Film

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares42 Views

    Patricia Clarkson: ‘When women make equal pay, everybody wins’

    by

    Patricia Clarkson, who portrays late equal pay activist Lilly Ledbetter in a biopic released this week, has a wish.The Oscar-nominated actor hopes her fellow American women collectively withhold sex from their partners – especially men in power – if the second Trump administration’s assault on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives ever takes aim at the gains won by the subject of her new film.“Do not go after this – do not because there will be a Lysistrata moment,” she told the Guardian in an interview recently, alluding to the ancient Greek comedy about women resolving to abstain from sex to compel the men in their nation to stop warring and sign a peace treaty. “We will put chastity belts back on.”Clarkson is only the latest in a long lineage to float the idea of a sex strike as a protest tactic. Nonetheless, what sets the Easy A and Sharp Objects star’s admonition and potential call to action apart is that it comes as her starring turn in Lilly coincides with the first months of a second Donald Trump presidency marked in large part by the rollback of policies meant to widen the professional opportunities of historically underrepresented groups.Directed by Rachel Feldman, Lilly dramatizes the struggles endured by a working-class mother from Alabama who began working at the tire manufacturer Goodyear in 1979 before becoming its only female supervisor and eventually realizing she was paid substantially less than her male colleagues, including much less experienced ones.She sued and at one point had been awarded nearly $4m in damages and backpay. But, in 2007, the US supreme court ruled that she had waited too long to sue, preventing her from ever collecting her award.Ultimately, with lobbying from Ledbetter and supporters that she picked up while pursuing her lawsuit, Congress enacted legislation early in Barack Obama’s presidency that afforded workers greater latitude to sue their employers over unequal and discriminatory pay.Clarkson said she did not get to meet Ledbetter before her death at age 86 in October. So Clarkson said she drew inspiration for her portrayal of the resolute Ledbetter in large part from her mother, Jacquelyn “Jackie” Brechtel Clarkson, who served several terms as a Democratic member of New Orleans’s city council and Louisiana’s state legislature during a political career regarded as legendary in their home town.She marveled at how her mother, who died at age 88 about four months before Ledbetter, never compromised raising five daughters – “all working women” – while facing down countless intense political battles.“They had similar DNA in ways that came to me as I was doing these scenes,” Clarkson said.To say the least, the political climate depicted in Lilly through Clarkson’s acting as well as through archival footage of prominent liberal American political figures who philosophically aligned themselves with her has changed seismically.In between Trump presidencies, the US supreme court eliminated the federal abortion rights established by Roe v Wade, a staggering blow to women’s reproductive rights.Trump has then spent his second presidency pushing his government to withhold funds from institutions which adhere to DEI practices that took hold nationally after the Minneapolis police’s murder of George Floyd in 2020.Less than two weeks before Lilly’s theatrical release, Trump’s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, announced his intent to eliminate a program meant to promote women’s contributions and safety in global conflict zones. The announcement raised eyebrows given that it was implemented during Trump’s first presidency and had drawn a ringing endorsement from his daughter, Ivanka.Clarkson made it a point to deliver an impassioned defense of DEI measures in general, urging Americans to stay informed about the topic despite the other fights being stoked by Trump’s second presidency.“When we work with people of every race, creed, color, sexual preference – that’s the best part of this world we live in,” Clarkson said. “I refuse to live in the world” demonizing that concept.Speaking to the Guardian after accepting the New Orleans Film Society’s Celluloid Hero Award and hosting a local screening of Lilly in early April, Clarkson said she honestly could not envision the Trump administration turning its crosshairs on the equal pay progress that has become synonymous with Ledbetter.“Equal pay is not – it’s not a political issue,” Clarkson said. “It’s a human rights issue.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Wherever you live across this great country, whether you are Black or white or brown or young or old or whatever you are, Republican or Democrat – when women make equal pay, everybody wins.”Yet the New York City resident also fears nothing is truly off the table during a second Trump presidency that has already shattered political norms many could not imagine being vulnerable. And if the administration dares to test something as drastic as re-implementing a system where pay is based on gender, she said she hoped the public mounts commensurate resistance – from Ivanka herself trying to talk some sense into her father to a women’s sex strike if necessary.View image in fullscreen“How is it cool for anyone to want their spouse, the love of their life, to be paid less, and you’re still going to ask for sex?” said Clarkson, who once attained digital virality with an appearance in the music video to the Lonely Island song Mother Lover, an irreverent ballad of sorts to desirable moms. “I say, ‘Honey, there must be another bedroom I’m sleeping in.’”Clarkson was quick to point out that she has faith in the willingness of men to step up in the event that Ledbetter’s achievements are ever directly threatened. By way of evidence, Clarkson said she was glad Lilly spent a decent amount of its 93-minute run time exploring how Ledbetter’s husband of 52 years, Charles, steadily supported her professional goals and activism despite the backlash they generated for the couple and their two children.The decorated US army veteran, played by John Benjamin Hickey, never sought to persuade her to settle for less than she believed that she deserved in hopes of easing some of the pressure. He instead remained in her corner until his death at 73 in 2008, a little more than a month before the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for which his beloved battled so hard became the first piece of legislation Obama signed as president.Clarkson said Charles Ledbetter’s unquestioning devotion to Lilly reminded her of the love the actor’s mother shared with her father, Arthur Alexander “Buzz” Clarkson Jr, a former medical school administrator to whom Jackie was married for more than 70 years.“My father wanted my mother to run this city,” Clarkson said while seated in the living room of an 18th-floor suite in downtown New Orleans’s Windsor Court hotel. “My father wanted my mother to make this city better.“Lilly’s husband wanted her to succeed. Charles … got caught up in her journey in realizing what she was sacrificing and the injustice of not being paid” adequately for the time she dedicated to making ends meet for her family.Clarkson has previously said that she chose to be unmarried and not have children. But she said she admired how her father and Charles Ledbetter were “kick-ass husbands that loved every single moment of their [wives’] lives”. And it positioned the women whom each of those men loved to thrive in the face of political adversity, providing an example Clarkson said she hopes more American spouses – especially husbands – emulate.As Clarkson put it: “These remarkable men stood by these women. And they wanted them.”

