Out of interest can non UK posters access this article?

Simon | November 06, 02:54 CET

Ooh I have no idea. I'm from the UK, so it wouldnt show me whether non-UK posters could access it when I went onto the website

Apocalypse | November 06, 02:57 CET

Certain parts of The Times websites require overseas readers to subscribe. I'll put a heads up if it's the case for this particular article.

Simon | November 06, 02:59 CET

They have a transcript over at buffy.nu if that helps

Apocalypse | November 06, 03:00 CET

In Canada it shows up.

Smo | November 06, 03:01 CET

I'm in the US, and I accessed it just fine.

The interview didn't seem at all unsettling to me. Interviewers need an angle, I guess, and nothing he said seemed terribly strange, or obtuse, to me.

And, hey, at least she's for stem cell research!

fruit punch mouth | November 06, 03:03 CET

Well good that you could access it, I think we'll lose the unsettling part.

Simon | November 06, 03:06 CET

I just finished reading that, and it was a little strange, or at least that is what I thought. Usually when someone does an interview, the interviewer isn't quite so discontented with the interviewee, but what do I know.
I guess at least it was different than all of the other articles as of late, but still kind of harsh.

Inanis | November 06, 03:15 CET

Mental Note: I strongly dislike this Hugo Rifkind guy.

It's possible that he found it unsettling and frustrating to be interviewing a blonde, and an actress (!), and discover that she's smarter than him, and capable of mocking him a bit while still being polite.

You are right Apocalypse, very strange. From the beginning on through the end. What I like about Sarah is she's obviously sharp, witty, confident, and has a good sense of humor. She also has something else I find nice - manners. I like that she is intent on keeping her private life private, and is a little smartalecky when interviewers know this about her, yet think they can outsmart her by asking the same question in different ways.

One (of the many) parts of the article that annoyed me was the competition with her husband question. And I loved her smart alecky remark, because you know what, if there is strain, it's certainly not going to help talking about it all over the place. It's *private*. And then his "Answer the question Sarah notation." Well, okay, since you want her to...

Maybe he would have preferred her to slouch in her seat, look clearly bored, and answer anything he threw her way without hesitation, reveling in an “I’m better than you attitude” and proclaiming her beauty. It would then be easier for him to label her “just another shallow, dumb “blah blah blah”.

Whether she sits at her bathroom vanity admiring her own beauty for hours a day, and is playing down-to-earth when giving the interview, or is genuinely down to earth and being sincere, is irrelevant.

And the “Buffy bra-strap game” header at the top of the article and then the discussion within it? “Sarah Michelle Gellar is unsettling with talk of the Buffy bra-strap game”. Hmm, he brings it up, and then is critical that she has a sense of humor about it? He uses this as an example of her being “prepared and impersonal”. It’s a drinking game. Lighten up.

Very strange article. I’m all for some fair and straightforward criticism of anyone I happen to be fan of. I don’t feel the need to blindly jump to the defense of anyone. However, this particlar article really rubs me wrong. I appreciate a journalists' need for an "angle", but what I don't like is that any negative assessments he had, he clearly added to the article without confronting her. His angle could have been an honest discussion with her about his perception that she is overly prepared and impersonal.

Angela | November 06, 03:23 CET

I agree with some of your comments, Angela, especially about his snottiness, but I didn't find the piece particularly strange.

Never heard of Hugo Rifkind before (I'm thinking, relation to former politician Malcolm - son maybe?), but his style is in the tradition of a guy who used to do interviews for the Observer newspaper a number of years back named William Leith. Instead of just a series of questions and answers, half of the piece is sort of internal commentary by the writer on how the interview is going, random philosophizing, and general interjection of the writer into the interview, instead of remaining the traditional invisible journo. It can be tedious, but also throws up some stuff that one doesn't usually get from celeb interviews, and I like the more critical take just by way of refreshing contrast. Also reminds me a bit of Nick Broomfield's documentaries, only not half as clever.

And I thought the writer, despite his quizzical manner and rather petty objections, made Sarah come over rather well.

SoddingNancyTribe | November 06, 03:43 CET

I've often noticed that British interviewers have a different approach than US ones. Could be a cultural thing, I guess.

Simon | November 06, 03:58 CET

I read the article twice, because I wanted to see if I'm just crabbier than usual today, and if a second read through changed my opinion.

It didn't. And while I think Sarah came off rather well, it just doesn't come across to me that his style is what caused it. It comes across more to me that she was able to come off well despite him.

Strange, as a means of describing the article, may be an, um, strange word to use. Petty is better. And upon more reflection, I know what got me. I saw in it what I describe as back-handed compliments. Maybe it’s because there’s a member of my family like that. Something starts out sounding like a compliment, but in the end, not so much.

