Last week we learned that Vanity Fair revamped their calendar to release their annual Hollywood Issue now, while all the awards-bait films are coming out in droves, instead of closer to the Oscars in the new year (though they’re still calling this the 2025 Hollywood cover). By my count in perusing VF’s cover archives, Nicole Kidman is making her fifth appearance in the Hollywood Issue, her other years including 2022, 2018, 2001, and 1995 on the inaugural cover. Each and every time, even going back to 1995, Nicole was on the first panel. My point? Nicole Kidman is, to quote our president, “a big f–king deal.” In Hollywood, that is. She works nonstop, including on the development and producing side, and every couple years she’s a contender for an Oscar nom, like she is this year for Babygirl. She won Best Actress at the Venice Film Festival for the part, which tragically fell on the same day as her mother passing. Nicole talked about her mother’s influence and a lot more in her VF profile. A few highlights:

On her mother, who she just lost: She was my compass in a way. It’s like losing that, but at the same time going, Okay, well, this is for her then. So much of what she wanted for my sister and I was to create women in this world who felt like they could express themselves and have opportunities, especially things she didn’t have from her generation. She loved my career, she really did. She would be there through all the ups and downs, all of it. Her essence has been pretty much the driving force through my whole life. I wish she could have seen this part of it.

She chooses projects on instinct: I am very spontaneous and I have immediate yeses. When [director Susanne Bier] called me, we didn’t have all the scripts for Perfect Couple, but I was like, “Yes.” When Halina reached out for Babygirl, I was already going, “Okay, just the title alone, I’m in.” If I feel freedom and safe with a person, then I can just give them everything. But I’ve got to feel arms around the project and me — that allows the expression. So much of what you’re offering is deeply personal. I need to be held in that regard for it to really work.

It’s harder to get projects greenlit: Everything’s hard now. Actually everything. I mean, maybe not Deadpool, but there’s nothing that’s, “Oh my gosh. Yep. This is it. Greenlight, let’s go.” Or maybe it’s just the things that I do. [Laughs] I just think that’s the nature of what we’re dealing with now. Things are shrinking in terms of shows being done and films being made. I definitely feel it. I’m sure most people in the industry feel it. I know the crews feel it. I know writers feel it.

On who she wants to work with: I’ve always said I want to work with [Martin] Scorsese, if he does a film with women. I’d love to work with Kathryn Bigelow. I’d love to work with Spike Jonze. I’d love to work with PTA [Paul Thomas Anderson]. I’ve always wanted to work with Michael Haneke. And there’s a whole slew of up-and-coming directors — there’s so many, and I’m always open to the discovery of new people. And I find it really exciting when you go, Here’s someone that’s so experienced and has been working and working, but they’ve now really hit their stride.

She’s never had a plan for her career: I have been crazy in life, so whatever happens, it comes out in many different ways. I feel things intensely. I read a lot. I’m raising a family. I’m a wife, I’m a sister. I’ve got all these friends. I’m moving through the journey of life. It can be really hard, especially if you’re very present and emotional and in it. And then there’s an enormous amount of sheer joy.

[From Vanity Fair]

The more I hear/see of Nicole Kidman in her elder stateswoman glory, the more unbelievable it is to me that she was ever with Tom Cruise, let alone for 10 years. Saying yes to things just on instinct? Being “crazy in life?” Those seem to me like qualities that would scare the sh-t out of Cruise. It’s also kind of wild to think Nicole’s huge body of work has been the result of such spontaneity. Good for her! At the end of the day, I get the feeling that she really does just f–king love acting and collaborating now as much as she ever did (she’s been working professionally for 40 years!). It’s a bit depressing to hear that even she has trouble getting things greenlit, though she sounds clear that it may be down to her indie tastes. Which makes me wonder/hope that she and Sydney Sweeney had some time during the shoot to talk shop about producing. And finally, what a ballsy, effortless slay she landed on Martin Scorsese, all while expressing how she’d like to work with him. No notes.

