I can’t say I’m surprised by Macklemore being removed from Ed Sheeran’s Loop Tour. When you have been watching Zionism in play for the past four years, you know their modus operandi, probably better than they do at this point.

Have you ever met a group who’s so painfully predictable? Also boring, while they’re at it? They are so unbelievably boringly predictable while also being extremely violently deranged about their ideology.

It seems to never stop.

Mauling civilization in Gaza and the West Bank, or working overtime in the West, silencing prominent voices for Palestine by removing our loudspeakers and demolishing our freedom of speech.

The technique is always the same. A prominent person (Macklemore) publicly states their support for Palestine, then pro-Israel hasbarist or entertainer (Pink) enters the picture to move the conversation from the suffering of the Palestinians to the safety of Jews, and one or the other billionaire Zionist (Kraft) uses their power to remove the opportunities from all those who dare to draw attention to the suffering of the Palestinian people.

Whether it’s Macklemore, Bardem, or Ruffalo; whether it’s Pink, Laura Loomer, or Noa Tishby; whether it’s Robert Kraft or Larry Ellison—there’s always a hasbarist and Zionist billionaire tag-team shutting down legit conversation.

Ed Sheeran removed Macklemore from his tour at the request of Robert Kraft, a Zionist billionaire and owner of Gillette Stadium. As I said, this was expected to happen. Pink using her white woman tears to shift people’s attention from images of the leveled Gaza Strip, destroyed by Israeli bombs, on a display at MetLife Stadium, to a conversation about the safety of Jews, a month before the midterm elections, only proves the point that entertainment is a key leg of the machinery working to maintain Zionism and acceptance of Israel as an occupying force in Palestine.

Robert Kraft

It’s fruitless to analyze who Robert Kraft is: a mega donor to AIPAC, charged in a prostitution ring in Florida, led numerous delegations to Israel, organized multiple trips of the NFL players to Israeli military sites, funded millions of dollars to Israel and the IDF, launched a $1 million grant to fight the BDS movement, and so on.

There’s no point in getting into his deplorable character. All the American Zionist billionaires are the same; they are criminals who use their power to evade the law, amass wealth in unethical ways, shift it all to Israel, fund the IDF and illegal settlements, and lobby the US Congress for more money and arms for Israel.

They are like Pokemons, but with access to nuclear weapons.

I want to focus on the statement he released, admitting he called Ed Sheeran to ban Macklemore from The Loop Tour. Published by Variety, Robert Kraft confirms the Zionist strategy talking points we all heard 7 million times in the past four years alone:

“Gillette Stadium has a longstanding commitment to providing a welcoming environment for all guests and ensuring that events held at our venue do not provide a platform for hate speech. Based on Macklemore’s recent actions, material shared from the stage during Ed Sheeran’s shows in New Jersey, and a broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery that we believe has been deeply offensive and hurtful to the Jewish community, we determined that his participation in the September 25th and 26th concerts at Gillette Stadium would cross that line."

Antisemitic rhetoric and imagery:

He’s serious here. Again, in case you missed it, he claims that: “Based on Macklemore’s recent actions, material shared from the stage during Ed Sheeran’s shows in New Jersey, and a broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery that we believe has been deeply offensive and hurtful to the Jewish community.”

Imagery they believe has been deeply offensive and hurtful to the Jewish community:

This is the same if I were to beat someone up, then tell them their bruises are offensive and hurtful to me.

And he continues:

“This decision is not about diminishing the suffering of innocent Palestinians or denying anyone the right to advocate on their behalf. Their pain and loss are real. But that advocacy should not come at the expense of the Jewish community or obscure the responsibility of Hamas, a United States and globally (including Canada, European Union, United Kingdom, and Japan) designated terrorist organization whose horrific actions have caused immeasurable suffering for Palestinians and Israelis alike.”

So this is not about denying anyone the right to advocate for innocent Palestinians, but I will make a call to remove you from the rest of the tour so you cannot advocate for the innocent Palestinians?

Gotcha.

He’s not done.

“I agree with Macklemore. Too many lives have been lost and there has been too much suffering, but only sharing selective information and ignoring the actions of Hamas is not honest and only advances more divisiveness and hate. Over many decades, I have directed resources to Palestine and created athletic and entrepreneurial opportunities for Palestinians who I admire and respect. Standing with the Palestinian people and standing against Hamas, antisemitism and hate should not be mutually exclusive.”

Also, I noticed something interesting here. A shift. Robert Kraft’s statement talks a lot about the Palestinian people, a subject they never mention when they talk about Jewish unsafety. He’s pretending, of course, he couldn’t care less about Palestinian suffering; he pays for the bombs dropped on them. Nonetheless, I find his attempt to misrepresent his investments in Palestinian “athletic and entrepreneurial opportunities” as a sign they are well aware they have no support or allies in the real world, as Hasan Piker pointed out. He knows where the public stands and obviously sees the need to cater to us.

As I already mentioned, he never invested anything in Palestinian opportunities.

Of course, he did not miss the opportunity to label the advocacy for Palestinian rights to self-determination and the end of military occupation as hate speech. “Gillette Stadium has a longstanding commitment to providing a welcoming environment for all guests and ensuring that events held at our venue do not provide a platform for hate speech.”

Tactic

This is a played-out tactic that doesn’t mean anything anymore.

Every time a public figure draws attention to the violence inflicted on the Palestinian people, especially by showing images alongside it, as Macklemore did at the Met Life, the focus is instantly shifted from Israel’s war crimes to antisemitism and hate speech labels, moving the conversation away from the military occupation of Palestine and the enormous suffering of the Palestinian people onto comforting Jews by constantly having to repeat that the horrific violence in Gaza being displayed in no way means hatred of Jewish people, while painting the person who drew attention to Palestinian suffering as problematic, hateful, and inciting violence.

There’s no philosophy here, folks. The reason why Israel has been able to commit an ethnic cleansing of Palestine is a well-oiled chain.

• IDF is killing people off the Palestinian land.

• Israeli politicians are making sure the mission is completed.

• American Zionists are funding US politicians to let it happen and fund it.

• Billionaire Zionist families are funding violent settlers in the West Bank to take more land.

• The Israeli government is pretending they are condemning their criminals while arming them.

• American hasbarists are propagandizing the American and Western public about Israel defending itself while downplaying Palestinian suffering.

• Numerous American Zionist non-profit “organizations” are smearing people protesting this violence.

• American pro-Israel entertainers are complaining about Jewish safety to shift the conversation from the horrific suffering of the Palestinian people.

• American Zionist billionaires are removing opportunities from people speaking out, and neutral, apolitical people like Ed Sheeran glue it all together.

Leverage

Ed Sheeran had the opportunity to make a real change here.

This was the moment when, if he had said no to removing Macklemore from his tour, he could have used his leverage as a superstar to fight for the right to freely say: killing of any people is simply wrong, and we won’t stand for it.

He had the opportunity to weaken the use of antisemitism as a weapon to silence artists or anyone plainly saying that the wholesale slaughter of any people must be stopped.

But he caved to this criminal.

There is no excuse, in the age of social media, to still dance to the tune of the billionaire class.

They have the power of wealth, but they don’t have the fame and attention that entertainers command. That is why Zionists are always next to talent, as handlers or managers, because they want to impose their ideology on performers who command the attention of millions.

Zionists know they do not have that power themselves, so they conspire to manage it, direct it, condition it. Exactly how Robert Kraft just managed Ed Sheeran into removing Macklemore from his tour.

Ed Sheeran is worth $400 million. His career would have been fine. We would have supported him whether he filled arenas or not.

As for Ed Sheeran’s “typical apolitical stance” of “not taking sides:”

Ed only takes a side when it’s the side of the military industrial complex.

Supremacy

What does this Ed Sheeran, Macklemore, Pink, and Robert Kraft situation show us?

There’s no getting around it, folks. Zionism is simply supremacy. Call it white supremacy, call it Jewish supremacy, the core structure is the same.

Zionism is operating under the idea of Jewish life being more significant than the Palestinian life or any other life. They live by the conviction that, in order for Jews to be safe, Palestinians must silently die, away from the view of the world.

Zionists understand that the population outside of their ideology will never consent to that view, so they use hasbara to propagandize people about Israel, use their power to silence voices showcasing Palestinian suffering, and then use antisemitism to silence criticism by calling it hate speech and incitement to violence.

Zionism is also fascism

It claims to represent the Jewish people’s right to a homeland, when in reality, it exists to protect the crimes of Israel by buying politicians to fund it and support it, while destroying the lives of those who oppose it.

In the aftermath of Macklemore being removed from Ed Sheeran’s tour, Zionists on social media were gloating.

They weren’t talking about coexistence or asking for the safety of both Jewish and Palestinian people.

They were gloating over having the power to remove someone from public view and take away their opportunities simply because they spoke out against Israel’s actions in Palestine.

And that, my friends, is supremacy.

It’s literally flexing power to remove any conversation about Palestine and take away the livelihoods and careers of people who dare to show the world what’s happening in Gaza.

Pink

While Pink is posting statements about feeling unsafe because Macklemore showed images of destruction in Gaza, she started a campaign that resulted in taking away his job:

"You don't have to agree with one thing Israel's government does to not want the Jewish family two rows down from you to be scared or targeted at a concert. That's the only thing I'm asking anybody for.”

How unsafe and scared is the American Zionist millionaire, laughing about at the US Open all weekend, who is able to initiate stripping a man of his livelihood?

The tide has changed.

We all jumped online to condemn John Malkovich for going to perform at ‘The Music Critic’ in Israel, and he cancelled his trip to Tel Aviv. We condemned Pink for attacking Macklemore, and her career outside the Zionists’ circles is forever over.

You have the power.

You are a consumer, buyer, listener, concertgoer. You can force these people to understand what kind of people, celebrities, and artists we will support, and the absolute moral clarity we demand when it comes to the mass murder of the Palestinian people.

“There is no thanks for a duty”

Anyone who doesn’t see it as their duty to use their voice and influence to bring about change, or at the very least raise awareness about ending the military occupation of the Palestinian people, shouldn’t be in your circle or have your support. Your attention is currency, and your consumer dollars are power.

Act accordingly!

💵 💶

Share

If you’re already a subscriber, thank you. If you can become a paid subscriber, your support gives me the time to research, investigate, and write independently, beyond the limitations of mainstream media; please consider doing so here. If you’d like to support my writing just one time, you can do that here. If you aren’t able to support me at this time, please like this post, comment, or share. All your support is much appreciated!

This is going to be a quick run-through of the key points I wanted to highlight about the Met Gala. I genuinely do not want to invest more than the bare minimum of my energy into the tech bros and billionaires who have infiltrated every space and taken so much from us already. I refuse to give them even more of my attention on top of everything else they’ve taken.

You have all the money in the world, your workers are pissing in the plastic bottles to meet the productivity quota, you fund ICE, you enrich yourself from the genocide; can you at least get the fuck out of our sight?

Lauren Sanchez-Bezos did a Met presser on Monday afternoon and said she’s grateful to be there and: “The Met has always understood something the rest of the world is finally catching up to: fashion is art.” Where do you go from here? What did we expect, allowing billionaires to pay their way into creative spaces?

Read more

In case you haven’t already figured this out, Hollywood isn’t innocent in creating the dystopian world we live in. In fact, it’s an active participant — a creator, an accomplice, an extended hand.

American arrogance doesn’t stop at geopolitics or failed diplomacy; it seeps into culture, cinema, music, entertainment — into the narratives that teach the world how to perceive power. Hollywood is not simply complicit in the global power structure. It’s one of the most morally corrupt cultural institutions of our time.

In a country overwhelmed by political dysfunction, cultural fragmentation, and ideological chaos, people pointed to an actor. A talent emerged in the American landscape, seemingly out of nowhere, and he made people feel something that felt clean, grounded, and human.

Connor Storrie.

I was scrolling through Threads the other day when I came across a post asking, “Is there one good thing about America?” A surprising number of people gave the same answer: “Connor Storrie.”

It’s silly, in the scope of things — and yet this is where people’s minds went, instantly. It’s a phenomenon, the way everyone is reacting to this guy who appeared out of nowhere and caused a cultural whiplash.

When people who are tired, disillusioned, and emotionally overstimulated by the constant violence their government inflicts at home and abroad look at a newly emerged artist like Connor and say, “There. That feels good. That feels hopeful,” that’s not just a sudden fandom, but a larger impact.

There’s a bigger story here, folks. You might be wondering why we’re talking about actors when the entire world is burning. Here’s the simplest answer I could give you: authenticity now functions as protest.

In a landscape built to numb and monetize, genuine presence destabilizes the control we no longer even notice. But we felt it. When someone like Connor shows up, an artist not shaped by the machine and not born close to power, the audience responds to him because we experience the feeling of finally choosing for ourselves.

And systems of control, cultural or political, have never handled that well.

A shift.

This week in Connor Storrie’s life feels like a marker. He turned 26, he’s featured in VMAN’s Game Changers issue, and he’s hosting SNL on Saturday. It feels like a shift — not just in his life, but in how fame works, how audiences decide, how Hollywood no longer fully controls the narrative.

His rise wasn’t just a breakout. It was a full-on recalibration.

Connor didn’t take the usual road to stardom. He didn’t spend years climbing a gatekept ladder or endure the ritual humiliation phase that so often precedes recognition in Hollywood. Five months ago, he was waiting tables. Now he’s presenting at the Globes, hosting SNL, and likely heading to the Met Gala.

Hollywood didn’t groom him, slow-walk him, or make him pay his dues in public. He skipped the ritual humility tour.

For eight years, casting offices saw him audition and didn’t fully recognize what was there — until Jacob Tierney did. What followed didn’t feel like a studio-manufactured launch. It felt like a spark that the audience caught first.

The industry didn’t manufacture this rise.

We, the audience, did.

And that’s what makes it seismic.

The rise.

I talk about the phenomenon of Connor’s rise with my culture-obsessed friends, often (Husdon too, but in this piece I’m focusing on the American cultural landscape/American actor), and we try to break it down: how did this happen? How did Connor happen?

We’re living in a moment when the systems of power that control the entertainment industry (don’t forget, culture has been historically used to push political agendas, pass policy, and artwash criminal activity) still try to ration visibility. They decide who gets the magazine covers and who stays in supporting roles, who is limited to independent projects, and who is allowed to become a star. But Connor’s rise made something clear: fame is no longer exclusively engineered in conference rooms. It can be crowd-sourced. It can be people-powered. It can happen because millions of viewers collectively say, “No. That one. That’s the one.”

Connor isn’t an industry plant. He isn’t a nepo baby. He’s not the result of some legacy last name sliding open doors. His breakout proved something almost radical in 2026: when talent is undeniable, institutions don’t get to ration recognition anymore. The public can crown a star before Hollywood stamps their approval.

And Hollywood, frankly, now has to catch up to Connor Storrie.

The speed.

Here’s the thing — the speed of Connor’s rise is dramatic, yes. It gives whiplash. It makes headlines. It makes people ask, “Has this ever happened before?” But the speed isn’t the most striking part. After all, this man auditioned for eight years, before Heated Rivalry; it’s unimaginable to me that so many casting directors saw this enormous talent, and decided to pass. A famous decade-long overnight success.

The most striking part is his presence, and it seems to me that we missed this particular kind of presence.

Connor carries a kind of depth and magnetism that feels almost anachronistic. There’s a flavor to him that we associate with a different era — true ’90s movie star energy in a time that rarely produces movie stars anymore. Not influencers. Not franchise placeholders. Actual stars. The kind who make you lean forward towards your screen, and smile stupidly at every image, video, or project announcement of his, instead of scrolling away.

