The criticism of people who care reminds me of the people at school who used to describe things (films, books, music) they didn't understand as "pretentious" – which is literally missing the point of the word, i.e. that it involves pretense. What's so refreshing about Jeremy Strong is that he's actually therefore one of the least pretentious people in film today, because his devotion to his craft is earnest to the point of oddness. He's not pretending to love acting, to be driven, to care deeply about the quality of the films he is in.
To me, that's very cool. But it's also so unusual nowadays that people don't know how to react to him, and so they inevitably alight on their default response: slightly defensive piss-taking...
Incidentally, I think it's kinda fascinating that the two characters these two play in Succession have their respective approaches *to their father's business*. Both want to inherit it or at least play an important role within it – they both aspire to traditional success and recognition – but Kendall takes it deadly, humourlessly seriously, while Roman exploits the born-to-rule ease he's afforded in a boardroom context to hide his real insecurities. Great casting, in other words.
This is SUCH a sharp observation about the misuse of "pretentious" – you've absolutely nailed it. What we're really seeing with Strong is the complete absence of pretense, which makes people deeply uncomfortable.
I'm actually obsessed with your Succession character parallel too. It's perfect casting precisely because Roman and Kendall represent these two approaches to inherited privilege – one who wields it with calculated casualness to mask deep insecurity (Roman/Culkin), and one who takes it so seriously that he's almost crushed by its weight (Kendall/Strong). Even their failures mirror this dynamic: Roman fails spectacularly through cavalier disregard, Kendall through trying too hard.
The narrative is additionally complicated, I guess, by the fact that actual pretentiousness absolutely exists… Like the number of people I have met throughout my life that claimed Joyce’s Ulysses as ‘their favorite book’ is absolutely unnaturally too high. I call shenanigans 😅
I guess there is a balanced center line somewhere that appreciates genuine effort and complexity without inflating into a lot of hot air.
Great piece. I didn't watch the show, but the next day this is all I heard about: Strong's reaction when Culkin won. Like you said, it's unfortunate that we love to dump on people who seem to really want it while praising those who make it look like they don't care and are just, like, "Whatever, ok." It's what teenagers do -- how they assess your "cool" factor. There's no place for that kind of eyeroll cynicism in discourse about art, or really, any kind of discipline.
Thank you so much for this – I completely missed the Oscars too, but the memes about Strong's reaction landed in my mentions before coffee the next morning. The way it flared up online was so immediate and weirdly vicious.
You nailed it with the teenage social dynamics comparison. The "cool table" mentality has somehow infected our entire adult culture. We're applying high school popularity metrics to assess Oscar-nominated acting performances, which is genuinely insane when you stop to think about it.
What gets me is how this teen-level judgment system extends way beyond Hollywood. I keep noticing it in literature, journalism, tech, even academia – everywhere there's this bizarre pressure to downplay how much you care. Make it look easy or risk being labeled a try-hard.
Between you and me, I'm hoping for some cultural exhaustion with cynicism soon. Maybe the pendulum swings back to sincerity eventually? Until then, at least we have Jeremy Strong refusing to play along.
There was a lot of talk a few years ago about "postmodernism" vs. "post-post modernism", how things seemed to be getting away in the later 2000's from automatic cynicism and thinking of everything as a power move. David Foster Wallace talked a lot about it and then there were shows like "The Office" and "Parks and Rec" that were all about sincerity and working hard despite a world that doesn't value those things. But I think we've definitely regressed -- possibly because we've seen adults no longer acting like adults, our leaders failing to lead, etc. Words and attitude have become way more important than action.
Yeah, it's a lot to think about, and hopefully, like you said, it's cyclical.
Just found you via this essay and am so glad! You hit the nail on the head with this one… I also think this could tie in with the trend of anti-intellectualism, almost like at some point people thought it was too try hard to care enough about media/books to read between the lines, believe people were trying to “say”more than what they were literally saying. In some ways, Jeremy Strong believing his acting is important infers that he believes the works he is helping to create are important too, and nowadays the concept seems to make people feel uncomfortable; maybe because it implies that what they watch, read and “consume” matters too.
