Right before Francis Ford Coppola’s 40-years-in-the-making passion project Megalopolis premiered at Cannes, The Guardian ran a piece on the film’s production that wasn’t a takedown, but wasn’t glowing either. At best the article painted Coppola as underprepared, at worst it showed him to be grossly inappropriate with female extras. The film itself was not well-received, so Coppola’s promotion over the summer has been a beleaguered mix of defending the finished work as well as his process. On the film front, the studio tried to get ahead by releasing a trailer featuring bad reviews of previous Coppola classics… only for it to be quickly uncovered that all the reviews were fake. As for Coppola defending his own behavior, other outlets followed The Guardian’s lead, including a Variety cover story about him that was published alongside video footage of him kissing women on set. It seems that Variety story was the straw that broke Coppola’s back: he’s now suing them for libel and $15 million in damages.

The suit, which was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles on Wednesday, Sept. 11 and reviewed by PEOPLE, names Variety and executive editors Tatiana Siegel and Brent Lang. Siegel and Lang appear on the byline for the article, which was initially published on July 26, 2024 and remains live on the Variety website.

In the suit, Coppola, 85, claims that Variety knew the allegations leveraged against him were “false” and they were made to “harm Coppola’s reputation and cause him severe emotional distress.” He further says “harm has been caused” and he is seeking no less than $15 million in damages and a jury trial.

On Wednesday night, a rep for Coppola issued the following statement on behalf of the director to PEOPLE.

“Nothing in my 60+ years career can equal the painstakingly difficult, yet artistically triumphant journey of bringing Megalopolis to the screen. It was a collaboration of hundreds of artists, from extras to box office stars, to whom I consistently displayed the utmost respect and my deepest gratitude,” the statement read.

“To see our collective efforts tainted by false, reckless and irresponsible reporting is devastating. No publication, especially a legacy industry outlet, should be enabled to use surreptitious video and unnamed sources in pursuit of their own financial gain,” it continued. “While I have no intention of litigating this in the media, I will vigorously defend my reputation and have trust in the courts to hold them accountable.”

Reps for Variety and its parent company PMC did not immediately respond to PEOPLE’s request for comment.

The Variety story published in July, which is at the center of Coppola’s complaint, cited anonymous sources that claimed the director tried to kiss female extras in a nightclub scene that were “topless” or “scantily clad.” The source was also allegedly reported as claiming at one point after multiple takes, that Coppola grabbed a microphone and said out loud, “Sorry, if I come up to you and kiss you. Just know it’s solely for my pleasure.”

The lawsuit also complains about the Variety article’s inclusion of video footage reportedly from the scene in question, where Coppola seemingly kisses and dances with female extras while filming in a nightclub. Siegel and Lang wrote that the video corroborated claims that Coppola was trying to kiss extras that initially surfaced in an article by The Guardian on May 14.

…In the court filings, Coppola’s attorneys asserted that before filing the lawsuit, he “provided evidence to Variety that the above allegations were false and Coppola requested that the allegations be retracted. Variety refused and doubled down. It repeated the same allegations and thereby emphasized its malice toward Coppola. In order to clear his name and obtain a public determination of the falsity of Variety’s allegations, Coppola has brought this case.”

[From People]

“While I have no intention of litigating this in the media…” he says in a statement to People Magazine. Coppola made sure the Megalopolis set was an anti-woke safe space for Trump supporters and credibly accused domestic abusers in the cast; a place where at least two intimacy coordinators were among the crew, yet none were present during the filming of this infamous nightclub scene. Multiple trade papers researched and reported on these facts, but it’s 85-year-old Hollywood veteran Coppola who’s suffering emotional distress — to the tune of $15 million — from their (accurate) accounts of him? With this lawsuit, Coppola is accusing Variety of trying to destroy his reputation, when in reality he’s the one successfully doing that to himself. Sadly, though, I’m not surprised by this DARVO move from him. What I am confused by is why is he suing Variety now, but didn’t sue The Guardian back in May?