There’s something reminiscent of a River Phoenix lineage in him. Not imitation. Not even a glimpse of cosplay nostalgia. But that same sensitivity. That intensity that pulls you in, but it’s also quiet. The emotional intelligence that doesn’t scream for attention but commands it anyway. River was an experience, and Connor brings out the same feeling. You watch him, and you sense someone who understands interiority — who lives inside the character instead of performing around it.

That’s rare in today’s world of fast-paced technology, social media, and constant information overload. And that rarity is what creates cultural moments.

An intuition.

Connor didn’t just enter Hollywood. He disrupted it. He exposed the gap between institutional gatekeeping and audience intuition. He proved that the public doesn’t need to be told who matters. We know. Sometimes we feel it collectively, long before the industry’s casting offices, which watched a once-in-a-generation talent audition for eight years without recognizing him, suddenly rush to catch up and monetize what the audience already recognized and crowned.

Connor’s rise reminds us that fame doesn’t need to be engineered by PR firms that script every vulnerability and assume they know what the audience wants. It can feel organic and be discovered in real time. It can feel like watching something unfold — not something being carefully rolled out.

That matters. Greatly.

Because when audiences realize they have that kind of power, when they see that their collective recognition can launch someone into global visibility, the entire ecosystem shifts. The hierarchy of power cracks. The myth that only insiders can make stars starts to weaken.

Connor’s story isn’t just about one actor having a meteoric year. It’s about a cultural recalibration. About a public deciding that talent, when it’s undeniable, doesn’t need permission.

And the industry hates this. That’s why they quickly signed him (and Husdon) to CAA and dug their claws into both of them. We changed their rules.

The people decided: This one’s ours.

A recovery.

The last few years rewired us; fame became a product line, art became marketing, even humanity got algorithmic. Every emotion was pre-tested for virality before it reached us. Then Heated Rivalry showed up, uncurated and impossible to brand, and something shifted.

Neither of its stars broke into Hollywood; they broke through it.

And maybe that’s the real story — not the rise itself, but what it revealed about us:
that audiences are starving for something unmanufactured, something that doesn’t reek of sponsorships and media choreography. Something that feels true in the body.

It feels almost like a global recovery.

Sincerity is radical now.

A reminder that truth still seduces, still breathes, still cuts through the noise.

However powerful and all-mighty they are, Hollywood can’t really replicate that. It can only chase it, package it, overexpose it. But Connor and Hudson — at least for now — feel untouched. A moment before commodification. A glimpse of what it once meant to witness a movie star before the system processed them.

They reminded us that not everything beautiful must first be approved. That fame can still belong to instinct. That truth, when uncontained, can reach its audience.

Happy Birthday, Connor.

Share

The Berlinale stage is not a neutral living room. It’s one of the most visible cultural platforms in the world, where silence is not accidental. Also, a tiny reminder — there is no such thing as “apolitical art.”

Every film, every performance, every red-carpet moment, every acceptance speech carries the fingerprints of the political world that produced it.

This year’s Berlin Film Festival is a parade of spineless, apolitical cowards posing as artists. It’s hard to comprehend the pile of nonsense that came out of so many mouths over the past couple of days.

Being an artist, standing on one of the world’s largest stages, at one of the most political festivals, backed by a government funding an ongoing genocide — while living through deadly ICE protests in the U.S., the Epstein scandal, a livestreamed genocide in Gaza, genocide in Sudan, human rights violations and sexual violence in Congo, and the rise of fascism in the UK, the U.S., and Germany — and then declare, “I choose to keep my work apolitical.”

As if that were possible.

As if culture floats above power.

As if silence is neutral.

Cowards.

At the press conference for filmmaker George Jaques’ Sunny Dancer, Bella Ramsey and Neil Patrick Harris were asked by a journalist whether they consider their “art to be political, and if so, how can movies these days help fight the rise of fascism in Europe and in America.”

Neil Patrick Harris: “I think we live in a strangely algorithmic and divided world right now. And so as artists, I’m always interested in doing things that are apolitical, because we’re all as humans wanting to connect in some way. That’s why we experience things together.”

George Jaques: “I think sometimes the most rebellious thing you can do is be optimistic. And we wanted to make a film about joy. I think, you know, there’s so much going on in the world right now, and I wanted to make something that really takes you somewhere else.”

Bella Ramsey: “Sunny Dancer was honestly, like, the best experience I’ve had in my career so far. It will be very hard to top. It’s a big statement, but it was probably the best professional six weeks, and also one of the best personal six weeks, of my frickin’ life.”

Journalists at the Sunny Dancer presser, bless their souls, wouldn’t be deterred. A writer from German broadcaster ZDF asked Harris, as a U.S. citizen, whether he “dared criticize the U.S. government and whether he believes democracy is in danger in the U.S.” The Berlinale moderator then interjected that the question “wasn’t relevant to Sunny Dancer.”

Neil Patrick Harris added he would rather discuss the film, saying: “I make my own choices as a performer, as an artist … I feel more the jester in the castle. So while I have my own political opinions, which are my own, I think as a performer, especially in this kind of movie, it’s trying to be as inclusive as possible to as many people as possible. So I never read this script as a political statement.”

The journalist from ARD broadcaster responded: “It’s embarrassing to say the film isn’t political. Without proper health insurance, I wouldn’t be here. I had cancer myself. So the film is political, and this festival must be political.”

Heroes.

Unlike Ethan Hawke, who just a few days ago said, “Anything that fights fascism, I’m all for it, fascism is on the rise in Europe and the U.S.,” but at the Berlinale stage, where it mattered, resorted to: "I feel like there's a slight agenda to your question that is different to my agenda. But I respect you and I respect the question."

At his press conference, Rupert Grint explained he’s against fascism, but the biggest festival stage on earth is not the moment where he thinks he should talk about it, then said: “Obviously, I’m against it. But I choose my moments when to speak.”

During her press conference, Michele Yeoh chose to say: “I don’t think I am in the position to really talk about the political situation in the U.S., and also I cannot presume to say I understand how it is," she said. "So, best not to talk about something I don’t know about. I think I want to concentrate on what is important for us, which is cinema.”

Jury.

Jury president Wim Wenders, producer Ewa Puszczyńska, and festival director Tricia Tuttle gave the most embarrassing examples of artists pretending art is apolitical for their own comfort.

At the opening jury press conference, the live feed cut out as a German journalist asked a question about why Berlinale had shown support for people in Iran and Ukraine, but never for Palestine, a fitting disruption for a festival in a country whose government is funding that genocide while beating and imprisoning its own citizens for protesting it:

“My question is, in light of the German government’s support of the genocide in Gaza and its role as the main funder of the Berlinale, do you, as a member of the jury, support this selective treatment of human rights?”

At this moment, the live feed went down, cutting the live broadcast in the middle of a journalist's question.

The answer that came from Ewa Puszczyńska, the producer of Cold War and The Zone of Interest, two films about war and genocide, was the most shocking:

“Asking us this question is a little bit unfair… we use the word ‘change the world’ but we are trying to talk to people, every single viewer, and to make them think, but we cannot be responsible for what their decision would be to support Israel … to support Palestine.

We can talk about Senegal and all the other wars, you know, you just pointed [to] the most, the biggest, but there are many other wars where genocide is committed and we do not talk about that. So this is very complicated questions … And I think, as I said, it’s a bit unfair asking us what we think, how we support, or not support, or are talking to our governments or not.”

“I’m speaking for myself I go to elections. I go, I vote using my right as a citizen of Poland, as a citizen of Europe, of the world. I go to marches, I support causes which I think I should support. But all of us here may have other things and take other decisions. So I think asking us these questions and expecting the general kind of answer is not fair.”

Jury president Wim Wenders also attempted to shut down the question about genocide and human rights, saying:

“We cannot really enter the field of politics. We have to stay out of politics because if we made movies that are dedicatedly political, we enter the field of politics … We are the counterweight of politics, the opposite of politics, we have to do the work of people — not the work of politicians.”

The myth of the apolitical artist.

For decades, artists have been allowed to position themselves as “just storytellers.” As if storytelling does not define who is human, who is a villain, and who is disposable.

Art has always legitimized power, challenged power, normalized violence, built empathy, erased empathy, shaped national myths, and rehearsed political futures.

The idea of the apolitical artist is a fiction that protects comfort.

When fascism rises, and artists claim neutrality, what they are really protecting is access: to funding, to markets, to institutions, to safety.

Culture precedes policy.

Before laws change, culture shifts. Before a regime consolidates power, stories prepare the ground. Before people accept cruelty, they are taught who deserves it.

Cinema does this. Television does this. Literature does this. Culture trains emotional reflexes long before anyone reads a manifesto.

So when artists on global stages refuse to imagine a better world — refuse even to acknowledge the one unraveling in front of them — they are not staying out of politics. They are participating in it through omission.

Platforms carry responsibility.

Berlinale is not a private dinner conversation. It is one of the most significant cultural stages in the world. An actor may say, “I’m here to talk about my film.” But the film exists inside history. The industry exists inside geopolitics. The festival exists inside a political climate.

To pretend otherwise is aesthetic minimalism masquerading as moral restraint.

No one is asking artists to become policy experts.

But to say nothing, in an era openly flirting with authoritarianism, is not humility. It is a refusal to imagine a better world for all.

Art lost its moral force when it lost its nerve.

For years, mainstream art cultivated a tone: aesthetic, poetic, detached, safely humanist. The artist was meant to be visionary but never confrontational. Profound but never implicated. Empathetic but never specific.

This produced a generation of artists who explore trauma but avoid naming perpetrators, depict oppression but refuse to confront authoritarianism, celebrate “humanity” while violence unfolds in real time, and accept awards on global stages while declining to acknowledge the forces shaping the world around them.

Art lost moral teeth when artists were encouraged to stay in the realm of feeling, not responsibility.

But the world changed, and many artists did not.

The artists who matter now are the ones who refuse the fiction.

The artists who resonate today are the ones who understand that storytelling is not decorative. It is formative.

They are willing to connect their work to the world, acknowledge the systems that fund and distribute them, speak clearly about dehumanization, defend democracy without irony, and imagine futures that resist brutality.

Art has always been political — not because it waves slogans, but because it shapes perception. When artists claim neutrality, they misunderstand their own power.

And when they step onto a stage like Berlinale, they are already participating in the cultural architecture of the moment.

The question is not whether art is political. The question is whether artists are willing to admit it.

We live in a world where the separation between culture and politics has collapsed. Culture is politics. Politics is cultural. Narratives shape ideology more effectively than legislation. On a stage as large as Berlinale, refusing to engage is not modesty. It is a choice.

Share

As soon as I saw Connor Storrie and Hudson Williams sign with CAA this past week, I had a feeling of dread overcome me. Am I insane? These two were waiters three months ago, I hear your inside voice, they deserve this! Not insane quite yet, I’m afraid. Experienced in Hollywood shitfuckery, very much yes.

These two men are talented, chill, beautiful, enjoyable, and glorious. They are not a Hollywood product. You might be too excited for their rise in this industry to realize they are a threat to that same industry. To the façade that is Hollywood, the most corrupt industry, probably right after our government.

Let’s unpack the Globes, their first awards show, ever. Connor and Hudson looked majestic on the red carpet. Literally every single media outlet published their faces, over and over again, from every possible angle. Images. Videos. My entire scroll was just them. I saw no one else.

Their red-carpet interviews were the best of the night. No one, I repeat, no one is as interesting as they are. This isn’t novelty, it’s presence. It’s swag, personality, charisma.

Connor and Hudson were scheduled to sit front-center with Charli XCX and Paul Mescal. At the last minute, they were moved to the table at the back of the room. A massive slap in the face to the queer community. Visibility, anyone?

What are we doing here?

Before they presented, two UFC fighters were brought onstage, with the announcer joking that the Heated Rivalry boys are “so hot right now” they need “extra security.”

UFC preceding a queer show?

Connor was then written into a strange, timid, “scared” bit. Why would anyone sane write a joyful, bubbly, larger-than-life, confident man into a skit designed to shrink him? It makes no sense if you want to achieve a maximum impact. Unless you, erm, don’t.

Heated Rivalry gave people immense joy; made entire communities feel seen, and is currently the biggest show in the world, with over 600 million minutes of viewing only in the US alone. It’s a cultural revolution, and Hollywood didn’t know how to handle it at the Golden Globes.

Or did it?

Maybe it felt threatened, unwilling to uplift them, while remaining perfectly happy to publish their pictures and monetize on their enormous fame.

It goes to show you that the Hollywood industry wants to cash in on the boys, but at the same time, aren’t really happy that the two kids who waited tables three months ago blew them all off with only one show. Heated Rivalry, Jacob Tierney, Connor, and Hudson continue to expose everything that’s wrong with Hollywood, and many egos are not happy about it.

The skit.

It came across as an attempt to downplay Hudson and Connor’s impact, as if they’re intentionally stripping it of its weight. It doesn’t feel accidental. It felt like a preemptive strike, realizing exactly how powerful those two can be.

The wings were clipped. People didn’t cheer as much as the biggest show on earth right now deserved. Many stars in the room pretended they didn’t hear about it ot watched it.

They did. Everyone knows about it. Your mother knows about it.

A room full of egos, having two kids who waited tables a blink ago, making a cultural shift not seen in a long while.

Tight leash vibes.

Hollywood hates being cut out of the fame pipeline.

Two creators summed up my entire feeling about this fumble, so I will let them sum it up for you:

Crowdsourced fame.

“… that audience was filled with haters, jealous, mad haters, very little applause or laughter throughout their speech…”

“… these two boys didn’t have to suffer for fame; they totally leapfrogged the whole process. They didn’t have to deal with the perverts of Hollywood. The Internet liked them and decided, yeah, you’re famous now, and there’s nothing Hollywood can do about it. That’s the real issue. They hate that fame is like crowd-sourced now; it’s a democracy.”

Did the Golden Globes fumble Heated Rivalry boys? Most def. The only question here is, purposefully or yes?

Share

I never imagined that the antidote to watching two years of genocide would be two men fucking their way toward love. I also chose this particular event to be my last collection of words I’ll post in 2025. What a year! What a time to be alive. And what a lesson to arrive at in the closing moments.

For the past two years, I haven’t been able to write about anything beyond the dystopian reality our world has descended into. I’m a cultural writer; I’ve spent nearly fifteen years writing about film, television, and culture, but in the face of the political catastrophe unfolding around us, everything else began to feel trivial, even obscene.

The constant stream of injustice, death, and manufactured narratives consumed all space. There was no room left in me for anything else. Nothing felt worthy of attention while mass suffering played out in real time, normalized and justified before our eyes.

I kept waiting for something, anything, that could pull me out of that paralysis. Something that could cut through the noise, disrupt the despair, and remind me why storytelling still matters. But for a long time, nothing did.

Until Heated Rivalry.

Love as Counter-Programming

Why this series, and why now?

You already know why. Your entire body recognized the truth before your mind caught up. I’m only giving language to what you already felt watching it.

And what we all felt is a goddamn rupture!

In a cultural moment shaped by violence and cruelty, the kind of storytelling Heated Rivarly brought to us feels not just rare but defiant—an act of resistance in itself.

In a world currently organized around domination—of land, of bodies, of narratives—watching two people slowly learn how to choose each other is not trivial. In fact, it’s oppositional.

So consider this piece an invitation from me to you, to watch this show, if you haven’t already—not to disengage from what’s happening in the world, but to recalibrate.

To be fair, as a culture and television aficionado who’s truly watched it all, Heated Rivalry didn’t invent the feeling you’re experiencing right now. In fact, it was heavily inspired by Young Royals (as Jacob Tierney himself has admitted to Slate), and both Royals and Rivalry followed the emotional code first cracked by the pioneer, the shift—an original Skam (Norway). Heated Rivalry club scene that’s undoing you? Skam did it first. Check it out.

What’s happening now with Heated Rivalry is the timing of it.

After witnessing the dystopian reality our world has descended into, we needed a cultural shift, a cultural armageddon, powerful enough to move people, reorder meaning, and lead us back to humanity.

And boy, did we get it.

If you watched Heated Rivalry, you already understand its power. You know. And those of you who haven’t, you may be wondering how I could argue that a TV show could carry any weight in the face of the political catastrophe surrounding us and why I’d dare suggest it does.

Just watch it, and you’ll see why.

This show is not just joy and pleasure; it’s an emotional counter-programming, it’s a solace, a permission, and an emotional refuge. Heated Rivalry is a break in the matrix. In a cultural moment defined by violence and cruelty, the kind of storytelling this show delivers feels not just rare but defiant—an act of resistance in itself.

Why is this show a groundbreaking television show and a dystopian resistance at this moment? I’ll break it down for you.

The emotional drought

When I first heard about this show, I didn’t seek to watch it for comfort. I wasn’t in the mood to be softened. I was exhausted, like everyone else, bracing for the next headline confirming how bad things were getting (are).

What caught me off guard wasn’t the mind-blowingly realistic depiction of sex turned into romance. It was the relief of realizing my nervous system hadn’t been lying to me all along, that I still knew the difference between something real and something manufactured.

And let’s be clear, this wasn’t supposed to happen. A low-budget Canadian series, minimal promotion, a queer hockey romance, and two leads most people had never heard of—this is not how global phenomena are usually engineered.

And yet it detonated anyway. Across platforms, across borders, across demographics. We weren’t just watching it; we were organizing our days around it, talking about it as if our sanity depended on it.

It isn’t entertainment that’s healing us, but a return inward, to a place we abandoned as violence was normalized and we were taught to look away. This show became a mirror, reminding us that we’re still capable of feeling and that real storytelling isn’t an escape from reality but a way back into it.

Narrative as the battlefield

We are living in times where almost nothing is anchored to reality anymore. It’s all mostly propaganda and narrative, and that’s not a coincidence.

Read more

A week ago, Disney decided to suspend production on The Jimmy Kimmel Show. Five days of protests and a boycott of Disney followed, resulting in an estimated loss of about $4 billion as viewers canceled their Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ subscriptions. This Monday afternoon, Disney announced they had decided to reinstate The Jimmy Kimmel Show. On Tuesday night, Jimmy was back on air.

What was this? A haiku? A rare moment of swift, undeniable effectiveness? Stories this brief and consequential are almost unheard of. Rarely does a push and change arrive this fast, sharp, and unmistakable.

In full transparency, I began drafting this article over the weekend, several days before Disney announced they would reinstate Jimmy. His return isn’t the punchline of this article. What prompted me to cover this topic was the flood of white, progressive liberals descending into my Instagram inbox, all at once deciding we should rage more over the blatant attack on Jimmy Kimmel’s freedom of speech — and questioning why I hadn’t commented on the suspension.

Why haven’t you said anything, Miranda? This is the most blatant, infringement on free speech by the government that we have ever witnessed!

I love liberals. Their disconnection from the real world, from anything beyond the safety of their own bubble — paired with an arrogance rooted in mediocrity, is something I’ve been studying closely for the past two years. I’m a lifelong Democrat; as a teenager, I collected articles on Bill Clinton — I thought I was a liberal too. But the past 700+ days have opened my eyes to a devastating truth: liberal progressiveness extends only to issues that affect them, and this self-centeredness is what keeps the world from progressing. The performative rage and mediocrity embedded in the white liberal mindset is a phenomenon worth examining.

But, Jimmy!

When a white, influential celebrity is taken off the air and his freedom of speech is snatched away, that usually marks the final stage of government control. So when I receive messages like, “Do you not see what’s happening, what Trump is doing to us, this authoritarianism and control and suppression is so dangerous, and we are descending into fascism,” I can’t help but see you as an unserious person. The suppression of your freedoms did not start with Jimmy; he is the final stage.

You wont get my rage about Jimmy, as requested in my inbox, because we have been warning you for the past two years — this was coming.

We have been telling you to vote globally, not just domestically, and warning you that the genocide carried out with bombs funded by your money will come home.

You want me to rage about Jimmy?

Jake Tapper, a CNN anchor, commented on Late Night with Seth Meyers that taking Jimmy off air was “pretty much the most direct infringement by the government on free speech that I’ve seen in my lifetime.”

And I have to ask: are you all collectively serious here?

Thirty-eight US states have anti-BDS laws, making it illegal to boycott Israel. The direct infringement by the government on free speech, action, and thought has been here for a very long time.

I know Miranda, but when a white, rich celebrity …

We told you this would happen. We warned you that it starts in the Middle East, gets practiced there, and then comes home. We told you that the crimes you have been witnessing abroad are tests to see how much the government can get away with taking from you.

Welcome aboard.

Where were you for the past two years when Meta suppressed all our content, removed our posts, videos, and images for protesting a genocide?

Where were you when all the big social media profiles drawing attention to a livestream genocide our country is supporting and funding were removed, and banned indefinitely?

Where were you when the US students on US campuses were beaten, jailed, detained, suspended from universities for protesting their school funding the Israeli war crimes and genocide in Gaza?

Where were you when Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder, was snatched from his apartment, detained for 3 months, dragged through courts, and about to be deported for merely protesting a genocide of his people?

The occupation has been home for a long time, folks.

Where were you when the Turkish doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk was snatched on the street, detained, and held in immigration detention for 3 months for merely co-authoring an op-ed critical of her university’s response to Israel’s genocide in Gaza?

Where were you when we warned that the Israeli army was training police in your American cities, and that those techniques used on Palestinian civilians would one day be used on you?

Where were you when we told you to pay attention to the IDF snatching Palestinian civilians from the streets in the West Bank and warned that those techniques would be tested on American streets?

You’re late, and you’re PEP.

PEP folks, Progressive Except Palestine. Mythical creatures who earned their own Wikipedia page for tireless work on every performative progressive issue except Palestine — decided Disney was worth boycotting over a ban on a white, rich, influential American celebrity, but not for supporting, funding, and propagandizing the slaughter of an entire people.

In the words of Mehdi Hasan: I don’t accept your progressive credentials.

There is a legend on Instagram named Dylan Horner who captured my entire sentiment about white, progressive liberals — those who ignored genocide for two years, yet rushed to rally, rage, protest, and cancel Disney subscriptions over the freedom of speech of an influential rich man, but not for children with shredded limbs and their entire families being wiped away in your timeline.

You have to watch this unraveling of so-called progressiveness — his delivery is beyond what I can capture here, but I’ve included the words below.

So now we understand the collective importance of boycotting a company and canceling our Disney subscriptions when it's a straight white man who gets silenced, right?

It will never cease to amaze me the level of mediocrity that comes out of the white liberal mindset, or even just the white Democratic mindset, and that you guys keep wondering why society can't progress, yet you wait till the last possible moment when something directly impacts you before you do the bare minimum.

I'm gonna hold your delicate little hands, and tell you that if you think the worst thing the parent company of Walt Disney and ABC did in the last couple years was canceling the Jimmy Kimmel Show, wait until you find out how they feel about bombing innocent civilians and slaughtering children.

To clock in at September 2025, and your form of activism is to cancel your Disney subscription; at this rate, diva, you might as well just keep it.

Go take a look through history and tell me at what stage authority and dictators start going after media and affluent straight white men — spoiler alert, it's not the beginning stages.

In the words of Jerry Greenfield, who just the other day did more than just cancel a Disney subscription for being silenced, he actually left Ben & Jerry's because their parent company was silencing their views on human rights and any outspokenness. It's easy to stand up and speak out when there's nothing at stake. The real test of values is when times are challenging, and you have something to lose.

You all need to take the note of that.

Jimmy Kimmel being taken off the air prompted you to rally in the streets and cancel your Disney, Hulu, and ESPN subscriptions. This was your red line — not Disney funding genocide, not Hulu running atrocity propaganda ads for Israel during children’s programming, and not Marvel whitewashing Israel’s crimes in Gaza.

Confront your bias, performative rage, and self-centeredness of your progressive liberal mindset by understanding what Disney has done before taking Jimmy off the air.

The breakdown.

Disney is contributing to Israeli genocide in Gaza through its financial donations to Israeli relief organizations and pro-Israel bias in its films and news coverage. Hulu, a subsidiary of Disney, has been running the most grotesque ads, even on children’s programs, about “40 infants were murdered in Israel.” After that fabricated story had been debunked even by Israeli media, Disney never offered an apology or correction.

Specifics.

Donations to Israeli causes: In October 2023, Disney CEO Bob Iger announced a $2 million donation to humanitarian organizations in Israel, including Magen David Adom.

Silencing pro-Palestinian voices: Disney tried to intervene in a public disagreement between Snow White co-stars Gal Gadot and Rachel Zegler over the conflict. Zegler, who has expressed pro-Palestinian views, reportedly posted "Free Palestine" on social media, leading to Disney’s attempt to censor her. Disney never censored Gal Gadot, a former Israeli soldier and an outspoken supporter of Israel, not even after Gadot hosted a screening of an Israeli military propaganda film that justified the genocide in Gaza.

Introduction of an Israeli superhero: In 2022, Marvel Studios, owned by Disney, announced it would introduce a superhero named Sabra, an Israeli Mossad agent, in the film Captain America: Brave New World. This attempt at culturewashing Israeli war crimes led to a backlash and calls for a boycott, citing the controversial role of Israel’s intelligence agency.

Involvement of IDF soldiers: Disney has been casting Israeli actors who have served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), such as Gal Gadot, in films like Snow White, which resulted in boycotts of the film and Disney+ subscriptions.

Biased news reporting: Disney's subsidiary, ABC News, has been pushing a pro-Israel narrative that continuously ignores Palestinian perspectives and war crimes. ABC News constantly portrays Israel's actions as "self-defense" while downplaying Palestinian suffering.

Hulu running Israeli propaganda ads: In early 2024, Israeli propaganda videos ran on Hulu, which is owned by Disney, in another example of Disney's complicity in promoting pro-Israel messages.

Disney has largely maintained its position, insisting that its actions support “innocent people affected by the war and condemn terrorism,” while its approach shows a clear bias that disregards the devastating impact on Palestinian civilians.

All of this didn’t move you to cancel your Disney subscription, but removing Jimmy Kimmel, in the words of Dave Smith, “a guy backed by every giant corporation in the world” — did. I’ll let Dave elaborate on this. You should watch Dave’s podcast on this whole Jimmy business and how it intersects with the limitations of a liberal mindset.

Please watch. Let’s do better.

“There’s something particularly infuriating to see someone like Jimmy Kimmel, who of like I’m saying with all the liberals is just totally ignorant of all of this in his own mind, I’m sure actually does conceive this as it’s like — the regime is Trump and we’re the little guy standing up to them. Yeah, we’re the little guy backed by every giant corporation in the world. It’s unbelievable. It’s almost like the whole nature of the government is just the gang that’s perceived as legitimate.”

Share

Something felt different about Sunday’s Emmy Awards. There was a shift in the air, a sense of … overcoming. But overcoming what, exactly? Everything. A barrier that held some of us from really spouting those words out: genocide, Israel, boycott. Fear of retribution. Loss of jobs, livelihoods. Hateful comments.

As words like overcoming, crossing the bridge, opening the floodgates, breaking the dam circled in my head all day, I noticed others naming the same shift, sharing the same language, as if we’d all felt it at once.

This Substack note from the author Trita Parsi hit the nail on the head. The key barrier in revolutions is the public fearing the dictator. Overcoming that barrier is when the public stops fearing the dictator. Similarly, the fear of retribution by elements supporting Israel’s genocide had been overcome. Do you feel the shift?

Listen to what Javier Bardem said on the Emmys red carpet, when interviewed by The Hollywood Reporter:

“Here I am today, denouncing the genocide in Gaza. I am talking about the IAGS, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, who study thoroughly genocide and has declared it is a genocide. That’s why we ask for a commercial and diplomatic blockade and also sanctions on Israel to stop the genocide. Free Palestine.”

The clip was reposted several times by Variety — no censorship. Variety, a magazine that relentlessly published hit pieces on actresses Rachel Zegler and Melisa Barrera, framing their empathy for the suffering of the Palestinian people as inflammatory political rhetoric that borders on hate speech.

These are the articles they published over the course of last year:

Inside Disney’s ‘Snow White’ Fiasco: Death Threats, Beefed-Up Security and a Social Media Guru for Rachel Zegler

Spyglass Says Melissa Barrera Was Fired From ‘Scream’ Due to Rhetoric That ‘Flagrantly Crosses the Line Into Hate Speech’ (EXCLUSIVE)

A Fired ‘Scream’ Star, Clients Booted From Agencies and a Secret Tom Cruise Meeting: Inside Hollywood’s Divide Over Israel

Melissa Barrera Ignites More Controversy With New Social Media Posts, Sparking Heated Debate at WME

To have Variety magazine publish Javier Bardem’s full statement on the Emmys red carpet is nothing short of a miracle, given their track record of culturewashing Israel’s war crimes in Palestine.

Javier was on a mission, using this platform to promote the Film Workers for Palestine — a call endorsed by filmmakers and cinema workers to stand for an end to genocide, and for a free Palestine. They organized a pledge, signed by 3,900 industry names declaring the signees will not work with Israeli institutions and film companies that are “implicated in genocide and apartheid against the Palestinian people.” The pledge states that examples of complicity include “whitewashing or justifying genocide and apartheid, and/or partnering with the government committing them.”

He pivoted every single question from himself and his project, to Palestine.

Listen to

Interviewer: First of all, I got to ask you about the Keffiyah?

Javier: “At the end of August, the AGS, the International Association of Genocide Scholars who study thoroughly the word genocide, the concept of genocide, called what is going on in Gaza today a genocide. And that's why we want to ask for a commercial and diplomatic blockade and sanctions on Israel to stop this genocide, free Palestine.”

Interviewer: And you know there's been that was a long time coming. I think there was a lot of debate over many months and people were so reluctant to say it. How frustrating was that for you for them to to wait for them to finally confirm something that a lot of people had already known?

Javier: “Yeah. And also we are getting together, the Film Workers for Palestine. It's a great union, group that is getting more and more people attached. It's also important to clarify, we do not target individuals. What we target are those complicit film companies, and institutions that are involved in whitewashing or justifying the genocide of Israel in Gaza. And it's an apartheid regime. And we stand with those who fight and stand in solidarity with the oppressed.

Interviewer: Yeah. And that was an important distinction.

Javier: “Absolutely. Institutions and companies. And if you want to work on a movie, you have to have a very thorough check out of who's behind it, and to see what is their relationship with the genocide, and then take your decisions. I know my decision. I will never work with some company now that are not are not condemning the genocide in Israel in in Gaza.”

Interviewer: Are you having conversations with Elise and your reps? Because of course I know…

Javier: I know what I'm doing. I know what I can bring. It's okay. Me not getting jobs is absolutely irrelevant compared to what is going on there. It's it's that easy.

Interviewer: Yeah. I mean, what an amazing statement you're making that a lot of people have been afraid to make.

Javier: Their silence, because they're afraid, is their support to the genocide.

Interviewer: And then let's talk about you and this nomination by the way, which was so deserved.

Javier: “It's so hard to pivot to something from real life. And I thank you very much for your microphone and your time and your attention and your camera to give me the platform to speak about what it matters.”

I'm so happy that uh the Sound of Hadi had sorry made it into the Grand Jury Prize because it's going to bring attention to it, and there's another great Palestinian movie called ‘All That Is Left of You’ that you will hear about in Toronto, and it's a great movie, and it's about time to bring those stories, and to give them screen time for people to understand what we're talking about. This thing didn't start on October 7th. This thing started in 1948.

Interviewer: Wow.

Yes, exactly that. Wow.

Listen to his entire red-carpet interview.

Fuck ICE and Free Palestine? Listen to Hannah Einbinder iconic line while receiving her award.

