Now in its third season on Hulu, “The LXD” dance series is an original, telling the story of good vs. evil in an usual way: through dance. It’s the brainchild of Jon M. Chu, the same guy who brought us “Step Up 2: The Streets,” “Step Up 3D,” and Justin Bieber’s movie, “Never Say Never.” (He’s also reportedly working on a sequel to the G.I. Joe movie.) The dance troupe has been making the rounds lately—they’ve toured with the cast of “Glee” for two summers now, and have performed at the Emmys and at the TED conference. Most recently, they made their second appearance on “So You Think You Can Dance,” where the LXD’s Christopher Scott also served as a guest choreographer for several weeks this season. We spoke to Scott about the new season of The LXD a day before the group’s “SYTYCD” performance.

Don’t miss our interviews with The LXD’s Jon Chu and Harry Shum, Jr. (“Glee”), in our archives.

Hulu: So, Chris, tell us about the “So You Think You Can Dance” performance.
Christopher Scott: The performance on “So You Think You Can Dance” is kind of, in a way, a continuation of the last piece that we did on the show. We start off with Galen and I on stage. We choreographed it together. We brought in an element of snow to set the season and tone. We like to engage with a place when we dance, to provide a place for the audience to experience a cinematic feel. We kind of add on routines until we have everyone on stage this time — last time we had people come and go throughout the routing. This time, we added a couple elements like flexers, who we showcase. And we have Pandora with her cutting. There are two ballerinas on pointe. It was contemporary the first time; this performance is more contemporary ballet.

We really wanted to show individual styles. That’s always a mission for The LXD: that street styles are as beautiful as your typical ballet. This one was very much an LXD ballet. Their story is more in the relationship that people have. It’s very subtle in the way that it represents society and where people belong, and where do you fit in. People get pulled into different molds … at the end, we all come together. Ultimately there shouldn’t be any rules.

I think you really got everyone’s attention when you choreographed “Misty Blue” for “SYTYCD” finalist Sasha and Season 4 All-Star Twitch. What’s the story behind that routine?
Originally, the only thing I knew going into the week was that I was going to get Twitch. Twitch has so much power, soul, and passion when he dances. When I listened to the song, it just sounded like Twitch would make this special. Then I found out it was going to be with Sasha, and I knew she’d be great. She’s not a hip-hop dancer, but rather a contemporary dancer. She has so much soul and passion, too. I knew the song was going to be perfect.

Listening to this song, it’s about a woman who was torn. She shouldn’t be with this guy. She misses him, but she shouldn’t be with him. It has this whole blues thing. I did a routine earlier in the season, “Ain’t No Sushine,” and in that one, I had it so that the girl was gone, away most of the routine.

One line in that song, “It’s been such a long, long time,” made me think about any couple who had been together such a long time. You know, they’ve been with each other for so long, but one night, they get the babysitter and go back to how it was. They go have fun, have a glass of wine, get freaky. I decided to just go with it from there. It’s a ’70s song, so I wanted to set it at the time the song came out. I pictured “The Wonder Years” and how they always had dinner on that show. I had it at dinner at first. But for some reason, it was so much more fun if it was breakfast. You know, it’s like she’s so much more important than work. Everyone wants that in a relationship, that feeling of being special. “Forget work, forget reading my newspaper, my relationship is more.”

Who’s your pick to win this season?
I haven’t gotten a chance to work with everyone on the show, so I’m a little biased. Sasha is just amazing. She is so easy to work with. She puts everything she has into it.

All of these dancers are good kids. They’re so hungry, so talented. Any one of them can win the show. When you work with them, it’s different than watching at home. You can’t pick your favorites.

Now, The LXD. What can we expect from Season 3?
Epic-ness for sure. We like epic, always. Season 1 was contained. It focused on meeting the characters. Season 2 introduced the bad guys and setting up the idea of good vs. evil. In Season 3, we’re going to see the impact of the fight. It will be good versus evil. You’ll get a taste of where this all began.

You’ve obviously been busy lately. How do you juggle the series and side projects — after all, you guys toured with “Glee” this summer?
This season was a little tougher. There has been so much opportunity from The LXD, where I started as a choreographer. Now I’m getting recognition and opportunity. It’s getting harder to be available. The same is happening for Harry [Shum, Jr.]. His role on “Glee” has gotten bigger since we started the show. But we’ve been able to build a bigger team and expand. We brought on more choreographers Galen Hooks and Mike Song, a great up-and-coming choreographer.

We got to see some of the series regulars get involved behind the scenes, too. Luigi and David had asked before about bringing some choreography to the series, and this season has been a great opportunity for these B-boys. Madd Chadd — the robot — wanted to jump into the choreography, and it was amazing to see what he could bring.

What’s next for you?
I’ve been hired to be a choreographer on “Step Up 4,” in fact I’m on the set right now. I met Jon on “Step Up,” I came on in “Step Up 3D.” I went to Hollywood High School for performing arts. I started in theater, even though I was a hip-hop kid. My CD case was full of Tupac, “Ragtime,” and “Les Mis.” From there, I attended the Theater Academy and then Second City for improv school. I studied dance, but I never found myself dancing. I always thought “I like to dance, but I love acting,” but as I let it all happen, it just took over. I’d just be in an elevator with my mom and sister, tap-dancing the whole time.

What have been some of your all-time favorite performances?
The first time we did “So You Think You Can Dance.” This was the first time we established what we were gonna do in live shows. Harry and I had no idea what we were gonna do. We had all this crazy stuff. But then we just looked at each other and said we should do a B-boy ballet. We see hip-hop as beautiful like ballet. That’s when it all started.

TEDTalks was pretty amazing: just to be invited, to have 18 minutes on that stage. We had original music. Live musicians were coming to rehearsals and we’d freestyle.

But “Robot Lovestory” is definitely my favorite of the series, for the style of Madd Chadd and to work with him. He’s so precise, and the concept is so cool. I don’t know if anyone out there really got the concept, but we had extensions of Madd Chadd — we called them his energies, these dancers — these extensions were coming off his body and going all over the room. It was fun. It felt like choreographing a superhero.

“Mark of the Ox” was another. Just being there. It was freestyle. We had Frantick there with the powder. It was so music. He’d never done it before, but he just came out of his hood. It was silent, even the music was in a quiet section. Everyone was just laughing at him, because the stuff he was doing with this powder was off the top of his head. It brought his mom to tears. For a lot of these guys, they’re street dancers, and to be filmed like this, this is why we do this.

Catch new episodes of “The LXD” every Thursday on Hulu.

With Hulu’s second annual Best in Show winner announced, we spoke to “Chuck” co-creator Chris Fedak to see if he’d share some thoughts on his show winning the competition and talk to us about the series and the growth of its characters over the last four years.

Hi Chris, we were hoping to talk to you about “Chuck” and how it won Hulu’s Best in Show. I have to admit I was surprised a little bit, because it won by a landslide, over “Dexter.”
Chris Fedak, co-creator, “Chuck”: Well, first of all, thank you so much. It’s great to win, and we’re always in awe of our fans. They’re an amazing group. They’ve been fantastic to the show in years past and we’ve always relied upon then. I guess it’s kind of a testament to how much they really did the show, and we really like making the show for them, so it’s really cool.

“Chuck” beat out three other critically acclaimed shows — “Modern Family,” “Community,” and “Dexter.” We asked this of Josh Gomez [who plays Chuck's sidekick, Morgan, on the show]: Do you think this indicates that “Chuck” belongs in the pantheon of all-time greatest TV shows?

Wow. I think it when it comes to the greatest of all time TV pantheon, I’ll let the critical historians 100 years from now make that decision. We’re just excited to be on the air, making our show, and being the absolute best action-spy comedy set inside a big box store that we could possibly be. We’re of course huge fans of all of those shows. It’s great, but I think I’ll leave the absolute pantheon to the experts.

Speaking of big box stores, I have to ask how that came about. “Chuck” came out at about the same time as “Reaper,” both taking place inside megastores. What is it about that kind of environment that inspired you?

Essentially, you have to go back to 2007. Imagine the fact there was actually two shows with a strong big box component that also had a strong genre component. At the time, Josh [Schwartz, co-creator of "Chuck"] and I were just amazed that there was going to be two shows. We thought obviously we would be the only show doing this. It didn’t turn out to be the case. The show is a mash-up. It’s a combination of one part “The Office,” one part “24,” one part “Alias.” When you mash those shows together, what happens? What we were really excited about is if you built the show like something like “The Office,” where you essentially met all these characters and you loved them, and then how terrifying it would be if Sydney Bristow or Jack Bauer came into the office, because you knew, when those people showed up, that someone was going to get shot, and someone was going to get tortured, and someone was going to get killed. That’s where the initial germ of the “Chuck” show came from. So the big box store was always there at the beginning. That was the basis for the idea: what happens when people from another genre, from an action show, walk into that world. It’s made for a really fun show that’s always been about bending genres. It’s been a lot of fun for us to be working with something so unique.

We asked our guest critic, HitFix’s Alan Sepinwall, what he thought was the secret formula to “Chuck.” And he said it was made with a lot of love directed at its characters and pop culture. What do you think of that?
I think it’s spot-on. I think this is a show designed for people who 1) love pop culture, 2) love TV, and 3) love movies and music. And in some ways, it’s also a love letter to spy shows from the past. When you take all those things together, we don’t have the largest audience in the world, but we do have an audience that just adores the show and really digs what we do. It’s made for that kind of passionate fan base that we talked about earlier. For us, it’s exciting to make as how that can be that specific and have fun with that.

Much has been made of the Subway campaign from 2009. Are you guys still seeing some sort of residual impact of this?
Well my father tells me he still goes to Subway every night we have an episode air, so I think there is some residual. You’d have to ask the experts at Subway if they see an uptick on Monday nights from “Chuck” viewing parties. It’s one of those things where it was very exciting in Season 2 when it was a toss up if we were going to come back or not, and the Subway campaign was a really clever idea by our fans to show how they could influence the show — and of course, looking at our integration partner Subway was a great way to kind of show their support for the show. It was a very clever and savvy campaign by our fans. I think that also speaks to our fans: it’s a very bright crowd. Our fans know about every campaign associated with our show. It’s kind of amazing. We’ve had two seasons since then.

I think that’s a true testament — people typically hate product integration.
The one benefit we have with product integration with our show is that we did set our story inside a store. So that helps a little bit.

Let’s talk about Season 4. I’d say the characters have grown a bit; you’ve shown that they can progress beyond that post-college world where they don’t know where their future lies. What have been some of your favorite moments this season?
I think this season has really been about change, especially for our characters. The show started off as a show about a quarter-life crisis, with Chuck not sure what he wanted to do with his life. But it’s now four years later, so he’s much more of a man than he used to be. Just from Chuck’s perspective, we’ve had some great moments this season where he’s coming to realize that he needs to take the next step with Sarah Walker. Just looking at this season, I immediately think about episode 13 when he finally asked Sarah to marry him. It’s really bookended by episode 11, where he starts to ask her to marry him, and in episode 13 after the birth of his niece, in the hallway with the someone vacuuming at the far end of the hall, he decides to ask Sarah to marry him. I think for us, just working on the show, that was just an epic moment that we’ve been building to for four years. Much like, in the same episode, Ellie and Awesome giving birth to their child. It’s so interesting to take these characters who in the pilot only had a couple of lines and progress them through the show this season.

I think that Chuck seeing his mom for the first time and beginning to understand her backstory and why she left so many years ago was also a very important component to his journey this year. We’re working on our season finale now where, for him to have a happy ending and for him to survive, he’s going to have to become the hero he has to be. If he can do it, this is his greatest test. The finale will very much be a giant moment for Chuck Bartowski moving forward.

You’ve had an incredible run of guest stars through the years. Who have been your favorites, and who can we look forward to seeing in the rest of the season?
Back in the day, we’d say we were the “Love Boat” of spy shows. We found it really fun to write for guest stars. Just off the top of my head, I’d say there’s people like Chevy Chase who, in Season 2, was amazing to work with and actually write that character, Chevy Chase as a villain. I think we were the first show to kill off Chevy Chase, which is kind of a shocking thing to do. I’m kind of amazed my that. We’ve also had John Larroquette. I was a huge “Night Court” fan for many years. It was great to not only introduce him as Roan Montgomery but also to bring him back this season. That’s the kind of fun thing about our show. We’ve built this spy world, much like “Alias,” which is one of my favorite shows and helped to rejuvenate the genre. In Season 4, we revisit this spy world with guest stars like Dolph Lundgren. But I really enjoyed the character of Alexei Volkoff [played by former James Bond Timothy Dalton, and named after the Russian wrestler Nikolai Volkoff, a nod to Chris' days as a WWF fan]. We’ll get to see him again in our next episode.

Now what about the season finale? Since the fate of “Chuck” hasn’t been decided yet, will you leave things hanging?
We’ve always been inclined to do really crazy season finale episodes. This one is called “Chuck vs. the Cliffhanger,” so you know it’s going to be a big one.

With “Chuck” soundly beating “Dexter” in Hulu’s second annual Best in Show, we asked “Chuck” star Joshua Gomez (who plays Chuck’s sidekick, Morgan Grimes) about the contest and maybe even give us a little scoop about the rest of the season via email. Stay tuned tomorrow for an interview with the show’s co-creator, Chris Fedak.

Hulu: “Chuck” finished out the competition soundly beating three of the most critically acclaimed shows — “Modern Family,” “Community” and “Dexter” — of the last few years. Do you think this is validation that Chuck belongs in the Greatest of All-Time TV Pantheon?


Josh Gomez: It proves that “Chuck” FANS are among the Greatest of All-Time TV Fans! There are a lot of great shows out there right now, and we’re proud to have healthy competition. We love making “Chuck,” and we couldn’t do that without all of the support from our fans.



What was it about Season 4 that you think got “Chuck” fans mobilized to get out there and vote? After all, the show didn’t make it to the Final Four last year.
What it was was the end of an era known as “Lost!” It’s one of my favorite shows, and I might have had a tough time choosing last year.
 But back to this year: Season 4 has had some of my personal favorite episodes, and overall has been so much fun for me, thanks to Morgan joining Team Bartowski. Chuck and Sarah are moving forward in their relationship, Morgan even has a great girl (despite her overly protective Dad), and the good guys are still beating the bad guys. Life is good on Chuck.
 


We asked our guest critic, HitFix.Com editor Alan Sepinwall — a huge fan of the show — what he think the “secret formula” is to “Chuck.” He said this: “The show’s made with a lot of love, for both its characters and for the pop culture that its writers and fans grew up on, and that comes across.” How much of this do you think is true?
I would say a lot of that is true. The show really speaks to our fans. It has witty humor, fun references, and TONS of heart. It’s a show that attracts young, hip people, nerds (like myself), and even many families watch and enjoy it together. We hope to bring quality entertainment to our smart and loyal fan base. 
 


