Love this! Always agreed and thought BCoop's (to borrow Lauren's excellent nickname) awards thirst came from the insecurity of occupying the no-man's-land between "prestige" actors like Ryan Gosling (generally acclaimed work in generally acclaimed projects) and "popular" actors like Ryan Reynolds (who can open/lead to profit Technically Not Real movies like The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard's Kevin Costner's Yellowstone). Wikipedia says his movies have grossed $13 billion (counting Marvel movie inflation) and he has TWELVE Oscar noms, but I'd be hard-pressed to name a single "Bradley Cooper movie" that's truly popular outside of A Star Is Born –- and even there you can feel the try-hard Tracy Flick-ness, as most of the movie's "sparkle" comes from Gaga and Coops (while good!) still only gives the fourth-best performance behind her, Sam Elliott, and Sam Elliott's mustache.
I think he went the smart Robert Downey, Jr. route of basically figuring out which persona the audience wanted from him (sarcastic hero) and picking roles based on that! It’s not ~artistic~ or whatever, but I think he’s pretty good at playing different-enough variations of himself to stay familiar but enjoyable.
Thank you for this podcast, I just finished listening to the episode and I really enjoyed it. I wanted to comment about other artists who create and star in their own work such as Michaela Coel who I also love. I was also thinking of Lin Manuel Miranda who says that he created In The Heights and Hamilton because otherwise he wasn't getting cast in roles that he wanted to play. So for women or people of color now in Hollywood it seems almost a given that in order to get the roles you want to play, you have to create them yourself. I think the series "Barry" touched on this as well. So what is SO ANNOYING about Bradley Cooper is that he does not have to create these roles for himself! So many roles in so many movies are created just for actors just like him.
I also wanted to call out in the answer to the listener question about his relationship with women. I saw a post on social media pointing out that in Maestro, Bradley Cooper has created a character who cheats on his wife but he is such a genius and so special and important that his wife stays with him, and it's almost like he made just this exact movie to show women in HIS life that HE is such a genius and so special and important, that they should overlook infidelity and stay with him. So, blech to that.
(also I still like Bradley Cooper and did you see the thing in the NYT magazine last weekend where he said he starts each day with a cold plunge and that is also very Tracy Flick.)
I agree—this episode was fun! I haven’t really been paying attention to Will, I mean Bradley Cooper, but as a long-time Alias fan…he was the MOST UNLIKELY to rise to stardom. He definitely seemed like the extra to round out the cast, not destined to lead the way that Garner and Vartan were. I constantly lament that there is not more Michael Vartan in our collective lives.
I am so excited to listen to this episode and I am hopeful it will include a discussion of BCoop spending 7 years learning to conduct. I find BCoop so I sufferable.
Remember Bradley Cooper in Wedding Crashers? He played the obnoxious and entitled boyfriend of Rachel McAdam’s character. I honestly thought that was one of his best roles. Even though it was comedic, he seemed to really let out some darkness. This is probably the closest to a villain he has ever played. Maybe he needs to play the villain more often, and stop choosing such cloying roles.
I just finished listening and I loved it so much. As a Philly native, I want to love him in the way that I have a natural affection for cheesesteaks, the Eagles, and Kevin Bacon, but...he's just too much. Sam nailed it with the Tracy-Flick-of-it-all. He actually reminds me a LOT of the suburban, upper middle class guys that I went to high school and college with (I also went to private, Catholic institutions.) There's a sense of entitlement there that if he does the work, the results will come. And I'm just not sure that art works that way? Also, here's my one truly petty thought, as a life long tennis fan: please, please stop performing at Wimbledon.
The "Inside the Actors Studio" thing absolutely solidified it for me-- he thinks if he just follows these steps, the awards will come. Which, okay, fine, but we as a society really prefer the narrative of someone just getting lucky, getting discovered, getting the award against all the odds. So to win the awards AND the public's affection means erasing the signs of that hard work, like AHP said, and BCoops will never.
You include a disclaimer that this podcast isn't mean, although it may seem mean, because it's a "star image analysis." Why did you do that? Maybe because you realize deep down that some of the gossip in this podcast is not "culture study" but actually is mean and unnecessary.
Hi Leslie — I include the disclaimer because I've found that in my 20 years of doing star image analysis (which is at the foundation of my PhD work) it's easy to mistake analysis for "being mean." In this episode, Sam and I were unpacking the way Cooper has crafted his star image for public consumption — something I've done (in written form) for many, many stars. It's at the heart of my second book, TOO FAT TOO SLUTTY TOO LOUD, and the way that I first started writing on the internet. Happy to answer any questions, and here's a taste of what it looks like in longform: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/annehelenpetersen/charlize-theron-is-not-here-to-make-friends
I find your writing so interesting and insightful; that's why I am one of your substack subscribers. I don't doubt your credentials and expertise.To me this podcast did not reflect your usual insights and sensitivity. Parts of this conversation, such as Sam's insinuation that Bradley is gay and closeted, felt more like snarky gossip than anything else.
