Connect with us

News

This Fall, the Women Are the Ones to Watch at the Movies

Published

on

This Fall, the Women Are the Ones to Watch at the Movies

The pleasures of writer-director Jon Watts’ crime caper Wolfs are numerous: George Clooney and Brad Pitt play dueling fixers called in to clean up the accidental death of a young, adorable student—prior to his demise, occasioned by his jumping on a hotel bed, he’d been picked up by high-powered district attorney Amy Ryan in a bar. Clooney and Pitt have reached the age where they know it’s useless to pretend they’re something they’re not. Their faces look handsomely lived in; the whispers of gray in their artfully sculpted chin stubble feel honest and earned. Like Lucy and Ethel in the throes of a falling out, they’re fun to watch as they bicker and crab at one another, leaning heavily on their silver-fox charm. Still, what they’re offering feels as comfy as the worn-in leather jackets they wear. And in this late-2024 movie season, if you find yourself wishing for something more—for another view of what actors in the 50-to-60-ish age bracket can do—look to the women, who insist on pushing themselves out of the comfort zone rather than settling into it.

Demi Moore in Coralie Fargeat’s horror-of-aging black comedy The Substance, Nicole Kidman in Halina Reijn’s May-December sizzler Babygirl, Tilda Swinton and Julianne Moore in Pedro Almodóvar’s moving and provocative The Room Next Door: These big-name movie stars are pushing into new territory rather than just riffing on whatever may have made them appealing 10, 20, or 30 years ago. That’s a luxury no actress can afford, and these women know it.

Like lots of us, I will always love looking at guys: that includes Clooney and Pitt in Wolfs, both of whom are settling nicely into perfectly age-appropriate handsomeness. But as I watched Clooney’s character drive around nighttime New York with the silky strains of Sade’s 1980s hit “Smooth Operator” floating from his car stereo, it occurred to me that guys can afford nostalgia; women need to be modern every minute, or they risk being left behind. I also realized that months after first seeing Moore’s performance in The Substance—a movie that isn’t, overall, even very good—I’m still thinking about the shaky limb she crawled onto. There are no shaky limbs in Wolfs, though there are some creaky joints, and an Advil joke—because aches and pains are a thing men can joke about, charmingly, while women who do the same run the risk of coming off as crotchety old complainers.

Brad Pitt and George Clooney filming Wolfs Apple TV+

Read more: The 33 Most Anticipated Movies of Fall 2024

In The Substance, Moore plays Elisabeth Sparkle, an aging movie star who—like Moore herself—has kept herself in fabulous shape. She’s also doing more than OK, hosting a popular 1980s-style exercise show. But she gets the sense that her boss, a leering Dennis Quaid, is looking to replace her with a younger model. Then she catches wind of a revolutionary new injectable known as The Substance, which stimulates the creation of a younger, and supposedly in all ways better, clone. The trick is that the original and the clone must switch roles every seven days, without exception, via some sort of mystery infusion. Elisabeth can’t resist giving The Substance a try, though she’s not prepared for how much she comes to resent her youthful, nubile clone, played by a vapidly effervescent Margaret Qualley.

Advertisement

The Substance devolves into a senseless jumble of body horror that panders to its audience rather than challenging it. Even so, Moore’s performance is naked and fearless in all ways. The years from 50 to 60 can feel perilous for women: men in that age bracket are often (though not always) viewed as more powerful and sexy than ever. Women can feel that way too, but the radical hormonal adjustments that hit during that period—amidst other challenges that might include raising kids, a marital breakup, or striving to remain relevant in the workplace—usually mean they have to fight harder for their confidence. In The Substance, we see Moore fighting that battle and looking great—but when her sense of self-esteem flags, as it does while she’s getting ready for a date with a nice guy, an old schoolmate who’s asked her out, we see how easily those undermining inner voices can triumph over us. At first, she looks at herself in the mirror and likes what she sees: she’s put on an amazing red going-out dress that looks sexy without trying too hard. But she can’t help comparing her fifty-something self to the younger Qualley version. She redoes—and in the process overdoes—her makeup. She wraps a massive scarf around her neck, clearly obsessed with wrinkled skin that only she can see. Moore turns Elisabeth’s increasing desperation into a hamster-wheel frenzy, and though she plays it for laughs, not pathos, you feel its power over her. In the end, Elisabeth spends so much time fussing with her appearance that she misses her date. It’s the finest, subtlest scene in a movie that’s largely a mess—but Moore gives it her all.

The Substance
Demi Moore in The SubstanceCourtesy of Cannes Film Festival

It’s true, too, that all actors in their 50s and beyond pour a great deal of effort and money into preserving their good looks. We know that Clooney and Pitt surely benefit from, at the very least, the best skin care money can buy. But one of the unfair double standards of biology is that men often look better when they’re a little weatherbeaten; unless women fix up in some way, even if that just means moisturizer, concealer, and lipstick, they often end up fielding backhanded noncompliments like “You look tired.” You can argue that we shouldn’t care at all—of course, we shouldn’t. But to some degree, most of us do, and you can’t blame actresses, whose faces are subject to constant scrutiny, for caring even more.

