[ad_1]
Meet the Suspicious 8: Dividends Over 6% With Plenty of Problems
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
One, two, Freddy’s coming for you
Three, four, better lock your door
Five, six, grab your crucifix
Seven, eight, gonna stay up late
Nine, ten, never sleep again.
—Popular nursery rhyme
Freddy Krueger has scared the hell out of us for the past 40 years, and he knows why. It’s not his disfigured face. It’s not the glove he wears that’s outfitted with razor-sharp knives. And it’s not that he is, as one of the vengeful parents who burned him alive affectionately called him, “a filthy child murderer.”
What’s terrifying about Freddy is where we meet him: in our dreams. “You could be a victim in your own nightmare,” says Robert Englund, the man behind the bogeyman since 1984. “It’s a very personal thing, your subconscious being invaded by this predator.”
With A Nightmare on Elm Street, writer-director Wes Craven came for audiences at their most vulnerable. Ever since it hit multiplexes, falling asleep peacefully has been harder. “We’re told as kids when we’re scared, we hide under the covers,” says Thommy Hutson, author of Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy. “But under the covers, in a way, is where Freddy gets you. … Sweet dreams? Those don’t exist in this world.”
At a time when slasher flicks were brainlessly spilling fake blood by the gallon, Craven took a more psychological approach—without sacrificing gore, of course. “Wes knew how to write such realism, and then he has this dream landscape that is just so crazy,” says Heather Langenkamp, who played Nancy Thompson, the teenager with the brains to finally outwit Freddy. “It’s never been repeated in such a seamless and beautiful way.”
The film almost looks homemade at times, but that only adds to its lore and to its status as a VHS-era rite of passage. “Dad had the kids, and he let them rent it at a mom-and-dad video store. He let them bring it home, and then he put steak knives on his fingers and scratched the windows late at night to terrorize them,” Englund says. “Or they saw it on a video that was dog-eared and passed around in a dormitory. You’ve gotta see this movie, man.”
New Line Cinema
Elm Street didn’t just change horror. Since the ’80s, it’s had a place in the pop culture pantheon. “Johnny Carson was doing Freddy Krueger jokes,” Englund says. Kids started dressing up as Freddy for Halloween. Video stores couldn’t keep the movie in stock. And cable TV played it nonstop. It spawned six sequels, a crossover with Friday the 13th, a television series, and a blockbuster reboot. But before becoming America’s collective Nightmare, it was just a creepy-sounding idea that no one wanted. That is, until New Line Cinema—an independent studio best known at the time for producing John Waters films—stepped up to the plate, hoping to turn out a hit on the cheap. Making that happen, though, was, at times, nightmarish. “The real story of Nightmare on Elm Street is actually as scary as the movie,” New Line founder Robert Shaye says. “Almost.”
By the early ’80s, Craven was known as a director who made horror movies that were both transgressively violent and shockingly smart, like The Last House on the Left (1972) and The Hills Have Eyes (1977). In the early ’80s, he wrote a script that drew from real life. He had read L.A. Times articles about Southeast Asian immigrants who reportedly died while having distressing dreams. Growing up in Cleveland, he had nightmares himself. His father, a Baptist fundamentalist, was “a scary person”; he was bullied by a kid named Fred. And one fateful night, he had an encounter with a frightening stranger that stuck with him forever.
Wes Craven (writer-director, in 2008): He was a drunk that came down the sidewalk and woke me up when I was sleeping. I went to the window wondering what the hell was there. He just did a mind-fuck on me. He just basically somehow knew I was up there, and he looked right into my eyes. I went back and hid for what I thought was hours. I finally crept back to the window, and he was still there.
Then he started walking almost half-backwards, so that he could keep looking at me, down to the corner and turned, and I suddenly realized, “My god, that’s the direction of the entrance to our apartment building.” I literally ran toward the front door and heard, two stories down, the front door open. I woke up my big brother; he went down with a baseball bat—and nobody was there. Probably the guy heard him coming and ran; he was drunk, having a good time. But the idea of an adult who was frightening and enjoyed terrifying a child was the origin of Freddy.
Robert Shaye (founder, New Line Cinema): Wes was a very kind of diabolical guy. He reacted to a very strict religious life in his peculiar way.
Mimi Craven (Wes Craven’s second wife and a nurse in Nightmare): When I moved in with Wes, he started writing Nightmare on Elm Street. He would go out into the studio, which was back behind our house in Venice, and he would write all day long in a blue bathrobe and a pith helmet. And then he would come in at night, and we would read it and act out the scenes and scare each other. Then he would go and rewrite. So I knew that script like the back of my hand.
Sara Risher (head of production, New Line Cinema): Nobody sent us scripts. We were too low on the totem pole.
Robert Shaye: We were still in a loft on 13th Street and University Place in Manhattan, and we had managed to get a couple of films together.
Risher: [Shaye] came across the Wes Craven script, which he didn’t pass by like everybody in Hollywood.
Robert Shaye: I came across the script through a guy named Mark Forstater. He produced Monty Python and the Holy Grail. One summer, he said, “You should go to Los Angeles.” I said, “Well, I don’t know anybody in Los Angeles. What should I do that for?” And he said, “Because this is what independent producers do. You have to go out and meet young directors. I know three or four really interesting young directors, and I can help you get an appointment with all of them.” Tobe Hooper was one of them. Another was Joe Dante. And then this other guy, Wes Craven. But I couldn’t get in touch with Wes Craven. And I finally got him on the phone just before I was leaving. He said, “Well, I’ve got one project that’s really pretty interesting.” I said, “What is it?” And he told me the story of Nightmare on Elm Street.
Risher: He went after it. He knew there was something great there.
Robert Shaye: He sent on the script, and I said, “Well, can we maybe make a deal?” And it’s a little blurry for me exactly what happened, but Wes finally said, “I’ll make a deal with this guy. There’s nobody else around.” So we made a deal. I think I paid him 5,000 bucks for an option, and that was the beginning.
Risher: It took a good four or five months of work on the script. There was character work [needed], in my opinion, particularly for the young girl and the women. There was also the fact that we didn’t have the money that particular script needed.
Robert Shaye: We were desperate for money. We had a lot of people thinking that we were going to go bankrupt. I said, “We’ll get a budget. We’ll start making the whole thing happen.”
Risher: Our budget was only like a million-four.
Robert Shaye: Things progressed, and we thought we had some hustlers trying to help me raise some money.
Thommy Hutson (author, Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy): This truly almost fell apart at the 11th hour.
Robert Shaye: When I woke up every day, I had a sinking feeling in my stomach: This is out of hand.
Meanwhile, A Nightmare on Elm Street needed a cast. There was barely any room in the budget to pay actors, let alone A-listers, who probably wouldn’t have wanted to be in an independent horror movie anyway. So Craven and the producers went with character actors and newcomers.
Annette Benson (casting director): We saw so, so many people. It was a way to start their careers.
Lin Shaye (a teacher in Nightmare): My brother said, “Put my sister in your movie.” That was that. And of course, it was really the beginning of my career.
(Nancy Thompson): Back then, an agent would get a breakdown: “Girl, 16 years old, high school, wholesome.” And I’m sure a lot of agents sent in the women in their client list. I went into one audition, and it was so low-rent. There wasn’t even any furniture in the room. I thought, “Oh no, this is much worse than I thought.”
Benson: Wes loved her right away.
Risher: She was so vulnerable. She was the girl next door, and she was cunning and clever, and figuring out ways back at Freddy as a young girl could do, setting traps for him. It was so realistic, and you were always on her side.
Benson: Johnny Depp came to me through Ilene Feldman, who was his agent at the time. She said, “Annette, let’s make magic. I’m sending Johnny over to you right now. You’re going to love him.”
Mimi Craven: He comes in, he reads. He sucks. He wasn’t an actor. He was a musician. So he leaves. Annette and I are looking at Wes, and he scratches Johnny’s name off. He said, “Well, he was terrible.” That day, Wes’s daughter and her best friend were in from New York. They were preteen. They were squealing [over him]. They were that high-pitched. Only dogs can hear the thing that young girls do. And Annette looks at Wes.
Benson: Evidently, Wes’s daughter thought he was cute.
Mimi Craven: He hired him [to play Glen Lantz], but that was all Annette.
Benson: I mean, that was his very first acting job.
Amanda Wyss (Tina Gray): I auditioned for the role of Nancy, and I was called back for Tina. I was very disappointed. The funny thing was, my agents at the time did not want me to do it. They said, “It’ll ruin your career. Nobody does horror.”
Jsu Garcia (Rod Lane): The landscape was, Friday the 13th was the shit. Texas Chain Saw Massacre set the tone, Exorcist set the tone. But the next thing was Friday the 13th. They sold that film just on the title. But we were going to make a really quality horror film.
Editor’s note: In Nightmare, Garcia was credited as Nick Corri.
Wyss: The four of us went in and read together.
Langenkamp: Lo and behold, there’s Wes Craven. We totally didn’t expect that he would be there. And Annette Benson said, “OK, start from the top. We’re going to do this scene where we’re at Tina’s house.” When Johnny Depp is doing that funny little thing with the boom box.
Wyss: We all just meshed. And Wes told us in the room we had the part. Which never happens, or rarely.
Langenkamp: It was a dream audition. It never happened again. And it was just a simpler time in Hollywood. They didn’t have to pass it by a big room full of executives. Wes Craven had the sole job of casting his own movie.
At the time, Robert Englund was coming off a supporting role in V, a popular sci-fi miniseries that first aired on NBC in 1983 and quickly built a cult following. The L.A. native, then in his mid-30s, remembers thinking that the part would help him stop being typecast as a Southerner.
New Line Cinema
Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger): It must’ve had something to do with the way Hollywood thought I looked. I mean, I read several times to play John Schneider’s cousin in Dukes of Hazzard. I was just a Hollywood character actor. Nobody knew my name. I sort of thought, “Well, I’m going to be the kind of go-to nerdy science fiction guy.”
Benson: Robert Englund’s agent at the time, Joe Rice, called and said, “You’ve got to see Robert for this part.”
Englund: I’d read the script. It really led you along, and it was kind of hypnotic. And really, every element that was in Wes’s imagination sort of became consistent on the page. But I was anxious to work with Wes—not because of the script, but because I’d spent time hanging out in a bar in Hollywood on La Brea where they had these old black-and-white TV monitors on either side of the bar hanging from the ceiling. And on one side, it was clips from Eraserhead. And on the other side, it was clips from The Hills Have Eyes and The Last House on the Left. So I assigned a kind of David Lynchian quality to Wes. And I was curious to work for him.
Benson: I thought, “Oh my God, they’re looking for a David Warner type.” A really big monster type. And I knew Robert wasn’t the big monster type.
Robert Shaye: Usually the villain or the monster in monster films are stuntmen because they’re falling all around. It was Wes who said, “I don’t think I want to cast a stuntman. I’m going to cast a Shakespearean actor.”
Risher: In Robert Englund, he saw the talent that the guy had.
Benson: He was an excellent actor. And my casting was always pretty much a gut feeling. He could do it.
Englund: I expected a kind of goth guy. And I walk in, and, of course, Wes looks like a young Don Quixote in Ralph Lauren. I was tan from surfing, and I had a lot of blond curls. I looked like Billy Katt’s older, uglier brother. And I remember greasing my hair down and putting a little bit of cigarette ash—it’s an old theater trick—under my eyes.
Risher: He knew how to make his voice menacing. And he had a great sense of humor.
Mimi Craven: It was written, but Robert brought Freddy Krueger [to life]. I mean, he gave him dimensions.
Englund: I just tried to play that old game where you don’t blink or you just stare at somebody. You know, the first person that blinks gets socked in the arm. I tried to do that with Wes because I knew it would make my gaze more intense. I think that helped. But Wes, when he was telling me his ideas for the movie, I knew that something special was going on.