Embed from Getty Images

Photos credit: Olivier Huitel/Avalon, i-Images, PacificCoastNews/Avalon, IMAGO/Barbara Hine / Avalon, Xavier Collin/Image Press Agency/AvalonGetty

The Princess of Wales has some very peculiar style quirks, which is notable because most people find her style kind of boring. She’s a big fan of theme-dressing, she’s a big fan of dressing in flag-colors, and she’s also an ardent copykeener, especially when it comes to mimicking Princess Diana or the Duchess of Sussex. What else is Kate known for? Repeating the same looks with minor tweaks, to the point where people are always questioning whether she buys duplicates with small variations. I still want to know if her coatdress at the Sussexes’ wedding was actually Kate rewearing the white McQueen coat she wore to Charlotte’s christening. But I digress. Kate’s most recent public outing was on the balcony on Remembrance Sunday. At the time, no one ID’d her coat, and I just figured it was some overpriced bespoke piece and that’s why people were being squirrelly. But according to People Mag, Kate wore an old Catherine Walker coat, she just had the buttons redone and they added some velvet pieces.

Kate Middleton is becoming increasingly savvy when it comes to reimagining her signature style. While the royal is well-known for re-wearing pieces (her beloved brown tassel boots from Penelope Chilvers have been in her rotation for over 20 years!), her style team is getting creative when it comes to upcycling her more formal — and often costly — outfits.

“We’ve seen Kate upcycle more lately and I think it’s a great message to be sending, especially so soon after William’s Earthshot tour,” Bethan Holt, Fashion Director at the Daily Telegraph, tells PEOPLE after Kate perfected the chic tweak when she stepped out on Nov. 10 for Remembrance Sunday.

At first glance, the sharp, military-inspired black coatdress—complete with a velvet bow at the collar and velvet-covered buttons — looked like a fresh addition to her wardrobe. But it was actually a Catherine Walker & Co. piece she had worn for the same occasion four years earlier, proving that timeless elegance is always in style.

“I think she recognizes she has lots of beautiful pieces already in her wardrobe, which, with a few small tweaks, can look entirely new,” explains Holt, who has written extensively about Kate’s love of recycling in her book, The Duchess of Cambridge: A Decade of Modern Royal Style.

In fact, this marks the third time Kate has reimagined this outfit. Initially worn with tasseled epaulets on the shoulders in 2020 for her balcony appearance at the Cenotaph, she had the tassels removed for a second outing in September 2022, when she wore the same piece to greet Commonwealth troops at the Army Training Centre Pirbright in the days leading up to Queen Elizabeth’s funeral.

[From People]

I’m looking at the 2020 Remembrance photos – I’m adding them at the end of the post – and I really can’t tell if this is the same coat or if Kate went to Catherine Walker and asked them to make a very similar coat without tassels and with different buttons. The waist detail seems to be the same, as does the collar. I mean… it’s possible that Kate “upcycled” the same coat in this case. But I also think she buys duplicates with small variations a lot of the time. Or she used to – I’ve wondered a lot if Kate’s clothing budget has been slashed since William got his hands on the Duchy of Cornwall slumlord money.

The 2020 Remembrance photos with the Walker coat:

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Here are some photos from the big London premiere of Wicked last night. They made a much, much bigger deal of it in London than they did in New York. Which I still think is so weird. This whole time, I actually forgot that Jeff Goldblum and Michelle Yeoh are both in Wicked, so I’m adding photos of them, alongside Ariana Grande, Cynthia Erivo and Jonathan Bailey. I also genuinely forgot that the studios are trying to recreate Barbenheimer – Wicked and Gladiator II come out out this Thursday/Friday. My guess? Gladiator II will slay the competition.

How long can I vamp before we have to talk about the premiere fashion? Ugh. First of all, I don’t mind Ariana’s look at all. She wore a custom butter-yellow Ralph Lauren gown which is appropriately princessy and Glinda-esque. It’s possibly her best look of the whole promo tour. Unfortunately, Ari had to stand next to Cynthia in this absolutely catastrophic Schiaparelli dress. It’s designed so that the crinoline is visible and popped out to the side. The sequined leggings make it look like she has mismatched robot legs. I apologize to everyone living for this promotional tour, but I genuinely think Cynthia has been so poorly served by the stylists. Is her hat an homage to the Tin Man?? OH MY GOD.

Additional fashion notes: Jeff Goldblum wore Burberry, Jonathan Bailey wore Ralph Lauren (the one premiere where he actually wore eveningwear).

