Amy Madigan opens up about 'crazy-making' fire recovery, Elia Kazan's Oscar and more

In this week’s occurrence of The Envelope podcast, the “Weapons” star discusses uncovering viral fame with her Oscar-nominated role arsenic Aunt Gladys aft years of ups and downs.

Kelvin Washington: Welcome to The Envelope. I’m Kelvin Washington, alongside the usuals, Yvonne Villarreal, we got Mark Olsen arsenic well. Everybody doing well?

Yvonne Villarreal: Doing good!

Mark Olsen: Terrific!

Washington: Good, good. Last clip we discussed Oscar nominations. Obviously a large deal. Folks were excited. Certain films, definite directors, actors arsenic well. We went implicit that a small bit. But I besides privation to speech astir thing you, my friend, brought up. You mentioned the Oscar nominee luncheon past episode. I privation to perceive much astir this, you know, [as] idiosyncratic who’s ne'er been. So I person to unrecorded vicariously done you two. Tell maine much astir it.

Olsen: Well, precisely arsenic it sounds, it is simply a luncheon for each of the Oscar nominees. So from the biggest stars down to, you know, comparatively chartless craftspeople, each get invited to this luncheon astatine the Beverly Hilton hotel. And it’s truly 1 of those benignant of, like, concealed highlights of grant season. It’s not televised, and truthful everyone’s feeling escaped and determination are drinks successful the day and also, astatine this point, everyone is simply a winner. Nobody’s mislaid thing yet. And truthful everybody’s benignant of connected adjacent footing, adjacent successful their categories, and radical look to truly bask it.

We were not really successful the country for the luncheon. Our esteemed colleague, Josh Rottenberg, was determination and wrote astir it. We were successful a property country successful a ballroom, benignant of backstage-ish to bash the interviews that we did, but adjacent determination — I ever get specified a footwear retired of the information that publicists are coming by with each this endowment — different outlets volition bash overmuch shorter interviews than we bash — and benignant of like, “Hey, bash you privation to speech to so-and-so?” And it conscionable is truthful comic to maine to spot them benignant of being showcased successful this way. Yvonne, what stood retired this twelvemonth for you?

Villarreal: So it takes spot astatine the Beverly Hilton, and I was determination a fewer weeks backmost for the Golden Globes. And truthful successful immoderate ways it felt similar a much subdued — similar it was the luncheon mentation of that. The prima powerfulness was arsenic insane, but they’re possibly a small much casual successful the vibe. At 1 constituent I’m walking down the corridor and you person Emma Stone oregon radical walking by looking astatine the information defender dogs. It is absorbing happening due to the fact that they’re each benignant of coming unneurotic and escaped and talking with each other, taking the selfies. You’re seeing, like, Elle Fanning reuniting with Timothée Chalamet — they starred successful a movie past twelvemonth together. It was absorbing to person everyone travel together, but besides bash these interviews successful a overmuch rowdier mounting than we were past year, and having to ore connected our guests portion a batch of commotion is happening. But I deliberation we did well.

Washington: Well, I archer you what, I cognize however that is. It tin beryllium trying to bash an interrogation erstwhile it’s large successful the background. Our producer, Matt, was saying that it was chaotic. Said helium was a fewer feet distant from you and couldn’t adjacent perceive you. But you each are pros. So you got it done. And speaking of, we get a accidental to perceive your speech you had with Amy Madigan. Tell maine a small spot much astir this role, Aunt Gladys, and, of course, “Weapons.” I was terrified. And it’s successful a complimentary way. She played the heck retired of that role.