What do you think the “secret formula” is? 


It’s a show about an ordinary guy in an extraordinary situation. Well, a super-extended, possibly permanent extraordinary situation with the Intersect being in his head and all. But Chuck is someone people can relate to. And so is Morgan. It’s exciting to play a regular guy that has to help save the world from bad guys. It’s basically like my childhood dream. Maybe that’s the secret formula.



Do you think this confirms that the Chuck fan base is one of the most loyal and enthusiastic in TV? What do you think makes them so passionate about this show?


Umm … YES!!! Many of our fans relate to the show, as I’ve already mentioned, and many are also tech savy. Plus they RULE. Thanks everyone!!!
 


What can we expect from Season 5? And are we in for a 2012 repeat of Best in Show?


Season 5 — fingers crossed that we get there — will be awesome (pardon my McPartlin voice). We’ll be revealing another game changer the end of Season 4. Next season, there will be more action, more fun, more goofiness, more heart, more everything. I can’t give details, but I think you’ll love it. 


Michael Imperioli has been your mobster and your intrepid TV detective. That’s probably how you know him — as Christopher from “The Sopranos,” or as Det. Fitch, the guy pinning down Michigan criminals as they try to make a beeline out the door of an interrogation room in “Detroit 1-8-7.” He’s tremendously proud of that show right now. It just finished its first season on ABC. The season finale was just posted on Hulu. It’s the only thing on TV right now that works like “NYPD Blue” worked, in that unrelenting, not-quite-so-perfect way procedurals should be. It fills a hole, it has great purpose, and he loves it.

But it’s not his magnum opus. That’s where “The Hungry Ghosts” comes in, an expansive window of how Michael Imperioli looks at the world in the eyes of five characters. It’s a film he wrote and directed with a few friends and some great funding, and it was well-received on the festival circuits in 2008. To mark its premiere on Hulu, we called Imperioli to talk about how he feels about “Detroit 1-8-7” after one season and “The Hungry Ghosts” a few years later.

Hulu: Now that the first season of “Detroit 1-8-7″ is over, have you had a chance to look back at it and see how it looks as a whole, and how the show’s grown?
Michael Imperioli: I’m really pleased. It’s really funny, because I think it took some time in finding out what the show is. And I’m really pleased that the direction that the writers took. It’s half character-focused and half procedural. Toward the end of the season, we put a lot more into the characters, more into the city. We wanted to extract stories from the vibe of the city and not superimpose the crime of the city on it. I think, in the end, we did a very good job that, and we did a good job of doing justice to the feel of the city.

What I think sets “Detroit 1-8-7″ apart is that it’s not quite as tidy as usual procedurals. There’s actual character development. A lot of procedurals have a whole episode and take 30 seconds at the end to advance whatever relationships are between the characters. This show cares where its characters are going.
I think it’s much more character-driven than other shows like this. It shows what happens on both sides of the law — going into their lives and seeing what their personal lives are like to see why someone might have done something. There used to be more shows like this, like “NYPD Blue,” “Hill Street Blues.” There’s a history of that in the past. “Colombo,” even. In recent years, the procedural element of it, the technology of it has kind of taken over. It’s much more interesting to me — the procedure of solving the crime — than the courtroom side of it. I find that very interesting. Some people might find that very boring.

There’s a tendency for Detroit-related shows and art to be poverty tourism, where they use the name itself as a scare tactic. But “Detroit 1-8-7″ seems to have a pretty good feel of the city.
Before the show started, I hadn’t been to the city. I had just seen the pilot script. The pilot of the show was shot in Atlanta. I think we all initially wanted to do it in Detroit, but we were very concerned about weather. There’s a very small window of time in which we could shoot. There’s lot of snow in the Midwest, and then they weren’t really sure where they’d shoot it if it got picked up. So we went to Detroit to investigate, and we found out that it was the only place where it really belonged. Some people got a little upset because they had no idea what they were making. They thought we might be exploiting the negative image. But when you’re there, you find out it’s just a label and a misconception. There are a lot of problems there, but there are a lot of problems everywhere. There’s a much richer life that’s going on there, and I think we did a very good job of letting people know about it.

Hulu is now streaming “The Hungry Ghosts,” a film you wrote, produced and directed, and it comes off as a very personal film about your beliefs at that time in your life. You’ve had a couple of years to look back on it since it came out. Is there anything you’d change in the movie because of something you’ve experienced since then?
No, no. I made the movie I wanted to make. I was lucky to have the freedom and assembly of talent to put this together just how I wanted to.

This movie comes off as sort of a magnum opus of sorts. It’s sprawling and big and has big moral points in it. Do you think writers and directors are capable of a few projects this big in one lifetime?
Absolutely. Hopefully as I grow and mature and change as an artist, these expressions are going to change. And hopefully you’re still as passionate about your work as you were in the past. I was very, very fortunate that I had some friends who financed the movie and was able to make it the way I wanted.

The way “The Hungry Ghosts” is broken up into vignettes can pose a real challenge in keeping the film moving forward. It’s usually very hard to get momentum in such a segmented sort of movie, but this has a great pace. Were you conscious of this while making it?
You’ve just got to use your instincts while you’re editing and just try to imagine the movie as a whole as you’re writing. I didn’t really look at other movies to give me any ideas, but you’ve got to keep a certain balance.

There’s a very distinct media saturation element in the film — about how affected we are by what’s been deemed acceptable in mainstream circles.
Well, this film, to me, is really about the characters and the story. That should be the first thing. I can’t predict how it’s going to be received. That was an interesting thing with “Detroit 1-8-7.” I was in Detroit during a very interesting period of time, right after the show started airing, and there was an immediate response from the people of the city. They’d see me at a restaurant and tell me how much they liked it. I got almost immediate feedback. Some people felt a very strong connection to the show. I think they felt that it was a certain quality, that the country might be able to perceive Detroit in a positive way. And that’s very gratifying.

To celebrate our 5 week long holiday promotion, we reached out to Los Angeles-based artist Justin Martin to create an original drawing to capture the essence of the holidays. In his untitled wintry illustration, he portrays a young family walking home in the sunset from a day of sledding in the snow. Below is a brief Q&A with the artist. Be sure to check out more of his work on his blog. — The Hulu Team

What are you currently working on?
My 9 to 5 gig- though it is anything but- is as Background Painter at Warner Bros. Animation. I’m currently working on a new series called “The Looney Tunes Show”, due to air in 2011 on Cartoon Network.
I’m also creating all the artwork for a new graphic novel with the working title Badge of the Guardian, about a young boy who goes on a wild adventure in Outer Space.
Mainly, however, I’m trying to play the role of Dad for my 11 month old daughter. Maybe I should have started with that, as it’s unquestionably its own full time job.

What has been your most unusual project?
That’s a tough call. Each project has its own unique quirkiness. That’s a major reason why I opted to go into the Animation Industry. I’ve made monsters with tank turret underwear attacking the Golden Gate Bridge, space pirates who listen to Reggae while “beaming up” unsuspecting human prisoners, and an evil genius beaver who lives in the Hoover Dam. The weirdness just doesn’t stop around these parts.

On second thought, though, I might go with the whole fatherhood thing again. That certainly fits the “unusual” criteria.

Where do you find your inspiration?
Anywhere and everywhere I can. I’ve always thought that one of the most important lessons an artist can learn is to maintain constant awareness. There’s a Huxley book called Island in which talking birds are trained to fly around saying only the word “Attention”. I need one of those birds.
Instead I try to carry a camera with me everywhere I go, and to always have a book going. I have an “inspiration” section on my own blog that I stopped updating a long time ago because the list just got too enormous. It’s really staggering how many amazing artists there are out there, each with his or her own viewpoint, medium, or technique.

What is your favorite subject matter?
Anything thought provoking. I like to make pieces that you have to take a closer look at, so the subject has to have some depth to it. (See earlier answer re: space pirates and evil genius beavers.)

Do you prefer to use a pencil and paper, or a Wacom Tablet?
I generally sketch on paper in the early stages and move to digital a little later down the line. Some day I intend to get back to much more traditional media, but some of the chemicals involved aren’t so good for babies so it may be a while. Until then digital is nice and clean.

What are you favorite shows on Hulu?
I loves me some Arrested Development and 30 Rock. Modern Family is also great. We saw the guy that plays the dad who always slips on the stairs when we were out the other day. Part of me wanted to pull his earbuds out just so I could tell him how awesome he is.

He’s famous for such catchphrases as “serenity now,” and she’s famous for her sharp wit. The husband-and-wife comedy duo Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara saw their careers take off in the 1960s with appearances on the Ed Sullivan Show; Jerry later became a familiar face for his portrayals of Frank Costanza on Seinfeld and Arthur Spooner on King of Queens, while Anne starred on Archie Bunker’s Place and had recurring roles on ALF and Sex and the City. These days, you can find the couple on their web series Stiller & Meara, produced by none other than their son, Ben Stiller. To learn more about the show, which focuses on current events and pop culture, we spoke to them on Anne’s birthday in September, when they were on their way to honor F. Murray Abraham (“Amadeus”) at the National Arts Club. — Rebecca Harper (rebecca.harper@hulu.com), Editor

First, I wanted to talk about your new web series, and how it’s a family affair.
Anne: Yeah, it is, it’s good. We have doing it. Ben puts us at ease.

Jerry: He created it, which is kind of funny. One day, he just decided to put us on video, just a little test video, in which we sit down and the questions come up as to what’s going on during the course of the year or in front of us, and we try to deal with it in our own way, spontaneously and without a script. A lot of stuff comes out which is wild and crazy, hopefully. But Ben is not in the show; he is just the guy who’s created it for mom and dad, which is very nice for us.

It’s great, having him behind you guys and supporting you. Do you have any idea what is going to be asked of you when you go into these tapings?
Anne: You mean subjects covered? Not really, in the sense that there’s a blanket of subjects. You can take everything from the current culture if you want to call it that, which is like anything from Lady Gaga to Jersey Shore to Sarah Palin.

Jerry: You can pick up the newspaper and turn to Page Six, and everything is flying at you, you know. People who are in the news at that moment who are making it happen, like Justin Bieber, for instance, and then we start talking about Justin Bieber or Susan Boyle …

Anne: And he never mentions us.

Jerry: Yeah, it’s that kind of thing. So stuff flies and what comes out is spontaneous. Basically it’s true feelings, stuff that you haven’t monitored. You haven’t allowed it to go through a filter in your own mind, or tried to slant it your own way. It’s tough to talk about baseball, you know …

Anne: It is for me. I hate it!

Jerry: Teams like the Yankees, w hen somebody asks me about the Yankees, I tell them that I was a Yankee fan as a kid. I was also a Dodger fan. Now when I see the Yankees, all they have is players — their farm team is the whole American League. They pick a guy from the Chicago White Sox, they get a guy from Detroit, they fill in people. That, to me, is not even baseball.

Anne: Jerry, half of the people watching are like me! They don’t give a shit about baseball.

Jerry: I’m just telling you, you know. I get involved with the art of baseball, or the way it works.

Anne: I don’t want to talk about baseball anymore!

Jerry: Alright, you don’t want to talk about it, then. Do I have to talk about it then? Should I shut up?

Anne: Let her ask a question.

Jerry: Ask a question.

I feel like you guys could never run out of things to talk about. I see that there’s a Stiller and Meara Twitter account. What do you think of all this social networking stuff, things like Twitter and Facebook?
Jerry: I’ll let Anne handle that.

Anne: I don’t know about the Twitter and Facebook. I guess it’s OK. With the help of people who work with us, we do that Twitter stuff. I like plain old email, but Twitter — you can find out who’s sort of honed into you. I guess it’s good for something you’re trying to do, if you’re trying to do a show. Because even though this is the two of us sitting on a couch talking, you know, ruminating on the things going on in the world, two altakakas sitting there, talking …

Jerry: We’re not altakakas.

Anne: Alright, Jerry. Live in your own world, whatever.

Jerry: We’re 85 going on 2.

Anne: Anyway, Twitter is good. You get immediate feedback from people. I don’t know what they do all day. I guess they just Twitter.

Jerry: I don’t know if I want people to be too much into my life. I mean, I would be swamped. I have a lot of fans right now — I’m at a point in my life where this is called rejuvenation, and I really am amazed by everything that goes on. But I really couldn’t handle Twitter if it came my way. As far as the Facebook goes, I was just recently … My daughter Amy was cluing me in on Facebook, and it sounds like I’m a little bit retro, but I am. It occurs to me, why would you want to contact people? My age, they’re all dead! I mean the ones who might get back to me are the ones who might hate me or not like me.

Anne: But you have to take that. Not everyone’s gonna love you, dear.

Jerry: Yeah, but if some woman comes in and says I had an affair with her 25 years ago and there’s a child …

Anne: Then you would be lucky.

Jerry: Well, I don’t want to become what a lot of actors have become, you know, hit with lawsuits for patrimony and alimony. One thing we’ve got going for us is we don’t have palimony. If she left me today …

Anne: Who are you talking about?

Jerry: I’m talking about you. The only thing we could split is a rug! That’s already laid down, so you’d have to cut it up into sides.
I saw on Twitter, actually, Anne, that you were commenting on the Jersey Shore and Snooki. You called her a troll of all things.

Anne: I did, I did. I feel very bad about that. She’s not a troll at all. She’s a little person. You know, she has that little bump on her head, that little hairdo or whatever, and she’s like a very tall, thin, sexy woman who has been squashed down by something. She dresses kind of like, I don’t know. I can’t watch them too long. I don’t think they have — not that I have …

Jerry: I have a lot of Italian friends and …

Anne: I’m not talking Italian, I’m just talking about them. The other guy goes around, showing his abs and his washboard belly. See, I gotta tell you: When someone says “Look at me, I’m sexy,” that immediately louses up the deal. The moment someone becomes aware of their sexuality or the fact that they’re hot for the other sex, or the other sex is hot for them, they become unsexy. So this guy, this Situation guy, is the most sexless person I’ve ever seen.

Jerry: She’s right.

But did you know anyone like the Jersey Kids back in the day — did people like this exist before?
Anne: Well, I’m sure they did, but they didn’t become a “thing.” See, now everything becomes a thing. It’s labeled, it’s put on, it’s put in residuals, it’s syndicated, and people can make millions from it, so it’s an industry. When we were growing up, we had Jewish friends, Italian friends, black friends, Irish friends, all different.

Jerry: But you see, the whole nature of it, this was given birth from The Sopranos, and now we’re going to have another one called Boardwalk Empire from Martin Scorsese. Italians are becoming a piece of our culture today. In the old days, Italians were the people who were hard-working guys who came from the old country. They raised a family and lived on Mulberry Street. Now, with the Jersey Shore we forget these are the same people who were the great artists of the world.