Risher: He knew what he wanted. And he visualized what he wanted.
Mimi Craven: The freaky moment was during wardrobe for Robert, and I was there for that. He came in with that fucking Christmas sweater on.
Risher: I remember saying, “It looks like Christmas.” And [Wes] said, “No, no, these are iconic colors. These will work.”
Mimi Craven: And you could see everybody had goosebumps. Because Christmas, it’s so happy.
Jim Doyle (mechanical special effects design): Wes and I were meeting every other day. He was rewriting based on what [production designer] Gregg Fonseca and [cinematographer] Jacques Haitkin could do within the budget. We were trying to pull this whole thing together. And he said, “OK, now what do we do about Freddy’s weapon? What is this thing?” I said, “Well, I don’t really know.” He said, “But it looks like it has to be made in a boiler room by a guy with that level of skill. The picture I have in my head is long knives, like fingernails.” What he didn’t want was a lump on the end of the guy’s hand. I was like, “I think I can probably articulate this. If we can get it to work, we can articulate it.” And a couple of days later, I came back in with a sketch, and the sketch was pretty fucking close to what we ended up doing.
Englund: I didn’t realize it was going to have the incredibly seductive, iconic status that it has now in the world of horror, like the bolts in Frankenstein’s neck or the teeth on a vampire.
Risher: He had a long, thin, flexible body, so he wore all those fingernail knives around very easily.
Englund: And Freddy’s a little junkyard dog that when he puts that glove on, it extends his grasp. It’s an extension of his evil.
Risher: I remember looking at the makeup the first time and thinking it was too severe. And Wes said, “Well, he died from a fire. This is what it would look like.”
Englund: I’m out there in [makeup effects artist] David Miller’s garage, and he’s got an old barber’s chair in there which I spent days in, with a garage door shut, the air-conditioning on. And the first day, the thing that I remember most is not that the glue itched or the fact that it was cold or that David had cheaped out on the makeup brushes and they were a little crusty and sharp. What I remember was he gave me these giant medical books that he checked out of UCLA or some hospital library. And they were all burn victims. And he’s showing me what he’s going to do with the molds and the texturing and the prosthetics. And I couldn’t even look at the book.
But I sat there and watched the makeup evolve over the various sessions. Bob Shaye would come and look at it, and Wes Craven. I could tell they were getting nervous because in David’s little house out in the San Fernando Valley, I think he didn’t have it lit properly. He knew how to blend colors and he knew what it would look like on film, but Bob Shaye and Wes, when they visited us, they didn’t know that. And I couldn’t really tell, either. It looked too white to me. It looked too pink to me, too red. But David knew what he was doing.
I went through that whole process. And the more I did it, the more I was going, “Oh boy, I could work with this.”
Nightmare on Elm Street had its monster. But there still wasn’t enough funding to make the movie. For a while, the production was touch and go. But even when things got hairy, the eternally calm Wes Craven kept things on track.
Risher: We were in preproduction, and I was out in L.A. pregnant with my son. And Bob called and said, “We’ve lost some of the money. The guy who had the home video [rights] backed out, and that’s like a third of our budget.” So he said, “I’m going to stay in New York and try to raise the money.” You can imagine the stress he was under. We had two weeks that we couldn’t pay the crew. He said, “Keep going,” so we kept going.
Robert Shaye: At the end of the day, nobody was coming up with the money. And I got a phone call from the production manager in Los Angeles saying, “I’ve got to warn you that the DP is quitting and the electricians are quitting and we don’t have any crew and they’re leaving in a week.”
Hutson: John Burrows was the production manager. He didn’t get paid for weeks. He actually helped pay the crew so they could keep going.
Risher: Believe it or not, they all stayed. They didn’t leave. I think they trusted that a pregnant woman wouldn’t lie to them.
Hutson: It was a very big deal. It was not like that Hollywood lore of every other movie that almost fell apart before it didn’t.
At the 11th hour, Shaye made a deal with Media Home Entertainment, a home video distribution company founded by producer Joseph Wolf. It wasn’t exactly favorable to New Line.
Robert Shaye (in Never Sleep Again): The tipping point was the devil’s agreement. I made an agreement with Joe, and he agreed to buy the video rights for a certain amount of money. But he made us guarantee that if we didn’t do certain things like buy additional prints and open in a certain number of theaters, that he had the right to take the film away from us and give us nothing for it. And that was the only deal I could make. That finished the financing for us.
Hutson: Everyone in the crew was like, “Listen, we can do this together. We can make this happen.” The crew not only believed in [Shaye], but believed in Wes and believed in themselves and what they were doing.
Mimi Craven: Wes would just show up. He would be like the thing that was standing still while everything revolved around him.
Joseph Whipp (Sergeant Parker): Nice guy. Never angry, never throwing things around. A little self-deprecating. When we were working on Scream, when I got there the first day, he said, “Yeah, I’m finally learning how to do this stuff.”
Lin Shaye: My first impressions of him were rosy cheeks and a guy standing in the corner watching very carefully, covering his mouth with his hand. There was a certain aura about him.
Langenkamp: Because he was so normal looking, I thought there must be something to this guy that he’s not showing. Because he would wear a necktie, he would wear khakis, and then he would often wear a checkered shirt. He just looked so much like a professor, and people made fun of him. I mean, this is Hollywood. Nobody wears a tie.
New Line Cinema
We would do pranks on him—we would all come to work wearing ties, just to pull his leg. He had such a wholesome sense of humor, as well as a very quick wit. I’m sure he had a dirty sense of humor as well, but his jokes were silly sometimes. He put everyone in such a good mood.
Wyss: He had children our age, so he was very facile with communicating to us in a way we understood. And he made us feel comfortable communicating back to him. He was a very preppy, professorial, avuncular kind of guy. Yet he could think of a million ways to kill you.
Langenkamp: I lived in Silver Lake, off of Griffith Park Boulevard, when I was making Nightmare on Elm Street. I couldn’t believe we were shooting so close to home. That’s the only thing I cared about: My commute was five minutes. I’m like, “Yay!” The first scene that we shot was that drive-up scene at John Marshall High. And it’s just so cute to watch it because we’re playing these teenagers that have been great friends forever. And the first day of work, basically, we all have jitters. We were all nervous, just watching Johnny jump over the side of the Cadillac and get out of the car.
Wyss: Heather and I clicked right away. We’d sit on the trailer steps every day and do the crossword puzzle.
Langenkamp: We went to Dodger games after the shoot. People wondered why we’re sitting in the nosebleed section because everyone thinks, “Oh, you must’ve made $1 billion,” but we were paid just SAG scale for that, for five weeks.
Garcia: Mimi Craven was our mother, essentially. She took us in. I loved her. We’re all at her house, they’re taking care of us. I was a starving actor. I was fed.
Mimi Craven: Fifteen years later when I ran into him at the Cannes Film Festival, Johnny still called me “Mom.”
Garcia: I would go over to Johnny’s house with Heather and Amanda and watch movies. Not Blockbuster rentals, but niche kind of film places. You’d pretty much get The Hills Have Eyes. They wouldn’t be in mainstream video rentals. We would sit there and just watch Wes’s old films and go, “Oh, wow, cool.”
Englund: They were being pampered by the glamour makeup crew while I was sitting next to them with a turkey baster full of K-Y Jelly on me.
Wyss: All four of us would be in the makeup trailer every morning, kind of watching Robert get his makeup done. I never had, “Oh, there’s Freddy.” It was always “Oh, there’s Robert becoming Freddy.”
Langenkamp: Robert is an entertainer in, literally, the best sense of the word. He wakes up every morning hoping he can entertain people, not only with his stories but with his experience and all the people that he’s met and all the movies that he’s done. That’s part of who he is. And I don’t think he would have been able to just sit over in the corner and be quiet. I mean, he really thrives off of attention and just helping people feel at ease in this weird world of Hollywood in 1984. He would say, “Oh my God, Heather, Heather, Heather, you have to go see the Red Hot Chili Peppers.”
Englund: The more I could be Robert around them, or the character of Robert telling you the dirty jokes around coffee and doughnuts, the easier it was to say, “Now, Heather, listen to me. I’m going to pretend to pull your hair here. Here’s the trick.” And “Heather, don’t be afraid to really pound on my chest hard.”
Langenkamp: We had so many intense scenes together. I really trusted him. He had knives for fingernails, of course, that he could’ve stabbed me a million times if he wanted to. Even though they were dull blades, they still could’ve done a lot of damage. So I had to trust him a lot.
Englund: At the last second, they tried to change my hat. I had to fight with Wes and Bob about keeping the fedora, which is Wes’s way of seeing Freddy. I had to prove to them how good the fedora looked in silhouette and how I could take it off and reveal my deformed bald head. Even though it’s not my idea, I just knew it was right.
Langenkamp: I didn’t think that was a big deal. I’m like, “Oh, he’s wearing a sweater, he’s wearing a hat,” but I never really had the visual. And I don’t think anybody did until we saw him on the set in his wardrobe and his hat and his makeup, which was really the first day we worked on the school set. When I go down the stairs in the school, that’s my first scene that I have with Robert. And it was terrifying to see him the first time. The smoke, the dungeon-y pipes. It was really, really scary. And I realized at that point, “Oh hell, I’m in a horror movie.”
For a movie with such a low budget, A Nightmare on Elm Street had extremely intricate visual effects. Doyle and his team had their work cut out for them. To stage Freddy’s murder of Tina, the film’s first big set piece, they had to build a rotating set.
Doyle: Wes talked about the structure of the script being like a Shakespeare play, and I could relate to that because I was a theater guy to begin with. Shakespeare would have a tendency to introduce in the first act something that then builds the story for you, but then he drops that and goes into the story. He said, “Because we’ve got to do two things. We’ve got to introduce a character that everybody falls in love with. Then we’re going to kill her, and we’re going to remove her from the story.” And someone else in the story then has to become the lead character, and that would be Nancy.
Wyss: This is how I read the script: Tina dies. I literally skipped right over it, 100 percent. I think I read, “Tina is dragged up on the ceiling,” and I thought, “Oh, that’ll be interesting how they’re going to make somebody else do that.” It’s like the famous quote about shooting Gone With the Wind, and it said, “Atlanta burns.” And everyone was like, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s fine.” But it took like 30 days to shoot.
Doyle: Wes said, “How about at the end of the first reel, you scared the fuck out of people and you hooked them so badly they can’t leave?” And I said, “What if she was in her bedroom, and the whole bedroom goes Looney Tunes and it goes upside down?” He says, “You could do that?” And I say, “I can do it. I don’t know whether we can afford it.” And so I ended up making a deal with production that I would build the room, and then, at the end of the film, I’d keep it. And that’s what I did. I hired a crew, I built the room, we did all the production work on it, and basically everything up to installing the set was my risk. I was paying people out of my pocket just to get this thing up and running. Hopefully then I would be able to use it for other projects and make some money on it. And it turned out to be a pretty good decision because Tina’s death is one of the all-time top deaths in a film ever.
Wyss: Every single thing in this room was nailed down, shellacked, glued. Nothing moved, whether it was upside down or on the walls. It was just hardened into the room, and the room was manually cranked.
Doyle: I saw the Poltergeist room, and it was this gigantic thing, and it had all these hydraulics and stuff, and I’m going, “If you just balanced that fucking thing, you could just turn it by hand.” Because the people are always going to be in the bottom, you don’t have to worry about their weight. So you just balance the room, and you should be able to turn something even of that scale by hand. And so I got big bearings, surplus, and one of my guys and I sat down and we built a model of it. We did basic calculations on the stiffness and all that. We got it all put together. And because the load capacity of the bearings was so high, once we got the thing put together, I mean, you could turn it with one finger.
Wyss: I was always on the floor, and at each turn of the room, I would go to the next floor. Sometimes it was the side wall, sometimes it was the ceiling. And Jacques Haitkin and Wes, I think they were in airplane seats affixed to the wall. So the camera always had the same point of view. We started out and I get pulled out of bed and I get dragged up the wall, and then the room spun, and then I’m on the ceiling. We had to rehearse that many times. I lost my sense of up and down and was very dizzy.
Englund: They had me there, and they thought they might need a point of view shot between Tina’s legs of what she was seeing that they would intercut with what her boyfriend was seeing, which is just her alone being dragged across the ceiling. Amanda Wyss couldn’t operate the camera, though, because she’s not union. But it just so happened that the first assistant camera was Jacques Haitkin’s wife, Anne. So Anne took her jeans off, got down there in her underwear and got the handheld camera, and we put blood on her legs. And I dragged her around, and they shot between her legs. That shot was so hardcore and so scary and so disorienting that they didn’t use it in the movie. But Wes used that sequence to get the censors to let him use other shots. It was sort of his trade because they didn’t know that he really didn’t care. He pretended like, “This is my favorite shot. If you’re not going to let me have it, you’ve got to let me have these two.”
Wyss: I was literally dragged with high-tension fishing line. I thought, “I can’t do this.” I felt my body heaving even though I was on the floor. And so Wes stopped and stuck his head through a window and was trying to explain to me that I was on the ground, and I just said, “I don’t think so.” I just couldn’t wrap my brain around it. You could have told me I was on Mars.
Langenkamp: That’s so gruesome. In fact, the new Ultra-4K HD DVD actually has eight more seconds to that scene, as if it’s not long enough as it is. That scene, to me, is the grossest horror movie scene of all time.
Doyle: We were trying to figure out how to kill Glen. And I was like, “Well, we’ve got this rotating room sitting here.” Wes was like, “Would it be possible to do something like The Shining?” And I knew, of course, he was talking about the elevator scene. I said, “Yeah, probably.” What we didn’t count on was there was going to be around 500 pounds of blood in the room.
Risher: It was so much blood you wouldn’t have believed it. It was like a river of blood. We could have drowned in it.
Doyle: The room is now sitting there with 500 pounds of blood on the ceiling. It was supposed to run down the wall and across the floor. Well, to unlock the room, we had to tilt it really slightly to pull a pin. And when we did that, we tilted it a bit too far, and the blood got away from us.
Langenkamp: None of the blood went down the walls like Wes had planned. Instead, it all went out the open door. They just put a wind effect to make it seem like there was some churning blood from hell.
Doyle: Now that blood was on the floor. And we’ve got hot electrical on the floor. I remember unplugging everything. We lucked out. It could’ve been really bad.
Mimi Craven: Somebody called. And I answered the phone, and they said, “Hey, just want to let you know he’s OK.” And I went, “All right, start at the beginning, please.” They strapped him in. But then the room kept spinning, and the grips lost the ropes. And Wes is inside this room spinning. They got the shot, thank God.
Doyle: It’s one of those things where later in life you look back and go, “You know what? I could have died.”
Not all of the scares in A Nightmare on Elm Street are so over the top. The film is built on smaller moments of terror, like when Nancy’s taking a bath and Freddy’s glove slowly rises out of the water.
Doyle: We had a second-story set. And one of the reasons it was a second-story set was because I had to have something under the bathtub.
Langenkamp: They built a bathtub on top of an 8-foot tank, basically. It was very, very rudimentary.
Doyle: The water was actually in the tank. And you get in and out of it by going into the bathtub.
Langenkamp: Jim Doyle was in scuba gear all day long in that, just putting his hand up and down, up and down.
Doyle: My assistant Peter Kelly was going to do that. Peter was 6-foot-4 and had really long arms. He had a degree in film, he knew about acting. But it turns out that he was claustrophobic underwater. So he popped in there and he popped right back out again and said, “I can’t do this.” And I was like, “OK, well, I guess I can.”
Langenkamp: It was freezing.
Doyle: We kept the warm water running, and then we were able to keep it at a comfortable temperature. It just took longer than we hoped.
Langenkamp: We’d get it to be probably like 89 degrees, and then I’d be like, “OK, you’ve got to add some hot water.” Then they’d boil water down and pour in some teapots full of water.
Doyle: We spent six or seven hours on it.
Langenkamp: Wes would bang on the tub three times, and then the hand would go up. Then he’d bang on it twice, and the hand would go down. So all day long, just banging on the tub.
Robert Shaye: One of the ideas that I had for the film that Wes deigned to let me include was the sticky stairs. Sometimes, I’d have a dream where I’d be going somewhere and I was caught in cement and I couldn’t move. You feel totally helpless. You’re in the bloody dream, and you’re going to die.
Langenkamp: I think it was oatmeal and maybe cream of mushroom soup. I just remember it being really sticky. That was the one he made us put in there at the last minute. We were just throwing things against the wall. But that was his nightmare.
Charles Bernstein (composer): On my work print on my VHS, I was watching the scene where the phone rings and Heather picks up the phone and [Freddy] says, “I’m your boyfriend now, Nancy.” And then a plastic tongue darts out of the phone. I hit the pause button right here exactly where I’m sitting, and I sat down and I thought, “Charles, what are you doing? Has it come to this?”
Doyle: I called David [Miller] and said, “I’ve got this idea. Could you do this overnight? Because we need to shoot it tomorrow.” So he came up, and he made the phone overnight. I got a reputation for being a little twisted with some of these ideas, just spitballing this stuff. We got away with murder.
New Line Cinema
Langenkamp: Wes was a reader. He read everything. He read newspapers from around the world. He read books. He had been an English teacher. He knew the Bible front and back. He was the most educated man I knew. He’d read that you can have these powers in your sleep to turn away from the nightmare and take it away and give it no power. And then he’d also read about the kid who tries to stay up to prevent his nightmares. It’s all plucked from newspaper headlines. It’s just nobody else has the ability to imagine it that way.
In the climax, Nancy indeed beats Freddy by taking away his power. But that’s not how the movie ends. The coda starts idyllically, with Nancy leaving her house the next morning. Her mother, Marge (Ronee Blakley), says goodbye as Nancy’s friends, who are all alive again, pick her up in a convertible. The car’s top then pops into place, and it’s striped like Freddy’s sweater. Nancy’s trapped. All of a sudden, Freddy grabs her mother and yanks her through the door window as nearby children jumping rope start singing, “One, two, Freddy’s coming for you.”
Mimi Craven: They fought about that.
Robert Shaye: There was a big disagreement.
Risher: Bob wanted a real kooky, crazy, wild ending that could lead to a sequel. And Wes wanted a really beautiful poetic ending of the girls jumping rope, singing, with the kids going away in the car.
Robert Shaye: I said, “Listen, you can’t do this in a horror film. There’s got to be some kind of thing that really kind of grabs them at the end.” So at one point, he said, “I can’t argue with you anymore. I’m exhausted.” I said, “Well, let’s shoot both things.”
Englund: We shot it several ways. One I remember: driving the car up and Heather comes out and it’s like a Disney movie. It’s a little brighter than reality. She gets in the car, and I’m there and the convertible top slams shut on the car. And the grips, the little things that lock on a convertible, they look like little Freddy claws.
Robert Shaye: We had these little test screenings, not the fancy ones that they had in the real Hollywood, but in our amateur Hollywood. We tested all of the different endings, including the one that Wes wanted. None was particularly outstanding. We said, “Well, what are we going to do?” He said, “Well, let’s use them all. Let’s just finish this.”
Mimi Craven: Wes fought and fought and fought and fought and finally just had to acquiesce.
Langenkamp: The way I’ve always interpreted the ending is that Nancy’s had this dream. She went into it with a very intense intent, to grab Freddy, bring him out. And so it seems like that’s really successful. She pulls him out of the dream, she sets all the booby traps, she turns her back. He seems to go away, and then she comes out into this beautiful day. And it looks like everything is normal again, but then it is not normal, and the car comes up.
It’s that same dream that’s just still continuing. And we don’t know how it ends. We don’t know how it ends for Nancy. The only thing we know is that she appears in Nightmare on Elm Street 3, so she didn’t die in it. She does continue to live.
Nightmare was released on November 9, 1984. In those days, Academy Award–nominated screenwriter Paul Attanasio was a film critic. “For such a low-budget movie,” he wrote in The Washington Post, “Nightmare on Elm Street is extraordinarily polished.” It went on to gross almost $26 million at the domestic box office and, according to Variety, $57 million worldwide. Before long, New Line earned a new nickname: “The House That Freddy Built.”
Risher: We had, I think, five or six theaters in New York. It did very nicely, and we were very happy, but it wasn’t a huge smash.
Bernstein: I was pretty convinced when I was working on it that it was not a hit. I honestly felt that. The zeitgeist thing did not kick in right away, but something did. There was a two-page ad in Variety, which I still have, which said, “Sleeper: Nightmare on Elm Street.” And it said how much it had made on its first weekend. That was a clue.
Risher: It was our head of distribution who came to us on Monday and said, “Let’s start writing the sequel.”
Robert Shaye: As it happens often with really good movies, they become part of the zeitgeist, then they just continue.
Englund: Shortly after that, because I was big on V, I went to New York to sign autographs at a science-fiction convention. It was William Shatner and me. And Bob Shaye came to take me out to lunch, and he said, “Oh, man, I told you it’s big. I told you, Bobby.” He goes, “Look at this line.” And I said, “Bob, no, you’re wrong. These are my fans from V.” He goes, “No, no, no, no. It’s Freddy. They’re here for Freddy.” So we go out to lunch. I’m taking a break, and I have to come back and sign autographs. I walk out the front door of the Roosevelt Hotel, and there, standing in the rain for half a block, are hardcore punk rockers and heavy metal kids in black leather. They’re all there for Freddy.
Wyss: I was filming something. I never got to see it in the theater. The first time I saw it was on VHS. I personally don’t like being scared. I had to fast-forward through some of the scary parts, and I thought, “Wow, this movie came out really scary.”
Bernstein: The homemade intensity of it all, it just felt so like you could do it with papier-mâché and paper clips. But it did make it even more scary.
Risher: Everybody pitched in and gave ideas and helped figure out ways to do the stunts and the effects that were all in camera.
Doyle: Everything was physical. There was one optical effect in the whole film, when Freddy walks through the bars in the jail room.
Mimi Craven: Every dollar is up there. Every single dollar.
Doyle: I was just like, “Wow, this is doing really well. And wow, I didn’t keep any of the merchandising.” Nobody was making masks of Michael Myers, so we’re like, “Yeah, big fucking deal.” The first year after Nightmare came out, it was the most popular Halloween costume.
Wyss: That Halloween, I was at my mom’s house in Manhattan Beach, and there were little kids dressed up as Freddy, and I was handing out candy. True story. I would say to the parents of the kids, “I play Tina in the movie.” And every single one of them was like, “Yeah, right.” Nobody believed me.
Mimi Craven: I mean, can you imagine? It’s Wes’s creation. When he first saw Freddy costumes, he was just grinning from ear to ear.
These days, the cast and crew are happy to relive the original Nightmare. Now in their 60s, the four teenage stars are still acting. Englund played Freddy in eight films and continues to work regularly. Doyle is now the director of a company that designs high-tech water installations. Risher is an active producer. Turner Broadcasting bought New Line in 1994, and Shaye stepped down from the company in 2008. Craven went on to direct an Elm Street sequel and several more horror classics. In 2015, he died of brain cancer. His work, especially Nightmare, has influenced countless filmmakers, including Jordan Peele and the Duffer brothers. And 40 years later, the genre he ruled is finally ruling Hollywood.
