of his game.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Automatics
At many panels, when the night turns to the Q&A portion, we have noticed that the first two questions are usually quite similar: a) What do you regret/what would you do differently?, and b) What’s next? They’re not bad questions to ask, but they’re predictable. In the case of the first one, it’s a tough thing for people to answer since it requires them to admit they made mistakes with roles, or stories, or how they carried themselves. Odds are that they won’t made those kinds of sizable confessions on a stage in front of a couple hundred people. The second question here is always more interesting and delivers something more substantial. It paid off well in this case because it allowed Lewis to illustrate just how many projects he’s working on at once. It gave us insight into Lewis’ process and personality in much the way the first question so often fails to produce.

A star-studded cast is starring in a revival of Jason Miller’s 1972 play That Championship Season on Broadway this spring. While the play is of a personal nature that the cast and crew hopes will resonate with a modern audience, it’s especially familiar for actor Jason Patric, who is both a star of the show and Miller’s son. Patric called the play a “portal” into his family’s life and is excited to stage it for fresh audiences.

Patric helped spearhead the production, recruiting friends Chris Noth and Keifer Sutherland to join the cast. But first, they had to cast the role of the coach, and for that they had only one person in mind: Brian Cox. Cox said that he’s long loved the play, calling it one of America’s best plays, and says that it is hard to find another play with five such strong unique voices in it. Right now, the cast is engaged in rehearsals where they say they’re getting to know their characters and the pacing of the play.

They all agreed that theater is the most rewarding – and most challenging – form of acting. Sutherland said that there’s nothing to hide behind on stage. For Jim Gaffigan, a stand-up comedian, this role was his first venture into theater, and says it has required him to channel an extra level of bravery to perform outside of his comfort zone. Gaffigan says that the play speaks to him, a man in his 40s who has reflected on how his life has shaped up. Noth agreed that he’s considered the “what ifs” and paths that he didn’t take. Sutherland went as far as to compare the play’s major themes to today’s politics – Watergate and the Tea Party, the Vietnam War and Iraq. Still, he says, it’s “disappointing” to see how little has changed over the past 40 years.

The panel and interviewer Patrick Healy discussed this play as if they were in an honors literature course. They dissected the play’s morality and impact, and left the audience wanting more. One audience members even requested a talkback series when the play opens. Noth assured that producers would try to make that happen, to the audience’s delight.

What They Said

“It’s about America and about the aspirations of America.”
- Brian Cox outlines the play, briefly

“Jason Miller did the real heavy lifting and we just have to rise to the occasion.”
- Kiefer Sutherland says that the script carries the play

“This play demands something and what scares me is if you don’t meet the demands it could just be melodrama.”
– Chris Noth hopes to live up to self-imposed expectations

“Jim was cheap.”
– Jason Patric explains why they got Gaffigan for the show

“I did have to audition – my daddy didn’t write it.”
– Jim Gaffigan’s response, which brought down the house

“Some shows are shit, some shows aren’t shit.”
- Brian Cox lays things out clearly

“It’s never about the character, it’s always about the story…I’ve always likened it to a rock n’ roll band. If the band is good, the bass player is cool.”
- Kiefer Sutherland aspires to be that bass player

What We Thought

• Healy did a nice job bringing the audience in to the narrative. From the beginning, as he asked about specifics about the play and about this production, Healy made sure to take a moment to give the crowd some context so they could keep up with the conversation. It was a small gesture, but it enabled a lot more comprehension for all.
• Because most of this cast were already on friendly terms before this production, they seem to have clicked faster than other groups of actors. It’s evident that they all have fun on the set. We understand more now why certain actors, directors, crew members, and so on prefer to work with the same people repeatedly. It makes everything so much easier.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Shy Audiences
After Healy opened up the floor to questions, he wound up having to ask a couple more questions himself since nobody stepped forward to the microphone. We’ve never seen an entire audience reject the mike; perhaps it was an indication that Healy had led such an exhaustive discussion there was nothing left to be said. Or, alternatively, maybe the audience was just plain exhausted. Whatever the case may be, we approached the open mike for the first time in a long while, and got the Q&A started ourselves. After that, some felt less intimidated and joined the line. As for our questions, we fumbled through it, were asked to rephrase for clarity, and didn’t get a very satisfying response to our question. We learned how hard it truly is to make your mark.

“Every answer has to be a real word or phrase. You can’t just make stuff up,” Will Shortz said while outlining the five rules to making crossword puzzles. It’s not something you’d think would need to be explained, but Shortz said that he’s had to remind a few potential New York Times puzzle contributors about the importance of making their clues possible to figure out. Along those lines, he said that in upcoming puzzle will feature the Times‘ first use of a Chinese word, arguing that some foreign words fit inside “testing everything people know.”

He spends his days evaluating and polishing up contributions from puzzlemakers seeking to be published in The Gray Lady. He said he looks at freshness, difficulty level, and humor, among other things, and is a “hand-on” editor who will, on average, tweak 50 percent of clues. As the puzzles editor, Shortz looks at more than just crosswords. He is in charge of the KenKens, Sudokus, acrostics, and all other varieties of games that the Times runs. He plans to ask for the Sunday magazine to begin carrying two full pages of puzzles since puzzles have such immense popularity.

