Something I think about way too much: Nostradamus correctly predicted Queen Elizabeth II’s death, down to her age and the year she would die. Not only that, but Nostradamus predicted that Charles’s reign would be quite short, and that he would abdicate because of his lack of popularity, and that someone unexpected would become king. Like… it’s a lot to consider. Now, with Queen Margrethe’s sudden abdication, it feels like “abdication talk” is in the air in the UK. I honestly don’t believe that Charles would ever willingly give up the throne, even if he was the most unpopular king in history. But royal experts are still throwing out theories about what could happen.

King Charles could choose to abdicate in the next five to ten years and hand the throne to William and Kate while they are still young because Queen Margrethe’s decision has gone down so well in Denmark, royal experts told MailOnline today. The Danish monarch, 83, announced in her annual New Year’s Eve speech that she will step down on January 14.

Commentators believe that Margrethe ‘deliberately’ dropped her ‘massive bombshell’ at the right time to secure the future of the Danish Royal Family, and its ‘greatest asset’, Crown Princess Mary amid rumours that Crown Prince Frederik may have had an affair.

Royal biographer Phil Dampier believes that King Charles will be influenced by events in Denmark since New Year’s Eve – especially if it would protect the future of the British Royal Family. Mr Dampier said that the Prince and Princess of Wales are very friendly with Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary, and will have been in contact with them this week.

He said: ‘It must make you wonder if in five or ten years’ time King Charles might think about doing the same if his health suffers or he just thinks it is a good time to pass on to William and Kate while they are still young. Our late Queen would never abdicate because of what happened in 1936 when her uncle abdicated and her father came to the throne. But times change’.

He added: ‘William and Kate get on very well with Frederik and Mary and will be among the first to congratulate them. They will be fascinated to see how they get on as King and Queen and it will make them think about their future as well’.

[From The Daily Mail]

Five years from now, Charles will be celebrating his 80th birthday. If he has his mother and grandmother’s longevity genes, he will probably still feel healthy and cognizant. I mean, QEII didn’t really begin to “slow down” physically and mentally until her 90s. You could argue that sure, maybe Charles *might* consider abdication in 15 years, around his 90th birthday. But even then, I just doubt that Charles would ever willingly give up power. Now, when the end comes, it might not be up to Charles. His heir is certainly going to go above and beyond to ensure that his father’s reign is as short as possible.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

As we discussed, Taylor Swift was in Kansas City for New Year’s – she attended the Chiefs game at Arrowhead on NYE, then Taylor and Travis Kelce went to a big party that night. People at the party were taking photos and videos, and that’s how we know that Taylor and Travis kissed at midnight (which will absolutely make its way into a song). According to obsessive Swifties who studied the videos from the NYE party, Travis also said “I love you” to Taylor at or around midnight. I mean… they’ve been dating for five or six months. I suspect that they’ve already said “I love you” many times to each other.

Anyway, if all of this is enjoyable to you or you find yourself wondering about Travis’s rapid ubiquity, wonder no more – the New York Times has done a fascinating piece about Travis’s two business managers, brothers Andre and Aaron Eanes, and how these three have been planning out Travis’s cultural rise for years.

In the only recent year in which Travis Kelce and the Kansas City Chiefs weren’t playing in the Super Bowl, the N.F.L. star was driving around Los Angeles in early February with his business managers, André and Aaron Eanes, marveling at billboards featuring Dwayne Johnson, the actor and entertainer better known as the Rock. “Man, I don’t think I’ll ever be as famous as the Rock,” Mr. Kelce said. His co-managers looked at each other. “We’re like, Yes, you can,” André Eanes said.

The Chiefs have spent the last few years as the most unstoppable force in football and, along the way, Mr. Kelce’s other team has grown to include a creative strategist, a community outreach coordinator, a Los Angeles-based publicist, a personal chef and a trainer. He has four football agents, led by Mike Simon at VMG. In the spring, he also became a client of Creative Artists Agency to feed his budding acting itch.

The Eanes brothers coordinate it all, managing the surging flow of incoming traffic for a piece of Kelce Inc. Film scripts have been shared among the team. Game shows are a consideration. Maybe a few less commercials.

“People say to me, ‘Man, it’s been a crazy year,’” Aaron Eanes said. “When I say, ‘Actually, it’s not that crazy,’ people look at me funny. It’s because it’s easy when you have a plan. We’re executing that plan.”