    Lilly is out in US cinemas now with a UK date to be announced More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares40 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘It’s all very sad’: Trump’s attack on arts funding has a devastating effect

      by

      On the afternoon of 3 May, arts organizations around the US began receiving cryptic emails from a previously unknown government email account. The missives declared that these organizations’ missions were no longer in line with new governmental arts priorities, which included helping to “foster AI competency”, “empower houses of worship” and “make America healthy again”.Chad Post, a publisher at Open Letter Books, a program of the University of Rochester that specializes in publishing translated literature, got his email just before entering a screening of Thunderbolts*. He put a quick post on Instagram, and when he came out of the movie his phone was full of responses. “I seemed to be the first one to receive this,” he recounted. “But then, all of a sudden, everyone was getting these letters.”Post told me that he had been in touch with 45 publishers who had had their NEA grants terminated, and he suspected that all 51 publishers receiving grants for 2025 supporting the publication of books and magazines had now received the letter. Although Open Letter expects to still receive funding for 2025, Post is convinced that no further money will be forthcoming from the National Endowment for the Arts.“According to rules of the email, we should get the money, although if you come back in two months and they never sent it, I wouldn’t be shocked,” he said. “The chilling part of that email is that they’re eliminating the NEA entirely. It lists all these insane things that are the new priority, and says our venture is not in line with the new priority, so we can’t ever apply again.”The grant termination won’t deal a lethal blow to Open Letter Books, but it will alter the kinds of literature that they are able to publish. Post said that he would have to give preference to books from nations that can offer funding – which tends to favor books from European languages and from wealthier countries.This sentiment was echoed by other arts organizations, who see the loss of NEA money as a significant blow, but not a deadly one. Kristi Maiselman, the executive director and curator of CulturalDC, which platforms artists that often are not programed at larger institutions, shared that NEA grants account for $65,000 of a roughly $1.1m budget. Thanks to proactive work between her team and the NEA, Maiselman received her grant this year, but does not expect any further such money. “It’s a pretty significant chunk of the budget for us,” she told me. “What has been hard for us this year is that we really do provide a platform for artists to respond to what’s going on in the world.” Continuing to promulgate those kinds of artists would be more difficult in future.View image in fullscreenAllegra Madsen, the executive director of the LGBTQ+-focused Frameline film festival, said that her grant funding had been in limbo ever since the inauguration of Donald Trump, and was ultimately terminated last week. “I think we could all kind of sense that it was going to go away,” she told me. “I think these blows that came this week are going to be felt very intensely by a lot of different organizations.”Frameline is housed in the same building as a number of other arts organizations dedicated to film, including the Jewish Film Institute, the Center for Asian American Media and BAVC Media, and it also sits adjacent to SF Film and the Independent Television Service, all of which Madsen says were affected by the termination of NEA grants. “We’ve all been hit, and we’re all just sort of figuring out what our next steps are.”One fear that Madsen raised was that many private funders take cues from the Federal government, and now with NEA grants terminated – and possibly the NEA itself getting axed – she is unsure if other donors will get cold feet. “This year we have a cohort of sponsors that are very much sticking by us, and I am incredibly thankful for those organizations standing up. But it is a bigger ask now, it’s a bigger risk for them.”Despite the often seemingly indiscriminate cuts made to the federal government by the unofficial “department of government efficiency”, the organizations the Guardian spoke with all believed that they had been targeted in some way because of the programming that they offer. “Just because it’s being done in mass, I don’t think that takes away from the idea that this is pointed and intentional,” Madsen told me. “Governments like this try to attack the populations that seem to have the least power, and right now they are mistakenly thinking that’s going to be our trans and gender-nonconforming siblings.”Taking a similar perspective, Maiselman sees these cuts as perpetuating a broader cultural turn away from arts programs, in particular those that significantly represent people of color and the queer community. “Prior to losing the NEA, we had lost about $100,000 in sponsorships this year,” she said. “We’re hearing from our sponsors that there are a lot of eyes on them. They’re not exactly saying no, but they are saying saying, ‘not right now’.”View image in fullscreenPost sees private money as a possible way to make up some of the lost NEA funding but fears that there will be a stampede of indie presses all toward the same few donors. “Everyone is feeling a little more broke and a little more strapped right now,” he said. “Arts orgs writ large are going to be competing for funds from the same few individuals and that just scares me.”He also argued that, while a press like Open Letter will be able to continue functioning without NEA money, organizations that only publish literary magazines may fold without significant infusions of private cash. “Those literary magazines don’t have the opportunity to rely on a book breaking out,” he said. “They’re not suddenly going to have an issue of the magazine take off. This might be a massive blow to literary magazines.”Although some arts organizations appear poised to survive the loss of NEA money, they nonetheless feel existentially frightened by the general turn of the political culture away from diversity and toward authoritarianism. “It’s hard right now to see any light at the end of the tunnel,” said Maiselman. “With the rate at which things are changing, it’s going to take years to course correct – that is, if and when the administration changes.”Maiselman further argued that the cultural shift brought in by the aggressive moves of the Trump administration had the potential to profoundly transform the landscape of the arts world. “There’s going to be a reckoning,” she told me. “A lot of organizations won’t survive this.”For her own part, Madsen struck a defiant tone, placing the current repressive political atmosphere in the context of other such threats to the LGBTQ+ community. “We will survive, we have the privilege of being an almost 50-year-old org,” Madsen said. “The LGBTQ+ community has been down this road before. We got through McCarthyism, we got through the Aids crisis, we’ll survive this.”In hopes of surviving, arts organizations are again turning toward one another, finding a community sentiment that many of the people I spoke to called reminiscent of the Covid years. “There are a lot of conversations right now about how we can help one another,” Maiselman told me. Post echoed that, positioning this as a time of collective grieving. “It feels like the end of something,” he said. “It’s sad, it’s all very sad, but we have to keep going somehow. We are damaged but not defeated.” More

