ReportWire

Tag: house of gucci

  • Adam Driver Defends His Right to Play Two Famous Italians: “Who Gives a “S–t?”

    Adam Driver Defends His Right to Play Two Famous Italians: “Who Gives a “S–t?”

    [ad_1]

    In his review of Ferrari, Vanity Fair’s Richard Lawson points out that, like Ridley Scott’s House of Gucci, Michael Mann’s latest is a “heavily accented film about a great Italian house of industry.” Adam Driver plays titular titans of business in both movies, as Maurizio Gucci and Enzo Ferrari. That said, Driver would like the world to stop fixating on the characters’ similarities, the actor recently said on the SmartLess podcast.

    Taking these roles one after the other is “a good example of not being strategic in a way that I probably should” in his career, Driver told hosts Jason Bateman, Sean Hayes, and Will Arnett. “So many people have been like, ‘How many Italians… ?’ I’m like, it’s just kind of worked out that way. But I’m like, you know, it’s Ridley and it’s Michael, and they’re, in my mind, some of the best filmmakers. Who gives a shit that it was two Italians back to back?”

    The Oscar-nominated performer said that he’s unlikely to play another Italian man after all the conversation surrounding his dual performances. “I’m surprised how much it comes up. It’s like, ‘You have a thing,’ and I’m like, ‘It’s two! It’s two Italians!’” Driver said. “It’s just two. The press isn’t a place where you have a nuanced conversation.”

    He added, “That seems like a hard idea. Like, ‘What is it with Italy?’ I mean, it’s less to do with Italy, although I like it. It’s more about Ridley Scott and Michael Mann and the projects themselves. Italy is not the first thing on my mind.”

    Driver’s candid response comes on the heels of a headline-making press tour for Ferrari during which he fielded inquiries about whether not looking “like the typical movie star” negatively impacted his career and replied to criticism that Ferrari’s crash scenes are “cheesy” with “Fuck you, I don’t know. Next question.”

    [ad_2]

    Savannah Walsh

    Source link

  • Adam Driver’s Net Worth Revealed As He Took Pay Cuts To Get Ferrari Made

    Adam Driver’s Net Worth Revealed As He Took Pay Cuts To Get Ferrari Made

    [ad_1]

    While he may not be the face of Star Wars villain Kylo Ren anymore, Adam Driver’s net worth is still looking impressive thanks to a number of new roles on screen—and that includes 2023’s Ferrari.

    Now, long before Driver made his way into blockbuster pictures, he was just a regular kid growing up in Indiana. Driver, who was born in San Diego, California, moved to the city of Mishawaka at the age of seven with his mother Nancy, a paralegal, and his stepfather Rodney G. Wright, a minister. He graduated from Mishawaka High in 2001. Following the events of 9/11 later that year, Driver enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. He served for nearly three years, but right before his unit was scheduled to ship to Iraq, Driver fractured his sternum while mountain biking and was medically discharged with the rank of Lance Corporal. It was at this time that Driver made the decision to go back to school—first attending the University of Indianapolis for a year before transferring to New York City’s prestigious school of the arts, Julliard, to study acting.

    Driver graduated from Julliard in 2009. It wasn’t long after this that he began to cut his teeth as a young actor in the city, landing his Broadway debut in the 2010 production of Mrs. Warren’s Profession. Two years later, Driver landed his big break in Lena Dunham’s HBO comedy Girls, where he starred as Dunham’s onscreen love interest for six seasons until the series finale in 2017. The role earned him three consecutive Primetime Emmy nominations and put his name on the map for larger roles, including 2012’s Lincoln and notable indie films like 2012’s Frances Ha and 2013’s Inside Llewyn Davis. However, Driver’s largest breakthrough yet was arguably his role in the Star Wars franchise, where he was cast as antihero Kylo Ren beginning in 2015.

    Since his final run in the Star Wars franchise in 2019, Driver has continued to land bigger and better opportunities. This includes his Oscar-nominated role in Noah Baumbach’s Marriage Story, where he starred opposite Scarlett Johansson, and of course, his leading part as Gucci boss Maurizio Gucci in 2021’s House of Gucci alongside Lady Gaga. But how does all of this add up when it comes to Adam Driver‘s net worth? For everything we know about how much Adam Driver makes today, just keep on reading ahead.

    What is Adam Driver’s net worth? 

    According to Celebrity Net Worth, Adam Driver’s net worth is $16 million as of 2023. Driver’s net worth is thanks to his many onscreen roles, including his six-year run as Kylo Ren in the Star Wars franchise, his Oscar-nominated role in Noah Baumbach’s Marriage Story, his performance as Gucci boss Maurizio Gucci in the Ridley Scott-directed 2021 film, House of Gucci, and his role of Enzo Ferrari in 2023’s Ferrari.

