The New York Times published a surprisingly balanced and fair assessment the day after News Group Newspapers settled with Prince Harry in their years-long legal battle. The NYT piece was written by Mark Landler, the paper’s London Bureau chief, not some wannabe royalist. It’s called “What Prince Harry’s Settlement Means for Him and for Britain’s Royal Family,” but really, it’s about how the Windsors and their symbiotic partner, the British press, are grumpy and fuming about Harry’s astounding victory. The biggest tell is the flat refusal by all parties to acknowledge that the Murdochs had to admit partial liability to save themselves from getting reamed in the trial. The British press is trying and failing to make the story into “Harry didn’t want to fight” rather than “The Murdochs blinked and backed down to save their own asses.” Some excerpts from this NYT piece:

How the British press covered Harry’s victory: Prince Harry’s last-minute settlement of a long-running suit with Rupert Murdoch’s tabloids was on the front page of a handful of London papers on Thursday, though conspicuously, not on any owned by Mr. Murdoch. The Sun, which admitted illegal activity by private investigators it hired more than a decade ago to dig up personal information on Harry, didn’t get to the story until Page 6. The Times of London, Mr. Murdoch’s broadsheet, covered it at the bottom of Page 12, next to a report about the failing eyesight of the actress Judi Dench. The Daily Mail, whose publisher, Associated Newspapers, is also being sued by Harry for hacking his cellphone and invading his privacy, reported the news on an inside page, as did The Daily Mirror, whose publisher, Mirror Group Newspapers, lost a phone hacking lawsuit to Harry in 2023.

Dismissive of Harry’s win: Even papers that are not in litigation with Harry, like the right-wing Daily Telegraph, treated the deal dismissively. The Telegraph, in a front-page article, said “Harry climbs down after eight-figure payout,” adding, “His quest to bring down part of the Murdoch empire has ended in a fizzle rather than a bang.” Critics of the press coverage said it played down the significance of what Harry had extracted. Crucially, that included the first admission by News Group Newspapers that unlawful activity had occurred, not just at The News of the World, a tabloid Mr. Murdoch shut down in 2011, but also at The Sun, his flagship British tabloid.

What Harry actually achieved: “If you’re interested in an accountable media, Harry’s was actually an act done in the public interest, at considerable cost to himself,” said Peter Hunt, a former royal correspondent at the BBC. “He’s gotten them to accept something they’ve refused to accept for years. The dispiriting thing for him is that the public don’t appreciate that,” Mr. Hunt added. “A lot of their understanding of what Harry’s up to is through the lens of a media that is implacably hostile to him.”

The years-long smear campaign on the Sussexes: “The blackening of Prince Harry’s name and his wife by large chunks of Fleet Street has been really awful to watch,” Alan Rusbridger, a former editor of The Guardian, said to Channel 4 on Wednesday, referring to London’s traditional thoroughfare for newspaper publishing. “It seems like an almost deliberate tactic to destroy the credibility of somebody who is a threat to them.”

The settlement money: Harry has not said what he plans to do with the money. His legal bills will be formidable, though Daniel Taylor, a media lawyer, said these are usually covered by the party offering the settlement in a separate payment. He has not commented beyond a statement that was read out for him by Mr. Sherborne.

Will the settlement ease Windsor tensions? In one respect, however, Harry’s decision to settle could ease tensions with his family. He said last year that his campaign against the tabloids was a central cause of the rift with his brother, William, and his father, King Charles III. Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace, where William has his office, declined to comment on the settlement. By joining his brother in taking a deal, Harry will avoid another embarrassing spectacle for the royal family. But Mr. Hunt and other royal watchers cautioned against concluding that this alone will heal a rift that includes painful issues like the family’s treatment of Meghan and the airing of dirty laundry in his memoir, “Spare.” “The damage runs so deep that one court case is not going to be enough to resolve it,” Mr. Hunt said. “The fissures run wide.”