In Babygirl—which opens in the States on Christmas Day—Nicole Kidman plays Romy, a married past-middle-aged executive who becomes involved with a much younger intern, played by Harris Dickinson. He doesn’t gaze into her soul so much as stare right into the heart of her unspoken sexual desires—he’s got a kind of intuitive erotic clairvoyance. This both rattles and thrills her; his attentions become a drug she can’t kick. All the while, of course, you’re looking at Kidman, with her marble visage, and thinking, Well, thanks to any combination of money, cosmetic intervention, time at the gym, and good genes, she’s perfectly gorgeous. Why wouldn’t any character she plays land the hot young guy?

But that line of thinking misses the point. Kidman plays Romy’s fears and insecurities as free-floating, all-powerful forces that are divorced from how great she looks. Though beauty and money may make life easier, they can’t solve every problem, and an expectation of happiness is often the very thing that kills its possibility. Kidman’s performance in Babygirl shows that principle in action. Romy has no reason to believe that her handsome, attentive, theater-director husband (played by Antonio Banderas) shouldn’t automatically make her happy. So why is she miserable? People often act surprised when Kidman gives a fearless performance—how quickly we forget that, in Lee Daniel’s The Paperboy, she once peed on a jellyfish-stung Zac Efron. But that may be one of her secret gifts: her ladylike façade is a shell that she herself cracks again and again, and somehow, we’re always surprised by what she chooses to reveal.

Read more: 15 of the Sexiest Movies You’ve (Probably) Never Seen

Advertisement

Admittedly, we tend to reflexively lament the lack of serious roles for “older” actresses, though in a perfect world, those actresses would be able to make their share of old-school crime capers, as the boys do. Now and then we get one, a la Ocean’s 8, though most of our so-called serious actresses (even when they’re great at getting laughs, as Meryl Streep has always been) tend to put comedy on the back burner until their golden years. It’s our over-70 actresses—Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin, Diane Keaton—who seem to be having more fun with that genre. Maybe that’s because those actresses are long past the point of having to prove themselves. And performers in their fifties, particularly but not only women, may still feel they have so much to prove.

Even so, there’s pleasure to be found even in the most serious subjects. Pedro Almodóvar’s The Room Next Door—opening in the States in late December—is adapted from a 2020 Sigrid Nunez novel, What Are You Going Through, and stars Tilda Swinton as Martha, a woman suffering from terminal cancer who enlists a long-lost friend, Julianne Moore’s Ingrid, to help her die on her own terms. That sounds like a downer if ever there were one. But if Almodóvar is sometimes a serious director, he’s never a morose one—there are always strata of joyousness in his movies, and The Room Next Door is no exception.

The Room Next Door
Julianne Moore and Tilda Swinton in The Room Next DoorEl Deseo, photograph by Iglesias Mas

Moore’s Ingrid is a mildly high-strung writer; at first, she balks at taking on the responsibility of helping her friend with this seemingly unsavory task. But as the two women spend more time together, she frees herself of the gravity of this mission and comes to see it as a way of helping Martha take flight. Swinton’s Martha, an accomplished war correspondent who has also raised a daughter on her own, moves through the movie like an Earthling who’s been in space for a long time, only just now realizing what it means to truly touch ground—she’s like a version of Bowie’s homesick alien in The Man Who Fell to Earth, though the home she’s moving toward is a truly final resting place.

Yet this last leg of her journey—one that Ingrid, with all her fluttery-butterfly energy, will partly share with her—isn’t an inconsequential one. She’s stepping out of own adventure and into another, and because this is Tilda Swinton, she looks great doing so: even as her illness takes its toll, she wraps herself—with the help of Almodóvar’s magic wand of color—in rainbow hues that reinforce all the possibilities of life. Maybe this movie is a caper, of sorts, though it’s a caper with a capper. No one gets out of this world alive. The entreaty of The Room Next Door is to use every second wisely, and to help others as best you can. That’s a lot for a movie, and a duo of actresses, to carry. But these two pull it off, literally, with flying colors.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Business

Titanic builder Harland & Wolff races to keep its shipyards alive

Published

on

Five years since its last rescue and only months before the start of work on a Royal Navy contract that was supposed to secure its future, Harland & Wolff, the builder of the Titanic, is on the rocks again.

An ill-focused strategy and galloping costs pushed the insolvent parent company into administration this week, putting 1,200 jobs at four yards and one of the most illustrious names in British shipbuilding on the line.

The clock is now ticking in the race to find a buyer — or buyers — for the 163-year-old Belfast operation and yards in England and Scotland in an effort to keep vital defence contracting in the UK.

Trevor Taylor, director of the defence, industries and society programme at the think-tank Royal United Services Institute, said the choice of H&W for the Royal Navy contract “was always a giant risk given the minimal labour force and limited manufacturing infrastructure that they had in place”.

Advertisement

An “effective rescue” of the four yards, he added, was needed to “maintain any credibility for the National Shipbuilding Strategy”.

Despite the cash flow problems at the parent company, H&W had been expanding the historic Belfast shipyard and its apprentice scheme in readiness for a traditional steel-cutting ceremony early next year to mark the start of work on three Royal Navy ships — the first vessels to roll down its slipway in over two decades.

The £1.6bn Fleet Solid Support (FSS) contract, secured in 2022 by a consortium led by Spain’s Navantia — and involving final construction and assembly at H&W’s Belfast yard — had appeared a lifeline for the ailing shipbuilder.

Belfast, dominated by H&W’s famous yellow cranes, is receiving most of the £77mn of FSS investment and is expanding its main fabrication hall.

Advertisement
H&W cranes
The Belfast yard, which employs some 600 has two of the biggest dry docks in Europe and its cranes dominate the Belfast skyline © Charles McQuillan/FT

A global giant in its early-20th century heyday and once Northern Ireland’s largest employer, the flagship Belfast yard finally looked set to emerge from decades of decline that had been exacerbated by stiff competition from cheaper Asian competitors and other, better-capitalised UK defence contractors.

But analysts say the firm, which was rescued from administration in 2019 by energy infrastructure group InfraStrata, lost its way and ran out of cash.

“The costs built up at a much quicker rate than the revenue came in,” said interim executive chair Russell Downs, an experienced restructuring expert.

Unaudited results, published in July, showed revenues more than tripled to £87mn in 2023 from the year before, while operating losses more than halved to £24.7mn. But interest costs rose 50 per cent to £18.4mn. 

H&W bought three more yards after its rescue by the then CEO John Wood — Appledore in Devon in south-west England plus Scottish facilities at Methil in Fife and Arnish in the Hebrides — and pivoted to a range of energy, renewables and cruise liner refurbishment operations, as well as non-core activities such as a Scilly Isles ferry.

Advertisement

A probe is now under way into allegations of “misallocation” of £25mn and other spending for “little or no corporate benefit”, underlining H&W’s weak financial oversight. No one has been named or wrongdoing established.

Harland & Wolf is one more headache for the UK’s new Labour government as it battles industrial crises ranging from British Steel in Scunthorpe and Tata Steel in Wales to the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland and Thames Water in south-east England.

Its refusal to grant a key £200mn loan guarantee in July, which could have enabled H&W to unlock cheaper funding, left the London-based parent company scrambling for finance. US lender, Riverstone, which had already lent H&W $115mn, granted an emergency $25mn loan in August. Most of this has already been spent, according to people briefed on the situation.

H&W Apprentice Ethan Baxter, 18
Apprentice Ethan Baxter, 18, joined H&W in Belfast three weeks ago: ‘I have heard there will be new buyers. I’m not worried’ © Charles McQuillan/FT

The shipbuilder was by then “insolvent — and not a little bit insolvent, but a lot insolvent”, Downs said. H&W’s failure to clinch the government facility sealed its fate. “It went wrong because [H&W] got turned down and they had no fallback,” he said.

Freddy Khalastchi, business recovery partner at consultancy Menzies, said H&W had been hobbled by cash flow problems since 2019 — possibly in part because of the Covid pandemic — and never turned a profit.

Advertisement

Downs announced this week he was appointing Teneo as administrator and hoped to sell the four yards together within weeks.

Only the Belfast yard, which employs some 600 and has two of the biggest dry docks in Europe, and Appledore are involved in the FSS contract.

“Clearly the purchaser’s main target will be the jewels in the crown [Belfast and Appledore] because of the income the FSS contract generates and also because of the future opportunities this could bring,” said Khalastchi.

Buying H&W might make the most sense for Navantia, analysts say — fuelling union fears that shipbuilding and jobs could be lost to Spain, leading to job losses in Northern Ireland, one of the poorest parts of the UK.

Advertisement

The consortium led by the Spanish state firm clinched the FSS contract two years ago after beating an all-UK bid that included defence contractors BAE Systems and Babcock International​​. All three declined to comment on their interest in buying all of H&W or just the Belfast yard.

Kate Forbes, Scotland’s deputy first minister, has noted the “economic opportunities” for the Methil and Arnish yards and a global defence contractor has expressed interest in acquiring the Scottish business, according to one person briefed on the situation, declining to identify the company.

H&W’s collapse is a blow to attempts by successive governments, most recently in 2022, to forge a national shipbuilding strategy that would deliver a steady pipeline of work to yards across the country. 

But the Labour government has defended its decision on the loan guarantee, blaming its Conservative predecessors for dragging its feet.

Advertisement

“In some ways, we were lucky that the first big decision we were handed was such an obvious basket case,” said one Labour figure. “There were plenty of red flags around it and it was a clear-cut decision not to go ahead with the loan guarantee.”

Francis Tusa, analyst and editor of the Defence Analysis newsletter, said the shipbuilding strategy had several “disjoints” from the start. Aside from a lack of money, it proved difficult to foster competition while at the same time promising a viable domestic warship industry with work for all yards.

A worker cycles by the dry docks at Harland & Wolff  in Belfast
Unions who occupied the Belfast site for nine weeks in 2019 before its £6mn rescue were concerned their hard-fought victory will have been in vain © Paulo Nunes dos Santos/Bloomberg

Despite the uncertainty, some workers in Belfast said the mood was “nothing like 2019” when the company previously filed for insolvency.

Apprentice Ethan Baxter, 18, who joined H&W in Belfast three weeks ago was also hopeful. “I have heard there will be new buyers. I’m not worried.”

But unions who occupied the Belfast site for nine weeks in 2019 before its £6mn rescue were concerned their hard-fought victory will have been in vain.

Advertisement

“I was involved in 2019 when we literally just refused to give up — and you know, we would do the same again,” said Susan Fitzgerald, Irish secretary of union Unite, which represents most of the workers in Belfast and Appledore.