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Variety (@variety)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Variety (@variety)

Photos credit: Lu Chau / Wenn / Avalon

Earlier this year, I watched Scoop, the dramatization of what happened “behind the scenes” of Prince Andrew’s absolutely disastrous 2019 Newsnight interview. The movie made me really sad, that the BBC had one brief moment of speaking truth to power and they’re still talking about years later, like “remember that time we did something good?” Well, a second movie has been made about everything around the interview. This one is A Very Royal Scandal, with Michael Sheen playing Prince Andrew. Sheen is not a royalist or a monarchist. He wants the monarchy abolished. But he also enjoys a juicy character study, and so he seemingly had a good time playing degenerate Andrew. Sheen recently spoke to People Mag about the role and what he thinks of Andrew:

His research into Andrew: A moment of revelation for Sheen came while watching an interview Prince Andrew gave “maybe 15 years ago,” he recalls. In the interview, Andrew is asked whether he had any advice for Prince William, likely regarding military service. Andrew, who served in a different branch of the armed forces than William, makes a joke about the rivalry between the services. “He says, ‘I should have said you should be in the Navy,’ and then he laughs, and the laugh he does is so startling. It was sort of extraordinary. I’d never seen that before — it was an exposed moment in a way. And that really stuck with me.” It was jarring, Sheen explains, because, “For the royal family, who are usually so controlled, trying to keep things very much under the surface, it was a moment of startling, shocking emotion — even if it was just a laugh. But there was something about it that I thought was quite telling, so that stayed with me.”

Sheen also noticed Andrew’s teeth: “He has quite prominent teeth. He’s quite toothy. So the combination of the relish of this kind of joke that he’d made and then those teeth — it was quite shocking.”

Would Sheen want to be a royal? “Absolutely not. No. The fairytale image of it seems so extraordinary — living in palaces and having everything you want and servants and all that kind of stuff. But the reality seems to be that there are far more restrictions than there are freedoms. No amount of wealth or assets or privilege can make up for not being able to have basic sort of freedoms that a lot of us take for granted. So no, I would not want to have that life.”

The compromises at the heart of the monarchy: “I’d always quite naively imagined that the media and the royal family were quite separate institutions. But then it became clear that there’s all these sort of negotiations that go on between them, and there’s a kind of, you know, ‘Well, if you do this, then we’ll do that. And if you give us this interview, we’ll hide this thing.’ You know, it’s a real — there are deals being done all the time between the two institutions, which I found fascinating, and I didn’t realize that. That was a big surprise.”

What he learned about Prince Andrew: “I was very surprised by, for someone who, despite being perceived as having such privilege, entitlement and what you would imagine is great wealth, seemed, at least from the outside, to be someone who felt like they were being denied so much. Part of the draw towards Epstein was not only that there was some financial help there. That a prince could be in money trouble seemed extraordinary. Someone who you think is going to be incredibly wealthy seemed to have money troubles and also seemed to be drawn to a community where he would be treated like a prince. [He] didn’t feel like he was being treated like a prince in his own country somehow. That I found extraordinary. And quite surprising that someone who appears to have so much could experience their life as having relatively little.”

[From People]

“There are deals being done all the time between the two institutions, which I found fascinating, and I didn’t realize that. That was a big surprise.” It feels obvious at this point, but I do think that Prince Harry has done a lot to expose just that, how the British media and monarchy do not operate as separate institutions. They work together, hand in hand, and sometimes their relationship is parasitic and sometimes it’s symbiotic. Honestly, Sheen almost seems sympathetic towards the Windsors when he talks about how they don’t have the freedoms regular people take for granted. I think he’s just saying that sh-t because he’s promoting this Prime movie though. He really doesn’t give a sh-t. Here’s the trailer:

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Convicted fraudster Anna Delvey (née Anna Sorokin) is trying to launch her comeback. If you’re not familiar with Anna, she’s a Russian native who got famous after being caught posing as a German heiress and conning people, hotels, and banks out of $275,000. Netflix’s Inventing Anna is based on her scam. In 2018, Anna was convicted of larceny, theft, and other crimes, and sentenced to four to 12 years in prison. She was released in 2022 for good behavior, but shortly thereafter taken into custody by ICE for overstaying her visa. She was eventually released from their custody and sentenced to house arrest as she fights deportation. Anna’s house arrest was just lifted, but she’s wearing an ICE-mandated ankle monitor. Yeah, this chick’s got a lot going on, but that’s not slowing her down from making a return to the spotlight. A girl’s gotta grift, ya know?