Example: “What did you think?” asks the star. The way her eyes twinkle, the way she cocks her shiny blonde head, I very nearly believe that she cares.” And the comment “For a few seconds she laughs, then the mask clicks back into place.”

She’s so good at being plastic and prepared and phony. That’s what I don’t particularly care for.

He is right in the sense that “The thing is, actors are paid to tell lies and pretend it’s the truth.” Working the circuit to promote a film is what it is, but I feel like he waffles between understanding, recognizing it, and then being critical when she’s so good at it. I get a sense that he begrudged her the compliments, because he expected something else from her.

Angela | November 06, 04:11 CET

I think that he caught the uncertainty inherent in interviewing someone who has been asked the same question over and over and over. She has to be feigning enthusiasm by now, no matter how interesting the question was the first 20 times. I haven't been to that many conventions but I think I can spot the Buffy/Angel actors who have been to many, when I meet them. They are a little more polished, and a little less real, for all their niceness.

Lioness | November 06, 04:39 CET

Angela, I agree with everything you said. It made me feel uncomfortable, like he went into already disliking her and it was he who was wearing the mask of trying to be polite when it seemed he obviously disliked her and thought she was phony. That's my take anyways. I don't like it because I'm sure he or his paper requested the interview and she agreed to do it and it just seemed like a whole article to try and show her in a bad light when she obviously was just being polite and trying to be funny. Which is what most celebrities do in interviews. I'm sure she has her moments of phoniness but don't we all?

Firefly Flanatic | November 06, 04:45 CET

I'd be a little more charitable rather than accusing Sarah of being plastic and phoney after having seen a few television interviews with her. I don't thnk she is terrible comfortable being intervied and so she comes ultra - prepared. She can seem overly perky and a little too ready with the canned answers, but I put that down to nervousness.

Ruadh | November 06, 05:12 CET

I'm more unsettled by the assertion that FPJr was more famous than SMG when they first met (despite it being SMG making that comment). So tell me again what genre-shattering, long-running TV programme has he been the leading actor in? I think she's being very generous in her appraisal for Mr. Gellar, sorry, FPJr.

catalyst2 | November 06, 05:18 CET

What really got me was that Rifkind was so annoyed when Sarah wouldn't answer personal questions. Frankly, I don't really care about her personal life. I hate when actors feel the need to put their business out there for everyone to talk about. Sarah has every right not to talk about her political views or her marriage. In fact, I like her more for not getting too personal. I'm a fan of Sarah's because she's a really good actress, not because she's married to FPjr.

Wow, sorry for getting all ranty.

thekey1313 | November 06, 05:52 CET

I really didn't like this interview. He sounded like he was the one pretending. I've never read an interview where the interviewer seemed to have preconceived notions on Sarah and it seemed like he really didn't like her. And that comment on the shoplifting? Anyway, I didn't like his comments at all.

Illyria | November 06, 06:14 CET

Written interviews should be as close to a straight transcription of the interview as possible, and with visual media, the the viewer can see for himself whether the person is acting "scripted".

But he interjects the interview with his own special flavor of editorial garbage.

Just the facts, sir.

Anyway, if she were doing what she wanted to do, she wouldn't have been talking to Hugo, and if he were doing what he wanted to do, he'd be wearing women's undergarments.

Caleb | November 06, 06:17 CET

Hah! Sorry... that one caught me by surprise...;)

Willowy | November 06, 06:34 CET

Um, yeah, this article was about the interviewer and he was rather amused with himself, yes.

I think the very best part of this is that SMG had very clearly caught on that she was being condescended to and she hopped right on. I actually like her a whole lot more in this interview, for giving as good as she got, and for being rather witty and fun at that.

syd | November 06, 06:47 CET

Well, yet again, I neatly disagree with y'all. Just for once, isn't it nice to have an interviewer bring his own preconceptions, whether good or ill, and actually, you know, express an opinion, other than *breathless* "Sarah said she was very happy making the movie and is very happy to back in England and everything is great"? I mean, does anyone care to read any more of those?

I think written interviews should emphatically *not* be just straight transcriptions of what was said. I want to know what the interviewer was thinking, and whether he or she was taken by surprise by answers, or was delighted, or bewildered, or just something, something other than the industry crap. We can agree or disagree with the results - I happen to agree that Rifkind had some odd preconceptions that he didn't really support - but at least the article made us feel something. This wasn't a hatchet job by a long shot. As I tried to say earlier, this kind of interview is both about the subject and the interviewer, and often the interviewer comes off looking worse.

syd: yep, agree with you.