Olsen: She’s evidently a seasoned actress. She was nominated for an Oscar erstwhile before, for the movie “Twice successful a Lifetime.” It came retired successful 1985. She was nominated successful 1986. And truthful that 40-year spread really is the longest spread ever for an histrion successful betwixt nominations. And it’s conscionable breathtaking to spot however she’s truly enjoying this moment. She’s truly enjoyed the attraction that the quality of Aunt Gladys has brought. So successful “Weapons” — spoiler alert — she plays this benignant of eccentric witch, essentially, who comes to this town, creates each this mischief, but determination is inactive thing benignant of, like, rambunctious and astir weirdly lovable astir her. She is someway — and we talked astir this successful the interrogation — she’s someway some the funniest and the scariest happening successful “Weapons.” She has this precise outrageous look. She has this circumstantial benignant of signifier of witchcraft that she performs to benignant of instrumentality power of people’s minds and bodies. It was truly breathtaking to spot Amy arsenic idiosyncratic who’s conscionable similar taking successful this moment, truly enjoying it. And it was conscionable a truly amusive conversation. And besides she gave a small spot of the backstory of a infinitesimal I’ve ever been funny about. In 1999, astatine the Oscars, Elia Kazan was fixed a beingness accomplishment award, and Amy and her husband, Ed Harris, did not stand, did not applaud during the lasting ovation. And she really spoke rather a spot astir what was down that moment, and it was thing I’d ne'er heard her speech astir before.

Washington: You got to get it firsthand. All right, here’s Mark’s speech with Amy Madigan, instrumentality a look.

Amy Madigan successful Los Angeles past fall.

(Ian Spanier / For The Times)

Mark Olsen: For the Los Angeles Times and The Envelope, I’m Mark Olsen. I’m present contiguous with Amy Madigan, an Oscar nominee for her relation successful “Weapons.” Thank you truthful overmuch for joining us.

Amy Madigan: I’m precise blessed to beryllium here, thanks.

Olsen: And present we’re present this day astatine the Oscar nominees luncheon. You conscionable stepped retired of the event. What was it like? I ever privation to ask, who was astatine your table?

Madigan: Wagner Moura. Because we’re traveling astir together, erstwhile you’re connected the awards circuit, we became friends, which is conscionable truthful nice. Miles Caton from “Sinners,” the fantastic Sandra Chang, who is my manager and combatant for me, I brought her with maine today. So it was conscionable just truly nice. Jerry Bruckheimer was there, who I’ve known for a while. They don’t privation everybody from the aforesaid films together, truthful they premix everybody up. So it was truly nice. A pistillate who is successful complaint of the Telluride Film Festival, which is simply a fantastic festival. So yeah, it was truly nice.

Olsen: That’s terrific. I person to say, I noticed connected a streaming site, a small representation of Aunt Gladys is the representation they usage to merchantability “Weapons.” And to commencement talking astir the movie, did you expect for this quality to instrumentality disconnected successful the mode that it has?

Madigan: Not astatine all. The champion happening astir it is that I cognize radical truly excavation the film. It’s conscionable a truly smart, chill movie and precise good written, precise good directed. And I thought radical would truly person a bully clip with Aunt Gladys. But the nighttime that we opened it was, “Boom.” So this was each a astonishment to me.

Olsen: What was it similar for you watching the movie for the archetypal time? Spoiler alert for anyone who hasn’t seen the movie, what is it similar to spot yourself torn limb from limb?

Madigan: I was really looking guardant to that, due to the fact that we had this radical of kids who traveled astir with america for the full film, working, and I got to cognize them precise well, and I made definite that they weren’t frightened astir tearing the dummy apart. So it was great. But seeing it successful the movie theatre — and determination were a batch of fearfulness fans determination — was benignant of an overwhelming acquisition for me. I didn’t truly cognize what to expect and, boy, I was benignant of shocked and precise happy, precise happy.

Olsen: I’ve heard you accidental however erstwhile Zach Cregger archetypal came to you with the project, helium spoke astir it successful precise idiosyncratic terms, the grief helium had implicit the nonaccomplishment of a friend, the specter of alcoholism successful his childhood.

Madigan: Very overmuch so.

Olsen: What was it astir that transportation that made you privation to instrumentality portion successful this movie? The 2 don’t needfully intuitively sync up.

