Last night during the Golden Globe Awards, 20th Century Fox premiered a new trailer for the spy thriller Red Sparrow starring Jennifer Lawrence. As far back as 2014, director David Fincher and actress Rooney Mara were circling the project, looking to re-team for the first time since The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. That, of course, did not come to fruition, though the new trailer for the film not only suggests the influence of Fincher, but also that of Darren Aronofsky, whose last film, the divisive Mother!, also starred Lawrence. Directed by Francis Lawrence, Red Sparrow also stars Joel Edgerton, Matthias Schoenaerts, Charlotte Rampling, Mary-Louise Parker, and Jeremy Irons.
Jennifer Lawrence (#1–10 of 37)
Will voters who secretly agree with the eternally crusty Charlotte Rampling’s tempest-in-a-teapot comments about the purported reverse racism of #OscarsSoWhite feel like tempting fate this year? Will those who don’t even care one way or the other about her performance throw her a secret vote in solidarity? She quickly recanted her comments, saying she was misinterpreted, but this is one year no genies will easily go back into their bottles. It doesn’t matter matter how great her performance may be in Andrew Haigh’s patient 45 Years. Her impatient retraction, made as Academy members are publicly sighing their collective exasperation over being called out, simply felt unconvincing. Rampling’s firm, tony demeanor on and off screen, compounded by almost exclusively highbrow critics’ enthusiasm in her favor, was probably never going to move the needle much for an AMPAS still struggling to reassure the public they’re in touch with the times. But sticking to her guns may have given the longshot her best chance.
1. “Eddie Redmayne.” Jennifer Lawrence interviews the star of The Theory of Everything.
“I had these three images in my trailer—one was Einstein with his tongue out, another was James Dean, because Stephen is just effortlessly cool. He has this kind of shambolic confidence to him. And the last one was a joker in a pack of cards, a marionette with a puppet, because when you meet Stephen—I describe it as a ’Lord of Misrule’ quality—he’s got a great sense of mischief. I worked with a dancer as well, an amazing woman called Alex Reynolds. My instinct was to try to learn the different stages of the physicality like a dance. Like learning steps, you never have a hold of it—I’m a shit dancer by the way—but once you know the steps, you can then play.”
- aleksei german
- dana stevens
- daughters of the dust
- eddie redmayne
- edgar froese
- greta gerwig
- hard to be a god
- jennifer lawrence
- michael mann
- michael sicinski
- mistress america
- Noah Baumbach
- reverse shot
- richard brody
- sundance film festival
- tangerine dream
- the theory of everything
- wesley morris
1. ”TIME Picks the Top 10 Photos of 2014.” From Ukraine to Ferguson, Gaza to Liberia, TIME picks the most influential photos of 2014.
“There are more people than ever on Earth, but never have we been this connected with each other. Photography plays a large role, with the still image continuing to hold extraordinary power, bypassing borders and languages and cultures, to inform and educate us. Its success is its impact, altering our actions or thoughts merely because it exists. It’s our proof. And technology has kept pace. Each photograph selected for TIME’s Top 10 photos of 2014, unranked and carefully culled from thousands, takes us into a dramatic scene that provides an important visual record of history. As these images came through our news-gathering operation over the course of the year, they not only astounded us, but they also moved us.”
1. “Terence Davies: Chronicle of a Carpet.” On the Criterion Collection website, Michael Koresky offers an excerpt from his book-length study Terence Davies.
“By drawing our eyes to the pattern on the rug so completely, disallowing us from looking anywhere else in the room for an extended period of time, Davies pointedly frames this unremarkable carpet as a self-contained work of art in its own right. Indeed, the pattern, which offers no symmetry or coherent structure (its lines and waves are unsettlingly inconsistent), might strike some as a painterly piece of lyrical abstraction, its coldness put into relief by the sunlight cast upon it. We are forced to consider its shapes as though we have been drawn to them in a museum. The rug acts as a passive, found art object and an active signal to Davies’s memories; either way, it is spectacular in its inescapable mundaneness.”
1. “The Essential Labor Films.” Ella Taylor, for Fandor, on the must-see movies of the working world.
“Is manual labor dying? For that matter, is the job as we know it on its way out the door? What does it feel like to work fifteen-hour days sewing jeans in Guangzhou for large-waisted Westerners—and then get laid off by recession? Exactly who were those guys who blew up the world economy in 2008? Did Mark Zuckerberg really invent Facebook because he didn’t get the girl? Why do we love procedurals? What the hell is ’women’s work?’ Can a Parisian rat aspire to gourmet chef? And last but by no means least, can I please have that striped power suit Rosalind Russell wore to get the story and reel in Cary Grant in His Girl Friday? Among the twenty-five films I’ve chosen to honor Labor Day you won’t find Man With a Movie Camera, or Modern Times, or even anything by that fly-on-the-wall of the working world, Fred Wiseman. Not because they don’t belong, but because this isn’t a top twenty-five list. It’s a blend of the canonical, the catholic and the idiosyncratic—a personal best culled from movies that speak to the pressing concerns of our age. Some chart the great changes that have rolled over our working world—global corporatism, marvelous innovation, alienation, unemployment, class inequality and conflict, environmental ruin. Others parse their meanings of these shifts, or draw beauty from ugliness or rage against the machine. Still others dwell on work undertaken for love of labor or fellow human beings.”