Anne: Nobody on the Jersey Shore is a great artist, Jerry.

Jerry: What I’m saying is we’re missing out on Toscanini, we’re missing out on the great opera stars. These are some of the greatest people in the world, who have given us some culture. Some of the great doctors in this world were Italian.

Anne: But a lot of people watch this. It gets them off their own troubles. They say, “Gee, I’ve got more class than those people.”

Jerry: Yeah, but why do you always feel that it’s kind of labeled about Italians? My friend Danny Aiello, who I love, I asked him the question how he feels about all of this, I guess Danny being Danny, he said, “Why aren’t I in that show?” The thing is, Danny is a class guy. He wouldn’t be in that show.

Anne: Alright, can we move from Italy now?

Have you learned anything new about each other since working on the Stiller & Meara show?
Anne: Absolutely nothing.

Jerry: Not to interrupt Anne.

Anne: Absolutely nothing.

Jerry: Let her roll! Takes a few minutes to get her warmed up, but once she’s on it, the gems come out of her mouth, usually, and I just kind of stumble.

Anne: Nothing new, nothing new about Jerry.

Jerry: I tell you what it’s about, really. This is something Anne and I never really did, except for our personal appearances in clubs when we were starting out. So this is the first time we’ve done this in front of a hopefully national audience that’s going to be watching us. We talk like people …

Anne: Yeah, but we’re just talking on this show. Remember what Ben said? He said, “Just remember one thing: it’s a conversation.” That’s what it is.

Jerry: Nobody ever saw us converse.

Anne: Those that want to watch can watch. Those that don’t, the hell with them

Jerry: We might say something that’s valuable or intrigue you.

Anne: Or not.

Jerry: Yeah, it goes both ways.

Do you ever cross the line and hurt the other’s feelings?
Jerry: Absolutely.

Anne: Constantly.

Jerry: When we’re finished with this …

Anne: If you can’t hurt the other person at least once a day, then you’ve got no relationship.

Jerry: Listen, when this interview is finished, blood will flow. I mean, verbally.

Looking back over your careers, who are some of the funniest people you’ve worked with?
Anne: I thought Ed Sullivan was hilarious. He was such a block of granite. I really couldn’t stand him. Jerry liked him because he was afraid of him.

Jerry: No, Ed Sullivan …

Anne: Oh, you thought he was like the pope.

Jerry: No, you said he was the pope. I said he was the papal saint of our careers. But people who make me laugh? I’ll tell you who they are, and you might think I’m nuts. Patton Oswalt makes me laugh, because I worked with …

Anne: Patton Oswalt is very funny. He’s also very cerebral. Sarah Silverman makes me laugh. Wanda Sykes makes me laugh.

Jerry: Patton Oswalt has got a brain. Jason Alexander makes me laugh. He’s an incredible performer.

Anne: That’s right. I’ll tell you who we don’t see anymore. He quit his show, and he was brilliant. Dave Chappelle. What happened to him?

Jerry: I’ll tell you that people that I really adore, and I’m going to leave some of them out, are people like Jason and Michael Richards, who when I was doing Seinfeld, they literally turned the show over to me. They started feeding me, they started connecting. There was no air between us. Kevin James is another one of those people who I think is something between Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd. He’s got a body that’s bigger than it should be, but he can move and say things and make you laugh. He’s a wonderful writer, and nine years with him was something special. And then there’s the old people who nobody on this show are going to connect with, people who have been nice to Anne and myself. People like Henny Youngman, who invited into his home.

Anne: Oh, you’re going to get into the deceased now.

Jerry: But they were great. These are the people that I would put up on a special plague.

I wanted to ask you, Jerry. How are you and Frank Costanza similar? Is he you? Are you him?
Jerry: Well, I’m always asking myself that. I think I’m channeling somebody, and I know who it is. He’s really my father, but not the way my father is as Frank Costanza. He’s what’s underneath the iceberg, my father. He’s the kind of man who, if he let it out, would be Frank Costanza. The kind of man who could talk to you and say,” Yeah, I’m in the world that has been pushed down, been suppressed, by life, by social values.” He goes into Christmas being commercialized, and he picks up on Festivus, which was an old Roman holiday, which actually did exist in the 1500s, with the masters and the kings.

Anne: Are you going to go through all the old Seinfeld shows now?

Jerry: No, I was asked a question.

Anne: I think Jerry was the real Frank Costanza. I think the real Frank Costanza is Jerry. They all say he’s so quiet and nice. He’s the good cop, and I’m the bad cop. In reality, he is Frank Costanza, screaming out of his mind.

Jerry: No, I’m not like that at all. Let me just interject. A couple of weeks ago, the Daily News wanted to go to the home, the Costanza home in Queens. They said would you want to go over there and make a comment about what it was like. We went over the bridge, road out to Queens, got to the apartment — it wasn’t an apartment, it was a little house. At that point, I suggested to the reporter that we go upstairs and say hello. I never in my life thought I could do something like this, but since I’ve become so free — that’s what Anne’s and my show is all about, freedom — we actually knocked on the door. There were these two people, their names were Bessie and Jack Lopipero, and they said “Come on up.” They were both in their cups, in their ’80s.

Anne: In their cups?

Jerry: Yeah, they were so happy.

Anne: When you say you’re in your cups, that means you’re drunk.

Jerry: With love.

Anne: Oh, OK.

Jerry: They went crazy, and we talked for about two hours. Not about Seinfeld — it was interesting how Seinfeld was the hinge, kind of the catalyst that brought us into talking about life. I guess that’s one of the nice things about this situation I’ve got in my later life, from being this character. It’s brought me in touch with people. I can’t believe what people say to me on the street, because I am this guy. “Hey, you want a piece of me?” and “Festivus for the rest of us,” and “serenity now.” I mean, these things go on, and I’m absolutely thrilled. It’s nice to be an actor. I mean nobody pays you for anything except for when you’re working, but here I am, getting paid every time somebody opens their mouth to pay me a compliment. I’m so needy, I’ll invite them over for dinner. Anne used to use that joke.

Anne: You’re desperate.

Both of you have worked with Ben on various projects, so I wanted to ask you: what’s it like working with your son?
Anne: I like working with my son. I like working with my daughter, too. She’s a very talented actress. Ben is a very wonderful director to work with. I worked with him on Night at the Museum, the first one, and I actually got the part through sheer nepotism, since I’m his mother — which I’m all for. He came looking for a job and I was the employment lady. It was a lot of fun. Well, he didn’t direct that one, but he and I did that scene together.

Jerry: He directed that movie we did, what’s that one based on a male model?

Anne: Zoolander. Oh yeah, I had one line in Zoolander. I threw an egg at Will Ferrell.

Jerry: Well, Ben … I can’t get over the fact that Ben can act at the same time. He directed me and was in the same scene with me. I was in terror, to be honest with you. I said, “My god, that’s my kid. That’s the boy I gave a Super 8 camera to when he was like 8 years old.” Now he’s a director and he’s pushing his father around. He was not an easy guy to work for, because he kept telling me to do it this way, to do it that way. Finally, the crew said “Ben, leave him alone. He’s your dad. He’s doing fine.” But he was also in the scene. I never asked him to be in any of his movies. I did another with him, which was Heartbreak Kid, and we did something years ago, which I thought was really wonderful, called Shoe Shine, which was a film done by a Columbia University student that got nominated for an Academy Award. It was a short subject about a guy who shines shoes — that was me — on the Staten Island ferry and each morning, I would pick up shoe shines as people came in. There was this one guy, and we talked about this and that. It turns out that he’s a stock broker. And who is he? He’s my son. Ben got me that role. They wanted him to be the guy, but they needed someone to play his father, so he said “Why don’t you take dad.” I’ll never forget that. It was a lovely piece.

Anne: You were the shoe-shine guy and Ben was the stock broker. This is like an episode of the Twilight Zone.

Well, we’re looking forward to seeing the show. Thanks for talking to us — on Anne’s birthday, no less!

Actor Mark Duplass is a familiar face to fans of the FX fantasy football-centric guy show, The League, playing the charming troublemaker, Pete, but he actually got his start working onscreen and off with his brother, Jay, on short films and, in 2005, The Puffy Chair, which is now streaming on Hulu. Mark stars in the movie with his now-wife, Katie Aselton — also one of his co-stars on The League — as a young couple who embarks on a road trip unlike any other. In the first segment of our two-part interview series about The Puffy Chair, we asked Mark about the film, his relationship with his brother, and how the more subtle humor of The Puffy Chair is different than the raunchier jokes of The League. Coming soon: an interview with Katie Aselton. — Rebecca Harper (rebecca.harper@hulu.com), Editor

Hulu: The first thing I noticed about The Puffy Chair was the music. There’s lots of indie favorites in there. How did you choose the music and go about getting it in the movie?
Mark Duplass: We were very naïve when we were making The Puffy Chair. We had about $15,000 of our parents’ money to make that movie. I used to play in bands a lot and I was on this label called Polyvinyl Records that had some cool bands like Of Montreal that are on the soundtrack. And so was really easy, because those guys were really friendly and willing to hook us up; I had toured with them. When it came to Spoon and Death Cab, what it really came down to was the bands were just tremendously generous and nice to us. I learned a lot about making indie movies, just lucky. The last thing you want to do when you go to bigger, cool bands like that is say, “Man, I’ve got this awesome indie movie. You totally want to be part of this because it’s going to help out your band.” I really just went to them and just said, “You have no reason to be in this movie, other than the fact that I will die if I can’t have these songs in the movie, and I need them because I am addicted to them. Please try to remember seven to 10 years ago, when you were scrapping, trying to put your stuff together and how great it was then to have one of your heroes to help you out. This is what I’m asking you to do.” And they did it, and that is very, very cool.

Let’s talk about the casting a little bit. You’re in the movie, obviously, and so is Katie Aselton. [They were dating at the time; now they are married.] Did you write the movie with yourself in mind?
Yeah, we designed the movie with something we call the “Available Materials School of Filmmaking.” We knew that we had $15,000 available, so we didn’t write anything that wasn’t readily available to us. We didn’t have money for a casting director or anything like that. Often when you’re casting indie movies, you just don’t get the talent you want. So what we decided to do was write a movie for myself, for Katie, and for Rhett. We knew that we were good and we knew that it would work, and so we designed the roles kind of around our strengths and avoided our weaknesses as actors, and likewise, that was my touring van from my band. Katie grew up in this little town in Maine, where her dad was the doctor and everybody loved him, and we knew we could get them to support for free. That was my apartment in Brooklyn. We did have to buy two chairs — two twin, matching chairs because one of them was going to get hurt. Otherwise, it was really us saying, let’s try to build this around what we have and not try to dream too big so we know we can make it.

What inspired the story?
It was a desire on the part of myself and my brother to make a feature along the lines of how we made our shorts, which were big, long scenes, cheap production value, focused on acting, story, faces, human emotions. We figured if we did that and set it in an apartment, it was basically going to be a Woody Allen movie. So we wanted to try to do something a different, so in order to give it a little momentum, we said “Let’s stick it in a genre.” The road movie seemed pretty obvious to us. And it was just this kind of conversation where we said we’re going to be dealing with some serious issues in this movie, with relationships, and it’s going to be a little sad in places. We want this movie to be fun and to have that silliness to it. So we were like, what if he’s just delivering a piece of furniture to his dad, something stupid like that? Then we just batted it around, like is it a table, is it an armoire? It was almost like it hit us at the same time: “Oh no, massive recliner!” It was more of a feel-based thing, rather than an intellectual decision.

Were any of scenes that depicted you interacting with Rhett Wilkins, who played your brother, based on any of your experiences with your brother, Jay?
You know, at the time it didn’t feel like that at all. When I look at it now… Jay and I basically share the same brain. We share the same taste, and we share a love of the same things in the world, but our modes of operation have grown vastly different as we’ve gotten older. So there is a little bit now, I would say, be being the Type A maniac, and Jay being a bit more sensitive, careful and wary. We call each other jokingly — but very seriously — I’m the bull and he’s the brakes. The way we talk about it I think is, I think we’re a perfect complement for each other. If it was just me, I’d probably be making 10 bad movies a year. If it was just Jay, he would make one half a movie over the course of the next 60 years. Somewhere in there, we kind of curve the edges a bit.

I was drawn to the relationship between you and Katie in this film. There are some dark and twisted moments between your character, Josh, and her character, Emily. Did she have any influence on the development of Emily?
Katie had a ton of influence on the character. Just to be point blank, perfectly honest. Jay and his wife were going through a lot of those things, and Katie and myself were going through a lot of those things, and a lot of our best friends were going through a lot of those issues. We were all in our 20s, dating for a bit, and we were all scared shitless about getting married. We were doing irrational things to each other on all kinds of fronts. You know, Jay and I wrote the script, but there were moments, like the big fight in the hotel room between us, and the breakfast scene the next morning when Katie’s character really rips into Rhett about marriage and what that means, where Katie would say “Guys, can I just go off here? Will you just let me say what I want to say?” And every time she did that, it was always right. I wouldn’t say they were necessarily Katie’s beliefs, because Emily is an extreme character, but they were certainly fueled by things we were all going through. There’s this quote that says anybody under 30 who tries to make a good movie better try to make it about themselves. We believed that at the time, so there’s a lot of us in there.

Your style of filmmaking is known as “mumblecore.” Can you shed some light on that movement — and is it a badge of honor to be considered mumblecore?
In my opinion, it was a cool time and place in 2005, when someone in the press made up the term “mumblecore.” None of the filmmakers ever called themselves that; it was a press item. There wasn’t a dogma movement where we all decided “Hey, we’re mumblecore!” It was really cool at the time, because we were making tiny movies and the New York Times was writing about them, selling our movies. It was giving a name and a face to something that was completely indecipherable to the public. That was nice. But now, it’s become a bit limiting, I think. Quite frankly, it came out because a certain camera came out. It allowed us to shoot good-looking stuff for cheap. That’s literally why that happened, and that’s why things look kind of similar. But now we’ve grown and we’ve branched out, and our movies have become much different. Mumblecore has become a bit limiting now, because when a movie like Cyrus comes out, and someone in the middle of the country hears it’s mumblecore, they think “What’s that? I don’t know what that is, but it’s not me,” I tend to think our movies have changed a bit and they’re not like that. Mumblecore used to be about completely anonymous people and long, drawn-out conversations. That’s kind of not what Cyrus was. So it was great for a certain amount of time, but now, like anything, you sort of want to distance yourself from it.

