What a way to come back from vacation! Make sure you click through and read it on AE.com, rather than posting it here--we want to make sure the page view numbers are high. :)

http://www.afterellen.com/people/2007/8/mandanajones

Haven't read it yet myself--I wanted to post it here right away.

I couldn’t agree more with the first paragraph of the interview, Mandana rarely got any attention from the press and she seemed to have much less fans than SL. All credit always went to Simone for being a fantastic actress, that somehow baffled me and still does because I find both actresses’ acting spectacular, perhaps MJ’s even more so.

That’s one great interview, I must say. Amazing to see how she can still say and discuss so much about the character she played some 6 or 7 years ago, loved reading her thoughts on all subjects. Was anyone else surprised to find out that she found playing Nikki in S1 awkward, that she felt insecure and that the image(s) were supposed to be different? I think S1 is many people’s favorite season (myself included) and it always felt so smooth-running, the characters felt very thought out that there hardly is any complaint about anything going on in that season and yet Mandana reveals it was an insecure time. Interesting. They all did an amazing job.

Also, it’s sad to hear that the show was never considered serious in the UK, to think how seriously we around here take it and then to realize that for some people it… umm.. didn’t ring any bells, didn’t mean anything and didn’t make people think about things is very weird, sigh.

The interview with Mandana is a complete and total treasure for a number of reasons and confirms how grounded she is in her perception of what is around her. What comes out so strongly is her perception of herself as a craftswoman who is trying to do the best that she can do and that all the celebrity stuff doesn't belong to her world.

What was fascinating to read is that she and Simone had input into the series and of her take of the differences in the fan reaction to her as opposed to Simone. Her take on Shed's perception of their role as storytellers slides neatly into her own deft dismissal of reality TV. "Listen, I'm glad you really enjoy the show, guys; obviously we really rely on your viewing, but don't tell us how to write the story." Which is fair enough, really, I have to say I agree with that. You can't hand over control like that, or you're into reality TV. Who do you want to vote off? Who do you want to keep on? Who do you want to shag who?'

I cringed when I read about the guy in South Africa who talked to her as if she were Nikki Wade and it does relate to the way that, in the UK, we are badly served by the media, then and now. What is interesting to me is that this was the time when internet fan sites emerged and it meant that from before Series 3 when I plugged in, it felt that the established media was irrelevant.

It is interesting to read how the networks were trying to get the edgier stuff in BG toned down. Shed ran with this one nicely in bookending the softer humourous side against the blacker moments but even then, the cliches were trotted out about BG as Mandana explains so clearly. "It was always seen as this rather camp, high-gloss, super-reality, over-the-top show. Any of the issues that were raised within it could never climb out of the straitjacket of the format they were presented in." The media totally failed to understand BG as an ensemble experience.

The interviewer did a fine job in asking excellent 'open ended' questions and full marks to the introduction in pointing out how Mandana has explained what it meant to portray a lesbian character and how the interviewer switched subjects.

Lastly, it is touching to see Mandana mention Jayne and Sara's Mandana site , that it is the sort of fan support that she does value and of course that the series resonates several years down the line.

This is a definite 'must read.'

Wow. What a nice "voice," if you will, to wake up to. Great to hear from Mandana, and to see here what others thought of it.

One thought ... maybe we should post comments on the afterellen site too, where it's all just "thank you, thank you" at this point. We know the editors read those comments, and maybe more comments will lead to more coverage for Mandana, Simone, etc.

Good idea. I just did.

A Mad Maggot,


No, i wasn't surprized at the comment. In interviews with other cast members serveral commented on that. Jack Ellis said he didn't know how far he could take Jim. How bad he could make him.

And to me, that comment just showed Mandana as her own hardest critic. She set out to do the best job she could. She thought about and spoke about who Nikki was and how scenes should be to make it work. At the end of the day the director is boss; even if you think your idea is better.


And i agree. I was totally stunned to see this interview with Mandana. As always she knows what she wants to say and i thank Afterellen for the forum on which she could say it.

Note to afterellen: next time you interview either Mandana or Simone can you ask what the "You let yourself down Nikki" "You just don't get it, do you?!" "I want a woman" and "We'll take things slowly" were all about. It's great to discuss it here, but i'd like the answer from the horses mouth if possible.

Actually, Richard, I sort of disagree with... mm, I guess I'd say, exercising that impulse. I totally understand & sympathize with where it's coming from, but don't believe asking for a "final" statement on a given phrase or moment is the way to get at the issue. No one says Let's go ask Sarah Michelle Gellar what Joss Whedon meant when Buffy uttered the famously cryptic phrase: [whatever]. Jodie Foster is out on the circuit right now, giving interviews & doing promotion for her new film; the recent LA Times interview with her called her "one of the best talkers in all of showbiz" (which I think is wonderfully apt both as a description of Foster & for what we're discussing here). Yet her opinion is still not the last word, just one among many; it's up to us to determine what weight to assign it. And even then, as years pass & an actor's roles or the type of drama they performed in are viewed differently historically, meanings & interpretations will continue to shift. They're never fixed.

The best Shakespearean actors in the world will discuss their performance, the sets, the audiences, the play in a general way just like anyone else: they still don't get asked the question you're suggesting: what did S mean when Juliet said X? Or an actor might volunteer something about a specific line or scene if it's a thing that's been on their mind or if it's a radically new or different interpretation of the text, but all of this is taken as simply part of an ongoing discussion about the work. It's understood the discussion, the interpretation will never be finished. Which is part of the pleasure of art, although as well I suppose part of the frustration of our engagement with it.