    • 138 Shares32 Views

      in US Politics

      UK officials land in Washington as talks over trade agreement continue

      by

      A team of senior British trade negotiators has landed in Washington as talks over a deal between the two countries gather pace.Officials from the business and trade department are in the US for much of this week, attempting to get an agreement signed before the planned UK-EU summit on 19 May.Downing Street did not deny reports the deal could be signed as early as this week, although government sources said the recent announcement by the US president, Donald Trump, of film industry tariffs had proved a significant setback.One person briefed on the talks said: “We have a senior team on the ground now, and it may be that they are able to agree something this week. But the reality is the Trump administration keeps shifting the goalposts, as you saw with this week’s announcement on film tariffs.”Another said Trump’s threat of 100% tariffs on films “produced in foreign lands”, which could have a major impact on Britain’s film industry, had “gone down very badly in Downing Street”.UK officials say they are targeting tariff relief on a narrow range of sectors in order to get a deal agreed before they begin formal negotiations with the EU over a separate European agreement. A draft deal handed to the US a week ago would have reduced tariffs on British exports of steel, aluminium and cars, in return for a lower rate of the digital services tax, which is paid by a handful of large US technology companies.The Guardian revealed last week the Trump administration had made negotiating a trade deal with the UK a lower-order priority, behind a series of Asian countries. UK officials said they have been able to continue talks with their US counterparts despite that, describing the Trump administration’s approach as “chaotic”.Officials from the trade department arrived in Washington this week hoping to reach an agreement on two outstanding issues, pharmaceuticals and films.Trump has said he will impose tariffs on both industries, mainstays of the British economy, but has not yet given details.This week, the US president said the US film industry was dying a “very fast death” because of the incentives other countries were offering to draw American film-makers, and promised to impose a 100% tariff on foreign-made films. Britain offers producers generous reliefs on corporation tax to locate their projects there, which help support an industry now worth about £2bn, with major US films such as Barbie having recently been shot in Britain.Trump also said that he planned to unveil tariffs on imports of pharmaceutical products “in the next two weeks”. The UK exported £6.5bn worth of such goods to the US last year.Keir Starmer, the prime minister, has ruled out reducing food production standards to enable more trade of US agricultural products, as officials prioritise signing a separate agreement with the EU, which is likely to align British standards with European ones.Officials are racing to sign the US agreement before the planned UK-EU summit, at which both sides will set out their formal negotiating positions. Leaked documents revealed on Wednesday the two remain far apart on their demands for a youth mobility scheme, with Britain demanding that visas issued under the scheme should be limited in number and duration, and should exclude dependents.EU ambassadors met in Brussels on Wednesday to discuss the progress of the deal. One diplomat said: “Negotiations are going well, the mood is still good but it is a bit early to see bold moves from one side or another.”This week Starmer also signed an agreement with India after giving way on a demand from Delhi for workers transferring to the UK within their companies to avoid paying national insurance while in the country.The concession has caused some unease in the Home Office, with Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, not having been told about it in advance.It was also criticised by Kemi Badenoch, who accused the prime minister of bringing in a “two-tier” tax system. The Tory leader denied reports, however, that she had agreed to the same concession when she was business secretary.The prime minister defended the deal on Wednesday, telling MPs at PMQs it was a “huge win” for the UK. Other senior Tories have also praised the deal, including Steve Baker, Oliver Dowden and Jacob Rees-Mogg, the latter of whom said it was “exactly what Brexit promised”.British officials say they have been surprised at the willingness of the Labour government to sign agreements which have been on the table for years but previously rejected by the Conservative government.With economists having recently downgraded the UK’s growth outlook, Starmer is understood to have decided to sign deals such as that with India, even though they do not include a number of British demands, such as increased access for services.One source said the approach was to clinch a less ambitious agreement and use that to build a fuller economic partnership in the coming years. More