You star in The League, which has a totally different sense of humor compared to The Puffy Chair.
The truth of the matter is, Jeff and Jackie Schaffer run The League. We are a creative arm in that insofar as we inhabit those characters, but at the end of the day, we the vessels of Jeff and Jackie’s and their vision for this show. Those characters are basically nothing like us, I would say. Pete is overly confident and calm and secure, and I’m totally neurotic. Katie might be a little closer to her character, because Katie is a total guy’s girl. She’s very good with boys and stuff like that. I think that element kind of rings true for her. Katie didn’t a thing about football going into the show, so she had to do a shit-ton of research. I knew a bit, I’d say a lot from the ’80s and ’90s, but I wasn’t up on the current players. So she and I both went through a massive research period.

Each week on the infoMania feature “Modern Lady,” Erin Gibson shares her hysterical take on the often frustrating portrayal (and admonishment) of women in the media. After gaining popularity on the web from her internet show Roommating and numerous appearances on Funny or Die, Erin took over the women’s segment of the Current TV series earlier this year, quickly making it fun to laugh at how the fairer sex is still mistreated in society. Recently, the modern lady herself stopped by Hulu HQ to discuss her feelings about the media, how an ML story comes to fruition, and why the word “lady” is just so darn funny. — Martin Moakler, Hulu

Hulu: Erin, thank you so much for coming in today!
Erin: Thank you for having me! And by the way, [the readers] can’t see this but I got a very nice beer opener from Hulu today, which I’m going to use right when I get in my car!

Hulu: Could you tell us a little bit about “Modern Lady?”
Erin: I think “Modern Lady” is an exploration in all things that are happening on Planet Lady, which is not a real planet, so don’t Google it. If you do Google it, you’re just going to get this article and then it’s going to be a vicious circle and you’re going to be really mad at me.

Hulu: You took over the segment from Sarah Haskins this year. How has that been?
Erin: I don’t like to think of it as me really taking over Sarah’s segment as a vagina left the show and they hired another vagina to come on to the show. We have completely different comedic styles, so I thought it important that I try to handle things through a different filter. She mostly concentrated on commercials and how commercials depicted women and I thought it would be easier for me in the beginning to be just like, “it’s everything.” Anything that has to do with women, that’s my target. And how women are treated, talked about, portrayed in the media. Or women as media. What they do. Sometimes they’re wrong, too.

Hulu: How do you generate your ideas?
Erin: I look at the news and I see who is doing something stupid, then I decide if it’s timely, and can I filter it through a female perspective, which pretty much covers 99 percent of the stupid things that happen on TV. I try to figure out how I can make it the funniest while making a point and not being too preachy.

Hulu: Do you have a writing team or is this pretty much your baby?
Erin: I take a real stress-filled pass at a script and I usually come up with most of the jokes. I also do all the research … actually some interns help me with it. A lot of times, my video isn’t funny. You have to think about the joke as you’re writing the media, so oftentimes I just do it myself until I figure out, “Oh, I need newscasters talking about how other women should be dressing.” So I basically get it down to like, here’s what the piece is and then I write jokes around them. Then we go into a pitch meeting and people will pitch me jokes or different structure ideas and then I take a second or third draft, then we shoot it.

Hulu: Do you interact a lot with the other personalities on the show?
Erin: Yes. We operate our show as a proper television show and all the other hosts write for the whole show so Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday is dedicated to big story and magazine segments and any other thing we’re working on that’s sort of the show, and then, usually like half of Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, we’re working on host segments. We all try to help each other out because you’re not getting the immediate feedback of doing stand up or sketch. It could be funny to you in your office when it’s five o’clock and you’re exhausted and you’ve got the giggles but it’s just always important to have other people pitch on stuff because it just makes the piece funnier and better.

Hulu: How is it being the only girl at infoMania?
Erin: I love being the only girl at infoMania. I think any girl who’s on a TV show with all guys would say the same. If you’re the only guy on an all-girl TV show you get the same amount of attention. It’s a fantastic amount of attention. We have a writer right now who’s also a lady, and we have several intern ladies and we have a producer, and a woman edits my pieces … Kim Bubar, and so there are a lot of women behind the scenes which is great because when I have a joke that I’m like, “OK, you guys won’t think this is funny, but ladies are going to think this is funny.” Then I can bring in all the ladies and it always works. I’m pretty right as far as if there are jokes that only appeal to women. I pretty much know when to pick my battles for getting those in.

Hulu: You just now used the word “lady” and the segment is called “Modern Lady.” What is it about the word “lady,” that you just add it to something and it becomes hysterical?
Erin: Isn’t it funny?

Hulu: Yeah.
Erin: You put the word lady in front of anything it is instant comedy. Yeah. It’s the same with “kitten.” Kitten church works. Also you can put the word “space” in front of anything. Like “space clock.” That’s hilarious. How about “space plant?” That doesn’t make any sense. There’s no reason to put the word “lady” or “kitten” or “space” in front of anything to make it more specific, so basically it’s like a comedy formula that I use a lot.

Hulu: Why do you think the media’s treatment toward women persists in this day and age?
Erin: I think it’s people being cheeky about “can you believe that was ever a thing or that is a thing?” I understand gender marketing. You don’t want to sell tampons to guys … that makes sense to me, but soaps or cars or anything like that, it’s ridiculous to give a gender, but I think that consumers are way smarter than they used to be. One of the reasons that I didn’t want to do commercials in this piece is that advertisers are savvy. I mean, Old Spice is super sexist. The Old Spice Guy is super sexist and yet, Jezebel, one of the number one “lady websites” covering female content with a feminist bent, they had them as banner ads on their site … because they were funny. If you can be funny and own up, Old Spice, that’s them owning up how “machismo” their advertising has been. It’s smart. I think that the reason that commercial works is because consumers are smart. They’re way smarter.

Hulu: Then why do you think the media is so obsessed with the woman bent?
Erin: I think of the media like a three-year-old. They kinda say what they want and they don’t play by the rules because there’s just this era of infotainment, so it’s boring to be practical and unbiased, so why not pick a target and attack them? A lot of times women are that target. I think women are getting a lot better about fighting back in a way that’s funny and respected.

Hulu: Is this something you’ve felt since you were a teenager in Texas?
Erin: Yes. I always said the thing that no one would say at the dinner table, and it got me in a lot of trouble, so I moved away, and I pursued a career that I could speak honestly and openly about things. And what is the most logical thing, as you know, in improv, truth is the funniest thing. It’s not even a joke sometimes. You’re saying what everyone else doesn’t say in their day-to-day lives. It’s important, but very difficult to do if you’re in a situation where you can’t speak up. It’s scary. You have to go to a place where it‘s safe, and you have to do a lot of drugs. [She laughs.]

Hulu: Can we expect anything new coming on the horizon soon?
Erin: I’m going to be on Parks & Recreation [next season].

Hulu: Congratulations!
Erin: I’m really excited. It’s a small part, but I’m really excited. I play a cat lady. You wouldn’t know it. I didn’t say anything about cats, but that was my character description, which I thought was interesting. [My friend Dave Horowitz] and I did a web show together that’s being edited right now called “Swift and French.” It’s about two jerks who work at a coffee shop and they suddenly develop superpowers, but they’re still jerks … they’re real jerks about it, so it’s like a comedy/sci-fi, kinda shot like a comic book webshow.

Hulu: Finally, why did you use a British accent on the “Modern Lady” opening bumper?
Erin: Basically, I love British comedy. I watch it all the time on the Internet, and I just love it, so I just felt like anytime anything comes up when I can incorporate something British, I don’t care what it is, I’ll just do it. The idea of putting a British voice that’s kind of robotized on this really Sex and the City opening that we have seemed over the top for me and ridiculous. Does that make it too sassy?

Hulu: No. It also makes me feel a bit naughty watching it.
Erin: Does it? Well, there are some very lewd things in the opening…

Hulu: Yes, there are.
Erin: There’s a baby, which isn’t lewd. There’s a high heel, a lipstick, an iPhone, a beer bong and a vibrator…you know, that’s what a modern lady should have in her opening tease…

Fave Clips
We asked Erin to share some of her favorite “Modern Family” segments. Here are her picks and some thoughts on why they stuck out in her mind.

Gisele Bündchen and the Breastfeeding Brouhaha
“This is one of my favorite, favorite favorites, mainly because we got to film a little segment at the beginning where I got all the ladies in the office to go apeshit in their own little, tiny ways. If you watch closely, one of our producers, Catherine, just takes a tape dispenser and just pulls tape out for no reason just erratically. I could just watch that for 15 minutes straight.”

Eat, Pray, Love: Modern Lady and Friends Love Chick Flicks
“‘Eat Pray Love’ is a bunch of ladies that got drunk and watch lady movie garbage and I don’t think it can get any better than that. It’s pure enjoyment without any purpose. That movie is gross … in a great way! In a great, indulgent way.”

Can’t a Lady Cop Get Some Nuance?
“‘Lady Cops’ is something that I love to do which is making jokes out of video that’s not only not funny but kind of dark and sad. It’s a challenge to do. I also love dark jokes. I like to be really dark and sad … because I’ve had a sad life. Just kidding … no, I have. Ha-ha, just going back and forth! No, I haven’t had a sad life … No, I have!”

Workplace Attire
“Anytime I can incorporate dancing, I’m all for it, and at the end of this piece, I got to wear a hot dog costume!”

Infomania is on Thursdays at 10/9 Central on Current TV. Go to Current.com for listings.

Actress Selena Gomez made her mark as Alex on the Disney Channel’s Wizards of Waverly Place but this 18-year-old also sings. On the heels of the release of her new album, A Year Without Rain, we spoke with the Grand Prairie, Texas, native by phone yesterday as we launch a new Selena Gomez page on Hulu. In addition to music videos for “Round and Round,” “Naturally” and “A Year Without Rain,” you can also tune in to Selena’s web series, “Girl Meets World,” which originally aired on YouTube. In the series, cameras follow the young star as she tours Europe for the first time. Selena — a big fan of Hulu, herself — tells us more below. — Rebecca Harper (rebecca.harper@hulu.com), Editor

Hulu: You said that you’re really excited to see your videos on Hulu. Do you use Hulu much?
Selena Gomez I do, yes, because I love how clear most of the streams are, and it’s really easy and very simple, so I definitely love going on there. I like to watch some shows to catch up on things, but I never get to watch an actual series. I tend to trail off, but I try to see all the fun shows.

So tell us a little about Girl Meets World.
I did my first Europe tour and I’d never been anywhere besides Canada and Mexico, so I wanted to take my fans on my journey. I got to go to Spain and Paris and London and Germany. I had some time in each individual place, so basically we had the camera crew follow us everywhere, and they captured every moment. It’s kind of very personal — I’d never really let people in that much. It follows me from when I start my day to when I end my day. And sometimes after I end my day, they’re still there. It’s kind of like a mini-reality show, but it was really fun. Now my fans can really see what my life’s like and I wanted them to see Europe, too. It was really fun for me.

You mention this in the first video, when did you know you want to sing and act professionally?
I definitely think that’s what I always wanted to do. I was an only child growing up. I always loved entertaining myself, so I would go to my mom’s work. It would just be me, and I would perform in her office, and I’d be putting on skits and singing everywhere, basically being me. So I feel like that had a big part in it. My mom is also an actor, but she never did television or film. She did a lot of theater, which I loved. I think that kind of worked then. I asked my mom because I really wanted to be a part of it when I was around 7 and 8, and she helped me start the process.

Your breakout role, of course, was on Wizards of Waverly Place. How did you get that role?
I was 11 years old and Disney had this nationwide casting search. They went all around trying to audition different girls in different states. So they rounded up a few people. It ended up being three people that they flew in, and I was one of them. I went to LA for the first time and I auditioned in front of all these people. I got the part in the pilot that they were doing, but it didn’t end up getting picked up. They wanted to keep me in their family, so I guest-starred in a couple of their shows. I guest-starred in Suite Life and Hannah Montana, and then Wizards of Waverly Place came along and I went through the whole audition process again, and they picked me to be the girl.

How has that role helped you with your singing career now?
Obviously Disney Channel has an amazing launching pad. They’ve just been so wonderful to every single person on their network. I feel like they have great taste, and they’re family. I think the Disney Channel is really good on being able to create that family for all of us. I started on the show, and it just really helped me branch out. I was really shy when I was younger, and in comedy you can’t really be shy. You have to be very out there and willing to give a lot of yourself. It’s helped me open up in many ways. They’ve also helped me with my music and keeping other roles. It’s just been a really good thing, being part of the Disney Channel.

How do you think Twitter and Facebook have helped you as well? [Selena has over 3 million followers on Twitter.]
I think the social networks are very important. I think that being part of Facebook and MySpace and Twitter, all of those things, it really awesome. It’s a great way to stay in touch with your fans and let them know what you’re up to. It’s a little scary sometimes because it’s very personal, so I try to use it for what it’s there for. I use it to remind my fans how much I appreciate them and how much I love and care about them, and what I’m doing and what I’m up to and see how they’re doing, and what the response is. It’s very quick and it’s very instant.

Do you have a preference for acting vs. singing?
I just don’t really trust myself. One day, I wake up and I’m so obsessed with my music and then the next day I wake up and I’m just so into my films and wanting to know what’s going on in that world and in my show. So I don’t really trust myself right now. But I think in the future once I get older and I want everything to slow down, I think I’m going to want to be in film.

Do you write any of your own songs?
I do, but the awful part for me — the unfortunate part — would be having to do everything at once, so I can’t give the individual attention that I’d love to give. My studio time is extremely precious, so I can’t go in there and spend, like, two days writing one song, or three days writing one song. I have to go in there and record the song. The fortunate part for me is that I have some amazing producers that know me personally that I’ve worked with before, that have written songs for me about stories that I’ve told them and situations that I’ve been in, and when I talk about my fans. They’ve written things that were very personal to me. Hopefully in the future I’m able to give my music more attention, so I can be more involved.

Later this month, you’re doing a benefit concert for UNICEF. Can you tell me about your involvement with that organization?
I’ve been involved with UNICEF for three years. They’re an amazing organization, and I feel like I’m part of the family. What they do is really beautiful. I’d just started to do one campaign with them, and once I realized what they do, and I was able to witness some of the work that they did, they asked me to be their ambassador. I immediately took it because I wanted to be part of it. I’ve been working with them very closely and just get so passionate about it every year, and I want to do something more. This year is the 60th anniversary of the trick or treat campaign, so I’m doing an acoustic show with my band and we’re gonna raise money through that. Hopefully that will bring about some good things.

Have you traveled with UNICEF at all?
I have. Last year I went to Ghana, Africa, which was really amazing. I was able to do some fieldwork and actually witness what UNICEF is doing to help. I got to be part of it, and it was really beautiful. It was a great experience. I’m planning on doing another trip with them soon.

What are you up to next?
I’m still working on the show, so we’re wrapping up the last season of Waverly and getting ready to do another movie. Then afterward, I will be prepping to do my first actual summer tour, which will be exciting because I’ve done a lot of concerts, but I’ve never done an actual tour that I’m going to be able to create from scratch. I will hopefully be a part of some more films, but I’m not quite sure of that yet.

How does it feel to be wrapping up Wizards?
It’s really emotional. Every week I go in, and even though we’re not anywhere close to being done, I feel like it’s just gonna come on me really quickly. I’m preparing myself but I don’t think I’m going to be prepared. It’s going to be really hard. I will tell you this: it’s a fact, I’m going to be the one that cries the most.

With a career spanning two decades, David Cross has cemented himself as one of the most innovative voices in comedy today. His ’90s sketch program, Mr. Show, not only introduced us to some of today’s comic superstars, including Sarah Silverman and Jack Black; it thrust the post –’80s standup world of comedy into the 21st Century with its iconoclastic, no-holds-barred take on society. David achieved cult status for his portrayal of the master of unintentional double entendre and “analrapy,” Dr. Tobias Fünke, on the far-too-brief sitcom Arrested Development. And his standup continues to draw legions of fans wherever he tours. This fall, David continues his legacy with not one, but two shows debuting on television: IFC’s Brit-com The Increasingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret, which he created, wrote and stars in, and Fox’s Running Wilde, where he’ll be teaming up with his Arrested Development co-star, Will Arnett, once again. Hulu recently got David on the telephone to inquire about these new projects and how he was convinced to work in London. — Martin Moakler, Digital Video Publisher

Hulu: Hi, David! Thank you so much for talking with us today.
David Cross: Hi, Martin from Hulu! How are you?

Hulu: I’m doing quite well. How are you doing?
David: Good.

Hulu: I was wondering if you could start off by telling us a little bit about The Increasingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret.
David: Sure, what do you want to know?

Hulu: What was the genesis of the show? I was surprised that you were going to shoot a show in London.
David: The genesis of it was … not the idea for the show itself, but the idea to do a show in London came from this woman Clelia Mountford who is a comedy producer over at RDF Media in London. I was over there doing standup and she came up to me after a show, and with no real show idea, said, “Hey! Would you be interested in exploring this possibility of doing a comedy show where we put you together with a British writer or producer, writer/producer, doing a show for the UK that could potentially be sold to the States as well?” I was like, “Yeah, sure! That’s great!”

Hulu: Now you co-wrote this with Shaun Pye [Extras], right?
David: Yes.

Hulu: Did you know him beforehand?
David: No. The very first of numerous processes that went on, very first of them was me going back over to London. We had set up about 12, 14, 16 different meetings with various writers, producers and a lot of people that I’m really enamored with: Robert Popper, Sam Bain, and Jesse Armstrong from Peep Show, bunch of really good people, Charlie Brooke … and Shaun Pye was one of them and we really hit it off. He had the advantage of being at the end of one of my sessions when I was meeting people so went to a pub and then we just hung out and had a few pints and really hit it off. It’s been great. He’s probably responsible for the nine out of ten of the hardest laughs that you’ll have in this show. He wrote those jokes.

Hulu: On what did you base Todd Margaret? Was it someone you knew?
David: In what sense? Was he inspired by somebody?

Hulu: Correct.
David: No. I’ve never written with those kinds of parameters before. You know, part of it was we all discussed this and we were all in agreement we didn’t want it to simply be fish out of water. “Hey! The American guy comes to London and doesn’t know what side of the street to drive on” kind of thing. It really is story centric. The travel of the guy’s story and journey is a big part of it. Every episode takes place the next day and it all kind of almost exponentially piles on. His problems keep getting worse and worse and worse almost exponentially because of the lies and what he creates.

Hulu: I guess this would be a good time to ask you to tell us a little about Todd Margaret, himself.
David: He is a directionless guy with no ambition just sort of floating through life who happens through mere happenstance and luck, while he’s at a temp job that one might assume is the 100th temp job in a series of 250 of them, and he’s mistaken for being a tough, hard-ass salesman and jumps on the opportunity that that affords him but he’s in way, way, way over his head.

Hulu: You have an interesting cast. You have Will Arnett and Amber Tamblyn, and we would know them from Arrested Development with you and Joan of Arcadia, notably for Amber. [Ed. Note: Tamblyn also starred in The Unusuals.] How did you guys go about with the British casting?
David: The role of Alice was Sharon Horgan. She was suggested to me. I’d never seen her work. The character was much different in my mind. Alice was originally written as more of an ingénue and softer, more kind of sweetly naïve woman. It was suggested that I should really seriously consider her because Channel 4 in the UK is really high on her and there’s a better chance of the pilot being picked up to go to series if you cast her so I met her and I wasn’t really convinced, but then I saw a show she did called Pulling, which she co-wrote, created and starred in, and it’s fucking brilliant, and then I was like, yeah, absolutely, let’s do it and really went about rewriting the character and writing it for her which I didn’t really do for anyone else. The Dave character, Blake Harrison … we originally had Russell Tovey who’s in Being Human over there and that is quite a popular show and he was unfortunately not available. We tried to make it work, but they shoot their shows in Wales and he was trying to figure out how he could do it but it just wasn’t going to work so we had to recast that and that was a long process. We saw tons of people and everyone … myself and IFC and Channel 4 … all had very different opinions on who should be Dave and that was a long casting process and the other folks … it was less intense and more, “Hey wouldn’t Sara Pascoe be really great in this role, and wouldn’t Matt King be really great in this role?” And the other folks were like just people I’m just really psyched to work with, like Alexander MacQueen’s in it. Not Alexander McQueen, that’s the designer, right?

Hulu: Yeah, the one who died.
David: What’s his name? He was in The Thick of It … I think it’s Alex MacQueen. That’s weird. [Ed. Note: “McQueen” was the surname of the late designer; “MacQueen” is the surname of the actor.] And various people that I was just really happy to work with and who were happy to come in and do just two or three lines just here or there. I really did get a cream of the crop, as it were. I’ve got Will and Amber and Spike [Jonze] on the American side and Janeane Garofalo … it’s a killer cast. Really great group of people.

Hulu: How do you like shooting a British sitcom, which obviously is a lot shorter a run of the season than an American sitcom.
David: It’s 100 percent preferable. We didn’t shoot a thing until I was done writing, which is not how it works over here. And I’m telling a story and you don’t do that on American sitcoms. American sitcoms are designed so you’re basically checking in on everybody and there’s no cause and effect and people don’t change day to day unless it’s a big kind of silly thing like Pam and Jim getting married; will they or won’t they? And Sam and Diane on Cheers. There’s none of that. With this show, every episode takes place the next day, and there’s an end to it. There’s a story being told which you can do in British television. You don’t really do that in America. If the show were to last, say, four series, that would not even span a month in this character’s story. So it’s much different and, for me, it’s more preferable. And as I said, we didn’t shoot anything until I wrote everything.

Hulu: How did you like shooting in London?
David: I loved it. It’s different. They don’t shoot as long as we do, like their day-to-day. They usually have like 10-hour days. You don’t have the 12-hour turnaround that you do in America. This is saying a lot, too, because I’ve worked with some really great crews, absolutely the best crew I’ve worked with. Really professional, really great at what they do. Never complained. We were shooting six-day weeks. We had a tiny budget. We’d shoot some of the pilot so we sort of crammed that in so we were shooting six-day weeks. We’d go over quite a bit. We weren’t in a studio. It wasn’t like you’re at the Fox lot and you have all these amenities. It was tough but everybody loved it. Everybody was into it. Physically shooting there, crews were great. Outside of that, there’s not much of a difference. Everybody’s professional and good at what they do.

Hulu: In your standup, you’ve mentioned your love of New York and your disdain for Los Angeles, so I was wondering how London fit on your city scale.
David: Oh, London itself…as far as being there. I loved it. I didn’t miss the political system of America or anything. I missed my friends and I missed my girlfriend and my dog and I missed New York and walking around and stuff, but if you have to be somewhere for six months by yourself then London’s a great place. It’s beautiful; just gorgeous. I would walk everywhere. It’s got a great transportation system and, without getting boring or cliché, it’s a really good, urban, cosmopolitan city. People start drinking there at like four o’clock in the afternoon, so that fits in with my schedule, as well.

Hulu: Did you have an established fan base there?
David: Yeah, I mean, it’s not big. It’s not like the States. As I said earlier, I was in the middle of a two-week run at the 100 Club on Oxford Street, which would sell out every night. Prior to that, I did a month run at the Soho Theatre. I’m not selling out arenas or anything but I definitely have a pretty good, loyal, hard core following there.

Hulu: How do you find British audiences different than American audiences?
David: The highs are higher and the lows are lower. If they don’t like you, then they really let you know. And if they like you, they really let you know. There’s never any kind of cultural gap or anything like that. They pretty much get 90 percent of the references, but they love their comedy, too. As I said, if they don’t like you, they’re very vocal about it. It’s the worst Evening at the Apollo nightmare you could imagine. But if they love you, you’re a hero. You’re hoisted on their shoulders and paraded around. So, it’s got its goods and its bads.

Hulu: You also have a role on Will Arnett’s other show Running Wilde starting this fall. What are we going to see you do on that?
David: I’m playing Andy Weeks who is Keri Russell’s fiancé. [Keri is] Will’s love interest on the show … an old childhood crush, girlfriend, who comes back into his life. I’m her self-professed eco-terrorist guy who’s an annoying, shrill, lefty, bumper sticker spouting, anti-corporate America guy, which is why I currently have a very long, dyed beard.

Hulu: Can we expect to see any new standup tour or special on the horizon?
David: Dude, I just did one!

Hulu: Right, four months ago…
David: Then I went straight to London to do this show! To write, act, produce … I mean, it’s going to be a long time, it’s going to take me a while just to accrue the material. I’ve been totally focused on this show. I just got back to the States in August, so I’ve only been here about five and a half weeks now, and I’ve been working on this other thing, so standup has taken a bit of a back seat to this other stuff while I focus on it.

Hulu: Finally, so we don’t have to say that we “blue ourselves” in anticipation, do you have any word about what’s going on with the Arrested Development movie?
David: Same thing as always, which is I haven’t heard anything new and I’ll believe it when I see it, and I know everyone wants to do it, but since I’ve been working on the show with Will and Mitch [Hurwitz] who’s been on the set, I have no tangible proof or reason to [think so], but I’m more optimistic.

Hulu: Awesome! We are really excited about Todd Margaret. I saw the first two episodes. They were hysterical, so I’m really excited about the show.
David: Right on, man. I think if you like those two, keep watching, because it really does get more involved and pretty crazy as it goes on.

Hulu: Has it already started airing in England?
David: No. They are contractually obligated to show six weeks after the episodes air here, so it starts here on October 1 and over there it’s November 14th.

Hulu: Again, thank you so much for talking with us and good luck with the show!
David: Cool! Thanks!

The Increasingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret premieres on IFC Friday, October 1 at 10 pm. Running Wilde premieres on Fox Tuesday, September 21 at 9:30 pm.

When Hulu spoke to Thirty Seconds to Mars frontman Jared Leto about the band’s latest video last week, he was calling from the beach in Tel Aviv, where he and the rest of his band were set to play another show on their world tour. By now, 30STM has played in more than 100 cities across the globe, hitting Europe, Sydney, Singapore and Japan in just the past few weeks. (It’s been so many, Leto’s lost count himself.)

Of course, the band isn’t adverse to travel. After all, many of their previous videos were shot in exotic locales, including China (“From Yesterday“) and even the Arctic (“A Beautiful Lie“). Their last video, “Kings and Queens,” however, was shot in their hometown of Los Angeles, with Leto calling it his “love letter to the city of Angels.”

Although their latest video, “Closer to the Edge,” isn’t as cinematic in scope, it was an epic undertaking, a video documentation of their “adventure around the world,” says Leto, who rocked a pink Mohawk in this video (it long gone now). And while some so-called “road videos” may depict the highs and lows that come with life on tour, “Closer to the Edge” is all about the fans as real kids talk to the cameras. “I picked people out at different shows,” Leto says. “I have 20 to 30 hours of interviews and filtered it down to make this video.” The singer teamed up with a group of five video editors and a pair of cameramen to piece together the video on what they called the “edit bus.” “We’d shoot days and work all night, until 5, 6, 7 in the morning. It was inspiring,” he says.

As for the song’s success, it’s been a bit of a surprise for Leto and his bandmates. “It seems that it has connected with our fans, and the fact that it managed to push “This Is War” to the top of the iTunes charts in Germany — knocking out Eminem, in fact — is just another thing for this modest band to be grateful for.

The band’s tour continues overseas for a few more weeks, then it’s off to Mexico before kicking off their U.S. tour and making an appearance at the MTV Video Music Awards next month, where Leto and his bandmates are nominated for four “Moonman” statues. “We’re happy to be nominated. We found out in New Zealand and it was such a surprise. Winning would be one of those great moments for us as a band. These awards are really just a way to take it all in and show our gratitude to our fans.” — Rebecca Harper (rebecca.harper@hulu.com), Editor

When The Office star John Krasinski set out to make a film adaptation of David Foster Wallace’s Brief Interviews with Hideous Men, he needed a way to connect the separate stories of the sometimes heinous characters that make up Wallace’s book. The actor-turned-director’s solution? A female grad student who interviews each of the men as part of a thesis project. While Krasinski used his personal network to track down the actors who portray the emotionally detached subjects of “Sara Quinn’s” study, he had one actress in mind for the role of the grad student as he penned his script: Julianne Nicholson, who was starring as Det. Megan Wheeler on Law & Order: Criminal Intent at the time. Last week, Hulu spoke to Nicholson to get her take on working with Krasinski. — Rebecca Harper (rebecca.harper@hulu.com), Editor

Hulu: How did you prepare for the role of Sara Quinn?
Julianne Nicholson: Mostly, it was just talking with John, actually. He approached me and first sort of pitched the idea to me, and said that he loved the book and had done a reading of it in college, and was now adapting it. He said that he had me in mind while he was doing it, which was a huge compliment. I was doing another job at the time, also, so it was working with the material and the director, and just being a woman who has had relationships with men. I could draw from those.

Had you read the book beforehand?
I had not. I was a fan of the [David Foster Wallace's] from his essays. I had read a number of his essays, which I had loved, but I had never read this book. I did after I read this script; I went back and read the book, also. I think he was amazing. I think he had an incredible hook, and if you can get into it — I had tried reading Infinite Jest , the massive tome that you would sort of see people lugging around everywhere. I had tried reading it, and I’m afraid I couldn’t really get into it at that time. I look forward to reading it — it’s still on my bookshelf. It’s still one of those that I know I will come back to. His essays proved a little bit easier for me. I thought they were incredible and very engaging. I had never read anything quite like it, with his style and his voice.