Anna is going to be on the upcoming season of Dancing With the Stars, as well as starring in a new reality TV show called The Anonymous, which is, appropriately, about deception. Before Anna’s new TV gigs get going, though, she’s also dabbling in modeling. Anna showed up at New York Fashion Week as a spectator and model for the Untitled&Co runway show. To show off her latest accessory, Anna decided to bejewel her ankle monitor for the occasion.

Fake heiress Anna Delvey showed off her bejewelled ankle tag during New York Fashion Week on Wednesday.

Attending the Untitled&Co runway show at The Altman Building, she added a silver and black jewels, in the shape of the brand’s logo, to her ankle monitor. Not shy of hiding the tag, Anna wore a quirky mini dress, with a graphic printed bodice and short rara skirt. She elevated her height with a pair of white stiletto heels and layered over a black blazer, accessorising with a tiara and rosette.

Anna, who modelled at the event, later changed into a leather maxi dress and a sheer sequinned two-piece for her second and third look.

She spent years posing as a wealthy heiress while defrauding a series of banks, hotels, and individuals out of $275,000 and is currently gearing up to feature on Dancing With the Stars. Anna was arrested in 2017 and found guilty of grand larceny, larceny in the second degree, and theft of services. The fraudster was sentenced to four to 12 years behind bars, and was released from prison in 2022 to house arrest. She was also banned from using social media.

[From The Daily Mail]

Is it attention-grabby to bling out your ICE-ordered ankle tag while attending a fashion show? It sure is! But I’d expect nothing less, and why the hell not? It’s there for the blinging. I’d probably do the same thing if I were her. I think it may be the best part of that mess she’s wearing. As you can see from the pictures below, Anna also showed up to NYFW with a whole new face. I’m going to guess that change was not court-ordered, and I’m dying to know who paid for it. As for DWTS, I still think it’s absolutely wild that Anna is participating on it in the first place, but this is a show that’s also had Tucker Carlson, Sean Spicer, and Tom DeLay as contestants. Clearly, she’s their controversial figure archetype for this season. The lady has no morals but she’s got that hustle, and even prison couldn’t keep her down.

Photos credit: Elder Ordonez/INSTARimages, Janet Mayer/startraksphoto.com/Cover Images

Damiano David (the lead singer for the Italian band Måneskin) was out here looking like a Prohibition-era bootlegger at the VMAs. [Buzzfeed]
More fashion pics from the VMAs. [Jezebel]
Analyzing Taylor Swift’s endorsement timing. [LaineyGossip]
Review of Angelina Jolie’s Without Blood. [Pajiba]
Backstage photos from the VMAs. [JustJared]
Donald Trump & JD Vance’s latest attacks on immigrants are disgusting. [Socialite Life]
Chappell Roan comes across as a huge brat to me. [Hollywood Life]
Kevin Hart went day-drinking with Seth Meyers. [Seriously OMG]
Tyla wore Area to the VMAs. [RCFA]
Pamela Anderson is getting great reviews for The Last Showgirl. [OMG Blog]

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Kensington Palace dropped Prince William and Kate’s new video on Monday, where Kate announced that she is “cancer free” and that she completed her chemotherapy. The announcement could have been a written statement alone, but the video was supposed to be something else. As I wrote, it felt like it was a different kind of proof of life, a “proof” of their performatively and awkwardly happy marriage. Just hours after the video release, one of William and Kate’s friends huffed to the Daily Beast: “It’s the reset to end all resets. This is Kate and William as they mean to go on. It’s family first and f**k the haters, f**k the press, f**k Harry and Meghan.” What a message of hope after cancer, right? In any case, the “f–k the press” part of the message seemingly came through loud and clear, and the British press has responded in kind, publishing several high-profile and intensely critical pieces about the stupidity of that video. Well, now another Daily Mail commentator is chiming in. The Mail’s Stephen Glover analyzes the stupidity of the video from a press-access and comms perspective. An excerpt:

And yet I do have a deep concern – not so much about the video itself as about the way in which the Prince and Princess of Wales have taken control of their own image and supplanted the traditional media. This development seems to me potentially dangerous to the future of the monarchy. Let me explain.

Catherine has a passion for photography, and for a long time has been releasing pictures of her family that in a previous generation would probably have been taken by professional photographers, if at all. Unsurprisingly, these pictures are very sympathetic to their subjects, to the point of being idealised. On at least one occasion they have been ‘photoshopped’ – that is to say, doctored to the advantage of the ­photographed children.