    • 163 Shares63 Views

      in US Politics

      No Way Out: the 1987 thriller that prophesied a deeply corrupt US government

      by

      In 1987 – right before he became the biggest movie star in the world with a five-year hot streak that included Field of Dreams, Dances with Wolves and The Bodyguard – Kevin Costner headlined two films that offered very different visions of America. The Untouchables assembles a group of plucky misfits to dole out frontier justice against those who would seek to extort the American dream – it’s brash, gung ho and morally transparent. A guaranteed classic.Far more interesting, though, is No Way Out, Roger Donaldson’s 1987 political potboiler that’s equal parts pulpy spectacle and damning critique of the US project. Functioning as a bridge between the conspiracy flicks of the 70s and the erotic thrillers of the 90s, the film starts with a sex scene in the back of a limo (complete with a perfectly timed cutaway to the Washington Monument) and ends with an unforgettable flourish.Adapted from Kenneth Fearing’s 1946 book The Big Clock (which also became a 1948 film), No Way Out transports its source novel’s action from a New York magazine house to the beating, bloody heart of cold war-era Washington.A baby-faced Costner plays Lt Cmdr Tom Farrell, a navy golden boy summoned to DC to work for the secretary of defense, David Brice (RIP Gene Hackman, fully stepping into his late-career “craven bureaucrat” mode). Brice’s special counsel/whipping boy Scott Pritchard (Will Patton, chewing every piece of available scenery as a textbook 80s “evil gay”) wants Farrell to help them derail an overly expensive stealth submarine program (shades of Aukus).The problem is that Farrell is in love with Brice’s kept woman, Susan Atwell (an infectiously delightful Sean Young, turning a potentially thankless role into the emotional centre of the movie). They happily continue their incredibly horny, incredibly doomed affair under Brice’s nose, until – spoiler warning – Brice learns that there’s another man in Atwell’s life and and lashes out.View image in fullscreenThis prompts Pritchard to go full Iago as he concocts a plan to get his boss off the hook. What if Atwell’s other lover was a long-rumoured Russian mole, codename: Yuri? What if the investigation into the attack on her became a Soviet witch-hunt instead? And what if their new dogsbody, Farrell, was in charge of the case? This is the ingenious narrative engine that propels the rest of the film: Farrell was at Atwell’s that night, right before Brice, making him the prime suspect in his own investigation. With all five walls of the Pentagon closing in on him, Farrell has to sabotage the manhunt and find the real villain before he’s framed.Donaldson (a Ballarat boy done good!) is one of those uber-reliable journeyman directors Hollywood doesn’t make any more; guys you wouldn’t recognise if you passed them on the street but whose films you’ve watched a thousand times at 11pm on 7mate: Cocktail, Species, Dante’s Peak, Thirteen Days. No Way Out is highly competent entertainment but it also portrays a deeply corrupt US forever at war with both the world and itself – a nation where people are thrown under the bus at a moment’s notice to protect the vested interests of powerful men. Perhaps the only thing more impressive than No Way Out’s airtight thriller structure is its profoundly cynical view of US institutions – an outlook that feels almost radical in hindsight, given the chest-beating, self-congratulatory air of so much other Ronald Reagan-era Hollywood fare.You can understand why The Untouchables went on to become a jewel in the crown of Costner’s filmography while No Way Out has sat there, largely forgotten, for close to 40 years. In 2025, though, it’s clear which version of the US rings truer, right down to a defense secretary accused of sexual assault (not to mention those damn submarines). Ten years ago I would have considered parts of No Way Out painfully outdated – today it feels almost too close to the bone.