Doyle: People in general are not confident about their connection with the dreamworld because dreams come out of nowhere. And I think Wes found something that was pretty universal. People don’t trust themselves to be cognizant when they’re asleep.
(writer-director, Fear Street trilogy): That idea is so good. It’s just so clean. What if your dreams became reality? And more specifically, what if they were your nightmares? There was no delineation between waking and sleep.
Robert Shaye: You don’t have any defense in your dreams. And if a scary guy says, “I’m going to kill you,” there’s nothing you can do. You can’t run away.
Janiak: There was just something about Freddy Krueger and his deformities. The fact that it felt vaguely sexual to me in a way I didn’t quite understand. Then there was the whole subtext that—I don’t even know how I knew this—maybe he had done something bad to kids. All of that just made me say, “What is inside this movie for me?”
Hutson: What Wes did so well was keep Freddy in the shadows. He barely speaks. He has an insanely little amount of screen time when you actually add it up, but he’s so omnipresent in that movie. The specter of evil.
Langenkamp: I hear so many great stories about people who just got over their own Freddy Kruegers in their life. I love it. I always ask what their story is, and there’s always one.
Janiak: I grew up in the ’80s, and that was the heyday of slasher films. I would watch them at sleepovers. But Nightmare, I was so scared of. I was so scared to watch it for a very long time, and I didn’t watch it until I was fully in my teens.
Englund: I think that there’s something about that experience in the ’80s, sitting on a couch at home on the weekend with that pizza getting cold and the beer getting warm, with Mom and Dad, or an older brother who was trying to scare you. I think that it became almost a surrogate family memory for an awful lot of the fans, a horror movie that you shared with your family. That really made it a kind of American experience.
Wyss: If you actually took the horror out of it, it’s really sort of a sad thriller. And it’s a movie about latchkey kids, the first generation from divorced parents. And I think there were a lot of real emotional connections to the film at the time. It’s not a traditional chop ’em up kind of thing. His glove slashes, but it’s not naked girls running in the woods. It’s this beautiful story of these kids creating their own family.
Langenkamp: There weren’t that many horror movies that were actually getting big audiences back then.
Englund: For a long time, we were sort of the movies that got the shitty table at the commissary.
Langenkamp: Now, I think every month there’s a pretty decent horror movie that’s making good money.
Wyss: I think that it’s almost a rite of passage now to star in a horror film. And it would’ve been great if that had been our experience, but it wasn’t. Our experience was its own thing.
Mimi Craven: There’s an autograph show in Indianapolis. Everybody was there. They all said, “Mimi, you say something about Wes.” And I said, “OK, here’s the story. I know what scared Wes Craven.” And you could hear a pin drop. I said, “What scared him was if when he died, he was only remembered as the schlockmeister.”
Englund: I remember “slasher movie” was forbidden on our set. We hated that. And they also used to call him a horrormeister. Wes Craven, he hated that. But A Nightmare on Elm Street is not a slasher movie. It takes place in the subconscious.
Langenkamp: He just always loved being smart. He loved being funny. And sometimes you feel like you have to hide your fire under a bushel basket, but he never did. He always was just who he was.
Hutson: After my book was done, I went to Wes’s house and I took him copies, and he sat there and was just paging through it. Then he looks at me, he goes, “Can I just sit here and read this? Are you OK if I read a little?” Then he turns to me and he says, “Will you autograph my copy?” It was a really powerful moment for me as someone who wanted to be in the movie business. What I didn’t do was have him sign my copy. What a dolt, right?
Interviews have been edited and condensed.
[ad_2]
Alan Siegel
Source link

[ad_1]
The series premiere of The Penguin ends with its titular villain stripped naked and strapped to a chair as he’s tortured by Sofia Falcone. By the conclusion of the second episode, Sofia makes him an offer to join forces and seize control of the Falcone crime family—the most powerful mob in Gotham City. Life in Gotham is anything but predictable; one minute someone’s pointing a gun down your throat, and the next they’re asking you to help betray their family and make a play to take over the city’s criminal underworld.
This dramatic turn of events perfectly encapsulates the complicated relationship of Oswald “Oz” Cobb (Colin Farrell) and Sofia Falcone (Cristin Milioti) as they try to set aside their differences to take down Sofia’s uncle Luca (Scott Cohen) and fill the power vacuum created by the death of the infamous Carmine Falcone. Two episodes in, HBO’s The Batman spinoff series is quickly picking up momentum as Oz and Sofia’s tenuous partnership takes root and their respective quests to claim power in Gotham begin in earnest.
Although The Penguin is first and foremost a series about the villainous Oz Cobb, as Farrell reprises his scene-stealing character from Matt Reeves’s The Batman, Milioti’s Sofia Falcone is as much of a driving force in the spinoff as its central protagonist. Sofia has emerged as an unlikely contender to replace her father as Gotham’s crime lord, and the ways in which her character compares and contrasts with Oz have made their dynamic a compelling entry point into The Penguin’s developing story.
The pilot episode welcomes the show’s audience by thrusting them right back into the world of The Batman: A montage of news broadcasts serves as a recap of the 2022 film, reporting the rise in crime in Gotham after the Riddler’s terrorist attacks devastated the city and unearthed its deep-seated corruption. And, crucially, the broadcasts also cover the murder of Carmine Falcone and the ongoing power struggle to replace him. After all the exposition ends, The Penguin repositions Oz as the primary protagonist of this world in place of Robert Pattinson’s Batman. He kills Alberto Falcone (Michael Zegen), Sofia’s brother and the new head of the Falcone family, in an impulsive act that sets the events of the series in motion. At first, it seems as if Oz will be able to get away with his crime unscathed, but Sofia—fresh out of Arkham Asylum—arrives to upend his hastily conceived schemes.
In this week’s installment, “Inside Man,” The Penguin begins to uncover Sofia’s past and delve into the life of the notorious woman better known as “the Hangman.” The episode opens with a flashback of Alberto visiting her at Arkham Asylum, which bleeds into a present-day therapy session as her memories mix with her grief over the loss of her brother. The series proceeds to offer glimpses into Sofia’s life, shedding light on how she is perceived by the world. A radio show discusses how Sofia was technically exonerated for the murders of seven women but labels her a “psycho” and a “serial killer.” Outside of Alberto’s funeral, crowds gather with signs condemning the Falcone family and Sofia’s release from Arkham. At Alberto’s memorial service, conversations hush and turn to whispers when Sofia enters a room, highlighting the unease surrounding her. Even Sofia’s family members either fear her or refuse to take her seriously. (By the end of the episode, Luca and his lieutenants give Sofia the Godfather closing door treatment, shutting her out of the family business as Luca tries to send her away to Italy.)
Sofia and Oz are alike in many ways. Both are underestimated and overlooked by higher-ranking members of the crime family who fail to recognize their outsize ambitions and the threat they pose. Their immediate families are everything to them, with Sofia hell-bent on avenging her brother’s death and Oz caring for his mother, Francis (Deirdre O’Connell), who has early-onset dementia. They both face judgment and condescension from those around them, whether it’s due to Sofia’s past or Oz’s appearance, and neither takes such disrespect lightly.
For all their similarities, Sofia and Oz also carry themselves differently. Sofia is discreet and tries to keep a low profile, while Oz drives around in an opulent, purple-and-gold Maserati. Oz is a sweet talker, often wriggling his way out of dire situations, while Sofia is blunt and speaks plainly to cut through all the nonsense. Sofia grew up rich, with a powerful father; Oz grew up poor and has had to earn everything himself. They serve as perfect foils for each other as they reach for the same goal of controlling the city’s criminal empire. And, at least for now, they recognize each other’s potential to further their own agendas—even if they don’t trust each other.
As Sofia and Oz’s unlikely alliance begins, the audience knows there is little chance their partnership will work; one will surely betray the other at some point, particularly if Sofia ever discovers that Oz was the one who killed Alberto. Watching how their dynamic develops over the next six chapters of the eight-episode miniseries will be fascinating, especially as Milioti and Farrell get more space to play off each other. Milioti is as terrifying as she is mesmerizing as the ice-cold Sofia, and Farrell—fully transformed by impressive makeup and prosthetics—continues to put his own spin on an iconic villain between his menacing yet comical performance and an endlessly entertaining accent choice. (There is still nothing better in The Batman than the Penguin giving Batman and Gordon a lesson in Spanish.)
For a spinoff of The Batman that’s set within weeks of the movie’s events, The Penguin has mentioned the Caped Crusader’s name only once so far. (It has, however, referenced the Riddler several times already.) Creator Lauren LeFranc has managed to seamlessly weave this series into the world that Reeves is creating in his Batman films, keeping with their dark and grounded tone while also adding more levity to build on what worked so well with Oz’s character in the movie. By setting Batman aside, The Penguin expands this version of Gotham, showing how crime is proliferating in the city in the aftermath of the Riddler’s attacks through a smaller-stakes story centered on Gotham’s warring mafia families and the two oddballs trying to claw their way to the top. With Farrell and Milioti delivering captivating performances that showcase the many dimensions of their respective villains, The Penguin has already been a pleasant surprise that’s generating even more excitement for where Reeves’s ongoing Batverse and the new era of DC Studios could go from here.
[ad_2]
Daniel Chin
Source link

[ad_1]
Lantz Financial LLC trimmed its stake in AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T – Free Report) by 10.1% in the second quarter, Holdings Channel reports. The firm owned 19,510 shares of the technology company’s stock after selling 2,186 shares during the quarter. Lantz Financial LLC’s holdings in AT&T were worth $373,000 as of its most recent SEC filing.
Several other large investors also recently made changes to their positions in the stock. Cantor Fitzgerald Investment Advisors L.P. bought a new position in AT&T during the 4th quarter worth $11,554,000. Clearbridge Investments LLC increased its stake in AT&T by 250.3% during the 4th quarter. Clearbridge Investments LLC now owns 67,303 shares of the technology company’s stock worth $1,129,000 after acquiring an additional 48,091 shares during the period. Skopos Labs Inc. acquired a new position in AT&T in the 4th quarter valued at $839,000. M&G Plc bought a new stake in shares of AT&T during the 1st quarter valued at $9,074,000. Finally, Foundations Investment Advisors LLC grew its holdings in shares of AT&T by 115.8% during the 4th quarter. Foundations Investment Advisors LLC now owns 196,236 shares of the technology company’s stock worth $3,540,000 after purchasing an additional 105,284 shares in the last quarter. Institutional investors and hedge funds own 57.10% of the company’s stock.
AT&T stock opened at $21.71 on Wednesday. The firm has a market cap of $155.66 billion, a price-to-earnings ratio of 11.67, a PEG ratio of 3.57 and a beta of 0.59. AT&T Inc. has a 52-week low of $14.12 and a 52-week high of $21.86. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 1.05, a quick ratio of 0.66 and a current ratio of 0.70. The firm has a 50 day moving average price of $19.42 and a two-hundred day moving average price of $18.09.
AT&T (NYSE:T – Get Free Report) last issued its quarterly earnings results on Wednesday, July 24th. The technology company reported $0.57 earnings per share for the quarter, hitting analysts’ consensus estimates of $0.57. The firm had revenue of $29.80 billion during the quarter, compared to the consensus estimate of $30.05 billion. AT&T had a return on equity of 14.16% and a net margin of 10.41%. The business’s revenue was down .3% compared to the same quarter last year. During the same period last year, the business posted $0.63 EPS. Equities analysts predict that AT&T Inc. will post 2.2 EPS for the current year.
The business also recently announced a quarterly dividend, which was paid on Thursday, August 1st. Investors of record on Wednesday, July 10th were paid a dividend of $0.2775 per share. This represents a $1.11 annualized dividend and a yield of 5.11%. The ex-dividend date was Wednesday, July 10th. AT&T’s dividend payout ratio is presently 59.68%.