    How much was Adam Driver paid for Star Wars?

    adam-driver-star-wars
    Image: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures/Lucasfilm/Everett Collection.

    One of Adam Driver’s biggest roles to date was as the Star Wars franchise villain, Kylo Ren. He debuted in the role in 2015 when appearing in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Driver went on to reprise the role twice more in 2017’s Star Wars: The Last Jedi and 2019’s The Rise of Skywalker.

    After finishing his run in the Star Wars franchise, Driver recalled the “weight” of knowing his time as Kylo Ren was officially over. “These movies have been a part of my life for six years,” he said in a 2019 interview with Rolling Stone. “That’s a hard thing to wrap up — where they have taken me, and what I’ve learned in making them, that there’s an ending to these movies. How do you begin to process what that means?”

    “It was just the weight of it. You’re finally sitting, and you have six hours to think about your last shot,” he continued. “Did I get it right? Was this line right? Was that right? There’s lots of things to process.”

    After being in the role for such a long time, many have wondered how much Adam Driver’s Star Wars salary really was. Though there are no details about his pay for The Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker, Business Insider previously reported that Driver was paid in the “mid-to-high six-figures” for The Force Awakens alone. As a newcomer to the franchise, this was quite impressive—and we’re sure his salary only continued to grow for subsequent sequels.

    What is Adam Driver’s House of Gucci salary?

    adam-driver-house-of-gucci
    Image: MGM/Everett Collection.

    In 2021, Adam Driver starred as Gucci fashion house heir Maurizio Gucci in Ridley Scott’s House of Gucci. The film, which premiered in November 2021, was based on the 2001 book, The House of Gucci: A Sensational Story of Murder, Madness, Glamour, and Greed by Sara Gay Forden. The book uncovered the reason behind Maurizio’s death in the 1990s following his divorce from estranged wife Patrizia Reggiani (Lady Gaga), who came to be known as the “Black Widow” after she was charged for his murder in 1997. Driver, for his part, never knew about the story of the Gucci family prior to taking on the role, but that was one of the “great” things about the opportunity, he told HYPEBEAST.

    “I wasn’t aware of any of it, I didn’t know anything about it until this script came to me,” Driver revealed. “One of the great parts of being an actor is learning about moments in time, and to be doing it with Ridley [Scott], who is basically a historian himself. Great filmmakers are interested people, which makes them interesting and makes their movies varied and diverse. To be there with people who knew is educational.”

    While Driver’s House of Gucci salary has yet to be shared publicly, we do have an idea of how much his character was worth overall in comparison to the star. At the time of Maurizio Gucci’s death in 1995, he was reportedly worth nearly $100 million, per The New York Post. This was money he made after he sold off his shares of Gucci due to mounting debts accrued during his time as head of the iconic luxury brand.

    What is Adam Driver’s Ferrari salary?

    Neon /Courtesy Everett Collection

    Adam Driver’s Ferrari salary hasn’t been quite revealed, but he has mentioned that he took salary cuts in order to get the movie made. Director Michael Mann revealed that he and Driver took “huge pay cuts” because they were very dedicated to making it.

    Our mission at STYLECASTER is to bring style to the people, and we only feature products we think you’ll love as much as we do. Please note that if you purchase something by clicking on a link within this story, we may receive a small commission of the sale.

    [ad_2]

    Jenzia Burgos

    Source link

  • Quel Choc: Napoleon Falls Short

    Quel Choc: Napoleon Falls Short

    [ad_1]

    Of all the numerous and controversial French political figures, it is Napoleon Bonaparte who remains foremost in the minds of the French and non-French alike. A(Bona)part(e) from Marie Antoinette, there is no other icon in French history who still continues to fascinate so enduringly on a “pop” level. To that end, the opening to Ridley Scott’s latest historical drama (spoiler alert: The Last Duel was much better), Napoleon, fittingly combines the two polarizing leaders in a scene that overtly foreshadows what will become of Monsieur Bonaparte after his own ascent. 

    And yet, watching Antoinette’s head get decapitated in front of a salivating mob doesn’t appear to be enough of an indelible image to quell Napoleon’s (played impressionistically by Joaquin Phoenix) ever-mounting hubris. Indeed, one might say that the only “message” ever established in Napoleon shines through in this lone (and entirely fabricated) scene foretelling of how powerful people are always taken down by this quintessential deadly sin. Napoleon, of course, assumes he is nothing like the monarchs guillotined as the pièce de résistance of the French Revolution. For a start, he’s a Corsican, which automatically makes him a “mutt brute” in the eyes of “real” French people/nobility. After all, it was only one year after Napoleon’s birth that the Republic of Genoa ceded the island to France, with the latter conquering it the year Napoleon was born, 1769. Which made his commitment to France later on so ironic. For he was fundamentally Italian. After all, not only was Corsica originally “possessed” by Italy before France, but any “blue blood” he had stemmed from being descended from Italian nobility (hence, his true last name: Buonaparte). Ergo, another fallacy of Scott’s film via making the tagline so posturing and oversimplifying as to be: “He came from nothing. He conquered everything.”

