In the matter of the besieged Jonathan Majors, I decided between late March and late April that the actor was in serious career trouble and probably toast. On 3.25 Majors was arrested in Manhattan on charges of strangulation, assault and harassment of longtime girlfriend Grace Jabbari.

I noted that two statements seemed to mitigate — one by Majors’ attorney Priya Chaudhry that claimed Majors is “innocent and has not abused anyone,” and that “irrefutable evidence [shows] that the charges are false”, and another by the 30-year-old Jabbari that the incident had been overblown and that she didn’t mean to create all this trouble.

But then Majors was dropped as a client by both his management company, Entertainment 360, and the public relations firm, the Lede Company. And then on 4.19 Variety‘s Tatiana Siegel reported that “sources” are saying Majors “is now a suspect in multiple cases of assault and abuse” and that “several alleged victims have reportedly come forward and are cooperating with the D.A.’s office.”

Figuring he was probably done for, I didn’t even pay attention to a 6.29 N.Y. Times story, reported by Jonah E. Bromwich and Chelsia Rose Marcius, stating that the N.Y.P.D. has evidence to arrest Jabbari.

Chaudhry is saying that the charges are “a complete lie“, and that in fact “it was Ms. Jabbari who assaulted her client.” [Chaudhry] has also said that Ms. Jabbari, a dancer who had worked as a movement coach on one of Mr. Majors’s movies, stole personal belongings from his home. Chaudhry is stating that Jabbari “physically confronted Majors, hitting and scratching him, and that she went out clubbing and later passed out in a closet at his home, waking up with injuries to her finger and ear.”

Excerpt: “Late last week, the police issued what is known as an I-card for Ms. Jabbari. The I-card, which appears in a department database, is different from an arrest warrant, which is typically signed by a judge, but alerts officers that there is probable cause to arrest Ms. Jabbari.”

World of Reel‘s Jordan Ruimy brought the 6.29 Times story to my attention. I apologize for having blown it off.

The French-speaking Jordan Ruimy has reminded everyone that Chris Nolan‘s Oppenheimer (Universal, 7.21) will screen for Paris journos tomorrow morning (Tuesday, 7.11) at two locations — Le Grand Rex (1 Blvd. Poissonnière, 75002 Paris) and Le Cinematheque francaise (51 Rue de Bercy, 75012 Paris).

The review embargo will lift at 11:30 pm Paris time, or 5:30 pm in New York City.

Read more

Jeff and Sasha barely touched upon the wonderful world of cinema, save for reminding each other that Mission Impossible 7 opens on Tuesday, and that a full-blast trailer for Ridley Scott’s Napoleon will be attached to the feature. Topics were mostly of social-cultural nature, and that’s fine. The Jonah Hill texting drama, the continuing box-office collapse of Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, the N.Y. Times addresses the French Connection censorship saga, the failure of Joy Ride to connect with a decent-sized audience. Again, the link.

…at a commercial plex. This has never happened before.

Five weeks after the Great French Connection Censorship Intrigue was first reported by yours truly (and which resulted in many articles worldwide along with no fewer than six HE articles between 6.3 and 6.20), The New York Times Magazine has boldly jumped into the fray with an article titled “What’s Lost When Censors Tamper With Classic Films.”

Three aspects are worth noting.

(a) The Times almost certainly dodged this story for several weeks out of squeamishness over the use of the N-word, which is what the censoring of a certain Act One scene in William Friedkin‘s 1971 Oscar-winner (i.e., Gene Hackman‘s Popeye Doyle using the epithet in a discussion with Roy Scheider‘s Cloudy in a police station foyer) was all about.

So when they finally posted a story about it, they had story editor Niela Orr, a youngish woman of color, write it. That gives them a certain political protection.

(b) In describing the scene, Orr uses the actual six-letter N-word — something that no one else writing about this story would ever do. Because she can.

(c) The one mystifying and unfulfilled element in this story is the absence of statements from either director William Friedkin or copyright owner Disney about who ordered the cut.

Was the scene edited at Friedkin’s request, as all available evidence clearly indicates? Orr shrugs her shoulders and wonders like the rest of us. If she reached out to Friedkin and Disney, she isn’t saying.

“We can only guess at the precise reasoning behind this particular change to The French Connection,” Orr writes. “Is it Disney, treating adult audiences like the children it’s used to serving? Or did Friedkin, who once modified the color of the film, approve the change?”

For whatever reason Orr doesn’t mention a couple of pertinent facts. A visually confirmed, easily verifiable report that “in Disney’s DCP asset list it says that the currently-streaming version of The French Connection is identified as ‘2021 William Friedkin v2.’” Plus a statement from The Criterion Channel, passed along in “a 6.9.23 HE story,” that “according to our licensor [Disney], this is a ‘Director’s Edit‘ of the film.”

I’ve been told by various girlfriends over the decades that certain boundaries are not cool to cross, and that if I cross them there will be hell to pay. We all understand that women want these boundaries to be respected and observed, and that men who ignore said boundaries will almost certainly be on their own before long.

I’ve understood these boundaries all my life. I know how committed relationships are played and maintained so don’t tell me.

Some of the boundaries that I’ve been warned about over the years are (a) no romping around with groups of women or flirting with various women by way of athletic group activities (hiking, jogging, volleyball on the beach, swimming and boogie-boarding), (b) no posing for photos with various women in my Speedo (this was when I was younger and slimmer) and posting them on social media, and (c) no drinking friendships with guys who are in unstable or neurotic places (loutish party boys, anti-social types, cads).

My ex-girlfriends, in short, have always wanted me to behave in a generally loyal and prudent fashion — like a calm, centered adult and not like some 16-year-old spray shorts. Any guy who says serious girlfriends don’t lay down the law along these lines is a fucking liar.

In late 2021 Jonah Hill laid down the same general boundaries with his longtime surfer girlfriend Sarah Brady, and over the last couple of days she’s gone public with their private texts. She’s called Hill’s general manner with her emotionally abusive and repressive.

They’ve since broken up but What Sarah meant is that she wanted to be free to do whatever and whenever, including socializing and flirting with male surfers and behaving like an attractive and dynamic social-media presence. As the girlfriend of a famous movie guy she wanted her social due — she wanted to be Kim Kardashian on a surfboard or something in that realm. Famous, flashy, livin’ the life.

She now says she felt that Jonah was being a controlling wet blanket and cramping her style and that his attitude wasn’t feminist enough. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe he is too controlling, and maybe he was just insisting that Sarah follow the same rules that 98% of women insist upon.

But Brady posting private texts definitely isn’t cool. It’s gauche, in fact.

Friendo: I don’t like Tiktok. I don’t know this guy or why I should care. Even assuming he’s right. He seems potentially dangerous
HE: Of course he’s right! Are you kidding me?
Friendo: People are too angry.
HE: It depends what you’re angry about.

@jotojavin Wrong on So many levels. In the words of Pink Floyd “leave them kids alone” #doctor #sons #boys #physical #girls ♬ original sound – JoToJaVin

HE sez: This guy was justifiably enraged that the doctor in question, a follower of radical wokester protocol, was, by asking his nine-year-old son about gender identity, encouraging the kid to begin an inner dialogue about who or what he might actually be deep down.

By asking for an answer to this question, he felt that they were “planting a seed” in the poor kid’s head by way of psychological subterfuge. Kids are very malleable and influencable, of course, and he strongly objects to this nine-year-old being dropped into “this shit,” as he puts it.

Look at Zoomers — 15% or 20% identify as trans or gender fluid or gender ambiguous on some level. They’re saying this, of course, because they want to be cool (or certainly not UNcool) and they want to merge with the social flow of their peers for safety’s sake.

The guy, in short, is an Average Joe traditionalist, and if you ask me Average Joe traditionalism is an okay thing. It’s not the only mindset by which to process and respond to the sometimes bizarre nature of social standards in 2023, but it’s certainly a legitimate one.

Especially when you consider that doctors only began to ask average nine-year-old boys about their gender preference…what, a couple of years ago or three? And that nine year old boys were NEVER asked about their gender preference before ‘20 or ‘21, and in fact weren’t asked the same by family doctors and physicians during the entire immigrant history of this country (and were almost certainly never asked this by caregivers in Native American communities prior to the mid 1600s) and were never asked this by caregivers and physicians for HUNDREDS and in fact THOUSANDS of years in various European, Middle-Eastern, African, Aboriginal and Asian cultures around the globe.

Okay, this Average Joe dad is angry and alarmed, and there are some of us who don’t relate to his manner of speaking & would prefer that he state his objections to gender questioning in a more measured and thoughtful and college-campus-y way, but this rattled fellow DOES have many THOUSANDS of years of tradition in his side of the ledger. You have to give him that.

To put it bluntly, kids have been taught and guided and disciplined in a certain general way through the millennia, and then along came trans theology and activism TWO or THREE YEARS AGO. And this guy is saying, quite reasonably, “what’s up with this?” and more precisely “WHAT THE LIVING FUCK IS GOING ON HERE, MAN?”

Read more

Is there a single die-hard Star Wars fanboy who doesn’t want Kathleen “diversity is really important to us” Kennedy fired and banished to the ice planet of Hoth for the rest of her natural days? Right now the pile-on fervor has never been stronger, particularly in the wake of the box-office disappointment of Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.

Posted on 5.2.21: I almost always get up early (between 6 and 7 am), and that’s usually after having gotten five or six hours of sleep. Even though it’s better for people (especially those with demanding, stressful jobs) to get 7 or 8 hours my eyes are almost always open in the quiet morning hours, when things outside are mostly still and just starting to be defined by the faint, grayish, pre-dawn light.

Sometimes I’ll even awaken at 4 or 5 am. There’s no point in trying to go back to sleep so I just turn the phone on and start the usual chores — editing and refining the material I wrote the day before, responding to commenters, figuring what to write about next.

But after doing this for two or three hours, or around 8 am, that sleepy John Lennon feeling returns and I’ll go under again for an hour or so. My body tells me this without fail — “You need this…do it until 8:45 or 9 am.”

The homework period is always blissful, and I’m so grateful that I get to settle in and experience this portion of peace and security every morning.

Six days ago (7.2) Variety’s Owen Gleiberman posted his favorable review of Sound of Freedom.

In paragraph #2 Gleiberman wrote that the film “could be seen as adjacent to the alt-right paranoia [over the imagined perversity of liberal pedophiles] that was originally stoked by 4chan and QAnon.”

Here’s the actual excerpt:

Two days ago (7.6) Charles Bramesco posted his grumpy, mostly negative review in the Guardian.

The Bramesco piece didn’t use the term “QAnon adjacent,” but the headline did. Not a felony but deserving of mention.