SoddingNancyTribe | November 06, 06:50 CET

Gotta say I'm of the SoddingNT and syd mind....the interviewer is a bit snotty but Sarah is fabulous at playing with, and to, him. She ends up impressing him, clearly. Which doesn't seem all that easy.

phlebotinin | November 06, 06:58 CET

SoddingNancyTribe, that's why I don't read interviews of people that aren't very interesting or are on topics that have been discussed to death.

I'll read a Joss interview 'cause he usually entertains me, and it' s usually better when it's about something new, but another SMG interview about Buffy / The Grudge, well, I think I'll pass (I only read this one 'cause of all the hubbub).

Otherwise an interview becomes a daily show interview, cut together and edited creativly to be entertaining, not informative.

There's room for both, but this guy wasn't funny, so he ends up sounding like a professional critic (which IMO isn't a good thing to sound like even if you are one).

[Edit] I just want to type that I know that the reason for reading most interviews is entertainment, whether you're reading it for information, or for the perspective of the interviewer/interviewee. I'm not trying to say: "Us /smart/ people read interviews for intellectual purposes, while the plebs do so for base entertainment"

[ edited by Caleb on 2004-11-06 05:47 ]

Caleb | November 06, 07:16 CET

Very entertaining interview. Strange yes, but entertaining and different. If anything he came off intrigued by Sarah and stated that she was rather intelligent and witty. As a Sarah fan, all good in my book.

nychick | November 06, 07:22 CET

I think the interviewer is very prepotent. I didn`t like the interview, in spite of being something new.

Angel TheVampire | November 06, 07:51 CET

Ok, here's a pointless question: Would he change quotes to suit UK readers? Cuz I've never heard an American(particularly a New York chick cum valley girl) refer to 'mail' as 'post'. As in "I voted by post." We say 'Going to the post office', but I've never heard just 'post'. Or maybe it's just me and where I'm from. Do we say that? Or is it a Euro/American thing? My hubby always says 'Gonna go tank gas', whereas I say, 'Gonna go get gas'. Maybe it's just a little culture difference.

Anyway, as for the rest...I too found the interviewer's attitude refreshing after reading crap like Cosmo and Marie Claire where it's all, "Sarah is so wonderful and graceful and great and beautiful and smart and did I mention wonderful?" He has a bit of snark, which I usually like, and he wasn't gushy like most interviewers are.

Rogue Slayer | November 06, 07:59 CET

Wow, no wonder so many actors detest giving interviews. This entire thing made me feel extremely uncomfortable, the way the interviewer would sneer at and doubt every single remark that she made. Biased much?

MindPieces | November 06, 08:05 CET

I'm afraid I'm with SNT here. The interviewer is naturally a little snotty, but dear god at least it was finally something different than the saccharine worshipping nonsense that passes for interviews in the US. Ever see those E online biopics? They could make you believe the most forgettable hollywood baywatch bimbo/moron is the most talented, perfect, lovable genius actor/director/producer/philosopher on earth. There's absolutely nothing to get out of pap like that unless you're a 13 year old fan.

And this guy is right. Most actors are in 'on' mode when being interviewed. And yes Sarah has always struck me as being very much in 'on' mode whenever I saw her at a talkshow or any kind of interview setting. Always get the feeling I'm looking at another role. Can't blame her much, she's been in the biz since she was a little kid. But nervous? Don't see it. She's a pro and grew up doing this stuff. She can do it with her eyes closed. That she doesn't enjoy it I believe. I doubt I would either. But I don't blame the interviewer all that much for trying to get a little more in-depth with her.

And frankly he's being quite honest. He can't make the call when she's sincere or not and doesn't try to declare :"she's fake all around". He can't tell and admits it. He's also praising her a lot. "Angry that she's blond and smarter than him"?? Sorry, didn't see that at all. Felt more like he pretty much admitted she was dancing in circles around him at every step.

EdDantes | November 06, 08:06 CET

Rogue Slayer - nope, as far as I know (and I've been all around this big ol' country), we Yanks don't say, "I voted by post." Good catch. Definitely something was switched for the English readers.

phlebotinin | November 06, 08:24 CET

The discussion happening here is somewhat more interesing than the interview being discussed. Hugo Rifkind is very typical of a certain type of journalist who writes for British broadsheets and he is targeting a very particular type of readership; middle-class, university educated professional thirty- and forty-somehings. Basically, me. I don't particularly like this style of writing, finding it somewhat patronising and condescending.

I would agree with Angela that Rifkind is somewhat put out to discover that Gellar is smarter and more quick-witted than he had anticipated, and more than capable of steering the 'conversation' away from areas she does not intend to talk about. We might surmise that he expected her to be a vacuous airhead and this is not what he got. The British, in general, have a very specific idea of what Americans are like.

