Latest news with #Time
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Carly Simon Defends Sabrina Carpenter Against Album Cover Backlash: 'She's Not Doing Anything Outrageous'
Carly Simon is defending Sabrina Carpenter amid the backlash against her album artwork for Man's Best Friend In an interview with Rolling Stone, the "You're So Vain" hitmaker said the LP cover seemed "tame" Man's Best Friend is due Aug. 29Carly Simon is standing by Sabrina Carpenter. In an interview with Rolling Stone published on Wednesday, June 18, the "You're So Vain" hitmaker came to the pop star's defense amid the backlash surrounding the cover for her forthcoming album Man's Best Friend. The album artwork features a photo of Carpenter, 26, on her hands and knees as someone who appears to be a man grabs her by the hair. In the image, she's donning a short, black dress and black heels. Simon herself released a similarly controversial cover with her 1975 album Playing Possum, which featured the "You Belong to Me" artist on her knees wearing black lingerie and black leather boots. "Everybody looked at it, and people definitely had a reaction to it,' Simon, 81, told the publication of the controversial album cover. 'But they wouldn't have told me what they really thought.' When the album was shipped to stores, she was met with bolder reactions. 'Suddenly, I'm getting calls from Time and Newsweek, saying, 'This is one of the sexiest covers that has ever known,'' Norman Seeff, the photographer who shot the cover for Playing Possum, told Rolling Stone. He continued: 'There's this whole controversy around what did it represent? It felt very much like that energy in a woman, but I just thought of it as a beautiful shot. None of that stuff they were talking about was the intention." Simon also addressed the criticism Carpenter has faced for her Man's Best Friend album artwork, which she didn't understand. "She's not doing anything outrageous,' she told the outlet. 'It seems tame." Added Simon: "There have been far flashier covers than hers. One of the most startling covers I've ever seen was [The Rolling Stones'] Sticky Fingers. That was out there in terms of sexual attitude. So I don't know why she's getting such flak." Carpenter announced the release of her seventh studio album and its cover art on Wednesday, June 11. The news came after she shared the album's lead single "Manchild" earlier this month. In the days after she shared the album cover, Carpenter responded to an X user who reshared the singer's Man's Best Friend album cover, saying, 'Does she have a personality outside of sex?' The 'Espresso" hitmaker then reshared the post and said: 'girl yes and it is goooooood.' Man's Best Friend follows Carpenter's chart-topping LP Short n' Sweet, which was released last August. Read the original article on People
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Meghan Markle Shares the Main Thing She Misses About Acting
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Nine years ago, Meghan Markle was best known for starring on the legal drama Suits. So, if you didn't watch Suits, there's a good chance you had no idea who she was. (Deal or No Deal superfans are another exception.) That all changed when her relationship with Prince Harry was made public. Since then, Meghan has retired from acting, married Harry, welcomed two children, stepped down as a working royal, moved back to America, and become an entrepreneur and TV host. Whew! A lot has happened—obviously—so does Meghan ever look back on her former career and miss acting? "Sometimes," Meghan answers that question on the podcast Aspire with Emma Grede. "But you know what, actually, having a large team, being back on set with With Love, Meghan was great, because I realized how much I missed my crew. I love being around a crew." Meghan explained that she was not able to say a proper goodbye to the crew on Suits, because she was secretly leaving the show amid reports that speculated about her future with her Harry. "It was such a unique time, because we couldn't say that I was leaving, necessarily," she told host Emma Grede. "It was speculated. So, after seven years on the series, we couldn't have a going away party. I couldn't say my goodbyes … If my crew's watching, I miss you guys. I wish I could have said bye." Hosting her Netflix lifestyle series With Love, Meghan, ended up being a way to get back the part of acting that she misses most. "I think for me, having the series, even though it wasn't scripted, was really great to get that piece back," she explained. "But then also building my own business, you have a team, and that's really what I was craving." Meghan left Suits and acting ahead of her marriage to Harry, deciding to take on the humanitarian work she could do as a royal as her new career. "I don't see it as giving anything up, I just see it as a change," she said in her engagement interview with Harry (via Time) in 2017. "It's a new chapter, right? Also keep in mind I had been working on my show for seven years. So we were very, very fortunate to be able to have that sort of longevity on a series. For me, once we hit the 100 episode marker, I thought, you know what, I have ticked this box, and I feel very proud of the work I had done there and now it's time to work as team with [Harry]." Also on the podcast episode, Meghan shared the skills from acting that are still serving her today as a businessperson. (In addition to her Netflix show, she has a food line called As ever and a podcast, Confessions of a Female Founder.) She said that she learned to have a "thick skin" and to focus on building relationships. Meghan told Grede she once received the auditioning advice, "Don't try to book the part, book the room." She explained, "It's not about the part. You're going to see those producers and those casting directors at so many other opportunities. Book the room. Let them see that you're talented. Let them see that you have something to bring to the table. Treat them with kindness. All of those relationships end up coming to fruition—you don't know when, but just like with life, relationships matter."
Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Iran: Time Magazine accused of supporting regime change over Khamanei cover
Time magazine's latest cover featuring Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has sparked criticism online, with users accusing the publication of drumming up support for the idea of regime change in Iran following Israel's surprise attack on the country last week. The cover, published on X on Thursday, features a half-torn poster of Khamenei with the headline: "The New Middle East" featured prominently on the page. "Western press is setting the stage for the aggression against Iran," said one user. "What they call 'The New Middle East' is fragmented, failed states whose resources and people they think they are entitled to exploit." Another user said: "It hasn't even been a week and there's already a new Middle East?! How? Am I missing a ceasefire, a regime collapse, or a revolution?" Many social media users also drew parallels between Time's Khamanei image and the March 2003 issue of the magazine, which was published just weeks before the US invasion of Iraq. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The cover features a man painting over a poster of Saddam Hussein, the country's leader who was later captured by US forces after the invasion which plunged the country into years of chaos and violence. A clear propaganda piece: 1. Tearing out the page as though Iran's time has come (it hasn't) 2. Drumming up 'Iran's threat' (unfounded) 3. Painting Israhell as the hero in 'Israel's Gamble' (LIE) 4. Justifying American intervention so it's justified (it's not) FOR SHAME! — Claudiopoi (@claudiopoy) June 19, 2025 In addition to the title "Life after Saddam Hussein", the March 2003 issue also promoted an article about "[President George W] Bush's high-risk plan to occupy Iraq and remake the Middle East". "We're not exaggerating when we say it's the same playbook," one user wrote on X. TIME's new cover, same as the old cover. — Network Radio (@Anarcho1776) June 19, 2025 Israel launched its attacks last week claiming that Iran was on the verge of building nuclear weapons. But the Islamic Republic has repeatedly denied seeking nuclear weapons, a position supported by the most recent assessments from the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, and the US intelligence community. The attacks have since escalated into an exchange of rockets between Tel Aviv and Tehran. Israel's attacks have killed several top military generals and nuclear scientists and targeted Iranian nuclear facilities, but it has also struck residential buildings, hospitals, civilian infrastructure and the Iranian state television headquarters, killing hundreds of civilians in what is being viewed by many as an operation geared towards regime change. On Thursday, Israel's defence minister said Khamenei "can no longer be allowed to exist". Israel's defence minister - following an Iranian missile that hit the Soroka medical complex - said that Khamenei "can no longer be allowed to exist", while Prime Minister Netanyahu said Iran would "pay the full price" for its attack. In an interview with US broadcaster ABC on Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked about reports that US President Donald Trump vetoed an Israeli plan to assassinate Khamenei. "It's not going to escalate the conflict, it's going to end the conflict," Netanyahu replied, not denying Trump's rejection nor such Israeli plans. Israel, he added, is "doing what we need to do". Trump himself remains elusive about his plans. While he has approved plans to attack Iran, he has reportedly made no final decision. Recent reports suggest that Trump is waiting to see if he can get Iran to renounce its nuclear programme by threatening to join Israel's attacks.
Tom's Guide
10 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Tom's Guide
‘Jaws' 50th anniversary: How everything going wrong made the film a classic
The opening scene of "Jaws" is as iconic as its theme music. A young woman goes for a swim in the waters of Amity Island late one night. Then, suddenly, she's yanked under by a creature hiding beneath the surface. That shadowy killer was enough to make a generation of movie fans think twice before wading into the ocean — the terrifying shark reveal in the film's final act didn't help either — but the entire scene was almost completely different. The original script for Steven Spielberg's monumental blockbuster "Jaws," based on the book by Peter Benchley, called for the film's bloodthirsty great white shark to emerge from the water in the very first scene. But when production on the movie began, there was just one problem: The shark wasn't working. So Spielberg and his crew improvised. The result was an opening shot that built tension and terrified audiences without giving away the big reveal. Near-constant technical issues with the mechanical sharks custom-built for "Jaws" were just one of many issues that plagued the infamous production. But through a mix of movie magic, quick thinking, and dumb luck, Spielberg and the cast and crew managed to create a classic movie that changed Hollywood forever when it premiered in theaters 50 years ago, on June 20, 1975. "Jaws" was troubled from the start. Producers Richard D. Zanuck and David Brown bought the rights to the movie adaptation before the book was even released, after reading it in one night. Brown later joked that if he'd read "Jaws" twice, he would have had second thoughts. Some of the scenes imagined by Benchley were nearly impossible to bring to life on film. Spielberg later came on board as director after spotting the script on a desk during a meeting (the original director was fired for repeatedly calling the shark a whale by mistake). Spielberg also tried to quit early on out of fear he'd be pigeonholed into making action movies, and the studio had to strong-arm him into sticking around. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. Once the script was finished and the main roles were all cast, Spielberg made perhaps his most notable mistake: He decided to shoot the movie on an actual beach. This led to countless issues. Seawater regularly damaged the equipment, locals would sometimes sail into frame and the boat where the movie's' final act takes place even started to sink at one point while the cast and crew were on it. Despite all this, when Spielberg looked back at the experience a few days after the film's release, he seemed confident he'd made the right decision. "I could have shot the movie in the tank or even in a protected lake somewhere, but it would not have looked the same," the director told Time. Then, there was the shark. Nicknamed 'Bruce' (for Spielberg's lawyer Bruce Ramer), the great white actually consisted of three different mechanized creatures designed to be filmed from different angles. Bruce broke down constantly, in part due to corrosion caused by the salty ocean water. It also got tangled up in seaweed more than once. Behind the scenes, crew members referred to the film as 'Flaws.' In the end, Jaws wound up both over budget and behind schedule. It cost $9 million, up from an initial $4 million, and while filming was supposed to take 55 days, it lasted 159 days instead. And yet, "Jaws" went on to become one of the successful movies of all time. The reason why may have a surprising amount to do with what went wrong. Issues with Bruce the shark wound up making "Jaws" even better. Beyond the film's opening scene, it forced Spielberg to find other ways to build a sense of fear without just showing the great white in all its glory. For example, the recurring image of a fin cutting through the surface of the water, which went on to become even more memorable than the shark itself. 'The shark not working was a godsend. It made me become more like Alfred Hitchcock than like Ray Harryhausen,' Spielberg told Ain't It Cool News in 2011. (Harryhausen was an animator and special effects creator known for fantastical movies like Jason and the Argonauts.) 'The more fake the shark looked in the water, the more my anxiety told me to heighten the naturalism of the performances.' Production delays also gave Spielberg and his writers a chance to continuously improve the script throughout filming. And the choice to shoot on location on Martha's Vineyard prompted the director to hire locals for most of the minor roles, adding to the movie's realism even further. Ultimately, no one thing makes "Jaws" a great movie. From the character work to the tense build-up to the epic mechanized shark itself, it all comes together to create a perfect movie that still holds up to this day. And 50 years later, the behind-the-scenes stories reveal that even when everything goes wrong, it's still possible to make cinematic history. "Jaws" is currently streaming on Peacock.
Hindustan Times
14 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Hindustan Times
Home run: Wknd sits down with Jeet Thayil to talk about his deeply personal new book
It's a 'conundrum of a novel', says Jeet Thayil, of his new book, The Elsewhereans. It begins with his father, the journalist TJS George, flying from Bombay to Cochin in the 1950s, to visit Ammu George, a teacher he is set to marry. Against convention, he wants to privately meet her once before the wedding. The book takes off from there, merging fact and fiction, memoir, travelogue and supernatural saga in mind-bending ways. The reader isn't meant to know which is which. 'I want you to wonder… to keep guessing,' Thayil says. Fragments of postcards, letters and photographs add to the sense of confusion. A few years on, he enters the tale, born in the backwaters of Kerala, followed by his sister Sheba Thayil (who would also go on to be a journalist and writer). The family would move from Bombay to Bihar, then Hong Kong and New York; the novel unfolds also in Vietnam, France, Germany and the UK. As it traces his teen years, when he 'lived to defy and dismay my father', and builds itself around his deep love for his mother, what emerges is Thayil's most personal novel since The Book of Chocolate Saints (2017; a pacy, autobiographical work that also married memory and fiction). Incidentally, in 2013, Thayil became the first Indian author to win the DSC Prize for South Asian Literature, for his debut novel, Narcopolis, about opium, Mumbai and one man's struggles with drugs. (The novel was also shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize.) 'This is a story about a family of Indians out in the world,' says Thayil, 65. Excerpts from an interview. * Where did the idea for The Elsewhereans come from? This is material I've been saving, or hoarding, all my life; material that never found its correct form. The novel — discrete stories, some written in the third person, some in the first, set in different eras, on different continents — assumed its true shape only towards the end of the writing. Some of those stories were gratifying to relate. For example, the story about my father starting AsiaWeek in Hong Kong. They sold a majority stake to Reader's Digest, which sold the shares on to Time, and then Time eventually shut AsiaWeek down. This is a story only journalists in Asia, Europe, America and India knew about, that AsiaWeek was a magazine run by Asians for Asians, in the '70s, and that it was killed by Time… Like that story, there are others that illuminate forgotten corners of history. * This is also a book about your difficult relationship with your father…. For most of my teens, I tried to be the opposite of what he wanted me to be. My father (now 97) is gifted in many ways, but not so much when it comes to the minutiae of fatherhood. He comes from a long line of conservative Malayali Syrian Christian men for whom parenting is about distance, punishment and anger. But if you don't have a relationship where you're also a friend to your children, you miss out on a lot. The child may end up self-destructive or recalcitrant. For a long time, I wanted to upend his image of himself by becoming the black sheep, by doing things that would have made any parent upset. I think of it now as a waste of time, but… that's how it was. I don't think I got over that very childish way of dealing with myself, my parents, and the world until my 40s. I was living in New York, working for a newspaper, trying to get by, and I realised it takes so much space in one's head to define oneself in opposition to a single person or idea. I realised it just wasn't worth it. It seems like a basic lesson, but it took me ages to get there. * Your love for your mother forms the sort of nucleus of this book. She was always my biggest champion. And yes, she is the moral centre of this book. Her story begins the narrative and her end ends it. In terms of our financial lives, if it weren't for my mother, I wouldn't be writing novels. I'd be working, earning a living, trying to pay the rent. She was the one who, right from the beginning, invested small amounts of my father's earnings. My father had very little sense of money as a living quantity. She always did. Which is why I can afford to spend the day writing a poem or a song. In that sense, I suppose I owe her everything. I wanted to chronicle her life in The Elsewhereans. A life can be remarkable, but unless you put it down, unless you record it in some way — not necessarily in the form of a novel, but in some way — what's the point? All those extraordinary moments are gone. * Her death (six months ago; aged 90) was an emotional trigger to the ending of the book… Yes… I knew it was finished the moment she passed away. Obviously, I couldn't do anything for a while, but once I got back to work, I finished it very quickly. I rewrote portions, added the last few pages, and it just put a lock on the book for me. * Did the idea of a documentary novel, a blurring of truth and reality, make The Elsewhereans easier to write? At first, I thought it would be a work of non-fiction, but that would have made for a narrow narrative. One can't inhabit other people's heads and other people's lives in an immersive way unless one is writing fiction. At the same time, a number of elements here are factual, taken from life, with actual photographs, letters and documents. Which is why I think of it as a documentary novel. The point is, life isn't easily categorised. