Film

Subterms

    Latest story

    200 Shares18 Views

    ‘These guys are idiots’: Sean Penn and Dustin Lance Black call out government’s Harvey Milk erasure

    by

    Sean Penn, the Oscar-winning actor of the 2008 Harvey Milk biopic Milk and Milk writer Dustin Lance Black have spoken out against US defense secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision to remove the gay rights icon’s name from a navy ship.“This is yet another move to distract and to fuel the culture wars that create division,” Black told the Hollywood Reporter in a phone call on Wednesday. “It’s meant to get us to react in ways that are self-centered so that we are further distanced from our brothers and sisters in equally important civil rights fights in this country. It’s divide and conquer.”Penn, who won his second best actor Oscar for playing the former San Francisco supervisor, added in an email: “I’ve never before seen a Secretary of Defense so aggressively demote himself to the rank of Chief PETTY Officer.”The order to rename the USNS Harvey Milk, christened in San Diego in 2021 for the prominent gay rights and navy veteran, was part of an internal memo that was leaked on Tuesday. The Pentagon’s chief spokesperson confirmed that the ship’s new name “will be announced after internal reviews are complete”.The timing of the decision for mid-June, a month meant to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community, was reportedly intentional. The renaming is supposed to ensure “alignment with president and SECDEF objectives and SECNAV priorities of reestablishing the warrior culture”, referring to Donald Trump, Hegseth and navy secretary John Phelan, according to the memorandum.“Secretary Hegseth is committed to ensuring that the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the commander in chief’s priorities, our nation’s history and the warrior ethos,” the Pentagon said in a statement.“These guys are idiots,” Black told the Hollywood Reporter. “Pete Hegseth does not seem like a smart man, a wise man, a knowledgeable man. He seems small and petty. I would love to introduce him to some LGBTQ folks who are warriors who have had to be warriors our entire life just to live our lives openly as who we are.”Milk, written by Black and directed by Gus Van Sant, depicted Milk’s political ascendancy in San Francisco, where he became the first publicly gay man to be elected to public office when he won a seat on the city’s board of supervisors. He was assassinated along with mayor George Moscone by former city supervisor Dan White in 1978. White was convicted on two counts of voluntary manslaughter and served just five years in prison.The USNS Harvey Milk was initially named in 2016 during the administration of Barack Obama. According to the leaked memo, Phelan is also considering new titles for vessels named after such civil rights icons as Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Harriet Tubman and Cesar Chavez.“Harvey Milk is an icon, a civil rights icon, and for good reason,” Black said. “That’s not going to change. Renaming a ship isn’t going to change that. If people are pissed off, good, be pissed off – but take the appropriate action. Do what Harvey Milk had said we need to do, and it’s about bringing back together the coalition of the ‘us’-es that helps move the pendulum of progress forward. Stop the infighting and lock arms again. That’s what Harvey would say.” More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares187 Views

