After debuting at SXSW last March, Ethan Hawke‘s The Last Movie Stars, a six-part doc about the lives and careers of Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward, will begin streaming on HBO Max on 7.21.

I watched the first episode last March, and it’s clear that the focus is on what a wonderful, cooler-than-cool, super-glorious relationship Paul and Joanne had. They first met in ’53 or thereabouts, got married in 1958 and stayed together for 50 years. Paul died on 9.26.08.

To me the relentlessly celebrated mythology of Paul and Joanne’s marriage has always felt a tiny bit bothersome. As in less than trustworthy.

No marriage is easy or perfect or without issues. A workable, tolerable marriage is almost always the result of very hard work — all kinds of soul-barings, renegotiations and reappraisals at the kitchen table. Which is why portrayals of the Newman-Woodward marriage never seemed quite real to me.

Did they in fact have a strong and healthy marriage? All the accounts say yes, but to me the only thing that makes their history recognizably human (which is to say flawed) is the affair that Paul had with journalist Nancy Bacon in ’68 and ’69. An account of the affair was included in Shawn Levy‘s “Paul Newman: A Life” (2009).

If Ethan’s miniseries goes there, fine. But if he avoids it, he’s a sidestepper.

Friendo who knows the Newman-Woodward story and has dealt with the Newman family: “I haven’t watched the doc, but I’m sure it’s authorized, and as the surviving Newmans don’t care for anything remotely negative being said about their patriarch, I’m confident that it will avoid all unpleasant or even circumspect episodes/behaviors.

“[That said], I do believe that it was a truly golden relationship, built on mutual respect, amusement, tolerance, even passion. So, yeah, too good to be true, but also — for the most part — true.”

And you know what? For the sin of mentioning the 18-month Bacon episode I’m going to be attacked. Because people want to believe what they want to believe.

I disengaged from the Ghost Protocol Burj Khalifa scene almost immediately.

Tom Cruise‘s right-hand grip glove stopped working after 90 seconds of use, he fell 15 or 20 feet but stopped the fall with one grip-glove (the left one), used a firehouse to run down the outside of the bulding and then, toward the end, rappelled along the outside of the building and then leapt toward the open, glass-free window panel. Bullshit. I was so overwhelmed by skepticism that I couldn’t enjoy it.

But Matt Damon’s telling of the “safety guy” story to Conan O’Brien, which I only just listened to this morning…this is entertaining. Why? Because it reveals a certain kind of character trait — hardcore and perfectionist and focused only on the prize — in a funny way.

I love it when sea lions show trashy, texting humans who’s boss and make them run for cover. This La Jolla territorial rampage was probably about protecting pups. “Danyourd” tweeted yesterday that the small cove in question is “was built as a safe area for kids to swim. Seals showed up in the 1980s and have overrun and polluted it.”

A group of people were chased by two Sea Lions at a beach in the La Jolla area of San Diego. Lifeguards were on standby in the water ensuring no one was hurt and the sea lions could easily make their way. It's recommended people stay at least 50 ft away from sea lions. 📹: Charli pic.twitter.com/KUhLVns8H7

— Malik Earnest (@MalikEarnest) July 10, 2022

In his Variety review of Alex Holder’s allegedly underwhelming Unprecedented, Owen Gleiberman puts on his political hat and issues a warning:

I’m halfway through Tomasz Winski‘s Borders of Love, which recently debuted at the Karlovy Vary Film Festival. We all understand how things eventually go when a couple tries an open relationship. Somebody abuses the rules in some way, shape or form and trust goes out the window. I’ve seen Ingmar Bergman‘s Scenes From A Marriage (’73), of course — similar territory. At the very least the newbie is moderately interesting.

Friendo: How has our world been made better by the erasure of Charlie Rose?

HE: Rose, as you well know, is serving a term of indefinite banishment for having been a creepy lech with women who worked for him. He’s been #MeToo’ed and guillotined and is for all practical purposes a dead man, and that’s that.

Friendo: I know but my question is ‘how has our world been made better without him’?

HE: It’s not better. Not by my sights. I loved his show for years. But anyone who says that openly will have the woke Stasi on their ass.

Friendo: We have these gaping holes in our culture now. It’s grotesque that we are living this way. Rose’s show was so soothing and elevating and necessary and seemingly irreplaceable, and it’s not like he died.

HE: We’re living in a totalitarian system of sorts — a tyranny of sensitive Millennial Stalinists determined to make things safer by way of terror. Rose didn’t die, of course, but he’s “dead” all the same. I loved his interviews with smart filmmakers. He could be a bit of a dick in person — a curt, dismissive type if you weren’t famous enough for his tastes.

Friendo: I guess but I feel like with all of this nonsense I’m being punished. I have to live in a world without Charlie Rose. I have to live in a world without movies produced by Scott Rudin. I have to live in a world without great comedy all because of little cry babies who throw a fit and everybody responds like indulgent parents.

HE: Cry babies by way of the East German secret police.