    In any event, perhaps this perception of himself as a “royal” is why he saw his “ownership” of France as some kind of “divine right,” in the end. For even despite “supporting the ideals” of the French Revolution that led to the abolition of the monarchy, Napoleon still couldn’t resist the temptation and seduction of “ultimate power.” No more than he could resist the charms of Joséphine de Beauharnais (played here by Vanessa Kirby, though the role was originally intended for Jodie Comer, who also starred in The Last Duel). A woman who many a man (both then and now) would readily call a “slut.” Indeed, that’s the word used by Napoleon in the film after he’s confronted by The Directory over his “desertion” during the Battle of Egypt upon hearing news of Joséphine’s affair with Hippolyte Charles (Jannis Niewöhner). At which time, he gives them a long spiel about how, if anything, they’re the ones who have deserted France, while Napoleon has returned to restore it to its natural state of glory. This includes, naturally, another coup, with Napoleon and his coterie of co-conspirators, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand (Paul Rhys), Joseph Fouché (John Hodgkinson), Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès (Julian Rhind-Tutt) and Roger Ducos (Benedict Martin), taking over by force when their “whim to rule” isn’t met with unanimous acceptance. So it is that Napoleon repeats the same cycle of oppression that the French revolutionaries vowed never to tolerate again after toppling the monarchy. 

    Turns out, Napoleon seemed to think the word “emperor” instead of “king” somehow made his imposed rule more “palatable,” even going so far as to impudently crown himself at the coronation. An emperor willing to “get his hands dirty,” as it were. Of course, this is just one of the many “flourishes” (picked up from a legend surrounding the coronation) that Scott has added to the tale of Napoleon as told through a “Hollywood lens,” one that has been deemed as patently anti-French and pro-British. Scott did little to quash that assessment when he said, in response to negative French reviews of the film, “The French don’t even like themselves.” However, if Napoleon was any indication to be held up as a benchmark, that’s simply not true at all. And it’s perhaps because they hold themselves and their history in such high regard that this film is particularly offensive, namely as Americans speak in attempts at a French accent. This, in turn, also adding to the overall absurdity of the storytelling (also present in House of Gucci when Americans were speaking with “Italian” accents, Lady Gaga being among the worst of the offenders). 

    Scott stated at the outset of his announcement to direct a film about the emperor, ​​“He came out of nowhere to rule everything—but all the while he was waging a romantic war with his adulterous wife Joséphine. He conquered the world to try to win her love, and when he couldn’t, he conquered it to destroy her, and destroyed himself in the process.” Absolutely none of that comes across in the choppy, disjointedness of Napoleon, which wants so badly to cover such a multitude of themes and grounds that it ends up saying little at all. It is merely a “retelling.” And one with many historical inaccuracies at that (this being another primary complaint about the movie). Not least of which, of course, is the fact that Napoleon wasn’t present at Antoinette’s beheading. 

    Written by David Scarpa (who also penned the script for Scott’s All the Money in the World and his upcoming sequel to Gladiator), the lack of focus on any one aspect of the vast entity that is Napoleon often causes issues in terms of structure and “meaning.” More often than not, it feels as though things are “just happening” without any buildup to it, let alone a sense of cause and effect. 

    Funnily enough, Scott’s first feature film, The Duellists (released in 1977), is centered around the Napoleonic Wars and homes in on two rival French officers named Gabriel Feraud (Harvey Keitel), a devoted Bonapartist, and Armand d’Hubert (Keith Carradine), an aristocrat. Spanning twenty years, the film manages to come in well under two hours and covers far more ground than Napoleon can seem to. For it suffers from the same problem as its eponymous dictator: it’s too ambitious and, ultimately, can’t make its mind up about what it wants to achieve. This is likely a result of the script not being based on any specific source material. Whereas Scott seems to be at his best when he works with a script that’s based on an adapted screenplay. This, it should go without saying, does not apply to the odious House of Gucci. In fact, the latter movie and Napoleon suffer from many of the same issues, including, but not limited to: 1) things “just happen” for no reason, thereby making plot and character development all but nil and 2) Scott has become somewhat notorious for letting other cultures tell stories that don’t belong to them. Because, obviously, if any culture should get to tell the story of Maurizio Gucci and Patrizia Reggiani or Napoleon and Joséphine, it should goddamn well be the Italians and the French, respectively. To that end, the real Napoleon biopic to see is 1927’s Napoléon. Not so coincidentally, the film was slated for another restoration and rerelease this year—as though the French wanted to remind a Brit like Scott that it’s absolutely galling to presume to tell the story of their emperor. 

