Jeff Wells

USA Today: “Today Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee gave Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis until Feb. 2 to formally respond to explosive allegations that she has been in an improper romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, the private lawyer she hired as a special prosecutor overseeing the election fraud case against former President Donald Trump and 14 alleged co-conspirators.

“McAfee also scheduled a Feb. 15 hearing — likely to be televised — to hear arguments on the issue from Willis and a lawyer for Michael Roman, the Trump-co-defendant and 2020 campaign official who made the allegations last week.

“Willis has declined to specifically address the accusations that she was having an affair with Wade, and that she hired him for the job and paid him more than $650,000 even though he is unqualified to oversee the high-profile case.”

HE reaction #1: Willis and Wade possibly schtupping each other while working on the prosecution of Trump’s Georgia-election-interference case is technically no one’s business but their own. Intimate relationships between high-powered people who work together (whether attached or unattached to others) are fairly common. However…

HE reaction #2: If the rumors of an intimate relationship are true, it was astonishingly arrogant and stupid of Willis and Wade to have opened themselves up to potential ridicule and wagging tongues, and thereby compromise, at least in terms of public image, the integrity of the prosecution’s case against Trump.

What matters at the end of the day is whether or not Willis, Wade and their prosecutorial colleagues have the proof to convict Trump or not — that’s the bottom line. It shouldn’t matter what Willis and Wade were up to after-hours. But that aside, what mind-blowing carelessness on their part…God! This is out of a Harold Robbins novel.

Trump co-defendant Michael Roman, repped by Atlanta lawyer Ashleigh Merchant, is contending that the allegations are serious enough to have Willis, Wade and the entire Fulton County DA’s office disqualified and thrown off the case.

Read more

In a 1.4.24 N.Y. Times essay titled “The Case for Disqualifying Trump Is Strong,” columnist David French focused mainly on the legal argument for disqualifying Donald Trump from the presidency on the basis of the text and history of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

French: “I made the case that the plain language of the amendment should disqualify Trump regardless of the consequences, which many observers — including some strongly opposed to Trump — believe would be dire and violent.

Today (1.18.24), in a piece titled “What the Civil War and Reconstruction Teach Us About The Proper Use of the 14th Amendment“, French argues that “even the consequences argue for Trump’s disqualification. Or, put more directly, that the consequences of not disqualifying the former president are likely to be worse than those of disqualifying him.”

Every year there are negative reactions when this or that deceased Hollywood veteran has been omitted from the Oscar telecast’s “In Memoriam” segment.

Well, what if the Oscar producers were to notify the families of late Hollywood veterans in advance that their beloved and departed might not make the cut?

I’m asking because it was reported earlier today that BAFTA had recently sent a dispiriting email to Kate Beckinsale, stating that her recently deceased stepfather Roy Battersby, who died on 1.10.24, “will be considered for the [forthcoming] in memoriam segment for BAFTA TV awards ceremony, but it is not guaranteed.”

Beckinsale bitterly complained, prompting BAFTA to quickly issue a follow-up statement: “We confirm [that the late Roy Battersby] will be honoured in our forthcoming BAFTA television awards in May, and on the ‘in memoriam’ section on our website.”

Last year the Oscars’ “In Memoriam” segment omitted Paul Sorvino, Anne Heche, Leslie Jordan, Gilbert Gottfried, Tom Sizemore, Cindy Williams and Triangle of Sadness costar Charlbi Dean.

Imagine if AMPAS had decided a year ago to follow in BAFTA’s footsteps, and you were in charge of writing the necessary letters to the families of the deceased….in advance.

Example: “Dear family of Paul Sorvino — As much as the Academy has always admired the late Mr. Sorvino and deeply respected his unforgettable performances in Goodfellas, The Gambler, The Brink’s Job, Cruising, Reds, That Championship Season and Dick Tracy, we must inform you that the producers of the forthcoming Oscar telecast might not be able to fit him into the ‘In Memoriam’ segment.

“Please understand that while we may cut the late Mr. Sorvino from the segment, we also might not. It depends on the breaks. If we cut him we would do so with the utmost regret. We hope that you understand that this happens to deceased Hollywood professionals each and every year, and that no one takes these matters more seriously than ourselves.

“If we can somehow fit Paul in at the last minute, we will not hesitate to do so.”

I’m a serious fan of Takashi Yamazaki‘s Godzilla Minus One, but not enough to watch it a second time in black-and-white. Once was cool. All is well.

I’ve begun to watch Ava DuVernay‘s Origin. It’s all right so far (Trayvon Martin tapes, Nazis in Poland, assisted living, Finn Wittrock as August Landmesser, Blair Underwood) but I can feel what’s coming or have read warnings, I should say…135 minutes of forced-march instruction.

Scarier: “Origin is an historical journey into the caste system seen thru the eyes of a woman searching for herself and [social] truth. In that way it is more akin to Eat Pray Love than anything else. But with Ava, it is more to the spirit of Stanley Kramer.” — Journo friendo a few weeks ago.

The Reveal‘s Scott Tobias and Keith Phipps: “There isn’t a movie in Origin. Or, at least, there isn’t a movie that writer-director Ava DuVernay has the creative moxie to conjure from an unadaptable book.

“The source here is Isabel Wilkerson’s ‘Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents‘, a nonfiction bestseller that pieces together a grand unifying theory of societal oppression. That’s an argument built around a thesis, not unlike DuVernay’s persuasive documentary The 13th, which draws on powerful archival footage to make the connection between slavery and a prison-industrial complex that punishes Black people disproportionately. Yet fiction features don’t accommodate that sort of didacticism. They have to persuade through drama, or a little cinematic brio.”

“Why Origin Has Fizzled on The Oscar Trail,” posted on 12.15.23.

Under a brand-new “Milestone Movies: The Anniversary Collection” banner, Netflix began streaming 14 top films from 1974, 9 of which are definitely worth your time.

The five no-gos are Jack Clayton‘s The Great Gatsby (a totally misconceived washout), Martin Davidson‘s The Lords of Flatbush, Stanley Donen‘s The Little Prince (no one ever gave a damn about this musical back in the day), Robert Clouse‘s Black Belt Jones (blaxploitation bullshit) and Shigehiro Ozawa and Sonny Chiba‘s The Street Fighter (aka Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken), a total waste-of-time, bowl of steam-fried bullshit unless you’re Quentin Tarantino, in which case it’s great.

The nine keepers are Martin Scorsese‘s Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, Mel Brooks‘ Blazing Saddles, Robert Altman‘s California Split, Roman Polanski‘s Chinatown, Francis Coppola‘s The Conversation, Michael Winner‘s Death Wish, Karel Reisz‘s The Gambler, Larry Cohen‘s It’s Alive, and Alan Pakula‘s The Parallax View.

If locked-in licensing agreements weren’t an issue, the five that would replace the no-gos would be Coppola’s The Godather, Part II, Brooks‘ Young Frankenstein, Richard Lester‘s Juggernaut and The Three Musketeers, and Joseph Sargent‘s The Taking of Pelham One Two Three.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Cristofer•_•83pk (@cristofergeilin)

This morning I was sharing a view that Apple’s Lily Gladstone team made a tactical mistake by not running her in supporting, and the person I was text-chatting with said the following:

“You’re assuming that Gladstone’s primary objective is to win. It’s possible, on the other hand, that she wants to be regarded as a leading lady moving forward, and that [her Best Actress campaign] better positions her for that.”

If so, I replied, that’s an understandable strategy.

In other words, perhaps Gladstone is gaming the Oscar system in the same way that The Favorite‘s Olivia Colman gamed the system when she ran for Best Actress despite having obviously played a supporting role (i.e., Queen Anne).

Posted on 10.11.18:

Two-thirds of the Iowa Republicans who caucused last night seriously believe that Joe Biden was not legitimately elected and that Donald Trump was rooked out of being re-elected.

In other words, two thirds of Iowa Republicans are in denial so deep that’ll probably never climb out of it. Total rabbit-hole wackazoid.

The flip side is that one-third of Iowa Republicans believe that Trump would not be fit to be President if convicted of the Jan. 6th charge (or the Georgia case or the documents case). Which translates into national vote and electoral college tallies that would fall short in the national election next November.

Read more

Received this morning from a friend: “How long since you’ve seen Howard Hawks’ The Thing? (And yeah, he directed it. Of COURSE he did). But here’s the thing: The streaming versions available through Apple and Amazon are fucking CROPPED from their original aspect ratio of 1:37:1 to, I think, 1:78:1. Delightful!”

Screen captures of Apple streaming version:

Screen captures of The Thing Bluray images, taken from the Sony 4K 65-incher:

Posted early this morning: “And your advice is that I should now trim my rhetorical sails lest I cast a certain kind of shade upon the Stone campaign? Because I’m some sort of Darth Vader figure or something?

“Well, I yam what I yam — a straight shooter, a dealer of straight cards, no two-faced political games. Come what may, but at this stage of the game I’m certainly not going to shift gears and do some kind of Phase Two two-step.”

via GIPHY

via GIPHY

via GIPHY

Posted today (1.15.24) by Awards Daily‘s Sasha Stone:

“It is worth noting that since 2018, only one Critics Choice winner has gone on to win the Oscar, and that’s Jessica Chastain for The Eyes of Tammy Faye, who won the SAG in what was an unpredictable, topsy-turvy year. That puts all eyes on the SAG Awards to decide the winner.

“Then again, Glenn Close also won the SAG before losing to Olivia Colman.

“Ultimately, this race will be decided, I think, by how strongly voters feel about two things. Making history with Lily Gladstone, getting that standing ovation and that wave of love and support from the Osage community, or their passion for Emma Stone’s performance. And that will come down to how much they like these movies. Vibrant, weird and funny vs. deep, reflective, a somber reckoning of our past.

“What might also come into play is that Emma Stone has already won an Oscar, whereas Lily Gladstone has yet to be nominated.”