Shortz is about as obsessive as you’d think. He gave a brief recap of the past 100 years of crosswords’ appearances in national publications, and even revealed that his senior thesis while studying enigmatology at Indiana University centered on puzzles before 1860. He revealed that Simon & Schuster’s first published book in 1924 was a collection of crosswords. In 1942, The New York Times decided to join the craze and produce its first crosswords.

The highlight of the event came when a 13-year-old boy complained that often the Times‘ crossword will feature clues that are impossible to get unless you’re familiar already with the obscure reference. When Shortz asked him to elaborate with examples, the kid said, “MASH star Alda.” After the crowd’s laughter let up, Shortz said that he his puzzles are intended to reach a wide audience of people of different ages and interests and that words like “Alan” that are short and vowel-heavy assist puzzlemakers during construction.

The goal, he said, is to have the puzzles reflect the culture of Times readers. It sounded to us like he also tries to uphold the integrity and prestige typically associated with the publication.

What They Said
“Most people have no idea what a crossword editor does, even those at the Times. And I kind of like if that way.”
- Will Shortz prefers to keep a low profile

“Everything the Times does has to me more sophisticated and more well done than anything everyone else does.”
- Will Shortz explains why the paper was slow to incorporate Sudokus into its pages

“I think he has improved the quality of crosswords, he’s elevated it.”
– Will Shortz says that bloggers like Rex Parker have earned a place in the conversation

What We Thought

• We liked how Shortz opened his talk with a rundown of his favorite puzzles of 2010. Not only did he highlight the cleverness and creativity of some contributors, it showed how much Shortz values them. He’s more than just an editor; he’s an admirer.
• Shortz shared that when he watches “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” he tries to guess the percentage of the audience who will know the answer when polled. He said he’s actually pretty good at it, which shows he has a good sense of what people know. We got the sense that Shortz watches game shows differently than we do.

PANEL RULES!

Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

A good job all around from the audience of “puzzleheads.” We got the impression that this talk more than any other we’ve attended was filled with avid fans and followers who wished to participate more than observe. The questions exemplified not only a smart and thoughtful audience, but also one that came in wanting to prove what they knew. Shortz, who’s probably dealt with similarly intelligent groups, came prepared with a set of games that allowed audience members to show their stuff. We’d never seen a lecturer or panelist slot in a section after the Q&A. In this case, it worked brilliantly. Shortz knows more than just trivia; he knows his people.

THE 5 BEST PANELS OF 2010

1. Who: Billie Joe Armstrong, Michael Mayer, interviewed by Jordan Roth
Where: 92nd Street Y
When: September 19
What we said: “Mayer says that theater has always told the stories of the active and vocal generation of the time; American Idiot follows in that tradition. So what’s Armstrong think of his songs being performed on stage? They’re “two different animals,” he assures. He admits, though, that certain songs have been adapted so well to Broadway that the band now plays them differently on tour. It seems that the art forms have worked in tandem even better than the duo could have imagined.”

See the full review.

2. Who: Jonathan Alter, David Remnick, moderated by Abigail Pogrebin
Where: The JCC in Manhattan
When: October 13
What we said: “Getting the president to open up was a different story. Each of the writers got around an hour total to ask Obama questions for their respective books. Neither of them found him very forthcoming. They each, separately, came to similar conclusions about the president’s childhood and demeanor. He’s deliberate, disciplined, cool, and detached, they said. What perplexes them, though, is how he rose up and became known as a communicator yet struggles in those areas today.”

See the full review.

3. Who: Lorne Michaels and Seth Meyers, interviewed by Ken Auletta
Where: W Hotel – Union Square
When: March 2
What we said: “Both Meyers and Michaels were entirely upfront about the process they go through to put the show on the air. Michaels says that his show requires a certain precision and camera timing to put together that doesn’t allow for improvising, despite the comedians’ proficiencies and wishes. However, when Michaels was asked about the way NBC handled the Leno-Conan handover, he quickly silenced himself. It showed how disciplined Michaels is, and prefers his show to be.”

See the full review.

4. Who: Jimmy Fallon, interviewed by Brian Williams
Where: Paley Center for Media
When: May 27
What we said: “While not educating the audience, the pair was yukking it up in ways only they can. Fallon danced through the aisles, re-positioned his chair for the sake of a joke, did celebrity voice impressions, among other overall wackiness. Williams aptly played the straight man, picking his spots carefully and making the crowd laugh with his body movements and positioning. At one point, the way Williams simply moved his chin in response to some of Fallon’s antics made us laugh.”

See the full review.

5. Who: Steve Carell, interviewed by Tad Friend at the New Yorker Festival
Where: Acura at SIR Stage37
When: October 3
What we said: “Carell said that his favorite character on The Office is Toby because he does so much with so few lines and minimal amounts of screen time. This isn’t surprising though once you consider that Carell, in his roles, chooses his spots wisely, largely blending in as observers until his much-awaited entry and timely punchline. He said he’s committed to making his comedy “genuine and real” in order to avoid cliches and anything else predictable.”

See the full review.