Before you run to YouTube and TikTok to research conspiracy theories, no, the plan did not include Taylor Swift. But while Mr. Kelce’s shift into a more mainstream form of celebrity was planned out before he met Ms. Swift, there is no question that the doubling of his prospective audience — from mostly men between the ages of 18 and 49 to a far larger group bolstered heavily by Ms. Swift’s female fans of all ages — has changed the calculus for where the plan goes from here.

“The awareness of Travis is much larger and with an even broader audience,” said Richard Lovett, C.A.A.’s co-chairman. “It’s accelerated that which was probably inevitable in terms of his level of awareness and appeal.”

[From The NY Times]

I’m not a Traylor Hater, but I am a Traylor Conspiracist. I think Travis genuinely likes and maybe even loves Taylor Swift. But I also think that the way everything worked out between them was a bit too convenient. I mean, Travis saw his opening and he took it. He’s played it perfectly too – enjoying Taylor’s fame, supporting her, speaking her love language of demonstrative drama. Do I think this was all some scheme hatched in his business manager’s office? No. But I do think that Travis and his team all quickly realized how they could and would play all of this.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Instagram.

Predictably, it seems like Cardi B & Offset reconciled over the holidays, although they haven’t announced anything yet. [Hollywood Life]
Kristin Chenoweth got covid over the holidays. [Seriously OMG]
Kristen Stewart will be honored at Sundance. [LaineyGossip]
People are raving about Zac Efron in The Iron Claw. [Pajiba]
The best & worst looks of 2023. [Go Fug Yourself]
John Waters’ top 10 films of 2023. I didn’t expect some of these. [OMG Blog]
Andy Cohen was scammed out of a lot of money. [JustJared]
What were the best beefs of 2023? [Jezebel]
The fashion critics’ favorite looks of 2023. [RCFA]
T&L’s podcast about the end of The Crown. [Tom & Lorenzo]
Thrifters dream about finding stuff like this. [Buzzfeed]

People are still reeling from Queen Margrethe’s surprise announcement, on New Year’s Eve, that she would abdicate the Danish throne on January 14th. Most of us thought immediately of the most recent scandal to hit the Danish royal house – Crown Prince Frederik’s alleged affair with a woman based in Spain, an affair which was widely reported in the Spanish and British media. While I think that scandal could be a factor, let’s also remember that Margrethe had major back surgery in late February/early March, which was so significant she had to make Frederik her regent. I would guess that 2023 was the year Margrethe really began feeling her age and her mortality. Now, is the abdication also about Frederik’s wandering sceptre? Perhaps. The Daily Mail thinks so:

Queen Margrethe acted decisively to end her reign and promote her son Crown Prince Frederik in a ‘shrewd’ bid to save the Danish monarchy and avert the ‘disaster’ of his marriage to Crown Princess Mary crumbling amid rumours of his affair, royal experts told MailOnline today. The Danish monarch, 83, announced in her annual New Year’s Eve speech that she will step down on January 14 – the first abdication in the Nordic state for 500 years.

Royal commentators have told MailOnline that Margrethe ‘deliberately’ dropped a ‘massive bombshell’ at the right time to secure the future of the Danish Royal Family, and its ‘greatest asset’, Crown Princess Mary.

Less than a fortnight ago Australian-born Mary was spotted in tears and shared a cryptic post about loneliness just weeks after her husband was pictured on a night out in Madrid with a Mexican socialite, sparking rumours of an alleged affair with Genoveva Casanova.

British royal author Phil Dampier, also an expert on European monarchies, told MailOnline: ‘I think Margrethe may have worried that their marriage was in trouble and therefore she had to act. The Queen always thought Mary was a fantastic asset to the royal family and if she thought she might leave it would have been a disaster. She will now hope that Frederik and Mary patch up any differences and work together as the new King and Queen’.

Australian-born Mary is hugely popular with the Danish public, and is often compared to her good friend, Britain’s Princess of Wales.

Mr Dampier said: ‘I never thought the Queen would abdicate and this has come as a total shock to many Danes. I can’t help thinking that it has something to do with the recent rumours about Crown Prince Frederik spending a night with a Mexican socialite. Mary recently spent time home in her native Australia and she arrived with her children but Frederik only joined them after a few days. She appeared tearful at one stage and posted some poignant tweets’.

Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams said that Queen Margrethe does not wish the Danish monarchy to be viewed as old and out of date. He said: ‘Queen Margarethe of Denmark is a shrewd operator. She has stunned the nation by announcing she will abdicate in a fortnight in favour of her son Crown Prince Frederick. Recently rumours of an affair with Mexican socialite and actress Genoveva Casanova, illustrated with what appears to be embarrassing photographic evidence which was published last November, have been extremely damaging to the royal family’.

[From The Daily Mail]

It’s interesting to think of using an abdication as a way to force the crown prince to stay with his wife. I have no idea if Princess Mary is actually all that popular – they’re lying about her “friendship” with Kate, after all – but it does feel like Mary and Fred were at some kind of crossroads in their marriage. Now they basically have to stick it out – there’s no way Frederik would seek a divorce just as he becomes king. Mary might have even gotten some guarantees that she could carve out a separate life for herself as queen, just as long as she doesn’t pursue a divorce. I’ll say this – if Margrethe made this decision partially because of Fred and Mary’s marital problems, it actually is sort of a masterstroke?

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

Before 2023 was over, the Daily Mail published articles about the Duchess of Sussex and Princess of Wales’s clothing costs for the year. While it’s ridiculous that British publications are still trying to claim ownership of Meghan in any way, it brought up something weird – why didn’t anyone tally up the Queen Consort’s fashion costs for the year? Camilla wears a lot of bespoke pieces and she also repeats a lot of stuff she’s had in her closet for years, if not decades. Her first full year as queen featured a huge number of bespoke pieces for all of the big events – the coronation, the first state visits as queen, etc. Well, instead of getting a tally, we’re getting this stupid piece in the Telegraph: “How Camilla abandoned stiff grandeur for a modern regal style.” This was written by Lisa Armstrong, the Telegraph’s “head of fashion,” but you wouldn’t know that from how many times Armstrong randomly brought up the Sussexes for no good reason. Some highlights:

Camilla’s unspectacular rise to a 47% approval rate: Unspectacular is probably where the wiser members of The Firm should be aiming, given the volatility of public crushes. Take note, Harry and Meghan. Increments make for stronger foundations than emotional landslides.

No more Country Camilla: While there have been sightings of some rather good shirtwaisters – an ideal style for her, especially when they’re midi – including one worn with a shoulder robing trench, another good shape for Camilla. We’ve seen relatively little of country Camilla during the past year. Hardly surprisingly given the Coronation and the subsequent finessing of Charles’s and Camilla’s images as worthy successors to an impossibly hard act….In the subsequent months [following the coronation], the Queen has honed in on the silhouette Bruce Oldfield gave her that day in the Abbey: gently skimming, indenting rather than constricting the waist, with a scooped neckline that elongates her neck and gives ample framing to the magnificent collection of royal jewellery she clearly cherishes.

The importance of a drop waist: “The drop waist elongates her body so it photographs well from many angles,” explains personal stylist Annabel Hodin. “And while a drop waist can be hard to wear when the dress is short, if there’s plenty of length below the waist, it can be very flattering. This dress is undulating rather than attempting to go sharply in and out. The neckline is perfect for her, neither too high nor low. You see the jewellery and some pretty collarbone; there’s a simple shoulder line and flattering wrist-length sleeves. It’s a very modern, lively approach to gala dressing. She looks comfortable and at ease – and incidentally she has on very good support wear.”

The making of a red velvet dress: So considered are Camilla’s outfits these days that Fiona Clare, designer of the red dress, was charged with tracking down a silk velvet that exactly matched the rubies in the Burmese necklace and tiara that previously belonged to Elizabeth ll. It took weeks to find the right velvet – 100 per cent silk velvet is almost impossible to source now, but Clare sourced a British velvet, made from silk and viscose, which is derived from wood pulp, so it was 100 per cent natural fibres. As velvets go, “it’s a nightmare to sew,” Clare tells me, “but worth it for the lustre and the way it drapes.

Camilla is happy for Kate to be a fashion plate: That Camilla clearly isn’t a limelight-hogger is endearing. She’s delighted for Kate to be the fashion mascot. She wants to be comfortable – and that’s evident not only in the flowing lines of her clothes and the mainly soft colours (ivory is her best pale shade, more compatible with her hair than cream, says Hodin) but in the people she works with – long-time friends such as Anna Valentine, who designed her wedding dress to the then-Prince Charles in 2005 and Clare, who has been working with her for 10 years. Make-up artist Maria Sandoval, who has done a superb glow-up job of subtly supercharging the Queen’s complexion and eyes, started out as a manicurist and has now worked with Camilla for 15 years – typical of the non-starry, non-bitchy types who make up Camilla’s glam squad.