Madigan: I deliberation grief is simply a weapon. I deliberation alcoholism is simply a weapon. And I deliberation that helium took each those things and enactment it successful the film. And I could conscionable archer however sincere helium was astir this movie. He knew however to marque this movie. And I had seen “Barbarian,” which is his archetypal film, which truly frightened me. And it’s rather astonishing that helium made that benignant of connected a shoestring. So I knew this antheral could conscionable bash it. And we conscionable benignant of clicked.

Olsen: One of the things I truly admit astir the movie is the mode that it benignant of dares to beryllium enigmatic. It doesn’t effort to explicate everything to you.

Madigan: I’m truthful blessed of that. I don’t privation to explicate things to you. People, of course, they person to inquire maine questions, you know, “Where is Gladys from?” oregon “How aged is she?” I said, “I don’t person answers for those things.” I person my ain answers. I similar that there’s nary large montage mentation of who she is and what she is. She’s conscionable there.

Olsen: But I person to ask, what is your mentation of the floating instrumentality gun?

Madigan: Every azygous idiosyncratic I’ve talked to, connected the street, here, I’m conscionable holding it successful of what I deliberation astir it, due to the fact that it means truthful overmuch to truthful galore people. It is simply a weapon, arsenic we know, and it’s specified a elephantine happening to person floating successful the sky. I would truly similar radical to conscionable instrumentality what they bash from it. It truly hits radical successful the bosom and the guts, and jolts people, and I deliberation that’s a bully thing.

Olsen: And now, arsenic an actor, bash you person to reply those questions for yourself, for your performance, oregon tin you unrecorded with the uncertainty?

Madigan: Well, the millions of questions I person for myself interpreting Gladys, immoderate I answer, immoderate I benignant of answer, immoderate arsenic I’m moving done it I go, “Well, I benignant [of] thought that, but I deliberation it could beryllium this.” Gladys is precise malleable. If Plan A is not working, she’s got Plan B. And if that doesn’t work, she tin improvise and she volition termination you with Plan C. So I benignant of similar to instrumentality that with me.

Olsen: Because 1 of the things I find truthful singular astir the quality and your show is she is someway some the funniest and the scariest idiosyncratic successful the movie. What was it similar for you uncovering that balance? How did you benignant of get that alchemy close that she could beryllium some those things astatine once?

Madigan: Well, I person to spell backmost to the script, due to the fact that erstwhile I work it I knew that determination was a batch of humor. Aunt Gladys, she’s funny. She’s lethal and dangerous, truthful it’s a good borderline that you person to walk. You person to beryllium truly careful. Gladys tin beryllium animated and benignant of cutesy, and erstwhile she wants to drill you down she volition bash that. So I felt precise escaped to benignant of play some those things, erstwhile I’m by myself oregon erstwhile I americium with small Cary Christopher, erstwhile I americium manipulating him, arsenic opposed to erstwhile I was retired successful the satellite with the constabulary oregon the principal. So the scenes truly led me, which is truly nice.

Olsen: What did you larn astir her, I don’t cognize what to telephone it, her practice? I’m truthful funny with the twig and the hairsbreadth and the humor and the doorbell — Is that a thing? What is each that?

Madigan: Well, I can’t accidental that I’ve work 1,500 books astir alchemy and quote-unquote witchcraft and things similar that. I person my ain ideas. I deliberation Zach had his ain ideas, but determination are definite things similar brackish connected the crushed oregon a bell, but we didn’t privation to marque it derivative. The full happening with dropping it successful a vessel of water, it’s like, what is that? But it doesn’t person to beryllium explained. It works. It works.

Olsen: The country astatine Benedict Wong’s house, you get this consciousness that she has this benignant of regular that she does, this small amusement she puts on.

Madigan: I gotta get successful that house. That is my mission. Every histrion volition archer you, what is my intention? My volition is to get successful that house, get disconnected the beforehand stoop, bring them into the house, and past I got them. Then I got them. I cognize if I tin rotation astir the house. Oh, it’s the kitchen. Let’s spell successful there.

Olsen: But you bash get the consciousness that she’s done this a batch before. She knows what she’s doing.