Don't get me wrong, Gellar is fake in interview situations. She doesn't seem to be entirely comfortable doing these things. She obviously doesn't want to give too much away about herself and is reticent about discussing anything outside of whatever she is promoting at the time (in this case, 'The Grudge'). Read (or watch) any interview with Gellar and you can pick up on snippets of information to form a judgement about what she might be like, but this will inevitably be based on your own pre-conceived ideas. She always remains somehow just out of reach.

I like her and this makes me biased towards her. Others don't like her and their perception is that she comes across badly. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. She's a smart, ambitious, successful young woman who is probably a funny, charming and genuinely nice person when she wants to be, and equally tough (and maybe nasty) when she thinks she needs to be. I am sure that if someone gets on her wrong side they would quickly find out about it.

The interview, as it is presented to us, simply tells us that she got the better of the interviewer, while remaining perfectly polite and friendly, and he didn't seem to like it very much. As a contrast to this, the often crude but ever-affable Jonathan Ross seemed genuinely pleased, and perhaps a bit surprised, to find that Gellar actually has a brain.

[ edited by dashboardprophet on 2004-11-06 13:21 ]

alien lanes | November 06, 15:17 CET

I didn't think the interview was weird. Thought it pretty much typical of a non-fan, non-entertainment, smart up market British paper. It's just a different approach to the subject. I like it, because it gives you some sense of being there and imagine what it's like to interview a 'star'. Too many interviews are just bland Q&A's. There should be more personal commentary like this in interviews.

Caroline | November 06, 15:30 CET

Personal commentary is all very well but I hated how he didn't like SMG not answering political or marriage questions

From interviews I have read in the past with other celebrities I have found I have respected the celebrities more who didn' answer such questions

garda39 | November 06, 16:44 CET

I like my celebrities to speak their mind.

Caroline | November 06, 17:56 CET

When Gellar does speak her mind, which she does do from time to time, she tends to get criticised for it.

alien lanes | November 06, 18:58 CET

Eh? There was something unusual about this interview?

Most of the interviews I read are conducted by British journalists, and they're usually interviewing people who don't particularly enjoy the process of being interviewed (snotty writers and comedians, older British actors), so it didn't come across as at all strange to me.

But I suppose it is a different tack than most US entertainment mags...

Bad Kitty | November 06, 19:23 CET

OK, completely OT but I was just wondering...

I've been a member for just about a week (joined last Sunday) and was just wondering how to post news stories. I've read the guidelines and everything but not sure how to actually post a story.

Thanks

Knuckleball | November 06, 20:49 CET

I can understand why some would find this interview a little strange. I got the impression the reporter went in with a preformed opinion that he would be talking to a young star with little depth. Instead, he found someone very intelligent and witty. And being unfamiliar with Sarah's style, he wasn't quite sure if it was a polished act or really her. He seemed a little put off that she wouldn't discuss politics or her personal relationships. I see nothing wrong with this from Sarah's point of view. Several people are uncomfortable discussing hot button topics such as politics or religion (I'm one of them). I think Sarah explained herself very well why she didn't want to discuss her view. As for her relationships, frankly, I think he was stepping out of line. Just because you're a star doesn't mean that reporters get to disrespect a person's privacy. Sarah has always struck me as a person who keeps her business and personal life separate. This reporter seemed to think she was dodging the question rather than recognizing that she wasn't comfortable with the subject. Other from that, I like this interview. It was fresh and not a rehash of what we have read as of late.

Madhatter | November 06, 20:52 CET

Adam, Its underneath the WHEDONESQUE banner, you just click Post Story, but Im pretty sure you have to wait a couple of days before you can actually do this.

If you still cant get it, I would email Simon or Caroline

Apocalypse | November 06, 21:04 CET

Welcome to Whedonesque, adam_tvs. Click on the 'ABOUT' link at the top or bottom of the page. Scan down to "How to post" for rules and such. At the bottom of this section, you will see an "Examples" link that will show you a POST.

Madhatter | November 06, 21:09 CET

If I'd been more or less in the public eye since I was four, I'd be a bit reticent too, and want to keep the boundary between my public and private personae as clear as possible. So I find it hard to blame SMG for having an interview act, if that's what it is.