“We want to hear that our members’ jobs and skills are safe for the next generation. We don’t want someone coming in squandering that opportunity.”

Navigating choppy waters

© Universal History Archive/Getty Images
1861

Harland and Wolff is founded by Edward Harland and Gustav Wolff in Belfast

1912

The company’s most famous ship, Titanic, sinks on its maiden voyage from Southampton to New York

1975

H&W nationalised after decades of decline amid rising competition from Asia

Advertisement
1989

H&W returns to private ownership in a management buyout backed by Norwegian industrialist Fred Olsen

2003

Anvil Point, the last ship built in Belfast, is launched

2018

Norway’s Dolphin Drilling, formerly known as Fred Olsen Energy, puts H&W up for sale

aug 2019

H&W files for insolvency after Dolphin Drilling files for bankruptcy

Advertisement
Oct 2019

UK energy infrastructure group InfraStrata, led by John Wood, agrees to buy H&W for £6mn.

2023

H&W is part of consortium led by Spain’s Navantia that is awarded £1.6bn Royal Navy contract to build 3 support ships

Jul 2024

Government rejects £200mn loan backing

Aug 2024

US lender Riverstone agrees emergency £25mn loan. As a condition, Wood departs to be replaced by Russell Downs who disposes of non-core assets

Advertisement
sep 2024

Company is declared insolvent and administrators appointed

Source link

Continue Reading

News

The Project Censored Newsletter – April 2024

Published

on

Latest Validated Independent News Stories

As we prepare the April newsletter, Project Censored faculty, students, and judges are reviewing the Validated Independent News stories the Project received in 2023-2024. Students participating in the Project’s Campus Affiliates Program identify, vet, and summarize important but under-reported independent news stories as part of their hands-on training in critical media literacy.

This year no fewer than 195 students from nine college and university campuses across the United States contributed to this collective effort to raise public awareness of important but under-reported social issues. In turn, these stories become candidates for inclusion in the Project’s acclaimed top “Censored” story list.

Candidate stories for the 2023-24 list include independent reporting on saltwater intrusion threatening drinking water along US coastlines, a drastic increase in workplace deaths in the US during the 2021-2022 census period, and ChatGPT security issues raising significant ethical questions, to name just a few. The story list also highlights the best “solutions” journalism, including, for example, reporting on how in-hospital schools at the University of North Carolina’s Neurosciences Hospital have opened “a road to recovery to address the student mental health crisis and foster school connectedness.”

Advertisement

The 2023-2024 story list will be published in Project Censored’s State of the Free Press 2025, due out this December from The Censored Press and Seven Stories Press. Meanwhile, you can review the full slate of candidates for this year’s Top 25 story list on the Project’s Validated Independent News page.


Project Staff Partnering with the Society of Professional Journalists for Regional Events

Mischa Geracoulis, Allison Butler, and Robin Andersen presented at the Society of Professional Journalists’ Region 1 conference at Emerson College in Boston, April 19-20. Mischa reported, “At a time when public trust in media and the profession of journalism have both taken hard hits, it was a genuine honor to be in the company of longtime professionals unwilling to give up on the Fourth Estate and journalism students eager to dive into a field that does not necessarily come with financial enticements. When keynote speaker at the Mark of Excellence Awards luncheon, Leslie Visser, articulated, ‘If you’re into journalism, truth-seeking is in your DNA,’ she reaffirmed our collective mission.” Special thanks to Adam Sennott of the SPJ New England chapter for organizing the event.

In March, Steve Macek participated in the Chicago Headline Club’s 2024 FOIA Fest, the Club’s annual event, hosted at Loyola University. The event celebrated Freedom of Information Day and public records reporting. Steve also contributed to the Club’s 2024 FOIA Fest Tip Sheet, highlighting best practices for journalists making Freedom of Information Act requests.


Censored Press Happenings

On April 21, 2024, C-SPAN’s Book TV broadcast the Avid Reader event in Sacramento, featuring Mickey Huff, recorded this past February. He discussed major themes and stories from Project Censored’s latest book, State of the Free Press 2024.

Advertisement

Mickey Huff was invited to speak about the state of the free press with Marianne Barisonek on The Progressive Page Turner, out of Sarasota, Florida, on April 10th.

Allison Butler, coauthor of The Media and Me, was interviewed by Arun Rath for a segment on “How Far-Right Activists Co-opt Strategies of the Civil Rights Movement,” broadcast by GBH’s All Things Considered on April 2nd.

The DailyKos’s Good News Roundup for April 12, 2024, written by chloris creator, highlighted The Media and Me as a book “designed to help youth learn how to use the media” while noting that the tools in it “could be used by anyone of any age.” Under the heading, “Let’s Honor Truth,” chloris highlighted the book’s pointers for evaluating news validity.

Mischa Geracoulis and Heidi Boghosian wrote an article for Savage Minds titled Whitewashing Genocide, focused on politician George Latimer and AIPAC campaign financing that aims to mislead voters in New York about the history of genocide and events in Gaza.

Advertisement

Andy Lee Roth read from and discussed The Media and Me at the grand opening of the Methow Valley Authors Library, hosted by Casia Lodge in Twisp, Washington, on April 14th. Special thanks to Methow Arts for sponsoring the event and Greg Wright of the Methow Press for organizing it.


Dispatches on Media and Politics and Other Publications

In Op-Ed Abuse, Mischa Geracoulis and Heidi Boghosian discuss findings from recent studies by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and The Intercept, which document bias in opinion articles on the US economy and Israel’s assault on Gaza, respectively. Geracoulis and Boghosian consider these findings in light of the historical development of the op-ed as a standard newspaper feature, and they call for revitalizing the standards news outlets use to determine the content of their opinion pages.

Truthout featured the latest article by Project Censored Show co-host Eleanor Goldfield, titled Israeli Firms Are Working Overtime to Sell Stolen Palestinian Land to US Jews. As she reports, real estate events held in the United States “peddling land in Israeli settlements in the West Bank appear to flout US and international law.”

Allison Butler and Nolan Higdon explored how educational technologies undermine Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts in their latest article, Ed-Tech’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Deficit: The Galactic Gulf Between Rhetoric and Action. Programs like Turnitin, G Suite for Education, and other surveillance tools compromise the “autonomy of students, teachers, and families and reduce them to data repositories to be mined by Big Tech corporations” rather than improving students’ classroom experience.

Advertisement

The Project Censored Show

Follow the links for each episode to learn more about the Show’s featured guests and content. Find the comprehensive archive of Project Censored Show episodes here.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Does Taylor Swift Want To Be a Genuine US President?

Published

on

Taylor Swift

Imagine cleaning out your basement, finding what appears to be a charming but unremarkable painting, then scratching its surface to discover a Frida Kahlo self-portrait beneath. In 2012, Taylor Swift was a prominent country music artist with crossover appeal, but not a major force in entertainment. Then came the Red album and the genius began to appear. Comparisons with Mozart are now more commonplace and understood, and universities teach courses on her. She occupies the same kind of status as Madonna and Michael Jackson in the 1980s and 1990s and, earlier, Elvis Presley and the Beatles. The Kahlo is now visible. Is there yet another layer?

Swift’s recent endorsement of United States presidential candidate Kamala Harris may conceal more than it reveals. After all, everyone knew her political allegiances lay with Democrats; none of her 284 million Instagram followers or anyone else would have been surprised that she wants Harris to win the forthcoming election. Maybe the endorsement is something more: advance notice that Swift intends to become a political presence in the future. If so, she could run for president in 2028. By then, she’ll be 39 years old. John F. Kennedy was 43 when he was elected in 1960, making him the youngest elected president in US history.

A new day?

Preposterous as it sounds, remember: In May 2015, Donald Trump was known principally for the NBC television show, The Apprentice, which he had fronted since 2004. He’d made his political views well-known, taking out full page ads in The New York Times and The Washington Post criticizing US foreign policy in 1987. In 1999, Trump briefly explored running for the Reform Party’s nomination for president in the 2000 election, though he withdrew.

So when Trump announced his candidacy as a Republican in June 2015, it came as an outrageous surprise. He’d never held political office of any kind. Only one other president had been elected without political experience: Dwight Eisenhower’s background as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe during World War II provided him skills that translated well to the presidency. He served two terms as president, from 1953 to 1961.

Advertisement

Eisenhower was a product of a different age in US politics. Trump is very much part of an age when the US struggles with a political bipolarity: Policy vs passion, logic vs emotion, wisdom vs relatability. Politicians are elected as much for celebrity appeal as leadership capability. Voters seem ready to believe they are much the same thing. How otherwise can we explain Trump’s success in 2016?

Two years after Trump’s election, Oprah Winfrey seemed poised to turn the 2020 election into a showbusiness extravaganza when she said she was “actively thinking” about running for president. At least, that was the inference from her speech at the Golden Globes. “A new day is on the horizon,” she prophesied. In 2018, Oprah was at her persuasive peak. She was arguably the single most influential person in the world and would have made a formidable contender, despite her political inexperience. Oprah was a rare celebrity, praised for her moral authority, venerated for her inspiration and respected for her support to countless women. She seemed kissed with purpose — her destiny was surely the White House.

Trump actually named Oprah as a possible running mate when he was considering putting himself forward with the Reform Party in 1999; it’s doubtful she would have been interested.  She settled into a kind of trusted advisor role, dispensing wisdom and assistance without showing any ambition for power. Today, Oprah has lost her momentum, though her coruscating endorsement of Harris was a reminder of her presence. She remains an interested party.

Celebrity times and celebrity politicians

Traditional politicians like senators and governors have, in recent years, lost immediacy. They project personae and exude authority in a carefully stylized and practiced manner, using the media in almost the same way Bill Clinton (president 1993–2001) or George W. Bush (president 2001–2009) did. By contrast, figures from entertainment know how to make themselves believable. They engage audiences by sharing ostensibly private insights and exchange the experiences that shape or scar them.

Advertisement

Swift, like other celebs, makes no attempt to separate her public face from her private life. She surpasses arguably every artist in history in her ability to share personal experiences through her music. Her fans wax about how her music speaks to them personally with insight and vision. Many of her fans are too young to vote now, but not in four years.

Some readers will think I’ve stumbled Lewis Carrol-like down a rabbit hole leading to a land of magic and strange logic. I remind them that in 2016, Trump secured 304 electoral votes compared to opponent Hillary Clinton’s 227, winning the presidency. He may yet be re-elected. Swift will not feel intimidated by her lack of political worldliness, sophistication or practical knowledge. After all, Trump had none of these benefits.