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Just after Donald Trump’s “win,” his people confirmed that Trump would enact one of his biggest campaign promises on Day 1: the mass deportation of immigrants. During the campaign, Trump regularly demonized all immigrants, even immigrants with legal status and work visas, and promised that mass deportations would stimulate the economy (nope), free up housing (also nope) and make grocery prices cheaper (lmao). Millions of Americans knew this was the unhinged plan and voted for Trump specifically because of this. Well, he’s added to his Day 1 deportation plan: he’s going to declare a national emergency and order the US military to carry out mass deportations.

President-elect Trump confirmed Monday that he is planning to declare a national emergency and use the U.S. military to carry out mass deportations. Trump made his promise to deport millions of undocumented immigrants one of the cornerstones of his 2024 campaign, and his team has already begun strategizing how to carry its plan out.

A Truth Social post early Monday is the first time the president-elect has confirmed how his administration will execute the controversial plan. Tom Fitton, the president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, posted on Truth Social earlier this month that Trump was “prepared to declare a national emergency and will use military assets to reverse the Biden invasion through a mass deportation program.” Trump reposted Fitton’s comment Monday with the caption, “TRUE!!”

There are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. Trump’s mass deportations are expected to impact roughly 20 million families across the country. Immigration advocates and lawyers are preparing to counter the plan in court. The president-elect’s team is aiming to craft executive orders that can withstand legal challenges to avoid a similar defeat that befell Trump’s Muslim ban in his first term, Politico reported. Their plans also include ending the parole program for undocumented immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, per Politico.

Trump has also already begun filling out his Cabinet positions with immigration hardliners. This includes tapping Tom Homan, the former acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to serve as his “border czar.”

[From Axios]

This is going to be awful. I mentioned this before, but I watched Homan’s 60 Minutes interview, and let’s just say that putting a psychopath in charge of ICE is a bad idea. Homan doesn’t care – neither does Trump – if they round up and deport citizens or legal immigrants. The US military shouldn’t be used in this way, but no agency or department should. It’s all going to be so catastrophic. Especially when Trump and the Supreme Court try to reverse birthright citizenship.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

While millions of Americans are doing what they can to protect themselves and their families from the incoming fascism of Donald Trump’s second term, the British media continues to gleefully promote the idea that Trump will soon deport Prince Harry. The Daily Mail, the Telegraph, all of the royal reporters, they keep publicly begging Trump to do just that. This item appeared in the Mail’s Ephraim Hardcastle column this week:

Prince Harry’s US residency may now be hanging by a gossamer thread. He has been helped by a very friendly Department for Homeland Security vigorously opposing attempts to release his visa application documents.

But Trump’s appointment of South Dakota governor Kristi Noem to run Homeland Security should concern Harry. She takes no nonsense and no prisoners having shot and killed her 14-month-old wirehaired pointer Cricket in a gravel pit because he was ‘untrainable’ and ‘dangerous’.

[From The Daily Mail]

As we’ve discussed before, Harry applied for and received a visa (of some kind) in 2020, when Trump was president. As in, Trump’s DHS in 2020 accepted Harry’s application and he’s been a legal resident ever since. That’s why the Heritage Foundation has been on a two-year harassment campaign to get President Biden’s DHS to release Harry’s immigration records. They’ve been trying to force Biden’s DHS to deport Harry (for reasons!). This also appeared in the Mail a few days ago: “Prince Harry ‘faces deportation if he lied on his visa application’: Trump can remove royal from US if he didn’t declare drug-taking, lawyers say.”

Prince Harry may have lost the ‘upper hand’ in his battle to keep his immigration documents secret after Donald Trump’s thumping election victory and now faces a ‘fight’ to remain in the US, experts told MailOnline today. Beverly Hills attorney Alphonse Provinziano, a leading lawyer with years working on international family law disputes for the rich and famous, believes the Duke of Sussex could spend the next four years of a Trump presidency battling deportation.

Harry has lost the ‘protection’ of the Biden administration, according to the Heritage Foundation. The Washington-based conservative think tank is fighting in the courts to have the Duke of Sussex’s visa documents released so they can see if he admitted his historic narcotic use.

Mr Provinziano, who runs the LA firm Provinziano & Associates, told MailOnline that while Trump is in the White House – and the Heritage Foundation refusing to lie down – Harry faces a genuine battle to stay in the US – even though his wife is American and his children are dual citizens.