Camilla’s victories: The extent to which she’s succeeding can be seen in the obvious – those state banquets – and the more oblique victories. Harry’s whinging in Spare, about his step-mother’s co-option of his old room at Clarence House into extra wardrobe space, for instance, doesn’t appear to have ruffled a single hair on Camilla’s serene head. (Dear Harry, what’s a woman to do when she needs more hanging room and her step-son’s moved on?) Meanwhile, Omid Scobie’s ramblings have become an international joke and even The Crown’s controversial sanctification of Diana has done nothing to stymy Camilla’s keep-calm-and-dazzle-on approach. Not when the same drama also makes That Woman, despite everything, seem rather likeable and ultimately quite self-sacrificing. One who, these days, dresses like a Queen.

[From The Telegraph]

Harry could have said a lot more about Camilla but he held his tongue, and it feels like Camilla was bothered by Spare after all, just as she was bothered by The Crown and the fact that everyone keeps talking about Diana. As for Camilla’s fashion… I’ve said before that I actually like a lot of what she wears, especially her housedresses. She’s not a fashion plate, but she has a good team of seasoned professionals working with her and you can tell. I’d just like to know how much all of this costs – a red velvet gown made especially to “match” a ruby suite? All of those custom pieces? A glam squad? Why didn’t anyone even attempt to tally up the cost of dehorsifying Camilla?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.

For years now, Dave Chappelle has devoted his stand-up act to criticizing, mocking and dehumanizing transgender people. He’s committed to punching down on several marginalized communities, but his favorite topic is absolutely his hatred of transgender people and trans rights. In 2021, he declared himself “Team TERF” and he declared that he would not bend to anybody’s demands. “Demands” like “can you stop being so f–king transphobic, it’s not funny and you’re really gross.” Well, Chappelle has a new Netflix special called The Dreamer and guess what, it’s the same old disgusting material. Even Variety called him out:

Maybe it’s time for Dave Chappelle to try some new material. The comedian’s newest special, “The Dreamer,” debuted on Netflix on Dec. 31, and largely focuses on his early years in entertainment and how he manifested his success. But he floods the first 12 minutes of the set revisiting his favorite target in recent years: Transgender people.

Chappelle opens the special by telling a story about visiting Jim Carrey while he was shooting the 1999 film “Man on the Moon,” where the actor famously went method on set while portraying comedian Andy Kaufman. Dave recalls being “very disappointed” that he spent the day speaking to Carrey pretending to be Kaufman, ending by saying, “That’s how trans people make me feel.”

He then addressed the controversy surrounding his anti-trans material, saying, “If you guys came here to this show tonight thinking that I’m going to make fun of those people again, you’ve come to the wrong show. I’m not f–king with those people anymore. It wasn’t worth the trouble. I ain’t saying sh-t about them. Maybe three or four times tonight, but that’s it. I’m tired of talking about them. And you want to know why I’m tired of talking about them? Because these people acted like I needed them to be funny. Well, that’s ridiculous. I don’t need you. I got a whole new angle coming. You guys will never see this sh-t coming. I ain’t doing trans jokes no more.”

He then said he was going to transition to joking about “handicapped” people instead because “they’re not as organized as the gays. And I love punching down.”

A few minutes later, Chappelle revisited the topic, saying, “To be honest with you, I’ve been trying to repair my relationship with the transgender community cause I don’t want them to think that I don’t like them. You know how I’ve been repairing it? I wrote a play. I did. Cause I know that gays love plays. It’s a very sad play, but it’s moving. It’s about a Black transgender woman whose pronoun is, sadly, n***a. It’s a tear-jerker. At the end of the play she dies of loneliness cause white liberals don’t know how to speak to her. It’s sad.”

Later in the special, Chappelle addressed when he was attacked onstage at the Hollywood Bowl in 2022 by an assailant with a replica gun that could discharge a knife blade. Chappelle recalled trying to diffuse tension after the incident with a joke, telling the audience, “It was a trans man!” But he said it didn’t go over well, given the audience’s response of, “‘Boo. It’s L.A., we like trans people.’” Chappelle also said the attacker “had a knife that identified as a gun” and “I triggered them because I had done LBGTQ [sic] jokes and it turns out this fella was a ‘B.’” He also joked that, knowing the attacker was bisexual, he “could have been raped.”