What did you think of John’s adaptation?
I thought he did a great job. It was interesting reading them in reverse. I thought he had done a great job of staying true to the original, but also creating a story, a link, through them. I don’t know if you’re going to talk to John, but he told me he had spoken — I think once — to David Foster Wallace, who I hear was sort of going back and forth on whether he wanted to hear John’s idea of how he would link it. When John told it was to create a new character, one that I wound up playing, I think that was the idea that Wallace had all along. So John picked up on that, I guess, and it had his blessing, which is also nice.

Can you tell us about Sara Quinn?
Sure. She’s just had a breakup herself that was very surprising and upsetting. She’s also doing her thesis, so she’s an academic. She’s in school, and she’s very smart and driven, but at a moment in her life where she’s just been rocked. She’s searching, I would say.

This role brought you in contact with a number of the actors who play the “hideous men,” and you shared scenes with likes of Timothy Hutton. What was that like — was the set as somber as the tone of the movie?
[Laughs] No, no. The set was never somber, especially because John Krasinski is one of the funniest people I have ever met in my entire life. Maybe there were one or two times where it called for quiet on the set, but I was usually in those scenes by myself, anyway. Everyone was so gung ho, and I think it started with John and his incredible energy and passion and intelligence and humor. It was quite a while ago, but it was great, getting to spend time with all those different people. It was such a gift, to be able to go to work and, you know, see someone new every day and watch them do their thing. It was very exciting to watch. I was the interviewer, so I was mostly listening. As you see in the film, I do a lot of watching and listening. It was great; I loved it.

You touched on this a bit, but what was it like working with John, considering his passion for the project?
It was such a treat. I was doing a television show at the time — I was doing Criminal Intent, which I loved, and it was very good to me. It was very exciting to go from — you know, Law and Order is a big working machine. To be able to go to these little stages with this smaller crew and just sort of be more quiet and collaborative was very exciting and so fulfilling for me. John was great. I wish I had some nasty story about somebody that I could share with you, but I’m afraid I just don’t.

What are you working on these days? I know you have two little ones at home, but will we see you back in the spotlight?
Well, I did a film last summer called William Vincent with James Franco and Josh Lucas, and that was just at Tribeca [Film Festival], and now they’re waiting for distribution on that — same old independent story. I’m also about to do a movie called Second Child. Have you seen this movie called The Maid last year? It was this Chilean movie, and everyone says “I’ve seen the poster!” It was such a great movie, and it got a lot great attention. This director is doing another, his first American film, hopefully in September.

Well, thank you for your time today — and good luck with the new project.
Thank you. I was so excited when I got that email that said we were doing well on Hulu!

Don’t miss our November 2009 interview with John Krasinski to learn more about this film.

The ‘Socalled’ Movie is a multi-faceted portrait of a similarly multi-faceted performer, Josh Dolgin AKA “Socalled,” a gay, Jewish, Montreal-based hip-hop klezmer artist. Presented in 18 separate segments, the documentary offers an entertaining and illuminating look into Socalled’s creativity, influences, and background.

indieWIRE spoke to the film’s director, Garry Beitel, last week about how he met Socalled, their collaborative process, and how the film got its shape. — Basil Tsoikos, indieWIRE

iW: How did you meet Josh/Socalled, and how did the project come together?
Garry Beitel: I used to teach documentary filmmaking at McGill University [in Montreal]. In 1998, Josh was my student, so I got to know him as an aspiring filmmaker. We talked about film and music and became friends. We kept in touch after university, going for coffee every once and awhile. This project came about after I bumped into him at a klezmer concert in Montreal – he was there with his father, trying to organize a klezmer cruise to the Ukraine, and he said I should film it.

While that was the original idea, it became clear to me quickly that he was more interesting than this one event. He was surprised that I wanted to make a film about him – it was a little uncomfortable for him at first.

iW: Can you talk about why you decided to structure the film as a series of vignettes? It seems to reflect both the practice of sampling music as well as Josh seemingly being involved with 100 projects at one time.

GB: The structure was inspired by one of my favorite films, Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould. Gould was someone you thought you knew all about, and the filmmaker switched things around to show you new perspectives. I wanted to do something similar, and Josh lent himself to that kind of treatment.

You have him pegged as a musician, but then he’s also a filmmaker, and a magician, and a cartoonist, and he rediscovers all these old musicians and makes old music contemporary. The structure let me get at all that, it’s like peeling away at the skin of an onion. So the structure allowed that, while also referencing the sampling of his work and the creative process that he is involved in.

iW: How much time did you film Josh, and did you have a good idea what you wanted to include in the film at the beginning of the process?

GB: Filming began in November 2006 and the film was completed in 2010. It took a long time to raise money, but that was a good thing for the film, because it meant I followed him for a long time – about two-and-a-half years of filming. There were some things I knew I wanted to include immediately, like the magic. I wanted to show him practicing his tricks just like he practices the piano, a long meticulous process of repetition. But there were other things I couldn’t predict, like following him around France on tour, or giving a tour of his childhood bedroom, which hadn’t changed at all.

iW: What was Josh’s level of input about what the project would look like? Was there anything that he didn’t want to include in the film?

GB: Every time we got together, I would ask him what he had coming up in the next few weeks or months, and based on that we would plan a filming schedule. But I would discover through other people that he wasn’t always telling me everything he was up to – things he didn’t want me to film or just didn’t think would be that important for the film. So it took some negotiating.

The way I typically film, I try to capture people doing what they do without interruption – but for Josh, I also wanted him to talk about his process while he was in the midst of passionately creative work. That was uncomfortable for him, because he’s a doer, he’s not introspective. So there was a bit of tension, because I wanted to understand his motivation, and he could get impatient about that.

The way I would deal with that was by including the two short films he made in the film, and he got complete control of those. I stepped back and became the producer for those instead, and that let me have control of the rest of the film. But Josh was incredibly helpful in the last stages of the film in working with the music of the film. There were little things he disagreed with, and we would discuss things like that, that he would have to live with after the film was shown publicly.

iW: Josh speaks to a wide range of potential audiences – Jewish, gay, hip hop, hipsters, etc – who don’t often always come together in the same place. How has the film connected with these audiences – have there been differences in the reactions from these different groups?

GB: Josh called his last album “Ghetto Blaster” because that’s what his music does – it breaks down musical ghettoes and categories. He works as a cultural archaeologist, finding treasures from the past that have been forgotten, modernizes them, takes them out of the categories they were originally in, and transforms them into something contemporary. This breaks down those categories so that all different kinds of people can enter his work, weaving in and out of traditional categories and genres. I’ve watched the film with a large number of audiences, and the group experience is great – there’s so much laughter and celebration, it seems to transcend usual self-selecting categories.

iW: There’s obviously a lot of music in the film, given the subject. Is there a soundtrack album or a way for audiences to get all the music?

GB: There’s no soundtrack planned, but the DVD will be coming out, which has extra features with additional music. So audiences can get the DVD or go to Socalled’s website to get access to the music he’s creating.

SnagFilms’ 2nd annual SummerFest, a free online festival showcasing exclusive, limited-duration runs of popular new documentaries, continues with A Fighting Chance, the fifth film in the series, having its world premiere today. [Editor's Note: Our partner, SnagFilms, is the parent company of indieWIRE.]

A Fighting Chance profiles the charismatic and inspiring athlete Kyle Maynard, a former high school and college award-winning wrestler who also happens to have been born without forearms or lower legs. The film follows Kyle as he attempts to make history by becoming the first differently abled fighter to compete against able-bodied opponents in mixed martial arts (MMA), facing unexpected controversy from vocal fans and athletes who believe such a goal is dangerous or makes the sport a “freakshow.”

indieWIRE spoke to the film’s directors, Takashi Doscher and Alex Shofner, last week about why Kyle’s such a great documentary subject, what motivates him, and why he’s generated controversy.

iW: How did you meet Kyle, and how did the idea for the film come about?
Takashi Doscher: We were friends growing up — we went to the same high school, and knew each other for years. After college, we were hanging out as old buddies do and Kyle asked me to update the intro video he uses for his motivational speaking engagements. After we talked about what he wanted to include in it, and he told me about his aspirations to compete in MMA, it snowballed and I told him that I thought we had something bigger than a [3- to 4-minute] video. I called up Alex, who was my roommate in college, and we got right into it.

iW: What do you think makes Kyle such an engaging, and, in many ways, such a polarizing figure?
Alex Shofner: Coming from a slightly more outsider perspective — since Takashi grew up with him, and I met him as an adult — Kyle has a magical quality. With his condition, it’s very apparent immediately that he’s missing his arms and legs, and you are blown away by how much he can do. But the most amazing thing is that, within 15 to 20 minutes of meeting him, you completely forget about his disability because he is so engaging and confident and has such a magnetic personality.

TD: As for the naysayers, I think that people in general have certain expectations when they see someone like Kyle, and Kyle time and time again has proven able to separate himself from those expectations. More so, Kyle hasn’t been participating in other disabled competitions against other disabled athletes — he’s been competing against able-bodied athletes head-to-head. I think people tend to dismiss disabled athletes in the latter situation, but when they’re confronted with someone like Kyle who not only competes against able-bodied athletes but also physically bests them — that’s like a quantum leap of perception — it’s striking and difficult to come to terms with.

iW:Kyle clearly is a very good athlete, as he’s proven in his wrestling career. What is it about MMA that motivated him to try to prove himself there?
AS: Kyle is the type of guy who sees a peak and wants to climb it. After wrestling, MMA is the next logical step — there’s no real other option. We all know “professional wrestling” isn’t real. MMA allows Kyle the chance to face able-bodied people on an even playing field, and that feeds into his incredibly competitive drive.

TD: The thing to understand about Kyle is that he doesn’t view himself as “disabled,” or, to a great extent, he views everyone as “disabled” in a different way — maybe someone is emotionally disabled, or lacking in self-confidence, or is learning disabled. It just so happens that his disability is more visible. So competing in MAA is not out of the realm of possibility, and the sport plays to his strengths as a wrestler. He wouldn’t attempt to compete in a sport in which he has no experience.

iW: While the film is clearly about Kyle and his MMA goal, it also speaks to a much larger issue — self-determination for people with disabilities — why shouldn’t he compete if he feels able to? Can you talk about this aspect of the film, and balancing that with telling Kyle’s specific story?
TD: This is one of the first things made on him that is personal, and we were careful to establish him as a person first — without knowing who Kyle is, you can’t get to the larger outside message.

AS: When he started wrestling in middle school, Kyle lost his first 34 matches, but working with his dad, they invented a new way for him to wrestle since he couldn’t use some of the basic grips that are part of the sport. This is his message, not just to disabled people but to everyone: the only barriers people have are the ones they put in front of themselves.

iW: What do you hope audiences will take away from Kyle’s story, especially those people who may have been negative or skeptical about his MMA aspirations?
TD: I hope that audiences will be inspired to attempt to do something that they’ve always wanted to do but never thought they could. Regarding his critics, we definitely don’t shy away from presenting their views in the film — their voices are reflected in the film.

AS: Kyle has always proven to have a startling impact on people. I hope that this film helps him reach a wider audience than ever before to spread his message. I am curious to see how his critics will respond after they’ve seen it and have gotten to know him through the film.

iW: In addition to the SnagFilms SummerFest premiere, a version of the film is scheduled to air on ESPN on Veterans Day, November 11. Can you talk about the significance of the film screening on this specific day?
AS: Well, it’s an unbelievable opportunity, and we’re completely thrilled. Kyle has wanted to join the military from an early age — his dad was part of the military police — and he was born at Walter Reed [Army Medical Center] in DC. From a very young age, he has been involved with speaking with and training our wounded warriors coming back from various conflicts. He’s been a real inspiration to them.

TD: For some reason, soldiers can easily relate to him. They’re coming back with debilitating injuries and loss of limbs, and Kyle and his MMA story are incredibly inspiring to them. A lot of soldiers love the sport, so they have this added connection. Because of his condition, Kyle’s able to connect with soldiers on a personal level, help them at Walter Reed in rehab and training, showing them how he does things. So we’re extremely excited to show the film on Veterans Day — several vets are featured in the film as well. We can’t wait for the reaction.

One of the best parts of the San Diego Comic-Con is the opportunity to meet the creators of various comic books, films and shows that we enjoy year-round. We often take for granted the huge efforts required to create and produce content, and seeing these authors talk about their creative process is a treat. It’s especially great when you meet folks whose shows you follow regularly. So you can see how excited I was when I found the chance to meet Matt Sloan and Aaron Yonda, creators of the hit web series Chad Vader, Day Shift Manager, which I follow closely. As they live and work in Wisconsin, it was a great chance for them to sit down with me for a brief interview, even with the loud din of the convention’s crowd. — Jason Nellis, Content Partner Manager

Hulu: You guys are, of course, the creators of Chad Vader, Day Shift Manager. For the benefit of our readers that aren’t familiar with the series, would you mind describing it for them?
Matt Sloan: Chad Vader is about Darth Vader’s younger brother, Chad. He works at a grocery store. He’s the day shift manager.

Hulu: And you guys are now into the third season, correct?
Aaron Yonda: Yes.

Hulu: What are the challenges that you’ve encountered in doing three seasons of the show so far?
Aaron: You know, the biggest challenge for me is that I have to wear the suit. [Aaron plays Chad Vader onscreen, while Matt voices the character.] That’s a big challenge. I think I lose a lot of weight that way.

Hulu: That’s a good way to stay fit.
Aaron: I recently ordered an ice vest, this new technology where you wrap ice around your body and wear it. I’m looking forward to trying that out.

Hulu: How long are you usually in the suit for when you’re filming?
Aaron: It can go upwards of five or six hours at least.

Hulu: That’s got to be pretty intense. When you’re acting — Matt, you’re providing the voice?
Matt: Yes

Hulu: So, are you usually on set giving line readings and then doing the voice over afterwards? How does that work?
Matt: I do both, yeah. I do the voice live, often. Sometimes that can get tough because we do drop it in during post (production), so you don’t want the live scratch track to bleed into the other audio. That’s a challenge, but I think we’ve got our process down pretty well by now.

Hulu: After three seasons, you must feel like you’ve got a pretty good system going.
Matt: Definitely, yeah.

Hulu: Do you find yourself getting ideas from your audience? Or do you find yourselves solely masterminding it from day to day?
Aaron: For the most part, we come up with all the ideas, but we do get influenced when people suggest something. In fact, the very next new episode of Chad Vader that’s coming out in August is going to have a Storm Trooper in it, and that’s basically because the fans are just like, “when are you going to have other Star Wars characters?” We’ve resisted that up until this point, but there’s an opportunity for us to bring in some other Star Wars characters and there’s another big one that’s going to bring in another big one as well.

Matt: Well, we found a way to integrate it in a way that works for the world that we’ve constructed.

Hulu: So, serving the story rather than serving the fans?
Matt: Exactly, and I think the fans appreciate that. We get lots of great feedback from them, and it helps us keep the show fresh and motivates us to keep going.