[From The NY Times]

I’m constantly irritated by the framing of Spare as “Harry airing out the Windsors’ dirty laundry” or “Harry telling his family’s secrets.” Spare was his own story, a memoir of profound grief, sadness, neglect and redemption. These people are not just dismissive of Harry’s legal victories, they’re dismissive of one of the bestselling memoirs of all time. As for the reaction of the Windsors and the British press… the NYT is right to suggest, in a way, that the reactions are connected. I’m not sure if I believe that the Windsors have ordered the press to frame Harry’s victory in this sullen, butthurt way, because I think that reaction is completely organic – they’re mad that the Prince Who Got Away is the one who stood up to them and got one of the most powerful press barons to capitulate. That just happens to scare the sh-t out of the Windsors too. Anyway, the Windsors’ silence is deafening…and hilarious.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

This awards season has not panned out the way I was expecting back in November. No Oscar nominations for Nicole Kidman, Angelina Jolie, Daniel Craig, Denzel Washington, Challengers, Margaret Qualley and on and on. But I did get one thing I really wanted: Isabella Rossellini has scored her first-ever Oscar nomination at the age of 72. She was recognized for her work in Conclave, where she played a grumpy nun who revealed a vital piece of information to the cardinals at just the right moment. Rossellini’s screen time was limited, but I think people are so used to “category fraud” that they forget that… this is actually what a “supporting performance” looks like, this is what it’s supposed to be. They gave Judd Hirsch a supporting actor Oscar nomination for eight minutes of screen time in The Fabelmans! Rossellini’s Conclave nom is similar.

Throughout the awards season, Isabella has been soaking in the experience and bringing a lot of heart and levity to the party. She’s enjoying herself, and this must be such a treat, to get an Oscar nom at this stage of her life. Like most nominees, Isabella released a statement thanking everyone for helping her along the way, and reminding everyone of her incredible pedigree:

“When I was young, I was always identified as the daughter of Ingrid Bergman and Roberto Rossellini. As I’ve gotten older, this doesn’t happen as frequently; and, I miss it, especially today. I wish my parents were alive to celebrate with me this great honor. And, also, today, with this joy, my mind can’t help lingering in the beyond to David Lynch. Our collaboration was key to my understanding of the art of acting. It is my past, all that I have in me, that I brought to my interpretation of Sister Agnes in the film Conclave, working under the clear, sharp direction of Edward Berger, his incredible cast and crew, especially the incomparable Ralph Fiennes. Thank you to the Academy. I am very honored.”

[From EW]

Isabella also released a video, filmed in her home, thanking everyone and the Academy and referencing her parents. I love all of this, and honestly, I would love nothing more for Isabella to win the Oscar. Let’s make it happen, Oscar voters!

Isabella Rossellini on her first Oscar nomination, highlighting her parents, David Lynch, Edward Berger and Ralph Fiennes pic.twitter.com/EHMteGsFQj

— Erik Anderson (@awards_watch) January 23, 2025

The funniest thing about people being mad at Isabella Rossellini for mentioning her mother is…wouldn’t you? Your birth was an international scandal that was condemned by US Congress AND The Vatican and nearly derailed Ingrid Bergman’s career? I would never shut up about that! pic.twitter.com/zF6cOcBILy

— Brandon Lewis @ Sundance 2025 (@blewis1103) January 15, 2025

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

Before I saw Wicked, I was fully prepared to say “this is not for me.” But then I watched it and… yeah, I enjoyed it. Was it the best thing ever? Eh, that’s an impossible standard, but it was fine-to-good. What really surprised me was how much I enjoyed both Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande. Both women really worked their asses off and you could see it on screen. Well, now both women are Oscar-nominated for their performances, Cynthia as the lead actress category and Ariana in supporting. To celebrate her first Oscar nomination, Ari posted this on her social media:

picking my head up in between sobs to say thank you so much to @theacademy for this unfathomable recognition. i cannot stop crying, to no one’s surprise. i’m humbled and deeply honored to be in such brilliant company and sharing this with tiny ari who sat and studied Judy Garland singing Somewhere Over the Rainbow just before the big, beautiful bubble entered. i’m so proud of you, tiny.

thank you again, from the bottom of my heart, for this acknowledgement @theacademy.

thank you @jonmchu for taking this chance on me and for being the most unbelievably brilliant leader, human being, and most fierce friend. i am so deeply proud of my beautiful Wicked family. i am so proud of my Elphie, my sister, my dear @cynthiaerivo. your brilliance is never ending and you deserve every flower (tulip) in every garden. i love you unconditionally, always.

i don’t quite have all my words yet, i’m still trying to breathe. but thank you. oh my goodness, thank you. Universal, Marc, my family, my heart.

lemons and melons and pears, oh my.

