Jake Lacy thinks Shane is probably a bigger dick after The White Lotus finale
The White Lotus actor discusses the shocking season-one finale
Aux Features Shane
This interview discusses the finale of The White Lotus season one.
Jake Lacy is known for playing “nice guys,” the kind of men you’d want to introduce to your mom and make perfect boyfriends. But The White Lotus’ Shane is his best role yet, playing against type as a privileged, pompous asshole. And in the season-one finale finale, we learned Shane can get away with murder—literally. In a conversation with The A.V. Club, Lacy took time between moving to his new home in Connecticut (where he jokes there live even more Shanes than in his former neighborhood in Williamsburg, Brooklyn) to chat about the filming of the murder scene, whether he thinks Shane’s learned not to be a dick (spoiler: absolutely not), and why Shane feels even more validated after his final interaction with Armond.
It’s your first time killing someone onscreen. What was your reaction when you got to read the murder scene?
Jake Lacy: I didn’t have access to all of [the scripts] until I landed in Hawaii. In quarantine [on location], I read the entire season. And I think, like most viewers, I was sure that Rachel died and for some reason was under the impression that I was responsible for it; not as a murderer or a premeditated act, but, you know, that we go scuba diving or we take a surf lesson and she is fatally bitten [by a shark] or something like that. So then I just remember reading that sixth episode and getting to the 12 pages till the end [where] Armond’s going in and taking a shit and then me opening the door next and being like, “Oh my God, I’m about to kill Armond.” Getting to have that unfold was so thrilling. I was in my quarantined hotel room fist pumping and swearing out of excitement. And then I FaceTimed my wife like, “I killed a guy! I’m the killer!”
The scene is absolutely bonkers to watch. What was the behind-the-scenes like?
JL: To build up that scene is so fun and ridiculous. I mean, Armond just being on a multitude of chemicals and Shane being at his lowest point maybe ever in his life; this is a guy who hasn’t had to deal with much loss or rejection. And we shot all of this not continuously, but we shot all of that on the same day, thankfully. We didn’t shoot the stunt stabbing one day and then come back and do the entrances, so we got to stay in that zone with the blinders on a little bit. And Mike [White] was very clear and helpful to remind me of all the moments that have come before and then being like, “I think you should be on this phone call with the front desk and be livid.” That’s just the totality of his experience for this entire honeymoon. And then the shooting of any stunt like that is similar to a sex scene almost in the way that when edited, it can tell a certain story. But the doing of it is pretty technical, in trying to orchestrate things for camera angles.
Then there was a series of [alternate takes] for the stabbing itself. There’s one alt where I stab Armond and as I walk away, I’m like in shock. And Mike was like, “Say ‘My bad, my bad bro’ as you back away.” At the end, they obviously went with me saying “Jesus Christ” as a gag. But there’s another [take] of me saying “My bad.” And there’s another of me saying like, “Oh no, bro. Oh no.” Just like varying degrees of Shane’s sort of bro-ness. The tension that’s achieved from that is somewhat performance, but really is a credit to Mike as a writer and director and to the editor, for taking all of these disparate pieces and then building this thing, with the music underneath that’s like, even as a person involved in making it, it’s really fulfilling to watch.
You’ve been in numerous projects before, but this is the first time where the press’ focus is on you and the narrative everyone seems fascinated with is you shedding your “nice guy” typecasting. What has it been like to discuss that facet of your career nonstop lately?
JL: I don’t mind talking about it. I think it’s an easy thing to latch onto because I’ve done a series of roles that have a similar thread to them, and this is a departure from that. But there isn’t that much for me to say about it, other than “Yes, I’ve done these other roles. And then I also did this role.” A lot of those jobs, I was happy to have them and lucky to be hired. If you do something relatively well in this business, people are often happy to hire you for that same thing. And that that’s great as an actor. I always want to have more and different opportunities. It has just turned out that the projects where I’ve been like a good dude or a nice guy or a solid boyfriend have gotten more attention from viewers and critics alike than stuff where I haven’t been in that role. But I have done a series of things over the years that aren’t just that.
There’s definitely a perception of “this is what Jake does”— if anyone knows me by name. But I’ve also done other stuff and I’m really happy to have had this opportunity. It also wasn’t a plan. Sometimes there’s a sense of like “did you decide you wanted to do something?” And I’m like, well, I never decided I wanted to be a nice guy in stuff.