T has been the subject of several analyst reports. Daiwa America upgraded shares of AT&T to a “hold” rating in a research report on Friday, July 26th. The Goldman Sachs Group started coverage on AT&T in a report on Monday, July 1st. They issued a “buy” rating and a $22.00 target price on the stock. TD Cowen boosted their price target on AT&T from $21.00 to $23.00 and gave the stock a “hold” rating in a report on Thursday, July 25th. Moffett Nathanson raised their price objective on AT&T from $17.00 to $18.00 and gave the company a “neutral” rating in a research note on Thursday, August 15th. Finally, Evercore ISI boosted their target price on AT&T from $18.00 to $19.00 and gave the stock an “in-line” rating in a research note on Thursday, July 25th. Nine analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating and ten have given a buy rating to the company’s stock. Based on data from MarketBeat.com, AT&T currently has an average rating of “Moderate Buy” and a consensus target price of $22.06.
Get Our Latest Stock Analysis on AT&T
AT&T Inc provides telecommunications and technology services worldwide. The company operates through two segments, Communications and Latin America. The Communications segment offers wireless voice and data communications services; and sells handsets, wireless data cards, wireless computing devices, carrying cases/protective covers, and wireless chargers through its own company-owned stores, agents, and third-party retail stores.
Want to see what other hedge funds are holding T? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T – Free Report).
Receive News & Ratings for AT&T Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts’ ratings for AT&T and related companies with MarketBeat.com’s FREE daily email newsletter.
[ad_2]
ABMN Staff
Source link

[ad_1]
Private Advisor Group LLC cut its holdings in AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T – Free Report) by 1.1% during the 2nd quarter, Holdings Channel reports. The firm owned 684,778 shares of the technology company’s stock after selling 7,383 shares during the period. Private Advisor Group LLC’s holdings in AT&T were worth $13,086,000 at the end of the most recent reporting period.
Other large investors have also modified their holdings of the company. Vanguard Group Inc. lifted its stake in shares of AT&T by 0.4% during the first quarter. Vanguard Group Inc. now owns 624,994,998 shares of the technology company’s stock valued at $10,999,912,000 after buying an additional 2,588,539 shares during the period. Bank of New York Mellon Corp raised its stake in AT&T by 7.4% during the second quarter. Bank of New York Mellon Corp now owns 81,076,641 shares of the technology company’s stock worth $1,549,375,000 after purchasing an additional 5,592,123 shares during the period. Norges Bank purchased a new position in AT&T during the fourth quarter worth approximately $1,118,288,000. Dimensional Fund Advisors LP raised its stake in AT&T by 2.5% during the fourth quarter. Dimensional Fund Advisors LP now owns 47,377,267 shares of the technology company’s stock worth $794,978,000 after purchasing an additional 1,137,792 shares during the period. Finally, LSV Asset Management raised its stake in AT&T by 1.1% during the first quarter. LSV Asset Management now owns 29,777,030 shares of the technology company’s stock worth $524,076,000 after purchasing an additional 333,787 shares during the period. 57.10% of the stock is currently owned by institutional investors and hedge funds.
AT&T stock opened at $20.97 on Friday. The company has a current ratio of 0.70, a quick ratio of 0.66 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 1.05. AT&T Inc. has a 1 year low of $14.12 and a 1 year high of $21.00. The company has a market cap of $150.36 billion, a PE ratio of 11.27, a PEG ratio of 3.47 and a beta of 0.59. The company’s 50-day moving average is $19.31 and its two-hundred day moving average is $18.01.
AT&T (NYSE:T – Get Free Report) last released its quarterly earnings data on Wednesday, July 24th. The technology company reported $0.57 earnings per share for the quarter, hitting the consensus estimate of $0.57. AT&T had a net margin of 10.41% and a return on equity of 14.16%. The business had revenue of $29.80 billion for the quarter, compared to analyst estimates of $30.05 billion. During the same quarter last year, the firm earned $0.63 EPS. AT&T’s quarterly revenue was down .3% compared to the same quarter last year. Equities analysts anticipate that AT&T Inc. will post 2.22 earnings per share for the current year.
The business also recently announced a quarterly dividend, which was paid on Thursday, August 1st. Shareholders of record on Wednesday, July 10th were issued a dividend of $0.2775 per share. The ex-dividend date was Wednesday, July 10th. This represents a $1.11 annualized dividend and a yield of 5.29%. AT&T’s dividend payout ratio (DPR) is currently 59.68%.
A number of brokerages have recently commented on T. Royal Bank of Canada raised their target price on shares of AT&T from $18.00 to $19.00 and gave the company a “sector perform” rating in a research note on Thursday, July 25th. Barclays raised their price objective on shares of AT&T from $20.00 to $22.00 and gave the stock an “overweight” rating in a report on Thursday, July 25th. UBS Group reaffirmed a “buy” rating and issued a $24.00 price target on shares of AT&T in a report on Tuesday, June 18th. JPMorgan Chase & Co. lifted their price target on shares of AT&T from $21.00 to $24.00 and gave the company an “overweight” rating in a report on Thursday, July 25th. Finally, Evercore ISI lifted their price objective on shares of AT&T from $18.00 to $19.00 and gave the company an “in-line” rating in a research report on Thursday, July 25th. Nine equities research analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating and ten have issued a buy rating to the stock. According to data from MarketBeat.com, AT&T currently has a consensus rating of “Moderate Buy” and an average target price of $22.06.
Get Our Latest Analysis on AT&T
AT&T Inc provides telecommunications and technology services worldwide. The company operates through two segments, Communications and Latin America. The Communications segment offers wireless voice and data communications services; and sells handsets, wireless data cards, wireless computing devices, carrying cases/protective covers, and wireless chargers through its own company-owned stores, agents, and third-party retail stores.
Want to see what other hedge funds are holding T? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T – Free Report).
Receive News & Ratings for AT&T Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts’ ratings for AT&T and related companies with MarketBeat.com’s FREE daily email newsletter.
[ad_2]
ABMN Staff
Source link

[ad_1]
After having the two songs of the summer in “Espresso” and “Please Please Please,” Sabrina Carpenter is gearing up to release Short n’ Sweet. So first, Nora and Nathan go back to her album Emails I Can’t Send. They talk about her transition from a “lowercase pop girl” to an “uppercase pop girl” (1:00), her drama with Olivia Rodrigo and Joshua Bassett that led to songs like “Skin” and “Because I Liked a Boy” (29:54), and what they anticipate from her with this next album (41:53).
Hosts: Nora Princiotti and Nathan Hubbard
Producer: Kaya McMullen
Subscribe: Spotify
[ad_2]
Nora Princiotti
Source link
[ad_1]
Two key North Side Foxtrot locations will not be part of the comeback plan led by the chain’s founder. CoStar reports that Hotel Chocolat, a company founded in the U.K. — and recently purchased by Mars — has leased the spaces at 900 W. Armitage Avenue in Lincoln Park and 3334 N. Southport Avenue in Lakeview.
Mars, which manufactures Twix and M&Ms from its Goose Island campus, paid about $662 million for the premium chocolate maker with 126 locations in the U.K., Japan, Ireland, St. Lucia, and Gibraltar. According to its website, the company began in 1994 and opened its first shop in 2004. They sell drinking chocolates, gift boxes, and more while “challenging the status quo for cacao farming.” A New York location opened in 2018 but has since closed.
The Lincoln Park Foxtrot shared space with Jeni’s Splendid Ice Creams. Coincidentally, a Jeni’s remains open a few doors from the Southport location in Lakeview. Foxtrot was an upscale corner store that sold trendy snacks and stocked some items made by those within Chicago’s restaurant community. That includes Pretty Cool Ice Cream, the brand created by Dana Salls Cree, the former pastry chef at the Publican.
Foxtrot founder Mike LaVitola has been busy reestablishing vendor relationships since the chain suddenly closed in April. LaVitola was not in charge of Outfox Hospitality when it ceased operations, and the newly formed venture is separate from Foxtrot’s former parent which also included the two Dom’s Kitchen & Market stores in Old Town and Lincoln Park. LaVitola has attempted to distance himself from Outfox’s failures in convincing former vendors to work with his new company.
The sudden closure extinguished goodwill with vendors who haven’t been paid for their orders. Workers have filed lawsuits alleging the company didn’t properly inform them of the closures while demanding backpay.
Last week, liquor applications began to pop up in city records showing plans to reopen stores in Old Town, Fulton Market, Wicker Park, and Gold Coast. Earlier this summer, LaVitola said he planned on reopening 15 stores in Chicago and Austin, Texas. The majority would be in Chicago. LaVitola founded Foxtrot in 2015 and is chairman of the new entity set to revive the chain. It’s backed by Further Point Enterprises, an investment fund. At a May auction, it paid $2.2 million for Foxtrot’s assets.
In Texas, customers remain waiting for word on which locations will reopen.
[ad_2]
Ashok Selvam
Source link

[ad_1]
Supper clubs have become a point of Midwestern pride, evoking a brandy old fashioned hulking slab of prime rib, or a crispy filet of fried fish. But they aren’t entirely products of the Central Time Zone.
Credit for the first supper club goes to Beverly Hills, where a Milwaukee native opened the first supper club in the 1920s, blending aspects of entertainment, dining, and a cocktail lounge. Fans of the movie Swingers (starring Chicago-area native Vince Vaughn) will understand. Apologies for getting the Squirrel Nut Zippers stuck in your head. For those unaware, YouTube it if you dare.
Though it’s not new in Chicago (For instance, Untitled Supper Club opened back in 2012 in River North), a pair of Prohibition-era supper clubs have recently debuted. Each is taking a swing at the genre. In South Loop, the owners of Entree, the meal kit service that debuted in 2022 inside the former home of Michelin-starred Acadia, have rechristened its space as Oliver’s, giving the area a sorely needed sit-down restaurant at 1639 S. Wabash. Neither offer relish trays, a staple at Midwestern supper clubs. Folks also won’t find taxidermy on display.
In River North, the duo behind Mino’s Italian in suburban Winnetka has opened Charlie Martin’s at 736 N. Clark Street. At Mino’s, the group has revived an urban favorite from years ago — the take-and-bake pies Chicagoans enjoyed from HomeMade Pizza Co., a chain founded in 1997 and closed in 2014.
Here’s a brief rundown of both restaurants.
Velvet seating and vintage artwork meant to remind visitors of the 1930s is what visitors to Oliver’s will find. While Entree’s goal, according to co-founder Jason Weingarten was “trying to solve dinner time for busy people,” Oliver’s is to “make people happy” and to give back to a community that would constantly ask if the dining room would ever open to the public (they’ve held pop-ups and private events).
Weingarten touts the resume of his culinary director, Alex Carnovale; he’s not bashful about mentioning his chef’s time at Thomas Keller’s French Laundry.
Carnovale gushes about the martini, garnished with a golden Beluga caviar-stuffed Castelvetrano olive. These types of touches are meant to show customers that Oliver’s isn’t serving the same product as Entree. They have a patio, and will eventually open the entire dining room; they’ve only debuted the bar area. Carnovale expects to expand the menu when they unveil the new space. A thick burger and a roasted chicken from a notable Pennsylvania farm are some of the current headlights. Publican Quality Bread sourdough, griddled in beef fat — battered in whipped egg yolk, creme fraiche, and truffle — and served with compound butter with caramelized shallots, thyme, and garlic, is “a great way to eat some bread and butter” with a glass of wine.
The chef says his philosophy is not to do too much: “I think the more you touch ingredients along the way they start to deteriorate,” Carnovale says.
The rising popularity of women’s basketball and the Chicago Sky, with stars like Angel Reese, coupled with a need for more options near McCormick Place, have Oliver’s staff excited about the future.