And also her words in the Emmy Presser, clearly calling out Israel human right’s violations and war crimes.

Mohammed El-Kurd explained the importance of this moment, and why the choice of both Javier and Hannah’s words moved beyond symbolism of solidarity to a full-throated call for tangible actions against the perpetrator, Israel:

“If you felt that the Javier Bardem/Hannah Einbinder’s statements last night were refreshing, and unlike the usual red carpet lip-service, it is because they weren’t vague or preemptively defensive, nor did they reduce the genocide to a faceless “humanitarian crisis.” They denounced the culprit unequivocally and named what justice demanded: sanctions.

I'm rarely impressed with celebrity displays of solidarity, not only due to suspicions of opportunism or whatnot, but mostly because, so often, they're painfully timid and hesitant, defanging their political stances with euphemisms, disclaimers and bothsidesism, or refusing to name the perpetrators—these silly linguistic tricks meant to appease all sides end up rendering well-intentioned gestures hollow and perfunctory. Such reticence does nothing to raise the ceiling and is a complete waste of social capital.

In the case of Bardem and Einbinder, however, it wasn't the keffiyeh or the ceasefire pin that were impressive, it was Bardem's full-throated call for "commercial and diplomatic blockade, and also sanctions on Israel."

It was Einbinder’s saying “Free Palestine” in a room full of powerful Zionists, instead of opting to use the classic (and very feeble) talking point of “women, children, etc.” Meaning, instead of taking the easy route of talking about Gaza as if it's an unfortunate natural disaster, she explicitly adopted the slogan of our movement, a slogan rooted in anti-Zionist, anti-colonial struggle for land and liberation, coupling it with the local struggle against ICE, and later renouncing Israel, not just “Netanyahu’s government,” as an “ethnonationalist state” that must be exiled outside of American mainstream Jewry.

One only gets a few minutes on stage or talking to the press, and they chose to use that time to move beyond the symbolism of the pin and the scarf and into tangible action, however limited it may be: vowing to cut ties with those complicit in genocide and demanding they be sanctioned.”

Share

When I first heard the news about the ‘Voice of Hind Rajab’ movie being released, backed by a Hollywood A-list producer team, my first reaction was — great, it’s super important this gets made for all the world to see. For everyone who isn’t already aware of what the Israeli army is capable of, to see them pummel 335 bullets into the body of a 6-year-old girl, while claiming self-defense.

I went to sleep and woke up feeling uneasy about it. My digestive system always gives me the best instincts. I began to examine why I felt the way I did. Firstly, I wasn’t ok with Brad Pitt being on the producing team. It felt like he was only doing it to whitewash his domestic abuser reputation. Why on earth would you get on a producer team of a movie covering a war crime you never said a word about?

Brad Pitt’s name alone could help end this genocide. If he stood on any stage in the world, named the perpetrator — Israel, and demanded an end to the offensive, it would surely set the ball rolling. Yet he has never uttered a word about this Holocaust of our time unfolding before our eyes, never lent his name to the victims’ plea, never used his influence to try to stop it — and now he’ll profit from a movie about the very genocide he has refused to speak about publicly?

Every time I have a strong feeling about something to do with Gaza or Palestine, I ask my Palestinian friend what she thinks about it, am I right with what I think or feel, and what is her take? After all, however the Palestinian people feel about any of this, should be the norm we should all follow. This is their story. So I asked her what she thinks about this movie being made, depicting the death of one of her people. Her response was this:

“I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, it feels like it’s all about the actors, movies, and fame. A popular topic that might not actually change anything. Part of me can’t help but feel that Gaza’s suffering is being used in the outside world for other people’s purposes. On the other hand, I know that some of them genuinely have good intentions and truly want the world to see what’s happening. We’ve tried so many ways to get the word out, and maybe this is just another one. I’m trying to focus on the good in it, but deep down, I still struggle with how it makes me feel knowing the Gazans’ suffering is being used by many.”

No matter which angle I take, I keep coming back to the same question: Why are we making a movie about an ongoing genocide instead of using everything we’ve got to try to stop it? Why are we romanticizing this death on screen like this genocide happened in the past? Why are we cinematicising this grief while children, like Hind, are still being slaughtered daily?

If you cannot see my point, I implore you to think about this, as some of you only react to white people’s deaths: Imagine Schindler’s List being made in 1944? Imagine Schindler’s List being released while Auschwitz-Birkenau is still open and running? Wouldn’t you say then, hold on a minute, why are we making a film, why don’t we do something to rescue these people?

Why are we reminiscing about an atrocity taking place, WHILE it’s taking place?

Read more

Last week, when Taylor Swift announced her engagement on Instagram, I noticed something peculiar. The reactions all over social media were unhinged, far beyond the usual Swiftie delirium. I’m so tired of constantly discovering new ways people can be awful, in this heightened awareness the universe forced upon us two years ago—the one that usually comes at the cost of witnessing people being slaughtered in front of our eyes.

Funny how mass death, livestreamed directly to your phone, can instantly hand you a litmus test; there’s nowhere to hide, nothing you can ever unsee, and no performance of authenticity can pass if it isn’t rooted in absolute honesty. Living in this world is a privilege, even as I long for the oblivion I once enjoyed before that October.

I mean, just look at the article I wrote in that October, the last one before the world changed on its axis; I read it now, and I shrug at the subheadline: “Finding yourself enthralled by this sort of narrative, it’s about Travis and Taylor, or whoever, but it’s very much about you.” I cringe.

Jess Natale, a beloved founder of So Informed, posted an image about the media phenomenon of this engagement announcement, which launched a brilliant character study:

“The fact that Taylor Swift’s engagement is plastered across every major headline today, while the genocide in Gaza is reduced to a footnote - if mentioned at all - exposes the media’s sickening obsession with celebrity over conscience. Abandon legacy media.”

She pulled the headlines to make her point.

At the top: legacy media fawning over a billionaire and a millionaire getting married, with an enthusiasm they won’t offer to a livestreamed genocide, and the most brutal, medieval erasure of an entire people.

At the bottom: ethical non-Western media actually doing their job, reporting on the largest war crime of our lived experience.

Even though this post is clearly about the legacy media practice of shielding the perpetrators of this brutal war crime and crime against every instance that makes humanity the definition, people felt called out in the comment section.

Let me repeat who is actually being called out in the post’s description. The media.

“The fact that Taylor Swift’s engagement is plastered across every major headline today, while the genocide in Gaza is reduced to a footnote - if mentioned at all - exposes the media’s sickening obsession with celebrity over conscience. Abandon legacy media.”

The comment section.

“Don’t you dare come after my billionaire bestie!”

Like, what. WHAT?

The entire comment section is filled with people raging at the idea that anyone could try to steal the joy of a billionaire’s upcoming wedding from them. Just look at these gems:

“Don’t make us feel guilty for celebrating some happy news in this terrible world????”

“I get this. But also, we need good news. We need fluff. I personally don’t even watch the news because I feel so helpless and depressed when I do.”

“So nobody’s allowed happiness??? Being negative won’t fix what’s happening in the world - only makes it worse.”

“Just be happy for them. This kind of stuff is what brings light to people in dark times.”

“Sigh. It’s almost like we can enjoy happy things and care deeply about injustice and tragedy at the same time. This take is so tiresome.”

Nothing is more dangerous than a Westerner who’s joy at the mundane celebrity gossip you tried to take away!

And we’re supposed to count on these people to give us a helping hand in global liberation, the decolonization of our minds and lands, tackling imperialism, capitalism, oligarchy—trying to make this world bearable for all people? This is the folk we’re meant to do it with?

A girlboss feminists, silent on literally everything affecting human suffering, that’s not their own. Girboss feminists who feel oppressed by thinking you are trying to take away their joy of an impending celebrity wedding. A billionaire celebrity, probably the most protected billionaire in the world, because of the horde of white women's parasocial attachment to her, as faithfully expressed by this person:

Taylor Swift is a billionaire. Do you understand that concept? She is aligning with billionaire interests, not society’s. Again, as the person below rightly pointed out: “countless women artists with far less wealth, protection, and insulation have spoken out at great personal risk.”

Taylor Swift hasn’t spoken out on the ongoing genocide, ICE raids, snatching American citizens off the streets, or freedom of speech slowly being taken away from us. Prioritizing convenience over conscience?

We have to examine our white privilege, folks. A privilege of demanding our joy at the news of a celebrity wedding not be interrupted by the grimness of a genocide happening in our timeline. We have a blind spot, and we have to work at it to recognize patterns in ourselves and the people we support.

Just look at this original post below, discussing the possible carats on Taylor’s engagement ring:

Miners probably died to obtain that rock from the depths of the earth. And to that I say … Get it, girl.

Get it, girl?

Are we that far gone in self-centeredness? Why does your happiness hinge on celebrity worship? And to the degree that you brush off the suffering of others for me me me, mine?

Is this who we are? Is this who we want to be? As rightly pointed out, “this post might be the most perfect illustration we have of how white supremacy, capitalism, and patriarchy form the core of Girlboss feminism. We are living in a farcical nightmare.”

Back to joy.

I clicked on some of the commentators’ profiles on the post I’m discussing in this article, and it struck me to see some white people claiming, “well, let us have some joy about this news, after all, joy is resistance”, in a pathetic attempt to sound empathetic towards an entire people being slaughtered before our eyes.

And this brilliant response to that drives it home:

“Saying joy is resistance especially when you are a straight, white woman is meaningless and myopic. Joy is resistance for the queer and trans people who are having their lives and rights threatened. Joy is resistance for Black women who are constantly belittled and othered, even in their own communities. Joy is resistance for immigrant families who continue to try and find happiness when darkness looms. Your joy is not resistance when it comes to celebrating white billionaires.”

People want to be complacent, and therefore complicit, in peace.

We are morally misaligned. Our collective fixation on celebrity joy is masking, trivializing, and shielding the suffering of millions.

We could argue that people need joy in this gruesome world, yes. But there’s a difference between seeking relief and prioritizing it over basic human empathy.

When joy comes packaged in celebrity worship while genocide is livestreamed, it stops being escapism and becomes a distraction.

Our moral compass is inverted.

We condition ourselves to care more about curated narratives of glamour and romance than the brutal realities occurring thousands of miles away.

“Why can’t you let us experience some joys?”, a question directed at the creator of the post you’re commenting on, tells me you feel called out because, deep down, you know you don’t care enough about the wholesale murder of an entire population.

Wanting to feel joy in the midst of unspeakable crimes being committed is an understandable human sentiment, but also an indictment of our desensitization. We have created a culture where empathy is optional, but celebrity worship is mandatory.

Hate to be the bearer of not-so-pleasant news, but if we are to claim any humanity, our attention must align with reality. Until the legacy media and the public place suffering at the center of the conversation, our joy exists on the backs of those being silenced.

Share

This moment was inevitable. A collision between two worlds, a fracture between opposing moral realities. One forged by decades of Israeli indoctrination, built on fear and entitlement; the other shaped by the lived values of much of the outside world.

For too long, the Israeli public has been taught to see life, death, justice, and humanity through a lens that justifies prioritizing their own lives and ethnostate above all else, disregarding the lives taken in the process. Now, that narrative is colliding, violently, with a global conscience that no longer accepts it.

A livestreamed genocide that we have been forced to watch and accept as the new normal for the past 20 months may be a part of it. Turns out, people don’t like systematic mass slaughter.

This isn’t rocket science. People don’t support genocide. What’s causing a deep rupture in our societies right now is the inability of Western politicians, mainstream media, and much of the Israeli public — raised to see Arab lives as disposable — to grasp why the world is reacting with such outrage. They can’t comprehend that opposition to mass violence isn’t radical. It’s human.

Framing all criticism under the banner of antisemitism is not only lazy and disingenuous — it's deliberately misleading. Simply put, people don’t like Israel because Israel is committing genocide.

A few days ago, a performer named Bob Vylan chanted “Death, Death to the IDF” on the stage of Glastonbury Festival. The crowd erupted in unison — a long-awaited catharsis after nearly two years of watching the IDF tear children’s limbs apart and flatten buildings packed with people, with such glee and disregard for life it forced you to question humanity itself, the meaning of civilization, and what future is left after witnessing such crimes.

Make no mistake, the Israeli government and Israeli citizens who support them are fully aware they are committing war crimes in Gaza. They just regard those crimes as acceptable collateral in the pursuit of Zionist (and Western) supremacy in the Middle East. That is also why they are trying to police our thoughts. They are trying to criminalize what we think about Israel by the laws they are desperately trying to pass, while Meta suppresses our content for the same reasons. Zionist fear isn’t about safety; it’s about losing control.

What happened on that stage was inevitable.

Discourse Blog offered the most straightforward analysis of this moment:

“Left unmentioned in any of this freakout is the context in which it is taking place. Why was Bob Vylan talking about Palestine right now? Why was a giant crowd of people so receptive to these comments? Why has this become such a totemic issue?

The answer will not shock you. It’s because Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza for nearly two years.

That’s it! That’s why. People don’t like genocide, and when they see a country committing genocide, they stop liking that country so much. If the genocide ended, a lot of people would be less mad at Israel than they are right now.

This isn’t rocket science. But—and this is the crucial thing—because our world’s leading politicians and media outlets fundamentally don’t see opposition to the genocide as a legitimate viewpoint to hold, they can’t quite comprehend what is happening all around them.”

“Israel is committing genocide! It’s starving people and then deliberately slaughtering them when they try to get food. It’s massacring hundreds of people a week. It’s committing every possible war crime imaginable. And it’s doing this with the military and political support of governments around the world, including the United States and the United Kingdom. We all know this! People have eyes, and they are horrified by what they’re seeing. That is literally the whole explanation for why opposition to Israel has become so much more mainstream.

This isn’t just an American thing. Support for Israel has plummeted across the Western world. Why? Must I repeat myself? OK, I guess I must. BECAUSE ISRAEL IS COMMITTING GENOCIDE AND PEOPLE DON’T LIKE THAT.”

And if the war crimes of the Israeli state and the psychopathic support they enjoy among its citizens weren’t reason enough why the majority of the world opposes everything they stand for, the comments of the Israeli citizens or those supporting them close the deal:

“Sure, I feel bad for the 35,000 or so innocent lives that got caught up in this war, but I am not shedding a tear for the over 20,000 Hamas terrorists and enemy combatants that chose to martyr themselves in their pursuit of exterminating Jews and other Israeli citizens. And even if you don't like reading it, many of those terrorists were underage kids who have been groomed into these terrorist soldiers since birth.”

“Of course, I don't want to see any more unnecessary deaths either, so that's why I think the humane thing to do is to have the Palestinians deported back to the countries they came from, which is Egypt and Jordan.”

“What do Egypt and Jordan have to do with Palestinians, you may ask? There's a dirty little secret you may be unaware of: there's no such thing as a native Palestinian. The modern-day "Palestinian" was an invention of the KGB and Egypt back in the 60s. Palestinians are a bunch of illegal aliens from Egypt and Jordan that were imported into Israel as part of the Soviet Union's overall goal of undermining the free Western world. That's why they should be deported back so there wouldn't have to be so much needless killing.”

Nothing I could write can fully explain the phenomenon of a Zionist mind that sees and feels this seismic shift unfolding better than this sharp comment:

It’s not the chant — it’s the clarity that rattles them.

“Death to the IDF” isn’t acceptable, but it wasn’t vague either, and that’s the real threat.

Clarity scares people who’ve built careers on euphemism.

Normal Island News, my favorite satirized Substack Publication, closed this subject neatly for me:

One such copycat is punk act Bob Vylan who caused outrage by chanting "Death, death to the IDF" at Glastonbury. If only he'd chanted about an army we don't like such as the Russians, that would have been fine. "Death, death to Russia " would have been lovely, but Bob had to chant about our favourite genocidal lunatics, the ones who pay well.

The only impartial solution was for the BBC to cut Kneecap's performance from their live feed so you don't hear it, like boos for Israel at Eurovision.

It appeared we were safe from having our minds polluted by unauthorised opinions, but unfortunately, some idiot at the BBC didn't check who was on before Kneecap. It was someone called Bob Vylan who caused horror and disgust when he displayed the words: "Free Palestine. United Nations have called it a genocide. The BBC calls it a conflict."

I’ll repeat my sentiment from the beginning of this article. For too long, the Israeli public has been taught to see life, death, justice, and humanity through a lens that justifies prioritizing their own lives and ethnostate above all else, disregarding the lives taken in the process. Now, that narrative is colliding, violently, with a global conscience that no longer accepts it.

This moment was inevitable. A collision between two worlds, a fracture between opposing moral realities. One forged by decades of Israeli indoctrination, built on fear and entitlement; the other shaped by the lived values of much of the outside world.

I know you want to see dead bodies stop dropping in Gaza, and nothing seems like success until the dead bodies stop dropping in all Palestine, but trust me, this is huge.

Share

‘No Other Land’ has won the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature. The fact that this movie doesn’t even have a US distributor but now holds an Oscar is yet another irony in the tangled discourse that has defined Palestine’s reality for the past 76 years. Nonetheless, it’s colossal. The idea of the nation will always find ways to endure—and perhaps even rise on the Oscar stage—despite relentless efforts to erase it from both theaters and the land itself.

The initial shock and disbelief of hearing a Palestinian film announced as the winner quickly gave way to tears—for all of us who have spent the past 17 months witnessing and documenting the live-streamed genocide in Gaza. And then came the division. The heated debates over whether the film represents a victory or a step toward normalizing the oppression of Palestine.

A story.

‘No Other Land’ tells the story of the West Bank's Masafer Yatta community through the lens of Palestinian activist Basel Adra, and Israeli journalist Yuval Abraham, among others. Basel narrates his story through personal and guerilla-style footage, documenting the forced displacement of his community. Risking arrest or even death, he captures Israeli soldiers demolishing homes, schools, and playgrounds to clear land for military training zones—an ongoing reality he’s witnessed his entire life.

Studios and distributors in the United States have refused to pick up the film, despite it being the highest-grossing Oscar-nominated documentary.

Will winning the Oscar finally change that?

A crack in the narrative armor.

Anything a Palestinian person does, says, or achieves that reaches beyond their shattered communities and into the global stage serves as a window into the Zionist mindset. The moment the four creators picked up their Oscars, the predictable response came:

Despite their immense influence in Hollywood, Zionists still felt robbed because one—just one—film about Palestine, in a landscape largely devoid of Palestinian perspectives, received some attention.

If you keep insisting your assault on the Palestinian lands is about self-defense, not ethno-supremacy, why does the slightest recognition of Palestinian existence unsettle you?

Discomfort with accountability.

Propaganda & Co posted a brilliant thread breaking down why the Zionist outrage over this particular Oscar flooded the airwaves just minutes after it was awarded:

“Why are Zionists so PISSED off about this film? The anger displayed by Zionists when the Palestinian narrative gains traction reveals a deeper unease about the shifting tides of public discourse.

For decades, the Israeli perspective has dominated mainstream Western narratives, often framed as a story of survival, resilience, and moral clarity in the face of existential threats. But as films like ‘No Other Land’ break through the noise, offering glimpses into the lived realities of Palestinians, that monopoly on storytelling is being challenged—and the reaction is telling.

‘No Other Land’ isn’t a piece of Hamas propaganda, nor is it a sensationalized call to arms. It’s a documentary, grounded in the mundane yet brutal routines of occupation—home demolitions, land confiscation, and the systematic erosion of Palestinian agency—that Israel enacts daily.

This isn’t about ideology or political allegiance; it’s about bearing witness to a reality that has been outright denied in much of the discourse. The outrage from Zionists isn’t just about the film itself—it’s about what it represents: a crack in the narrative armor.

For years, criticism of Israel’s policies has been deflected with accusations of bias, antisemitism, or support for terrorism. But when a documentary like this gains attention, meticulously exposing the machinery of dispossession without needing to resort to rhetoric, those deflections lose their potency.

The anger, then, might stem less from the content and more from the fear that the world is finally listening to a voice that’s been shouting into the void for generations. The ferocity of the backlash against ‘No Other Land’ reveals a discomfort with accountability, a resistance to the idea that the Palestinian experience deserves its own space to be seen and understood.

It’s an unintended admission: the more exposure this narrative gets, the harder it becomes to dismiss it as mere propaganda. And that shift, however incremental, threatens the carefully curated image of a conflict where one side’s narrative has long overshadowed the other’s.”

On the Oscar stage, viewed by approximately 20 million people, these words were spoken aloud and heard by millions on the world’s biggest platform:

• Settler violence

• Home demolitions

• Forceful displacements

• Israeli occupation

• Ethnic cleansing

• Destruction of Gaza

• Injustice and military laws

• Ethnic supremacy

As Propaganda & Co pointed out:

”For decades, the Israeli perspective has dominated mainstream Western narratives, often framed as a story of survival, resilience, and moral clarity in the face of existential threats. But as films like ‘No Other Land’ break through the noise, offering glimpses into the lived realities of Palestinians, that monopoly on storytelling is being challenged.”

Isn't this move, then, a crucial turning point in dismantling the occupier’s narrative? The more exposure it receives, the harder it becomes to dismiss it as merely the opposing side’s propaganda.

Normalization.

It gets even more nuanced, and rightfully so. Many Palestinian people pointed out this movie would have never been allowed to be nominated—let alone win—without an Israeli attached to it.

Let’s get to the acceptance speeches first.

Basel Adra, Palestinian activist and the film's narrator, did great:

“Thank you to The Academy for the award. It's such a big honor for the four of us and everybody who supported us for this documentary. About two months ago I became a father and my hope to my daughter that she will not have to live the the same life I'm living now, always fearing settler's violence, home demolitions, and forceful displacements that my community Masafer Yatta is living and facing every day under the Israeli occupation. No Other Land reflects the harsh reality that we have been enduring for decades, and still resist as we call on the world to take serious actions to stop the injustice and to stop the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people.”

Yuval Abraham, Israeli journalist, didn’t sit with me well:

“We made this we made this film, Palestinians and Israelis because together our voices are stronger, we see each other, the atrocious destruction of Gaza and its people which must end, the Israeli hostages brutally taken in the crime of October 7th which must be freed, when I look at Basel I see my brother but we are unequal. We live in a regime where I am free under civilian law, and Basel is under military laws that destroy his life and he cannot control. There is a different path, a political solution, without ethnic supremacy, with national rights for both of our people. And I have to say, as I am here, the foreign policy in this country is helping to block this path. And you know—why? Can't you see that we are intertwined, that my people can be truly safe if Basel's people are truly free and safe? There is another way, it's not too late for life, for the living. There is no other way. Thank you!”

I’m grappling with a moral and ethical conflict.

It’s easy to appreciate Yuval, an Israeli who recognizes the ethnic supremacy of this people, given the raging, biblical derangement we see from Israelis all over social media who simply do not value Palestinian life and boast about their death and destruction. But are we really going to pat people on their backs for not being genocidal like the rest of their peers?

As I said, I’m conflicted:

Yuval called out the US veto power blocking the path to justice, as if Washington is acting against Israeli wishes, rather than doing their bidding. He mentioned October 7th and called for the release of the hostages, but failed to mention the thousands of Palestinian hostages held in Israeli jails without charge—whose release was the very purpose of the October 7th military operation: to use hostages as leverage for the release of Palestinian detainees. He’s quite literally the occupier, standing on that stage with the occupied. His presence on that land is why Palestinian people are being exterminated from that land.

Is he a liberal zionist? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

Nada Elia from Mondoweiss raised some good points:

“Yuval Abraham’s speech, on the other hand, was a masterpiece of liberal hasbara, saviorism, and “both sides-ism.” He spoke of “both peoples” being “intertwined,” and called for the release of the Israeli hostages in Gaza, stressing that freedom for Palestinians would ensure the safety of his people. Nowhere in his speech was there even a hint of the questioning of Zionism, of the fact that Israel, by its mere existence, dispossesses the Palestinian people.

Abraham seemed smug as he took the opportunity to criticize American foreign policy as a hindrance to peace in Palestine. Yet I couldn’t help but wonder what exactly he meant by “the foreign policy in this country [the United States] is blocking this path.” Is Israel yearning for an end to the occupation, for an end to the genocide, for a return of Palestinian refugees to their towns and villages, but the U.S. is saying “No. We want you to continue?”

At a historic moment when he had the world’s attention, Yuval Abraham could have mentioned Israel’s ongoing starvation of the people in Gaza, despite the ceasefire agreement. Instead, he spoke of the “crimes of October 7.” He could have called for Israel’s implementation of Phase Two of the ceasefire agreement—which does stipulate the release of the remaining Israeli hostages, and which Israel itself is reneging on—instead, he spoke of a vague “release of the Israeli hostages,” as if Hamas, rather than Israel, were responsible for the delay.

Cherished liberal buzzwords and concepts permeated Abraham’s speech: co-existence, not co-resistance, even though, in the documentary, Abraham actually does try to co-resist Israel’s land appropriation of Masafer Yatta.

The takeaway for many viewers was the need for safety for the Israelis, but only passing mention of “safety” for Palestinians. There was no mention, heaven forbid, of ending the blockade of Gaza, or even, ending the illegal occupation of the West Bank. The words settler colonialism, occupation, return, blockade, starvation, genocide, and apartheid, were not uttered.

“No Other Land” may have won a well-deserved Oscar, but Abraham’s speech was the epitome of liberal Zionist hasbara, stealing the limelight from Palestinian strugglers to center the “good Israeli savior.””

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), mandated by the Palestinian BDS National Committee, also released a statement on their position regarding ‘No Other Land’.

Message vs. the normalization?

Does the message of this movie—challenging a century-long hasbara and revealing the reality of the occupation on the ground—justify the narrator’s choice of normalization in presenting it to the world? Is spreading the truth about the occupation and daily subjugation of the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank more important than the normalization used to bring it to the forefront?

I can't make that distinction from the comfort of my warm New York living room. It’s for the Palestinian community—both on the ground in Palestine and in the diaspora—to determine, and we must listen to and acknowledge all of their perspectives.

Lena Derhally, a Palestinian-American psychotherapist and author, posted an interesting take on her Instagram story:

“Palestinians in the arts are not faced with any good choices. Are we now calling out Mo Amer for streaming his show on Netflix (a Zionist entity) for normalization? Stop attacking Palestinians for finding ways to get their message and art into the world and in front of the larger audiences. Who here is going to call me out as a Palestinian author for self-publishing my book on Amazon or publishing another book with a traditional American publisher here? Stop acting like everyone makes purely ethical choices 100% of the time.”

May this film be the cog in the machinery of truth, justice, and, most importantly, accountability.

Where to watch No Other Land?

Try these streaming links: Amazon UK, Microsoft, Sky Store, AppleTV, but note that they might not be available in some regions.

Share

The awakening we've experienced over the past year has been nothing short of extraordinary. It's both fascinating and unsettling to realize how many moral and historical distortions were always around us, unnoticed while we were moving through life on autopilot.

I was never naive or gullible about the world and its politics. Coming from the Balkans—a region marked by violence and suffering, where grief has deep roots due to countless conflicts, empires, rulers, and occupations—politics is ingrained in you from birth. Knowing your history is essential for survival. Or countless fiery debates you’ll have for the rest of your life.

When I landed at an American college, one of the courses awaiting me in my required major was World Affairs—not that I needed outside help to understand global dynamics. I've always had a solid grasp of politics. But what I hadn't fully realized was how culture and sports are often exploited to advance political agendas.

Well, now I do.

I realized that using sports to divert attention from political controversies is quite on the nose, very obvious—anything but subtle. In contrast, using culture to achieve the same goal is far more nuanced.

For example, in sports, UEFA, a Union of European Football Associations will include Israel in its Association and allow it to compete while Israel isn’t a part of Europe. I once asked ChatGPT why that is. This is the answer I got:

“The inclusion of Israel in UEFA has indeed been a topic of discussion and debate. Some critics argue that sporting and cultural events can be used to project a positive image or divert attention from political controversies, such as concerns about apartheid policies. The question of including a country in sporting events involves complex ethical considerations. It often sparks debates about whether engagement through sports can help promote positive change or whether inadvertently legitimizes oppressive actions. Different people and organizations hold varying views on this matter, reflecting the complexity of balancing sports, politics, and human rights.”

Those in power will quite literally shove a state that is not in Europe to compete in European Championships and Tournaments to project a positive image or divert attention from political controversies, such as concerns about apartheid policies. No rules, no sense, no logic.

Which takes me to culture.

How did we all miss Sacha Baron Cohen subtly using comedy to spread islamophobia for decades?

Ghada Chehade wrote an essay ‘The problem with Borat’, where she says:

“While the 2006 film has received coverage and praise for revealing the racism of Americans, very few people are asking whether Cohen’s caricature of a savage, homophobic, misogynist, racist, and hard core Jew-hating Muslim is not actually a form of anti-Muslim racism. To be characterized as any of the above is a form of discrimination, and watching this film it is hard not to walk away wondering why funny man Cohen feels the need to depict a Muslim character in such a vulgar and deplorable light.”

This is by no means accidental. Mintpress delved deeper into Cohen’s Zionism and—this time, not so subtle justification of the genocide in Gaza:

“Cohen has been playing an active role behind the scenes in the genocide. In November 2023, he was among several high-profile figures who lobbied TikTok in private to block content and comments critical of Israel. In September 2020, he suspended his Instagram account to protest purported “hate speech” on the platform and Facebook.

Cohen has, in recent years, significantly upped the ante of his public Zionist activism under the aegis of fighting anti-Semitism. He has claimed his “comedy” output, often coordinated with the CIA and Pentagon, is concerned with the same objective. This work almost universally features racist, crude stereotypes of Muslims, whom he portrays wearing makeup and wigs reminiscent of blackface. One might reasonably ask whether his true purpose all along has been to dehumanize Muslims everywhere in order to justify Israel’s genocide.”

Have you ever come across something or someone precisely when you were ready to receive the message it provides? Of course you did, it happens to all of us. It used to happen to me constantly with people, but recently it has been more often with art. It lands in my lap exactly when I need it, whether it’s movies, series, music, or visual and performance art.

Untogether.

For the past year, with everything I read or watched, I immediately questioned who put it there for me to consume. I analyze every historical event presented to me, every beloved public figure or politician—what’s the real story? Is that charming personality just an act? Did that historic event really unfold the way it’s told? Is everything we consume just part of a larger psyop?

Amid this growing distrust, my nervous system craves a break from the relentless flow of information. I call it a mental massage, especially after feeling so helpless watching the daily visuals of slaughtered children—images my government insists I must accept as normal.

In these moments, I need to escape reality and lose myself in another story for a few hours. Whether it's a film, a series, or a book, I need something that can fully draw me into its narrative.

It’s hard, I know. It’s difficult to get pulled into fiction when reality is so morbid. But I’ve found that stepping away helps me return with a clearer focus. I’ve also found that I can only take romance right now. Everything else feels so illusory. Superheros? Where are they in real life, allowing all this death? Slapstick comedy? Pass. Action movies based on American Heros fixing the world? Bitch, please.

But romance?

No matter what happens in the world, love is the only thing that’s never an illusion. Even the love you see on your screen; someone wrote it based on their own lived experience.

Amazon Prime has been suggesting this movie to me for weeks. Untogether, written and directed by Emma Forrest. Starring Jamie Dornan and Jemima Kirke. I kept skipping it mainly because my body rejects all the plots taking place in in Los Angeles. I’m still recovering from my own body spending nine years in Los Angeles. Also, I’m still having traumas from Jemima Kirke’s character in Girls, and the whole Girls fiasco in general. I can’t possibly watch a romance featuring Jemima Kirke, I close my eyes and all I see is Jessa. It’s unholy.