It’s funny because you also had a role in Ramy as Kyle where you played an asshole. A different kind of asshole, but an asshole nonetheless.
JL: The through line or a through line between the character on Ramy and Shane is guys who have a massive blind spot to their access and privilege and entitlement and opportunity. In Ramy, that guy does not know that what he thinks is an attraction to a certain culture or women from a certain culture is actually low-key racism and bigotry and kind of a perversion to need to own someone else’s culture and to objectify that, and thinks that he’s just worldly, like he’s appreciating a culture. And similarly, there’s a line in White Lotus where Shane is basically saying “This has happened to me before, people have come for me my whole life” as if it’s his cross to bear. Is that because of his privilege? [To him] it’s actually been detrimental to him succeeding because he’s had to fight against people’s assumptions of who he is like. That’s the big, big victimhood of his life. And I’d say those are both pretty huge blindspots.
I know you’re not on Twitter, but have you been lurking to see what people say about the show? The White Lotus tweets have been nonstop!
JL: I’m not on Twitter. Somebody sent me a couple of memes that my face is in with like the Delta variant. Someone mentioned, “Oh, have you seen—people are really responding to it” or something. I’m aware [of fan reactions]. I’m on Instagram, so I guess that’s a little more direct. I put something up and people go, oh, it’s really good or people go, go away. But no, I’m not investigating Twitter at all. Can you give me a short rundown?
There’s so much discourse. I don’t even know where to begin. It’s a little overwhelming, especially after the finale. But one question that another writer brought up on Twitter, which I would love for you to answer, is if Rachel actually knows Shane killed Armond, or if he’s hiding what happened from her.
JL: My understanding is that, to all the guests, it’s been framed as self-defense. To suppose that Shane is sort of gaslighting Rachel in regard to the severity of the violence or his part of it kind of chips away at her choice to stay with him. It’s an ugly choice that she makes to stay with Shane, rather than forego this to give up like the lifestyle, but also maintain her sense of self, and she doesn’t change that. And that’s not the happy ending that I think we probably want. You want her to have Quinn’s journey and run from the airport, but she doesn’t.
There’s so much talk on social media about Rachel’s decision to stay with Shane, too. I think one of the main points of discussion I’ve seen is whether she’s deciding to stay in the marriage because she doesn’t know how else to stay financially afloat, or if there’s a chance that Shane learned anything after nearly losing her. So, let’s set the record straight from you: is there any chance Shane learned his lesson?
JL: No. No. No. No, I mean, the… No. For Shane, it’s really not about the room. The thing he really wants is someone to say “You’re a victim. You got fucked.” And so for Rachel to come back is a validation to him of saying like, “I was being crazy, you’re totally valid in the way you handled this and that the issues you had with the hotel.” And the fact that Armond came in and took a shit on his clothes, it was a further validation of being like, “This guy is out to get me.” So, none of that really leads to forcing Shane into growing or learning something or seeing his part in it or taking responsibility.
37 Comments
“No. For Shane, it’s really not about the room. The thing he really wants is someone to say “You’re a victim. You got fucked.”Thank you to Jack Lacy and fuck all the Shane supporters defending his character in the finale comments. Ya’ll man babies are the reason this world is filled with so much pain, who co-opt terms like gaslighting and then run around getting angry about the most minor of inconveniences to your entitlement.
…people were defending SHANE?
Some people were pointing out that he did pay for the room, Armond made the mistake, and it’s being conflated with “defending” his actions. -He (or his mom) paid for the room.-Armond lied about the room he booked.These are the facts. Doesn’t mean Jake was a good person. It means that Armond was in the wrong, and Jake was in the right. And an entitled rich dude who’s in the right can be even more dangerous, as we’ve seen. Jake is still a horrible person who was looking for a fight when he confronted the person who broke into his apartment to defecate on his clothes. He’s the equivalent of the guy who was like “wish I was there” when he’d be the first one hiding, and only stabbed Armond because they turned a corner wrong. One of the bigger problems with fiction lately is this need to conflate “likable” with “just and moral.” Armond is the poor put upon underdog, thus all of his actions must be justified as he sticks it… to this guy who booked a room. Jake is the bad guy we all have to sneer at because he’s rich and white and… is sure he booked a room he didn’t get. Jake did so many other terrible things, up to and including flirting with underage girls while his wife watched, undermined his new wife’s career, and at one point threatened her. Why aren’t we focusing on those instead of the fact that he wanted the room he paid for and accidentally stabbed a guy who broke into his room to shit on his luggage? To me being mad his room his booked wrong (which is was) was the least of his sins.