‘One unlikely loser of the 2024 US presidential election is Prince Harry. Trump has repeatedly said that he thinks Harry should not be allowed to stay in the United States since he “betrayed the Queen” and possibly was not forthcoming about his past drug use on his visa application’, he said. ‘Prince Harry’s lawyers will be busy over the next four years, as Trump has made it quite clear that if he returned to office, he would seek to have Harry removed from the country’.

[From The Daily Mail]

This lawyer was provided talking points from the Mail and Heritage. It’s the same sh-t they’ve been saying for two years, and the courts are not interested. A judge even looked at Harry’s records and dismissed Heritage’s case. The whole thing hinges on “Harry could be deported IF HE LIED on his visa application.” Anyway, this is going to get worse (in the British media) in the coming months. These people are too busy exposing their whole plan though – they couldn’t bully Harry into crawling back to them, broke and divorced. So now an entire national press and a right-wing think-tank is trying to convince a fascist to deport a prince.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

While Buckingham Palace has been wildly briefing against Prince Andrew for the past two years, King Charles has mostly left his York nieces alone. Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice keep to themselves and seemingly enjoy a “half-in/half-out” arrangement. They both have high-paying jobs, they both travel for work, and they both seem to live the lives of part-time royals. But I’m starting to wonder if Charles is trying to hit Andrew through his daughters. The Times ran this story about how Beatrice and Eugenie have been spending a suspicious amount of time in the Middle East, and something something maybe that’s where Andrew got the money to stay at Royal Lodge. That’s the implication. Meanwhile, I really didn’t know Beatrice and Eugenie were traveling like this??

Prince Andrew’s daughters have made a number of visits to the Middle East, leading experts to suggest they are becoming unofficial “cultural ambassadors” in the region. Princess Beatrice, 36, has appeared at two conferences in Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi in the past month, while Princess Eugenie, 34, has attended events in Qatar.

The visits came as their father, the Duke of York, came under pressure to reveal the source of the windfall that has allowed him to remain in Royal Lodge. Last week The Times revealed he had convinced Buckingham Palace authorities that he had sufficient means, likely to be millions of pounds, to pay for his own upkeep at the 30-bedroom mansion.

Beatrice told the Adipec energy conference in Abu Dhabi that the UK’s contribution to the artificial intelligence revolution was “great talent, great individuals”. The princess, who founded BY-EQ in 2022, spoke about AI, calling it “literally my favourite subject”. She said: “I’m probably making it my whole life’s mission to think about how hope and technology can kind of work in a collaboration mindset.” The conference was organised by the Abu Dhabi national oil company and the UAE energy ministry under the patronage of Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, the president of the UAE.

It followed her trip to Saudi Arabia for the Future Investment Initiative, in the last week of October. Yasir al-Rumayyan, the governor of the Saudi Arabian wealth fund, is one of the trustees. It was the second time she had been to Saudi Arabia this year, after joining the special meeting of the world economic forum at the end of April in the capital, Riyadh.

The region has also attracted Princess Eugenie, whose is as an art director at the Mayfair gallery, Hauser and Wirth. The mother-of-two was pictured in Doha, Qatar, at the M7 art centre, and at the Chaumet and Nature exhibition. This followed her attendance at a dinner last year hosted by Sheikha al-Mayassa, the sister of the country’s emir, in London, to celebrate the winners of a Fashion Trust Arabia prize.

Jennifer Gnana, the Gulf correspondent for Al-Monitor, saw Beatrice networking at the events. She said: “Along with her sister Eugenie, Beatrice is now a regular at Saudi economic and investment conferences. She’s become a culture ambassador of sorts for the UK in the Middle East. She seems a popular, more accessible figure in the Middle East, particularly as we’re seeing fewer senior royals such as the King, Prince William and Kate making visits here. I suppose Princess Beatrice represents a more modern and accessible face of the British monarchy that works for engagement in the Middle East. They seem easygoing and engage freely with people. You don’t really see royal protocol with them.”

Their reception has been compared to that of Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner. “Those with business backgrounds and associated with a world leader or a royal family tend to do particularly well here,” Gnana said. In addition to her appearances in the Middle East, Beatrice also attended technology conferences in Orlando and Geneva, in March and June respectively.