    As for someone like Marie Antoinette, who has been fixated upon in cinema repeatedly by all manner of nationalities, it was Sofia Coppola (via Kirsten Dunst) who claimed the most memorable ownership over her in recent years. This achieved by fully “pop-ifying” both her personage and the script and soundtrack. Opting to contain the narrative with far more dexterity than Scott is able to with Napoleon. In point of fact, one wonders if this film might not have been better off if Scott and Scarpa had chosen to go full-tilt camp with it (alas, that’s not really something two straight men are capable of, which means casting Peter Dinklage in the lead role would have been out of the question). For there are slight “glimmers” of such campiness in Napoleon’s lecherous exchanges with Joséphine (e.g., Jo opening her legs in front of “Boney” and saying, “If you look down here you’ll see a present, and once you see it you’ll always want it” or Napoleon making animalistic noises at her after she’s just had her hair “set,” finally prompting her to give in to his sexual desires). In truth, the entire movie should have simply had one focus: Napoleon and Joséphine (likely earning it the same straightforward title). That way, there would have been a firmer anchor to the film as opposed to this sense of being “all over the place” (though it is literally that as well, with Scott showing us the far-reaching backdrops of Napoleon’s various famed battles). And, again, with no real “lead up” to anything. Case in point, the sudden decision to include Tsar Alexander’s (Édouard Philipponnat) romantic overtures to Joséphine after her divorce from Napoleon. Overtures that were more likely politically motivated than genuinely romantic.

    But such is to be expected from a film fraught with embellishments. Including the much-praised battle scenes themselves, accused by Foreign Policy’s Franz-Stefan Gady of being nothing more than “a Hollywood mishmash of medieval melees, meaningless cannonades, and World War I-style infantry advances.” Adding, “For all of Scott’s fixation on Napoleon’s battles, he seems curiously disinterested in how the real Napoleon fought them.”

    Nonetheless, to any condemnation of his seemingly flagrant disregard for accuracy, Scott snapped (in an article for The New Yorker), “Get a life.” For some, though, Napoleon/Napoleonic history is their life. While, for others, quality cinema is. On both counts, Napoleon cannot quite deliver. Falling shorter than the man it pays homage to.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Tony Bennett: The Model Italian-American (Or At Least Less Affronting Than Most)

    Tony Bennett: The Model Italian-American (Or At Least Less Affronting Than Most)

    [ad_1]

    As a second generation Italian-American (with his mother, Anna Suraci, born right after his grandmother arrived in the U.S.), Tony Bennett had the potential to become another caricature of the nationality. And, funnily enough, he was actually known for being the “class caricaturist” at school. Luckily, he never made too much of one out of himself—at least, not when it came to being a caricature of the “paesan.” More specifically, the Italian-American. A very different breed altogether from the Italian, and a distinction that isn’t made frequently or with enough emphasis…especially if the continued success of Super Mario Bros. is to be a barometer.

    Compared, as he often was, to someone like Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin (fellow “crooners,” as it were), Bennett was far less cornball and/or prone to embracing the mob associations that, to this day, go hand in hand with the public perception of “being Italian.” This was somewhat ironic considering he ended up enlisting the services of Ray Muscarella to assist with kick-starting his career. Bennett’s eventual manager had plenty of mafia ties…as was, apparently, to be expected back in “those days” of NYC. In fact, you might say there would be no Tony Bennett without the mafia (and Bob Hope, who rechristened him as Tony Bennett instead of Anthony Benedetto). From vocal coaches to arrangers and composers to booking agents, there seemed to be no expense spared on getting Bennett the help he needed to hit the big-time. Of course, those expenses were expected to be paid back in full…ad infinitum. For once you owe the mob, you owe them for life (just ask Joel Maisel). 

    But, in Bennett’s case, he was able to liberate himself in the early 1960s with a purported payoff of $600,000 for them to “leave him alone” (Garbo-style). This came at a time when the perpetually carousing Rat Pack was at a peak, complete with Ol’ Blue Eyes and Dino capitalizing on their Italian-American “persona.” Indeed, leaning heavily into that cultural identity as just that: a persona, a caricature more than anything else. This included a live performance of a number called “Glad That We’re Italian,” featuring such embracements of go-to ethnic stereotypes as, “For us, each night’s a thriller/Chianti flowing free,” “Linguini sends me reeling” and “We’re two singin’ wops.” 