Jamie Dornan, however, grew on me. There’s something soothing about Jamie Dornan’s Northern Irishness, his face when he has a beard on, and the way his body’s just how you imagined the guy next to you should feel; I can’t think of anyone else at this moment who provokes both fire and comfort sensation.

That and Jessa? As I said, it feels unholy.

You watch it when it’s time. And I did. And that movie did my head in. Blew me away, and not in the way you might think.

Come in, and close the door.

The movie follows a few characters but the story is based around two people who have a one-night stand that unwillingly turns into something else. PS: Jemima Kirke and Jamie Dornan worked wonders together. I saw no Jessa. He’s a doctor who wrote a personal story that got him famous. She’s a writer who wrote a hit when she was 23 and hasn’t written or published anything since.

It hurts me to say, there are some epic dialogues in this movie:

- He’s not a writer. He’s a doctor.

- He doesn’t slave over sentences.

- He’s just a chancer who got lucky.

- Fuck me, you’re in love with him. And jealous of him as well.

- There is no true love. Only a finely tuned jealousy.

Yes, the ‘There is no true love. Just a finely tuned jealousy” is a lyric from the song ‘Life Becoming a Landslide’ by Manic Street Preachers, but it’s pretty artful placing it in the context of this particular plot.

“He doesn’t slave over sentences”—that hit home like nothing else; I can’t convey the brilliance of that sentence if you aren’t someone who writes. I have never met a phrase that explained the agony of relentless struggle with a single sentence or paragraph, sometimes for days, or weeks, such as—slave over sentences.

There are so many great words put together here — Emma Forrest, the writer, flexed:

- Does he fuck heroically?

- All one-night stands are acts of bravery.

- Or defeat.

Enter trouble.

It completely floors me—the realization over the past 11 months that a brilliant, educated, and successful people can fall into the trap of tribalism, Zionism, a sense of supremacy over 'the other’, and an utterly mind-boggling indifference to people being slaughtered for their “safety”.

If you think I came out of left field with this one, pivoting from a romantic storyline to the rubble of Gaza, I didn’t. The writer did. All I signed up for was a mindless love story—or at least a lust story, as those often hit closer to home than the former.

Jemima Kirke’s character is telling her sister about Jamie Dornan’s character, a doctor-turned-writer with whom she just had a one-night stand:

- So, he fell in love with a Palestinian woman when he was a volunteer doctor in Gaza, and then she ended up being killed.

- I can see how that would sell a million copies.

- Mm, two.

She ended up being killed.

Killed by who? Until now, we lived in a world where people casually write about people being killed in Gaza like it’s a natural disaster that just won’t quit. This movie was released in 2018, written some years before that, I suppose. How did we allow a reality where people casually write about death in one strip of land in this world, and no one ever raised questions, wait—killed by WHO? Killed WHY? Why is a group of people constantly killed somewhere?

How is it all right to create a plot around a man falling in love with a woman in Gaza and then casually add “she got killed” like some decades-long natural disaster befalls that place, following up with a commentary, ”I can see how that would sell a million copies”—like a whole nation being exterminated by an Israeli army and illegal settlers is a convenient movie plot that adds spice to a one-night-stand turned love story—story?

Untogether is written and directed by Emma Forrest. Emma is a British American novelist, screenwriter, and a first-time film director.

The other day, I read a great line by always incisive Caitlin Johnstone:

Emma Forrest is also Jewish. I won’t make a judgment on what side of the spectrum her views of the 76-year devastation of the Palestinian people stand, I will let Emma’s words explain to us all which spectrum that is. On November 7th 2023, Emma shared a six-page post on her Instagram page, saying:

“Today is the anniversary of the October 7th massacre. Today, if they are still alive, the hostages— from babies to elderly Holocaust survivors, to young women who had been visibly raped until their trackpants were soaked in blood—have been held captive for a month. Hamas, who are deeply PR savvy, performed such medieval torture on their victims that, even though they themselves recorded and distributed videos of it, the mind cannot process it, and therefore easy for people who don’t like Jews to say it was made up.”

A woman named Aisling McGeown commented on Emma’s post, saying:

“If we offered Palestine October 7th in exchange for what they have been through they would take it any day of the week. None of it is good and every single person is one too many but let’s have a five-page nuance dedication to the Palestinian lives and the children. Jewish and Palestinian children. The children. #ceasefire”

Emma responded to Aisling, saying:

“HUGE apologies for having the temerity to write about my lived experience on my page.”

Her lived experience? Lived experience? Does she live in Gaza? West Bank? Or London and Los Angeles? Who on Earth can claim lived experience comparable to the injustice, devastation, death, carnage, and utter disregard for human life that the Palestinian people have endured for eight decades?

Is Emma’s art political? Does it oppose the madness of the status quo, support it, or distract from it?

You be the judge.

As the movie Untogether progresses, we are introduced to a kind Rabbi, played by Billy Crystal, who is raising money for Syrian refugees within his congregation:

“I’d like to end tonight by reminding you that at the end of the month we have our rally for our Syrian refugees. I’d like you all to be there because somebody was there for us when we came. Somebody was there for your grandfather when he came. Somebody was there for your great-grandfather when he came. Somebody was there. So be there for them.”

Emma clearly cares about Syrian refugees. What about 6 million Palestinian refugees created by the state of Israel, that have no right of return to their homeland? How can anyone connected to Israel not feel uneasy about millions of people being killed and ethnically cleansed from their homeland so that space can be made for a Jewish ethnostate?

Maybe Emma cares about all these things, but why isn’t she making art about the plight of Palestinian people? Israeli magazine Haaretz wrote a feature about Emma’s movie, calling it a Remarkably Jewish Indie Film.

Her desensitized way of molding this storyline is astounding. The dialogue where a Rabbi played by Billy Crystal tells a story about why he became an activist who cares about the plight of others less fortunate is appalling:

- When I was 13, we were living on the Lower East Side of New York City, and two floors above us was a young man named Mickey Schwerner.

- Mickey and his wife Rita lived two floors above us, and he was older than I was but he was very good to me in a way hat older boys are not ‘cause they dn’t like to be seen with the little kids. And they were activists.

- They worked for CORE, Congress of Racial Equality

- They were very brave people. They were Freedom Riders in the truest sense. They would go down South and register African Americans to vote.

- They would boycott businesses until they desegregated.

- They were very inspiring young people, and it was Mickey who taught me about Dr. King. And I read everything I could. And I listened to him whenever I could. And I just was awestruck.

How can a person supporting Israel write this? How can anyone sensible that cares about other human beings, besides their own—talk about boycotting businesses in the South “until they segregated” while not supporting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions of the businesses supporting and funding the Israeli Apartheid and military occupation of Palestinian people?

Emma’s disconnect is palpable:

- So then what happened with Mickey Jewinowitz?

- Mickey was murdered in 1964 in Mississippi, along with two fellow civil rights workers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman. They were beaten, shot to death, and buried by the members of the KKK. Long time ago. But that’s what got me started. 

What about the Israeli army that beats, shoots to death, and buries children under the rubble?

What stuns me the most is the fact we never even noticed these things before Israel launched their genocidal campaign in Gaza. How many filmmakers did this? How many screenwriters did this? Wrote lines and created art depicting Jewish people as these justice warriors, morally sound folk who are so sensitive to others’ plight for justice and self-determination while not recognizing Palestinian people should also have all those rights?

In contrast, many Jewish artists have done a great deal for the plight of the Palestinian people, the most recent being Jonathan Glazer, with his Oscar-winning film and his even more legendary acceptance speech. Besides artists, Jewish activists have played the most pivotal role in denouncing the occupation and the genocide of the Palestinian people in their name.

Decide if Emma Forrest is one of the people who understands, cares, or wants to see the end to the dehumanization of the Palestinians.

While researching this novelist, screenwriter, and first-time director, I couldn’t shake the feeling that I had seen this woman before. Her name and face were familiar. Then, it hit me: back in 2009, in Los Angeles, Emma Forrest met and dated Colin Farrell for about a year. I remember those headlines and paparazzi photos in gossip magazines. He left her, got another woman pregnant instantly, and Emma wrote a memoir documenting that period of her life.

Floored me.

This is an excerpt from Emma Forrest's memoir, Your Voice In My Head:

“It has been five years since I've self-harmed when, at a dinner in LA, I am introduced to a man with long, flowing hair who is wearing a keffiyeh. HE LOOKS LIKE THE WORLD’S CAMPEST TERRORIST, but he's actually a movie star with a storied reputation. In the candle-lit garden, we sit next to each other and talk, and he admits later that every single thing he tells me is intended to translate as, "I'm not like you've heard I am." It works.”

Colin Farrell spent decades of his life wrapped in a Palestinian keffiyeh. It’s only natural showcasing solidarity with the Palestinian people would be important to him—he’s Irish.

Emma Forrest, a woman who met him on a night he wore a Palestinian cultural symbol, a traditional garment that every culture has, common to their customs—called him “the world’s campest terrorist”. Emma Forrest associates a Palestinian traditional garment with being a terrorist. She is so emboldened and protected in her dehumanization of the Palestinian people that she would include that sentence in her memoir. How callous is this woman, using the most destructive word one can attribute to a human being?

I scoured the internet and couldn’t find a single article or even a Reddit thread condemning her blatant Islamophobia.

Do you still think all art isn’t political?

Or has art like this created a sentiment where, today, Gaza can be bombed into oblivion; 180,000 + people killed, wounded, or buried under the rubble—and people would justify it? After all, do the “world’s campest terrorists” deserve to live?

Creating a film as a tribute to her Jewishness, while calling one of the world’s most famous actors a terrorist because he showed up with a keffiyeh— is Emma Forrest’s art meant to convince us of something?

You be the judge.

You can watch Untogether here.

Share

I’m not one to comment on anyone’s love life. Especially when it goes awry. With a failed marriage and a slew of other doomed relationships that pepper my past, I am yet to experience and—from what I’ve heard and seen from others, bask in the bliss of a proper, all-consuming, unabashed love.

Hey, it’s out there. I know it. Any day now.

Love is a toughie, though.

You feel like you’ve finally cracked the code to eternal happiness with a person you label your soulmate, your ride or die, your homie for life, because that’s what one does when the ‘when you know, you know’ moment finally arrives.

The wound is still very fresh, even though we had an entire summer of a ring-less, lifeless Affleck and a yacht-posing, selfie-taking Lopez to prepare us for the crash and burn ending, of—you guessed it, the inevitable kind.

Also, that cringy Bridgerton-inspired birthday bash is something we’ll never be able to unsee.

But don’t forget one thing—she is also just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to re-love her. Her and her insatiable need to be in the constant, highest-wattage spotlight.

And he did. He gave it his all, it seems. While we caught glimpses of what might have caused the rift this time, the full truth will likely remain unknown.

Not unless Benny Medina decides it would be a smart, moolah-raking move for Jennifer’s next project. In that case, we can count on the full lowdown.

Whether we’re up for it, is another question altogether.

Whether you stan them or not, the rekindling of the OG Bennifer—the ultimate modern-day celebrity power couple, unmatched since their first pairing on the set of Gigli in 2002 to their astonishing second act, 17 years after their first breakup in 2004—was everything. Scriptwriters couldn’t have dreamed up a more fulfilling nor gooey love story and we craved that ‘lived happily together forever and ever’ ending for ourselves just as much as we rooted for the stars themselves.

You with me?

The signs were there from the very beginning. And trust me, I know signs oh so well. Especially when they’re not attached to my own relationships. Actually, only then.

Jane Fonda saw them too.

The Greatest Love Story Never Told filled in a lot of blanks. It humanized Lopez by showing her at her most vulnerable, glitz and filter-free self. We already knew how hardworking and success-driven she is, but the raw exposure of her insecurities and accumulated trauma is not something she freely shared in the past. The oversharing of intimate symbols from their relationship, however, was a clear indicator that she and Affleck are fundamentally misaligned.

He blatantly spelled it out on camera that he was not a fan of her exposing the private love letters he wrote to her to her crew. He also shared the caveat he presented when they decided to give their love another go—he adamantly refused to allow the public to third-wheel their relationship this time.

For Lopez, it seems, the ‘if it’s not on social media it’s like it’s not real’ vibe is very much where she chooses to live. The urge to share and expose her intimacy, no matter how deeply she may care, is too strong to fight. However, the question remains if she attempted to fight it at all.

Celebrities are just like us. Minus the money and the fame.

In matters of love and loss, the difference is miniscule.

They hurt the same way we do, they love their kids the way we love ours, and they are, in many ways, the kids we all were and still are—trauma-shaped creatures of need, full of fears, dreams, hopes, and desires. A shared hope we all have is to be loved. Accepted and loved. Seen and loved. Respected and loved.

Jennifer Lopez hopes for all those things.

I suspect her Dear Ben does too.

Share

We need to talk about us. The people. Society. And what have we done? I tend not to talk about celebrities in the times of the biggest humanitarian crises of our time unfolding on our phones, but last week, with the Oscars, the celebrity culture intertwined with the military industrial complex, better yet, danced with it, so here we are.

Yesterday, Variety magazine published an open letter, signed by over 450 Jewish creatives and professionals, denouncing Jonathan Glazer’s ‘Zone of Interest’ Oscars Speech, in which he “refuted (his and his producing partners) Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people.”

Denouncing the refute? Is this real life? More on this below.

All human catastrophe, and especially the ones of this magnitude we are currently witnessing in Gaza, lifts the masks. From the government and the people in power, celebrities you admire, your friends, family, and followers on social media. There’s nothing anyone can say anymore, confronted with what they have done during this time.

There’s hope here, folks. For every individual who callously ignores or even endorses violence against a starving, defenseless population under siege, there comes another, seemingly out of thin air, who restores your faith in humanity.

I know what you’re thinking; it’s hard to imagine what could be hopeful amidst images and videos of children being blown to pieces, but it’s precisely in these moments that we find our collective clarity. We think we can orchestrate our growth with good jobs, relationships, opportunities, and positive mindsets; in reality, actual, real growth happens during human catastrophes.

There’s nothing poetic or meaningful about mass death; its significance lies solely in its reflection of society. Since October, faced with the greatest horror of our time, how have we fared? The society that often ponders, "If we had lived through the Holocaust, surely we would have taken action," we now confront our own response. 

Subscribe now

And how did people with huge platforms respond? Successful, famous people, followed by millions? Their apparent concern seems to vanish when faced with the “complexity” of the present crisis, revealing a superficiality that prioritizes image over genuine care. “Hollywood is more of a PEP squad: progressive except for Palestine,” as Dave Zirin hauntingly called them out in his piece for The Nation.

“Palestine is a litmus test,” we heard early last October, but we had no idea the unraveling would be so painful to watch. People you loved to see on screen praying for Israel on their Instagrams alongside an image of a leveled Gaza Strip or deleting an image of children in Gaza looking at the skies in horror upon learning those aren’t Israeli kids but Palestinian ones. Heart-wrenching captions alongside a visually striking image of the wrong kids whose imminent fate doesn’t deserve your public sympathy, let alone action.

Dystopia struck abruptly, realizing people you admired are, at best, selective in their humanitarian efforts, while others are merely performative, catering to Instagram likes. Mind you, these are the very Hollywood liberals who once recoiled at MAGA in disbelief. Yet now, they find themselves entangled in the same “frenzy of bloodlust, dehumanizing rhetoric, and willful ignorance of facts that they vehemently denounced in the MAGA movement,” as Fredrick Joseph phrased it.