Actors are (or should be) as free as anyone else to give their interpretations of a character they've played of course, and that can in some circumstances be influential (for better or worse), on how that role is subsequently viewed--though I expect, per MJ's interview and what we all see on TV every day, that's because an increasingly circumscribed & fraught business in today's market. But expecting them to make a definitive statement goes against the grain of... well, what the process of understanding art is about.

Bad Girls--as a program--is finished, complete, and although I expect the actors most assuredly do have opinions on what certain lines "mean", they don't necessarily know better than any other viewer. Their opinions would be informed by a huge amount of background info we'll never get (all the particulars of how a scene got shot or changed, for ex)--but it'd still be subjective: they're not the authorities. A performance is always, already, interpretive. You're looking for the "ur" text. It doesn't exist. Even if Shed released the shooting scripts (which, have I mentioned recently how much I want this?! I've been very good, you know) ...they'd still be just one incarnation of the 'text'. There's no ultimate authority, although there are opinions & arguments which make more or less sense, depending on the text in question, it's not a completely subjective business--but that's another issue. The final artefact is what's up on the screen. Everything else is ancillary.


I would like to hear more detail about what scenes, what lines the scriptwriters or directors might have changed, or not-changed, according to MJ's &/or SL's suggestions--the specifics of those interactions. That would be extremely interesting, and would still, I think, get at some of what is behind your wish. One never knows what kind of detail an actor will come up with when asked those sorts of questions, but with these two, they've been very gracious and helpful--and the more particular the question, the better their answers have been, across the board. I'd absolutely love to hear more from them on such matters.

I pretty much agree with your post overall, but I do think there's one element which you don't consider important, but which other viewers might. Which is that the actor's interpretation of a line IS more significant than someone else's (say, a viewer or a critic) because that interpretation is what the actor had in mind when they played the scene, and therefore the scene is informed by the actor's belief about what the line meant. I agree that the actor's interpretation is not the Definitive Answer, but it does provide significant insight about the character (which IS created by the actor) and what the actor (who delivered the lines, created the facial expressions and tone of voice etc) believed the character was thinking at a certain moment.

Ekny's post is highly interesting. First off, Simone's and Mandana's suggestions to the scenes would highly interest me as this makes the whole thing to some degree a collaborative process, incorporating Shed's structuring the story, the writer's (i.e. largely scriptwriter's input) the direction and this input as well. It has all made for a multilayered experience which tells so much and has given us inspiration down the years.

The other major point about actors being one source of information is interesting as it points to the perspective of the actors giving flesh and colour to the script and points both to a conscious exploration as to how the character would behave, etc and the unconscious playing a part as well. That has to count for a lot. This is only my take on it as acting is totally beyond my capacity. I was going to recall that Abzug has had actual experience but she has got in first. :D One other perspectives is of critical analysis and another, of fanfic writing.

The point comes over that achieving the goal might be uncertain but searching for it is both fun, emotionally satisfying and intellectually engrossing. To give validity to the particular artform means that the search must be made. A parallel that comes to mind is one of the best rock biographies (which I am a sucker for) of Janis Joplin by Alice Echols where the interesting thread running through it is that the context of the observer of the person makes a difference to the observations.

PS I've just had a speedy E mail reply from Afterellen on the Mandana interview who will forward it to the very worthy interviewer. I can also see a great debate starting up but my problem is that Brit time is 9.15- I'll catch up..

Yes Mandana, do you have any new roles in the pipeline, that's what I (as a fan) wanna know ? :) :getingroove

I posted early this morning on the afterellen Mandana interview. I have to say that I think it's one of the best interviews with Mandana. This particular interviewer also did a really good interview with Simone as well. Mandana and Simone when interviewed by some one who asks in depth questions really come off as thoughtful and very intelligent women. I just really admire both of them for how much work and thought they put into Nikkki and Helen.

Great article - but just so there isn't any confusion, this is part of the interview Mandana gave last year, not something she's done recently, and it appears they've held it back for the relaunch of the series on Logo.

Thanks for clarifying that, ILMJN.

It is a bit misleading since the date at the top of the article is 'August 26, 2007'. Nevertheless it is a great interview so thanks to abzug for bringing it to our attention.

No problem - It is a 'new' interview in that is hasn't been released before now - just didn't want people thinking it had happened in last few weeks or so.

That's not actually correct. This interview does not share material with the last interview on After Ellen. Whether the actual conversation from which this article was written happened at the same time as the conversation from which last year's article was written, that I can't answer and do not know. But this is a new and separate interview, not a rehash of the same material which was in the interview from last year.

I think you'll see in the previous post to this Abzug that I do allude it is a "new" interview in terms it hasn't been published before.

However, what I wanted to clarify it is was done last year (which I can confirm) - not, as your first post might suggest only recently.

That makes sense. I think there was a line in the Simone interview that suggest that the interview was longer too. Perhaps we'll see a follow up on that one too.

Sorry I misunderstood your post, ILMJN. When you used the word "interview" I interpreted that to mean the published article, not the conversation between the writer and Mandana.

That's okay Abzug - can understand that. :)

Some of the same or similar questions are asked in both AE interviews with Mandana so my guess would be the interviewer talked to her several times ... otherwise, that was one impossibly long conversation!

That is possible, wouldn't know any more than it was actually conducted last year, but only published this.