Armond is terrible in his own way, but from a customer service perspective, I can see where he initially just tried to sweep it under the rug, its not an egregious action, as long as they aren’t charging for the upgraded room, which they likely arent, they charge on check in.
But I think the show itself was a wonderful character study in shitty people doing shitty things.
TLDR
Armonds terrible, but Shane’s an asshole.
Armond was rebelling against a system that caters to the hoarders of wealth in ways that actually bothered them. I think that’s sort of the point, they are so above any actual repercussions and accountability, the only way to shit on the entitled Shanes out there is by shitting in their suitcases. It’s a sad reality that the only way they notice people below their status is when those very people don’t act according to class expectations, and refuse to give into their every entitlement.You think someone like Shane would ever be bothered by the plight of Kai, and how he himself contributes to that? Never. But he is raging because he didn’t get the pineapple suite lol. It’s absurd.
i agree 100%. I’m not trying to blame Armond. But Shan serves a bigger problem: Someone who thinks the world is out to get him (when it’s not) being minorly inconvenienced by someone who wasn’t out to get him, but kind of did.
Armond wasn’t terrible, he was just a mess who made increasingly poor (often drug-addled) decisions. He was entertaining as hell and you could see his perspective in many cases, but he also fucked up and just kept fucking up after falling off the wagon.
“One of the bigger problems with fiction lately is this need to conflate “likable” with “just and moral.”Girl, Shane was not in the right. He was a giant man baby, and if it wasn’t an issue with the room he would have found something just as trivial. It’s just sad that Mike White has created this amazing storyline, and people are literally walking away thinking that Armand deserved to be stuck with a knife because he didn’t bow down to the entitlement of all the Shanes that he met before.It’s not about Armand being moral(who also was in a relapse, I don’t think people understand addiction), it’s understanding that a lot of the behaviours of Belinda not being able to communicate, Kai being forced to steal, Armand internalizing being walked over, is because we allow the rich to to take and take and take. Whether it’s land, whether it’s dignity, whether it’s respect. Shane not getting that room despite being in one even more beautiful is central to understanding that the Shane’s out there will continue to take and continue to expect everyone else to be held accountable except them.
I’m still confused: Why wasn’t Shane in the right in the first episode.His mommy paid for the room.His mommy sent him the booking for the room.He was not provided the room. Thats… being in the right? That’s the very definition of being in the right.Yes, he would have found other things to be angry about. Yes, he would have been a jackass in many other ways. Yes, he’s a jerk. I’m not arguing any of these factors. I’m not trying to say “he’s good.” But that doesn’t change the fact that he was right, which arguably makes him more insufferable.A stronger choice would have been for Armond to do something to correct it on day one (comped, etc.) and then Shane act like everything is a little problem as a result.
I honestly find it bizarre that this story about imperialism, colonialism, privilege, etc, and people are legit saying “wow what if Armond just gave him the right room?”. He’s met 1000 Shanes before this Shane, this was just the breaking point.Someone has got to stick to these rich assholes, their innocuous actions trickles down in destructive ways, to the point where people like Kai quite literally have to steal to keep their identity alive. Cheer on anyone that fucks with these assholes, it’s sad if someones takeaway from this show is them wanting to read the fine print on the hotel policy around booking errors, and letting that be their determining factor on right or wrong.
It was not a story about imperialism or colonialism. Those are underlying subjects. The story was about a bunch of unpleasant rich people at a resort run by an unpleasant man
When you’ve been married a couple of times you recognize that on your honeymoon you ought to be paying attention to your new spouse, not to peripherals like the room that was wrong, the dress that was wrong, the DJ who didn’t play the right music… on and on. Someday there might be an actual serious problem in your marriage, like your spouse becomes disabled. Sure, the room was wrong and maybe Hotel Guy is being a bit of a dick, but it’s not the most important thing in the world. If only Shane had had the kind of mother who would tell him so. Did he have a good time on his honeymoon in Hawaii? Never mind any needs his wife might have. He was miserable from start to finish.