This is a really insightful connection that it's been brewing for me for a while but I decided to not fully go there with this piece as I feel so many talented writers here have articulated much better than I could have. But you're spot on about this weird cultural shift where caring deeply about interpretation has somehow become embarrassing.
I keep thinking about how this plays out online whenever someone offers a thoughtful reading of a popular film. The immediate response is often "it's not that deep" or "the writer didn't intend all that" – as if creators don't deliberately craft their work with multiple layers of meaning.
And you're absolutely right about Strong – his approach fundamentally assumes that the work matters, that performance has cultural significance beyond entertainment.
Thank you so much for this perspective and for finding your way here! So good to have you 🤗
I’m no Jeremy Strong in any industry, but I know how it feels like to get mocked for caring. I’ve attended speaking engagements where people have openly laughed in my face for saying that I deeply care about and love every chance to work in film education and criticism.
It’s either not worth it, or it’s too childish, but there’s just this reaction to any kind of passion or showing a vulnerability to the work. I don’t get it. Partially cause I’m autistic, but also because it doesn’t make sense.
Thank you for sharing your experience, Joonatan – it's exactly that real-world mockery of enthusiasm that got me writing this piece in the first place.
There's this bizarre social contract where we're all supposed to act like we don't actually give a shit about the things we've devoted our lives to. I've sat through countless film festival Q&As watching audience members squirm when filmmakers speak earnestly about their work.
The autism perspective you bring cuts right through it all – why wouldn't we care deeply about things that matter to us? The performance of casual detachment is such a waste of energy. Every time someone rolls their eyes at passion, I think they're really just protecting themselves from the vulnerability of caring that openly. Easier to mock than risk showing that same enthusiasm and getting shot down. Thanks for reading and connecting with this. Makes writing it worthwhile!
I really loved this piece. I've always felt that showing effort is "uncool" because it proves that you could also be great at something if you were willing to put in the effort.
That being said, I think there's a fine line between "putting in a lot of effort" and "performative, self-indulgent effort."
Not to bring a sports analogy, but there's a difference between "I was working out 8 hours a day trying to be the best I can be" and "I was doing squats on the plane ride back from our Super Bowl loss." They're both superficially the same thing (putting in effort for the thing you care about), but one is clearly performative and not really helping you improve.
I hope that Jeremy Strong is the guy that is just putting all of his effort into the craft. But I find the way he talks about acting sounds a little bit like the guy doing squats on the plane.
I'm not an actor. It's entirely possible that staying in character the entire shoot is what you need to do to put on an amazing performance. But there's a selfishness to that. I don't think his coworkers had a problem with it because they didn't respect his work; it's because by staying in character, you've made it that much more difficult on *every other member* of the cast.
Point being that I have no problem with Timothee Chalamet making his ambition clear. I see that as distinct from Jeremy Strong's perspective in an important way.
I get exactly what you're saying about that line between dedication and performance! That sports analogy really lands - there IS a huge difference between putting in honest work and making sure everyone sees your "sacrifice."
God, I've wrestled with this too. Part of me deeply admires Strong's commitment (that Roy Cohn performance still haunts me), but I've also worked with people who make their process everyone else's burden. The selfishness angle is what I keep coming back to - whose needs are actually being served? Is staying in character truly necessary for the work, or is it about constructing a narrative around your own artistic sacrifice?
What makes me most uncomfortable about judging this stuff is that I don't have access to what's happening behind closed doors. Brian Cox has been vocal about Strong's methods being disruptive, but Sarah Snook and Kieran himself have defended him. So maybe the plane squats are actually working!
Either way, thank you for this thoughtful take! You've got me reconsidering where that line between dedication and performance really falls. Maybe the ideal is caring deeply without needing everyone to witness your labor?
Insightful, probing and fun as always. I also appreciated this article as someone who in the past has preferred to avoid being seen as caring to make hard effort.
I’ll add a note about the acting process. Any actor who spent serious time training for the stage will have a different approach than one who only trained for the screen. You can’t spontaneously ad-lib your way through a live performance with other actors over the course of an hour or more on stage. A film performance transpires over the course of weeks, in typically thirty-second little pieces, under a totally different form of direction. They require different skills.
