Latest news with #TheOne
Atlantic
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Atlantic
A Love Story That's Afraid of Romance
Modern dating, experts have lamented, has become a numbers game; the more matches you make, the more likely you are to land a mate. But in the new film Materialists, the only number that really matters is a suitor's net worth. Take Harry (played by Pedro Pascal), for example: He's a partner in a private-equity firm and the owner of a $12 million penthouse apartment in Manhattan. John (Chris Evans), meanwhile, lives paycheck to paycheck as an aspiring actor and part-time cater waiter who splits his rent with roommates. Between the two of them, Harry's the obvious 'unicorn'—the most desirable kind of bachelor, according to Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a professional matchmaker and the film's protagonist. Lucy sees dating as a marketplace of potential spouses whose worth is determined by their income as much as their looks. Never mind their interests or how they'd treat a partner; a guy like Harry is inherently more valuable than someone like John. Lucy isn't heartless. Rather, she sees herself as pragmatic about modern romance. Materialists, the writer-director Celine Song's follow-up to her sensitive Oscar-nominated feature, Past Lives, tracks Lucy as she finds matches for her clients, many of whom also think about future partners as commodities. The men tell her that they want women under a certain BMI and age; the women want men above a certain height and tax bracket. As amused as she might sometimes be by their demands, Lucy promises to introduce them to their 'grave buddy.' To her, finding love should be easy—it's just math, she likes to say—yet Lucy's own love life has remained stagnant. She asserts to anyone who asks that she'll either marry rich or die alone. This being a romantic dramedy, Lucy ends up in something of a love triangle anyway: She falls for Harry while harboring a lingering affection for John, who happens to be her ex. But her predicament isn't really about which suitor she'll choose; instead, she's caught between two versions of herself—the cash-strapped idealist who once pursued acting alongside John, and the polished working girl she's become. The core conflict of Materialists is similar to that of Past Lives, yet Song renders it less successfully here. Lucy's journey takes too many cynical turns to be satisfying, and the film's ideas are too scattershot to be convincing. Materialists falters most when it tries to mesh its competing aims: to deliver a throwback love story while also deconstructing the reality of modern dating. Instead, in the end, the film resembles the very world it tries to critique, offering a litany of observations about finding The One without ever substantially arguing for any of them. The film's glossy veneer of confidence, much like that of its lead, belies an uncertainty. Apart from some punchy dialogue probing the economy of marriage, its tale is shallow, with almost nonexistent stakes. John and Harry pose little challenge to Lucy's notions about partners needing to check each other's superficial boxes; both are handsome and smitten with her, and the disparity in their wealth never presents much of an obstacle for Lucy either. She had taken issue with John's poverty when they were together, as shown in a clunkily inserted flashback, but his finances are a mere asterisk to their present-day dynamic. Lucy is as thinly written as her suitors—a nod, maybe, to the threadbare profiles of app-fueled dating, but one that makes her a frustratingly inscrutable romantic lead. It doesn't help that Johnson, whose flat affect can be an asset in enigmatic dramas such as The Lost Daughter, isn't particularly believable as a woman with hang-ups about money. (If she's the provenance behind ' iPhone face ' in the misguided Netflix adaptation of Jane Austen's Persuasion, here she has what I call 'property-portfolio face.') The bigger problem, however, lies in Lucy's inelegant transformation from a skeptic about love to a wholehearted believer in it. When her most persistent client, Sophie (Zoë Winters), is sexually assaulted on a date, Sophie alternates between being furious at and grateful for Lucy, leaving the third act a confused mess. Although Winters captures Sophie's despair, her character gets compressed into a plot point and her arc produces a jarring shift in mood. Lucy's realization that she should, as Sophie advises her, treat her clients as more than 'merchandise' rings hollow as a result. Not to sound like someone still pining for an ex, but Materialists made me miss the work Song did in Past Lives. In that film, which followed a married woman yearning for the person she used to be after reconnecting with her childhood crush, Song used intimate specificity to unearth reflections about love—romantic, platonic, and otherwise. In Materialists, the director has essentially done the opposite: Her characters are mouthpieces for broad philosophies about connection, while their stories end up getting buried. The effect is a work that's tonally at odds with itself. Though Materialists is similarly packed with insightful monologues, it's heavy-handed in a way that Past Lives never was. Song bookends her latest with sappy scenes of prehistoric humans falling in love, and she injects flippancy into moments that call for sentimentality: When Lucy and Harry finally have a much-needed conversation, the script incorporates an absurd bit of physical comedy that undermines the poignancy of their heart-to-heart. There's much about Song's movie that I enjoyed. The fizzy sequences of Lucy meeting one client after the next, inspired by the director's own experience as a matchmaker, remind me of classics such as Broadcast News; they offer a glimpse into a gig that consumes a person whole. Besides, there's a real pleasure in seeing Hollywood stars fall for each other. But in trying to both critique and poke fun at the costs of modern love, Materialists never coheres into an emotionally potent tale. To put it in Lucy's terms: The film is beautiful and smart, and it clearly contains enough appeal to make it stand out in the marketplace. It's just no unicorn.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