I think Shane was wrong in just about every way. What I appreciate about the show is they allowed nuance for Armond to be wrong as well. Like jake says in the interview, as soon as Armond walked into their room I knew he was going to die, most of all because he is the most entertaining character (not most likeable by a stretch, that’s probably Belinda). I think the show did the hard work of making this a very complex finale. Shane was not wrong to be scared, even if we hate him and he’s an asshole. If I hear a scary noise in my house at night I grab a frying pan or something too. The show was too consistent for Mike White to not want us to feel conflicted in how that scene played out and was resolved.
Yes, I don’t think Shane stabbing Armand was deliberate, but it was poignant in that the guests are the literal death of Armand. For most people it would be a time to reassess yourself and your morals, but for Shane he’ll continue to be even worse. And that’s where the futility of it all remains, so take your shits in suitcases where you can, because sometimes that all we’ve got to fight the system.
You’re fighting a battle the show was not fighting. Mike White is not a revolutionary.
cknowledgingv that Shane was abolsutely correct about the room issue, is not defending the way he acted and reacted up to living out his he-man fantasy and killing a guy in his room. Just because someone is a narcissistic, intolerable, asshole, does not mean they are always wrong.
a man is dead, get over the room Shane!(as someone mentioned they never charged him for the full suite, but he’s wrong in the sense that he let it consume him and his honeymoon because nothing satisfies men like him)
He may have been charged for the full suite. We don’t know.
nah they don’t charge for him it, they even say that.
OK. Initially they didn’t.
The girls are sophomores in college, so not underaged unless they’re prodigies. For me, yes, technically the hotel broke a contract with Shane by not giving him the room he paid for. What makes him an asshole is not that he wants some compensation for that, but that he himself ruins his own vacation and his wife’s vacation by fixating on being made whole exclusively by being put into the right room. The non-asshole solution is just asking for the difference in room rates back, moving on, and forgetting about it.
tldr
If you are referring to Paula and the other girl, they are in college. I thought they were supposed to be in HS at first as well.
Shane isn’t even a Walter White type character. Walt may have been a sack, but he was still (mostly) the protagonist. Shane is the closest The White Lotus has to a straight up villain.
Yeah, like…he’s deliberately the least sympathetic one.
To be fair, he had a legitimate grievance as Armond was lying to his face. If I did not have the room in which I was booked. I would want the money back for the difference or to be comped enough in other ways. Having said that, I would not act like a giant man-baby like Shane. I also would have respected my wife’s obvious discomfort and handled it more low-key.
What a dumb take on Shane, but I’m not surprised. He’s a straight white man after all and we know how much social media loves straight white men. Is he a douche? Sure, but he just got married and thinks he’s in love. And sure, the guy needs a wake-up call and I thought he got at least a taste of it here, but his wife was certainly as entitled as he was, but I guess she gets a pass?
What I loved about this was that there were no real heroes or villains in this (except Quinn; he’s the only hero). Everyone had good points and bad points. Shane, to me wasn’t overtly an asshole, he just never had anyone call him out on it. Hopefully his wife will do that. He was not a villain. The real villain was Paula. She not only took advantage of her “friend” and her family, she took advantage of the guy she was banging. She was wrong about everything and everyone, and quietly slipped a way without any blame whatsoever.
I was thinking it would’ve been a good twist to make it so the German couple booked the room first, so he should never have been able to rent it in the first place.
You called it a murder several times. He killed an intruder, who he didn’t even know was Armond, in what he believed was self-defense. That’s not murder.
Especially when there was an assault, in a room, just the day before.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Manslaughter.
There is a concept in the law called “mens rei” (I might have the Latin wrong), meaning “the mind of the thing”: i/.e. it makes a difference what people THINK they ae doing. If yo think you think you are shooiting an intruder and it turns out to be your teenage son, that’s not murder.
It was tragic that it was Armond, but would have been even more tragic if it had been Rachel.
One manslaughter is another man’s laughter
There is no way that Shane just walks away from killing Armond. He would get a free ride to Maui County jail, and between the press and the D.A. he’d be roasted alive. Jake would have been great in those scenes!!!
At least Armond died fulfilling his goal of ruining Shane’s honeymoon.
I love all the people completely missing the nuance in this show because they’d rather have a neat and tidy narrative that affirms the thesis statement they already made up in their mind.
I’m in the camp that it’s possible Shane learned something from Rachel nearly walking away from him on their honeymoon, but even if it lasts through their Tahiti swing once they’re back on his turf he’d immediately revert to form.