THE 10 BEST QUOTES OF 2010

1. “He’s the least crazy president we’ve had in a century. He’s probably the least crazy person I know.”
- David Remnick shares his thoughts on the president’s psyche

2. “Is this boring?”
- Steve Martin wonders aloud whether his interest in art speaks to the 92Y audience

3. “When you get to the afternoon, Fox goes from the attractive Munster daughter to the monster under the stairs.”
- Brian Williams looks at how the news competition shapes up

4. “I don’t think my special brand of self confidence comes from anyone outside of me.”
– Gabourey Sidibe is fine with herself

5. “If you feel the audience is ahead of you, you’re losing.”
- Lorne Michaels recognizes his important it is in comedy to out think your viewers

6. “I plan to continue covering the media until I write about myself: ‘David Carr got laid off today.’”
- David Carr is going to create another Moses conundrum

7. “The only acting I did in high school, I was the rear end of a horse.”
- James Earl Jones has grown into larger parts since then

8. “Those who shout the loudest don’t necessarily deserve to be heard the most.”
- Tony Blair dealt with this firsthand as he faced down a disruptive protester proclaiming him a “war criminal”

9. “The structure of banking is what brought us to the precipice; it destroyed our economy.”
- Eliot Spitzer wants to rebuild the foundations

10. “The Long Island social scene is hanging out in the parking lot of a mall so [my acting career] was my saving grace.”
- Natalie Portman doesn’t know the joy of drinking slurpees outside a CVS

Midway through the Steve Martin’s discussion with Deborah Solomon, a 92Y representative walked onto the stage to hand Solomon a card. Not only did the audience wonder what the card said, Martin asked Solomon about it. She then told us all that she’d been instructed to ask more questions about Martin’s career instead of focusing exclusively on his new book, An Object of Beauty, as she had to that point. We’d never seen the interviewer pushed in a different direction with such a public display.

In all honesty, though, this was a necessary measure to take. As soon as Solomon announced her orders, the audience cheered, making it clear they wished to hear more about Martin, the actor, and less about Martin, the author. Most interesting, however, was the 25 minutes that followed which demonstrated Martin’s dismay, despite public pressure, to discuss his past roles and experiences. For Martin’s sake, Solomon’s instincts were right to keep to his current project and endeavors. But she, Martin, and the audience didn’t see eye to eye on what the event was supposed to be, one spectator even commenting afterward that “it was like they were somewhere we weren’t.”

So what did they talk about? Art. Martin’s new novel is set inside the New York City art world, a world that he became familiar with through the years dating back to his time exploring galleries, museums, and libraries while on tour in different American cities. To Martin’s credit, he seems to know a good deal about the subject – he can even talk at length about the differences between the “uptown” scene and the “downtown” scene in New York.

While intriguing at times, this discussion went on too long for many audience members who wished to hear more about the Martin they knew already. In this way, Solomon was too rigid, twice “catching” Martin talking about himself, instead of about the book, and quickly turning her – and in turn his – attention back to the novel. To her credit, once prompted, she did ask more general questions. She even tried to tie together all the various things Martin has done. Soon after, though, Solomon went back to asking questions about plot points and process to the novel. Their discussion ended with Martin admitting, after a heavily leading question about the structure of the book, “I never thought about it, and I don’t care about it.”

What They Said
“I assume the title doesn’t apply to you.”
- Deborah Solomon jokes that Steve Martin isn’t worthy of being called a thing of beauty

“Is this boring?”
- Steve Martin wonders aloud whether his interest in art speaks to the 92Y audience

“After you look at thousands of paintings you get a sense of what a good picture is.”
– Steve Martin’s advice on how to become a better art critic and art lover

“I’ve had comic sex scenes and then I’ve had real sex scenes that just aren’t sexy.”
– Steve Martin says that his acting roles have run the gamut

“You know what’s really hard? To tell a story well. What’s not so hard? To break the rules.”
- Steve Martin has shown a more serious side in recent decades

What We Thought

• Solomon should have broken up the hour better. If she wanted to spend a good deal of time on the book, she could have. But moving onto other subjects is part of any good conversation, as Solomon should know from her time doing her The New York Times interviews.
• It’s actually quite impressive how capably Martin is to bounce back and forth from acting pursuits, to musical ones, to literary ones. It’s one thing to have all those talents; it’s quite another to be able to fit into so many circles and groups. Martin seems to be well-liked by all of them, a true testament to his vast array of skills.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Disrespecting Audience Questions
Because Solomon was so taken aback by the request to ask more general questions, she had a hard time taking a back seat to the audience-submitted questions. So when the first one atop the pile dealt with “Who is the real you?” Solomon preceded reading the question with a warning that Martin would “hate this question.” At that point, no matter what it asked, the question would be perceived as a dud. Martin did a fair job responding to it – offering some reflections about working with Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin on It’s Complicated – but the damage had already been done. The person who wrote that question must have felt humiliated. It was a fair question to ask, and one that, we felt frankly, Solomon could have posed during her time.

The Big C isn’t the first TV show to tackle the difficult and uncomfortable subject of cancer. It’s not even the first comedy to broach the subject. But it does appear to be one of, if not the most, daring of the bunch.

It was conceived by executive producers Darlene Hunt and Vivian Cannon who said they wanted to make a show that would offer “laughter through tears.” Hunt, however, didn’t have firsthand knowledge about how to write about a woman dealing with cancer. She said that found her inspiration while spending time with her new baby and realizing she wouldn’t be alive for the duration of the child’s life. It forced her to confront her own mortality, she said. For Cannon, it came in the form of conversations with some of her friends who were fighting cancer.

With hits like Nurse Jackie, Dexter, Weeds, and The United States of Tara under its belt, Showtime was “the right fit” for the show, the panel said. Although the show revolves around Laura Linney’s “Cathy Jamison” character, the supporting cast is as impressive as any on television. Phyllis Somerville says her character and Linney’s are “a good match” who have a lot to learn from one another; Gabourey Sidibe says her character empowers Jamison to stand up for herself. Executive producer Jenny Bicks added that Sidibe’s “Andrea” and “Cathy” are “an unlikely duo.” And Cynthia Nixon’s “Rebecca,” a newcomer to the show, enters at a time when “Cathy” needs a “deep connection” with an old friend the most, said Linney.

