Source link

Source link

Source link

In a move that reeks of hypocrisy, the former US vice president, Kamala Harris, has reportedly held a private call with the New York City Mayor — the candidate she refused to back.

After Zohran Mamdani’s sweeping endorsement wins in the New York districts, Harris allegedly reached out to beloved Zohran Mamdani and discussed the future of the Democratic Party. 

Axios also added that she had established contact with several Palestinian advocacy groups in the past year, including members of the Uncommitted movement. 

This interaction puts into perspective the failures of the Democratic Party and corporate liberalism as a whole. Meanwhile, Harris’ olive branch gesture smacks of insincerity. 

Kamala Harris and Mamdani’s history

Before the New York City election, Harris had vehemently refused to endorse Mamdani for mayor. While her not-so-secret phone call may appear to bridge the political gap, it’s duplicitous. 

However, peering beneath the bonnet, one will find a hefty catalogue of hypocritical actions and utterances from Harris.

Remembering that this is the same Kamala Harris who screened the Israeli propaganda film “Screams Before Silence” in the White House and spent her campaign telling Palestine organizers to get in line while touting support for the Israeli colony. No rehabilitating that. https://t.co/AkBAwIHdAd

— James (@GoodVibePolitik) July 1, 2026

During the 2024 election, Kamala and her supporters focused their energies on the pro-Palestine camp and other minority groups pushing for better policies. They were treated with contempt, vilified and sidelined from the political debate. 

At the time, Biden’s presidency had also drawn ire from many due to his staunch support of Israel and its genocidal conduct. Kamala would follow suit, expressing her “pride” in supporting an occupying force. 

Dozens of activists and voters spoke out, urging Kamala to stand by what’s right. And in response, Kamala accused them of wanting a Donald Trump presidency.

Even when Palestinian-Americans endorsed Kamala’s candidacy, she continued to silence them, as we saw during the 2024 Democratic National Convention. If anything, Harris has consistently weaponised fear of a Trump presidency — acting as if she was owed the public’s vote regardless of her unpopular policies.

Even when she lost the election, she continued to blame Palestinians and leftists, stating: 

The issue was not binary, but the outcome of this election certainly was…

Kamala Harris lost because representation politics couldn’t mask her terrible campaign

Kamala Harris makes a U-turn

Her latest attempt to establish inroads with Palestinian activists and a democratic socialist critic of Israel, reeks of a power play. 

It seems obvious now with Mamdani gaining increasing popularity that left-leaning policies haven’t lost their appeal in capitalist America. This is the likely motive for Harris’ U-turn and changing her alliances in preparation for a potential 2028 presidential run. 

Harris didn’t lose in the 2024 presidential election because of “white leftists”. She lost due to her lack of conviction, plummeting popularity, and ‘Israel-first’ stance. Plus, her political flip-flopping. 

She has persistently backed practices and policies that deliver the greatest benefit to her. During her time in politics she’s switched from being as left-leaning as Bernie Sanders then later boasted about her endorsement from war criminal, Dick Cheney. 

During a CNN interview, Harris spoke of the importance of “differing” political views, stating that “it would be to the benefit of the American public to have a member of my Cabinet who was a Republican”. 

That’s the same political camp whose authoritarian agenda Harris has criticised — the same individuals backing a Christo-fascist state.

Odd, given that Harris has described republican Trump as a “petty tyrant” and urged ordinary Americans to “reject the schemes of wannabe dictators”. 

In other words, Harris appears capable of throwing anybody’s rights under the bus to maintain political relevance. This ultimately speaks to a greater issue in the Democratic Party and moderate liberalism in general.

Democrats vs Themselves

Outside of Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ reaction to Mamdani’s so far successful campaign and administration reveals the true issues of the party and corporate liberalism. Despite the NYC mayor being one of the most popular Democratic politicians to-date, his party seems strangely against him. 

Mamdani’s soaring popularity, and that of the Democratic Socialist Party (DSA) has frequently been criticised and downplayed by the Democrats. Many of the obstacles preventing the DSA from enacting its most popular policies comes from within its own house, not from the Republican Party. 

Despite claiming to be powerless in response to Trump’s fascist-leaning administration, the Democrats have shown they can block any anti-capitalist policies.

The contradiction is clear as day.

Many voters saw Democrats spend the 2024 election campaign warning that Trump posed a serious threat to democracy, only to then accept his return to power without any serious challenge. Combined with the party’s ability to block left-wing policies while appearing unable to stop the right, this fuelled speculation among some that the Democratic Party functions as a form of “controlled opposition”.

Some have even speculated that the Democratic Party represents “controlled opposition”.

Remembering that this is the same Kamala Harris who screened the Israeli propaganda film “Screams Before Silence” in the White House and spent her campaign telling Palestine organizers to get in line while touting support for the Israeli colony. No rehabilitating that. https://t.co/AkBAwIHdAd

— James (@GoodVibePolitik) July 1, 2026

I think the explanation is much simpler.

Establishment liberals

Republicans and corporate Democrats, and — by extension — conservatives and establishment liberals, ultimately serve the same interests.  Lest we forget, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has funded and lobbied millions of dollars to both the Republican and Democratic party. 

Despite both parties claiming separate ideologies and political priorities, they pander to corporate donors and by extension, capitalism as a whole. This is because both conservatism and corporate liberalism work to preserve the bigoted, capitalist system.

The priorities of parties like the Democrats, and even the UK’s Labour, is to maintain corporate power, which requires support and funding from the Israeli ethno-state. Massive companies can then accumulate power and usher in  bigoted laws that cement this status-quo. 

In many ways, the Democratic establishment is fighting a battle inside its own party, to quash openly socialist policies that threaten the capitalist hierarchy in America.

The people want change

Statistical evidence indicates that the majority of NYC residents who voted for Mamdani had previously voted for Trump, which implies another underlying possibility. While the concept of voting for a far-right politician and then a democratic socialist mayor may seem absurd, it offers a glimpse into Americans’ hearts and minds, who appear to want change.

The data not only shows that 66% of democratic voters have positive views on socialism. Polling also suggests the majority of Gen Z do also —and that’s no mistake. 

My generation having to start adulthood in the trenches of late-stage capitalism has made us more prone than ever at recognising how corporations and greedy elites are controlling our lives, and finances. But even those who don’t recognise this are suffering as a result of wealth inequality. This is why moderate liberalism has lost its luster. It exists to preserve a system that even the average citizen recognises is broken. 

Liberal centrism is pushing more people away and increasing those who yearn for radical change. The political right has capitalised on these frustrations, appealing to those feeling disillusioned. 

Parties on the left need to change

People are sick of the Israel-first agenda, and corporate bootlicking politicians who won’t change a thing. If Mamdani’s campaign in New York City teaches us anything, it’s that elected politicians must uphold their promises of radical change. The Democratic Party is no exception. 

If we on the left want to fight against the rising conservatism in the Western world, we must not only provide the truth about the system crushing people, but promise a true positive change.

If progressives want to continue on, the next step is clear. We must disregard establishment and corporate liberalism, when we can, and speak to a strong and conviction-driven political movement.

The Democrats prove that, even with divisive or opposable views, we will gain more favour than having no convictions at all.

Featured image via Julia Nikhinson/ AP Photo

By Olaitan Mos-Shogbamimu

Source link

We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI — prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.

If you’ve been on earth for, well, the past couple of months, you’ll know the struggle of trying to put even an inch of makeup on your face in the heat.

Not only do I find myself sweating before I even begin doing my makeup, but by the time I’ve left the house, there are already significant patches missing.

Advertisement

That is, unless I remember to put my primer on that day – and this year, I’ve been on a mission.

While I usually wear the same makeup everyday and hope for the best, I’ve made it my sole purpose to find a primer that actually keeps everything intact this year, and I think I’ve finally done it.

With the help of the rest of the HuffPost team, I’ve hunted down 6 of the best primers to shop right now, and there’s one for every kind of skin type or makeup look you could want.

Best primers to shop now

Advertisement

e.l.f. Power Grip Primer + 4% Niacinamide

Best for extra grip

If you’re a glowy makeup kinda person, the last thing you want is for your primer to leave you looking dull in the name of staying power.

According to our audience editor, Hannah, this e.l.f. is the best of the best for keeping your makeup intact as you sweat – and it’s suitable for all skin types.

Not only is it extremely grippy, but this formula is loaded with niacinamide to add a dose of brightness to your skin.

Advertisement

Our top tip? Follow the instructions and wait the 30 seconds for it to dry before continuing with your face.

Hannah Ballantyne/HuffPost

Beauty Pie Super Healthy Skin Sunscreen + Primer

Best SPF primer

Let us put you on to a hack that will save a whole step in your skincare routine: SPF primer. We’re busy gals, so there’s nothing better than a two for one skincare product that actually works.

And this primer certainly ticks all the boxes. As well as helping to protect against inflammation and sun damage (confirmed; our parenting editor has never had a burn while wearing it) it also adds an injection of grease-free glow to your skin. Best of all, it doesn’t clog pores.

Advertisement

Illamasqua Mini Beyond Veil

Look Fantastic

Best for glowy skin

Want to look like la luna in the darkness? Well, this primer from Illamasqua will do the job, according to our lifestyle writer Amy, who swears by this for natural-looking radiance that catches the light even at night.

It might come in a small pot, but a little goes a long way, because you only need a little to cover your whole face, and it sits sheer on the skin.

Makeup Academy Pro/Base Grip Fix

Best budget primer

I don’t even want to think about the total cost of my makeup bag – shudder. Even though I always try to get things on a budget, the makeup always ends up piling up, which is why saving on primer is always a good idea.

Advertisement

This one comes highly recommended from our audience editor, who again says it provides lasting grip even during the sweatiest of days – and for just £5.50. No complaints here.

Hannah Ballantyne/HuffPost

Benefit Porefessional Pore Primer

Best for matte skin

After that 90s matte effect? Benefit has you covered – literally, because this primer spreads like butter across the skin. Without the grease of course, because it leaves your skin looking as uniform and shine-free as a sheet of A4 paper.

Not to mention the fact it doesn’t crease, and it’s ideal for long hot days when you’re not convinced your base layer isn’t going to slide right off your skin. I’ve been using this for years and it’s not failed me yet; I even use it under shimmery eyeshadow because I feel like it provides a strong foundation to keep everything in place.

Advertisement

Honey Jane Wyatt/HuffPost

Vieve Super Skin Nova

Best hydrating primer

There’s a reason this primer has five stars: it’s hydrating enough to keep your skin quenched for up to 48 hours. Loaded with ingredients like ceramide, arginine, and panthenol, it doubles as a moisturiser and primer, and feels like literal velvet as you smooth it across the skin.

I have rosacea, so I often get red flakiness around my nose and cheeks, but using this primer keeps my skin feeling and looking fresh all day, and makes my pores disappear almost entirely.

It’s also full of light-reflecting pigments, so I always reach for it on those days when my skin looks dull and I need a little pick me up.

Advertisement

Honey Jane Wyatt/HuffPost

Source link

According to new polling from Ipsos, the British public see the Green Party as the true anti-establishment party:

The Green Party is most likely to be on the side of "the people" (39%), followed by the Liberal Democrats at 33% and Reform UK at 28%.

The Conservative Party is most likely to be seen as on the side of "the establishment" (62%) https://t.co/YY0tJovzBR pic.twitter.com/Wi3MLCweSe

— Ipsos in the UK (@Ipsos_in_the_UK) July 14, 2026

Green Party: for the people

The above polling tells us a few interesting things:

• Pretty much no one thinks the Tories are a party of ‘the people’ – only 13% of voters. The Tories still attract around 20% of the national vote share, which is interesting, because it shows many Tory voters don’t give a sh*t about ‘the people’ (who could have guessed?).
• Voters think the Liberal Democrats are more anti-establishment than Reform UK.
• More voters think Labour are pro-establishment than pro-people.

Reform UK’s polling is particularly interesting, because the party explicitly sells itself as ‘anti-establishment’. As we’ve reported, Reform UK is basically just the Tories with a harder stance on migration, which is why all the former Tory donors have flocked to it.

Reform MP Robert Jenrick, a former Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Housing Secretary, health minister and immigration minister, tells @BBCr4today: "We are not mainstream politicians, we are politicians who are fighting the establishment every single day."

— Kevin Schofield (@KevinASchofield) July 14, 2026

While Reform’s loyal supporters have bought the ‘anti-establishment’ shtick, the broader public has not. This explains why more national voters want Count Binface to win than Nigel Farage in the Clacton by-election. Reform has certainly built up a base of support, but in doing so it’s polarised the rest of the electorate against it, leaving the party vulnerable to tactical voting.

Reform certainly manages to attract a lot of attention with its anti-establishment crusading. The problem is the pushback that comes with this attention:

"The Met police are investigating half a million pounds worth of donations made to [Reform] before the last election by Fiona Cottrell. Now she's an aristocrat, she's said to have dated Prince Charles in the 1970s.."

Tell me again how Reform aren't part of the establishment. pic.twitter.com/5AisUPhpD3

Advertisement

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) July 10, 2026

Your enemy arrives by private jet not a small boat.

Farage literally is part of the establishment.

Advertisement

Never Vote Reform pic.twitter.com/dxSuCTwsXC

— Socialist Opera Singer (@OperaSocialist) April 17, 2026

“For the people”

Reacting to the polling, Zack Polanski said:

The party for the people. And the planet.

As we’ve reported, the Green Party does actually have policies which would benefit the broader public, including:

• Wealth taxes.
• Renationalisation.
• Maximum workplace temperatures.
• Plans to restore British high streets.
• Rent controls.

Reform UK, meanwhile, are offering little besides endless whining about Black and Brown people – all to distract from infinite tax cuts for their mates.

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

While diplomats in Washington smile for triumphant group photos, the reality on the ground in southern Lebanon reveals an unbridgeable chasm between political theater and human devastation.

Covering the frontline return of families to the border region, I see no celebration; only the hollowed-out expressions of a traumatized population navigating a conditional surrender. Entire villages have been erased into toxic, ordnance-littered rubble, and a systematic ecocide has left ancient olive groves and agricultural fields poisoned and charred.

By completely omitting accountability and Israeli reparations, the Washington-backed agreement ignores this profound structural violence, leaving an abandoned community entirely alone to rebuild their lives on an active minefield.

Israel’s refusal to retreat

This devastation is not a past event, but an ongoing campaign. Israeli violations continue unabated, with military forces actively demolishing residential neighborhoods in towns behind the designated “yellow line” – a wide area Israel has occupied and continues to destroy, under the vague promise of a future withdrawal.

History shows that Israel never relinquishes land peacefully, and the developments on the ground suggest a far more permanent calculus, similar to that from the period between 1982 and 2000.

Navigating this terrain requires moving through an active zone of erasure, where the line between ceasefire and ongoing aggression is blurred to the point of irrelevance. In border hubs like Khiam, Bint Jbeil, and Aitaroun, the silence is broken not by the sounds of reconstruction, but by the continuous, controlled detonations of Lebanese homes.

Simultaneously, the occupying military is constructing fortified bases on strategic high ground, including the infamous hilltop of the former Khiam prison and in Maroun Ras. These systematic actions prove that the true objective remains the permanent displacement of the population rather than any localized security arrangement.

Lebanon’s treacherous ‘agreement’

For the returnees I speak with in towns bordering the “yellow line”, the physical loss of their homes is compounded by an overwhelming sense of systemic and deliberate abandonment by the Lebanese government. They are forced to watch the structural undoing of their society in real time, fully aware that both the international community and their own local government have signed off on a framework that legitimizes their dispossession. The framework celebrated abroad has merely institutionalized the occupation’s violence. This omission is not a diplomatic oversight; it is a structural choice that sanitizes mass expulsion under the guise of international statecraft.

Furthermore, the agreement codifies an asymmetric standard of sovereignty that fundamentally compromises Lebanon’s territorial integrity. While the terms demand immediate compliance and restrictions on Lebanese self-defense, they simultaneously grant a unilateral, tacit mandate for continued Israeli tactical oversight. We see the real-world manifestation of this imbalance every day. By prioritizing political optics and the security demands of the attacking force over the fundamental human safety of the local population, the diplomatic framework leaves southern Lebanon under a shadow of perpetual vulnerability, transforming what should be a sovereign homeland into a heavily monitored, conditional buffer zone.

The privatisation of survival

To walk through the ruins of these villages is to witness the absolute privatization of survival. With no international frameworks for reconstruction and a state apparatus heavily restricted by the very terms it signed, the crushing weight of recovery falls entirely on the shoulders of individuals who have already lost everything.

I watch elderly men and young families clearing heavy, toxic concrete chunks with their bare hands, salvaging shattered pieces of furniture from homes split wide open. There is rarely any heavy machinery convoys or specialized cleanup crews arriving to neutralize the unexploded ordnance, which has already caused several civilian deaths – like the man who had a booby trap explode in his excavator in Mansoury in the first week of July, killing him instantly – there is only the quiet, desperate determination of a community left completely to its own devices.

This reliance on local resilience is born out of necessity, not choice, and it highlights a profound, long-standing neglect by the Lebanese state. Yet, despite the invisible toxins in the air and the active demolitions still echoing from neighboring ridges, the influx of returning families continues.

This stubborn reclamation of space is an act of defiance against a framework designed to displace them permanently. They are moving back into garage skeletons, pitch-black basements, and makeshift tents pitched next to cratered fields, choosing to live on a minefield rather than accept the permanent exile engineered for them in distant capitals.

A dangerous diplomacy

Ultimately, the agreement brokered in Washington – Tel Aviv’s closest ally – exposes a dangerous truth about modern diplomacy: a “peace” that demands no accountability, no reparations, and no structural justice is simply a pause in overt violence.

By shielding the occupying force from the financial and legal consequences of its scorched-earth campaign, the international community has codified a deeply unjust precedent. This deal does not resolve a crisis; it merely locks the region into a state of manufactured vulnerability, ensuring that the threat of renewed aggression remains a permanent fixture of daily life.

As dusk falls over the border, the stark contrast of this conflict remains as sharp as ever. Thousands of kilometers away, the group photos from the signing ceremonies have already been archived and celebrated as a diplomatic triumph.

On the ground, however, a returning family sits outside the shell of their home, boiling water over an open fire amid the chalky rubble. Their horizon is defined by blackened olive stumps and the looming shadow of conditional sovereignty. They have reclaimed their land, but they have been forced to build their future on a toxic, unexploded foundation and left alone to survive a peace that’s been signed as a surrender.

Featured image via the Canary

By Mohamad Kleit

Source link

Source link

I quit drinking when I was 26, when my firstborn was 18 months old, but before I got pregnant with my second child.

I wasn’t drinking every day, but every time I started drinking, I couldn’t stop. Hangovers would leave me crushed with nausea and anxiety for days at a time, until the next failed attempt to moderate.

There was no rock bottom or arrest, no DUI or ruined relationship that signalled the need to quit. It was a personal choice I made, based on how my relationship with alcohol was affecting me and my mental health. Eventually, it became clear that alcohol no longer deserved a place in my life.

My kids have never seen me drunk or hungover. My oldest was too young to remember what it looked like for me to fail horribly at moderation, commit to sobriety and then fail again, then learn how to be sober. They only know me as their mother who doesn’t drink alcohol.

Advertisement

My husband is a “normal” drinker, which is to say that he is able to drink without it having an overwhelmingly negative effect on his mental health. He was supportive when I told him of my decision to quit.

Still, when I quit drinking, we had to navigate some changes in our relationship. First of all, if I wasn’t drinking anymore, what in the world were we supposed to do on date night? We met in college and drinking is, quite literally, what we did.

Did the beginning of my recovery signal the end of our marriage? Once we were able to confirm that it didn’t, we had honest conversations around what I needed from him as a partner to feel secure and respected in my sobriety.

I never expected my husband to quit with me, and I’m pretty sure he never even entertained the idea that he might. My husband continuing to drink was never triggering for me.

Advertisement

We set up a few boundaries regarding alcohol in the house (no signage on the walls, no glassware in the kitchen, move it to the garage) and got on the same page regarding how alcohol and sobriety would be discussed in our home, and with our kids, who are now 5 and 2.5.

Because my husband still drinks regularly, we acknowledge alcohol in our house without villainising it. My kids know they can always drink out of my water bottle or have a sip of my cran & seltzer at the pool, but their dad’s drink might not always be fair game.

“Daddy’s drink has alcohol in it,” I tell them. We also talk openly and honestly about why there isn’t alcohol in my drink. “Mommy doesn’t drink anymore because it’s not good for her.”

Over three years of trial and error, we’ve found these boundaries to be the most helpful for me and my sobriety, the most impactful in our family, and hopefully the most beneficial for our children.

Advertisement

First, we don’t advertise alcohol. The very first thing I did when I quit drinking was remove any beer, wine, whiskey or shot glasses from the kitchen cabinets and take down my wine-themed decor. All alcohol-themed decor or knick-knacks (magnets, cups, signage, etc.) were taken down. This quickly extended to clothing as well. (The “natural light” onesie we were gifted barely got halfway out the bag before my resolute “No.”) I also had my husband move all the alcohol out of the fridge in the kitchen and into the garage fridge.

One of the biggest “parenting turn-offs” for me is when I see parents posting pictures or videos of their kids involving alcohol. I’ve seen babies holding beer bottles, and I’ve seen tweens “practicing” beer pong.

Since removing myself from alcohol culture, I see this as problematic since, in my sober opinion, it normalises and glamorises drinking culture as aspirational. Beyond not taking pictures of the kids with alcohol in them, we also put down our own drinks (NA or not) when we take pictures without the kids.

Last summer we were at the lake with some family. It was the classic lake-day-with-kids setup – a semicircle of chairs, coolers stuffed with water, juice boxes, snacks, and drinks (both alcoholic and NA), and an explosion of sand toys in the middle. My husband asked his mother to get him a beer out of the cooler. She pulled out a can and asked my two-year-old to “hand this to your daddy, please”.

Advertisement

My husband held our family boundary on my behalf when he quickly said “No need to involve her,” and reached across the circle to take the beer can from his mom himself.

Photo Courtesy Of Sydney Allen

We are mindful of how we talk about drinking. For instance, beer is beer, not “daddy juice”. Last year, a neighbour referred to a High Noon as “juice” to my son. I shook my head, and said, “It’s beer.” (I know a High Noon is technically vodka, not beer. But to my five-year-old, any alcohol is “beer”. And it definitely isn’t juice.)

At dinner that night, I explained that some adults think it’s fun or silly to call beer “adult juice”. He couldn’t understand – and quite frankly, neither can I – why another mom would say something was juice (something he can have) if it was beer (something he can’t).

I was lucky to not be exposed to problematic drinking behaviour or obvious alcoholism growing up. But alcohol and drinking culture was the norm. Both my parents drank; there was always beer in the fridge for dad and wine in the cabinet for mom. My developing mind concluded that drinking alcohol is standard for adults.

Advertisement

It does the kids no good for us to ignore alcohol, but it would also do them no good – and it would be a disservice to my own sobriety – if we approached alcohol with the same nonchalant attitude that I witnessed when I was younger.

My husband and I try to be aware of how we (and others) talk about alcohol as a coping mechanism or a treat. “I need a drink” has turned into “I would like to have a drink.” Alcohol isn’t something “for adults,” but rather something you have to be an adult to do.

We don’t allow alcohol to affect our plans as a family. The whole family should not be waiting on my husband to finish a drink at a restaurant or pour a drink at home. Our children should not feel like they are waiting on adults to get settled with a drink before they can be tended to.

Hangovers, infrequent as they may be, also don’t affect our plans. My husband is well aware of the expectation that we have a full day, no matter what time he went to bed the night before. This seems to mostly be motivation enough not to drink himself into a hangover.

Advertisement

We are honest with our kids about the ways alcohol affects our bodies. When my kids ask why I don’t drink if daddy does, I often say, “I used to, but it made my heart hurt.” I didn’t identify as an alcoholic before I quit drinking, so I didn’t find it helpful to say I had an illness or that my body works differently.

In sobriety, I’ve begun to identify as an addict, which I will explain to my kids when they’re older. When it is age appropriate, I will explain that I had no “off-switch” with alcohol. This led me to experience an all-consuming anxiety and guilt each time I drank.

Beyond my body’s personal reaction to alcohol, we are open with our kids about the fact that alcohol is a drug. It is not healthy nor a “good” thing to do, but many adults still choose to drink it. It is, mostly, a personal choice.

My goal with this approach is not to convince my children that they should or should not drink alcohol. My goal is to give them the education, the self-confidence and the critical thinking skills to make the decision they know will be best for themselves.

Advertisement

Yes, alcohol is bad for you. But drinking alcohol doesn’t make you a bad person. Many people drink alcohol, but that doesn’t warrant the celebration it often gets in homes across the nation.

Growing up steeped in drinking culture – even the normalisation of alcohol – can make it difficult to see through the fog. I just want my kids to grow up and know there is another option, because their mom showed them.

Do you have a compelling personal story you’d like to see published on HuffPost? Find out what we’re looking for here and send us a pitch at pitch@huffpost.com.

Source link

The cast and crew of The Odyssey have made no secret of the fact that shooting Christopher Nolan’s new epic was an especially grueling experience.

And in a new interview with The Telegraph, the Oscar-winning filmmaker has shared just how much his actors were put through their paces on set.

While making The Odyssey, Nolan opted to shoot on location using practical effects as much as possible, rather than relying on sound stages and CGI.

As a result, the shoot took the director and his troupe of actors to Scotland’s Moray Coast, where they shot a scene on board a recreation of a 115-foot Norse warship in the middle of a storm.

Advertisement

The conditions led to many of the shoot’s extras experiencing seasickness, which gave the Oppenheimer filmmaker an idea.

“Excuse me,” the outlet quoted him as saying. “But would you mind if we get the vomiting on camera?”

“Credit to them, they said, ‘Absolutely, bring it on’,” he recalled. “They were really game for it.

“And that day ended up being fabulous as well as miserable; it yielded some of my favourite shots in the film.”

Advertisement

Matt Damon leads The Odyssey as its central hero, Odysseus, with the film follows his journey home to Ithaca at the end of the Trojan War.

Last month, the Ocean’s Eleven star opened up about just how gruelling the shooting could get, telling GQ: “The joke on the crew was we didn’t have a single easy location. Every time we’d go somewhere, we’d be like, ‘Well, Iceland will be easier’. And then it’s raining sideways and it’s fucking freezing. Iceland was like, ‘Yeah, easy? Hey, hold my beer.’”

Even though the last days of filming took place on a lot in Los Angeles, Matt admitted that even this came with its problems.

“Sure enough, we showed up [to the set in LA] and Chris has two jet engines blowing so much water at us,” he explained. “So it was kind of a fitting end.

“Even the controlled environment was cold, wet, and a little bit miserable.”

Advertisement

Meanwhile, his co-star Robert Pattinson agreed that he had “never seen people look so exhausted” before beginning his work on The Odyssey, which finally sales into cinemas on Friday 17 July.

Source link