2 days ago
- Politics
- First Post
Modi's plain-speak to Trump signals a doctrinal shift in India's diplomacy
If Operation Sindoor heralded a doctrinal shift in India's counter-terrorism policy, what happened late Tuesday points at a doctrinal shift in diplomacy. India seems to have finally run out of patience with Donald Trump and is irritated enough to make its displeasure explicit. In a remarkable phone call that lasted 35 minutes, initiated by the American side late Tuesday (American time), Prime Minister Narendra Modi indulged in some plain-speaking with the US president, and a day later the Indian foreign secretary made public details of the telephonic conversation. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The tone and tenor of the briefing was stern, acerbic and dry. Given the habitual reticence of India's diplomatic corps, the way Vikram Misri, India's top diplomat, shunned ambiguity in favour of perspicuity on a sensitive topic indicated that New Delhi is furious with Washington. It was a long time coming. India had given Trump a very long rope. By some accounts, the loudmouth US president has publicly boasted about 'stopping' a 'nuclear war' between India and Pakistan no less than 14 times, complaining to the media that he 'never gets credit' for 'defusing a dangerous situation'. Trump's fake bombast has a compelling reason. The US president had claimed he would stop the Russia-Ukraine war 'in a day' when he comes to power. That didn't quite turn out the way he had thought. Instead, Trump is presiding over two active combats including a messy one in Middle East that has split the MAGA world into two, as well as a short-lived India-Pakistan conflict. The self-claimed 'peacemaking' genius who loves to boast that he can 'solve anything', Trump has since been trying very hard to steal the credit for what he perceives as 'solving' the 'centuries old' India-Pakistan rivalry to demonstrate before his MAGA base that he is indeed 'Neo', The One in The Matrix, and pick up a Nobel peace prize along the way. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India has been watching this tamasha with what I assume would be a mixture of alarm and quiet outrage. New Delhi hasn't exactly been silent, however. Though the prime minister preferred not to publicly contradict the US president till June 17, the Indian armed forces, the foreign minister and the ministry of external affairs have on multiple occasions given a clear timeline of events, clarifying that it was Pakistan that had reached out for a ceasefire and that its appeal was entertained only after it came through proper military channels. India also made it clear, more than once, that the US had no role to play in the ceasefire and at no stage did Washington and New Delhi discuss trade in lieu of the conflict. During his recent tour of Europe, external affairs minister S Jaishankar was unusually candid while speaking to a Netherlands-based broadcaster. 'We made one thing very clear to everybody who spoke to us, not just the United States but to everyone, saying if the Pakistanis want to stop fighting, they need to tell us. We need to hear it from them. Their general has to call up our general and say this. And that is what happened.' Asked about US role in the truce, Jaishankar quipped, 'the US was in the United States'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD That should have been that. Sadly, it wasn't. There's a case to be made that India could have pushed back much sooner against Trump's relentless fabrication and lies. The post of American president assumes a certain gravitas and weight that cannot be summarily dismissed. It set the template for a narrative that Pakistan gleefully exploited and those sceptical of India's prowess during Operation Sindoor, both at home and abroad, latched onto. Trump's duplicity was flagrant, but India hoped that it won't require a direct rebuttal by the prime minister lest a partnership on which India places a lot of score is damaged. India's strategic culture values restraint, pragmatism and ambiguity over directness or confrontation. Differences are conveyed delicately in public, without causing offence or escalating tensions. These structures have been put in place to navigate and achieve objectives in a complex world that deals in shades of grey. The Indian way is to deal in strategic ambiguity, along with careful choice of words, reticence and subtlety in public. Indian diplomacy trusts process over instinct, and it is handled by professionals who closely hew to our strategic culture. An understanding of this fundamental trait of diplomacy in general and Indian diplomacy in particular may tell us the consequential shift that was witnessed on June 17 when Modi answered Trump's call. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What broke the proverbial camel's back was Trump's sneaky attempt at ambushing Modi into meeting the visiting Pakistan army chief Asim Munir at the White House. Trump doesn't know, neither does he care for the core tenets of India's national security, foreign policy or the redlines over Kashmir. After trying to steal credit for India-Pakistan ceasefire, Trump wanted to bring Munir and Modi – one army chief and another a thrice-elected leader of world's largest democracy – over the table at the White House to 'score' a victory. Trump's MAGA base couldn't care less about India or Pakistan, but they do care about a nuclear war and Trump wanted to flex a little by arranging for his private little circus where two sworn enemies, both heading nuclear-armed states, sit in the same room because the world's most powerful man had commanded them to do so. The cluelessness, callousness and arrogance is breathtaking! When Trump casually requested Modi to drop by in Washington, he was attempting a coup, trying to make the democratically elected leader of India sit in the same room with an army chief, a tinpot tyrant of an adversarial nation that depends on IMF doles for survival, and one which recently orchestrated one of the most gruesome terror attacks on Indian soil. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Evidently, New Delhi had enough. One can almost visualize the cold fury that accompanied foreign secretary Misri's words when he said, 'Prime Minister Modi clearly conveyed to President Trump that at no point during this entire sequence of events was there any discussion, at any level, on an India-US Trade Deal, or any proposal for a mediation by the U.S. between India and Pakistan. 'The discussion to cease military action took place directly between India and Pakistan through the existing channels of communication between the two armed forces, and it was initiated at Pakistan's request. Prime Minister Modi firmly stated that India does not and will never accept mediation. There is complete political consensus in India on this matter.' The official translation of Misri's words, that I quoted above, curtails the emphasis of these lines ever so slightly that were delivered with biting clarity: 'Prime Minister Modi stressed that India has never accepted mediation, does not accept it, and will never accept it.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD These words should be read in conjunction with Modi's speech at the G7 summit Tuesday where he reached shortly after Trump had left the venue. Without taking any names, the prime minister said, 'On the one hand, we are quick to impose various sanctions based on our own preferences and interests… On the other hand, nations that openly support terrorism continue to be rewarded. I have some serious questions for those present in this room.' The implication for the US president, who was scheduled to host the Pakistan army chief at the White House, was clear. It is tempting to imagine that Trump made a calculation error. Trade cannot remotely be the leverage that will force India to give up on Kashmir – which is of core interest to India, a red line that cannot be crossed. Modi is on the mark when he talks about 'complete political consensus' on this issue. Sadly, the reason behind Trump's silly attempt is possibly more banal. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump was looking for a PR boost where he would be centrestage at the White House, making two nuclear-armed nations play peace through his sheer charisma, in complete disregard for the complexity, context and history of Kashmir and its role in India-Pakistan rivalry. It never occurred to Trump that an India which had a long-standing position of no third-party intervention or mediation on Kashmir and has never accepted such a proposal even when it was weak, won't give in at a time when it is strong, and enjoys an ever-widening gap with Pakistan in economy and national composite power. In Misri's detailed statement it was evident that India has learnt its lessons. Instead of waiting for Trump to put forward his version of events, India deployed its topmost diplomat to clear the air, prevent mischaracterization and confusion. It points to a significant trust deficit. India would also be aware that the repercussion for declining Trump's offer to Modi may fall on the trade deal. The US president acts on short term impulses and doesn't take kindly to perceived slights. That should tell us about the extent of India's irritation at Trump's private lunch with Munir that such a risk was deemed acceptable than giving in to Trump's machinations. It is difficult to conduct diplomacy with an American president who hands out White House lunch invitations to guests based on whether they have called for Trump to be nominated for the Nobel peace prize, as Munir reportedly did. The confirmation came from the White House itself. It indicates several things. One, Pakistan knows how to play the Americans, having mastered the dark art for decades. Two, Trump's bloated ego leads him to take bad decisions, and three, the more things change, the more they stay the same. It never occurred to the American president that he was lowering the dignity of his office by inviting for lunch an army chief who, despite pulling the strings of the puppet civilian government, is not even a titular head of state, and someone who anointed himself the title of 'Field Marshal' after getting a royal spanking at the battlefield. Trump is fond of autocrats, dictators and authoritarian figures. Perhaps in Munir he sees someone who can give him what he needs, an access to Pakistan's land, air and naval bases as America mulls formally joining Israel in the war against Iran. Trump has reportedly offered Pakistan fifth-generation stealth jets, advanced missiles and financial aid if it sways away from China and Russia. One isn't sure of Munir's play, but it can be said with reasonable certainty that Trump's folly is threatening the future of US-India partnership.