In 2018, Swift publicly supported Democrats in her home state of Tennessee, causing a surge in voting registrations, especially from young people. It was the first sign of political engagement among her fans. The following year, she spoke out in favor of the Equality Act. In her 2019 music video for “You Need to Calm Down,” she promoted the petition for the act. She was an active supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement as well.

So perhaps it makes sense for her to maintain her positions on the sidelines and encourage advocates, but without risking what could be a damaging misstep. A-listers like Barbra Streisand and George Clooney have stayed in their own dominion while earnestly making their political preferences heard. This would be Swift’s safest choice. After all, you can have too much of a good thing and no one in history has ever been as ubiquitous, audibly as well as visibly. Could audiences just get sick of her?

Advertisement

One of the verities of celebrity culture is that it values change, freshness and novelty. Swift has been on top longer than most. Maybe she recognizes this herself and is already plotting a segue into politics. A more logical move, however, would be to take action. Not that this is without perils: Madonna crashed as spectacularly as she succeeded in cinema. Celebrity times demand celebrity politicians — or politicians who are prepared to greet Oprah’s “new day” and entertain as much as govern.

The sanest thing to happen to the US

In showbusiness, Swift has reached Parnassian heights: astral record sales, unsurpassable box office and unbelievable social media followings. Artistically and commercially, she is at her zenith, cleverly integrating critiques of patriarchy into her songs when she conveys how even unmistakably successful women are still liable to run into misogyny.

But is it all just too trivial? The state of the world is grim and nothing Swift does will change that  right now. But the winds are blowing in her direction: The post-Harvey Weinstein tremors have destabilized patriarchy and the #MeTo movement remains a force. Would Sean Combs have met with instant condemnation and been reassigned as persona non grata were his transgressions known ten years ago? Censured, castigated, deplored, perhaps; but probably not canceled, as he surely will be. The historical privileges of manhood are disappearing.

Will Swift feel like culture-hopping from music to politics? It may be a leap too far, but no one can ignore her unstoppable influence. Much, I believe, depends on the outcome of the November election. If Harris wins, Swift will devote more time to championing her, perhaps closing the distance between herself and the Democrats, but not maneuvering into the political mainstream. If Trump wins instead, Swift may take the leap of faith and embrace the impossible, as giddily disturbing as this sounds today. Given modern America’s history, Swift’s leap could be the sanest thing to happen to the US.

Advertisement

[Ellis Cashmore is the author of The Destruction and Creation of Michael JacksonElizabeth Taylor and Celebrity Culture.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Gordon Brown champions new funding push for global education

Published

on

Stay informed with free updates

An innovative new funding mechanism championed by former UK prime minister Gordon Brown is to provide $1.5bn in low-cost loans to improve education in poorer countries around the world.

The International Finance Facility for Education (Iffed) is set to launch what it described as the largest one-off investment in decades to improve inadequate schooling in response to global education budget cuts.

Advertisement

The initial $1.5bn has been raised through support from governments including the UK, Sweden and Canada, and from philanthropic and corporate backers, who will offer guarantees to underwrite a programme to disburse new loans and grants through leading multilateral financial institutions.

Iffed has signed a first agreement with the Asian Development Bank, and is set to authorise an initial disbursement in 2024 of over $100mn. It has approved 10 Asian countries as being eligible for financing, including Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and Vietnam.

Discussions are advancing with other backers and intermediaries including the African Development Bank and the World Bank.

Many lower- and middle-income countries have cut their education budgets in recent years, and the World Bank has warned of low levels of basic numeracy and literacy — notably in Africa — compounded by further “learning loss” driven by pandemic-era school closures.

Advertisement

An estimated 250mn school-age children are currently not in class, with 800mn of the world’s 2bn children set to leave education without any secondary qualifications. 

International aid is dominated by health projects, while education represents just a small fraction and countries often struggle to demonstrate short-term returns to donors.

Brown, the UN’s global education envoy, told the Financial Times that the “groundbreaking innovation” in international development finance had been years in the making. He spoke after Iffed received an AAA rating from credit agency Moody’s and was graded AA+ by S&P.

Under the programme, multilateral banks lend money to governments of lower- and middle-income countries at a very low interest rate. This is in exchange for commitments to invest the money alongside existing domestic spending on credible national education programmes. 

Advertisement

“People traditionally think of international development in terms of grants or loans,” Brown said. “I think the transformative innovation here is to think not just of guarantees, but how you can leverage guarantees to create the kinds of resources that will never be created in the near future through loans and grants alone.”

He added: “It is shocking that nearly half of all the children on our planet still have no formal schooling. But that can begin to be consigned to history.”

Brown said the model had the capacity to become the “third arm for the development agenda” and was a “vehicle that should be more widely used” across other areas of public policy, such as health.

Donor backing will help to ensure that the new bonds issued by the multilaterals have a high credit rating. So far Canada, Sweden and the UK have committed $342mn in guarantees and paid-in capital and $100mn in grants.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

News

How Kamala Harris Can Craft a Fair Middle East Strategy

Published

on

How Kamala Harris Can Craft a Fair Middle East Strategy

Kamala Harris still has time to change direction on U.S. policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a way that could secure her the presidency, reduce further damage to Washington’s standing internationally, stop what many—including many Jews, Israelis, and Holocaust scholars—have called a genocide in Gaza, and prevent a regional war. At the risk of oversimplification, all she has to do is apply U.S. law, something very on-brand for a former prosecutor.