Thank you for this! Your point about stage vs. screen training changes the conversation. You're right - these are completely different beasts. When you're doing theater, you can't just wing it for two hours live. That precision Strong brings makes total sense given his Yale drama background. I'm curious about your personal experience with hiding effort too. I do this constantly - playing down how much work went into something just to seem naturally good at it. Such a weird habit we've all picked up.
Really appreciate this stage/screen angle - makes me see the whole Strong/Culkin dynamic in a new light!
While the cultural imagination has chosen up sides, not only between class and how we encode earnest workmanship versus innate artlessness, meaning free from craft, artificiality, both Jeremy Strong and Kieran Culkin have acted on the stage, the latter is part of the current Broadway cast in the revival of David Mamet's "Glengarry Glen Ross."
Also, I think his casting in Kenneth Lonergan's "This is Our Youth" might be where he met Lonergan's wife, actor J. Smith-Cameron ("Gerri" to Culkin's "Roman" on "Succession"). I do agree with the commenter above regarding a varied skill set required for performing on stage compared with in front of a camera for precise intervals. Not to be niggling just wanted to share that both have experience on the stage, whereas Strong's connection to the theater appears from the wide-ranging profiles and interviews seems to be more foundational, a hardwon forge that not only informs his work but who he is as a person.
Glad to finally have the time to dig into this: your elucidation organized around the prevailing social media narrative, your "Tàr" object lesson and the Reclamation Tour of Earnestness featured so many well written observations supporting your thesis.
(I appreciated the fillip of Anne Hathaway who was also set-upon by online critics for being a tryhard cast as Strong's wife and asked to comment on her experience with the actor.)
welp, Soph thanks, you did it again. your writing is effortlessly evocative. my eyes were watering the whole time if only simply from the connection I feel to Jeremy's pursuit of excellence. Thank you for this.
Right on. We take the very ironical violent bent and vileness of classist superficiality, and aim it at one another, totally misplacing ourselves and those we "other" rather than connecting and working together.
A really great piece! If I had to think back on my teenage years and all the opportunities I missed out on because I didn't want to be a try-hard, it's genuinely sad.
I genuinely think one of the reasons people don't take Timothee Chalamet seriously as an actor is because he's a good-looking guy. There's so many people in Hollywood that are simply there because they're nice to look at and I think people assume the same of Timothee. They think he simply fell into acting because someone saw his cheekbones and not because he dreamt of being an actor and worked at it. I also think most people only know him from his SNL skits and films like Wonka, which doesn't help.
“Pretending their privileges are just natural qualities” - you’ve nailed it. It’s woven into beauty standards too. Be hot but for god’s sake don’t admit it takes effort (see; the eternally aspirational effortless French Girl).
I also see it as a version of “don’t get ideas above your station”. Don’t strive for more - is what you’ve been given not good enough for you? So much social discouragement!
Also, I’m incurably earnest myself so of course I’m on board with this piece.
Your piece articulates something I’ve been on the outside of forever. It’s gratifying to see it laid out like this, and validated by another’s perspective. IE, I’m not the only person that sees this. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and presenting them so fluidly.
So agree and glad you laid it all out there. I can’t help but feel like Jeremy is the kid who bullies love and we’re all jumping aboard the bully express. No one seems to want to defend him or they get the stank on them too.
We demand actors to tell us how they did it, but we don’t want the honest answer. Maybe there is something refreshing in his attitude to really answer the question in a way that is authentic to him, but we can’t see it because he doesn’t grasp for plainer words to describe himself at work. Like you said.
Kieran is describing himself too btw. He’s telling his story about growing up as a working child actor with terrible parents. His abilities seem to surprise even himself because he’s been struggling against this thing that has ruled his life for so long, he forgot he was good at it.
But Kieran’s dig “sorry Jeremy” reeks of the legacy kid kicking dust at the scholarship student. I love him but that’s where he lost me
I agree! Kieran also instinctively knows what lands as a joke on the internet/out there in the ether vs Jeremy. I think the 'sorry jeremy' was almost pre-planned - like you can tell he wanted to say that out loud at some point. That opinion stayed with him. And retrospectively, I think he realized it was an unnecessary dig which is why he did what he did at the Oscars. But still...