The writers explained that they used the first half of this first season to allow “Cathy” to experience the five stages of grief. From there, she could move on and evaluate her life. Hunt says that before beginning filming, she did did research into all kinds of cancer making sure to pick the one that suited the show best (Stage 4 Melanoma). The choice allowed them to explore the effects of the cancer on “Cathy” before it began to take a toll on her body and became visible. Hunt said that it’s not a death sentence, that some people have recovered from it. But she acknowledged that she wished to “play it close to the edge.”

What They Said
“There are incredibly absurd moments in the middle of suffering.”
- Jenny Bicks believes that cancer and comedy can go hand in hand

“She’s not willing to just function anymore. She wants to live what’s left.”
- Laura Linney explains her character’s impulsive and erratic behavior

“It was fairly lucrative if not demoralizing.”
– Darlene Hunt says that prior to The Big C she’d been making a living writing failed TV pilots

“I don’t think my special brand of self confidence comes from anyone outside of me.”
– Gabourey Sidibe is fine with herself

“It’s fun to play someone who is reaching for and experiencing exhilaration – whose senses are heightened.”
- Laura Linney finds meaning in her character’s triumphs

What We Thought

• This was a huge panel with eight guests and not a lot of time to get through everything. Moderator Anita Gates did her best to include everyone with at least one question per person before turning it over to the audience. Gates made do with what she had, but we think that this panel would have been enhanced by leaving two or three people off.
• At many panels and events, inevitably one audience member will ask the panelists for advice about breaking into Hollywood. We’ve heard many actors respond that working hard and making opportunities will eventually pay off. But coming from Darlene Hunt this time, we found this advice particularly wise and accurate. It’s not always the big-name stars who can shed some light.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Unwelcome Critics
You may be a television writer or aspiring one who wants to discuss the craft with professionals. It’s fine to mention you’re struck by some of the producers’ and writers’ decisions. But don’t undermine their show and talent by asking them to elaborate on their storytelling techniques that have left you unsatisfied or second-guessing. Moreover, pointing out that they need to speed up the narrative to show the main character’s “motivation” makes you appear impatient. Next time we suggest leading with a compliment instead of a critique.

With the midterm elections around the corner, pundits are hard at work to predict the Democrats’ future. Jeffrey Toobin, the lone non-comedian panelist of the bunch, guessed, based on recent polls, that the Democrats can hold onto the Senate but will likely lose the House. But quickly the conversation moved to specific races, particularly those involving Tea Party candidates, leading Alec Baldwin to chime in for the first time, holding a paper mustache to his face and proclaiming that the problem in America is “your damn rent is too high.”

They discussed New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino at some length – Baldwin referred to him as “an SNL skit.” He said that some of this year’s candidates are sending the message that “ignorance is the answer to  everything.” Andy Borowitz compared it to turning Laverne & Shirley into a show entirely about Lenny and Squiggy. The Tea Party uprising, the panel said, came out of frustration that the country’s problems aren’t being solved fast enough. But they stressed that for the stimulus to work, Americans will have to execute more patience and restraint.

Baldwin acknowledged that the president has suffered from vicious personal attacks throughout his tenure and been forced to “zen out a bit.” Toobin said that this is part of Obama’s “constructed personality,” a strategy to avoid being perceived as an “angry person.” It could pay off for the Democrats this season. (They also praised former President Bill Clinton for stumping for Democrat candidates this season.) But the liberal crowd didn’t seem convinced that Obama could restore his image. One audience member flat out asked if a majority of Americans are “idiots.” That’s the note on which Borowitz chose to end the evening.

What They Said
“Let me ask a substantive question: When are the elections?”
- Andy Borowitz waited until midway through the discussion to ask the most basic question

“People are pissed, understandably, and Obama hasn’t done anything about it.”
- Jeffrey Toobin says that the economy remains the biggest issue around the midterms

“’Don’t ask, don’t tell’ is so absurd. They now have convicted felons who can serve yet gays aren’t allowed.”
– Judy Gold thinks it’s time for Obama to deliver on his promise to do away with the law

“It’s a threat to our freedom. We have to not stop fighting them.”
– Alec Baldwin sees the Tea Party as a growing problem that needs to be addressed

“I think his level of mental health is shockingly high for a president of the United States.”
- Andy Borowitz gives Obama credit for how he’s managed so far

What We Thought

• Borowitz, as usual, set the tone for the night with hilarious stand-up comedy about current events. More than just a warm-up comedian, Borowitz ushered the panelists to the stage to join in on the festivities. The audience was relaxed and laughing before the first question was even asked.
• On several occasions, Baldwin polled the audience for reaction to major events, races, and suggestions. It sent the message to us that Baldwin carefully considers popular opinion before forming and framing his own judgments. Borowitz joked that he was just campaigning for office.
• The panel pointed out that in each of the past five elections, the “draft dodger” has bested the war advocate. We thought that was as reflective as anything of how the American public votes.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Zigzaggers
You caught Toobin on CNN last night and had a follow-up question about how he dealt with that guest. More generally, it seems you want to know how he handles himself in those kinds of interviews. The only issue is that you couldn’t get your question out fast enough which, with a panel such as this one, allows the panelists to start ad-libbing  about where your question is heading. By the time you regain your composure, not to mention their attention, the question is no longer the focal point – you are. So instead of giving extraneous information and your own opinion, next time just get to the point.