[From Variety]

He also made a grotesque “joke” about wanting to go to a women’s prison if he’s ever sent to jail and it’s not even worth repeating. In years past, I’ve wondered if Chappelle really is this out of touch and maybe that’s the larger issue – he lost his ability to keep his finger on the pulse of American culture. But at this point, the dude just loves being a bigot. He thinks hatred is funny and edgy. He thinks this is okay because his buddy Elon Musk laughs at his jokes.

Screencaps courtesy of Netflix.

2024 Greetings, my lovely Bitches! My final post of 2023 was about global New Year’s traditions, like wearing yellow underwear or smashing pomegranates on your front door. I was without yellow underwear at my holiday locale, so ended up going with black undies for New Year’s Eve and pink for New Year’s Day. But when my pooch and I were walking the neighborhood yesterday (she’s still hungover) we saw a lot of pomegranate remnants at apartment doors. I hope that good luck extends to the whole block.

I also saw a headline, while eating at a diner on January 1, that read “How to cancel gym memberships.” Not even one full day in and we’re talking about getting out of the most prevalent New Year’s resolution: health/fitness. It made me chuckle (as I dug into my breakfast sampler of bacon, sausage, eggs, french toast, and hash browns). I bet Brooke Shields would’ve chuckled too, as she recently told Today that she never makes resolutions because she thinks it’s setting yourself up for failure. I’m inclined to agree. Brooke has a new podcast called Now What? and is launching a “lifestyle brand” (watch out, Goop!) so she also spoke to Today about her beauty and skincare routines:

Her outlook on aging: It’s one that embraces aging and all that comes with it, and helps to create open and honest conversation around it — which she does, through her podcast “Now What?” and her online platform and lifestyle brand “Beginning Is Now.” That being said, if she did have the chance to go back, she says the one thing she wishes she could tell her younger self about aging would be to, “enjoy what you have now,” she tells Shop TODAY over the phone. “We’re all a product of our upbringing and society but I definitely think I would have been like, really appreciate yourself,” Shields says. “Not because it’s all going to go downhill, but because you deserve to be able to appreciate it. You don’t want to get to an older age and realize you’ve never really celebrated yourself. It’s sad. I think people then start chasing their youth. I’m not chasing my youth. I like to look my best, but it’s a futile thing to want to turn back the clock and make yourself crazy. So why not, as best you can, where you are, appreciate that every wrinkle I have around my eyes is because I smiled a lot?”

Skincare is self-care: “I now look at beauty as self-care, rather than vanity,” Shields says. “Which, I used to associate beauty routines with inaccessible luxury and vanity. My mom would say, ‘soap, water and moisturize. Get it clean, don’t make it complicated for yourself.’ But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve enjoyed the process and the ritual of taking care of my skin. And it’s not now just for aging or wrinkles. I mean, that’s a good byproduct of your skin looking healthier, but now I enjoy the process, it’s sort of time for myself.” … “Sometimes, it’s just about getting enough sleep and drinking enough water — but not too much water — and that ends up making my skin look better … if I’m doing everything that’s unhealthy, not sleeping and drinking too much alcohol, it’s going to show up first in my skin. I think that people don’t think of their skin as the largest organ of their body, but it is. And we have to treat it like that.”

A resolution for no resolutions: “I don’t make New Year’s resolutions, because I think that’s setting me to fail. I don’t say, ‘I’m going to stop doing this, stop doing that.’ I usually say, ‘I promise myself I’m going to, at least once, do something out of my comfort zone or I’m going to try to learn something.’ Because it’s essentially setting yourself up for failure. And the giving up of things just feels like I’m punishing myself and then it just makes me want it more.”

She uses a literal pencil on her eyebrows: Of course, we couldn’t talk to Shields about her beauty routine without asking about how she maintains her famous brows. And her answer was pretty simple. “I actually only use GrandeLashMD, the growth serum … I’m starting to see some positive results. I just have to fill them in now, because the gray is starting to come and they’re thinning.” So what does she use to fill them in? (The answer might surprise you.) “A graphite pencil,” she says. “Because I can make it really sharp, and if it’s the right softness, it will come up on my skin and it looks like the flick of a brush. The times that I’ve tried to dye them or do anything else to bring them back, I end up looking rather freakish… And it’s not lead, so you’re not putting lead on your face.”