    Bennett, on the other hand, isn’t associated with any Italian songs (save for a very cringe version of “O Sole Mio”), parody-esque or otherwise. While Dean Martin’s “Volare” and “That’s Amore” would become backbones of his canon, Frank Sinatra would have “Come Back to Sorrento” (featuring an equally horrible pronunciation of Italian as Bennett’s “O Sole Mio”). But he appeared more interested in cultivating the mafia goon squad trope via the Rat Pack (plus being friends with Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana) than singing anything in Italian to make himself come across that way (maybe because when he sang in Italian, it had the opposite effect of making him seem as such). So entrenched in mafioso life was Sinatra, that Marilyn Monroe named the dog he gave her “Maf” in honor of that reality.

    Bennett was less inclined to go all in on being linked with the mob. Just because they gave him a leg-up on his career, didn’t mean he wanted to take Sinatra’s same approach by constantly canoodling with them (for, as it was said, Sinatra shared similar interests to many a made man: gambling, booze and women). Nor did he really want to canoodle that much with Frank, either. In fact, Bennett declined becoming a “member” of the Rat Pack, citing the hours they kept as plenty of reason to stay away. Preferring to admire Frank from a safe distance, perhaps. And sure, Bennett had his own “greasy lothario” era—particularly during his Vegas and drug addiction days of the late 60s and most of the 70s, but, for the most part, he was viewed as the quintessential “class act.” Especially after he was remarketed and repackaged by his oldest son, Danny, in 1979. This in the wake of reaching a nadir and almost overdosing on cocaine. 

    It was his wife, Sandra Grant—the woman he had an affair with while still married to his first wife, Patricia Beech—who found him and took him to the hospital. Brought back to life, so to speak, to live another forty-four years and recalibrate the narrative from turning into yet another tragic end for a musician whose depression got the better of them. In other words, the overlords reset the timeline for Bennett so he could perhaps better embody the model Italian-American. That is to say, not one so rooted in New York/New Jersey cliches of what is commonly perceived as being Italian-American. Ah, but then he had to go and work with Lady Gaga, a new butcher of Italian accents thanks to House of Gucci. All while passing it off as doing “method acting.” If “the method” was to make Italians speaking English sound mentally impaired. Which always seems to be the goal by those doing an “imitation” of the “real” Italian.

    This isn’t a coincidence, for part of the Italian stereotype is that they’ve got meat (or bullets) for brains. Such prejudices being part of what Bennett experienced during most of his early adult life, mentioning as much about his time in the military circa 1944, when the “sergeant was an old-fashioned Southern bigot, and he had it in for me from the start because I was an Italian from New York City.” Translation: not Italian at all. For it is an entirely different thing, being Italian-American. And Bennett appeared to understand what it meant to represent that slightly better over the years than his “Italian” contemporaries and subsequent collaborators alike (*cough cough* Lady Gaga), who would rather keep leaning into botched attempts at being “Italian” as opposed to just being what they are: American, with a dash of Italian zest that prompts them to dine at places like Manducatis (Bennett’s favored haunt for some fettuccine al eggplant) now and again. Which is a preferable choice to Olive Garden. In that (restaurant choice) regard, how much more of a model Italian-American can he be?

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • The Super Mario Bros. Movie: Why Is This Damaging Italian Stereotype Still “Okay” in 2023?

    The Super Mario Bros. Movie: Why Is This Damaging Italian Stereotype Still “Okay” in 2023?

    [ad_1]

    Despite the phenomenon of so-called woke culture coming for everything under the sun with regard to accusations of being offensive, the one glaring ethnicity that remains a free-for-all in terms of still somehow remaining up for grabs for mockery in the mainstream is Italians. Nothing has made that more apparent in 2023 than not only the release of The Super Mario Bros. Movie, but its raging success at the box office (and at a time when box office success is decidedly few and far between). Because, it’s true, no one seems to view Italians as worthy of adequate representation, least of all in the U.S., where the long-standing tropes pertaining to Italian culture have typically stemmed from bastardized Italian-American culture. Tropes that, of course, persist because they are so easily commodifiable. This is why entities like the Olive Garden and the Mob Museum—both of which are grotesque in their representations of Italians—exist and are able to thrive without anyone apparently getting offended enough to say, “This is a shameful reduction of my culture.”