It’s hard to imagine now, but after Bruce Almighty gave Steve Carell some level of fame, an agent contacted him to find out where he was represented. It turned out that at that time he was with an agent from the same firm that the recruiting agent worked for. He said he was “such a low priority they didn’t know I was a client.”

My how things have changed over recent years. When interviewer Tad Friend asked Carell about the philosophy that all comedians are “wounded” in some way, Carell said that he questions whether that’s true. In fact, he’s “reticent” to put himself in any category at all. He looks up to other comedians like Steve Martin and Peter Sellers for their abilities to stay inside a character, no matter how ridiculous. In fact, he says that when he first started at The Daily Show in 1999, he decided that he would approach every interview in character, hoping to be the one the audience would be laughing at. He said that he and his close friend Stephen Colbert still discuss the intricacies and difficulties that go along with sticking to a character without a script.

Carell said that his favorite character on The Office is Toby because he does so much with so few lines and minimal amounts of screen time. This isn’t surprising though once you consider that Carell, in his roles, chooses his spots wisely, largely blending in as observers until his much-awaited entry and timely punchline. He said he’s committed to making his comedy “genuine and real” in order to avoid cliches and anything else predictable. So it comes as no surprise that Carell revealed he improvises many of his lines, especially those in his films when he say he just “plays around” with the script. It’s the director’s job to determine which takes to include, and he’s just trying to give them plenty of options.

Now that he’s leaving The Office after seven seasons, Carell will focus a bit more on movies. But don’t expect him to stick to comedies; he said he’s more interested in “hybrids” that successfully combine humor with “heart.” After all, that’s what seems to have saved The Office, Friend pointed out. After a paltry first season, the NBC show rejiggered things to show more of Michael Scott’s personal life and his loneliness. The audience responded well to it. Carell said that he’s interested in that “gray area” to the character that humanizes him despite his abrasiveness or awkwardness. And he announced that this season the show will work in scenes and references that “show [Scott's] aware” that the end of his story is near.

What They Said
“I never saw myself as a comedian. I never saw myself as someone who could just perform on stage.”
- Steve Carell says he stumbled into comedy

“It was disposable but you also had the freedom to fail, which I think is a great freedom to have.”
- Steve Carell reflects on the advantage to doing nightly live improv comedy

“If I can make a living, I’m way ahead of the competition. I didn’t care much for artistic integrity.”
- Steve Carell shares his goals for when he was first starting out in the 1980s and ’90s.

“I think the best actors can make a scripted line seen improvised.”
– Steve Carell tries to give every role his fullest

“Talking about success sounds like you’re full of yourself.”
– Steve Carell has a hard time discussing his career and being in the spotlight

What We Thought

• Carell at one point mentioned that Friend had told him beforehand that Carell should do most of the speaking during the discussion. Even before this comment, we’d already made a note of how Friend was asking direct questions about giving Carell the floor. Friend achieved his goal.
• He said he and his fellow actors want to do Anchorman 2 and are even willing to waive their usual fees. But they’d first like to do a Broadway show where they can improvise material that can eventually go into the script. This show sound like a great idea to us.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Microphone Hogs
You’re the first one at the microphone stand so it’s up to you to kick things off for us. You ask a reasonable question about who’s funnier, Carell or Colbert. But once the answer’s been given, it’s time to sit down. We don’t need you to ask an unrelated question about costume design. Even if Carell handled your second question wiith grace, it sets a bad precedent for the rest of the audience waiting in line to ask their questions. As a result, several people stayed at the mike way too long, cutting down on the number of people we could hear from. Next time, keep it to one, please, even if you have two excellent questions to share.

During a long and prolific career, James Earl Jones undoubtedly has accumulated a great deal of wisdom and experience. It’s a shame that he chose not to share much of it with his audience. Jones, who turns 80 in January, will be starring  in “Driving Miss Daisy” on Broadway beginning this fall. But when asked to discuss how rehearsals were going, or what we can expect from his role as “Hoke,” Jones responded that we’ll have to wait and see. It was one example of many sidesteps from the veteran actor. He delivered all of his non-answers with a gentle smile and genuine humility, but it left us wanting to hear more about what he thought, felt, remembered, and loves about his theatrical career.

We did learn a bit about him. He struggled with a stutter for the early part of his life, surprising to many because he’s widely known for his booming and iconic voice. He says, to this day, he doesn’t hear his voice when he speaks. Jones’ stutter was discussed at length at the top of the evening, but no other topic seemed to resonate the same way and evoke memories and emotions in the actor. We’ve criticized Healy before for his style – he covers ground by moving chronologically through the actor’s life. Sections of the night dragged on as Healy – and then the audience during the Q&A portion – tried to get Jones to open up about subjects like race and tolerance and his own insecurities and fears.

One thing that Jones shared his views on are awards. He has received numerous honors, but warns that if awards are only “wonderful as trophies,” not as jumping off points to the next opportunity. While he has many achievements and great moments under his belt, Jones is perhaps best recognized as the voice of Darth Vader in the “Star Wars” films. He revealed that before him, the producers considered Orson Welles but deemed his voice to be too recognizable to hit the mysterious note. So they brought in Jones who said that his involvement lasted one day of shooting. “Star Wars” fans, he said, follow him everywhere, even in London last winter where he was performing “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.”