      No Way Out is streaming on Amazon Prime in Australia, the UK and the US. For more recommendations of what to stream in Australia, click here More

    • 125 Shares46 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump announces 100% tariffs on movies ‘produced in foreign lands’

      by

      Donald Trump on Sunday announced on his Truth Social platform a 100% tariff on all movies “produced in Foreign Lands”, saying the US film industry was dying a “very fast death” due to the incentives that other countries were offering to draw American film-makers.In his post, he claimed to have authorised the commerce department and the US trade representative to immediately begin instituting such a tariff.“This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat,” Trump said in the Truth Social post. “It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!”“WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!” Trump added.Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick posting on X said: “We’re on it.” Neither Lutnick nor Trump provided any details on the implementation. It was not immediately clear whether the move would target production companies, foreign or American, producing films overseas.Film and television production in Los Angeles has fallen by nearly 40% over the last decade, according to FilmLA, a non-profit that tracks the region’s production. At the same time, governments around the world have offered more generous tax credits and cash rebates to lure productions, and capture a greater share of the $248bn that Ampere Analysis predicts will be spent globally in 2025 to produce content.Politicians in Australia and New Zealand said on Monday they would advocate for their respective film industries, after the president’s announcement.Australia’s home affairs minister Tony Burke said he had spoken to the head of the government body Screen Australia about the proposed tariffs. “Nobody should be under any doubt that we will be standing up unequivocally for the rights of the Australian screen industry,” he said in a statement.New Zealand prime minister Christopher Luxon told a news conference the government was awaiting further detail of the proposed tariffs. “We’ll have to see the detail of what actually ultimately emerges. But we’ll be obviously a great advocate, great champion of that sector in that industry,” he said.The announcement from Trump comes after he triggered a trade war with China, and imposed global tariffs which have roiled markets and led to fears of a US recession. The film industry has already been feeling the effects of the tariffs, as China in April responded to the announcements by reducing the quota of American movies allowed into that country.China is the world’s second largest film market after the US, although in recent years domestic offerings have outshone Hollywood imports.Former senior commerce department official William Reinsch, a senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said retaliation against Trump’s foreign movies tariffs would be devastating.“The retaliation will kill our industry. We have a lot more to lose than to gain,” he said, adding that it would be difficult to make a national security or national emergency case for movies. More

    • 213 Shares140 Views

      in US Politics

      The rule of law in Trump’s America and what it means for Mel Gibson’s guns – podcast

      by

      Archive: ABC News, Face the Nation, CBS News, CNN, PBS, NBC News, Fox News, WHAS11
      Buy a ticket to the Guardian’s special event, looking at 100 days of Trump’s presidency, with Jonathan Freedland
      Send your questions and feedback to politicsweeklyamerica@theguardian.com
      Help support the Guardian. Go to theguardian.com/politcspodus More