“It’ll be really interesting to see what happens to the South Loop over the next couple of years as we figure out what happens with the Bears and the White Sox, specifically,” Weingarten says.
While Oliver’s owners say they’re celebrating the 1930s, Charlie Martin’s flashes forward a few decades to the ‘50s and ‘60s. The central difference between the periods is Prohibition’s end in 1933. Veteran Chicago chef Matt Williams, who worked at Hogsalt, helms the kitchen here, inside a space where restaurants like Marvel opened.
Williams plays all the hits with an oyster bar (including a shellfish tower), crab cakes, and a whole-roaster Dover sole. There are a few steaks on the menu, from a dry-aged bone-in ribeye and steak frites.
Partners Glenn Deutsch, Eric Fosse, and Audrey Fosse are city folks at heart, and though they opened in Winnetka, they say they yearned a return to Chicago. Eric Fosse also opened Guildhall in suburban Glencoe.
Deutsch feels the restaurant’s “small, intimate environment” will resonate with diners. There’s a little mystery when visitors approach the entrance: “Once you walk, in you’ve found a comfortable place and unique environment.”
There are 60 seats and plenty of red leather booths. The soundtrack is mostly jazz. The drinks are mostly riffs on classics. Charlie’s Martini is made with Sipsmith gin, St. George Basil Eau de Vie, Lillet Blanc, and extra virgin olive oil.
Fosse is proud of the food, saying they’re weaving modern techniques into classic supper club fare. The result is “exceptional” he says.
[ad_2]
Ashok Selvam
Source link

[ad_1]
Last week, I posited that the Xbox showcase on June 9 would be the most important in the history of Microsoft’s gaming division. If it wasn’t, that could be because this slick prerecorded show couldn’t possibly compete for historical impact with, for example, the garbage fire that was the 2013 Xbox One reveal event, or the bungled E3 show that followed it. It was confident and smooth in its orchestration, impressive in a way that was almost calming after the awkward anticlimax of Summer Game Fest two days earlier. But it was still immensely significant: for its indication of the seismic publishing power Microsoft now holds, for the questions it answered about Xbox’s future, and for the questions it didn’t.
In fact, the two most telling bits of news emerged outside the boundaries of the show itself. The first was the confirmation, more than a week before the show, that Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 will be released on Game Pass on day one. The second, which was not mentioned by Microsoft during its showcase but slipped out in a press release alongside it, is that Doom: The Dark Ages (one of the biggest first-party reveals of the event) is also coming to PlayStation 5.
Between them, these two facts spell out Microsoft’s strategy quite clearly: Game Pass is everything, and Xbox consoles aren’t. Microsoft is doubling down hard on its subscription service, and bringing its new, almost terrifying might as a game publisher to bear on the Game Pass catalog. But the company had little to say about Xbox hardware, and its attitude to console exclusivity for Microsoft-owned games remains ambivalent at best.
After the shock release of four former Xbox exclusives on PlayStation 5 and Nintendo Switch earlier this year, many Xbox fans were looking to Sunday’s showcase for explicit reassurance that Microsoft was still investing in Xbox consoles by getting its vast army of first-party studios to make exclusive games for them. That reassurance did not come. In fact, Xbox console exclusivity was not mentioned once. The words “coming to Xbox Series X and PC” appeared as much at the end of trailers for games in storied Xbox franchises like Fable and Gears of War as they did for multiplatform releases from third-party publishers like Dragon Age: The Veilguard and Assassin’s Creed Shadows. There was no attempt at differentiation on this score.
Reports indicate that Microsoft has “no red line” internally when it comes to which of its games it will consider for release on other platforms, and the wording (or lack of it) used on Sunday shows that the company is keen to keep its options open. It’s striking that Microsoft chose to open the showcase with two heavy hitters that’ll be available on PlayStation: Black Ops 6, which was already slated for PS5 (per Microsoft’s Call of Duty deal with Sony), and Doom: The Dark Ages, which wasn’t.
The Dark Ages’ PS5 release is a clue to how Microsoft intends to handle exclusivity in the short term, at least as far as games from Bethesda, Activision, and Blizzard are concerned. Speaking to IGN after the showcase aired, Xbox boss Phil Spencer said, “Doom is definitely one of those franchises that has a history of so many platforms. It’s a franchise that I think everyone deserves to play. When I was in a meeting with Marty [Stratton, id Software studio director] a couple years ago, I asked Marty what he wanted to do, and he said he wanted to sell it on all platforms. Simple as that.”
Spencer’s explanation — as well as Microsoft’s handling of Minecraft — suggests that Microsoft does not intend to make previously multiplatform game series exclusive. It’s a strong indication that Bethesda’s The Elder Scrolls 6, for one, will get a PlayStation release. For everything else, it’s an open question. It might seem unthinkable that Gears of War: E-Day or Fable will come out on PS5, but nothing said (or unsaid) on Sunday indicates that that’s off the table.
As far as Game Pass goes, however, Microsoft could not have been more emphatic. “Play it day one with Game Pass,” boomed the stinger on the end of trailer after trailer after trailer. Of the 30 games, expansions, and updates featured in Sunday’s showcase, 20 will go straight to Game Pass. Of those 20 Game Pass titles, 13 come from Microsoft-owned studios; nine are scheduled to debut in 2024, eight in 2025, and three have no release windows yet.
Call of Duty, Doom, Gears of War, State of Decay, Perfect Dark, Fable, Indiana Jones, STALKER, Flight Simulator, Avowed… all coming to Game Pass as soon as they’re released. There are blockbuster shooters and role-playing games, strategy and sim games, wistful indies, and, thanks to partnerships with companies like Kepler Interactive and Rebellion, a good helping of AA Eurojank (perhaps the ideal kind of Game Pass game).
In a way, it’s more illustrative to look at what from the showcase won’t be coming to Game Pass. Those 10 titles include big third-party franchises like Metal Gear Solid and Assassin’s Creed; a handful of smaller third-party games; and expansions for Starfield, Diablo 4, The Elder Scrolls Online, and World of Warcraft. Selling DLC for Game Pass-included titles like Starfield, Diablo 4, and TES Online is a big part of the Game Pass business model, so you could still consider those titles under the Game Pass umbrella. (World of Warcraft is the outlier here as the only Microsoft-owned game featured that isn’t on Game Pass at all — and indeed, the only one not available on Xbox consoles.)
If Microsoft has doubts about the commercial viability of console-exclusive releases in the long term, it certainly doesn’t seem to have those doubts about Game Pass. With subscriber numbers seeming to have plateaued (according to Microsoft’s rarely released figures), and with the presumed considerable loss of revenue resulting from rolling a guaranteed seller like Black Ops 6 into a subscription service, many were wondering if Microsoft’s “Netflix for games” approach made economic sense. It’s possible that this debate has been ongoing in Microsoft until recently: Black Ops 6 developer Treyarch told Game File’s Stephen Totilo “it wasn’t that long ago” that the studio was informed that the game would launch on Game Pass. But taken as a whole, the showcase was a resounding vote of confidence in the service, and an indication that it will go on to provide great value to subscribers through 2025 and beyond.
After its acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Microsoft is now the third-biggest gaming company in the world by revenue — and arguably the biggest in terms of intellectual property and publishing might. Sunday’s showcase demonstrated quite convincingly how it intends to fill those massive boots: dozens of solid-looking games in famous, fan-favorite franchises, stretching far into the future. Quality and quantity. The surprise inclusion of a few long-gestating titles that had reportedly been stuck in development hell, like Perfect Dark and State of Decay 3, seemed like a pointed message that Microsoft can be trusted to keep all these projects on track, despite its spotty record in studio management.
But Xbox hardware only got the briefest mention, in the form of three new console configurations and a promise that “we’re hard at work on the next generation.” The rumored handheld announcement did not materialize. And exclusivity remains a glaring open question.
Regarding Microsoft’s position in the broader game industry, it seems we have our answer: It’s now a publisher first, a subscription platform second, and a console hardware platform a distant third.
[ad_2]
Oli Welsh
Source link

[ad_1]
Measures in Springfield that would ban hemp-derived cannabis beverages in Illinois — a move that the state’s breweries say would have dealt a big blow to operations — did not go forward. That includes legislation that would have begun regulating delta-8 and other forms.
All parties involved, including Gov. J.B. Pritzker, say the issue will come up again during the next session — the growing industry needs rules, they argue. In the meantime, the summer should provide some data in terms of how popular THC-infused drinks can be in Illinois. Observers believe the state could generate larger sales — and tax dollars — compared to Minnesota. Minnesota, whose lawmakers have embraced the drinks, has become
THC drinks have been a lifeline for struggling breweries aiming to diversify revenue streams. Breweries say they were caught off guard by bills that were introduced to regulate the THC industry — actions they say they support — and then altered to crush their business. There’s the belief that no one wants the drinks truly banned, but larger players want to weed out smaller competitors that were first to market before introducing their own brands.
It’s been a year since news that some of Chicago’s major restaurant groups — Boka, Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, and One Off Hospitality Group — were organizing to deploy private security patrols in West Loop and Fulton Market. The owners of restaurants including the Publican, Aba, and Girl & the Goat, have gotten their wish. Block Club Chicago reports P4 Security Solutions is working with the groups and patrol SUVs have been spotted outside the restaurants in those neighborhoods.
The restaurants are part of the Fulton Market District Improvement Association, and the patrols are “entirely funded by contributions from businesses and organizations.” Security guards carry handcuffs and are armed. Their shifts extend to 3 a.m., according to Block Club. Chicago police have launched nightlife or “entertainment patrols” in areas like Wicker Park and the Near West Side. P4 is supposed to augment that and serves Bucktown and Lincoln Park. Greektown is another area that has its own patrols.
Observers who witnessed One Fair Wage’s efforts in Chicago to abolish the tipped minimum wage could see this building. Lawmakers in Springfield did not move forward with the measure to abolish the tipped minimum wage statewide, but the campaign is still going national. The National Restaurant Association, which earlier in May hosted its annual show in Chicago, is gearing up its opposition to the effort. After lawmakers finished their session in Springfield ended, the association sent a statement to Eater defending the tip credit (a government subsidiary fills in the gap, and allows restaurants to pay workers below the minimum wage) as a “win-win-win for tipped restaurant workers, restaurant operators, and customers.”
“This win for Illinois restaurants will help keep menu prices down and will protect the jobs and high-earning potential of tipped workers in vibrant Illinois restaurant communities,” a statement from NRA Executive Vice President for Public Affairs Sean Kennedy reads.
Irene’s Finer Diner in North Center is closed indefinitely after a fire on Thursday at 2012 W. Irving Park Road. The owners announced the news on Friday morning: “We’re deeply saddened to share that due to a recent fire, we are forced to close for further notice. We are very grateful that no one was harmed. We’ve put a lot of heart and sweat into this diner, and will keep you posted on when we can welcome you once again for breakfast.”
[ad_2]
Ashok Selvam
Source link

[ad_1]
We weren’t very kind to Amy Winehouse when she walked among us. She was a tremendous singer with a mesmerizing style, a strange case of a 21st-century pop star who was largely influenced by postwar jazz. She was also an alcoholic and, in her later years, a connoisseur of harder drugs, including heroin and crack cocaine. We know this much about Amy Winehouse because The Sun published photos of her at home in East London, smoking crack, sure enough, on a famous front page with the splashy headline “Amy on Crack.” The tabloids tracked her emaciation in real time, swarming her at every smoke break and liquor run, running a barefoot woman down as if they were chasing a wet rat all over London, New York City, and Miami. Ultimately, Amy Winehouse recorded only two albums, her striking debut, Frank, and her legendary breakout, Back to Black, the latter selling millions of copies, winning a ton of awards, and setting her up for still more massive success in the long run. But Winehouse died from alcohol poisoning, alone in her flat, at age 27, five years after Back to Black, and so she became the sort of icon who now arouses great defensiveness in all corners—only now it’s too late for anyone to protect her in any real way.
So now we have the obligatory biopic, Back to Black, directed by Sam Taylor-Johnson (Fifty Shades of Grey, A Million Little Pieces). Fans of Winehouse have been dreading this thing for months. The trailers seemed treacherous. Here you have the opportunity to produce a biopic about the edgiest pop singer of the century so far, and yet you’ve got Marisa Abela seeming so perfectly harmless, in the baddest of signs, in the lead role. What also doesn’t help is the very existence of Asif Kapadia’s excellent 2015 documentary, Amy, full of home video footage and passionate interviews with her family, friends, and peers. Back to Black, by comparison, seemed cartoonish. This, many feared, would be Disney’s Amy Winehouse: a pretty, sappy, plastic bit of hagiography turning her into one of those chibi caricatures of famous people that you see in children’s books. A disgrace, surely.
Really, though, Back to Black isn’t bad. We might’ve braced ourselves for something exceptionally awful, but no, Back to Black is perfectly mediocre and otherwise unremarkable, as far as these things go. It’s unsatisfying only so far as biopics, in general, are almost inherently irritating: It’s trite, it’s formulaic, and it’s conspicuously easy on key figures with keen interest in not coming off too poorly in the story of a woman who clearly wasn’t served very well by the company she kept. The two most controversial men in her life were her father, Mitch Winehouse, who notoriously discouraged her from entering rehab to address her alcoholism a couple of years after Frank; and her ex-husband, Blake Fielder-Civil, who introduced the singer to hard drugs circa Back to Black. Nearly a decade ago, Mitch trashed the Amy documentary and told those filmmakers to their faces, “You should be ashamed of yourselves,” presumably due to the film’s characterization of him as self-absorbed and negligent in the face of his daughter’s disorders.
Back to Black, as a biopic, was going to have be a more diplomatic project; Taylor-Johnson met Mitch and Janis Winehouse, and the director ultimately won the family’s approval. Back to Black isn’t entirely uncritical of Mitch but rather depicts him as a loving father who was understandably blinded by the limelight and too proud of his daughter to see the darker signs. Blake Fielder-Civil wasn’t involved in the making of Back to Black, but the biopic nonetheless spares him much blame for the hard drugs and physical violence in his relationship with Amy. What Back to Black says about Fielder-Civil is more or less what he’s said about himself in recent years: He was a bad influence, yes, but he tried to distance himself from Winehouse and ultimately divorced her in July 2009—nearly three years after the Back to Black album and two years before her death—hoping to “set her free.” With this biopic, Taylor-Johnson seems to have a similar agenda—to finally end the cycle of recriminations about the death of Amy Winehouse and instead treat the world to a more sentimental and straightforwardly enjoyable overview of her life and her music.
But who ever wanted to see that? Fans of Winehouse, if anything, might’ve found themselves wishing, perversely, to see something as startling and ugly as the contemporary tabloid coverage, something as irreverent as “Stronger Than Me,” something as righteous as “Rehab,” something as intense as “You Sent Me Flying” or, well, “Back to Black.” Amy is grainy and candid and argumentative, and that’s all about right, but of course that’s a documentary. As a biopic, Back to Black is somewhat hamstrung by the absence of the real Winehouse and its need to be significantly less demoralizing and infuriating than the real story, which culminated with one of the greatest singers of her generation dying alone, watching YouTube, on the losing end of alcohol addiction and also bulimia. The trailers, to the movie’s detriment, show a lot of scenes of the singer in her late teens, the years when she’s less recognizable as the tattooed, beehived icon she’d become, but really, this is who Winehouse was, too. Abela sells both the musical wonderment and jazz geekery of Winehouse in her formative years as well as the bruised and bleary disillusionment of her 20s, as she slathered herself in booze and tattoos, in the years after Frank and Blake. Together, Abela and Jack O’Connell, as Amy and Blake, do a decently captivating dance as two troubled lovers who clung to each other in all the wrong ways and for all the wrong reasons. It just isn’t enough for the audience. It was never going to be enough.
Ultimately, the pre- and post-release grumbling about Back to Black isn’t owing to any egregious failure of Taylor-Johnson or whether or not Abela physically resembles the character so much as it speaks to a mean grief, persisting to this day, for Winehouse. It’s a grief to be rehashed but never relieved by a biopic such as this. We miss plenty of troubled entertainers who died too young, of course, but Winehouse especially rubbed her fate in our faces. Her biggest song was “Rehab,” for chrissakes. She was a dead woman walking through volleys of camera flashes for five years. She made her pain so plain and so integral to her music, yet it was ultimately something to be mocked and gawked at. The tabloids made her out to be some goddamned alien. The late-night comedians reduced her to a punch line. No one’s ever going to feel good about any of this, biopic or not. Amy Winehouse deserved better than just pop sainthood. She deserved so much more than Back to Black, even if it didn’t really do anything wrong. One day, we—so far as the collective consumers of popular entertainment and celebrity metaculture can be addressed as such—will be at peace about Amy Winehouse. But no time soon. We’re still mad about the girl.
[ad_2]
Justin Charity
Source link

[ad_1]
Voice performance has become isolating work over the years — these days, for an actor like JP Karliak, a day “on set” is completed from a home studio, and notes come in over Zoom calls. But the goals are the same: find the perfect sound to match a character, and relentlessly chase the perfect take. Karliak has done voice work across the animation and video game spectrum, and is no stranger to IP demands. He’s been in everything from The Boss Baby: Back in Business to Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, where he played Batman’s nemesis, Joker. Taking over the role of Morph in Marvel Animation’s X-Men ’97, voiced in the original series by actor Ron Rubin, put him under high pressure from nostalgic fans. Still, alone in the room, he found it: his own pure voice.
“My natural speaking voice doesn’t sound all that different from Ron’s original portrayal,” Karliak tells Polygon, “[and Morph] has a new look, he’s changing. And all these characters are going through all of this plot. For me, it was just sort of like, Why don’t we just sit him in this grounded space, and not slap a character voice on top of it?”
Along with giving Morph a character redesign, the X-Men ’97 writers evolved them into the animated property’s first non-binary character. Karliak, who identifies as genderqueer, was pleased at the change. In the 1990s, using he/they pronouns was less commonplace, but having Rogue make a point of properly addressing Morph in 1997 fits right into the show’s approach to doing whatever feels emotionally right, continuity and era be damned.
“We didn’t fly around and shoot lightning out of our fingers [in 1997 either], so whatever!” Karliak says. “I think the representation is still incredible. And I don’t think it takes away anything from who Morph is. Morph is on a gender journey that will unfold as time passes and he goes through the eras of terminology that we’ve lived through already.”
Image: Marvel Animation
With such a stacked cast, the show doesn’t give Morph a ton of airtime, but their history in the series is deeply felt and considered in each line-reading. X-Men ’97 remains in continuity with X-Men: The Animated Series, which saw Sentinels kill Morph in the first episode, only to have Mister Sinister resurrect the shapeshifter as a brainwashed X-adversary. When his friends rescue him, he disappears from the show again to deal with that trauma.
Morph returns in X-Men ’97 as a goofy but troubled soul finding a place in the world. Karliak says that even if Morph has three lines in an episode, he found himself running through every variation — pure fury, wisecracking, bawling his eyes out, near-deadpan — with voice director Meredith Layne (Castlevania), to give the director and writers what they need to connect the past with present. “As the comic relief of the show, I think he’s burying a lot of things,” Karliak says. “Having him say less was actually the smarter way to go for somebody who’s internalizing a lot.”
Along with voiceover work, Karliak runs the LGBTQIA+ nonprofit Queer Vox, which strives to train aspiring queer VO artists and educate the industry about working with queer talent. He says one quirk of current Hollywood casting is that the group often encounters auditions asking for “non-binary voices,” which he finds funny, despite the attempt at allyship. “It’s like, What does that mean? There’s a lot of conflation of ‘non-binary means androgynous,’ which is not the case,” he says.
And what makes Morph enjoyable for Karliak to bring to life isn’t how the character fits a specific identity slot — it’s how his identity fits into the day-to-day drama at the X-mansion, and the greater global drama of X-Men ’97.
“He’s a superhero who’s got some trauma, he’s got friends, he’s showing up, he’s doing the thing,” Karliak says. “He probably would like to have a significant other at some point — you know, hint, hint, nudge, nudge — and there’s all of that stuff happening. But there’s never a very special Jesse Spano episode of, like, This is the non-binary episode. Because we don’t need it.”
Many fans have wondered whether Morph’s friendship with Wolverine could blossom into something more romantic in future seasons of X-Men ’97. But Karliak hopes it doesn’t, as much as he wants his character to find love.
“As somebody who’s consumed a ton of queer media over the years — what coded things we had in the ’90s — I think there have been so many stories told about the queer person that’s pining over the straight best friend. Meh!” he says. “It’s kind of meh to me! I think it’s so much more interesting that they love each other like they’re Frodo and Samwise, and that’s great. It doesn’t need to be more than that. And they can support each other. It makes Morph razzing Wolverine by turning into Jean Grey so much less about like, Oh, I’m jealous, so I’m gonna, like, razz you about your girlfriend who I hate, and more about, Hey, buddy, I think this is harmful for you, and I just want to point this out, that maybe you need to move on.”
Karliak lauds the X-Men ’97 writers room for breaking from obvious stereotypes and traditions to do its own thing. And the work is standing up to all kinds of scrutiny. When the news broke that Karliak would voice Morph as a non-binary character, the usual corners of the internet erupted with vitriol and found their way into his mentions. But now, with the season wrapped up, he’s hearing little pushback.
“There are properties, movies, IPs that have tried to do queer representation and done it more as checking a box, and it was received badly when it was announced, and continued to be received badly when the thing bombed,” he says. “And I think what’s great about this is that it’s done authentically, not only from the portrayal, but from the writing, like Beau [DeMayo], but also Charley [Feldman] and all of the other writers. There is a queer pedigree that’s going into this to make this right. So the people that shouted about it before it came out — once everybody saw it, and it’s just so universally lauded, it really silenced everything. You can’t argue with excellence.”
[ad_2]
Matt Patches
Source link

[ad_1]
These days, when Hollywood needs an A-lister to play a stuntman, it’s never a bad idea to follow a simple rule: Get the Gosling.
The trend began in 2011 with the neo-noir thriller Drive, in which Ryan Gosling played a man known simply as the Driver: a stuntman by day and getaway driver by night. Armed with a scorpion bomber jacket that is both impossibly cool and nigh impossible to pull off, a brooding Gosling followed the film’s lead by letting the action do most of the talking. Then, in 2013’s The Place Beyond the Pines, Gosling starred as Luke, a drifter who makes a living doing motorcycle stunts for a traveling carnival before learning he has a son with his former lover. Once again, Gosling inhabits a laconic loner who yearns for more in his life, even if he doesn’t always have the words to express it. (There’s also plenty of real-life significance tied to the movie: It’s where Gosling met his partner, Eva Mendes.)
While it’s been over a decade since Gosling last portrayed a stunt performer, he’s back in the saddle this weekend with The Fall Guy, the action comedy hailing from stuntman-turned-director David Leitch. With several large-scale action sequences anchored by practical effects, including one scene that broke a Guinness World Record for the most cannon rolls performed in a car, The Fall Guy is a love letter to one of Hollywood’s most underappreciated art forms. (Somehow, it’s still deprived of its own Oscars category.) As for Gosling, who plays aging stuntman Colt Seavers (side note: incredible name) as he chases down the missing star of a major studio movie, The Fall Guy is a noticeable departure from his previous roles within this niche profession. Colt is a charming daredevil, the kind of dude who flashes a smile and a thumbs-up before hurling himself in the direction of a helicopter. On the basis of one-liners alone, Colt has more to say than Drive’s Driver.