[From Ariana’s IG]

Real talk: if Ariana was a less messy person or she had a less scandalous romantic life, I actually think she would be a major contender. I’m not even joking, she was really good in Wicked and she absolutely deserves this nomination. I’m just saying, she probably could have won if she and Ethan Slater didn’t have an affair and wreck both of their marriages (ON THIS FILM!). Alas, my guess/hope is that Lilly Jay’s well-timed essay last month was the final word on Ariana’s Oscar chances. As it should be.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Ariana Grande (@arianagrande)

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Best performance by an actor in an Oscar campaign goes to Timothee Chalamet, hands down. He’sbeen a pure delight while promoting the Bob Dylan biopic A Complete Unknown. Although it wasn’t an event related to the film, I think Timmy’s campaign really began with his lookalike contest in late October. You remember, the contest that started them all, where the organizer didn’t get a permit for NYC’s Washington Square Park, so police shut down the proceedings, then 1,001 Chalamets traversed to a backup park, and Timmy himself crashed the party just long enough to come in 13th place? Good times. Well, fast forward to this week, where Timothee secured his second Best Actor Oscar nomination just days before he’s hosting SNL. Only, he’s not just hosting, he’s also the musical guest. So in an inspired move, the angle for Timmy’s new SNL teaser is how he’s deploying his lookalikes to aid him in preparing for Saturday’s show:

Timothee Chalamet is enlisting his lookalikes for help pulling off double duty on “Saturday Night Live” this weekend.

In a promo skit for the episode, for which he’ll be both host and musical guest (playing songs from Bob Dylan biopic “A Complete Unknown”), Chalamet confesses: “I’ve never done this before. I’m having to be ‘SNL’ host and musical guest in the same week, so it’s a lot of work. And I want to focus on the songs, so I brought in some help to cover all the hosting duties.”

Four Chalamet doubles then appear, seemingly from the New York City lookalike contest that Chalamet himself crashed back in October. Each is dressed in a different Timmy era — there’s “Wonka” Timmy, Timmy at the Paris premiere of “A Complete Unknown” (where he rocked a pink skinny scarf), everyday Timmy and, of course, Bob Dylan Timmy.

The lookalikes are shown taking on some of Chalamet’s “SNL” workload, including meeting with the writers, working on his monologue and listening to Mikey Day bragging about hosting “Is It Cake.” And, when he forgets to show up for a “Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon” interview, the Paris lookalike goes in his place — much to Fallon’s dismay.

“He’s good. He’s really good,” Chalamet says to the other lookalikes backstage. “You guys should learn from him.”

Twenty-one-year-old Miles Mitchell won the lookalike contest in October — which took a turn when, not only did Chalamet arrive, but so did the NYPD, leaving one of the doppelgangers in handcuffs.

[From Variety]

Excellent. Brilliant. No notes! Timmy just gets the assignment, as the kids say. Yeah, he’s promoting a high profile awards-baity movie, where he plays arguably the most consequential singer songwriter of the 20th century, no less. But Timmy isn’t taking himself so seriously that he can’t embrace a fun, somewhat silly fan-driven event, and end up making it a prominent feature in his repping of the film. While contest winner Miles Mitchell already experienced the perk of attending the Golden Globes, it’s very generous of Timothee to include even more of his clones for this SNL bit. And yes, at this point I am absolutely expecting that the extra Timmies will have cameos in the live show. A great nod to Hollywood history would be if they riffed on the classic Lucille Ball–Harpo Marx mirror routine (are you listening, SNL writers?!). But whatever they do, Timmy has given these kids such great exposure! Mensch, thy name is Chalamet.

PS — Mikey Day and the cake gag killed both me and CB!

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Saturday Night Live (@nbcsnl)

Photos credit: Abaca Press/INSTARimages, Anna Maria Tinghino/Future Image/Cover Images, Maria Laura Antonelli/AGF Foto/Avalon, Maria Laura Antonelli/AGF Foto/Avalon, IMAGO/Steve Vas/Avalon

More James Bond rumors for Sam Heughan? Or is he trying to make those rumors happen? I don’t think they’re anywhere near choosing the next 007. [JustJared]
Taylor Zakhar Perez looks hot in Lacoste underpants. [Socialite Life]
Damn, Nicholas Hoult looks great in Bottega Veneta. [RCFA]
A new Tori Amos interview! [OMG Blog]
Crybaby Donald Trump threw a tantrum over Right Rev. Mariann Budde politely asking him to show mercy to marginalized people. [Jezebel]
What happened during the RHONY finale? [LaineyGossip]
The Simpsons will remain on Sundays. [Pajiba]
Chris Pratt said that Anna Faris’s house burned down. [Buzzfeed]
Jesus, this is an irresponsible headline & story at HL. [Hollywood Life]
David Eigenberg, before he was famous. [Seriously OMG]