Hulu: One of the things I really enjoy about the series is when you do take-offs or parodies of other YouTube videos , like Chad After Dentist or Chad and Obama Girl. How does that work? Do you go to those creators and say “We’ve got an idea, we’d really like to work with you?” What’s that creative process like?
Aaron: A lot of times, if it’s just a YouTube video, like David After Dentist, we say “that would be really funny for Chad,” and then go ahead and just make it. We’ll usually contact them and ask if we can use the footage or idea. But the Obama Girl thing, we actually met Ben Relles (creator of Barely Political). He always wanted to do a collaboration, and we did too, so finally we got an opportunity to do a full-fledged Chad Vader music video, and we went out to New York and shot that with them.

Matt: Well, we had done an Obama Girl video before that —

Hulu: Right.
Matt: So that was our second one. But working with Barely Political and Next New Networks is a lot of fun and we’d like to work with them in the future.

Hulu: Have you see Chad Vader on Hulu? Have you had a chance to compare the audiences and their responses?
Aaron: You know, what I like about Hulu is that people are going there looking for TV-quality entertainment, rather than just sort of a quick laugh. They want a series that they can get into and enjoy watching the characters develop. We see a lot of feedback that relates to that and about how people are enjoying that. We’ve always felt like we’re trying to make a mini-TV show, which is why it’s very cool that we’re on Hulu.

Hulu: Last question: You film locally in Wisconsin. What’s it like filming in the Midwest, and then coming out to a place like Comic-Con, which is part of the more mainstream, where you’ve got everybody from all parts of entertainment coalescing in one place? Do you find that there’s a level of celebrity-ism that you experience here, or do you find yourselves blending in more?
Matt: We tend to blend in. We’re nerds like everybody else here. It’s great being in an environment like this, because it stimulates creativity and gives me a lot of ideas about things we can do once we get back to the studio. It’s a lot of fun, and a great experience.

Watch the latest episode of Chad Vader here.

SnagFilms’ 2nd annual SummerFest, a free online festival showcasing exclusive, limited-duration runs of popular new documentaries, continues with Erik Gandini’s “Videocracy,” the fourth film in the series, premiering Friday.

The film exposes a mass cult of celebrity worship that has virtually hypnotized Italian society, threatening its democracy. Gandini’s film argues that this collective fixation, or what he calls “banality,” is not entirely accidental. At its heart is the country’s long-serving prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who also happens to be a billionaire with television networks, radio, magazines and other media at the center of his personal empire. Hard news is passed over in favor of pretty girls, salacious stories of celebrity affairs, and frivolous good times. The film was picked by a survey of writers by indieWIRE as the best documentary at last year’s Toronto International Film Festival where “Videocracy” had its North American premiere. — Brian Brooks, indieWIRE

[Editor’s Note: This interview has been updated from its original version published at last year's Toronto International Film Festival.
SnagFilms is the parent company of indieWIRE.]

The Cult of Good Times and the “Culture of Banality”

“Italy is probably the only country in the world where celebrity/TV and political power is merged together in the person of Silvio Berlusconi,” Italian director Erik Gandini told indieWIRE last fall. His film, “Videocracy,” spotlights a cult of celebrity worship and TV junkies that, the director believes, has literally hypnotized Italian society to the detriment of public well-being and even democracy itself.

As prime minister (though the film refers to him as “president”), Berlusconi not only wields political power, but as the owner of the largest media empire in the country, he is also the master of cultural control. And Italians, the film argues, are willingly eating it up, watching in droves “talent” shows that feature a liberal dose of tits and ass, and an insatiable quest for celebrity.

“This is the culture of banality,” noted Gandini. “The fact of the matter is, this banality, which should have been only marginal, is promoted across the country. This is huge and it’s close to Berlusconi himself. Television [programming there] is a mirror of his taste. Berlusconi likes women – a lot. And he likes women with big breasts. It’s amazing – almost like science fiction – that one man can control a culture for thirty years now.”

Berlusconi and his henchmen live in a world that is devoid of morality, Gandini surmised, saying that the pursuit of fun, external beauty and frivolity is the ultimate in fine living. “I call it the TV Republic,” Gandini said. “TV culture has penetrated the whole society.”

Berlusconi’s empire spans movie studios, magazines and other media, but it’s his three television networks and their brand of entertainment that glorify pretty demure women and cheap tricks that titillate the senses that have turned one of the world’s great democracies into a society intoxicated by glitz and flesh, according to Gandini.

“Berlusconi has created a culture of banality so that collective societal desires are no longer important. People in Italy now just want to be television stars so they can be famous and rich.” Continuing he added, “There’s a strong tension between those who are on TV and those who are not. For young Italians, power is embodied by those who are celebrities.”

Reason in Exile

Gandini argues in “Videocracy” that Italy no longer places value in people who aspire to reason and thought, or to the challenges of the modern day. Women want to be voiceless showgirls on talent shows and marry footballers (soccer players). And with Berlusconi not only controlling his own personal media empire, but also having a hand in government controlled stations via his post as Italy’s prime minister, scandals involving prostitution and marital infidelity last year, which had received a fair amount of airtime in other European countries as well as in America, did not receive coverage on Berlusconi’s networks or the other public networks.

“People accept him, they find him ‘natural.’ It’s a politics that’s not based on truth or collective dreams, but on image only,” Gandini said. “Image is more important than reality.”

While Gandini describes Berlusconi as a modern despot, he says that his rule is not like today’s dictatorships in North Korea or even Zimbabwe, but a collective dumbing down of society that only engages in whether a footballer had an affair with someone.

“These people are super egomaniacs and they’re used to being filmed and in the center of attention and exposing themselves…It isn’t only [Berlusconi], what I’m really interested in here is how you can destroy a democracy by tits and ass. It’s shocking that the banality of culture can destroy a once mature and politically engaged populace.”

Gandini approaches the subject utilizing many of the same images he criticizes, with a strong dosage of trash TV and arrogant media and political barons doing Berlusconi’s bidding for his media empire, which has also subsequently made him the richest person in Italy.

Though Gandini is clearly disappointed by his country’s political evolution, he was gratified that the film performed well at home. “It was quickly the fourth biggest title in Italy in the first few days of its release,” Gandini said. “If TV becomes this unreal window into bad values that has nothing to do with reality, then perhaps it’s cinema that can become a safe haven for other types of stories.”

Sue Sylvester may have called him “The Other Asian” last season on “Glee,” but we’re predicting that Harry Shum, Jr., who plays Mike Chang on the Fox series, will become a household name this year. After all, “Glee” isn’t Shum’s only project these days. He’s reprising his role as Cable in the dance movie “Step Up 3D” (in theaters August 6), and stars in and choreographs “The LXD,” a new dance series for the web directed by Jon Chu.

This week, Shum’s first appearance in “The LXD” hits Hulu, so we asked the actor/dancer/choreographer to tell us more about the series, let us know what’s it’s like going up on stage with Beyonce, and share a few teasers about the next season of “Glee.” Two words: Britney episode. Find out what he’s talking about below. — Rebecca Harper (rebecca.harper@hulu.com), Hulu Editor, for the Yahoo! TV Blog

Although you’re a co-choreographer on “The LXD” (Legion of Extraordinary Dancers), you make your on-camera debut in “The LXD” this week in an episode called “Elliot’s Shoes.” Can you set up the storyline?
Elliot’s Shoes is the story about your average, everyday guy. He’s not really involved in the arts. He loves watching it, but he feels like he can’t do it. And that’s the way it is with a lot of things in his life. He inherits this house from his grandpa who’s just passed away. He moves into this house and somehow knocks into the wall and finds these shoes hidden in there. He ends up putting them on and finds out that these shoes almost take over his body and allow him to do things that have always been inside him but have never been released. Elliot is one of those characters with something that lives in him that’s waiting to be unleashed. He gets a little help from these X7 shoes.

Elliot ends up dancing to a mix of songs in the episode. Did you have any input in the song choice?
Charles Oliver was the director on this particular episode, and it was really fun. Me and Jon wrote the script and we placed and left it open, you know, “we’ll do something with the shoes and let them control you.” And I’ve always loved to be able to have that physical comedy and also bring in dance as well, but in different styles, and have a lot of fun with it. A lot of the inspiration comes from the Steve Martin and his old movies. I put the mix together of different songs that inspired and Charles and I started placing them together.

When Jon Chu set out to create this series about these superhero dancers, did you have any idea it would get so much attention? After all, the LXD was asked to perform in front of Al Gore and Bill Gates at the TED conference, and then the Oscars.
All this really happened organically. Jon and I met on “Step Up 2″ and we had a friendship there. Then he had this idea to bring dancers to the forefront. What’s awesome about it is that we made the first four episodes so long ago, almost a year ago. We originally thought, OK, let’s make a show and then after that we’ll roll back into live performances. It kind of happened the other way around. Jeff Thacker [co-executive producer on "So You Think You Can Dance"] was searching for clips for the show and he was typing in “epic.” Somehow our group came up, and he’d never heard of The LXD before. Then he saw us and said “I’d love to see these guys translate what they do on film on the stage.” He hit us up, and that was a little challenge for us, you know, because we were so into just putting it on the screen. And the story started like that. We had to bring it on stage. From “So You Think You Can Dance,” it was the Oscars with Adam Shankman [a "SYTYCD" judge), and then TED called us on. It was a big surprise to us, but at the same time we knew it was something special that we had, and that we were part of. We're just fortunate that everyone responded well to it.

“The LXD” highlights a number of different dancers, many specializing in a certain type of dance. As a choreographer, what's the creative process like? How involved are the individual dancers, and how do you mesh all of their individual styles into one cohesive story?
When we put the episodes together, we kind of throw ideas to Jon in terms of what we'd love to do with dance. And Jon is a storyteller, so he’s able to put it all together and bring the story and the dance onto paper and also bring it to life. But it really comes down to these individual dancers. We look to specific dancers that we want to write an episode about, or we look to bring in certain characters for the story. Really, we’re looking for ways showcase what they do in an innovative way, but also raise it together with the story, so we have one cohesive episode and also a whole storyline that goes along with the series.
When we go in there, it's about the dancers and how they move. We try and place certain things on them, but at the end of the day, it really comes down to what their unique style is and how they're going to incorporate it into the scene or into the sequence.

Is it improvised then, or is it all pretty much strict choreography?
It's a little bit of both. There are moments, especially how our shooting schedules are. We shoot an episode sometimes in one day. We have to all fit in one day, but we do have enough rehearsal time so there is a format and staging. We try to keep it where it's choreographed in a sense, and that's where we both collaborate with the dancers, me and Chris, but also there's always room for improvising because that's when a lot of the magic happens, especially with street dance. That's where it came from. It really came people just improvising and free styling and doing what they do best, because sometimes as a choreographer, you might not know what that is. You've only seen what the dancer's done, and sometimes they have more up their sleeve. You want to allow them to show that, as well.

You’ve said that your goal along has been to be an actor. Has your dance career helped?
Oh it's definitely helped open so many doors. To be honest, when I moved [to L.A.], that was I wanted to do, to act. I didn’t know that there was a career in dance. You see all these past dancers-slash-actors like Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire do both, which I always wanted to do, but I was just strictly dancing for a couple years. I was making a good living from it, so from there it opened up more opportunities as far as acting, and being able to do both, or just dancing or acting. It really allowed me to learn a lot about the business. I’ve done a lot of things that a lot of actors haven’t been able to do, in terms of performing with these awesome artists and traveling all over the world and teaching. I feel like I have the best of both worlds. I feel like I’m so lucky and so fortunate.

Your character, Mike Chang, was pretty silent on “Glee” in Season 1. Will we see — and hear — more of you next season?
Right now, there’s going to be a little storyline, a little love triangle between Artie and Tina and Mike Chang. I think this season, as Ryan Murphy said, they’re diving into the characters a lot more. They’re trying to go into the characters and just see who they are. As far as Brittany, who’s played by Heather Morris, she’s getting an episode where she’s singing Britney, which is so awesome. Only time will tell. Hopefully I’ll get that opportunity, slowly but surely. Last season I wasn’t doing much and this season I’m doing a little more.

It seems like the fans would like that. I have to ask: if Brittany gets to be Britney, who would Mike Chang be if he gets his own episode?
Man, there’s so many different things I would love to be. I would say this, though, I would love to be Michael. That’s really, really hard to live up to on my part, but I think that would be a dream come true.

In the “Dream On” episode, you do some stage time with Jenna Uskowitz, who plays Tina, while Artie (Kevin McHale) sings “Dream a Little Dream of Me.” Did you do any of the choreography for that tap dance number?
Oh man, I don’t think they even want my input on tap. I’d never tapped before, not until three days before the shoot. They gave us tap shoes and they put us in a room for about two and half hours and we had to learn tap. Jenna at least had some experience with tapping, but that was my first time putting tap shoes on. And it is so hard. I gained a new respect for tapping. You look at it and think, “Oh, I think I can do that,” then you start doing it and it is so difficult! Even though we learned it three days before, but we pretty much had three hours to get it before we had to shoot. In my sleep, I would try to pretend that I could tap the air. We ended up doing it, and I’m pretty proud considering how little time we had.

Have you sustained any injuries?
I’ve been very lucky. It’s been minor, you know, like your back is sore. Nothing has put me out of commission — knock on wood. It gets a little crazy as far as the stuff that we do. For the most part, they keep us pretty safe and make sure no one gets injured. I can’t say the same for Vocal Adrenaline. When they did “Bohemian Rhapsody,” oh, they were dropping like flies. Everything was safe, but that dance was so intense, with so many lifts and running back across stage and getting to the other side. I think it was all worth it, and I think the dancers would say the same, because that turned out to be, for me, one of the most awesome dances on “Glee.”

Can you share any upcoming surprises?
Specifics, I don’t know, but I can tell you after reading the first two scripts, the writers aren’t holding back. They’re so brilliant in writing for the show, that when I opened up the first five pages, I was like “Oh wow, they are going for it.” I don’t think it’s going to disappoint fans when they come out with the opener. They’re really going to get to know the characters a lot more and get into their home lives and find out what their backgrounds are. In terms of musical numbers: Britney. I think that’s going to be one to look forward to. It’s going to be done in a hallucinogenic way, Ryan said — whatever that means, I’m sure it’s going to be crazy.

What was more intimidating? Dancing with Beyonce or coming up with choreography that was going to be seen by Bill Gates and Al Gore (at the TED conference) and all of Hollywood (at the Oscars)?
[Laughs.] Two totally different worlds! As a nerd, you know, we heard that we’re doing TED and that we were performing for the likes of Bill Gates, Will Smith and Al Gore, and just the smartest people in the world. They’re scientists, so most of them aren’t really into dancing. So that was the harder crowd, because I didn’t know if they were going to appreciate us. But I think both are intimidating — and also, Beyonce, she’s like the queen of all that she does. Being on stage with her is intimidating, especially the first time. Both are, in different ways.