That these stuntmen fall on opposite ends of the spectrum is also reflective of Gosling’s journey as an actor. After a circuitous route to stardom, Gosling has blossomed into one of Hollywood’s most intriguing leading men—someone who’s just as comfortable playing the life of the party as he is inhabiting the quiet weirdo lurking in the corner. And much like his intrepid hero in The Fall Guy, all signs indicate that Gosling is taking his career to thrilling new heights.
For some viewers, their first exposure to Gosling was the ’90s revival of Disney’s Mickey Mouse Club, a variety series in which the young actor shared the stage with the likes of Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and Justin Timberlake. Gosling followed his stint with the Mouse House by landing the title role on the Fox Kids series Young Hercules, which was canceled after its lone, 50-episode (!) season. At this point, Gosling was ready to become a legitimate dramatic actor, but he didn’t find the transition easy. “It’s very hard coming from kids’ television to break the stigma,” Gosling told The New York Times in 2011, explaining how his agents dropped him for wanting to pursue more serious film roles. “All you have is a VHS tape of you humping stuff on The Mickey Mouse Club and wearing fake tanner and fighting imaginary sphinxes.”
Of course, Gosling’s big-screen breakout did arrive with 2004’s The Notebook, which supplanted Titanic as the movie that touched the hearts of hopeless romantics around the world. (Gosling and costar Rachel McAdams’s acceptance of the MTV Movie Award for Best Kiss, in which they re-created their characters’ magical smooch, was the best kind of pandering.) You can envision a scenario in which Gosling capitalized on his heartthrob status in the immediate aftermath—leaning into all those “Hey Girl” memes—but instead, the actor seemed to actively distance himself from it. How else can one explain Lars and the Real Girl, the quirky dramedy where Gosling plays a socially awkward dude who develops a romantic relationship with a sex doll? (It’s more heartwarming than it sounds, though it’s certainly not what you expect from the star of The Notebook.)
But the road that’s led Gosling to his current standing as an A-lister was first paved by two disparate roles in 2011: the aforementioned Drive and Crazy, Stupid, Love. Whereas Drive saw Gosling embody a taciturn antihero, Crazy, Stupid, Love required the actor to play a quick-witted womanizer falling in love for the first time. Setting aside the undeniably electric chemistry between Gosling and costar Emma Stone—something they would rekindle in Gangster Squad and, most famously, La La Land—it’s Gosling’s comedic chops that feel like the movie’s biggest revelation. The chaotic third-act reveal that brings the ensemble together is as hilarious as you remember.
Just as crucially, these movies were critical and commercial hits, proving that beyond The Notebook, Gosling could be a box office draw. And as a performer, Gosling showed he was capable of navigating two extremes: emotionally wounded lone wolves who use their words sparingly and protagonists in knockabout comedies who never take themselves too seriously. Gosling got plenty more reps with the former, though it wasn’t always smooth sailing: The actor reunited with Drive director Nicolas Winding Refn for 2013’s Only God Forgives, which is best remembered for being booed at Cannes. (Fellow Refn-heads, however, will agree that Only God Forgives kicks plenty of ass when appreciated on its own, self-indulgent terms.) But it’s also within this space that Gosling has delivered some of his most resonant work in big-budget cinema.
Playing the protagonist in the legacy sequel to a sci-fi classic would be a tall order for anyone, but Gosling was more than up to the task in Denis Villeneuve’s Blade Runner 2049. As the replicant known as K, who hunts down his own kind, Gosling infuses the character with a similar ambiguity to Harrison Ford’s protagonist in the original Blade Runner—only this time, it’s not a question of whether or not K is human, but how much he’ll divert from his programming. It’s a performance that fits right into Gosling’s wheelhouse—the glimpses of real emotion simmering underneath the surface carry so much weight—and makes him a worthy on-screen partner to Ford, who has long made a living out of inhabiting gruff heroes. (It was also apparent from the Blade Runner 2049 press tour that Gosling and Ford share the same dry sense of humor.)
Gosling’s greatest performance to date channeled the same frequency, with one crucial difference: It was in service of playing a historical figure. In Damien Chazelle’s First Man, we follow Neil Armstrong (Gosling) from his early days as a NASA test pilot to becoming the first person to step foot on the moon. The film’s depiction of the moon landing is a stunning achievement in its own right, but what makes First Man one of the best blockbusters of the past decade is how it digs into the psychology of someone willing to put their life on the line. For Armstrong, who lost his young daughter to a brain tumor, the risk of perishing in space is better than staying at home to talk about your feelings, making him the perfect (and somewhat literal) embodiment of the Silent Generation. Again, Gosling is at his best when those emotions slip through the cracks—most powerfully when Armstrong drops his daughter’s bracelet into the Little West crater after taking one giant leap for mankind. Even if Gosling’s work in First Man didn’t get the attention of Oscar voters, make no mistake: He’s got the right stuff.
But even as Gosling continues to excel at portraying emotionally inhibited men (or androids), audiences have enthusiastically responded to the actor’s embrace of his funnier side. Shane Black’s 2016 comedy The Nice Guys didn’t light up the box office, but it’s endured as the rare non-franchise film that has folks clamoring for a sequel. It’s easy to see why. Following dopey private investigator Holland March (Gosling) as he teams up with low-level enforcer Jackson Healy (Russell Crowe) to investigate a porn star’s disappearance in ’70s Los Angeles, The Nice Guys doesn’t just feel like a throwback to the buddy-cop movies of yesteryear: It can hold its own against any of them. A big part of that comes down to the dynamic between Gosling and Crowe, who make for entertaining foils, especially when Healy is tossing March around like a rag doll. (Sadly, Gosling has recently squashed hopes for a sequel.)
But while The Nice Guys has more than earned its reputation as a cult favorite, its cultural impact is a drop in the bucket compared to Barbie’s. Alongside Oppenheimer, Barbie was the moviegoing event of 2023: a delectable, witty, and occasionally profound dramedy that touched on everything from feminism to existentialism to the patriarchy. And yet, it’s hard to deny that the film’s MVP was the himbo living in Barbie’s shadow. As the Ken whose occupation is, simply, “beach,” Gosling is a scene-stealing delight, fawning over Stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie) before his unrequited love devolves into a ridiculous caricature of toxic masculinity. (Shout-out to the Mojo Dojo Casa House.) Gosling’s unbridled Kenergy was so infectious that he didn’t just earn an Oscar nomination: He blew the roof off the ceremony performing “I’m Just Ken.”
When an actor is having this much fun, who can blame audiences for wanting more of the same? Thankfully, The Fall Guy lets Gosling not only continue to flex his comedy chops amid explosive action sequences, but also play a genuinely charming romantic lead opposite Emily Blunt. (This is the Barbenheimer crossover nobody saw coming.) At this point in his career, it’s clear that Gosling has a lot of pitches in his acting repertoire, whether he’s pulling off slapstick comedy, brooding over inner turmoil, or ranting about the incomparable power of jazz. If moviegoers would rather see Gosling channel some of that Kenergy for the foreseeable future, so be it—just so long as we remember that he’s always been more than just Ken.
[ad_2]
Miles Surrey
Source link

[ad_1]
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Nora and Nathan are here to break down the third album from Maggie Rogers, Don’t Forget Me. They talk about how the fact that the album was written over the course of five days impacted its sound (1:00), how she’s moved away from the electronic sounds of Heard It in a Past Life and toward the sounds of Linda Rondstadt and Sheryl Crow (32:05), and how her friendships play a major role on this record (48:01).
Hosts: Nora Princiotti and Nathan Hubbard
Producer: Kaya McMullen
Subscribe: Spotify
[ad_2]
Nora Princiotti
Source link

[ad_1]
It’s become increasingly clear that the Halo TV show has a villain problem. This may seem impossible for a series that’s supposed to be about a hostile race of aliens led by liars who exploit religious fanaticism, but instead the show can’t stop focusing on human bickering, bizarrely relegating the galaxy-conquering aliens to an afterthought for both the characters in the show and the audience.
I could talk about how Halo’s centering of humans as the bad guys behind every plot cheapens one of the few fascinating moral complexities of the Halo games and books — that the Spartans were built for fundamentally inhumane treatment of rebel fighters and then accidentally found justification in a surprise alien invasion. But it’s more fair and even more damning to talk about all of this on the Halo TV show’s own terms. And on those terms, I simply have no fucking idea why there are even aliens in this show to begin with.
In an effort to underline the badness of humanity, Halo has completely sidelined the Covenant, throwing the entire show off course and spinning wildly into space. Even the Covenant’s grand invasion of Reach in the show is just another human plot, one of a thousand ways the TV show wants to prove that the human bureaucrats are evil, something we’ve known since the earliest moments of the show’s first season.
But all this emphasis on humanity’s sins begs a critical question: Almost two full seasons into Halo, what point is it trying to make, exactly? Season 2’s seventh episode, “Thermopylae,” seems to offer some attempt at answering that question, when Makee (Charlie Murphy) pleads with Chief to stop helping humanity so that the two of them can settle Halo on their own and make it a paradise, rather than letting either side use it as a civilization-destroying weapon. Setting aside the silliness that is this version of Halo being so constantly tempted to recast Master Chief (Pablo Schreiber) as the lead of a domestic drama, Makee’s statement still leaves a gap in our understanding of what this show is doing. If the point is “war makes monsters of us all,” then shouldn’t we see that equally in both the human and Covenant factions? And even more pressingly, why won’t anyone acknowledge that the Covenant are the ones who threatened extinction first and based their whole galactic conquest on the Prophets’ lie about a Great Journey that would take them from the galaxy?
Photo: Adrienn Szabo/Paramount Plus
We’re subjected to half a dozen scenes each episode of humanity’s reckless and evil leaders making civilization-shaping choices — particularly the ongoing machinations of Admiral Margaret Parangosky (Shabana Azmi), one of the worst and least compelling characters in recent TV memory, thanks to her consistently baffling decisions and seemingly lack of strategy and communication. (Put simply: She’s here to antagonize every other character, with no real character of her own.) Meanwhile we only get to see the Covenant’s side from the point of view of Makee and the criminally underdeveloped Arbiter. Sure, we hear them say that the Prophets might be full of shit and that the Great Journey might be a lie, but it remains a complete mystery why the alien’s genuinely compelling similarity to Earth’s own corrupt and lying authorities is drawn with such a faint line. Perhaps drawing those connections more clearly would help us make sense of why Master Chief has fought more humans in Halo season 2 than he has Covenant.
Despite the moment-to-moment conflict rarely making sense, or seeming to lead anywhere, it hasn’t stopped the show from introducing more plot threads or drip-feeding longtime series fans with new bits of recognizable lore. For instance, this latest episode gave us our most meaningful look yet at the Forerunners, though they haven’t been named quite yet. It also hinted at yet another alien faction that could soon arrive, but we’ll have to wait and see if that thread goes anywhere.
All these new introductions do little to lessen the feeling of narrative cheapness that surrounds Halo, however. As more ideas and plots get introduced, it only serves to underline how little sense any of this really makes. Sure, we know the Covenant are knocking on humanity’s front door, but the sudden diversion of every character in the show now converging on a need to capture “the Halo,” as they keep calling it, feels like it came out of nowhere. Which is a pretty astounding feat of messy storytelling considering it’s the object the entire franchise is named after.
Halo season 2 is now streaming on Paramount Plus. The season finale will be released on Thursday, March 21.
[ad_2]
Austen Goslin
Source link