Gwen Stefani and Blake Sheldon have been together for 10 years and married for three-and-a-half. Gwen has always been a devout Catholic, and for the last month or so, she’s promoting two things: her new album, Bouquet, and a prayer app called Hallow (Insert the lame “hallow-back girl” joke of your choosing here). Gwen started writing Bouquet when she and Blake got engaged and dedicated it to him and their “love story.” Gwen sat down for an interview with Today, in which she talks about the album, her musical journey, her favorite memory from No Doubt, her life’s purpose, and more.

Everyone has a purpose: “We all have a purpose. One of the purposes of my life is to be a wife and a mother. But the only time I feel like I’m really contributing to the world is when I’m writing songs.”

On the “magical” collabs on Bouquet: “Yes, yes! This album was magical and special and a miracle. It’s a pure miracle I received these songs. I was like, ‘What? Again? I get more?’ There was one really unexpected collaboration and that was that Blake Shelton hopped on a song called “Purple Irises.” That was pretty special because, you know, everybody wants him. The other huge collab was this producer called Scott Hendricks who is more of a country producer. But it’s not a country record. It’s a Gwen record.

How her dreams have grown throughout her musical journey: “The longer I get to be part of the world and try to fulfill the purpose — my purpose — of making songs, you want it more and more and more. Because it’s got to be over soon. It’s got to be. Once you get that love, once you got to share your life with people, it’s hard to stop. The dream just keeps getting bigger in a way, and the gratitude keeps getting more as well.”

She really loves collaborating with other artists: There’s never been a time where I haven’t like absolutely enjoyed collaborating. Collaboration is when I feel like I shine the most. That’s when like I feel like I’m the best. I would definitely go back in the studio with any collaborator that I’ve ever worked with and write a song. I love writing music. It is the one thing that makes me feel like I’m worthy of something to be on this planet for. I need to keep pressing that button and try to write songs. You want to collaborate, I’m right here, guys.

Her favorite memory from the No Doubt days: “I was sitting on the tour bus, and we had been on tour for a while. I was actually making a baby blanket for my sister. I was like sewing this blanket by hand, everyone else was like doing other stuff — I won’t say what — and I looked out the window and I see all these girls coming to the concert. I was like, ‘Oh my gosh, that girl, she’s dressed like me.’ It was just this amazing … how is that happening right now? It just made me feel like impossibly good.”

What music she’s listening to now: “I think there’s a lot of good music out there. I kind of went backwards in the last couple of years. As I’ve been writing this record, I rediscovered a lot of the music I was listening to when I was a kid. Back in the station wagon, going to church, listening to soft rock. One of my favorite new artists that my son turned me on to is Zach Top. I love that record so much; such good lyrics and voice and melody. I’m going to come and see the concert.”

[From Today.com]

At first, it was kind of jarring to reconcile that the woman who co-write “Just a Girl” was gushing so hard about her purpose being “a wife and a mother,” but then I remembered that this is what Gwen has always wanted. She tells us in several No Doubt songs. In “Simple Kind of Life,” she sings about wanting a simple man so she could “be a wife” and wanting to be a mom so badly that she sometimes wishes “for a mistake.” “Marry Me” is all about how she likes “tradition” and wants to get married and cook dinner. She’s in a happy marriage and a good place in her life, so I’m glad that she got what she’s always wanted. Good for her.

What she says about really wanting to keep making more music as she gets older because she’s realizing her own mortality is pretty poignant. I feel that sentiment hard. I also love the way she tells the story about her favorite memory from No Doubt in which she’s sewing a blanket by hand while the male bandmates are doing “other stuff” that she can’t say. It paints a picture of her sewing while all sorts of debauchery is going down around her. I don’t know if it’s being stuck inside all day because of the snow or what, but for some reason, this imagery is so funny to me right now.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Blake Shelton (@blakeshelton)

Photos credit: Patricia Schlein/Wenn/Avalon, IMAGO/RW / MediaPunch/Avalon, Judy Eddy/Wenn/Avalon, Jeffrey Mayer/Avalon/