On Mother’s Day in March, Catherine produced a picture of herself, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis – all of them looking radiantly beautiful and utterly happy – that aroused the suspicions of ­several photo agencies. The Princess of Wales quickly confessed that she had edited the picture, and apologised. Two weeks later she released a video in which she announced with some dignity that she was in the early stages of treatment after a cancer diagnosis. Until very recently such information would have been given to the public by Royal media advisers in a deadpan way. The video of Kate was certainly moving, carrying as it did such dreadful news, although it threw further doubt on the authenticity of the photograph of two weeks earlier in which she and her children had appeared so blissfully happy.

And now we have a further video in which Catherine, ­William and their children seem utterly delirious – as if they have eaten too many magic mushrooms discovered in their enchanted, dappled wood. At one stage a smiling William even plants a kiss on his wife’s cheek. In a sense the video is intimate as we are briefly invited into the heart of a seemingly perfect family. But, of course, the invitation is entirely on the Prince and Princess of Wales’s own terms. They don’t begin to answer the question that such intimacy is bound to provoke – namely, what exactly was wrong with Catherine, and how long is the ‘path to healing and full recovery’ likely to be?

What is going on is nothing less than a revolution. William and Kate have taken control of their own PR, offering an idealised, almost fairytale ­version of themselves and their family. The traditional media, which might have been expected to ask a few searching questions, are virtually written out of the script…. It’s ironic that Harry has chastised both his father and his brother for having been too close to the Press, although, in reality, William and Catherine are seeking to neutralise it.

…I believe that this is a dangerous ploy. Most of us aren’t TikTok aficionados. More to the point, the British people don’t want a supposedly perfect, make-believe monarchy. They expect members of the Royal Family to be real, grounded, recognisable human beings who don’t inhabit a fanciful world of endless smiles and eternal laughter. In the end, the Royal Family survives, and is justified in the public mind, because it is scrutinised. And that is what the traditional media have done, doubtless not always fairly, but for the most part ­rigorously. If the Royal Family is allowed to repackage itself as a wholly sanitised yet untouchable institution – well, disaster is likely to follow.

Harry and Meghan are richly comic, as well as infuriating, figures as they painstakingly fashion their own image of perfection in California. Yet it doesn’t really matter a great deal what they do because they have become so peripheral to the monarchy. But the Prince and Princess of Wales are the future.

I rejoice that Catherine is getting better. She is a gifted woman, and we are very lucky to have her. We are fortunate, too, to have in William such a balanced and dedicated heir to the throne. But the monarchy will be weakened if the public comes to believe it is being fed a fairytale narrative that has been nurtured by the Prince and Princess of Wales beyond the scrutiny of the media.

[From The Daily Mail]

Basically, William and Kate have already been caught manipulating and editing photos several times this year, so they don’t have the credibility to pull off this hazy, fairytale-royal video. Yes, this is a member of the media advocating for his own profession and trying (in vain) to say that it’s the media’s responsibility to scrutinize William and Kate and independently verify whatever horses-t they push. But aren’t we too far gone for that? The horses have already bolted, you know? So the British media’s pushback this week has come across like they’ve only just realized that William and Kate plan to say “f–k the press” from here on out. The press created these lying monsters and they can’t figure out how to close Pandora’s box.

Photos courtesy of Will Warr/KP.

I will never understand how “Prince William copying his brother” is supposed to be an insult to Prince Harry. The projection for William and the royalist media is always off the charts, but how does any of this even make sense logically? In Spare, Harry wrote about William’s incandescent rage over Harry’s facial hair. William harassed and threatened Harry over his beard, and William was clearly jealous that QEII gave Harry special permission to keep his beard for his wedding. Currently, William is growing out a very greasy, sleazy-looking beard. And it feels like William keeps calling up his media allies and telling them, “you should do a story about how Harry is bothered by my beard!” From the Mail’s Ephraim Hardcastle column:

Is Prince William’s bearded appearance a poke in the eye for Harry? He made a fuss of ‘beard wars’ in Spare, claiming William was adamant that he should be clean-shaven for his wedding to Meghan.

‘When I informed him that his opinion didn’t really matter since I’d already gone to Granny and got the green light, he became livid,’ wrote Harry.

‘He raised his voice… at one point he actually ordered me, as the Heir speaking to the Spare, to shave.’