Sophie, the awareness for you to not only point this out but articulate it in such a beautiful way is genuinely remarkable.
I think that anyone (myself included) who has watched these two go from battling Emmy’s to battling for Oscars has thought something along the lines of what you said, but I would have never thought to articulate it in that way. You hit the nail on the head.
The tough thing is that like your instinctual response at laughing at that guy’s description of Tar, I too have been guilty at laughing at someone who is dedicated & committed to the craft, like Strong. No idea why it is our default to laugh instead of defend in instances like that, but here is to your piece giving us the courage to embrace it!
This is such a thoughtful response, thank you! I think we've all been part of that nervous laughter when someone cares "too much".
It's weirdly comforting to know I'm not alone in that regret. There's this collective social pressure to maintain distance from anything we love, as if passion might somehow contaminate our cool. I keep wondering when this shifted - when earnestness became something to be embarrassed about rather than celebrated?
What fascinates me most about the Strong/Culkin dynamic is how clearly it reveals our own insecurities. We mock Strong's intensity because it reminds us of our own unrealized potential - if success requires that level of commitment, what does that say about us?
I'm really hoping for a cultural swing back to valuing visible effort. Not just in film but everywhere. Imagine how much more interesting everything would be if we all stopped pretending not to care so damn much.
wanted to say thank you for writing this piece—it’s been revolving in my mind for a couple weeks now and i referenced it in an essay i wrote bc i kinda Need people to read it 🫡🫡
The criticism of people who care reminds me of the people at school who used to describe things (films, books, music) they didn't understand as "pretentious" – which is literally missing the point of the word, i.e. that it involves pretense. What's so refreshing about Jeremy Strong is that he's actually therefore one of the least pretentious people in film today, because his devotion to his craft is earnest to the point of oddness. He's not pretending to love acting, to be driven, to care deeply about the quality of the films he is in.
To me, that's very cool. But it's also so unusual nowadays that people don't know how to react to him, and so they inevitably alight on their default response: slightly defensive piss-taking...
Incidentally, I think it's kinda fascinating that the two characters these two play in Succession have their respective approaches *to their father's business*. Both want to inherit it or at least play an important role within it – they both aspire to traditional success and recognition – but Kendall takes it deadly, humourlessly seriously, while Roman exploits the born-to-rule ease he's afforded in a boardroom context to hide his real insecurities. Great casting, in other words.
This is SUCH a sharp observation about the misuse of "pretentious" – you've absolutely nailed it. What we're really seeing with Strong is the complete absence of pretense, which makes people deeply uncomfortable.
I'm actually obsessed with your Succession character parallel too. It's perfect casting precisely because Roman and Kendall represent these two approaches to inherited privilege – one who wields it with calculated casualness to mask deep insecurity (Roman/Culkin), and one who takes it so seriously that he's almost crushed by its weight (Kendall/Strong). Even their failures mirror this dynamic: Roman fails spectacularly through cavalier disregard, Kendall through trying too hard.
Thank you for this comment!!
The narrative is additionally complicated, I guess, by the fact that actual pretentiousness absolutely exists… Like the number of people I have met throughout my life that claimed Joyce’s Ulysses as ‘their favorite book’ is absolutely unnaturally too high. I call shenanigans 😅
I guess there is a balanced center line somewhere that appreciates genuine effort and complexity without inflating into a lot of hot air.
Great piece. I didn't watch the show, but the next day this is all I heard about: Strong's reaction when Culkin won. Like you said, it's unfortunate that we love to dump on people who seem to really want it while praising those who make it look like they don't care and are just, like, "Whatever, ok." It's what teenagers do -- how they assess your "cool" factor. There's no place for that kind of eyeroll cynicism in discourse about art, or really, any kind of discipline.
Thank you so much for this – I completely missed the Oscars too, but the memes about Strong's reaction landed in my mentions before coffee the next morning. The way it flared up online was so immediate and weirdly vicious.