I absolutely understand if this episode isn't for you, and am grateful for your comment's prompt for me to reflect more. I'll just say that the rumors about Cooper's sexuality are part of his star text and the way his image creates meaning for straight and queer viewers — the same way that it's part of Hugh Jackman's star image, and Tom Cruise's star image, and John Travolta's star image, and George Clooney's star image, and so many before.
As I understand it, the promise of the podcast is: we don't throw tomatoes, we are curious about tomatoes and reflective of why society throws them and what that means in a broader context. Sounds fascinating! It *is* for me! Exactly something I would make time to listen to.
To live up to that expectation I would have expected you to say “hold up, Sam…you're doing the thing people do with celebrities and sexuality rumors. Here's what “star image” means and here's how it manifests in our collective imagination…” Bonus points if you had acknowledged that Bradley Cooper is a creative person literally engaged in understanding this exact phenomenon (identity, privacy, what society expects from celebrities) in Maestro! Game recognize game.
"Bradley Cooper is a creative person literally engaged in understanding this exact phenomenon (identity, privacy, what society expects from celebrities)" <--- Exactly this. The Taffy profile of BC was snarkily discussed and linked in show notes, but no discussion was had about the entire end/conclusion of her profile, where she explored exactly this in relation to her interview with him. The end of that profile was *fascinating* and thought provoking. And it was a real missed opportunity to explore those themes as part of a "star image analysis" in favor of throwing tomatoes.
I'm with you on this. I can totally see the benefit of this kind of *cultural* exploration/analysis, but in reality -- and just look at so many of the comments here -- it ends up *personal* and, yes, mean.
Okay, so, I wrote the above comment based on many things, the comments here included, but had not yet listened to the episode. I just did and, though I typically find Anne's work thoughtful and nuanced, this episode did not do it for me.
The entire episode is based on the assumed premise that BC is annoying. It *is* mean! Sam even says so (while laughing and saying it's fine).
You (both) say BC doesn't owe you anything, but you're mad at him for not giving you what you want. You say you understand BC wanting awards, but then criticize him for wanting awards. You say you're not going to psychoanalyze BC, and then you psychoanalyze BC.
You negatively contrast BC to Ben + JLo, Beyonce + JayZ, and Taylor + Travis, as though they're the only way to be either an artist or famous.
About BC, you say you previously felt similarly about Anne Hathaway, but that you have come around on your opinion of her. You say BC is a dude Tracy Flick, but that you've come around on understanding her trauma impacts.
You grant them (a real human, a fictional human) the grace of humanity that is not even considered here for Bradley Cooper. That lack of grace pervades the entire episode, but never moreso than when *outing him.*
I just felt really gross listening to this episode in a way I never have when reading AHP celeb profiles or Too Fat, Too Slutty, Too Loud. Perhaps cultural "star image analysis" is better suited to the contemplative practice of writing, and not the two-friends-gossiping feel of a podcast episode.
Hannah, you've given me reason to reflect, and I would say that there's two things going on here: 1) You're right, talking about these things in a compelling way for an audience with another person is going to produce a different tone of analysis....and in that case, it was more humorous, less what you'd find in one of my books. And that might not be a tone that you like, and that's totally fair. 2) I'm realizing that the two star analyses I've done that have prompted audiences to react with a feeling that I've been unfair have been contemporary straight white men with a lot of Hollywood privilege — Armie Hammer (which also prompted people who told me that they usually appreciate my analyses) and now, Cooper. Which makes me believe that when it comes to men with a tremendous amount of accumulated power in Hollywood, I *do* have slightly less grace! And I think the same goes for Sam, if you've ever listened to or read his own thinking about celebrity. 3.) It's true, the entire premise *is* that people find Cooper annoying — and I think both Sam and I were trying to figure out why that had become his primary meaning. That doesn't mean that we stop finding him annoying, if that makes sense. 4.) I'm grateful for your feedback and the reflection it's prompted!
I appreciate your response, though I admit not all of your explanations quite land for me.
You disclaim at the start of the episode that this analysis is not mean, but then in the course of the episode it is literally declared as (and almost celebrated as?), yes, mean. This is an edited podcast episode; that part about it being mean was left in. Presumably because it was true. But when listeners/commenters are pushing back against the meanness, they're being understood as simply missing the more sophisticated point being made or as being too entrenched in patriarchy to withstand critical analysis of a rich, white guy. But maybe it was just mean. There's *what* something is about and there's *how* it's about it, and the how here was overarchingly mean.
