Among others, THR‘s Scott Feinberg and Variety‘s Marc Malkin have reported about last night’s “surprise appearance” of Kanye West at a preview screening of the biographical Netflix docuseries Jeen-Yuhs.
Directed by Coodie & Chike, the Kanye doc is divided into three chapters. Chapter one, “Vision”, will premiere on Netflix on 2.16.22 chapters two and three will be released soon after.
A friend says Jeen-Yuhs is “impressive…sort of like Hoop Dreams in chronicling Kanye’s journey over the years, how he came to be the way he is.” In other words, an ass-kisser.
I wonder to what extent the doc will get into Kanye’s erratic behavior during the Kim breakup, his friendship with Donald Trump, the reasoning behind his run for the Presidency in ’20, etc.
HE to friendo after watching clip of Kanye’s post-screening remarks: “Who cares what this rich, over–indulged jerk has to say about anything? Particularly regarding matters of God, spirit and the cosmic truth of it all?”
Question: Los Angeles is enjoying a heat wave. (Right now it’s 84 degrees.) And it was definitely on the warmish side last night. So why was Kanye wearing a big bulky, Alaskan-winter jacket with a hoodie? Does he have a deal with Balenciaga to wear their stuff in front of the cameras?
— Marc Malkin (@marcmalkin) February 12, 2022
Three and a half years ago there was no pandemic (what a time it was!), and one of the things that got people going was a fierce conviction among #MeTooers that there could be no grading or distinctions among forms of unwelcome sexual attention. Anyone who attempted to say “this is worse than that” got bitchslapped or even beaten. Damon found that out.
The core of the statement was that Rudin will “step back” from his Broadway ventures, adding that that he was “taking steps that I should have taken years ago to address this behavior.”
Rudin’s announcement is basically a strategic bone tossed to his many social-media critics. For good or ill (mostly the latter, his critics would say) Rudin was able to swagger around for decades…throughout the ’90s, aughts and most of the 20teens he was the savvy, blistering, highly demanding office tyrant who made top-tier films and produced between two and five high-prestige B’way plays per year. On both coasts Rudin made money and won awards for many people. But the cultural ground shifted in late ’17 and now he needs to adapt or die.
Rudin’s mea culpa comes in the wake of (a) Tatiana Siegel’s 4.7 Hollywood Reporter expose (basically an evergreen refresh) about Rudin’s occasionally brutal behavior, (b) Richard Rushfield‘s 4.9 Ankler follow-up (“Mr. Potatohead“) and (c) “Moulin Rouge!” B’way star Karen Olivo declaring on Instagram that she won’t be returning to work after the pandemic shutdown because “the silence about Rudin” was “unacceptable.”
A 4.17 Siegel article reports that Rudin was more or less forced to back away from the forthcoming The Music Man revival after star Hugh Jackman said he was “very concerned” and that “something needed to be done.” Jackman’s costar Sutton Foster reportedly “said she would leave the highly anticipated musical if Rudin didn’t take a seat, says [a] knowledgable source.”
Once upon a time the shouting, volatile, highly-demanding producer or swaggering “boss from hell” was a lamentable part of showbiz lore…Burt Lancaster‘s J.J. Hunsecker in Sweet Smell of Success, Alan King‘s Max Herschel in Sidney Lumet‘s Just Tell Me What You Want, the real-life Joel Silver and Harvey Weinstein, Saul Rubinek‘s Lee Donowitz in True Romance (based on Silver for the most part), Kevin Spacey‘s Buddy Ackerman in Swimming With Sharks, Tom Cruise‘s Les Grossman in Tropic Thunder, etc.
None of these characters were pleasant to be around on a 24/7 basis, but, as in real life, they had a dominating brand and tradition that you had to finesse one way or the other.
And then along came the sensitive, safe-space-seeking Millennials and that Buddy Ackerman shit began to get old right quick.
“Much has been written about my history of troubling interactions with colleagues,” Rudin’s statement reads, “and I am profoundly sorry for the pain my behavior caused to individuals, directly and indirectly.”
I’ve never paid the slightest attention to the Bachelor franchise (which began way back in ’02), but I’ve been loving the whole Rachel Lindsay vs. Bachelor host Chris Harrison and Bachelor contestant Rachel Kirkconnell thing. Anything to do with wokesters vs. regular folks, I’m there.