[From The Times]

The suggestion is that in between their international work commitments, Beatrice and Eugenie are acting as middlemen to funnel Middle Eastern money to their father?? While I have no doubt that Andrew has an abundance of shady connections, why would anyone give him money at this point? And why would they give him money through his daughters? And why would Beatrice and Eugenie ruin their own beneficial half-in arrangement by funneling money to their father? The real story here is that Middle Eastern countries – especially the Emirates and Saudi Arabia – are diversifying their business interests so they’re not just known as oil-rich cultural deserts. The Saudis especially have gone all-in on trying to establish themselves as a go-to destination for conferences, festivals, cultural events, sporting events. That’s why they invite British princesses to various events.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

King Charles has “cut off” Prince Andrew in several different ways, and Charles has wanted an abundance of credit for all of it. Months ago, Charles made a big show of cutting off Andrew’s royal protection, which Charles had likely been paying through the Duchy of Lancaster. Then Charles cut off Andrew’s £1 million-a-year allowance, which was basically given to Andrew to keep him living in a certain kind of royal lifestyle and to help Andrew maintain Royal Lodge. Well, Andrew has proven to the Crown Estates that he has the money to maintain Royal Lodge without Charles’s largesse. But what about his security? Royal Lodge is within the Royal Windsor estate, so there’s some security built-in. But the Sun believes Andrew has cut some kind of deal to get private security? And people in the Middle East are going to pay for it?

Prince Andrew is personally paying for a cut-price security deal to remain in his royal home — despite a bid by the King to push him out. The disgraced Duke of York, 64, lost his annual £3million-a-year hand-out from brother Charles which funded guards at Windsor’s Royal Lodge.

The Sun on Sunday revealed the King axed the cash for Andrew, who does not work but has links to oligarchs. And we can now reveal he has negotiated a cheaper protection deal at his leased home which he refuses to leave. His plan is believed to be bankrolled by Middle East money. Daughters Beatrice and Eugenie have addressed conferences in Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi.

A source said: “He has his security but at a cheaper rate and he is managing to finance it himself. He has dug his heels in and is refusing to move so found a way to finance his security. How sustainable in the long term, then who knows how long he can do it for.”

Author Andrew Lownie, who is penning a shock book on the prince, said: “Prince Andrew is likely to have many forms of income.” It is believed he carved out a string of business links in Asia and the Middle East when he worked as a UK’s Special Representative for International Trade and Investment for 10 years until 2011. While working for the government he was handed use of a £1million home in Abu Dhabi by their Royal Family.

In November 2022, The Sun on Sunday revealed the scandal-hit prince flew on a ­billionaire Swiss contact’s jet to Bahrain to be pampered in five-star, all-expenses-paid luxury by his long-standing friends in the kingdom’s Royal Family. Bloomberg News reported that Andrew took out a £1.5 million personal loan with the Luxembourg-based private bank Banque Havilland in December 2017.

[From The Sun]

My theory is that this story – and others like it being circulated in recent days – are all from Charles and the Buckingham Palace courtiers, desperate to give Charles some kind of win and desperate to paint Andrew in the worst light. Like, this is still Charles throwing a tantrum over Andrew’s refusal to downsize. I doubt Andrew has even cut some kind of security deal. He’ll probably just go without – he barely leaves Royal Lodge at all. So Charles is just throwing this out there – “Andrew’s got money from somewhere, probably foreign, and he’s making a tacky spectacle of himself!” Except Charles is the one making a tacky spectacle of all of this because he’s still jealous of his younger brother. What’s weird is that Charles is doing all of this, but then he’ll invite Andrew and Fergie to Christmas at Sandringham and even allow them on the church walk.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Embed from Getty Images
My favorite Kevin Smith movie is Dogma. I remember watching it for the first time, as a fairly sheltered Catholic teenager, and just loving it. It even had my favorite artist, Alanis Morissette, playing God herself. For years, it’s been impossible to find Dogma streaming anywhere, and that’s because Harvey Weinstein owned the rights to the movie and was holding it “hostage.” Last month, a new company finally bought the rights from Weinstein, which freed Kevin up to be able to screen it and more. In fact, it’s getting a re-release in theaters next year.