Madigan: She knows what she’s doing, but she’s dealing with a antithetic acceptable of characters and successful a antithetic milieu and a antithetic problem. So the instauration mightiness beryllium the same, but she has got to benignant of play the crippled for a portion and she’s got to find retired accusation from them first. Like, “Did you bash this? Did you archer radical astir this?” Oh, you didn’t. OK, good this is going to beryllium a breeze now.

Olsen: I deliberation that’s wherefore radical are truthful taken with the thought of a Gladys prequel movie. There is thing astir the quality you conscionable bash privation to cognize more.

Madigan: Yes, I recognize that and I’m hoping that we get to someway proceed thing with Gladys. And Zach and I person talked astir it, and surely Zach has been precise unfastened astir it to the press. What that volition be, I don’t know. I similar enigma successful things, and Gladys is simply a mystery, but I spot Zach implicitly. So I’m precise funny if we get to marque it and what volition happen.

Olsen: Her look is truthful circumstantial and truthful outrageous. Do you often find that costume and the look of a quality is simply a mode that you similar to participate a moving connected a character?

Madigan: Well, decidedly for Gladys, my entree into the movie is erstwhile I travel to Benedict Wong’s principal’s bureau and the changeable is connected his look wherever helium goes similar that, pushes his caput back. Her look is very, precise calculated. She loves the mode she looks. She loves her jewelry, she loves her large elephantine handbag. She thinks she looks fantastic. So that was precise freeing for me. I mean, it took america a while, you know, with peculiar effects and our hairsbreadth and constitution and wig and costumes. It was a existent squad effort to bash that, Zach overseeing it all. So that conscionable made maine consciousness truthful free, conscionable truthful relaxed successful being Gladys.

Olsen: Do you deliberation that’s different facet of the quality radical are responding to? She doesn’t code down for anybody.

Madigan: Oh no, wherefore would she? She doesn’t attraction what that idiosyncratic thinks. She doesn’t attraction what you think. She’s conscionable successful her full being, which is simply a bully feeling.

Olsen: Tell maine a small spot astir the finale of the movie, the benignant of pursuit country wherever the kids are moving aft you.

Madigan: That was truthful overmuch amusive to shoot!

Olsen: As I understand, for the astir part, that’s you.

Madigan: I did each the moving myself, which I talked to Zach and I said, “No, I tin bash it, I truly privation to bash it.” I did person a fantastic stuntwoman, and astatine the precise extremity erstwhile I get tackled, I did not get tackled due to the fact that I astir apt would person breached my nose, let’s look it. And past I flipped implicit and past it’s me. But I truly wanted to bash it, and Gladys has a physical-humor broadside of her. So the mode I would tally would beryllium antithetic than the mode idiosyncratic other would run, and Zach was wholly down for it.

Olsen: You’ve been beauteous unfastened astir the information that successful the play earlier you got offered “Weapons,” you hadn’t been getting a batch of offers. Roles don’t travel to you arsenic overmuch arsenic they utilized to.

Madigan: That’s the ups and downs of being successful this business. I’ve been successful it a agelong time. I’ve ever continued working. I’ve done 3 antithetic autarkic films, and often they don’t get the emotion oregon the designation that immoderate of the larger films do, and that’s conscionable portion of it. Listen, you’ve talked to a batch of actresses. You cognize what it’s similar for women successful this business, it’s inactive precise unequal, [especially] for women of a definite age. You’re gonna perceive nary a batch of the time. And I inactive americium myself. I emotion acting, I emotion my work. So that’s conscionable who I am. Not totally; I person a household and I person friends, but that’s who I conscionable am. So this was a existent accidental [and] I’m conscionable grabbing it by the throat.

Olsen: Do you consciousness similar determination was conscionable thing astir this relation that made you truly benignant of spell for it?

Madigan: Zach provided that crushed for it. He wrote it. He knew she had to beryllium this and this and scary and funny, and yet she inactive had to speech to the small boy, Alex, and get him to bash what she wanted him to. It was precise delicate successful that sense. But I knew arsenic soon arsenic I work this, I said, “Oh, I cognize who this is.” I truly similar this person. I’m not that person, but I person those sides successful me. Everybody’s got that worldly successful them wherever they manipulate, wherever they’re bully and they’re pretending, wherever they are horrible. So I was like, “Yeah, I tin bash that.”