You nailed it with the teenage social dynamics comparison. The "cool table" mentality has somehow infected our entire adult culture. We're applying high school popularity metrics to assess Oscar-nominated acting performances, which is genuinely insane when you stop to think about it.
What gets me is how this teen-level judgment system extends way beyond Hollywood. I keep noticing it in literature, journalism, tech, even academia – everywhere there's this bizarre pressure to downplay how much you care. Make it look easy or risk being labeled a try-hard.
Between you and me, I'm hoping for some cultural exhaustion with cynicism soon. Maybe the pendulum swings back to sincerity eventually? Until then, at least we have Jeremy Strong refusing to play along.
There was a lot of talk a few years ago about "postmodernism" vs. "post-post modernism", how things seemed to be getting away in the later 2000's from automatic cynicism and thinking of everything as a power move. David Foster Wallace talked a lot about it and then there were shows like "The Office" and "Parks and Rec" that were all about sincerity and working hard despite a world that doesn't value those things. But I think we've definitely regressed -- possibly because we've seen adults no longer acting like adults, our leaders failing to lead, etc. Words and attitude have become way more important than action.
Yeah, it's a lot to think about, and hopefully, like you said, it's cyclical.
Just found you via this essay and am so glad! You hit the nail on the head with this one… I also think this could tie in with the trend of anti-intellectualism, almost like at some point people thought it was too try hard to care enough about media/books to read between the lines, believe people were trying to “say”more than what they were literally saying. In some ways, Jeremy Strong believing his acting is important infers that he believes the works he is helping to create are important too, and nowadays the concept seems to make people feel uncomfortable; maybe because it implies that what they watch, read and “consume” matters too.
This is a really insightful connection that it's been brewing for me for a while but I decided to not fully go there with this piece as I feel so many talented writers here have articulated much better than I could have. But you're spot on about this weird cultural shift where caring deeply about interpretation has somehow become embarrassing.
I keep thinking about how this plays out online whenever someone offers a thoughtful reading of a popular film. The immediate response is often "it's not that deep" or "the writer didn't intend all that" – as if creators don't deliberately craft their work with multiple layers of meaning.
And you're absolutely right about Strong – his approach fundamentally assumes that the work matters, that performance has cultural significance beyond entertainment.
Thank you so much for this perspective and for finding your way here! So good to have you 🤗
I’m no Jeremy Strong in any industry, but I know how it feels like to get mocked for caring. I’ve attended speaking engagements where people have openly laughed in my face for saying that I deeply care about and love every chance to work in film education and criticism.
It’s either not worth it, or it’s too childish, but there’s just this reaction to any kind of passion or showing a vulnerability to the work. I don’t get it. Partially cause I’m autistic, but also because it doesn’t make sense.
I loved this essay.
Thank you for sharing your experience, Joonatan – it's exactly that real-world mockery of enthusiasm that got me writing this piece in the first place.
There's this bizarre social contract where we're all supposed to act like we don't actually give a shit about the things we've devoted our lives to. I've sat through countless film festival Q&As watching audience members squirm when filmmakers speak earnestly about their work.
The autism perspective you bring cuts right through it all – why wouldn't we care deeply about things that matter to us? The performance of casual detachment is such a waste of energy. Every time someone rolls their eyes at passion, I think they're really just protecting themselves from the vulnerability of caring that openly. Easier to mock than risk showing that same enthusiasm and getting shot down. Thanks for reading and connecting with this. Makes writing it worthwhile!
I really loved this piece. I've always felt that showing effort is "uncool" because it proves that you could also be great at something if you were willing to put in the effort.
That being said, I think there's a fine line between "putting in a lot of effort" and "performative, self-indulgent effort."
Not to bring a sports analogy, but there's a difference between "I was working out 8 hours a day trying to be the best I can be" and "I was doing squats on the plane ride back from our Super Bowl loss." They're both superficially the same thing (putting in effort for the thing you care about), but one is clearly performative and not really helping you improve.
I hope that Jeremy Strong is the guy that is just putting all of his effort into the craft. But I find the way he talks about acting sounds a little bit like the guy doing squats on the plane.