Kevin streamed Dogma at the Vulture Festival on Sunday, where he also did a Q&A. During the event, he dropped the news that not only has he figured out a way to do a Dogma sequel, but he’s also pretty sure that he’ll be able to convince Ben Affleck and Matt Damon to make an appearance. After all, as he points out, their participation is likely a key factor in getting a sequel off the ground.

During his Dogma Confessional on Sunday at Vulture Festival, the View Askewniverse creator revealed that he’s working on a sequel to the 1999 film, and he expects Ben Affleck and Matt Damon to return for cameos at least.

“Some people will be like, ‘Don’t f—ing touch it. You’ll ruin it,’” said Smith. “And I’m here to tell you: I will. I’m f—ing tickled. I found a way in.”

He sounded confident that Affleck and Damon would reprise their roles as fallen angels Bartleby and Loki. After Smith helped save the pair’s 1997 film Good Will Hunting, without so much as a thank you in their Golden Globes and Oscars speeches, they owe him.

“I have been able to hold that over both their heads for 25 f—ing years, which is why they keep showing up in all the movies,” said Smith. “Expect a cameo from them — more than a f—ing cameo. The only way we get a Dogma sequel made is if they’re there. So count on those guys being there.”

Sunday’s panel marks the 25th anniversary of Dogma, which saw Affleck and Damon’s buddy angels traveling to New Jersey in search of a loophole that will get them back to heaven. The film also features Linda Fiorentino, Salma Hayek, Alan Rickman, Chris Rock, Jason Lee and Alanis Morissette, as well as Jason Mewes and Smith reprising their roles as Jay and Silent Bob.

Dogma served as the fourth installment in Smith’s View Askewniverse, which also includes Clerks (1994), Mallrats (1995), Chasing Amy (1997), Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001), Clerks II (2006), Jay and Silent Bob Reboot (2019) and Clerks III (2022).

Last month, Smith announced that the religious satire is returning to theaters and getting a new home release after another company purchased the distribution rights from Miramax, making it potentially available to stream for the first time ever. Smith noted that the new Dogma deal could potentially lead to “sequels, TV versions, in terms of extending the story. Something we could never do before. So, exciting man. And all those people who worked in it are still viable.”

After Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexual assault by multiple women in 2017, Smith expressed that he was “ashamed” to have worked with the producer early in his career. He also pledged to donate all future residuals from his Miramax and Weinstein Co. work to Women in Film. Smith said at the time that Weinstein had recently approached him to make Dogma 2, an offer the director declined.

[From Deadline]

My very first thought upon hearing this news was to just let Dogma be. After all, why do we need a sequel? (Insert whatever “There’s no new ideas in Hollywood” grumbling of your choice.) What if a sequel ruins our enjoyment of the original? Last month, Kevin said that he was working with the company that bought the rights from Weinstein to do a tour with screenings in honor of its 25th anniversary. Why not just stick with that?

Then, I thought about it a little bit more. I think Kevin has calmed down and matured a lot since his health scare in 2018, and it seems like he’s in a healthy yet YOLO place in life. So, now I’m cautiously optimistic that he’ll ignore some of more over-the-top tendencies and give us one of his trademark zany yet cleverly written films. If he says he’s got a workaround, then sure, why not? I have no idea what a Dogma sequel would entail. Also, I have doubts that Ben and Matt would sign on for more than just a cameo, but we’ll see. I also must mention that a sequel simply won’t be the same without Alan Rickman (RIP), but if Ben and Matt really do come back, then sign me up. Sign me up twice if Alanis’ God returns to play some more skeeball.

Embed from Getty Images

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kevin Smith (@thatkevinsmith)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kevin Smith (@thatkevinsmith)

Embed from Getty Images

Pamela Anderson might be a contender in the Best Actress Oscar race because of Gia Coppola’s The Last Showgirl. The first trailer was just released! [OMG Blog]
Jonathan Majors & Meagan Good are engaged… this will end badly, and I wish Good had better people around her. [Just Jared]
Behold, Tilda Swinton at the Governors Awards! [RCFA]
Joe Rogan: Hippies thanked me because of censorship. [Pajiba]
Kiernan Shipka is all grown up, and I don’t even want to admit about how many times I’ve wondered what Sally Draper would have done in the 1970s. [Go Fug Yourself]
Fox News’ trans-panic over every little story is bizarre. [Socialite Life]
I genuinely want to see A Real Pain (mostly for Keiran Culkin). [LaineyGossip]
USPS will release a Betty White stamp next year! [Seriously OMG]
Jana Duggar is a Mennonite now. [Starcasm]
What is Mike Tyson’s net worth? [Hollywood Life]
Elmo had a Chicken Shop Date (Rocco was there too). [Buzzfeed]