Olsen: I deliberation it’s ne'er been casual to beryllium an actor, but person you recovered that the concern of being an actor, the vocation facet of it, has it gotten harder implicit the years?

Madigan: The concern has changed. We conscionable person to work immoderate of the trades and it’s go centralized by corporations and elephantine entities. So surely that’s changed, but radical inactive are making movies and privation to marque movies. Something that’s precise archetypal and originative radical volition spell see. They privation that. I cognize everybody, myself included, watches a batch of things [on] streaming. But the theatre is inactive a spot to spot a batch of films. The autarkic marketplace struggles to find capable wealth to get their films out, but they’re inactive being made. So I’m guardedly hopeful. But the concern is not precise fair. You cognize that. It’s conscionable not. So erstwhile you’re younger, you person to grind a batch more. The opportunities are difficult, I think, for young radical coming up. And I effort to truly foster that with immoderate young originative person, due to the fact that I’m not going to beryllium astir — they are. I privation to spot what their dreams are, I privation [to] spot what their movies are.

Olsen: You were nominated for an Oscar erstwhile earlier for “Twice successful a Lifetime.” What bash you retrieve astir that night?

Madigan: My hubby and I, Ed [Harris], we conscionable went, you cognize what I mean? I was truthful amazed with “Twice successful a Lifetime.” This is simply a household drama, I was amazed that I got a nomination. And past it was not similar it is now. There was nary societal media, determination was nary TikTok, determination were nary podcasts. People weren’t saying, “Gee, I’d truly similar to speech to Madigan.” No, that didn’t exist. So it was a overmuch calmer benignant of situation. And I was a batch younger, truthful I was benignant of looking astir and seeing radical that I truly admired. And it was fun. This is simply a wholly antithetic property of this.

Olsen: That twelvemonth you were up against Oprah Winfrey and Margaret Avery for “The Color Purple,” Meg Tilly for “Agnes of God,” and Anjelica Huston, who won for “Prizzi’s Honor.” That is rather a lineup to beryllium a portion of.

Madigan: Yes, it is. That’s wherefore I was precise surprised. As I americium successful this lineup this year. The performances are stunning. This is the champion of women successful film, I think, for the actresses successful some categories. And that’s a large feeling. They’re each different. They’re each unique. How idiosyncratic votes is similar — I don’t cognize however you bash it. I don’t cognize however you compare. And finally, 1 is asked to compare. So that’s a small difficult, I think, for a batch of actors to benignant of wrapper their caput around, but we cognize that’s what it is.

Olsen: And there’s different Oscar infinitesimal that you’re benignant of were a portion of —

Madigan: [Crosses arms] This?

Olsen: Exactly. Tell maine astir it. So successful 1999, Elia Kazan was fixed a beingness accomplishment award. You and your husband, Ed Harris, benignant of pointedly did not basal oregon applaud during a lasting ovation. Now, was that thing that the 2 of you had talked astir before?

Madigan: No, not astatine all.

Olsen: Did you spell successful knowing that was going to beryllium your response?

Madigan: I knew helium was going to get this peculiar grant from the academy, which I did not hold with. My dada was a newspaperman, a journalist, a governmental analyst, and he, arsenic a precise young man, covered the McCarthy hearings, and it truly affected him, and helium didn’t speech astir it excessively much, and I person pictures from it, and I’m precise acquainted with that play of clip and what happened during that play of time, particularly to radical successful my industry. So I had precise definite feelings astir it, and I thought it was wrongheaded and truly somewhat shameful of the academy to bash that. And I deliberation someway Ed’s representation and mine, due to the fact that we’re together, got truly prominently displayed. But determination were different radical successful the assemblage who felt that mode too. And just capable if idiosyncratic wanted to look astatine the work, but I could not disassociate him naming from his work. That’s maine personally.

Olsen: That’s possibly thing of an utmost example, but bash you spot the beingness of an creator arsenic a governmental act? Can you unravel your ain idiosyncratic authorities from your work?

Madigan: I deliberation if you look astatine things I person done, yes, I’ve done immoderate governmental things. I worked connected a tv event, it was successful the 1980s, called “Roe v. Wade,” which present that close has been repealed. And it was connected web television. No 1 would advertise it, cipher bought it. ABC had the guts to enactment it on. That portion was precise important to me. Holly Hunter, who’s a beloved person of mine, we were successful that together. I worked connected “The Laramie Project.” I deliberation determination are definite things that person travel to maine that I opened myself to. ... Everything doesn’t person to beryllium that. Gladys isn’t political. But if there’s an opportunity, I don’t deliberation I would bash thing that truly went against my ain motivation code. I deliberation a batch of radical are that way. I anticipation they are.

Olsen: Because I deliberation it’s a question a batch of radical are asking themselves today. “What would I bash erstwhile my back’s against the wall?” Or, “What would I bash erstwhile I’m successful a concern wherever I consciousness similar I person to marque a existent decision?”

Madigan: Well, let’s accidental you were successful the joint. You would astir apt do, I would do, immoderate it took to past being there. I truly would. I don’t cognize what that would beryllium for me. I deliberation quality beings are good, but they’re truly horribly bad. So I deliberation that we tin pat into those things. It’s a endurance mechanism. You person to look astatine “One Battle After Another,” it’s an due governmental movie for close now. You look astatine “Secret Agent.” It’s precise due governmental movie for now. As is “Sinners,” arsenic is simply a batch of things. So that’s wherefore I deliberation it’s benignant of a bully twelvemonth for the films. Aside from the ones that are great, similar “KPop Demon Hunters” and the comic ones. There’s country for each of them. “Avatar,” there’s country for that. I mean, “Avatar’s” astir the environment. It’s the astir governmental connection Mr. Cameron and radical tin marque close now.

Olsen: Do you caput if I inquire you astir your narration with Ed, with your husband? The 2 of you person been unneurotic for much than 40 years, and it seems similar you’re some conscionable truthful dedicated to the trade of acting, the beingness of the artist. What has it meant to you for the 2 of you to beryllium going done this together?

Madigan: I mean, Ed, he’s been done this [nominated for an Oscar] 4 antithetic times, truthful he’s conscionable thrilled for me. He’s conscionable got my back, he’s conscionable blessed for me. We some inactive proceed to work. We met moving connected a play successful a theatre that was conscionable a small bigger than this. You truly get to cognize idiosyncratic erstwhile you’re connected the boards with them, erstwhile you are acting with them. So we’ve been capable to enactment a batch together, and I anticipation to proceed that. We conscionable transportation that with us. It’s precise important to us. And our daughter, her sanction is Lily Harris, she’s a young histrion coming up. So we’ll spot what happens for her.

Olsen: And past you mentioned that you mislaid your location past twelvemonth successful the fires.

Madigan: January 7th.

Olsen: What has it been similar to person the debased of that opposition with the precocious of what you’ve been going done with “Weapons”? That conscionable seems similar a batch to hap each astatine once.

Madigan: When the day was coming up, that truly triggered me. Especially astir Thanksgiving, due to the fact that our location was wherever everybody came. Sometimes there’d beryllium 15 people, sometimes there’d beryllium 30, and it was conscionable a truly small, funky small house. I don’t person that anymore, and my friends don’t. I don’t person pictures similar erstwhile I was connected the road. So those are the hard things. I’m displaced present — not to comparison myself with the millions of radical internationally displaced. I mean conscionable emotionally I am. People person been precise kind. People truly saved us. We stayed astatine 1 place, past different person gave america the keys to a location helium has. That was a precise humbling experience. But it’s difficult. We’re leasing a spot close now, we’re trying to rebuild, we’re trying to hold for a permit, we’re trying to maneuver reddish tape, and that’s going to beryllium years. It’s genuinely conscionable taking it a time astatine a time, which is hard. So it’s been benignant of brainsick making. And past Gladys! All the joyousness of that, and the interest astir it. It’s been a weird juxtaposition.

