Colleen Hoover and Michael Showalter on How Anne Hathaway and Dakota Johnson Made ‘Verity’ More Erotic, ‘It Ends With Us’ Drama and Sex in Movies - Variety

TomAlright, I saw this and had to bring it to you: Colleen Hoover and Michael Showalter on How Anne Hathaway and Dakota Johnson Made ‘Verity’ More Erotic, ‘It Ends With Us’ Drama and Sex in Movies. What's going through your head?

CarolCalling Hathaway’s performance "more erotic" because the marketing team leaned into her reputation is lazy craft criticism. When we reduce a complex scene to a star’s brand, we stop analyzing the actual script dynamics and start trading gossip. That approach hurts anyone trying to understand how genuine tension works versus cheap provocation.

TomYou’re making this sound like a single bad review when the headline lists three completely separate conversations. Showalter talking about Verity is a different animal than the It Ends With Us drama, and lumping them together ignores why each actor brought their own baggage to those roles.

CarolBut separating them doesn't fix the core issue where these interviews treat sexual chemistry as a marketable asset rather than a storytelling tool. The audience ends up buying the rumor that Hathaway is inherently sensual instead of seeing how the director actually crafted that intimacy. That shift turns viewers into consumers of celebrity lore rather than participants in the narrative.

TomYou're treating this like a PR disaster report, but it's just actors reflecting on their jobs. Showalter saying Dakota made things spicy isn't a conspiracy against cinema, it's a guy admitting the room felt alive. Your fear that people are too busy watching stars to read scripts has been around since Shakespeare, Carol.

CarolLumping everything under “actors reflecting” misses who actually gets hurt by that framing. When interviews sell chemistry as innate talent, they erase the deliberate choices writers and directors made to build that tension in the first place. That erasure directly impacts how audiences learn to recognize intentional craft versus accidental vibes.

TomWiping out the writer’s intent is a stretch when the whole industry runs on selling the moment, not the blueprint. Audiences aren’t blind; they know the difference between a well-choreographed kiss and a clumsy fumble even without a film class degree. Stop assuming everyone needs a manual to enjoy a movie.

CarolSaying audiences can tell the difference assumes most people actually watch those scenes closely enough to notice the choreography, which they usually don't. Most viewers skim past the technical details to find the emotional hook, leaving them vulnerable to being sold a vibe they mistake for substance. That gap is real and it affects how people talk about movies long after the credits roll.

TomYou keep acting like the average viewer is some empty vessel waiting to be filled by a trailer, but people have taste. They might skip the technical breakdown in their heads, but they still feel when a scene lands emotionally versus when it feels staged for Instagram. That gut reaction is its own valid metric, whether you like it or not.

CarolGut feelings explain why a scene sticks in memory, but they don’t explain why it worked. Without understanding the mechanics behind Hathaway’s restraint or Johnson’s vulnerability, you’re left defending a mood instead of a choice. That’s a real problem for anyone trying to move beyond surface-level hype.

TomDefending a mood is exactly how we’d describe a good book if we stopped caring about plot structure, and it works fine for most people. You want every viewer to dissect Johnson’s micro-expressions before they’re allowed to say they enjoyed the film? That’s not teaching appreciation, that’s setting a bar nobody asked to clear.

CarolComparing movie viewing to reading fiction ignores that film relies entirely on visual cues the audience must decode in real time. A reader can pause and reread a page, but a viewer who misses the nuance in Johnson’s delivery loses the context forever. That makes the "vibe" argument less forgiving, not more, because there is no second chance to catch what you missed.

TomYou make missing a beat sound like permanent damage, but we forget half of what happens on screen anyway. The point isn’t catching every nuance in real time, it’s deciding if the whole performance still holds up when you look at the full picture later. That’s where the actual criticism starts.

CarolJudging the full picture after the fact sounds fair until you realize that “later” review is mostly just repeating what the marketing team already told you. If your entire analysis relies on hindsight, you haven’t identified craft, you’ve just confirmed the hype cycle. That’s a dangerous habit for critics who think they’re doing serious work.

TomCalling hindsight lazy ignores that marketing sells the event while the film delivers the character arc, two completely different products. We judge the script, not the press release, and expecting viewers to do anything else is absurd. The craft survives because the performance stands on its own, regardless of what the trailers promised.

CarolConflating the marketing push with the on-screen execution is a stretch; the Verity interviews specifically highlight how Hathaway and Johnson crafted physical intimacy to serve the narrative tension. We are looking at deliberate artistic choices, not accidental vibes, and ignoring that distinction undermines the actors’ actual contribution to the film’s erotic weight.

TomYou’re conflating intentional staging with effective storytelling again. We know Hathaway and Johnson built those scenes with purpose, but unless you can prove the audience actually felt that tension rather than just noticing the choreography, you’re grading the blueprint, not the house. Until you separate what was designed from what landed, your defense of their craft stays theoretical.