On Tuesday, Justin Baldoni’s team released “raw footage” from It Ends With Us, a ten-minute clip of Baldoni and Blake Lively shooting a “slow dancing” scene at a crowded bar. The scene was supposed to be used in a montage about their characters falling in love. Blake cited the filming of that particular scene in her sexual harassment complaint and her lawsuit against Baldoni. Baldoni added context for what actually happened within his lawsuit, then he released the footage to prove his point. There were obviously a lot of interpretations about what the video actually showed, but that didn’t stop Blake’s team from claiming that her visible discomfort (within the 10-minute video) proved that this was one instance of Baldoni sexually harassing her. Team Lively must have been unsettled by the fact that so many people actually watched the video and debated what it really showed about her dynamic with Baldoni though, because it looks like Team Lively is trying to make sure that Baldoni isn’t allowed to provide any more context or evidence of Lively’s misrepresentations or exaggerations.

Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds want a judge to gag Justin Baldoni’s lawyer … claiming he’s making false statements about the case.

The megastars filed a letter in court Tuesday … and, in it, they ask the court to issue a protective order to stop Baldoni’s lawyers — led by Bryan Freedman — from engaging in “improper conduct” including going on an alleged “harassing and retaliatory media campaign” against Blake and Ryan.

They say he’s violating court rules that stop a lawyer from making statements to the press that are irrelevant to a case and might prejudice the jury. In it, Blake and Ryan specifically mention the release of unedited footage from “It Ends With Us” filming … which Blake’s team claims “corroborates, to the letter, what Ms. Lively described” in her initial complaint back in December.

Remember, Lively accused Baldoni of sexual harassment and engaging in a coordinated effort to destroy her reputation. Baldoni has since filed his own $400 million lawsuit against Lively … accusing her of defamation, civil extortion and other allegations.

Baldoni’s team released the behind-the-scenes footage from the movie to prove he never made harassing comments … while Blake’s team pushed back and said Baldoni never discussed or choreographed the intimacy here — and, it made her uncomfortable.

Sources connected to JB tell TMZ … they believe it’s grossly unfair to impose a gag order after Justin has been defamed by the New York Times in an article that they say has cost him three jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars. All Justin wants to do, the source says, “is release videos and text messages to prove the allegations are false.”

The source adds, it is “unbelievable” that Blake Lively would go on a takedown campaign against Justin and then immediately turn around and say she wants a gag order so that Justin can’t defend himself.

[From TMZ]

I actually understand Team Lively’s point – Baldoni and his legal team are absolutely waging a trial in the court of public opinion, and given the multiple lawsuits involved, I’m sure gag orders will eventually be issued (hopefully to all sides). That being said, Team Lively is mad that they’re losing in the court of public opinion, let’s be clear. Blake, Ryan and their team have been waging their own campaign to win over the public, establish their narrative and rebrand Blake. They’re the ones who went to the New York Times, they’re the ones who immediately ran to People Mag for a sugary, sympathetic cover story about poor Blake, they’re the ones who have loudly screamed “DARVO” every time Baldoni pointed out an inconsistency or provided receipts to dispute Blake’s story. All of their efforts have been hampered by Baldoni refusing to just roll over. I’ve been asking this for weeks, but it’s still so striking to me – did Blake honestly think that Baldoni wasn’t going to fight back? Did she really think that he would not defend himself?

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images, cover courtesy of People.

The Telegraph is one of the few British outlets doing in-depth royal-specific coverage of News Group Newspapers’ settlement with Prince Harry. The Mail has barely said a word, and the Sun… well, you know. What I mean with “royal-specific coverage” is that almost everyone is running this as a media/press story about how the mighty Murdochs blinked and got scared about all of the sh-t that was about to come out during this trial. There’s also been a wealth of coverage about how Harry managed to get something no other plaintiff has gotten: a public apology and a public admission of wrong-doing by NGN. NGN settled, not Harry. I also saw one British legal expert explain that if NGN was willing to admit their crimes publicly, Harry basically had no choice but to accept NGN’s settlement, because his case would have fallen apart (because NGN was basically conceding a huge part of what Harry was accusing them of). I bring this up because the Telegraph’s Hannah Furness (one of their royal reporters) has written an alternate-reality piece in which Harry sucks because NGN settled and admitted wrong-doing: “Meghan and the money: Are these the real reasons that our lost royal has finally settled? Rather than lay bare the tabloid grievances that have tormented him, Harry accepted a settlement from home – the question now is why?”