The 42
10-06-2025
- Sport
- The 42
Terence Crawford to challenge Canelo Alvarez for undisputed super-middleweight crown
UNDEFEATED AMERICAN BOXING star Terence 'Bud' Crawford will move up a further two weight divisions to challenge fellow pound-for-pound great Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez for the Mexican's undisputed super-middleweight world title on 13 September. Crawford (41-0, 31KOs), who was previously the undisputed ruler of the light-welterweight and welterweight divisions, will face the naturally larger Alvarez (63-2-2, 39KOs) in Las Vegas, live on Netflix. The bout between fellow four-weight world champions, which will be one of the most significant of the 21st century, will be available globally to Netflix's 300 million-plus subscribers at no additional cost. Titled 'The One', Canelo v Crawford will be promoted by Saudi Arabia's boxing stakeholders as well as UFC president Dana White, who recently signed a boxing partnership with the Saudis. Advertisement While the exact Vegas venue for the bout has yet to be announced, the boxers will embark on a three-city promotional tour later this month, stopping off in Riyadh (20 June), New York (22 June), and Vegas (27 June). Speaking upon confirmation of the bout, 168-pound top dog Alvarez said: 'I'm super-happy to be making history again and this time on a Riyadh Season Card that will be broadcast on Netflix. On 13 September, I'm ready to show once again that I am the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world.' Challenger Crawford added: 'My perfect record speaks for itself. I am the best fighter in the world and no matter the opponent or weight class, I have always come out on top. On 13 September, my hand will be raised once again as the world watches greatness.' Crawford, 37, and Alvarez, 34, are two of the greatest boxers of their generation. Crawford, a native of Omaha, Nebraska, destroyed longtime welterweight rival Errol Spence in July 2023 to cement his status as a two-weight undisputed champion and America's flagship boxer. He has since boxed just once, last August, when he moved up to light-middleweight and narrowly outpointed the previously unbeaten Uzbek, Israil Madrimov, to earn a world title in a fourth different weight division. Alvarez, who hails from Guadalajara, is on a six-fight win streak since his 2022 defeat to Dmitry Bivol up at light-heavyweight, which appeared a physical bridge too far for the boxer who began his own professional career as a light-welterweight in 2005. Former lightweight, light-welterweight, welterweight and light-middleweight champion Crawford will make an even more dramatic leap in September, skipping the middleweight division altogether in an effort to cement himself as a true all-time great. Turki Alalshikh, Saudi Arabia's front-facing power broker, said: 'On 13 September, Canelo and Crawford, two legends of boxing, will finally compete against each other in the fight of the century. Alongside Dana White and Sela, we will deliver something truly incredible in Las Vegas for fans around the world to enjoy through Netflix.' UFC president White added: 'Turki wants to make the biggest fights that the fans want to see in boxing and this is right up my alley. Are you kidding me that the first boxing fight I'm going to get to promote is Canelo vs Crawford? It's literally a once-in-a-lifetime fight. Live on Saturday, 13 September, streaming globally on Netflix, two of the greatest boxers in the sport will meet in a historic fight from Las Vegas.'
Business Journals
10-06-2025
- Health
- Business Journals
Trump's drug order and the future of employer health care (Holmes Murphy podcast)
Never miss an episode of Healthy Politics. Subscribe now on Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. Both the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are working to shake up the status quo when it comes to health care costs. In this episode of the Healthy Politics podcast, Holmes Murphy Compliance Director Nick Karls and Senior Advisor Den Bishop discuss President Donald Trump's recent executive order aimed at lowering U.S. drug prices along with several proposals included in The One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 (OBBBA) that could change employers' health care costs. 'I'm spending a lot of time right now talking to our clients about ways to control their pharmacy spend, and they can get to be pretty difficult conversations,' Karls said. 'You're making some tough choices.' Tune in to this episode to hear about: The executive order on brand name prescription drug pricing Proposed work requirements for Medicaid Proposed changes to Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangements Political movements to shift away from employer-sponsored health care New HSA provisions in The One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act 'All of these are things that I think are on point and consistent with what President Trump did in his first term,' Bishop said. '… They're pretty aggressively going at the existing system and trying to figure out how to lower cost.' Sign up today to receive updates on each new release and stay ahead with expert analysis and commentary. As one of the largest independent insurance brokerages in the nation, Holmes Murphy believes fully in serving the unique risk and benefits challenges of clients in every industry and of almost every size. For more information, visit or follow the company on X (@holmesmurphyins), Facebook, LinkedIn, or Instagram.
Business Journals
10-06-2025
- Health
- Business Journals
Lower drug prices and new insurance rules? What Trump's exec order and 'big, beautiful bill' mean for employers
Never miss an episode of Healthy Politics. Subscribe now on Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. Both the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are working to shake up the status quo when it comes to health care costs. In this episode of the Healthy Politics podcast, Holmes Murphy Compliance Director Nick Karls and Senior Advisor Den Bishop discuss President Donald Trump's recent executive order aimed at lowering U.S. drug prices along with several proposals included in The One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 (OBBBA) that could change employers' health care costs. 'I'm spending a lot of time right now talking to our clients about ways to control their pharmacy spend, and they can get to be pretty difficult conversations,' Karls said. 'You're making some tough choices.' Tune in to this episode to hear about: 'All of these are things that I think are on point and consistent with what President Trump did in his first term,' Bishop said. '… They're pretty aggressively going at the existing system and trying to figure out how to lower cost.' As one of the largest independent insurance brokerages in the nation, Holmes Murphy believes fully in serving the unique risk and benefits challenges of clients in every industry and of almost every size. For more information, visit