    • 200 Shares198 Views

      in US Politics

      Home Alone 2 director says he fears he will be deported if he cuts Trump cameo

      by

      Film-maker Chris Columbus says he has come to regard Donald Trump’s cameo in his movie Home Alone 2: Lost in New York as “an albatross” that he wishes to remove.But, Columbus added, he fears the president’s administration would deport him if he followed through with nixing the scene from more than 30 years ago.“It’s become this curse,” Columbus told the San Francisco Chronicle in an interview published Monday. “It’s become an albatross for me. I just wish it was gone.”Though born and raised in the US, the San Francisco resident of Italian ancestry said he worried he would “have to go back to Italy or something” if he erased the cameo.Columbus’s comments – made in advance of a tribute he is scheduled to receive at the 68th San Francisco international film festival on 26 April – revisited a controversy that began in 2020, toward the conclusion of Trump’s first presidency. The director of both Home Alone films told Business Insider that Trump’s cameo in the 1992 sequel was a condition of being able to film inside New York’s Plaza hotel, which Trump owned at the time.Trump, best known at that time as a real-estate development tycoon, “did bully his way into the movie”, Columbus told Business Insider, describing how the cameo was on top of a fee. He claimed Trump told him: “The only way you can use the Plaza is if I’m in the movie.”In late 2023, less than a year before he became president for the second time, Trump went on his Truth Social platform and accused Columbus of lying. He said Columbus’s team was “begging” him to make a cameo and that it ended up being “great for the movie”.Columbus opted against immediately responding to those claims from Trump. Yet in Monday’s interview, the director made it a point to say: “I’m not lying. … There’s no world I would ever beg a non-actor to be in a movie. But we were desperate to get the Plaza hotel.”According to Columbus, his instinct was to cut the cameo and regrets that he changed his mind after viewers at a screening in Chicago “cheered … and cheered and … thought it was hilarious”.“I never thought that was going to be considered hilarious,” Columbus said, referring to the seven-second scene in which Trump gives star Macaulay Culkin’s character directions on the Plaza Hotel. “It’s become this thing that I wish … was not there.”The idea of removing Trump from Home Alone – which made $359m (£280m) to become 1992’s third-highest grossing film – has been tested before.Trump supporters complained in 2019 when a cut of Home Alone 2 screened on Canadian television removed his cameo. Then, in early 2021, Culkin himself said he was “sold” on the concept of digitally removing Trump from the film.Columbus’s remark to the Chronicle that he fretted being ousted from the US if he did trash Trump’s cameo alluded to prominent deportation cases being pursued by the White House.In one instance since he retook the Oval Office, Trump’s administration erroneously deported a man living in Maryland to a mega-prison in El Salvador. And immigration officials under his command have detained academic scholars around the US for deportation proceedings after their support of pro-Palestine protests.The Trump administration has also sought to punish media figures which it considers to have crossed the president. Trump has demanded $20bn from CBS News in a lawsuit over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with his opponent in the 2024 election, former vice-president Kamala Harris. He also sued the Des Moines Register over an Iowa election poll that turned out to be inaccurate.ABC News recently settled a lawsuit with Trump for $15m over incorrectly saying the president had been found civilly liable for raping E Jean Carroll. A jury had actually found Trump “sexually abused” Carroll but had not raped her.“I can’t cut it,” Columbus – whose other blockbusters include Mrs Doubtfire and the first two Harry Potter films – reportedly said of Trump’s cameo.“If I cut it, I’ll probably be sent out of this country. I’ll be considered sort of not fit to live in the United States.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Everything is political’: how film can guide us through difficult times

      by

      From its opening frame, Costa-Gavras’s political thriller Z promises to be an unflinching denunciation of authoritarianism. The kinetic camera work matches its forthright narrative of state-sponsored violence and the erosion of democracy. The Greek expatriate director’s film is loosely based on the 1963 assassination of the democratic leader Grigoris Lambrakis and although it was released in 1969, when Costa-Gavras reigned as a political storyteller, the film still has something to say today in this “golden age” for the United States.In the flurry of Donald Trump’s executive orders, I found myself watching Z again as I contemplated how we arrived at this political moment – the polarization, disinformation, corruption and complicity by individuals and institutions that precede and abet the collapse of democracy – and what cinema can reveal at a time of censorship, deportations and protesters vilified as domestic terrorists.It turns out, that’s a lot.There’s a long tradition of turning anti-totalitarian books into films. George Orwell’s 1984, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 and Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale have been revisited multiple times, confirming the staying power of these cautionary tales in a world where freedom is still dispensable. And there’s also a long tradition of films commenting on totalitarianism. Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator, released in 1940, mocked Adolf Hitler while warning about the dangers of the Führer before the US entered the second world war. I’m Still Here, this year’s Oscar winner for best international feature film, looks at the real-life fallout from Brazil’s dictatorship through the lens of Eunice Paiva’s struggle to discover what happened to her husband Rubens, a former politician who was disappeared by the military in 1971.View image in fullscreenCosta-Gavras has said: “Everything is political.” We can see his point in several films across genres that capture how authoritarianism takes root, the importance of resisting unjust systems and the often-protracted fight for human rights and dignity.Stanley Kubrick’s Spartacus, about a slave uprising in the Roman empire, depicts a hero who fought for the principle of self-determination. Kirk Douglas plays the titular character, a reluctant gladiator who leads the uprising. But the politics behind the 1960 film – and the politics the film represented – are as powerful as the story of the slave revolt. In the hands of screenwriters Dalton Trumbo and Howard Fast, who were blacklisted and imprisoned during the red scare, Spartacus is an allegory for the human right to resist oppressive systems. (The film was based on Fast’s book, written in prison and published in 1951.) In universalizing Spartacus’s desire for freedom, the film-makers echoed the themes of the growing civil rights movement and defended dissent against the censorship of McCarthyism. However, the film isn’t content to leave us with a depiction of heroic freedom fighters. Instead, in its final scenes it highlights the steep price of dissent and the sometimes-protracted struggle for social change. When the uprising fails, Spartacus and his followers are crucified, but his son is born free. The rebellion may be short-lived, but it’s not in vain.V for Vendetta, the 2005 dystopian film based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore, is a less straightforward story of rebellion against an unjust system and more a critique of the role of government and commentary on the power of an idea to incite social change. Set in a future London in the grips of a fascist regime, the film follows V, played by Hugo Weaving, who is determined to destroy the regime and repay its leaders for torturing him. He hides his identity behind a mask of Guy Fawkes, who with a small band of Catholic co-conspirators attempted to blow up parliament and assassinate King James in 1605. The conspirators wanted the Protestant king to be more tolerant toward Catholics. The conspiracy’s failure is commemorated annually. In the final standoff with the regime’s enforcers, V says: “People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people,” a statement that could be a motto and a rallying cry for our times.French film-maker Ladj Ly told the Hollywood Reporter: “I’m an artist, and my job is only to denounce the unjust reality as I see it. I have no solutions. I hope what the film will do is expose the humiliating situations that people are dealing with every day and help more people understand the situation – and why so many of us feel this rage.”View image in fullscreenLy’s acclaimed film Les Misérables, about an uprising against police violence by young Black and Arab men, is set in the segregated banlieues outside Paris. The Siege, a 1998 American film directed by Edward Zwick and co-written by Lawrence Wright, author of The Looming Tower, mines similar territory. The film is set in contemporary Brooklyn where the US military has seized control of the borough after a string of terrorist attacks. The military detains thousands of men of Arab and Middle Eastern descent while people demonstrate for their release outside the barbed-wire fences surrounding the stadium where they are held. Released five years after the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center and three years before 9/11, The Siege is perhaps more relevant now than it was when it premiered. The ongoing deaths in Gaza and the threats of deportation against foreign students demonstrating on behalf of Palestinians give the film an urgency.While aspects of the film seem improbable – given its history of surveillance, it’s doubtful that the FBI would confront the military over defending the constitutional rights of detainees – The Siege dares to have a debate we need to have: what it means to be a patriot. When FBI agent Denzel Washington walks in on commanding general Bruce Willis as a man is being tortured, Washington asks, exasperated and outraged: “Are you people insane?” The ensuing argument between the men about the relationship between patriotism and the US constitution could be richer, but at least the film knows the issue must be debated.As Ly says, film, like art, can reflect and shape reality. Not surprisingly, Z was a favorite of the Black Panther party, which screened an advanced print at a national anti-fascist conference. The Panthers, whose members were surveilled and killed, saw their story in the film. In the climax of Z, everyone involved in exposing the truth about the murder of the populist leader is imprisoned, killed or exiled. And as the military cracks down on free speech, a list of banned words and activities, from freedom of the press to labor unions, continuously scrolls behind the television news anchors announcing the decrees. In its disturbing epilogue, Z reminds us of a universal truth about authoritarians that we can’t afford to ignore: to succeed they must first control information. More