You may ask yourself why I am particularly hard on celebrities, while so many people aren’t speaking out. Because they have a DUTY, as human beings with large platforms and the adoration of many, to USE that privilege in pressuring governments to stop mass death. Because they have been telling us for years they care about human life, suffering, human rights, and climate issues—to expand their public profiles—and now have a RESPONSIBILITY to act on decades of their empty talk. Because they smirk at the far-right for supporting Trump, a leader who cares little about laws, empathy, and humanity, yet they support the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, choosing to believe fairytales about the most sophisticated army on earth slaughtering 30,000+ civilians in “self-defense.”

Again, Fredrick Joseph wraps it up with a perfect bow:

“This introspection leads to an uncomfortable truth about these liberals: the liberalism they profess is a privilege, a garment worn with exclusivity, extended only to those deemed worthy of humanity. It is a selective liberalism, conditional and bounded, a travesty of the very ideals it purports to uphold.

In this light, the struggle for Palestinian liberation becomes not just a fight against an external oppressor but also a battle against an internal contradiction, a hypocrisy within the ranks of those who claim to stand for justice and equality. This is the dilemma at the heart of the matter — the reckoning with a liberalism that is, for some, only skin deep.”

Where is the hope I mentioned above, the hope I’m trying to sell you here? Well, hope is in the compass;

You are free.

We are free from these people.

I feel free. I’m no longer disappointed in famous and/or successful people who don’t use their large platform to speak out on mass murder; I’m free of holding myself to their standards of jobs, success, and lifestyle. I no longer see their houses, projects, or large checks as something I’m striving for or longing for. I don’t see their vacation images on yachts in the middle of winter and sigh; instead, I pity their ambivalence. They are ridiculous to me. I pity the lack of their moral compass, I pity their panic about losing opportunities. These people aren’t free.

You and I—we are free.

You still don’t see it?

Read more

After seeing the masks drop over the past three months—from the government, the establishment, and especially the media—it’s hard not to view everything through a lens of suspicion. Every piece of information now feels like an attempt at propaganda. Our perspective has changed, and every aspect of our lives is seen differently. We’re on high alert. Who can blame us?

With everything I read or watch, I immediately question who put it there for me to consume. I analyze every historical event presented to me, every beloved public figure or politician—what’s the real story? Is that charming personality just an act? Did that historic event really unfold the way it’s told? Is everything we consume just part of a larger psyop?

Amid this growing distrust, my nervous system craves a break from the relentless flow of information. I call it a mental massage, especially after feeling so helpless watching the daily visuals of slaughtered children—images my government insists I must accept as normal.

In these moments, I need to escape reality and lose myself in another story for a few hours. Whether it's a film, a series, or a book, I need something that can fully draw me into its narrative.

The Crown season 6, part 2 just came out. Perfect. I've always been drawn to royal fuckery. It’s on brand with this climate too; the carnage royals inflict on each other, whether its actual physical violence in the times of Richard Plantagenet when they snuffed each other’s children like spring chickens or today’s tabloid propaganda variety of Wars of the Roses - I’m on board.

Distract me from the brutal, medieval slaughter of a besieged civilian population with 7-8 hours of a different kind of carnage.

I used to love The Crown. It was done exceptionally well, with just the right amount of imagination sprinkled over historical events. I liked the first actor they chose to play the adult Charles—the inner turmoil was palpable. Although he was too handsome to convince me that the turmoil was necessary and not just part of his story arc; ironically, the turmoil being the premise of Prince Charles’ real life— it was a pleasurable watch.

I used to love The Crown. It was well-crafted, with just the right amount of imagination sprinkled over historical events. I liked the first actor they chose to play the adult Charles—the inner turmoil was palpable. Although he was perhaps too handsome to fully convince me that the turmoil was genuine and not just a narrative choice, it ironically mirrored the real-life struggles of Prince Charles — it was a pleasurable watch.

Adding Dominic West to the cast made it unwatchable for me. His sexual energy is too intense for any screen, let alone playing one of the most famous men on earth who has none of it. It didn’t work, at least for me, trying to portray this famously fumbling character when all you can see in his eyes is—I want to pin you to the wall when you finish that sentence.

Elisabeth Debicki captured Diana’s facial expressions perfectly—the head tilt, the voice—it was eerie to watch. However, at 6’3”, her height had a storyline of its own, given Diana was 5’10’’ and never towered over people in the same way, which shifted the power dynamics with her screen partners, creating a different impression from the well-known history.

Until this generation, the show featured standard television-making, marked by both strong and questionable choices from its creators. However, with the introduction of the next generation, it began to feel less like a TV show and more like a manufactured PR piece—almost as if we hadn’t grown up with William, Kate, and Harry, or are oblivious to the realities of our generation’s most popular figures.

The level of reimagining history here was laughable to watch. William having an existential crisis thinking he’s not good enough for Kate when we all know the history of Waity Katie; nothing wrong with waiting for a guy if that’s what you chose for your life, not an ounce of judgment in this space—but that’s just not an accurate account of events. We all know Kate’s family jerked her left and right to end up in the same school as Wiliam, I always had a soft spot for that woman, the expectations placed on her were probably mentally exhausting; and she definitely deserved better than William, as it turned out to be.

The extent to which history was reimagined here was laughable. Watching William have an existential crisis over not being good enough for Kate was particularly absurd, given we all know a well-documented history of Waity Katie. There’s nothing wrong with waiting for someone if that’s your choice, there’s no judgment in this space—but that’s not an accurate recollection of actual events. I’ve always had sympathy for Kate Middleton; the expectations placed on her were undoubtedly exhausting—from her family, the public, and especially the British Tabloid Press. She deserved far better than what she received from William.

Why is The Crown going to such lengths to rewrite William and Kate’s story as a once-in-a-lifetime love story? The Palace and the media never tried to convince us of this amour until Harry and Meghan came along, making William and Kate suddenly seem pale and unfeeling by comparison.

The lines the show’s creators wrote for the conversations between William and The Queen about Kate are completely mindless.

Queen: Have you aimed high?

Will: Impossibly heigh. She could have anyone.

Queen: Some might say you’re a bit of catch too.

Prince William, at that time arguably the most eligible bachelor in the world, Princess Diana’s son and a dream for many women, pondering whether he’s aiming too high—it just doesn’t add up, aside from being an inaccurate portrayal of events.

Why are we being propagandized into rewriting this story as an epic love? Who requested it and why? And why did the creators of The Crown accept this meddling? I cannot for the logic in me understand why would they take this direction.

Prince Charles is being played by one of the sexiest actors on our screens, he’s also a good father; Camilla is thoughtful; William, a prince, a Duke of Cambridge is wondering if he’s aiming too high to marry a commoner. Who paid for this public relations campaign?

The answer lies with Harry. Or rather, a portrayal of Harry.

Prince Harry, the most popular member of the British Royal Family alongside his mother, and THE most popular member of the British Royal Family after her death, and any Royal Family of any Monarchy still existing—portrayed as a jealous, problematic, loser; asocially awkward Unabomber; a lost cause; a sinner; a screw-up, a black sheep; a fuck-up.

This is not an overreaction, the creators literally put those words into the mouth of an actor who plays Harry, in a conversation with his brother, in Episode 7, ‘Alma Matter’:

Harry: I know my job, TO BE THE FUCK-UP in this family. Don’t you start too. Go back to St. Andrews. If not for your sake then for mine. I need a purpose in life. SCREW UP and make you look good

Will: What’s going on with you and Pa?

Harry: He found out about the weed, didn’t he? Went ballistic. Said I could get myself expelled. Now he wants me to go to a treatment center to spend a day with some addicts. Bit of an overreaction, I said. Remose and responsibility, he said. Thanks. Cause it’ll be in all the papers. And make me look like a LOST CAUSE. Again. People will say - “Poor boy, ever since his mother died…” but I guess it’s all working out perfectly. Cause there’s no need for number two in this family. Except as entertainment. I can’t be NORMAL OR A SUCCESS can I? And eclipse you in any way. That would make a mockery of the whole show. So it’s Willy gold star, Harry BLACK SHEEP. Willy saint, Harry SINNER. Willy solid, Harry LOST.

Harry: Can you imagine how people would freak out if you were the one going to a treatment center? It would be like the temple was falling down. With me is just what people want. FUCKING UP. “Ah that’s Harry Wales’ job.

This was a hit job, right from the casting.

The actor picked to play Prince Harry looks nothing like him; he’s smug, annoying, and seriously lacking in the looks department—playing a man dubbed Prince Hot Ginge by the press, before he fell in love and a smear campaign ordered by his family launched in the media.

Harry was raised in an establishment that’s built on restraint and lack of spontaneity. He inherited his mother’s nature, love of life and people; but he’s even a better version of her. He possesses the ease his family hardly knows how to define, let alone have—he’s naturally engaging, personable, and real.

I always loved this assessment of Harry—”It’s amazing that family spawned him. Because comfortable, relaxed, unforced, and not stiff has never been the British Royal family's energy. The backlash against him, from the institution and from the media, is based in fear. Here is one of their own shaking off, in real-time, all that formality.”

Is The Crown seriously trying to convince us Prince Harry is an unsightly, socially awkward, jealous troll? Especially when there are records and videos of William—clearly more his father’s son than his mother’s—showing him as an angry, humorless, jealous, and aggressive boy, teenager, and man.

Why did the creators flip Harry and Will’s personalities here? Why are they portraying William’s relationship like a love story for the ages, and Harry as a Unabomber, as he appears, in the scene, in the last episode—looking through the window like he’s about to blow up the whole estate, with all the people in it?

Who ordered this hit job?

A chat between William and The Queen in Episode 9, ‘Hope Street’, is an evergreen:

Will: Things aren’t too great about Harry and Pa now.

Queen: Yes, I heard that. Something about a brawl at a local pub.

Will: More than one. And the wacky-baccy.

Queen: A what?

Will: The ganja granny. The Marijuana.

Will: So now whenever Pa goes away he insists Harry be sent to a family friend’s to be supervised, which Harry hates.

Queen: It’s not easy being a number 2, especially if you have lots of spirit.

Again, who ordered this blatantly obvious hit job on Harry?

I’m well versed in anything to protect the ruling party / anything to protect the Monarchy trope, but this still seems an all-out effort. Is Prince Harry, now that he’s out of Royal protocol—really this threatening to the Monarchy? Or is he threatening something entirely different, beyond our comprehension?

Since October, do you even believe anything being put out as genuine or transparent, rather than being used to propagandize you?

I've noticed a peculiar trend regarding Prince Harry and Meghan Markle since they stepped down from their royal duties. The tabloid media has positioned them as champions of “leftist values”, casting them as being against “tradition”, the monarchy, and "the norm"—essentially making them the poster couple for this narrative.

When you run into chatter about them on Twitter, and this usually comes from a right-wing, conservative folk, the tropes are almost identical—Harry and Meghan are friends with Obama and the left, they are working against America and for climate crises hoax, and they have been using their titles to interfere with American politics, the US constitution prohibits it, Harry came to our country to interfere with our freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, this man has its agenda, this woman has an agenda—and so on.

I always believed the Royal Family’s issue with Harry was primarily about how he made them appear—incapable, lazy, weak, unfeeling, unloving, and unremarkable. Prince Harry, much like his mother, disrupted the British Monarchy’s carefully crafted image simply by being himself.

But tabloid media went much further than portraying the Royals pale in comparison to the Sussexes. They politicized Prince Harry and his wife, casting them as symbols of a side they never explicitly aligned with.

Who’s paying for this?

Share

There’s just something about the low-stakes teen dramas that nourishes our soul. Is it a connection to our childhood, a reminder of how the shows we watched influenced our journey in this world? It’s comforting to me, even at this age; I don’t think I will ever outgrow a good TV triangle, and a bit of banter between the lockers. Dawson’s Creek, 90210, One Three Hill, My So-Called Life, I’m powerless to it. It’s my ultimate feel-good indulgence.

This summer, a new TV triangle rolled into town. The Summer I Turned Pretty, an adaptation of Jenny Han’s popular young adult novel. The title held promise, and with my old favorites having been rewatched countless times, I was eager for something new. Also, I was curious to see how this genre is evolving in the current era of television.

The premise of the series revolves around a girl named Belly Conklin, who spends her summers at a beach house with her mother and her mother's best friend's family. The plot focuses on her relationships with two boys, Conrad and Jeremiah Fisher, who are part of her mother's best friend's family. The series delves into the dynamics between Belly, Conrad, Jeremiah, and other characters as they navigate their feelings for one another and the changes that come with growing up.

Pencil the summer of 2023 as The Summer I Got Cured. I can’t anymore. I’m too cynical for this. I’m tired. I’m also over the trope of the female character being portrayed as stable and self-assured while the male character is depicted as troubled and conflicted, leading to multiple seasons of unpacking his relatively ordinary problems. 

How much longer will we persist in this cycle? On both television and in real life? Dealing with the same issues as men while also shouldering the responsibility of guiding them toward stability needed to be equal partners with us?

Why was this genre so much more compelling in earlier times? The writing in The Summer I Turned Pretty is shallow and repetitive. Is this really all it takes to write a bestseller? I didn’t read the books, but given the popularity of them, I can’t believe the series reflects the writing from the novels.

The dialogue makes no sense: “Girls aren’t supposed to know if we are pretty or not. We’re supposed to wait for other people to tell us before we are allowed to feel it about ourselves,” - Belly says in one voiceover. Uhm, what?

Gone are the times of Pacey Witter, a multi-dimensional character written so well you can’t help but root for him from the moment he shows his face on screen.

His famous: “Just what would we be missing from the land of poorly scripted melodramas? Recycled plot lines, tiresome self-realizations. You throw in the occasional downward spiral of a dear friend, and maybe a baby here and a death there, and all you really got is a recipe for some soul-sucking, mind-numbing, ennui. And I for one could skip it.”

Or: “Wanting to kiss you? No. It’s sort of always there… like… white noise, or… the secret service or the threat of nuclear war, for that matter. Just somethin’ you get used to.”

Now, that was writing.

The Summer I Turned Pretty, fittingly for 2023, has a son who’s bisexual, a lesbian debutante, a non-binary cousin, an Indian and Black ex-girlfriend, and a bisexual love interest writer. Television today became a PowerPoint presentation, rather than a realistic storytelling. Representation is important, but realistically - what family has all that, in a single storyline? As a viewer, it felt to me a certain parameters needed to be checked, without spending enough time developing an authentic story.

Belly, the female lead is pretty strong and doing well for the material she’s been given. Conrad, the main love interest is solid, but someone told him he’s a young Leo, and he leans into this comparison a bit too noticeably – often fidgeting with his hair while striking the quintessential River/Leo brooding pose.

Jeremiah, the other brother's performance left me utterly unimpressed, bordering on unwatchable. His on-screen presence resembles that of a TikTok personality attempting to engage their audience with the kind of cringe-worthy antics that Luke Cook makes fun of.

How are we supposed to root for Belly/Jeremiah's relationship when this guy spent 6 episodes talking about kissing and hooking up with guys? He’s so hip and bi-sexual and all over the place at 19, then in one moment they turn him into a stable, viable other option for Belly, the same guy who didn't show any romantic interest in her, for half of the entire season - until she kissed his brother.

Not to mention, Belly didn't seem to be into him at all until he told her he liked her, out of the blue. It’s lazy writing. The premise of these teen dramas is to make these TV love triangles - believable.

The characters are single-dimensional, entitled, fickle. There is no connection, understanding, or sympathy displayed in the dialogue between the characters; it made me reminisce about The Vampire Diaries and how well it crafted its love triangle.

When Elena's choice between Stefan and Damon is driven by her initial meeting with Stefan, only to later remember she had encountered Damon first, thanks to his ability to make her forget - your heart starts pounding at the intricacies of the narrative as a testament to its exceptional storytelling.

I have yet to see a teen drama made today that can take on the nuance of Pacey and Joey, Angela and Jordan, Peyton and Lucas, and Elena and Damon.