Check out Harry Shum in the “Elliot’s Shoes” episode of “The LXD” on Hulu Wednesday. Catch him in “Step Up 3D” in theaters August 6. Here’s a sneak peek:

SnagFilms’ 2nd annual SummerFest, a free online festival showcasing exclusive, limited-duration runs of popular new documentaries, continues with “Disco and Atomic War,” the third film in the series, premiering this Friday, July 30th.

Disco and Atomic War reveals the unusual, provocative, and very funny story of how Dallas and Knight Rider led to the fall of the Iron Curtain. A story of coming of age under Communism, the documentary cleverly and cogently argues that the influence of “soft power” — pop culture via illegally intercepted Finnish TV broadcasts of Western media — weakened the tenuous foundation of the Soviet system in Estonia, hastening the collapse of the Soviet Union.

indieWIRE spoke to the film’s director, Jaak Kilmi, from Estonia last week about growing up in parallel universes, propaganda, and the manufacturing and rediscovering of childhood memories. — Basil Tsiokos, indieWIRE

iW: Jaak, one of the joys of the film is that the viewer gets this privileged look into this clandestine world going on underneath the noses of the Soviets. It’s almost a sort of spy thriller. How much of that was really how you felt growing up – balancing daily life with this secret activity?

Jaak Kilmi: It was life under the Soviet system – we were struggling with every big problem. Publicly, my parents had to queue up to buy food, but were able to live secret lives in their private rooms. With the TV set in the living room, we were able to see Western pop culture -a different reality from what we were living. For me, it was like two different universes existed at the same time, and we got used to being in these parallel universes.

iW: The film gives the impression that this experience was fairly commonplace. Was this basically an open secret?

JK: It couldn’t remain a secret – of course everyone could see the antennae springing up on all the rooftops of our Soviet concrete buildings. All my friends were watching the same films and programs I watched – we were all fans of “Knight Rider” and talked about it. It wasn’t encouraged officially – I mean, at school we didn’t write essays about “Knight Rider!” But the Soviet Union wasn’t so closed – it wasn’t North Korea. It was a practical system. People were creative and industrious, so if they wanted to see Western TV programs, they would invent a way to do so. It’s strange in a way. There was an official truth, and there was daily life.

iW: I’m curious about the Soviet attempts to counter-program Estonia against the “soft power” of the Western media/pop culture. Did they ever try to use humor or some other more subtle, subversive means to fight against the Western media?

JK: In Northern Estonia, the Soviet authorities didn’t have a recipe on how to fight against the popularity of Finnish TV. Audiences didn’t want to watch hardcore Soviet propaganda. In the mid-1980s, however, the Estonian TV programmers came up with a clever idea: they asked Moscow for millions of rubles to make propaganda in Estonia to fight the Finnish programs’ popularity.

They got millions from the government, but what they made was not propaganda at all! They simply made good, entertaining programs – no one in Estonia recognized them as propaganda, only Russia thought it was, so they got away with it. Of course, Russia provided their own propaganda programs, but Estonians knew to avoid them.

iW: Your film is often sardonically and even blackly humorous. Can you talk about how you found the right tone for telling this story?

JK: Yes, that tone is intentional. I have so many funny memories from these times. You know, my childhood in the Soviet Union was not terrible, it was very joyful. Life under the Soviet system was often funny, absurd really, especially for children. So in making the film, we felt we couldn’t escape the inherent humor, and we didn’t want to escape it, because everything was so absurd. The whole idea of this totalitarian system trying to fight against Western influence was so ridiculous. So I think this sardonic humor was present at the time, and it made sense to embrace it in the film.

iW: Speaking of children, talk about your decision to incorporate the re-enacted scenes of childhood memories in the film. Are these re-enactments 100% true or have they been fictionalized to some extent?

JK: My producer/co-writer Kiur Aarma and I knew that we wanted to explore the memories of children who were around our age. We announced in newspapers and on TV our campaign to collect these memories of the Finnish TV broadcasts, and received about 40-50 emails. From these, we saw about 20 stories or motifs that we wanted to use in the film. We realized we could more effectively present them if we constructed characters. So they are constructed, but based on true recollections from these materials we received and our own stories.

For example, the part of the film where I write to my niece regularly about what happened in “Dallas” and “Who shot JR.” In real life, I promised I would write to her, but I never found the time. So I finally corrected that broken promise by writing to her in the film. She saw the premiere and was really happy – she told me, “At last, I get the letters you promised me!” So while I didn’t actually write them, I’m sure someone wrote these kinds of letters at the time.

Another funny story from the film – where Estonian boys would talk into their electronic wristwatches as if they were communicating with the car from “Knight Rider.” Kiur and I invented that. But after the premiere, a guy approached us and said he did that as a kid – so it was actually true!

iW: Did you have any trouble getting the participation of the TV executives interviewed in the film?

JK: Nobody had been interested in their work before – we were the first ones to ask them – so they were quite happy to talk. There was one guy who probably could have given us valuable information but he wasn’t sure what our intention was. Working under the Soviet system made you very paranoid – people were afraid of everything – and this paranoia is still in people’s minds today. But most of the TV people are really nice guys who have a sense of humor about what they did. You needed this in order to survive in the system.

iW: In screening the film, have you noted any generational differences in response from audiences?

JK: The film really resonates with people of any age who grew up in the Soviet Union, but we have shown the film to younger people, and it still works. It’s a very human story – basically, people want to see what they want to see, and if someone else tries to prohibit you, you find clever ways to see it anyway. The film is about a very human fight against any kind of totalitarianism.

Using the tagline “15 Years, 3 Wars, 1 Photographer,” Shooting Robert King tells the story of the titular war correspondent, beginning as a naive 24-year-old covering the war in Bosnia in 1993, following up when he is a hardened man in Chechnya in 1997, and finding him more at peace in 2007, both embedded within the US military in Iraq and at home in the Tennessee woods on a deer-hunting trip. Robert King is the focus through which the film explores the complex and at times contradictory forces motivating journalists to put themselves in harm’s way to bear witness to war and atrocity.

For the second week of SnagFilms’ SummerFest, indieWIRE spoke to the film’s director, Richard Parry, from the United Kingdom earlier this week about how the project was developed, the parallels he sees in his own life, and the dangerous life of a documentary filmmaker. — Basil Tsiokos, indieWIRE

iW: Richard, how did you meet Robert? What drew you to him vs other war correspondents you came across while you yourself were covering the war in Yugoslavia?
Richard Parry: I met Robert in Sarajevo in the Holiday Inn where all the journalists were staying. He was at the bar at 10am, drinking the local jungle juice. He looked out of place . I introduced myself, and he said to me, “I’ve lived in Brooklyn for six years, so I thought I knew what war was, but man, this place is crazy!” I liked him from the beginning — I found him to be honest, candid, and funny. We latched on to one another — I didn’t know I would be spending 15 years making this film!

I was there doing my own story, working as a freelancer, packaging stories and selling them to outlets. The idea was born to make a documentary about the hack, about the underbelly of war correspondents. The intention was to make a genuine film about this type of people who you rarely see, especially the photographers, who drink a lot and get shot at more.

iW: You are extremely close to your subject. Was there anything that you felt was off-limits or that Robert declared off-limits for filming?
RP: Robert was very open, that’s the way he is. He allowed me to film almost everything. Sure, there were small requests in there, but they weren’t a big deal. He’s always trusted me. That trust may have wavered at times over the course of the 15 years, but the general trust has remained, and we’ve retained our friendship.

iW: How much of yourself did you see in Robert, given your similar work in war zones?
RP: Quite a lot. The film is in many ways also about me and about how I see the role of war correspondents. I think I share with Robert the complexities that drive someone to want to do this kind of work. But it’s not unique to Robert or myself — the film is dedicated to the journalists who died in this field — it’s a tribute to them.

iW: You’re with Robert in literal war zones – your own life was in danger. Can you tell us about the most dangerous moments that you filmed?
RP:The most dangerous was when we were in Bosnia, the episode Robert describes at the beginning of the film. We were in a car, and bullets were flying through it, literally piercing the metal. We didn’t know where they were coming from, it was chaos. A bullet ended up hitting my camera, in the viewfinder. I couldn’t see anything, I didn’t know if the camera was still operational, but I kept filming.

iW: Can you tell me about the process of filming over 15 years?
RP: I grabbed footage whenever I could, wherever we happened to be together, and my camera was there to pick it up. We would do stories together occasionally, and we would stay in the same flat together. Filming him just became natural. We had a symbiotic relationship — every time we worked together, it would feed the documentary. Initially, the film was about 25 to 30 minutes, covering Robert in Sarajevo, and it played at one of the first Sheffield fests. But I couldn’t sell it, so I decided to expand upon it, and included Robert in Chechnya. By this point, Robert had achieved the success he was searching for, he had become a different person. This gave the film more depth. It was a 52-minute version, but I couldn’t sell that either. So I put it on the shelf for awhile, until years later, a UK distributor told me he could distribute it theatrically if I expanded it to a 90-minute version. And I’m glad I did — it became a much better film, more honest and reflective.

iW: How did the deer hunting trip come up as the setting for the present day interviews?
RP: The film needed a point of reflection, needed a space where Robert could reflect back, and hunting was a good avenue to find that. There’s a lot of downtime, a lot of waiting time, and Robert doesn’t shoot at the deer much – plenty of time to talk and think about his past. It’s a dialogue between the two of us, how we felt about our experiences, and about our involvement in the field.

iW: Can you talk about how Robert changed over the 15-year span of filming?
RP: Robert changed in similar ways that I changed. I notice changes within myself that are similar to changes within Robert. He and I began with this sense of invincibility – we never thought anything was going to happen to us. We didn’t understand the complexities or question our motives. After that, we found the fear, that sense that something would happen to us. We had our times with using drugs and drinking when we weren’t in war zones, which were themselves a kind of drug. And later, we both calmed down, found more time to reflect and some more stability.

iW: You’ve had a healthy festival run. What’s the most surprising question or response you’ve received?
RP: Because of the hunting setting, we have been asked what we thought of vegetarianism, which was a weird question. But really, while the hunting can be seen as a metaphor in the film, it really is there just because that’s what Robert does to unwind. Q&As are always interesting because they are an opportunity to look back on the film and reassess what you think of it. It is a very personal film for me.

Following up on its inaugural edition last year, SnagFilms is launching the 2nd annual SummerFest, a free online festival showcasing exclusive, limited-duration runs of popular new documentaries, beginning with Franny Armstrong’s acclaimed film, The Age of Stupid.

Unique for a documentary, The Age of Stupid incorporates a narrative thread, starring Oscar-nominated actor Pete Postlethwaite as an archivist in the year 2055, when the Earth has been completely devastated by climate change. The film is his recording of a last message for his archive, intended not for humanity — “It’s too late for us,” he gravely intones — but instead, “for whoever, whatever, eventually finds this recording” as a “cautionary tale.” The message consists of documentary footage from around the globe, focusing on stories of climate change and the world’s addiction to fossil fuels.

indieWIRE spoke to the film’s director, Franny Armstong, from London earlier this week about the project’s origins, its creative fundraising, and the groundbreaking (and environmentally friendly) ways the film has been reaching audiences. — Basil Tsiokos, indieWIRE

iW: One of the striking things about the film is its unique hybrid of documentary and drama. Tell us how this happened, and why you felt the hybrid form made sense for this project?
Franny Armstrong: You can find out a lot more details from watching the “Making of” documentary , but basically, the original idea was to follow five different people, with none of them being the “good guy” or the “bad guy,” because the issue is not black and white. We made the film as a pure documentary and showed the rough cut to investors. What we found was that everyone who was already into climate change thought it was brilliant, but everyone else didn’t get the links between the different people followed. It wasn’t anything greater than the sum of its parts, and it was never going to go mainstream, which defeated the point. So we had a few dark months there while we found the structure to make it

iW: And this is when Pete Postlethwaite become involved?
FA: Once we decided on incorporating a dramatic element, we needed to find the right person. Everyone in the UK adores Pete. We didn’t think we would have a chance of getting him, but I Googled him to see if there was any chance he was into climate change, and I found a recent article in his local newspaper about his efforts to get permission to install wind turbines, where he was quoted saying that “everyone’s responsible for climate change.” So we reached out and he agreed to do the project.

iW: Let’s talk about the documentary elements of the film. How did you find your subjects and stories?
FA: We had about ten researchers amassing different stories, split up into different themes we were considering – areas like ever-increasing consumption, alternative energy, etc. For example, they found the story about low-cost airlines in India, and that was perfect – we wanted to involve India or China, and it’s very difficult to film in China – we found Jehangir Wadia and his interest in ending poverty through the airline. A fascinating character, a rich guy – a person of contradictions. We didn’t want the viewers to love or hate any subject. To find all the characters around the world, it took three years of researching.

iW: Tell us about how you’ve released the film and the reactions you’ve received.
FA: We had our global premiere in September. We broadcast live from New York City to 63 countries. Rather than go the traditional route and physically travel all over the world, we could leave a much smaller carbon footprint by having one enormous event, linking everyone by satellite. We had an amazing response – Kofi Annan spoke at the event.

The most amazing thing to happen has been the 10:10 Campaign, which aims to reduce our carbon emissions by 10% this year. Huge companies have signed up, committing to this goal. It started in the UK but it’s spreading to other countries quickly.

iW: The film’s title, and the tone the archivist uses, really issues a challenge to the viewer. What kind of personal changes have you made from learning all that you have in the process of making this film?
FA: Well, I’ve been into the subject since I was in school, so I have been making changes for over 20 years now. But I can see the impact around me – My dad installed solar panels a few weeks ago. I’m most proud of the way that we made this film, and how we’re getting it out to audiences and the change that is still possible.

iW: Franny, can you tell us about how you used crowdfunding for the film?
FA: I had tried to get my previous film, “McLibel,” made in the normal way for the UK, by having it commissioned, but nobody wanted to support the project. I ended up making it with credit cards and a rich boyfriend. This meant that I completely owned the rights, and could control the distribution, and this became very important for me [and] for my next project. It was going to cost more than the previous film, and by this point, the rich boyfriend had departed, so I invented a funding plan on the back of an envelope. My lawyers told me it was the most original film financing scheme they’d ever seen, but they needed to rewrite it to make it legal.

Because I had plans to interview representatives of an oil company, I didn’t want too many people to know what I was doing, so the funding plan was kept to friends and friends of friends, which kept growing. I needed £450,000 for the production and another £450,000 to distribute the film. Under my plan, individuals could invest a minimum of £500. The maximum individual contribution we received was £35,000. And we made our first payment to our investors this January.