1. “Steven Soderbergh On Why He Really Quit Movies.” The director talks about his new TV show, his old films, and the one-asshole theory of everything.
“And I’ll tell you why. This country is too fucking big. I honestly think…In nature, if a cell gets too big, it divides. You can’t come up with a set of rules that’s going to work for 350 million people. You’re just not. So we’re stuck. Robert Kennedy had this great quote: ’20 percent of people are against everything, all the time.’ That’s a big number now. And you know what? ’No’ is easy. ’No’ doesn’t require any follow-up, commitment. ’Yes’ is hard, ’yes’ has to be worked on. It needs a lot of people to keep it as ’yes.’ That’s where we’re at. When I’m president, we’re going back to the Thirteen Colonies, is what we’re going to do. It’s a weird time. Because the trajectory…Wow, I look around and I’m alarmed. I guess every generation feels that way, I don’t know, but I’m really alarmed. I talk to smart people who work in fields either, you know, neuro-cognition or social analysis, I go, ’Am I going nuts or is this thing going a certain direction, really fast?’ All of them go, ’You’re not imagining things.’ And I go, ’What do we do?’ This could turn into Mad Max, like tomorrow. The fabric is so thin, I feel like.”
The image of women spontaneously combusting while doing housework was one of the most popular tropes of filmmaking more than a century ago. In a widely viewed early film from 1903, Mary Jane’s Mishap, a British housemaid accidentally immolates herself while attempting to light a hearth fire with paraffin and subsequently explodes out of the chimney. It was, of course, not uncommon for 19th-century women to catch fire in their own homes when their bulky hoop skirts would graze against an errant spark from the fireplace. Women spontaneously combusting in their own homes was a frequent hazard of the time that journalists then tastefully referred to as “crinoline conflagrations.”
Comical media images of women exploding provided outlets for spectators to laugh off the hazardous politics of everyday domesticity. While many aspects of the relationship between gender politics and media culture have changed since the early 1900s, we still harbor an unconscious tendency to laugh at otherwise horrific images of violence inflicted on women’s bodies. Fortunately, 21st-century domesticity isn’t quite so fraught with the perils of instantaneous conflagration. Yet, the image of women catching fire—quite simply as a metaphor for women’s ambitions to be visible at all—continues to spark our cultural imagination.
And perhaps no other movie star walks this fine line between media visibility and human calamity as deftly as Jennifer Lawrence. There’s something oddly literalistic about the actress’s star appeal. From her “electricity” with Bradley Cooper, to her near-fatal calamity with a 1970s microwave in American Hustle, to her iconic portrayal of “The Girl on Fire” in The Hunger Games trilogy, Lawrence draws on a long tradition of female combustion in cinema.
- Amanda Bynes
- American Horror Story: Coven
- american hustle
- Anna Nicole Smith
- boko haram
- Bradley Cooper
- britney spears
- francis lawrence
- jennifer lawrence
- judy garland
- Lindsay Lohan
- mary jane's mishap
- monica lewinsky
- monty python
- pete sessions
- rachel maddow
- ryan murphy
- the hunger games
- the hunger games: catching fire
- vanity fair
1. “Why Are 23.4 Million People Watching The Big Bang Theory?” Why the show is the most popular comedy on television.
“Big Bang is a multi-camera sitcom, shot with a studio audience, in a time of mostly single-camera shows. ’It’s supply and demand,’ says Weinman. ’There’s a high demand for multi-camera—it’s intimate and creates the illusion that there’s nothing between you and the characters—and right now the supply is low. Fans of Seinfeld and Friends, what do they have besides Big Bang?’ CBS reruns of Big Bang reach more viewers than new episodes of single-cam shows Parks and Recreation, Community, and The Mindy Project combined.”
1. “The Dark Powers of Fraternities.” A yearlong investigation of Greek houses reveals their endemic, lurid, and sometimes tragic problems—and a sophisticated system for shifting the blame.
“The notion that fraternities are target defendants did not hold true in my investigation. College students can (and do) fall out of just about any kind of residence, of course. But during the period of time under consideration, serious falls from fraternity houses on the two Palouse campuses far outnumbered those from other types of student residences, including privately owned apartments occupied by students. I began to view Amanda Andaverde’s situation in a new light. Why are so many colleges allowing students to live and party in such unsafe locations? And why do the lawsuits against fraternities for this kind of serious injury and death—so predictable and so preventable—have such a hard time getting traction? The answers lie in the recent history of fraternities and the colleges and universities that host them.”