Are today's TV teen dramas a reflection of young adults, or are young adults a reflection of the television dramas that shape them? The Summer I Turned Pretty, from its terrible one-liners to random playfighting, just doesn’t scratch the itch.

I promised myself I wouldn’t write about this. We are choking with Barbie opinion pieces. What is Barbenheimer anyway? Someone invented a name, a term, and we all just went for it? I’m aware it’s just a PR move to get us all back into the theaters, but it worries me how obedient we became. 

Why are we listening? How are these two movies even related? You can’t tell me there weren’t films worth seeing last year or so. 

I never really dreamt of Barbies. I was one. The last thing I wanted was another me to play with. I did use them to make clothes, try it on them, but I don’t have very many pleasant memories from that time. I used to cut my mother’s fabric to make the clothes, and I didn’t cut from the edge of the fabric, I did it from the middle; an illogical move fitting for a 12-year-old, and my mother wasn’t happy.

I remember her coming home from work, at 3.30 pm, on a dot every day. And every day, I was eager to show her the Barbie with the jacket I made and sewed myself, and she would say: “How could you cut the fabric from the middle, now you ruined it all, all you do is ruin everything … I just realized I forgot her exact speech here. I used to know it by heart and it was the source of my biggest frustration throughout my life, my mother not nurturing my artistic expressions, realizing what I made at 12 years old well surpasses the ruined fabric from Turkey or Italy.

I went on 30 years with an installation in my head - I’m the person who ruins things. The fact this is the first moment in my life I actually don’t recall her exact words of admonishment; it’s a win, friends. I finally won. I don’t care.

I MAKE things.

So, Barbies, yeah.

The movie.

Regarding this subject, reluctant to even add to the chatter, I listened more than I wished to form my opinion. 

I read opinion pieces, I read Instagram comments. My collection of favorites is, as follows:

“This doll was the most name-brand touchstone of female body shaming. From that to “Yasss Queen!”. Or is it a Trojan horse?”

“The movie addresses all those issues, it doesn’t gaslit audiences.”

Does it not?

“Barbie has been trying to rebrand their body image since 2016. This isn’t a 180 turn coming out of nowhere. Also, you can absolutely be skeptical of Mattel as a brand using Barbie to give this message, and still agree with the message itself.”

Well, the impact of the message depends on who’s sending the message.

“Women, through Barbie, have been put in a box and men have been put in the box, when both parties just want to be seen and heard and respected by each other for who they are.”

Box depth.

Victimhood strategy.

It isn’t working.

“Women have been a voting majority for over 50 years. White women are the largest voting block, but most of them repeatedly vote Republican. In 2016, white women voted for Trump over Hilary. In 2020 they increased their votes for Trump. In contrast, white men decreased their votes for Trump in 2020. Let’s vote differently and change the rules of the patriarchy in the process.”

Patriarchy?

Barbie just satirized what we all know.

Patriarchy is immature.

It’s infantile.

“The victimhood strategy hasn’t been working. It’s as if women keep looking towards the men to initiate the change.”

They won’t.

I watched Oppenheimer first, Barbie second, per directions, like a good pedestrian who follows orders. I was only going to spend 3.5 hours in the theater for Oppenheimer if Cillian Murphy’s face is attached to that scenario. Luckily it was.

Within 10 minutes of the movie, the deep programming started:

“Socialism is worse than Communism.”

Under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state; under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government.

You’ve been told socialism is a dirty word.

“Socialism is based on the idea that common or public ownership of resources and means of production leads to a more equal society.”

Equal = unwanted.

The same opportunities for everyone are offensive.

“Capitalism is better.”

“It creates people who actively exploit the world for their own benefit and are treated like kings.”

“Contrary to what socialists say, capitalism, with all its warts, is the preferred economic system to bring the masses out of poverty and to make them productive citizens in our country and in countries around the world.”

Warts.

How’s that poverty schedule working so far?

Cillian.

The Angelina of men.

Oppenheimer.

The power of vendetta, jealousy, pettiness.

JFK, always on the right side of consciousness.

"In England, Oppenheimer would have been knighted.”

I went on to research Oppenheimer’s life, and this part scared me. Shitless. Wikipedia says:

“Oppenheimer's ordeal signified that the postwar "messianic role of the scientists" was now at an end. Loyalty and security tests spread throughout the federal government. At these inquiries, federal employees were asked questions such as:

• There is a suspicion in your record that you are in sympathy with the underprivileged. Is that true?

• Have you ever made statements about the "downtrodden masses" and "underprivileged people”?”

There is a suspicion in your record that you are in sympathy with the underprivileged.

I’m frozen. Caring is suspicious? Offensive? You can’t work for the government if you are in sympathy with the unprivileged.

“Socialism is worse than communism.”

It went over our heads. How cruel America is to its citizens, how skilled it is in presenting the lack of empathy as a quality and any sense of decency, or caring as a weakness.

We’re back in theaters, money is rolling back in, imagination, life is your creation, come on, Barbie, let's go party!

I was convinced there is no story or a season out of Bridgerton universe that’ll seduce me more than Season 2 and the Viscount/Sharma bonanza, yet it did. ‘Queen Charlotte’ floored me. If you’ve already watched it, proceed; if you still didn’t - this article contains spoilers.

According to Deadline Magazine, the Bridgerton-verse is ruling Netflix. Queen Charlotte has amassed 307M hours viewed and is quickly making its way to becoming one of Netflix’s most popular series of all time. It’s expected to join both seasons of Bridgerton among Netflix’s most-watched series of all time.

Of. All. Time.

Hardly surprising; there is a special kind of imagination in all of Shonda Rimes' work. Magical, even. But magic is not in a fairytale of her tales, but in humanity with which she’s building these three-dimensional characters based on real figures, using historical events to parallel the issues of the society: 250 years ago, and today.

Why does her work speak so much to all of us? Because we think and we say we’re developing this society towards more opportunity, more equality, more inclusivity, but the progress has been minuscule. Because 250 years passed and we’re still having the same conversation over the same issues. Because Shonda Rimes writes absolute poetry in a form of a TV show.

The conversation Princess Augusta has with her court has everything. A reference, a stab, a triumph:

“She is very brown.”

“I did say she had Moor blood, ma’am.”

“You did not say she would be that brown.”

“But I did say she had Moor blood.”

“Very brown.”

“It is a problem. People will talk.”

“People will talk, it is a problem.”

“We have already made the trade deals. Can they be cancelled?”

“We cannot cancel the royal wedding on the day.”

“You might need to. It is a problem.”

“We are the Palace. The problem is only a problem if the Palace says it’s a problem. That is a fact. Is it not?”

“It is.”

In the times of the Meghan Markle fiasco at the hand of the Royal Family, the line is poignant - “We are the Palace. The problem is only a problem if the Palace says it’s a problem. That is a fact”. The year is 2023 and the Palace told you Meghan Markle is a problem. And you ran with it.

Princess Augusta is at the forefront of many triumphs in the form of Shonda Rimes’ words. Using patriarchy as her own weapon:

“What was the doctor’s name?” 

“I do not remember names, I am female.”

“Of course. Apologies.”

Bridgerton universe pleases us because it touches on handsome, smart men seeking strong female characters as equal partners. We enjoy it because we finally see racial inclusivity in an unusual setting. We celebrate someone else's turn to finally eat at the table. Call to arms for inclusivity of any kind has never been louder. Except for one. That one is still silent, and Shonda Rimes floored me by introducing it in Queen Charlotte.

Mental diversity. Or more popularly called - neurodiversity.

I refuse to think Shonda didn’t do this purposely and the real life of King George III just happened to align with her storyline’s timeline. That’s why she’s a champion. The humanity in her storytelling is unparalleled. 

I’m neurodivergent. My dopamine works differently than in neurotypical people. I’m bothered by a loud, repetitive, or sudden noise, smells, itchy clothes - it all spikes my cortisol levels. Cortisol is a hormone of stress. I don’t have a problem with it myself, I know how to manage my levels, but society has a problem with me. Society is designed in one size fits all principle, and it hates everyone that’s different. 

Society doesn’t want to understand, accept, accommodate.

It wants to change.

Watching King George in ‘Queen Charlotte’ and the brilliant Cory Mylchreest that portrayed him, as well as being too familiar with the story of a real King George III shattered me.

All that effort to change someone that’s different that you, instead of just finding ways to accommodate a person that’s different than you.

A word told by history is that the real “Mad King” George III wasn’t mentally ill, but had porphyria that negatively affected his nervous system. 18th-century treatments were cruel and useless, no one in his court had any compassion for his state, and his condition was made worse by his medicines. Doctors didn’t have the insight, science, or means to heal him. They knew little about mental illness and less about the nervous system; he was plied with so much arsenic - a trigger for porphyria, oftentimes physically forcing him to take it, causing him to completely lose his mind by the end of his life.

Before all this, all the way until his 50’s, George III was actually a popular and accomplished monarch. By then, he had ruled for twenty-eight years, presiding over a tumultuous era in British history. Early in his reign, England won the Seven Years’ War and became the world’s greatest colonial power.

But how can the King be different?

Should we nurture him, or poison him to normalcy?

The speech of King George in the series was a vocal point of the message Shonda Rimes gifted us with ‘Queen Charlotte’:

“Now I ask, is that all a king is? A royal stud-horse trotted out for the chosen mare? Or can I king rule in his own way through practical scientific study? Agricultural improvement? Tell me, what would the people prefer? A royal baby or a cheap bread?”

Being “normal” is getting tired. “Normal”, neurotypical people that wake up early and have a certain lifestyle are no better than people who do things differently. There’s some magic, creativity, honesty in the brains of neurodiverse people that constantly get choked out by the world who can’t seem to accept this brand of diversity.

The whole show we’re watching George trying to hide his condition. His mother trying to ignore it. His servants trying to mask it.

Two things in Queen Charlotte made me cry. First is when Charlotte says to her husband’s doctor:

“I care not for his sanity. I care for his happiness. I care for his soul. Let him be mad if mad is what he needs.”

And second, when Brimsley suggests - “we can put the screen in the garden to shield him when he needs to go out (naked)”.

Both scenes show just how much of a difference a one, only ONE understanding, kind, and loving person can do to a struggling brain.

Shonda Rimes took on racial inclusivity in the first two seasons without the stereotypes and puns. But what she did with exploring mental health and neurodiversity in Queen Charlotte shows such nuanced storytelling and exceptional human touch to an ongoing problem that, except for the medical treatments, did not evolve much since the 1800s.

We still fear differences. We’re still medieval about anyone that we don’t understand. Nor do most of us try to.

I once wrote - watching Bridgerton is participating in its imagination. I want to imagine a world, not just the screen, where people with different minds can be accepted, tolerated, accommodated and celebrated. Instead of feared, hated, misunderstood.

If we can watch a white Viscount dancing with his future brown Viscountess, what damage a King who likes to be naked and look at the stars can do to anyone?

On both sides of the screen.

In 2009, I wrote my first blog. It was the night of the Golden Globes when Tina Fey told her internet haters to suck it on a national stage, and the night Colin Farrell picked up the Best Actor for his role in In Bruges.

When he got on stage, he was sniffing a tad bit or his nose was running, and he said, also on national television, while picking up the award: “This is from the cold, not that other stuff it used to be.”

He came a long way from that night in 2009. Or, he actually made the beautiful circle of exactly where he needs to be. I met Colin in 2004, I did an event for him and you can read about that rollercoaster night in my first published piece.

I watch him differently from that night, having the experience of seeing how much of him he lets stay in his roles. The mannerisms, the way he talks so fast, yet his face has a stillness that shows every tiny drop of emotion; the talent of being nerdy and hot all at the same exact time.

Watching ‘In Bruges’ was a religious experience for me. If you know anything about the movie industry, you already know about the cult status that movie enjoys for decades now.

Colin Farrell teaming up with Brendan Gleeson, the brilliance of that pairing and how well they play off of each other, the lines, the banter, the John Lennon bit and how it plays into the narrative of the plot, but most or all the midget part - if you haven’t watched In Bruges, put it on your must-watch list, an asap one, and if you watched it, it probably was a while ago, I recommend you rewatch it again. People write articles about why In Bruges needs to be revisited again.

As you can tell by my introductory paragraphs, I want to see Colin Farrell lift that Oscar tonight.

When I heard about The Banshees of Inisherin and the repeat pairing of Colin and Brendan Gleeson, my heart skipped a beat. Not just that, but the same writer/director of In Bruges, Martin McDonagh - brilliance was expected, the gang was back together.

Brendan Gleeson, a powerhouse!

As you might as well heard, this year’s Oscars are dubbed - The Irish Oscars.

I’m excited.

Irish moviemakers/actors are one of the best storytellers in the business.

The Banshees of Inisherin is nominated for 9 Oscars. The most nominations for the Irish movie since Belfast and In the Name of the Father, which jointly have 7 nominations each.

Ireland has in total 14 nominations tonight, at the 2023 Academy Awards. Across the categories. But most importantly, a quarter of the acting nominees – Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Kerry Condon, Paul Mescal and Barry Keoghan – are Irish. And The Quiet Girl/An Cailín Ciúin is the first Irish-language film to be nominated for an Oscar. JJ Abrams put it succinctly: “Seven million people on that island and all of them are nominated.”

There’s something specific about Irish storytelling that I can’t quite put into words. It’s more of a feeling. I’m a big fan of British storytelling but Irish is on a totally different level; it has a rare rawness, simplicity but recognition I don’t feel when I watch American television or even British.

It’s as if the Irish people are in love with words more than others. 

But what gets me the most is the simplicity. It’s always the hardest to create art that is simple; whether is a painting, a song, a movie, or a book - and no one does simple like the Irish. 

Just look at the books by Sally Rooney, an Irish author already dubbed her generation’s Shakespeare, a girl who wrote a cult piece Normal People at only 27 years old.

I have never in my life felt inspired, excited, and a tad jealous as when I read her book. To be able to construct sentences so simply yet so loaded with emotion, it’s an unbelievable, once in a generation talent.

Martin McDonagh, the writer/director of ‘In Bruges’ and ‘The Banshees of Inisherin’, again, the simplicity. Uncomplicated plots with quality dialogues, references that we all relate to, smart narrative, soul, heart.

You can see how hard it is by trying to paint a painting you think is simple or try writing a few simple sentences that would have the same emotion as the ones you read someone else do.

You can’t.

Paul Mescal, an Irish actor that played the role of Connell in the TV adaptation of Sally Rooney’s ‘Normal People’, also being nominated for his role in ‘Aftersun’. Only a few roles under his belt, and the first lead role earns him an Oscar nomination. To be a newcomer and act the way Paul does, it’s an experience and awe just to witness it.

Daniel Day-Lewis, dubbed as the greatest actor in history, and the only actor with 3 Best Actor Oscars; his storytelling, the roles he played, who can watch ‘In The Name of the Father’ and not be emotionally altered for life?

Colin.

I don’t know where to begin, how proud I am of his path and journey. Professionally and privately. Being that talented, beautiful can be a nuisance more than it can be an advantage, oftentimes; the way Colin Farrell transitioned from the hottest, messiest, dramatic thing to such stand-out, quality roles, I mean Penguin in ‘Batman’ before this but then ‘The Banshees of Inisherin’?

Wow.

To be fair, I did not manage to find time to watch all of the movies for all of the nominees. I did not watch ‘Elvis’. Everyone’s saying Austin Butler will probably take it home.

But Colin’s role in this movie where the brilliance of the plot is only about two friends where one decided he doesn’t want to be friends with the other anymore, and the quiet emotion of disappointment, rejection, confusion he played without saying a word, with his face expressions (with the help of his world famous eyebrows); if that’s not a Daniel Day Lewis-esque type of performance, storytelling, and existence in the creative space, then I don’t know what warrants an Academy Award, if not this.

Whatever happens tonight, Colin, it’s an honor.