There is also no such disclaimer acknowledging that your analysis will have "slightly less grace" because he's a dude with power in his industry. That lack of acknowledgement is troubling to me, and I say that as a 43 y/o woman who's quite suspect of endlessly giving privileged men the eternal fucking benefit of the doubt. But if you want to do a humorous analysis (and there was admittedly less actual analysis in the episode than I had expected), acknowledging your starting point goes a long way to setting the tone and expectations.
Your subscribers (newsletter and podcast) are used to a certain style from you; and not all of us are familiar with Sam's work/style. Humor and thoughtful analysis are not incompatible. But the tone of this episode, to me, very much undercut any of your attempted analysis of "why people find Cooper annoying." I experienced it as humor for the sake of giggles, entertainment, and gossip, rather than humor as one tool in the important analysis you declared this piece set out to do.
To that point, in your reply to Leslie, you maintain that the rumors about his sexuality are "part of his star text" and yet there wasn't actually any thoughtful discussion about that at all -- something so delicate, vulnerable, and personal. Those rumors, those jokes, seem to then be included -- live and in the edited final version -- for the humor, for the meanness, alone.
So here's the truth: I totally didn't know people find Bradley Cooper annoying! I would have loved to learn that that's the case and thoughtfully (which can include humor!) explore why that is. But this episode just didn't do that for me.
Question - during this episode, Sam mentioned that Anne Hathaway has been divorced. I don't think that's correct? She wasn't married to Raffaello Follieri.
Love this! Always agreed and thought BCoop's (to borrow Lauren's excellent nickname) awards thirst came from the insecurity of occupying the no-man's-land between "prestige" actors like Ryan Gosling (generally acclaimed work in generally acclaimed projects) and "popular" actors like Ryan Reynolds (who can open/lead to profit Technically Not Real movies like The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard's Kevin Costner's Yellowstone). Wikipedia says his movies have grossed $13 billion (counting Marvel movie inflation) and he has TWELVE Oscar noms, but I'd be hard-pressed to name a single "Bradley Cooper movie" that's truly popular outside of A Star Is Born –- and even there you can feel the try-hard Tracy Flick-ness, as most of the movie's "sparkle" comes from Gaga and Coops (while good!) still only gives the fourth-best performance behind her, Sam Elliott, and Sam Elliott's mustache.
Yes! He’s not Ryan Reynolds. Can we have a pod on Ryan Reynolds and what exactly makes him so damn lovable?!
I have complicated feelings about Ryan Reynolds but maybe that's still hangover from his (now long ago) "plantation wedding" to Blake Lively????
I think he went the smart Robert Downey, Jr. route of basically figuring out which persona the audience wanted from him (sarcastic hero) and picking roles based on that! It’s not ~artistic~ or whatever, but I think he’s pretty good at playing different-enough variations of himself to stay familiar but enjoyable.
🤣🤣🤣 the moustache
I saw a movie where he did NOT have the ‘stache, and I felt like I had been lured by false advertising 🤣
I'm so glad Melody also remembers Alias-era Bradley Cooper
There will always be a soft spot in my heart for him because of it
Ditto! That is my primary point of reference for him cause I think I've only seen the Hangiver and none of his Prestige movies lol
Thank you for this podcast, I just finished listening to the episode and I really enjoyed it. I wanted to comment about other artists who create and star in their own work such as Michaela Coel who I also love. I was also thinking of Lin Manuel Miranda who says that he created In The Heights and Hamilton because otherwise he wasn't getting cast in roles that he wanted to play. So for women or people of color now in Hollywood it seems almost a given that in order to get the roles you want to play, you have to create them yourself. I think the series "Barry" touched on this as well. So what is SO ANNOYING about Bradley Cooper is that he does not have to create these roles for himself! So many roles in so many movies are created just for actors just like him.
I also wanted to call out in the answer to the listener question about his relationship with women. I saw a post on social media pointing out that in Maestro, Bradley Cooper has created a character who cheats on his wife but he is such a genius and so special and important that his wife stays with him, and it's almost like he made just this exact movie to show women in HIS life that HE is such a genius and so special and important, that they should overlook infidelity and stay with him. So, blech to that.
(also I still like Bradley Cooper and did you see the thing in the NYT magazine last weekend where he said he starts each day with a cold plunge and that is also very Tracy Flick.)
NOT THE COLD PLUNGE
Obviously the cold plunge.