Eleven months of financial, political, and military support for Israel’s war on Gaza and the West Bank, triggered by the killing on Oct. 7, 2023 by Hamas of around 1,200 people, has dug a deep policy and credibility hole for the U.S. Washington has given Israel more than $14 billion in military aid since then, including 10,000 catastrophic 2,000-pound bombs, and thousands of Hellfire missiles. On Aug. 20, the Biden Administration added another $20 billion for Israel, including 50 F-15 fighter jets, and much more.

So far, Israel has used U.S. intelligence and weapons to free some of the 117 hostages. It has also killed over 40,000 Gazans, a majority of whom were women and children, according to the Hamas-run health ministry, figures the U.S. and U.N. deem credible. Schools, hospitals, aid convoys, foreign aid workers, and journalists have been targeted. And recent Israeli actions in the occupied West Bank have expanded the destruction there. Israel has also launched airstrikes against Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, and Syria, increasing the risk of regional war. Just this week, in a move many see as evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants all-out war, Israel targeted Lebanon in shocking beeper and walkie talkie attacks. All of this has forced otherwise amenable Middle Eastern governments, such as Saudi Arabia, to step back from normalization talks for fear of their own popular uprisings.

Regardless of one’s opinion on Israeli actions and U.S. support for the country, it has come with major consequences. Domestically, a growing number of U.S. officials have resigned in protest, including the State Department official responsible for supervising arms sales to Israel. Hundreds more have protested. Nationwide campus demonstrations have, at very least, manifested a deep rift within the Democratic Party. President Joe Biden has been branded “Genocide Joe” and the backlash against his avowed Zionism contributed to his inability to contest the presidential election because states with large Arab and Muslim populations, like Michigan, were potentially out of reach. Both Biden personally and the U.S. are facing lawsuits for genocide. Terrorism concerns have also spiked, according to the U.S. intelligence community. And, predictably, hate crimes have also spiked against Muslims, Arabs, and Jews. The fatal stabbing of a six-year-old Palestinian American boy near Chicago by his family’s landlord was one of the most horrific examples.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, the U.S.’ feeble efforts to keep Netanyahu in check and negotiate a ceasefire has left it looking weak and clueless, and, to much of the world, on the wrong side of history. This plays out most visibly in international fora. At the April 18, 2024 U.N. Security Council vote to recognize the State of Palestine, the U.S. alone voted no, with the justification that it “believes in the two-state solution.” The vast majority of U.N. member states have recognized Palestine.

Read More: The West Is Losing the Global South Over Gaza

The U.S.’ blind support of Israel is also damaging other priorities. For example, refusing to hold Israel to international norms is making it harder to leverage those same norms against Russia. U.S. support for the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) indictments of Russian leadership for atrocities in Ukraine is utterly inconsistent with its refusal to acknowledge the Court’s jurisdiction when it comes to possible arrest warrants of Israeli leaders over atrocities in Gaza. This has drawn accusations of hypocrisy and emboldens countries the U.S. is at odds with, such as Russia and China. China, for one, has in recent years become involved in Middle East peace initiatives, which some analysts see as evidence of eroding U.S. dominance in the region.

Into this tragic mess walks Kamala Harris. But there is still time for her to forge a better path, atop the cresting wave of Democratic enthusiasm for her candidacy. And she can do this without picking a side, without either abandoning Israel or supporting its conduct in Gaza. The solution is simple: All candidate Harris or a future President Harris has to do is apply existing U.S. laws and policies to Israel instead of continuing to carve out exceptions.

Advertisement

Without speculating on her social justice views or personal convictions as a multi-racial American woman married to a Jewish American lawyer, it is clear that Harris is campaigning on her record as a prosecutor and lawmaker. She has consistently presented herself and her values as both humane and pro law-and-order. She is also explicit that she wants to be positive about the future and unshackled by the past, including, presumably, Biden’s record on various issues. Taking a more balanced approach to Israel only requires adhering to these same goals and principles.

There has been extensive analysis of the many ways the U.S. bypasses its own laws on Israel. All Harris needs do is stop this. For example, the Leahy Law, named after former Senator Patrick Leahy, prohibits the State and Defense departments from funding or training foreign military units or individuals if there is credible information (not proof) that they have committed gross human rights violations. There is abundant evidence of Israeli military violations. The Biden Administration has even acknowledged that Israel likely used U.S.-supplied weapons to violate international law. This has given rise to a sense of “impunity” in Tel Aviv, according to former U.S. officials. Senator Leahy himself has decried the problem: “The law has not been applied consistently, and what we have seen in the West Bank and Gaza is a stark example of that.”

Similarly, various U.S. laws prohibit the sale and transfer of some weapons to foreign governments for various national security and human rights reasons. The Arms Export Control Act requires that countries getting U.S. military aid use it only for legitimate self-defense and internal security. The Foreign Assistance Act prohibits aid to any government that “engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” The Genocide Convention Implementation Act codifies U.S. criminal sanctions for anyone who commits or incites genocide as defined by the international Genocide Convention, which the U.S. is a party to and which formed the basis of the ICJ’s interim judgment that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible.” And the U.S. War Crimes Act prohibits serious human rights and international law violations. Inspectors General at the Pentagon and the State Department are investigating whether the White House’s weapons transfers to Israel violated these and other laws.