Martha Stewart has very discerning tastes. That’s what she built her billion-dollar empire on and covered in the 100 books she’s published. And it doesn’t stop at lifestyle and business either, as she recently told Andy Cohen that she wouldn’t appear on Golden Bachelorette because “the guys aren’t hot enough.” So in the midst of People Mag’s selection of John Krasinski as 2024’s Sexiest Man Alive, a choice that wasn’t controversial so much as it was befuddling, the magazine is thrilled to tout that Martha approves of their selection. While answering questions at a Louis Vuitton event in NYC last week, Martha gave the gushing comment: “John is pretty sexy.” And then things got a little weird, as Martha jokingly threatened John’s wife Emily Blunt, and suggested that her tween-age grandson should’ve been Sexiest Man Alive instead.

Martha Stewart is giving PEOPLE’s 2024 Sexiest Man Alive her seal of approval.

“John is pretty sexy,” the lifestyle expert told PEOPLE about this year’s champ John Krasinski at Louis Vuitton’s opening of its temporary New York City base on East 57th Street on Nov. 14. “He’s been over to my house and he’s pretty sexy,” Stewart, who recently released her 100th cookbook Martha: The Cookbook, reiterated.

But the celebrity chef also gave the Office alum props for his talents: “He’s pretty good at all the work he does too,” she said.

“Watch out, wife,” she quipped with a smirk about Krasinski’s wife of 14 years, Emily Blunt.

When asked about how she characterizes “sexy” lately, Stewart said it comes down to being “Gorgeous, talented, clean, fun.” If the A Quiet Place star hadn’t been crowned as 2024’s winner, Stewart has a biased and youthful choice as to who should be PEOPLE’s SMA.

“I think my grandson, Truman. He’s only 12,” she joked.

Stewart recently told PEOPLE about some “especially attractive actors” who were guests on her TV shows over the years that left her starstruck.

“When Russell Crowe came on, he was still fit and gorgeous, just having done maybe Gladiator. He was pretty attractive. Matthew McConaughey, he is still pretty attractive. Tom Cruise in his first movies was so cute and attractive,” she said.

The Golden Bachelorette is one place that Stewart won’t be meeting romantic prospects any time soon.

During a Oct. 20 appearance on Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen, Stewart told host Andy Cohen that she wouldn’t join the ABC dating show if asked because she’s unimpressed by the male contestants.

Stewart replied that she would “absolutely not” join the show.

The Bravo star asked Stewart if she could be persuaded to join the show for $1 million an episode, to which she shook her head. She responded, “No, the guys aren’t hot enough.”

[From People]

I guess it’s all in the delivery, because “pretty sexy” can be read a lot of different ways. I still hear everything Martha says in the tone of Miranda Priestly from The Devil Wears Prada, that soft-spoken yet biting put-down quality. So “John is pretty sexy” sounds to me like, “yeah, he’s kind of good looking, I suppose.” Especially when Martha repeats the refrain when talking about his work. “I guess John is good at the work he does,” an endorsement I’m sure John has long been after, lol. To be fair, though, it is possible (if highly improbable) that Martha meant it like, “He’s pretty damn sexy!” But then we’re right back in Miranda Priestly territory with the “Watch out, wife,” comment. I feel like there’s a very specific categorization in Martha’s head for determining whose names are worth remembering, and it doesn’t bode well for those who get reduced to functions like “Wife” or “NY Post Lady.” Plus, there’s the fact that Martha has said in the past how she’d like for her friends to die so she can date their husbands. Hahaha? We won’t let anything happen to you, Emily Blunt! Also, I know in some ways it’s a cute, proud grandmother thing for Martha to suggest her (12-year-old) grandson for SMA, but it’s a little creepy too, right?

Jennifer Graylock-Graylock.com / Avalon, IMAGO/MediaPunch/Avalon, IMAGO/Barbara Hine/Avalon