Prince Harry, our noble dragon slayer, has laid down his sword. With moments to spare, as teams of lawyers and a phalanx of press filled the High Court, he agreed to settle with News Group Newspapers (NGN) and avert what was expected to be the 10-week-long media trial of the century. It is the last thing anyone expected.

The Duke of Sussex, so vocal and so determined in his battle against the tabloid press, will now not have the full-scale “public inquiry” he was accused of wanting, as part of his quest to “change the media landscape” forever. Far from jetting into Britain to lay bare the tabloid grievances that have tormented him for so long, he accepted the settlement from home. The key question is, why?

Firstly, it cannot be ignored that this is a personal, emotional success for Prince Harry. For a man who has been so open about his pain and grief, the apology issued by the publisher about his late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, will carry great meaning. That NGN “acknowledge and apologise for the distress caused to the Duke, and the damage inflicted on relationships, friendships and family” will also be incredibly important to Harry.

But can the Duke claim that, as hoped, he has changed the media landscape with his crusade? Not quite. In this regard, it is not what was said in NGN’s “full and unequivocal apology” that is key, but what was missing. There is no admission of phone hacking, surveillance or misuse of private information at the Sun; just the News of the World, which closed more than a decade ago. Admissions of “unlawful activity” are confined to private investigators, with no executive heads rolling, no forensic examination of any cover-up, and no airing of new details of the “serious intrusion” that NGN admits to.

As such, one wonders how quickly the elation of the personal victory may, behind the scenes as the adrenaline wears off, give way to deflation for the man who has called holding the British press to account his “life’s work”. Having set himself up as a champion of the voiceless (“I’ve been told that slaying dragons will get you burned,” he cried poetically, after a legal victory last year), Prince Harry now finds himself – in terms of taking the stand – back among them. His quest to bring down part of the Murdoch empire has ended in a fizzle rather than a bang.

What could have persuaded the Duke to stop at this stage? The decision will inevitably raise questions about his finances – the settlement was an eight-figure sum, we are told. While other celebrities and civilians settled, with some saying they could not afford to pay the legal fees, Prince Harry planned to be the one who saw it through, with money as no object.

It is not clear to what extent his settlement is materially or morally different to the one he told the world his elder brother had made, with 2023 court papers claiming Prince William “has recently settled his claim against NGN behind the scenes”. One brother did so in private, and the other in public.

There will be question marks, too, about whether someone finally convinced Harry, a family man who is forging a new life on another continent, that his energies might be better spent elsewhere. The cost, both financially and mentally – as he relived his unhappy younger years – was huge, and the rift with his family significant, as his legal battles came to play a “central piece” in this, he said previously.

[From The Telegraph]

“It is not clear to what extent his settlement is materially or morally different to the one he told the world his elder brother had made.” Fantastically stupid – William made a secret deal with NGN, didn’t get a public apology or any kind of admission of NGN’s wrong-doing, and William and NGN still collaborate to this day, with William regularly giving exclusives to the Murdoch-owned Times of London. If anything, any attempt at comparison between the brothers highlights the fact that William looks like he’s been bought and paid for by the scummiest media figures in Britain, and that his office has been in open collaboration with NGN for years.

The larger effort is obviously to hold Harry to an impossible standard – why hasn’t Harry single-handedly changed the British media? Why won’t he spend another six years on this? Because he’s not the police and he’s not a politician, and these are not issues which can be solved through civil litigation alone.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

If you ask me, this was always going to be a weird awards season, given the films and everything going on in the world in 2024. But the awards season absolutely changed and shifted with the Southern California wildfires, which started right after the Golden Globes. The reality is that many LA-based Oscar voters have lost their homes or they’re hosting evacuees. The schedule rightly shifted as people’s priorities changed. As of now, the Oscars are still scheduled for March 2nd, and I do not believe that the date will change. The Oscars telecast will shift though – they’ve removed the “Original Song” performances, and they’re going to honor LA firefighters and more. Okay, now let’s get to this year’s nominations! These are just the biggest categories, you can see the full list here.