Olsen: How bash you deliberation you’ve been handling grant season?

Madigan: Well, with the assistance of the radical I’m moving with, I deliberation I’m doing beauteous well. But it’s inactive overwhelming to me. But radical similar yourself, they’ve been precise generous and they’re funny successful cinema and they don’t telephone everything “content” and radical person bully questions, and I’ve met a batch of large actors that I didn’t cognize before. So that’s been [a] full upside. But the rigor of it, you person each these things to spell to, and you person to person an outfit, and you to person your hairsbreadth done, you person your constitution done. I’m not that idiosyncratic successful my life. So, it’s been a challenge, fto maine enactment it that way.

Olsen: At this constituent successful your career, it’s astir apt unpredictable for you which of your erstwhile movies radical are gonna inquire you about. Like, “Oh, are they gonna inquire maine a ‘Field of Dreams’ question?”

Madigan: Everybody ever asks maine astir it. Because “Field of Dreams” turned into this iconic thing. I’ll beryllium successful an airdrome and immoderate antheral volition travel up to maine and conscionable say, “That country erstwhile Kevin Costner’s with his dad,” they commencement getting choked up, “My dad, we were estranged” and this and that. So it’s touched people. And past I’ll person the antheral say, “I’d emotion to person a woman similar Annie Kinsella.” I said, “I would too, that’d beryllium great. But this is simply a fantasy.” But that movie, radical emotion that movie. That’s a bully compliment.

Olsen: But besides I would ideate that possibly it’s unpredictable what radical are going to mention, similar past summertime I saw the movie “Streets of Fire” that you were in, and I cognize that movie did not bash good erstwhile it...

Madigan: It was a weaponry and present it is simply a cult classic.

Olsen: Because I saw it astatine a packed location astatine the Academy Theater present successful Los Angeles. What are your recollections of making that movie?

Madigan: Well, archetypal of all, I emotion Walter Hill. I saw each of his films, truthful I was excited to enactment with him and that I got this part. It was written for a guy, and I benignant of convinced him that McCoy could beryllium me. And you know, it was Willem Dafoe’s archetypal film, I judge ... Rick Moranis was there. It was wild. We changeable 58 nights successful a enactment oregon thing insane. And I worked with each the dudes, Stoney and each those guys, and Diane Lane, who was, I don’t know, 19 years aged oregon something. But we had a large clip making it, and past it went thunk, but present I inactive get instrumentality message astir it. It’s crazy.

Olsen: Now, earlier I fto you go, successful 1 interrogation that you did, you mentioned however each time you work 3 newspapers, you work the Washington Post.

Madigan: I consciousness stricken by what’s happening with the Washington Post, stricken.

Olsen: But past besides the New York Times, and past lone for the sports section, you work the Los Angeles Times.

Madigan: Well, I work the California conception due to the fact that I’m precise funny successful section politics, but unfortunately, the L.A. Times is not what it utilized to be. And due to the fact that I americium an avid sports person, they spell to furniture truthful aboriginal with the people that everything’s a half-a-day behind. So I’m like, “I cognize this. I watched the game.” So it’s a small nutty, but I bash spell to the sports section.

Olsen: What tin we bash to triumph you implicit to speechmaking our arts and civilization sum of the municipality that you unrecorded in?

Madigan: I ever work the amusement section, always, each azygous day. And I besides emotion the comics. I’ve been speechmaking the comics since I’ve been that big. And I work them each day. So delight don’t misunderstand. I deliberation I’m talking much astir the beforehand page.

Olsen: OK, that’s a relief.

Madigan: Not you guys!

Olsen: Well, Amy Madigan, congratulations again and convey you truthful overmuch for joining america today.

Madigan: Thank you. This was truly nice. I admit it. I truly americium funny successful writers and funny successful people’s bushed to treasure cinema. So this has been truly nice. Thank you.