Yet the U.S. continues to expedite weapons transfers to Israel, violating its own waiting periods, review requirements, and notification procedures in addition to its absolute legal prohibitions. This is the legal justification behind the increasing number of legal challenges to the U.S. for backing Israel. The U.S. should apply these laws just as it does for other countries. By comparison, on Sept. 2, the U.K. suspended some weapons transfers to Israel because of gross human rights abuses. Germany has also stopped approving arms exports to Israel. A future President Harris could also do this while still helping Israel maintain its “qualitative military edge,” as required under U.S. law since 2008. Upholding U.S. law doesn’t mean abandoning Israel.

Advertisement

International law provides another low-hanging opportunity for Harris. The number and breadth of Israeli violations in Gaza and the West Bank are too numerous to list, though the ICJ tried in its July Advisory Opinion. Many U.S. lawyers have analyzed these, as have Israeli experts. A President Harris would have a number of options to bring the U.S.’s Israel policy in line with international law without much, if any, policy downside. For example, if the U.S. is committed to a two-state solution, and simply acknowledging the boundaries as determined by international legal decisions and U.N. Security Council resolutions is an easy start.

President Harris could do any of this without picking a side. But as the fallout from her campaign’s decision to block a Palestinian American from speaking at the Democratic National Convention last month shows, she is still vulnerable to losing key states in which Muslims and Arabs are angry and organized. Harris would be in a stronger electoral position if she made her willingness to apply U.S. and international law when it comes to Israel clear.

Politics aside, the U.S. has made a strategic misstep on its strong support for Israel, and the effectiveness of a future Harris Administration on the world stage may well depend on rebuilding U.S. credibility. And both policy and politics aside, stopping the killing could define her legacy. It is simply the right thing to do.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Nuclear fuel prices surge as west rues shortage of conversion facilities

Published

on

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The price of fuel for nuclear reactors has surged much faster than that of raw uranium since the start of 2022, in a sign of the bottlenecks that have built up in the west following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Enriched uranium has more than tripled in price to $176 per separative work unit — the standard measure of the effort required to separate isotopes of uranium — since the start of 2022, according to UxC, a data provider.

Advertisement

Demand for uranium has been driven by a revival in atomic power. However, Russia plays a significant role in the multi-stage process of turning mined uranium into the fuel for a nuclear reactor. This includes converting yellowcake — uranium concentrate — into uranium hexafluoride gas, enriching it to increase the concentration of the type of uranium used for fission, and then turning the enriched uranium into pellets that go into reactors.

Uranium hexafluoride has jumped fourfold in price to $68 per kg in the same period, indicating that conversion is the biggest bottleneck in the nuclear fuel supply chain, analysts said. In contrast, uranium ore has only doubled in price.

“The conversion and enrichment prices are reflecting a much bigger supply squeeze due to the Russia-Ukraine war and other factors,” said Jonathan Hinze, chief executive of UxC.

“Uranium alone does not tell the whole story when it comes to price impacts in the nuclear fuel supply chain.”

Advertisement

Russia controls 22 per cent of global uranium conversion capacity and 44 per cent of enrichment capacity. Those services are out of bounds for some western utilities following a US ban on Russian uranium, although waivers are allowed until the end of 2027.

Line chart of Rebased to 100 showing Nuclear fuel cycle feels supply squeeze

France, US, Canada and China are the other countries besides Russia that are home to large-scale conversion sites.

The US government said this week that it is closely tracking whether imports of uranium from China are providing a back door for Russian material, after bumper exports in May when the ban was introduced.

The UK used to contribute to global conversion capacity via the Springfields site but conversion services halted in 2014, while France’s plant has faced delays in getting to full capacity.

“The conversion market is very, very tight for the simple reason that existing facilities are in care and maintenance,” said Grant Isaac, chief financial officer at Cameco, the world’s second-largest uranium producer, on an earnings call.

Advertisement

“Because of the delays in getting all of the conversion-producing centres up to full production in the western world . . . conversion has a very good tail of strength for the next little while.”

While higher nuclear fuel prices are likely to hit the profitability of power companies, the bigger issue is making sure there is enough investment in mines, conversion and enrichment to meet demand from extensions to existing reactors’ lifetime and new ones.

Nuclear fuel companies such as France’s Orano and British-Dutch-German owned Urenco have committed to boosting enrichment capacity, but so far no one has committed to building new conversion capacity in the west.

Nicolas Maes, chief executive of Orano, said at an industry conference this month that investments needed in conversion and enrichment were “massive” compared with the size of the relevant companies.

He compared Orano’s annual revenues of almost €5bn to the €1.7bn needed to expand its enrichment capacity in southern France by more than 30 per cent.

Johnathan Chavers, director of nuclear fuel and analysis at Southern Nuclear, which operates eight nuclear plants in the US, said at the same conference that utilities and the nuclear fuel suppliers were unwilling to make “big bets” due to a “chicken and egg problem”.

Power plant operators are reluctant to sign long-term supply agreements unless the facilities are being built, giving certainty over expected delivery times for nuclear fuel, yet suppliers balk at making big investments without such deals to underwrite them, he said.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.