Maeve | November 06, 22:17 CET

I got about a third of the way through the interview and quit reading. We learned more about the interviewer's vanity than anything about the star. Personally? I won't remember the name Rifkind tomorrow, nor do I want to. Someone earlier in this thread said an interview article should read like a near transcription of the actual conversation. I agree with that. I don't wanna know what the interviewer was feeling or whether or not he couldn't tell if the interviewee was being flippant or vain. I'll be the judge of that. Just present the facts and get out of my way. This Rifkin guy might be a good writer from a british perspective, but to me he was like that gay fashion dude who shows up on morning talk shows here in the states to let us know how slutty the ladies looked on their last red carpet appearances. I could not care less.

"The Grudge is an Omen, a Carrie, an Exorcist." (!!!) Gimme a break.

"“I don't make movies for reviewers,” retorts Gellar. “I make them for fans.” Go get'm tiger.

ZachsMind | November 06, 22:36 CET

I think the interviewer is suprised that they don't immediately become best buds and pinky swear eternal friendship.

giles (yes, it is my real name) | November 06, 22:41 CET

Thanks, Apocalypse and Madhatter. I've gone through the waiting period, but there's still no "post story" button under the Whedonesque banner.

It might just be an extended waiting period, due to bandwidth or something like that. But I'll go e-mail Simon or Caroline, just in case.

Thanks again,

Knuckleball | November 06, 22:45 CET

i think smg thought he was an idiot and treated him accordingly

penni | November 07, 00:22 CET

Gellar has a slightly more candid interview with
Empire Online. She tells what mischief she and Seth Green were upto during the SD2 junket in March and what she's been doing recently.

http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/features/interviews/sarahmichellegellar/

Anne 5_by_5 | November 07, 01:16 CET

Oh thanks for that Anne 5_by_5. It was a refreshing interview. It was different from women's magazines but different in a nice way not in a snarky way. I liked it better.

pezwitch | November 07, 03:03 CET

Its because its The Times they have to go over board and try to sound intelligent but just end up babbling. Its the same with music reviews in similar papers you can tell the person is desperate to move on to bigger things and tries to make simple articles or reviews far more than they are, never use a simple sentance when you can bable on for a paragraph. I also suspect he wasnt quite as snotty when he was actually interviewing her just when he came to write it and thought "Well how will i make this look like more than just a standard interview."

faneater | November 07, 05:10 CET

That Empire interview was the first I've read with her where she came across as likable. Interesting.

Melisande | November 07, 14:11 CET

Liked the Empire one. Suggests that she reads a lot, and has moved on from Harry Potter.

Wonder if those 'naughty' pictures will ever end up on the net? Everyone will say "Hey! Seth Green is humping SMG! But why does she look bored?"

I have no problem with interviewers adding their perspective about the tone of the interview, or the manner of the interviewe, but when it becomes more about the journalist than the star then it's a problem.

zz9 | November 07, 16:22 CET

I`ve just read both interviews and yes,SMG,comes over far better in the Empire one,much more friendly and chatty.That said, i did enjoy the article by Hugo Rifkind as well.Often when i read/watch SMG i get the feeling that you get a series of rehersed stories and answers,i know actors must get bored out of their minds answering the same old questinons time and time again, and some are far better at it than others (is that where the acting comes in?)but in his way he did express some of the same thourghts that i have with her in relation to interviews.Don`t get me wrong all you SMG fans,i like Sarah,bless her Buffy socks, perhaps she just does not like the whole press junket thing and finds it hard work,especially when it comes to Buffy.

rainbird | November 07, 16:34 CET

I'm new to posting here, though I have been lurking. Sorry up front that my first post is a bit of a rant.

It is true that this article is not what you would see in US publications, but that is certainly not what bothers me about it. This guy is just not fair. Excuse me if that sounds Pollyana-ish but it bugs me. I am not really a fan of SMG, though I like her work just fine. I have never seen an interview with her, but I don't care if she seems "prepared" -- that's her job.

This guy called her a liar from the get go based on the fact that she was beautiful but said she wasn't when she is not working... and that she is an actor. Actors are paid to lie, (hmmmm so are writers, though journalists aren't supposed to) therefore they cannot be trusted. He somehow knows she is lying about how she dresses when she goes to the supermarket, HE apparently knows exactly what she wears. Did I miss something? Was the interview conducted in the supermarket or has he just been stalking her?

I won't go any further with examples. What I read was that this guy has some personal issues involving attractive actresses...or women. I think he needs a different beat. Nothing personnal here, but for those of you that liked it, put your self in her position for a minute and see if you feel the same way about the article.

End of rant.

Oh, the "post" thing. I agree no American would say they had sent something by "post" in America, but they might if they were in England and had answered the question a few hundred times.

newcj | November 08, 03:44 CET

I liked this interview - it gave you a personal impression of SMG instead of just listing the usual prepared answers we all know by heart by now.

sasja | November 08, 11:36 CET