    • 225 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Dear Disney: don’t cave to Trump. We need you to shape dreams for kids everywhere | Jeff Yang

      by

      I remember the moment I truly recognized the power Disney has to move young hearts and minds.It was when I attended a sneak preview of Disney’s adaptation of the Chinese legend of Mulan, about a young woman who disguises herself as a man and takes up her wounded father’s sword to defend her nation.I enjoyed the movie, with its combination of swashbuckling, slapstick and show tunes. But as I filed out of the theater, what I saw hit me like a fire-dragon rocket: two blond, apple-cheeked siblings, probably under the age of eight, leaping and sparring and loudly arguing over the right to pretend to be the movie’s main character, Mulan. A boy and a girl, neither of them Asian, both so enthralled by the film’s Chinese protagonist that they each aspired to be her.It reminded me that Disney doesn’t just tell stories; it shapes dreams, creating heroes iconic enough to inspire young kids to imagine and be more, and providing empowering figures that enable people from different backgrounds to see themselves – and one another.It’s still staggering for me to think that Mulan, a story from China with a gender-blurred title role, was greenlit, made and released in 1998 and is now broadly accepted alongside Bambi as a timeless animated classic – especially now that Maga has announced it’s coming after the House of Mouse, with the apparent objective to make sure that nothing like it is ever made again.On 27 March, the Trump-appointed Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair, Brendan Carr – a dead ringer for Who Framed Roger Rabbit’s mirthless toon-terrorizer Judge Doom – sent a letter to Disney’s CEO, Bob Iger, informing him that he had directed the agency’s enforcement bureau to begin an investigation into Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies.Carr stated that he wanted to ensure that Disney had not been “promoting invidious forms of DEI discrimination”, calling out as examples the company’s employee affinity groups, its “Reimagine Tomorrow” multicultural showcase and especially the company’s “inclusion standards”, a set of goals that aim to increase the number of characters from underrepresented groups to half of the regular and recurring roles on its TV network, ABC.It’s hard to explain why any of these are “discriminatory” or “invidious”; voluntary employee-led clubs – which have no restrictions or requirements for membership – are discriminatory? A website featuring remixes of Disney songs sung by artists of color and explanations of how to sign “Mickey Mouse” in ASL is invidious? Even the “inclusion standards” are just broadly aspirational objectives, which could be met in any number of ways: Disney’s definition of “underrepresented groups” includes women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, disabled persons and military veterans.But the mere threat of the investigation has triggered Disney to begin a cautious reframing of some of these initiatives. The Reimagine Tomorrow site is gone, and now points to a generic inclusion page headed by the message: “At Disney, we want everyone to belong and thrive.” The company’s business employee resource groups have been redubbed “belonging” employee resource groups.Carr’s letter makes it clear that mere semantic shifts won’t be enough, demanding that Disney’s policies be “changed in a fundamental manner”. And while Carr cites “equal opportunity rules” and the need to ensure “fair and equal treatment under the law”, it’s obvious that he won’t be satisfied until Disney changes the one thing that the FCC is restricted from regulating by the US constitution: its content.View image in fullscreenOf course, the first amendment prevents the government from infringing on freedom of expression, except in very narrowly delimited ways. Where the FCC is concerned, the only way it can impose its will on a creative company’s storytelling choices is if they are obscene, indecent or profane or contain dangerous disinformation. So the agency can’t just demand that Disney stop making shows about Asian princesses or Black superheroes or Latina anthropomorphic automobiles.Yet that’s just what Carr is doing – using the back door of equal employment opportunity to claim that by casting people who aren’t straight or white or male in its movies and TV programs, Disney is unfairly withholding employment from straight white males. And unless Disney is ready to announce Timothée Chalamet as the new Black Panther, which, thank God, it isn’t, targeting the studio’s ability to hire diverse talent is a deliberate attempt to force it away from making diverse stories.That would spell business disaster for Disney.Yes, the studio has had its share of flops, which the Maga mob has blamed on multicultural casting – including, most recently, its unfairly pilloried live-action remake of the 1937 animated masterpiece Snow White, starring Rachel Zegler, whose mother is Colombian. The film, made on a $240m budget, has so far earned just $142m at the box office, its prospects poisoned by controversy over Zegler’s advocacy on behalf of Palestine and racist backlash over her Latina heritage from online creeps.But similar attacks were also levied against Disney’s The Little Mermaid remake, starring the African American actor Halle Bailey as Ariel, and that film was a box-office success and global streaming blockbuster. It also made the storyline relevant in new ways to young women – which makes sense, given that Disney’s goal with its remakes isn’t simply to photocopy the past, but to extend and refresh it, reaching untapped audiences of the present and emerging markets of the future.If that means they sometimes swing and miss in the short term, in the long run it all evens out, because Disney doesn’t actually plan their business by quarter or year – they blueprint it by age bracket. Their franchises are designed to be evergreen and intentionally aligned to “graduate” kids up a ladder of content: girls go from Muppets to Disney Fairies to Disney princesses to Disney’s Descendants. Boys go from Cars to Pirates to Star Wars to Marvel superheroes. The ultimate goal is to ensure that there’s something for every stage of growing up until young adulthood arrives and their fans become parents themselves, allowing Disney to earn money across the consumer life cycle, generation after generation.And every generation of Americans is more diverse. Baby boomers were 29% people of color. Gen X, 41%. Millennials, 46%, gen Z, 50%. The youngest rising cohort – those born after 2012, and currently squarely in Disney’s prime target demo – is officially the first to be “majority minority”, with kids of color making up a full 52% of gen Alpha.Whatever Trump’s mandate may be, Disney’s demographic mandate should be stronger. The company defiantly and successfully resisted attempts by Ron DeSantis to strong-arm it into ending its diversity practices in Florida. While Trump’s flying assault is coming from a higher top rope, the Mouse should still be mighty enough to fend it off and roar back.Disney’s incentive will be what it always has been: making money. But for diverse communities, the positive manifestation of Disney’s profit motive has been that kids growing up today know what it feels like to be mirrored in the media they consume, with all of the psychological and emotional benefits that confers.I’ve seen this first-hand, as someone who grew up in an era nearly devoid of Asian representation in Hollywood, and who went through the bizarre experience of having my elder son, Hudson Yang, star in the first hit TV series focused on an Asian American family. To this day, Hudson still receives surprise hugs from people who grew up tuning into Fresh Off the Boat once a week, and wide-eyed stares from kids who have discovered it years later through TikTok clips and streaming reruns.The network that aired the show for six seasons, beginning in 2014? Disney’s ABC, a decade before inclusion standards existed and before Maga was around to protest them. And that gives me optimism that Disney will keep doing what it has done so well for generations, regardless: give children from a wide array of backgrounds an answer – “now and here” – to the question in Mulan’s signature ballad: “When will my reflection show who I am inside?” More