Best Supporting Actress.
Monica Barbaro, A Complete Unknown
Ariana Grande, Wicked
Felicity Jones, The Brutalist
Isabella Rossellini, Conclave
Zoe Saldana, Emilia Perez

Best Supporting Actor
Yura Borisov, Anora
Kieran Culkin, A Real Pain
Edward Norton, A Complete Unknown
Guy Pearce, The Brutalist
Jeremy Strong, The Apprentice

Best Actor
Adrien Brody, The Brutalist
Timothee Chalamet, A Complete Unknown
Colman Domingo, Sing Sing
Ralph Fiennes, Conclave
Sebastian Stan, The Apprentice

Best Actress.
Cynthia Erivo, Wicked
Karla Sofia Gascon, Emilia Perez
Mikey Madison, Anora
Demi Moore, The Substance
Fernanda Torres, I’m Still Here

Best Director.
Brady Corbet (The Brutalist)
Caralie Fargeat (The Substance).
James Mangold (A Complete Unknown)
Sean Baker (Anora)
Jacques Audiard (Emilia Perez)

Best Picture.
Anora
The Brutalist
A Complete Unknown
Conclave
Dune Part 2
Emilia Perez
I’m Still Here
Nickel Boys
The Substance
Wicked

Notable snubs: no Denzel Washington for Gladiator II (a damn shame), no Jamie Lee Curtis in The Last Showgirl (YAY), no Elle Fanning, Selena Gomez or Margaret Qualley. Qualley’s snub actually surprised me, given all of the buzz for The Substance. Obviously, Nicole Kidman was snubbed for Babygirl, and the Academy decided that they’re Team Brad Pitt, so no nom for Angelina Jolie. Other surprises: no Daniel Craig for Queer, no Pamela Anderson for The Last Showgirl and no Marianne Jean-Baptiste for Hard Truths. What other surprises? No nomination for Wicked director Jon Chu or Conclave director Edward Berger. Berger’s absence is definitely shocking, as is Denis Villeneuve.

I feel like Fernanda Torres getting nominated is a surprise, even if she won the Golden Globe. The Apprentice surprising everyone and picking up noms for Sebastian Stan and Jeremy Strong…it’s certainly interesting, although it does feel like Stan (in particular) is riding a critical wave at the moment. What else… I love Conclave’s noms, especially the ones for Ralph Fiennes and Isabella Rossellini. I would love it if we got a big surprise in Supporting Actress.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images. Posters courtesy of ‘The Brutalist’ and promotional images courtesy of ‘Conclave’.

On Wednesday, the day before the Oscar nominations came out, GLAAD revealed the nominations for their GLAAD Media Awards. The biggest talking point is that GLAAD snubbed Emilia Perez, a musical starring a trans actress, Karla Sofia Gascon. There’s been so much discourse about Emilia Perez, with a lot of negativity coming from Latin American film critics and cultural figures. But it’s worth noting that Emilia Perez is also being hotly debated by the LGBTQ community. Part of the debate – from what I’ve seen – boils down to “is it better to have trans representation in a film, even if the film is largely problematic?” GLAAD’s answer to that question is: nope.

We have the nominees for the 36th annual GLAAD Media Awards, which honor fair, accurate and inclusive representations of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community in film, TV, music, videogames, podcasts, journalism and more. But the noms don’t include one of the most talked-about films of 2024 or its trans star. More on that below.

Vying for the Outstanding Wide-Release Film prize are Cuckoo, Drive-Away Dolls, Love Lies Bleeding, Mean Girls, My Old Ass, Problemista, Queer and Wicked. Up for the Limited-Release Film award are 20,000 Species of Bees, Backspot, Before I Change My Mind, Big Boys, Close to You, Crossing, Fitting In, High Tide, Housekeeping for Beginners and A Place of Our Own.

Noticeably absent from the GLAAD noms is Jacques Audiard’s Oscar contender Emilia Pérez, which won the Golden Globe this month, and its trans star Karla Sofía Gascón, who also won a Globe and is up for SAG and BAFTA awards in February. Back in November, GLAAD put out an article titled “‘Emilia Pérez’ is Not Good Trans Representation,” labeling the film — among other things — a “profoundly retrograde portrayal of a trans woman” and calling it “a step backward.”

[From Deadline]

The “Emilia Pérez’ is Not Good Trans Representation” piece is trending again because of the snubs – you can read it here. I love film discourse and representation discourse, so this piece was a fascinating read. I actually admire GLAAD Media for holding strong in this case and saying “no mas” on what is proving to be one of the most controversial films of the awards season.

Additionally, there is another piece of “we don’t actually like Emilia Perez” news from AMPAS – this year’s Oscar telecast will not include any of the “Best Original Song” performances. They made the decision in anticipation of one or more of Emilia Perez’s songs being nominated. The cover story is that the Oscars will use that time to honor LA wildfire victims and firefighters.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.