I'm not an actor. It's entirely possible that staying in character the entire shoot is what you need to do to put on an amazing performance. But there's a selfishness to that. I don't think his coworkers had a problem with it because they didn't respect his work; it's because by staying in character, you've made it that much more difficult on *every other member* of the cast.
Point being that I have no problem with Timothee Chalamet making his ambition clear. I see that as distinct from Jeremy Strong's perspective in an important way.
I get exactly what you're saying about that line between dedication and performance! That sports analogy really lands - there IS a huge difference between putting in honest work and making sure everyone sees your "sacrifice."
God, I've wrestled with this too. Part of me deeply admires Strong's commitment (that Roy Cohn performance still haunts me), but I've also worked with people who make their process everyone else's burden. The selfishness angle is what I keep coming back to - whose needs are actually being served? Is staying in character truly necessary for the work, or is it about constructing a narrative around your own artistic sacrifice?
What makes me most uncomfortable about judging this stuff is that I don't have access to what's happening behind closed doors. Brian Cox has been vocal about Strong's methods being disruptive, but Sarah Snook and Kieran himself have defended him. So maybe the plane squats are actually working!
Either way, thank you for this thoughtful take! You've got me reconsidering where that line between dedication and performance really falls. Maybe the ideal is caring deeply without needing everyone to witness your labor?
Insightful, probing and fun as always. I also appreciated this article as someone who in the past has preferred to avoid being seen as caring to make hard effort.
I’ll add a note about the acting process. Any actor who spent serious time training for the stage will have a different approach than one who only trained for the screen. You can’t spontaneously ad-lib your way through a live performance with other actors over the course of an hour or more on stage. A film performance transpires over the course of weeks, in typically thirty-second little pieces, under a totally different form of direction. They require different skills.
Thank you for this! Your point about stage vs. screen training changes the conversation. You're right - these are completely different beasts. When you're doing theater, you can't just wing it for two hours live. That precision Strong brings makes total sense given his Yale drama background. I'm curious about your personal experience with hiding effort too. I do this constantly - playing down how much work went into something just to seem naturally good at it. Such a weird habit we've all picked up.
Really appreciate this stage/screen angle - makes me see the whole Strong/Culkin dynamic in a new light!
While the cultural imagination has chosen up sides, not only between class and how we encode earnest workmanship versus innate artlessness, meaning free from craft, artificiality, both Jeremy Strong and Kieran Culkin have acted on the stage, the latter is part of the current Broadway cast in the revival of David Mamet's "Glengarry Glen Ross."
Also, I think his casting in Kenneth Lonergan's "This is Our Youth" might be where he met Lonergan's wife, actor J. Smith-Cameron ("Gerri" to Culkin's "Roman" on "Succession"). I do agree with the commenter above regarding a varied skill set required for performing on stage compared with in front of a camera for precise intervals. Not to be niggling just wanted to share that both have experience on the stage, whereas Strong's connection to the theater appears from the wide-ranging profiles and interviews seems to be more foundational, a hardwon forge that not only informs his work but who he is as a person.
Glad to finally have the time to dig into this: your elucidation organized around the prevailing social media narrative, your "Tàr" object lesson and the Reclamation Tour of Earnestness featured so many well written observations supporting your thesis.
(I appreciated the fillip of Anne Hathaway who was also set-upon by online critics for being a tryhard cast as Strong's wife and asked to comment on her experience with the actor.)
Thank you so much for this thoughtful comment, Jennifer!
welp, Soph thanks, you did it again. your writing is effortlessly evocative. my eyes were watering the whole time if only simply from the connection I feel to Jeremy's pursuit of excellence. Thank you for this.
I definitely cried writing this too!! 🥺
man, it really hit home. thank you - seriously.
Also apologies if you don’t like being called Soph- it just felt right in the moment 😂
Brilliant stuff! I think there's interesting links to be made with anti -intellectualism in arts spaces in recent years.
Absolutely, Sulezo! Thank you for your comment ♥️
Right on. We take the very ironical violent bent and vileness of classist superficiality, and aim it at one another, totally misplacing ourselves and those we "other" rather than connecting and working together.
Love this
A really great piece! If I had to think back on my teenage years and all the opportunities I missed out on because I didn't want to be a try-hard, it's genuinely sad.
I genuinely think one of the reasons people don't take Timothee Chalamet seriously as an actor is because he's a good-looking guy. There's so many people in Hollywood that are simply there because they're nice to look at and I think people assume the same of Timothee. They think he simply fell into acting because someone saw his cheekbones and not because he dreamt of being an actor and worked at it. I also think most people only know him from his SNL skits and films like Wonka, which doesn't help.
Absolutely!! Thank you so much 😊
“Pretending their privileges are just natural qualities” - you’ve nailed it. It’s woven into beauty standards too. Be hot but for god’s sake don’t admit it takes effort (see; the eternally aspirational effortless French Girl).
I also see it as a version of “don’t get ideas above your station”. Don’t strive for more - is what you’ve been given not good enough for you? So much social discouragement!
Also, I’m incurably earnest myself so of course I’m on board with this piece.
That's soooo true - I hadn't clocked that. Such a good observation!
Your piece articulates something I’ve been on the outside of forever. It’s gratifying to see it laid out like this, and validated by another’s perspective. IE, I’m not the only person that sees this. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and presenting them so fluidly.
So agree and glad you laid it all out there. I can’t help but feel like Jeremy is the kid who bullies love and we’re all jumping aboard the bully express. No one seems to want to defend him or they get the stank on them too.
We demand actors to tell us how they did it, but we don’t want the honest answer. Maybe there is something refreshing in his attitude to really answer the question in a way that is authentic to him, but we can’t see it because he doesn’t grasp for plainer words to describe himself at work. Like you said.
Kieran is describing himself too btw. He’s telling his story about growing up as a working child actor with terrible parents. His abilities seem to surprise even himself because he’s been struggling against this thing that has ruled his life for so long, he forgot he was good at it.
But Kieran’s dig “sorry Jeremy” reeks of the legacy kid kicking dust at the scholarship student. I love him but that’s where he lost me
I agree! Kieran also instinctively knows what lands as a joke on the internet/out there in the ether vs Jeremy. I think the 'sorry jeremy' was almost pre-planned - like you can tell he wanted to say that out loud at some point. That opinion stayed with him. And retrospectively, I think he realized it was an unnecessary dig which is why he did what he did at the Oscars. But still...
Sophie, the awareness for you to not only point this out but articulate it in such a beautiful way is genuinely remarkable.
I think that anyone (myself included) who has watched these two go from battling Emmy’s to battling for Oscars has thought something along the lines of what you said, but I would have never thought to articulate it in that way. You hit the nail on the head.
The tough thing is that like your instinctual response at laughing at that guy’s description of Tar, I too have been guilty at laughing at someone who is dedicated & committed to the craft, like Strong. No idea why it is our default to laugh instead of defend in instances like that, but here is to your piece giving us the courage to embrace it!
This is such a thoughtful response, thank you! I think we've all been part of that nervous laughter when someone cares "too much".
It's weirdly comforting to know I'm not alone in that regret. There's this collective social pressure to maintain distance from anything we love, as if passion might somehow contaminate our cool. I keep wondering when this shifted - when earnestness became something to be embarrassed about rather than celebrated?
What fascinates me most about the Strong/Culkin dynamic is how clearly it reveals our own insecurities. We mock Strong's intensity because it reminds us of our own unrealized potential - if success requires that level of commitment, what does that say about us?
I'm really hoping for a cultural swing back to valuing visible effort. Not just in film but everywhere. Imagine how much more interesting everything would be if we all stopped pretending not to care so damn much.
Couldn’t agree more!!
"why do we mock people who care too much?"
I feel this so much, Sophie.
you 🤝 me 🤝 jeremy 🤝 caring too deeply
wanted to say thank you for writing this piece—it’s been revolving in my mind for a couple weeks now and i referenced it in an essay i wrote bc i kinda Need people to read it 🫡🫡
This is a truly great article.
Thanks so much Declan!