      in US Politics

      Michelle Obama 2.0 – the reinvention of the former first lady

      by

      Hello and welcome to The Long Wave. This week, I review Michelle Obama’s new podcast, IMO, which is surprising in the ways it breaks with the Michelle of the past.I came to sneer – and stayed to cheerView image in fullscreenFirst, a disclaimer: I had never fully bought into the Michelle Obama hype. I felt her now legendary line “When they go low, we go high” encapsulated a troubling and complacent form of respectability politics, in which Black people have to maintain coolness and grace under fire to be taken seriously. As the first lady, Michelle often seemed like a sanitising presence, wheeled out so that her national treasure status could serve as a smokescreen to obscure more honest and damning assessments of Barack Obama’s political record.Also, I am not a huge fan of the celebrity podcast genre, which is a vehicle for high-profile figures to chat to their friends in return for huge pay packets. So I was sceptical when Michelle’s podcast was launched in March. Yet when I listened to it, I was immediately charmed and hooked. In truth, I came to sneer and stayed to cheer. She is honest, reflective and vulnerable in ways that are profoundly resonant of a universal Black female experience, something that her icon status had rarely spoken to previously. The irony is that just as Michelle is finding her voice, her popularity appears to be falling – the podcast received poor ratings on launch, though it’s arguably the best thing she’s ever done.A great orator has the conversation of her lifeView image in fullscreenThe most arresting thing about IMO, despite the genuinely interesting high-profile Black guests such as Keke Palmer and the Wayans brothers, is Obama herself. She has always been one of the great orators in US politics – one of the superpowers that made her and Barack, another impressive public speaker, such a compelling couple on the world stage. In her podcast, Michelle uses this talent to reflect on her life and the challenges of ageing, losing her parents and the constant demands placed upon her.The fact that she co-hosts the show with her brother, Craig Robinson – a genial and down-to-earth foil for her confessions – gives the podcast such an intimate air that you feel like you’re in the presence of everyday people, not celebrities. I found myself listening not to hear any snippets of political gossip or insight into the Obamas’ lifestyle, but to receive some exceptionally articulated wisdom from an older Black woman who has seen a lot and gone through milestones we will all experience.She is also funny. Her account of how differently men and women socialise is familiar and hilarious. Michelle describes catching up with her female friends as a “multiday event”, something that leaves Barack perplexed as to why it takes two days for a basic meetup.There is pathos and uncertainty, too. In a recent episode, Michelle talks about the death of her mother, who lived in the White House during the Obamas’ tenure. Michelle says that, at 61, only now does she feel that she has finally become an adult, having had to reckon with her own mortality after the loss of her parents. The former first lady has revealed that she is in therapy, and that she is still trying to navigate this phase of her life.And, in a striking segment, she speaks with barely restrained annoyance about her reasons for not attending Trump’s inauguration, an absence that triggered divorce rumours that have been swirling for months. She says “it took everything in [her] power” to choose what was right for her in that moment. Yet that decision was met with “ridicule” because people couldn’t believe she was saying no to the inauguration for any other reason than she just did not want to be there – they had to “assume my marriage was falling apart”. Oof. It caught my breath.Beyond Black Girl Magicskip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionView image in fullscreenThis Michelle is worlds away from the Michelle of the 2010s. The publishing juggernaut and icon of Black social mobility, who rose to first lady from a bungalow in the south side of Chicago, was the product of a particular moment in feminist and racial discourse.The start of that decade brought the rise of Black Girl Magic, a cultural movement that focused on the exceptional achievements and power of Black women. It intersected with Black Joy, which moved away from defining the Black experience primarily through racism and struggle. Both unfolded against the backdrop of “lean in” feminism, which glorified hard graft, corporate success and having it all. The result was the marketing of women such as Michelle to promote popular narratives of inspiration and empowerment.That energy has since dissipated, losing steam culturally and overtaken by more urgent battles. The gains of the Black Lives Matter movement triggered a rightwing backlash against diversity and inclusion that is spearheaded by Trump. Now the Obamas seem like relics of a naively optimistic and complacent time.‘We got out of the White House alive – but what happened to me?’View image in fullscreenBut all that change and disappointment seems to have freed Michelle from the expectation that she should project graceful power and guru-like wisdom at all times. The podcast may not be the runaway hit it might have been 10 years ago, but that speaks to its authenticity and refreshing lack of a cynical big marketing campaign. Michelle is not trying to catch a moment – she even looks different. Gone is the silk-pressed hair, the minimalist jewellery and the pencil dresses. She now embraces boho braids, long colourful nails and bold gold jewellery. In an episode of IMO, she asks herself: “What happened that eight years that we were in the White House? We got out alive; I hope we made the country proud. But what happened to me?” There is so much urgency in her voice. And though her high-octane political experience may not be relatable to the average person, that question is one that I and many women of a certain age are asking as we emerge, blinking into the light, from the tunnel of navigating racism, establishing careers against the odds and having families. What happened to me?To receive the complete version of The Long Wave in your inbox every Wednesday, please subscribe here. More

    • 138 Shares154 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s Hollywood ambassador Jon Voigt joins coalition asking for tax incentives

      by

      Donald Trump’s Hollywood ambassadors, including actor Jon Voight, joined labor unions and major studios in asking the US president to expand and extend tax incentives for film and television productions.In a letter addressed to Trump on Sunday, the studios and unions did not mention his threat to introduce 100% tariffs on films made abroad, but instead thanked him for supporting the industry through their “shared goal” of domestic production.“We appreciate and thank you for the support you have shown our industry. We also appreciate your understanding of the need to increase domestic film and television production to bring back American jobs,” the letter read.The letter also calls for Trump to back three tax provisions in the upcoming budget reconciliation bill being drafted by Congress that it argues would “immediately make America more competitive, expand the American media industry, brings jobs back to America, and support the independent spirit of American business”.They include reviving section 199 of the tax code, which provided deductions for manufacturing to film and TV production, expanding section 181 to double to $30m in production expenditures, and restoring the section 461 ability to allow companies to carry back their net operating losses.The letter was signed by the Motion Picture Association, which represents Hollywood studios, and unions including Sag-Aftra, the Writers Guild of America, the Directors Guild of America, the Teamsters, as well as Voight and actor Sylvester Stallone, two of Trump’s so-called “special ambassadors” to Hollywood.There is no mention of Trump’s tariff proposal on foreign film production, which sparked outcry and confusion in the entertainment industry. The White House has since insisted: “No final decisions on foreign film tariffs have been made.”Trump announced his 100% tariff on foreign films a day after a meeting with Voight at Mar-a-Lago, during which the Midnight Cowboy and Heat actor presented his “comprehensive plan” to “make Hollywood great again”.Voight has since defended Trump’s proposal and expressed surprise at the negative reaction from across the industry, arguing: “Something has to be done, and it’s way past time.” More

    • 113 Shares177 Views

      in US Politics

      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

    • 163 Shares168 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 Shares99 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 Shares169 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 Shares99 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 Shares169 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