    Arriving into the American lexicon after the mob stereotype was proliferated by The Godfather trilogy in the 70s and after the advent of the Olive Garden in 1982 (started in, where else, Florida), Super Mario Bros. was released in 1985 as a platform game for the Nintendo Entertainment System. But, of course, from the start, Super Mario Bros. was never concerned about “accuracy” or “cultural sensitivity” or “fair representation.” And all because Mario’s creator, Shigeru Miyamoto, “arbitrarily” saw fit to make him “Italian” because of the pipes that were going to be involved in the landscape, therefore “plumbing” seemed like a natural fit to be incorporated into the video game. Per Miyamoto, “…with Mario Bros. we had a setting of course that was underground, so I just decided Mario is a plumber. Let’s put him in New York and he can be Italian. There was really no other deep thought other than that.” And so, thanks to Miyamoto’s so-called lack of “deep thought,” Italians as a culture have continued to pay the price for decades, with a reductive stereotype that just won’t fucking die. Worse still, the “It’s-a me, Mario!” delivered in that garish, false Italian accent is being disseminated anew to a subsequent generation of children who will now think that this is a perfectly acceptable “rendering” of Italians and those with Italian heritage as they parrot the phrase freely.

    The Super Mario Bros. Movie, written by Matthew Fogel and directed by Aaron Horvath and Michael Jelenic, wastes no time in getting right to the offensive meat of it all, with Mario (Chris Pratt) and Luigi (Charlie Day) appearing in a commercial for their new plumbing business and laying on thick the caricaturized version of an Italian accent. We’re talking as thick as nasty, American-sanctioned “ragù” (think: the Prego brand). The van shown in the commercial reads “Super Mario Bros. Plomería.” Emphasis on plomería, which is a fucking Spanish word. If they wanted to be “Italian” about it, they could have at least used the correct word, piombatura (and don’t try to say Spanish was used for the sake of the Dominicans or the Puerto Ricans living in Brooklyn). Alas, mélanging Spanish words with Italian ones is among the most minimal offenses delivered like so many blows to the head throughout the movie.

    After seeing the commercial on TV together at the Punch-Out Pizzeria, Mario asks his brother in a “normal” voice, “What are the accents? Is it too much?” the original Jumpman version of Mario appears next to them while playing a Donkey Kong-esque arcade game to insist, “Too much? It’s a-perfect!” The voice of this man, Giuseppe, is portrayed by none other than Charles Martinet, the long-time voice of Mario. And, in case one needed the obvious confirmation, Martinet is far from Italian, born in California with French descent. Of course, it’s no secret that the French are among the many who relish mocking Italians with a parodied accent and overzealous love of pizza (see: the highly offensive coronavirus-era sketch on Groland), so maybe that’s part of Martinet’s inherent animosity toward the character. For why else would he not only suggest doing the voice in that pitch (apart from claiming children would be too scared of a “deep-voiced” “Italian”) and false cliché, but also chime in that Mario should dream of pasta whenever a player leaves him alone (Sims-style). In Super Mario 64, this would translate into Mario murmuring between snores, “Ahhh spaghetti, ahhh ravioli, ahhh mamma mia.” Because, again, all Italians appear to be to Americans are jolly, lobotomized pizza and pasta fiends. So what else would he possibly have to say in one of his first opportunities for video game dialogue?

    Another person who weighs in on the brothers’ caricaturized commercial is their former boss, Spike (Sebastian Maniscalco), who happens to be sitting in the pizzeria as well, and takes the chance to mimic them by saying, “Yeah, it’s a-me!” when they confront him. Wearing a trucker hat that says “Wrecking Crew” (a nod to the 1985 video game of the same name, in which Foreman Spike is Mario and Luigi’s opponent) on it, Spike proceeds to make fun of them with as much delight as any person getting off on perpetuating an Italian stereotype. Spike ends their interaction with the assurance, “You’re a joke, and you always will be.” Well, he has that right…when taking into account that Mario continuing to be a “viable” representation of an Italian-American will ostensibly persevere. Because this franchise money is just too good to be bothered with or by any “moral objections” to such increasingly antiquated, out-of-touch, belittling portrayals. We’re talking Blackface-level shit. A “controversial” comparison for many, to be sure, however, one fails to see the difference between slapping Italians with a dumb plumber stereotype, “bequeathing” them with stocky, hirsute bodies and huge noses and hideous accents versus, say, making a Black person into “the help” speaking with a “yes massa” voice in either sambo or mammy stereotype form. The fact that companies like Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben’s and Mrs. Butterworth’s all replaced their racist “mascots” in the wake of the BLM movement that flared up after George Floyd was murdered is yet another testament to how caricatures of races that were invented in the past are no longer allowed to endure in the present. Except, of course, in the case of Mario and Luigi.

    In terms of “Oppression Olympics” (to borrow a term from Ginny and Georgia), no one would argue that Black and Asian people haven’t had it the worst of any race. And yet, Italians, white or not (but still not the “right” kind of white), are not without their own history of oppression and being viewed as “lesser than” by the “pure” white race. From the 1891 New Orleans lynchings to the Sacco and Vanzetti case to “all” Italian-Americans being branded as “labor agitators” amid certain anarchist and socialist movements in the U.S., there is a long history of anti-Italian sentiment. One that seems, ultimately, to extend to reducing a culture so rich to something as derogatory as Mario and Luigi. And though Italians, better than most, can take a “joke,” there’s a difference between “poking fun” “in good taste” and being an outright asshole about perpetuating damaging stereotypes (as one Italian put it on The Gamer, “This vague pseudo-Italian identity is something I’m not happy about, because if it’s just a joke then it’s time to rein it in”). While Italians themselves tend to take teasing in stride (perhaps so that they, in turn, can keep dishing it out), there should be a limit, at this point, to how much “It’s-a me” bullshit someone can take. Even if that person is “merely” a descendant of the Italy-born.

    Perhaps as a way to protect from the accusation of “racism,” both The Super Mario Bros. Movie and 1993’s live-action Super Mario Bros. play up the element of Mario and Luigi being “Brooklyn Italians”—an entirely different animal from Italian Italians. In the latest version, Beastie Boys’ “No Sleep Till Brooklyn” is cued as the duo rushes to make it to their first official plumbing job. The constant mention and backdrop of Brooklyn is, however, one-upped by Super Mario Bros, wherein mobster types like Anthony Scapelli (Gianni Russo, a quintessential New York Italian exploiting his heritage for pay) are part of the “natural milieu” of being a Brooklyn Italian for Mario and Luigi (inexplicably played by Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo). This includes eating spaghetti with meatballs (with the sauce not even mixed in atop the white pasta) as accordion music plays in the background. A scene that goes on during Luigi’s date with Daisy (Samantha Mathis), a double with Mario and his own girl, Daniella (Dana Kaminski). But at least Super Mario Bros. doesn’t try to show any scenes of Mario and Luigi with an affronting Italian stereotype of a family as well. Unlike The Super Mario Bros. Movie, which grafts the core plotline (re: an interdimensional glitch) of the 1993 version, written by Parker Bennett, Terry Runté and Ed Solomonm, and co-directed by husband-and-wife team Rocky Morton and Annabel Jankel. Just as it is in Super Mario Bros., The Super Mario Bros. Movie also finds Mario and Luigi transported to an alternate realm (the Mushroom Kingdom for Mario and the Dark Lands for Luigi) via a sewer system beneath Brooklyn. In the original, this happens just before Daisy (the Princess Peach stand-in) is warned by Scapelli, “I know a lotta girls who been goin’ missin’ in Brooklyn lately.” In other words, a mafioso threat that indicates she can be “erased,” just as anyone else has who’s dared to get in the way of his construction plans. Because, yes, of course Scapelli is “in construction.” A long-standing “career front” for mafiosi of the Eastern Seaboard.

    When Luigi and Mario follow her into the alternate realm that’s been brewing ever since a meteorite hit Brooklyn sixty-five million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs, Luigi is sure to tell Mario, in Dorothy fashion, “I gotta feelin’ we’re not in Brooklyn no more.” And, whilst watching The Super Mario Bros. Movie, one might say, “We’re not in 2023 no more.” Surely we can’t be, if woke culture had gone the whole nine yards and spared Italians of any further denigration from a video game that wields characters called goombas (among the weakest enemies in any Mario fight). A direct reference to the pejorative word “goombah” that Americans would use to refer to Italian immigrants and their supposed inherent association with organized crime. And yet, one should note that, per American Minority Relations, “the rate of criminal convictions among Italian immigrants was less than that among American-born whites” in the mid-twentieth century—this being the height of mafia fear. Nonetheless, the stereotype prevailed, and became profitable to many people. Particularly increasingly diluted generations of bona fide Italians who had transformed into something entirely different: a New York Italian (or, worse still, a New Jersey one). And the name of that game was: capitalize, capitalize, capitalize. No matter how self-exploiting it was. This being why Little Italy is some Disneyfied presentation of “Italian culture” complete with red-and-white checked tablecloths, Chianti bottle décor and nothing but plates of pasta doused in the grossest, saltiest sauces imaginable. Surely, no self-respecting person can truly believe this is “authentic,” and yet, they go for “the ambience” regardless.