I agree—this episode was fun! I haven’t really been paying attention to Will, I mean Bradley Cooper, but as a long-time Alias fan…he was the MOST UNLIKELY to rise to stardom. He definitely seemed like the extra to round out the cast, not destined to lead the way that Garner and Vartan were. I constantly lament that there is not more Michael Vartan in our collective lives.
Amen and amen and amen
I am so excited to listen to this episode and I am hopeful it will include a discussion of BCoop spending 7 years learning to conduct. I find BCoop so I sufferable.
Oh don't worry Sam goes there!!!
Remember Bradley Cooper in Wedding Crashers? He played the obnoxious and entitled boyfriend of Rachel McAdam’s character. I honestly thought that was one of his best roles. Even though it was comedic, he seemed to really let out some darkness. This is probably the closest to a villain he has ever played. Maybe he needs to play the villain more often, and stop choosing such cloying roles.
I just finished listening and I loved it so much. As a Philly native, I want to love him in the way that I have a natural affection for cheesesteaks, the Eagles, and Kevin Bacon, but...he's just too much. Sam nailed it with the Tracy-Flick-of-it-all. He actually reminds me a LOT of the suburban, upper middle class guys that I went to high school and college with (I also went to private, Catholic institutions.) There's a sense of entitlement there that if he does the work, the results will come. And I'm just not sure that art works that way? Also, here's my one truly petty thought, as a life long tennis fan: please, please stop performing at Wimbledon.
The "Inside the Actors Studio" thing absolutely solidified it for me-- he thinks if he just follows these steps, the awards will come. Which, okay, fine, but we as a society really prefer the narrative of someone just getting lucky, getting discovered, getting the award against all the odds. So to win the awards AND the public's affection means erasing the signs of that hard work, like AHP said, and BCoops will never.
Love the AHP and Sam Sanders team up. Hope you’ll do more shows together in the future!
This was really fun! I hope these celebrity profiles and analyses become a side series in this podcast 😅
I loved this episode. Bradley Cooper has always bothered me but I couldn’t put my finger on why. Now I can!
You include a disclaimer that this podcast isn't mean, although it may seem mean, because it's a "star image analysis." Why did you do that? Maybe because you realize deep down that some of the gossip in this podcast is not "culture study" but actually is mean and unnecessary.
Hi Leslie — I include the disclaimer because I've found that in my 20 years of doing star image analysis (which is at the foundation of my PhD work) it's easy to mistake analysis for "being mean." In this episode, Sam and I were unpacking the way Cooper has crafted his star image for public consumption — something I've done (in written form) for many, many stars. It's at the heart of my second book, TOO FAT TOO SLUTTY TOO LOUD, and the way that I first started writing on the internet. Happy to answer any questions, and here's a taste of what it looks like in longform: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/annehelenpetersen/charlize-theron-is-not-here-to-make-friends
I find your writing so interesting and insightful; that's why I am one of your substack subscribers. I don't doubt your credentials and expertise.To me this podcast did not reflect your usual insights and sensitivity. Parts of this conversation, such as Sam's insinuation that Bradley is gay and closeted, felt more like snarky gossip than anything else.
I absolutely understand if this episode isn't for you, and am grateful for your comment's prompt for me to reflect more. I'll just say that the rumors about Cooper's sexuality are part of his star text and the way his image creates meaning for straight and queer viewers — the same way that it's part of Hugh Jackman's star image, and Tom Cruise's star image, and John Travolta's star image, and George Clooney's star image, and so many before.
As I understand it, the promise of the podcast is: we don't throw tomatoes, we are curious about tomatoes and reflective of why society throws them and what that means in a broader context. Sounds fascinating! It *is* for me! Exactly something I would make time to listen to.
To live up to that expectation I would have expected you to say “hold up, Sam…you're doing the thing people do with celebrities and sexuality rumors. Here's what “star image” means and here's how it manifests in our collective imagination…” Bonus points if you had acknowledged that Bradley Cooper is a creative person literally engaged in understanding this exact phenomenon (identity, privacy, what society expects from celebrities) in Maestro! Game recognize game.
"Bradley Cooper is a creative person literally engaged in understanding this exact phenomenon (identity, privacy, what society expects from celebrities)" <--- Exactly this. The Taffy profile of BC was snarkily discussed and linked in show notes, but no discussion was had about the entire end/conclusion of her profile, where she explored exactly this in relation to her interview with him. The end of that profile was *fascinating* and thought provoking. And it was a real missed opportunity to explore those themes as part of a "star image analysis" in favor of throwing tomatoes.
I feel exactly the same, Leslie. Though on that last point, I'd say not snarky gossip but, rather, mean and even cruel.
I'm with you on this. I can totally see the benefit of this kind of *cultural* exploration/analysis, but in reality -- and just look at so many of the comments here -- it ends up *personal* and, yes, mean.
Okay, so, I wrote the above comment based on many things, the comments here included, but had not yet listened to the episode. I just did and, though I typically find Anne's work thoughtful and nuanced, this episode did not do it for me.
The entire episode is based on the assumed premise that BC is annoying. It *is* mean! Sam even says so (while laughing and saying it's fine).
You (both) say BC doesn't owe you anything, but you're mad at him for not giving you what you want. You say you understand BC wanting awards, but then criticize him for wanting awards. You say you're not going to psychoanalyze BC, and then you psychoanalyze BC.
You negatively contrast BC to Ben + JLo, Beyonce + JayZ, and Taylor + Travis, as though they're the only way to be either an artist or famous.
About BC, you say you previously felt similarly about Anne Hathaway, but that you have come around on your opinion of her. You say BC is a dude Tracy Flick, but that you've come around on understanding her trauma impacts.
You grant them (a real human, a fictional human) the grace of humanity that is not even considered here for Bradley Cooper. That lack of grace pervades the entire episode, but never moreso than when *outing him.*
I just felt really gross listening to this episode in a way I never have when reading AHP celeb profiles or Too Fat, Too Slutty, Too Loud. Perhaps cultural "star image analysis" is better suited to the contemplative practice of writing, and not the two-friends-gossiping feel of a podcast episode.
Hannah, you've given me reason to reflect, and I would say that there's two things going on here: 1) You're right, talking about these things in a compelling way for an audience with another person is going to produce a different tone of analysis....and in that case, it was more humorous, less what you'd find in one of my books. And that might not be a tone that you like, and that's totally fair. 2) I'm realizing that the two star analyses I've done that have prompted audiences to react with a feeling that I've been unfair have been contemporary straight white men with a lot of Hollywood privilege — Armie Hammer (which also prompted people who told me that they usually appreciate my analyses) and now, Cooper. Which makes me believe that when it comes to men with a tremendous amount of accumulated power in Hollywood, I *do* have slightly less grace! And I think the same goes for Sam, if you've ever listened to or read his own thinking about celebrity. 3.) It's true, the entire premise *is* that people find Cooper annoying — and I think both Sam and I were trying to figure out why that had become his primary meaning. That doesn't mean that we stop finding him annoying, if that makes sense. 4.) I'm grateful for your feedback and the reflection it's prompted!
I appreciate your response, though I admit not all of your explanations quite land for me.
You disclaim at the start of the episode that this analysis is not mean, but then in the course of the episode it is literally declared as (and almost celebrated as?), yes, mean. This is an edited podcast episode; that part about it being mean was left in. Presumably because it was true. But when listeners/commenters are pushing back against the meanness, they're being understood as simply missing the more sophisticated point being made or as being too entrenched in patriarchy to withstand critical analysis of a rich, white guy. But maybe it was just mean. There's *what* something is about and there's *how* it's about it, and the how here was overarchingly mean.
There is also no such disclaimer acknowledging that your analysis will have "slightly less grace" because he's a dude with power in his industry. That lack of acknowledgement is troubling to me, and I say that as a 43 y/o woman who's quite suspect of endlessly giving privileged men the eternal fucking benefit of the doubt. But if you want to do a humorous analysis (and there was admittedly less actual analysis in the episode than I had expected), acknowledging your starting point goes a long way to setting the tone and expectations.
Your subscribers (newsletter and podcast) are used to a certain style from you; and not all of us are familiar with Sam's work/style. Humor and thoughtful analysis are not incompatible. But the tone of this episode, to me, very much undercut any of your attempted analysis of "why people find Cooper annoying." I experienced it as humor for the sake of giggles, entertainment, and gossip, rather than humor as one tool in the important analysis you declared this piece set out to do.
To that point, in your reply to Leslie, you maintain that the rumors about his sexuality are "part of his star text" and yet there wasn't actually any thoughtful discussion about that at all -- something so delicate, vulnerable, and personal. Those rumors, those jokes, seem to then be included -- live and in the edited final version -- for the humor, for the meanness, alone.
So here's the truth: I totally didn't know people find Bradley Cooper annoying! I would have loved to learn that that's the case and thoughtfully (which can include humor!) explore why that is. But this episode just didn't do that for me.
Never forget BCoop in Wet Hot American Summer in 2001!! I consider this to be his best role, everything was downhill from there
Question - during this episode, Sam mentioned that Anne Hathaway has been divorced. I don't think that's correct? She wasn't married to Raffaello Follieri.