It began with photos of clueless Kirkconnell wearing a 19th Century hoop dress at some kind of college sorority Antebellum party, which in turn led to a combative interview between Lindsay and Harrison on 2.9.21, which led to Harrison taking a leave of absence for (a) defending Kirkconnell too vigorously and (b) slagging wokesters. (Update: Harrison is now toast — he’s been replaced by Emmanuel Acho.)
Yesterday Lindsay deleted her Instagram account over intense harassment from traditional anti-woke Bachelor fans. This has led Lindsay’s “Higher Learning” podcast co-chost Van Lathan to defend her on Instagram.
Lathan: “Leave Rachel the fuck alone. Rachel is not responsible for Chris Harrison, a 49-year-old man who can’t read the room in these present 2021 times. It’s not her job to make excuses or provide cover for somebody who doesn’t understand what fucking triggers people in today’s world. This harassment is going too far. My co-host has zero today with the words of a grown-ass man who still doesn’t get it.
“@chrisbharrison are you okay with people getting at Rachel to the point she can’t even exist on [Instagram]. Is anyone from the entire Bachelor Nation going to stand up and condemn this harassment of a Black woman? Yo it’s just a fucking TV SHOW, y’all need to relax for real. I love you RACH. Fuck these people.”
If you want to hear four film journalists — TheWrap editor Sharon Waxman, Independent film critic Clarisse Loughrey. Wrap assistant managing editor Daniel Goldblatt and Wrap reporter Brian Welk — totally tiptoe around the National Society of Film Critics having called on Variety to remove an apology it added to a review of Promising Young Woman and afford critic Dennis Harvey a bit more respect…if you want to hear four people dodge this issue like their lives depend on it and say almost nothing of substance, please click on the embedded link (“Summer of Soul Director Questlove”) and go to the 28:20 mark.
Waxman doesn’t tiptoe as much as the other three, but they mostly seem to feel that Harvey misunderstood the film and expressed himself inelegantly — that, to them, is the main issue. Otherwise they have zip to say about Variety undercutting Harvey and totally groveling before Mulligan and Focus Features, etc.
Clarisse Loughrey: “[I was] a little dismayed as a woman…I do think that we have to give room to women’s concerns about [Harvey’s] review….I did take issue with [it] although not in the sense that something should be done about this.”
Will you listen to her? Loughrey almost believes that Variety‘s 11-months-later apology was the right thing to do, and that Harvey was guilty of an actual mistake in perception. This is exactly what the NSFC didn’t say, of course, but nobody points this out to her.
I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t agree with what Harvey seemed to be saying in the review, and that relative hotness standards have nothing to do with sexually predatory behavior by young males, and that Mulligan’s dry, stylized performance was chilly but compelling.
Mulligan didn’t ask for an apology. Variety offered one willy-nilly after she mentioned her displeasure with a certain paragraph in mid-December ’20 to N.Y. Times award-season columnist Kyle Buchanan. If Variety editors had an issue with that paragraph they should have addressed it with a counter-review or an editorial after it first appeared in January ’20. But they didn’t say or do anything for a full 11 months.
Did @Variety handle the criticism of its #PromisingYoungWoman review correctly? The @NatSocFilmCrix doesn’t think so. @clarisselou critic @independent chats with @sharonwaxman and the team on the latest episode of #TheWrapUp.
— TheWrap (@TheWrap) February 12, 2021
A Bret Stephens column about the week-old firing of N.Y. Times reporter Donald McNeil was recently spiked by Times publisher AG Sulzberger, mainly because Stephens quoted a previously published remark by ‘80s Republican attack-dog Lee Atwater that mentioned the “n” word. Khmer Rouge-minded staffers would’ve presumably had a fit if Stephens’ piece, which emphasizes intent as a key journalistic focus, had been published.
Here’s an excerpt:
Key phrase: “The 1619 Project is a thesis in search of evidence, not the other way around.”
Final three paragraphs: “For obvious reasons, I’ve thought long and hard about the ethics of writing this essay. On the one hand, outside of exceptional circumstances, it’s bad practice to openly criticize the work of one’s colleagues. We bat for the same team and owe one another collegial respect.
“On the other, the 1619 Project has become, partly by its design and partly because of avoidable mistakes, a focal point of the kind of intense national debate that columnists are supposed to cover, and that is being widely written about outside The Times. To avoid writing about it on account of the first scruple is to be derelict in our responsibility toward the second.
“All the more so as journalists, in the United States and abroad, come under relentless political assault from critics who accuse us of being fake, biased, partisan and an arm of the radical left. Many of these attacks are baseless. Some of them are not. Through its overreach, the 1619 Project has given critics of The Times a gift.”