    In contrast to this breed of Italian (i.e., the Italian-American that has further perpetuated the false, negative stereotypes of actual Italians), those who hail from the boot take pride in their culture, one that is rich with so many other things beyond what Americans in particular cling to as the “complete” (read: two-dimensional) formation of their national identity. Included in that is Super Mario Bros., which the Japanese can be thanked for (and defenders of Mario’s existence constantly like to throw out that he’s “technically Japanese,” so it’s fine). But if it weren’t for the Americans glomming onto this brother duo so enthusiastically, Super Mario Bros. might never have been successful enough to become such a pervasive reminder that this is the Italian version of a sambo. To emphasize that analogy, imagine if you will a “superhero” Black person portrayed as a housekeeper who eats nothing but watermelon and fried chicken and speaks with a drawl. How is this divergent from depicting an Italian as a “superhero” plumber who relishes eating only pizza and pasta and wielding an accent with an “a” said between every word? It’s fucking foul and should no longer be tolerated. In fact, not since House of Gucci has there been such a pop cultural affront to Italians. To this end, it has to be said that the group doing the most damage to “the brand” is, ironically, Italian-Americans (which Lady Gaga is certain to remind she is whenever possible). But it’s the American part that gets the better of them every time, wanting to be “enterprising” about the culture rather than portray it with something like grace and realism.

    Time and time again, it might be asked, who is the stereotype “really” hurting if Italians “of all stripes” can keep cashing in on it by pandering to the caricature people apparently want to see? Some could say there’s no harm in Super Mario Bros. if the Italians themselves don’t complain and that “fellow Europeans” make fun of each other all the time. But it’s simply not true. For one thing, Italians are parodied more than most “sects” of Europeans and, for another, Italians likely don’t complain because Super Mario, to them, is viewed as a strictly American piece of ephemera (despite being Japanese-created). What’s more, such content as this is usually viewed in a dubbed format, which means Italians often don’t get to hear the full effect of how bad they’re being made to sound. A “sound,” as it were, that keeps contributing to how Mario and Luigi remain a “benchmark” to Americans for how all Italians ought to be “categorized.” No matter how “woke” Americans think they’ve gotten.  

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • This Netflix Remake Finally Achieved the Sex Scenes Other Movies Tried To Do | The Mary Sue

    This Netflix Remake Finally Achieved the Sex Scenes Other Movies Tried To Do | The Mary Sue

    [ad_1]

    There is a lot of writing, planning, and directing that goes into making a sex scene. Many times movies toss in a sex scene to keep audiences interested without adding anything to the character development or story. Yes, they can be hot, but the film industry has held up male gaze standards when filming, keeping things pretty unimaginative. For example, the sex scene in House of Gucci was supposed to be sexy and explosive, yet it didn’t feel like anything new happened in it.

    This year, subverting the male gaze has been the goal of several female directors with mixed results. House of the Dragon improved upon the type of scenes we saw in its predecessor, Game of Thrones. Director Olivia Wilde touted the sex scenes in Don’t Worry Darling as being focused on female pleasure. But after watching the end of the movie, all things that could have been considered progressive and sexy were now tainted and icky. I thought all hope was lost for some decent female-focused sex scenes this year. However, Netflix’s remake of Lady Chatterley’s Lover premiered and blessed us with some of the best sex scenes ever filmed.

    I fell for Lady Chatterley AND her lover

    Before watching Lady Chatterley’s Lover, I didn’t know much about the plot. I knew it was based on a novel by D. H. Lawrence of the same name published widely in 1932. The novel drew immediate controversy for its adult content and themes. That is all I knew when I put on the movie. Little did I know, I would fall in love.

    The plot centers on Constance Chatterley. Her husband became paralyzed from the waist down in the war and stopped seeing her as a person, causing their marriage to sour. Instead of wasting away in their country estate while her husband lords over the miners of the town, Constance (Emma Corrin) found love with the gamekeeper Oliver Mellors (Jack O’Connell).

    Although the story may seem simple, the chemistry between Constance and Oliver and the brilliant direction by Laure de Clermont-Tonnerre elevates the film into a work of art. The sex scenes are sexy and focus on the pleasures of Constance. But what made it even better was the intimacy building between the lovers. Oliver wants to see Constance’s face throughout the experience. After one scene he marveled at the magic of achieving their “peaks” at the same time. During one of their conversations, Constance tells Oliver that he has a tenderness to him (not gentleness). It perfectly sums up how they treat each other, tender and caring, even when things get a little rougher.

    Unlike most sex scenes in movies, these ones go further than just being something visually stimulating. Constance and Oliver communicate their needs to each other, furthering their connection. The scenes literally show the intimacy of their relationship growing each time they are alone together. It also presents Constance going from a tired shadow of a person to someone full of joy and enjoying life. Mixed in with a montage of sex scenes, we see the pair acting like a real couple who love each other. There is laughing while sitting by the fire, vows made in a field of moss, and streaking in the rain.

    Don’t get me wrong, there is still a lot of sexiness and full-frontal nudity, but the sex scenes step up the story in the film. Lady Chatterley reimagined the sex scene as something beautiful, which felt refreshingly more realistic than almost everything else out there.

    (featured image: Netflix)

    The Mary Sue has a strict comment policy that forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults toward anyone, hate speech, and trolling.—

    Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

    [ad_2]

    D.R. Medlen

    Source link