[From Today]

Yeah, I’m fully on board with Brooke on not making resolutions, and agree that denial just ends up being self-punishment. I like her framing of trying to do something at least once. That’s a manageable commitment. That being said, I tend to be even more conservative in my wording, and usually say “it would be a nice gesture to myself if I took more care with what I eat. Carving out more/any time for exercise would be an investment in my own happiness.” Similar idea to Brooke, but I’m not even establishing the one-time minimum. So anything that gets done is a win! As for Brooke’s health and beauty commentary, so far she’s given us: eat potato chips to combat hydration and fill in your brows with graphite pencils. I kind of love it, yet at the same time think it sounds like advice from an eight-year-old, no?

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Brooke Shields (@brookeshields)

Photos credit: Diane Cohen / BACKGRID, Roger Wong/INSTARimages, IMAGO/RW / Avalon

As I’m writing this, Jeffrey Epstein’s client list/blackmail list has not been released by an American court. A judge ordered that the previously redacted list to be made public in the new year, and from what I can tell, the names will probably come out later today, or maybe later this week. Reportedly, something like 170 names appear in Epstein’s records, and it’s widely believed that three specific names will appear: Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. People have known about Clinton, Andrew and Trump’s associations with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell for years now, but it will be interesting to see what kinds of records were kept and how extensive the associations were. The British media is obviously focused on Prince Andrew’s association, especially since Johanna Sjoberg specifically named Andrew previously:

Disturbing new evidence from one of Prince Andrew’s sex accusers will be presented in court this week, lawyers say. The latest claims are in legal papers being unsealed on the orders of a judge on Tuesday.

They relate to Johanna Sjoberg who has claimed Andrew groped her breast in 2001 at the home of his billionaire paedophile pal Jeffrey Epstein.

Of the 170 documents being released in the US, 67 concern Ms Sjoberg and relate to a 2015 defamation case brought by another of Andrew’s accusers, Virginia Roberts, against his friend, the now-jailed Epstein conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Ms Roberts’ lawyer Sigrid McCawley calls it “disturbing testimony corroborating what lies at the core of this case — Maxwell was involved in facilitating the sexual abuse of young girls with Jeffrey Epstein”.

Last week, New York judge Loretta Preska ordered the hundreds of files to be unsealed. The 30-page summary of Ms Sjoberg’s evidence from the 2015 case will be unsealed alongside claims about a hidden Maxwell email account — which could reveal details of her conversations with Andrew, 63. Ms Sjoberg previously claimed the duke laughingly fondled her breast while posing with a Spitting Image puppet of himself. Andrew denies all wrongdoing.

[From The Sun]

Apparently, the statute of limitations ran out on Sjoberg’s potential case against Andrew – I would imagine she could have sued Andrew under the now-expired New York Adult Survivors Act – and Andrew is reportedly relieved that he won’t have to settle out of court against another one of his victims. Still, he’s hopefully going to be under siege yet again when Epstein’s records are released. He won’t be the only one – Bill Clinton is reportedly “John Doe 6” and his name appears more than once in the records. Reportedly, Clinton and Trump were both frequent-fliers on Epstein’s private plane, nicknamed the Lolita Express.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

Having seen many of the big Oscar-bait films and potential “Best Actor” performances, I really do believe that the Best Actor race will come down between Paul Giamatti (The Holdovers) and Cillian Murphy (Oppenheimer). While Leo DiCaprio was good enough to get an Oscar nom for Killers of the Flower Moon, he wasn’t good enough to be a real contender this year. There are other men in the mix – hopefully Jeffrey Wright in American Fiction – but I think we can safely say that Bradley Cooper is the dude who wants it the most. He wants to be nominated for Maestro and he wants to win. He’s doing everything he can to get nominated, to put himself in the Oscar conversation. Well, everything but turn in an Oscar-worthy performance in a good film. All he’s got is a hilariously offensive fake nose and claims that he spent years learning how to conduct an orchestra just like Leonard Bernstein:

Much of the buzz around Bradley Cooper‘s “Maestro” so far has revolved around his shocking physical transformation into famed conductor Leonard Bernstein, but the actor-director-writer’s prep for the role might also blow some people away. Speaking at a recent Los Angeles screening for the film in a conversation moderated by “Hamilton” Tony-winner Lin-Manuel Miranda, Cooper revealed that he spent a whopping six years learning how to conduct just over six minutes of music in the style of Bernstein himself so he could record a crucial scene in “Maestro” live on set.

The scene in question recreates Bernstein’s famous conducting of the London Symphony Orchestra at the Ely Cathedral in 1976. The sequence is the film’s most rousing, as it fully showcases Bernstein’s musical genius and shows off Cooper’s staggering performance in all its full-bodied glory.

“That scene I was so worried about because we did it live,” Cooper said at the event (via IndieWire). “That was the London Symphony Orchestra. I was recorded live. I had to conduct them. And I spent six years learning how to conduct six minutes and 21 seconds of music.”

“I was able to get the raw take where I just watched Leonard Bernstein [conduct] at Ely Cathedral with the London Symphony Orchestra in 1976. And so I had that to study,” Cooper added, while also thanking “wonderful teachers” such as Metropolitan Opera director Yannick Nézet-Séguin for helping him fine-tune the performance.

“Nézet-Séguin made videos with all the tempo changes, so I had all of the materials to just work on.” Cooper said. “It was really about dialing exactly what I wanted cinematically and then inviting them into then inhabit that space and trusting that they have all done the work. Because I think that I knew I was terrified, absolutely terrified that if I hadn’t done the work then I wouldn’t be able to enjoy myself in these scenes. And everybody did.”

[From Variety]

It took him six years to learn how to fake-conduct an orchestra for six minutes? I’m sorry but Lydia Tar did it better. The fact that Maestro came out one year after Cate Blanchett’s incredible turn as the fictional Lydia Tar is hilarious to me – Cate’s conducting scenes were brilliant and she didn’t spend months bragging about any kind of tortuous, years-long process to get into character.

Bradley Cooper shared his concerns about filming the scene featuring Leonard Bernstein conducting the London Symphony Orchestra. He mentioned, “That scene I was so worried about because we did it live… I was recorded live. I had to conduct them. And I spent six years learning… pic.twitter.com/KPfFgBOTW0

— Screenplayed (@Screenplayed) December 29, 2023

Photos courtesy of Jason McDonald/Netflix, Backgrid and screencap from the trailer.

One of our last posts of 2023 was the Daily Mail’s (incorrect) estimate on how much money the Princess of Wales spent on clothing and accessories during the year. The Mail made a point of downplaying the cost of many of Kate’s bespoke outfits, and they correctly pointed out that Kate did wear some repeats, so those don’t “count.” The Mail never would have afforded the Duchess of Sussex the same luxury – when Meghan lived in the UK (and even in the years since), the Mail always lists the cost of Meghan’s jewelry and older pieces like Meghan is buying everything new for each event. Nevermind the fact that whatever Meghan spends on clothes and jewelry is none of anyone’s business at this point – it hasn’t been anyone’s business since early 2020, four years ago. British taxpayers aren’t “paying” for anything to do with Meghan whatsoever. Anyway, when I wrote about that Kate story, I actually had a moment of “wow, I can’t believe the Mail isn’t writing about Meghan’s clothing costs this year.” I’m a clown, I know. The Mail waited a few days before publishing this:

Accustomed to wearing designer clothing and exquisite jewels, the Duchess of Sussex is widely recognised for her luxurious style.

And this year was no exception as Meghan Markle, 42, showcased a wardrobe worth £86,612.16. It is £4,121.48 more than her 2022 total, which was £79,000.

Meanwhile, in 2021, she showcased outfits worth £58,388, and in 2020, the year she stepped back from her role as a senior royal, her closet totalled £44,188. However, in 2018 her clothing bill totalled almost half a million pounds (£406,662.55).

While a working member of the Royal Family, the cost of Meghan’s clothes for work engagements was covered by then-Prince Charles through the budget he gave the couple from the Duchy of Cornwall.

However, since the couple became financially independent, it is not clear who is picking up the bill for Meghan’s clothes, whether she pays full price or receives discounts from designers.

[From The Daily Mail]

“Since the couple became financially independent, it is not clear who is picking up the bill for Meghan’s clothes…” Who do you think? The Daily Fail Brain Trust can’t figure it out!! Also: in 2018, Meghan was still wearing a lot of stuff from her pre-marriage wardrobe, and I think that “£406,662” figure probably includes her wedding gown and her reception dress. Anyway, just a little annual reminder that what Meghan wears is none of the Mail’s business anymore. Stick to adding up the costs of the left-behind Windsors’ wardrobes.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.