Comedian David Mitchell featured ‘Beardgate’ in Radio 4’s The Unbelievable Truth last week, reading Harry’s account in dramatic fashion. Was William, a Mitchell fan, having a chuckle as he listened?

[From The Daily Mail]

Again, William is copying Harry. That’s not a “poke in the eye” for Harry. Harry has dealt with his brother’s jealousy and competitiveness all of his life. Harry escaped William’s emotional and physical abuse nearly five full years ago. It’s not about Harry feeling one way or the other about William copying him. It’s about William being a pathetic 42-year-old man who is still obsessed with and jealous of his younger brother and wanting to copy everything Harry does and is. It’s sad. I feel like the Mail and other outlets know it’s sad too.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

Kamala Harris has some nice pieces of jewelry in her collection. To me, to my eye, she really doesn’t wear a lot of jewelry and she tends to accessorize with some favorite “nice” pieces for her public events. A simple flag pin, a couple of nice necklaces, simple stud earrings, rarely anything dangly or extravagant. She seems to have small-c conservative taste in fashion and jewelry. This upsets neckbeard Republicans, who are desperate to find some attack line. So now they’re claiming that Kamala’s Tiffany & Co pearl earrings are secretly a transmitter feeding her lines.

Kamala Harris’ earrings are sure making a statement — but not in the way you might think. Taking the stage for Tuesday night’s debate against former President Donald Trump, the Democratic nominee and current vice president sported a sleek, dark-colored suit styled with a white pussy bow blouse and an American flag pin.

However, it was one fashion choice in particular that soon became a topic of conversation on social media. While Harris completed her look with a classic pair of Tiffany & Co. earrings, which are made of 18K gold and feature South Sea Pearls, some Trump supporters speculated that they were actually tiny earpieces feeding her answers to questions throughout the night.

“It appears Kamala Harris was being coached by using earphones embedded in her earrings during the ABC presidential debate against President Trump,” one pro-Trump account theorized on X (formerly Twitter).

The conspiracy post — which has garnered over 10,000 likes and 5,000 retweets — showed a close-up of Harris’ jewelry alongside a photo of the “NOVA H1 Audio Earrings,” audio earrings that were sold on Kickstarter last year and claim to be the “only wireless earphones embedded in a pair of pearl earrings.”

“This earring has audio transmission capabilities and acts as a discreet earpiece,” added another X account, using photos to show the similarities between the Tiffany earrings and the NOVA H1 design.

While the designs are clearly different upon inspection, a quick look back at Harris’ outfits also makes this theory fall apart. The presidential candidate has worn the same Tiffany pearl earrings multiple times in the past, even pairing them with a Graduated Link Necklace ($18,500) from the same collection.

[From Page Six]

This actually reminded me of an old debate conspiracy from 2004, for the oldies – do you guys remember the theory that George W. Bush wore an earpiece in one of his debates against John Kerry? I believed the theory, and if I remember correctly, there was a moment of some weird radio feedback mid-debate. Anyway, no, Kamala was not wearing an earpiece and she was not being fed her lines via Tiffany & Co. pearl earrings.

So now that’s the new thing… how dare the Vice President of the United States wear expensive earrings! Kamala Harris is a month shy of 60 years old, she makes $284K a year and her husband was a successful partner in a law firm. They have money. She can afford a pair of Tiffany & Co earrings. Especially since they seem to be her favorites. She pulls out her pearls for special occasions, like dog-walking an orange monster. Most women her age have several pieces of “nice jewelry” they wear for work occasions and special events.

kamala harris was not wearing earphone earrings during the debate. she was wearing $800 tiffany & co pearls.

instead of pushing conspiracies how about we point out that most americans would kill for $800 in their savings, not on their ears, and she’s out of touch that way. pic.twitter.com/rzDZ841rSY

— chad, american cutie (@endofanerajc) September 11, 2024

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of ABC and Getty.

Before this week, I hadn’t realized that Dave Grohl had reached some kind of “iconic American treasure” status. In my opinion, he was always just… Dave Grohl, from Nirvana and the Foo Fighters, the guy who has spent the bulk of the past two decades making dad rock. As it turns out, he achieved a kind of rock-god status among certain demographics because not only is he a rock star, he’s always come across as a well-adjusted, well-liked, down-to-earth guy who loves his wife and three kids. All of which to say, people have strong feelings about Dave’s announcement that he fathered a child outside of his 21-year marriage to Jordyn Blum. The reaction is not “oh, a rocker fooled around on his wife, news at seven.” People are really worked up about it! It also appears that the situation is much more complicated than Grohl’s public statement let on:

Dave Grohl retained a divorce attorney before announcing he recently welcomed a child outside his marriage of 21 years, a source tells PEOPLE. A rep for Grohl did not immediately respond to PEOPLE’s request for comment.

Grohl, 55, has been married to his wife Jordyn Blum, 48, since 2003, and they share three daughters: Violet, 18, Harper, 15, and Ophelia, 10.

The Foo Fighters frontman revealed that he’d welcomed a daughter with another woman, whom he hasn’t identified, in a Tuesday, Sept. 10 Instagram post.

“I’ve recently become the father of a new baby daughter, born outside of my marriage,” Grohl wrote in a statement. “I plan to be a loving and supportive parent to her. I love my wife and my children, and I am doing everything I can to regain their trust and earn their forgiveness. We’re grateful for your consideration toward all the children involved, as we move forward together.”

[From People]

The Mail also points out that in a recent sighting – before Dave’s announcement – Jordyn wasn’t wearing her wedding ring, although she was out with her husband. What I keep coming back to is that Dave probably wouldn’t have made the announcement when and how he did unless he was worried that something was about to come out. And that something was probably not “divorce rumors.” Like, was the side chick threatening to go public? Did he just get the results of a paternity test? Something else is happening around this baby announcement. And yeah, I believe that “something else” is a big reason why Dave and Jordyn are giving off major divorce vibes. This story is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Also: yesterday, there was an IG post circulating, with an alleged 20-year-old claiming that she gave birth to Grohl’s baby. Grohl’s team denied the IG story and they say that the identity of his baby-mama is still a secret. I would imagine Grohl’s lawyers are heavily involved with that too.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Were you expecting Taylor Swift to turn up at last night’s MTV VMAs? I was not. But she was one of the last ones to walk the VMA red carpet, and she dashed inside to win one of the first awards of the evening. In total, Taylor picked up seven VMAs, including awards for Song of the Summer (nope), Video of the Year, Artist of the Year, Best Collab and Best Pop. VOTY, SOTS and Collab were all given to “Fortnight” featuring Post Malone, her first single from The Tortured Poets Department. Like… even if you want to give it VOTY, there is absolutely no way that “Fortnight” was the Song of the Summer. None.

Taylor wore this Westwood-coded Dior look, a black-and-yellow tartan with a mullet skirt and bustier. People Mag thought her look was “Reputation-coded,” because I guess Swifties are still waiting for Reputation (Taylor’s Version). Y’all have been talking about the snake album for the better part of two years. I hope y’all get it after all this time. Seeing Taylor try to pull off a harder-edge look is always amusing to me though – like, she still looks like a Disney princess, even with the boots and punk-lite ensemble.

Tay also made this VMA appearance not even 24 hours after she endorsed the Harris-Walz ticket. Taylor had been dominating headlines in the political world throughout the day Wednesday, and much of it was good news for her. In her Instagram post endorsement, Taylor included a link to vote.gov. The US GSA announced yesterday that Taylor’s post drove over 337,000 visitors to the site.

Last thing: While Travis Kelce did not attend the VMAs, Taylor did give a shout-out to, in her words, “my boyfriend.”

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

In recent months, it does feel like the culture has moved past the need for Katy Perry. No disrespect to her years of pop dominance, but something has fundamentally shifted and what she’s selling currently, no one is buying. And yet, she keeps trying to sell it to us! Katy was invited to last night’s VMAs and she was honored with the Video Vanguard Award. Meaning, she performed a medley of her hit songs, then snuck in a couple of her songs (which everyone hates). If you love sh-t written and produced by Dr. Luke, this was the medley for you.

Before her performance, Katy walked the carpet with her partner Orlando Bloom. She did the “wetlook/shipwrecked” style which Kim Kardashian keeps trying to bring back. Katy’s carpet look was a fresh-from-NYFW piece from Who Decides War’s Spring 2025 collection. It looks like wannabe Alexander McQueen, right? And dousing herself in baby oil was probably bad for the fabric.

Here’s her performance and her Video Vanguard speech:

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.