Jones calls himself a “journeyman” who finds roles along the way. While other actors travel along a straighter path, Jones says he doesn’t have a plan. That waywardness has paid off in his career, leading to a diverse set of roles, but it also contributed to a scattered and ultimately disappointing discussion.

What They Said
“If you love words, you’ve got to be able to say them out loud. That’s what words are for.”
- James Earl Jones’ high school teacher helped him learn how to communicate better

“The only acting I did in high school, I was the rear end of a horse.”
- James Earl Jones has grown into larger parts since then

“We fell in love with the same character. It’s like when you fall in love with the same girl.”
- James Earl Jones says that he and Denzel Washington each brought their own flair to the lead in August Wilson’s “Fences”

“I did finally get Morgan Freeman out of my mind…and I can’t do that Hoke.”
– James Earl Jones will try to do justice to his “Driving Miss Daisy” role

What We Thought

• Healy had a hard time getting Jones to open up and answer his questions, particularly those directed at what Jones learned from roles and experiences. After it became clear that Jones was sticking to the facts, and not going down the road Healy wished, Healy could have shifted his questions in the other direction.
• Jones said that he enjoys being an actor because the profession allows you to explore parts of yourself that you wouldn’t otherwise. He said that he’s had a hard time personally distancing himself from the difficult roles he’s played in “cruel” plays. In fact, it made him physically ill to play “Big Daddy” in “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.”

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Fawning Admirers
Too many questions during the audience segment weren’t actually questions. We give a pass to the guy who told Jones what an inspiration he was to the black community. We even accept the standard, cliche question asking which actor he most enjoyed working with. But this panel had some of the strangest other expressions of admiration we’d ever seen: One woman asked Jones to confirm he acted in a play in Connecticut many years ago; one talked about her relationship with Terry Southern, a friend of Jones’; one asked Jones to describe his voice in one word; and one brought Jones an early birthday gift. The whole spectacle made us long for requests for advice for young actors hoping to break into acting.

The 92nd St. Y had the atmosphere of a rock concert for one night, complete with adoring, young fans (some with dyed hair) in T-shirts and carrying paraphernalia with “Green Day” emblazoned on it. With the ambiance set to the tune of some of the band’s tracks – and a dozen or so fans surrounding Armstrong’s wife, Adrienne in the crowd seeking autographs – host Jordan Roth took the stage for a 10-minute introduction that praised both Billie Joe Armstrong and Michael Mayer for their contributions to rock and musical theater. Together, they’ve put together American Idiot that gives a voice to the “rage and love of a generation.”

It all started with Mayer who approached Armstrong about collaborating on the project. Mayer was impressed by the “eloquence” of the writing of the hit album by the same name, and wished to build a Broadway show around it. But they concluded that the show would be better off taking additional songs from the album 21st Century Breakdown in order to create a fuller narrative. The first album came out during the Bush presidency and reflects unrest and hostility, according to Armstrong, while the second offers signs of progress if not resolution.This shift in politics and emotion comes steadily across in both works. For Mayer, it also had the added bonus of filling in storytelling holes.

Armstrong says that the 9/11 attacks left mass confusion. The government’s policy, he says, was to alienate the U.S. from the rest of the world. “I felt so misrepresented,” he recalls. So he the band decided to write about these heavier topics and to channel their anger into music. Because of the album’s strong and imposing message, Mayer had a relatively easy time coming up with a story to match the themes. He wanted the music to speak for itself, so he left the narrative “pretty lean.” Besides, the songs themselves carry a certain character and momentum that require the audience’s full attention.

Mayer says that theater has always told the stories of the active and vocal generation of the time; American Idiot follows in that tradition. So what’s Armstrong think of his songs being performed on stage? They’re “two different animals,” he assures. He admits, though, that certain songs have been adapted so well to Broadway that the band now plays them differently on tour. It seems that the art forms have worked in tandem even better than the duo could have imagined.

What They Said
“It gets you right in the middle of the worst political era of my lifetime.”
- Bilie Joe Armstrong believes that his album speaks for the times

“Of all the things on Broadway right now, we definitely have the most bizarre line out the door.”
- Billie Joe Armstrong says that many of the band’s fans are coming to see the show

“He is an artist of poetry and purpose and he makes kick-ass shows.”
- Jordan Roth’s introduction for Michael Mayer was full of praise for the director

“Right when Dookie came out it was our mission to destroy as many of those [grunge] bands as possible.”
– Billie Joe Armstrong and Green Day helped usher in a new layer of popular punk rock music

“In order to change something about society, you have to be a part of it at the same time.”
– Billie Joe Armstrong  on what it takes to make a difference

What We Thought

• Jordan Roth was excellent in his role as interviewer. His questions were well-researched and well-delivered, and he was extremely well-versed in the material. He managed to ask between 15 and 20 questions in about an hour, a huge accomplishment and evidence that he kept the conversation moving.
• Mayer said that if he could do it over again, he’d cut down on the amount of movement going on at once on the stage. He indicates that it can be distracting more than alluring.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Plotters
Many of the audience members had obviously seen American Idiot before. Yet some, like us, hadn’t. While this event was oriented around the show, it was by no means a requirement to have seen the musical in order to appreciate the panel discussion. Roth, we felt, took perhaps too many questions about the impulse and impact behind staging the production, rather than the inspiration behind the project, album, and the music. Had this panel followed a show performance, this “talk-back session” would have hit its mark. Instead, it left us wondering at times what we were missing and wishing we were in on the fun.

Katie Couric opted to go easy on Tony Blair at the beginning, easing him into the more hard-hitting questions about foreign affairs in the Middle East and Europe. Blair responded to questions about his reflections, writing process, and intentions for his new autobiography. He revealed that he wanted the book to be more “personal” than others in the genre that he admits he’s found “easy to put down.” His approach has seemed to have paid off, as the book’s breaking British sales records. But you’d expect no less than candidness from the controversial former prime minister.

The book, Blair says, bounces around to different topics and sections and, unlike other autobiographies, doesn’t stick to a chronological script. Couric dealt Blair a series of questions in much the same way, peppering him with subjects or names and asking him to respond with his thoughts on them. In the 75 or so minutes, Blair covered a wide spread of topics, but it was his comments about the state of politics that resonated most with us. He said that a strange phenomenon has turned up in global politics: As politicians are becoming more and more partisan and extreme, citizens are becoming more moderate.

His biggest opponents are perhaps those who decry his role in the Iraq War. Blair believes it all could have been avoided had Saddam Hussein agreed to inspections. He stopped short of saying that the war was justified – many of his answers began with “Look…” and a pause to find composure and a careful selection of words – but did say that 9/11 changed his view of Saddam, regardless of whether he could be tied to al Qaeda or not. Blair compared the situation then to what America now faces with Iran, where a faction of people trying to destabilize the country and opposing modernity. He said that the world must counteract the notion that the West threatens Islamic beliefs. Blair says that even though it’s only a small percentage of Muslims who fight back, the narrative is widespread.

He also believes that both Israel and the Palestinians truly want peace. He says that he remains an incurable optimist after all this time.

What They Said
“Those who shout the loudest don’t necessarily deserve to be heard the most.”
- Tony Blair dealt with this firsthand as he faced down a disruptive protester proclaiming him a “war criminal”

“I think what we have to say is ‘Don’t be ridiculous – this guy doesn’t represent America.”
- Tony Blair says that Terry Jones’ planned Koran-burning protest got too much attention

“You can’t take the view that we all have equal rights if you then discriminate.”
- Tony Blair shares his thoughts on the ongoing “Ground Zero mosque” debate

“Your faith can give you the strength to do the right thing; unfortunately, it won’t tell you what the right thing is.”
– Tony Blair talks about his conversation to Roman Catholicism

What We Thought

• Couric came in with a long and impressive list of topics to tackle with the former prime minister. She was able to hit them all by focusing the discussion and moving on when necessary. We agreed with this approach since the audience wanted to hear him weigh in on a variety of issues.
• We’re impressed that the Guardian determined this event was such an attraction it decided to liveblog the telecast of it. If the situation were reversed, we don’t think The New York Times would as tightly cover the president’s discussion with a British correspondent.
• Blair has a great sense of humor. He laughed about how he immediately lost his stature and status as prime minister once he left office, unlike in America where politicians retain their titles. And when Couric asked him if he “tweets,” Blair remarked, “not intentionally.”

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Bluffing Interviewers
Couric allotted a sizable amount of time to audience questions, including those from affiliates around the world tuned in. After handing over the inquiring for three questions, Couric asked an additional five short ones of her own just to get Blair to chime in on important topics like the Queen, Princess Diana, and Gordon Brown. Then two more audience questions filled out the night. Ordinarily, we wouldn’t have a problem with the questions Couric posed, but she’d already ceded the microphone to the viewers. Once that handoff takes place, we believe it shouldn’t be reversed. It interrupted a series of good questions from the worldwide audience (including revelations that Paul is Blair’s favorite Beatle) and cut out of their time.

As “The Apprentice” begins its 10th season on Thursday night, it’s embarking on new territory: the tough economy. Since the show’s past few seasons have been “celebrity” versions, the show hasn’t had the same focus on ambitious, hardworking professionals trying to push forward their careers. At times like these, however, that’s even more critical especially with so few opportunities available to the business-oriented. So Donald Trump and producer Mark Burnett are returning the show to its roots in hopes of helping one person turn his or her career around during hard times.

Messages about overcoming adversity, Trump said, are programmed into this season’s makeup. He used the words “sad” and “inspiring” when outlining what to expect. Trump speculates that this could be the best season the show’s ever done, if only because it resonates more with Americans than previous seasons have. There’s a difference between seeing someone fight for a job they need to support a family than one they have always hoped for. Burnett says that the “fighting back mentality” that we’ll see on this season’s “Apprentice” is matched by the intensity that Trump himself relies on in his business approach.

To further help the candidates get back on their feet, “The Apprentice” this year will pair up departing contestants with well-known CEOs to provide counsel and resources. In addition, the show will update viewers about the current whereabouts of all of the contestants. Burnett says the goal is to give some out-of-work and out-of-hope  individuals the motivation, energy, and momentum to move forward with their careers and their lives, even after they’ve left the show.

“Apprentice” contestants typically sleep only a handful of hours during the competition, but with a $250,000 job on the line, there’s added desperation this season, the panel said. Usually it takes a couple of days before real personalities – and the inevitable bickering – start to show. But from the looks of this season’s premiere, the hostility and competitiveness is in full swing from the opening moments.

Trump revealed that he and Mark Burnett disagree about some of the structure of the show: Trump insists that America (based on ratings) wants to see more board room and less time spent on the weekly tasks. Burnett, on the other hand, believes that without the task footage, there’s not enough drama to the board room. After all these years, they’re still working to reconfigure the show to give viewers more of what they want.

What They Said
“Everyone’s getting something of the show, not just the winner.”
- Donald Trump, Jr. says that this year’s show provides new opportunities

“Everything in the decision-making of the show is Donald. Do you think Donald’s going to listen to me?”
- Mark Burnett describes who’s really in charge behind the scenes

“Omarosa’s made her living as a villain.”
- Donald Trump gives an example of someone who’s achieved fame after leaving the show

“Right out of the gate you could see the hunger and the passion.”
– Ivanka Trump believes this year’s contestants are more driven than other years’

“I wish I knew [NBC chief Jeff] Zucker could be that generous.”
- Erin Burnett jokes about the network’s allowance of funds for weekly panoramic images taken by helicopter

What We Thought

• Erin Burnett (no relation to Mark) ran a superb panel, keeping Trump’s kids involved in spite of their being overshadowed by more famous and revered panelists. She not only asked good questions, but she directed them specifically to the parties who could answer those questions best.
• We liked hearing about how much work goes into filming just one episode of the show. Believe it or not, there are 32 cameras in total, and they shoot 300 hours of footage for every hour that’s aired. A production team stakes out an entire floor of Trump Tower, according to Erin Burnett.
• There’s a “task department” in charge of coming up with and planning the projects that the teams perform each week. Fans know these can range from dog grooming to flipping burgers to remodeling a room. We admire those with the creativity to brainstorm new and creative ideas year after year.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t have anyone to pick on from this engaged and informed audience. They served nine on-the-ball questions, each leading to intriguing responses and discussions. A job well done.

The three women being interviewed – Emma Thompson, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Susanna White – suggested that “Nanny McPhee Returns” (the sequel to the 2005 children’s film) offers more than just a playful depiction of a family with some CGI thrown in. They argued that the film offers insights into the day-to-day frustrations of an overworked mother trying to keep it all together. Gyllenhaal, a new mom who plays the protagonist, Mrs. Green, said that when she got the chance to play a struggling mom, she leapt at the opportunity. White, the director, told a similar story about her first exposure to the script and the project. Although this message came across loud and clear, the panelists focused a bit too much on describing the difficulties of the working woman, and could have said more about the film – and moviemaking – itself.

Gyllenhaal argued that this film couldn’t have been made five years ago. Its honesty about the hardships of motherhood, she said, isn’t something people were ready yet to see on the big screen. However, Thompson, who also wrote the screenplay, contended that “McPhee” has a distinct story to tell. The trio shared their observations about parenting and were amused to find out that the others had also initially balked at the idea of hiring a nanny for assistance at home. They bonded so well on the set that when Gyllenhaal had a momentary breakdown when dealing with the stresses of being a new mother, Thompson was there to console her.

Gyllenhaal credited Thompson with making a comfortable environment for everyone while shooting, learning the names of all members of the support staff. The women were so close that Gyllenhaal said she modeled her British accent off of White’s. White, who was a rookie filmmaker after working primarily in television, said that her job was made easier by the fact that the movie mixes CGI “tricks” with natural feats to create a world where anything is possible, including, as was screened, flying pigs and a magical solution to child mischief.

Sadly, these highlights were not enough to carry the panel. They barely scratched the surface about other subjects. Interviewer Donna Freydkin would have been wise to broaden the scope of the discussion, even if the panel did keep coming back to the subject of motherhood. This crowd was full of moms who could relate, but there were also child fans and Apple techies among us who left feeling unsatisfied. It’s a shame, too, since there was so much talent to work with.

What They Said
“I thought I could do a Clint Eastwood. I thought I could do a James Bond. how many movies do you know about where a woman could come back and do the same role?”
- Emma Thompson says that, with this sequel, she’s atop a franchise

“It’s always a challenge to make a sequel because you want it to be the same, but different.”
- Susanna White drew from the old and the new while putting together “Nanny McPhee Returns”

“It will work as a movie if it’s done in the most excellent way.”
– Maggie Gyllenhaal hopes to make a film version of Norman Rush’s Mating

“I want to leave the cinema feeling different. I don’t want to leave feeling the same way.”
- Emma Thompson thinks movies should have an impact on you

What We Thought

• Freydkin, as mentioned above, could have steered a better ship. In the name of not cutting off the famous star beside her, Freydkin allowed Thompson to talk tangentially and at great length. With just 45 minutes at your disposal, a moderator in such a situation must interject when necessary.
• We were delighted to discover that Thompson is a writer and Gyllenhaal is a producer for other films. Gyllenhaal revealed that she was the most surprised to find her other talents. We believe that actors who understand other aspects of their industry wind up becoming better at their crafts because they get the fuller picture.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Three-Prongers
Take advantage of the chance to speak to famous people by asking a succinct question. If you want to hear from all of the panelists, ask an open-ended question that each one may choose to address. However, when you ask three separate questions, one to each of them, it leads to a long, drawn-out saga that drastically cuts down on time for others to raise their questions. Moreover, when one of your questions has already been addressed, it makes it clear to everyone that not only did you wish to monopolize the time, you hadn’t been listening up to that point. We don’t have much patience for those who prefer to be self-important interviewers instead of courteous spectators.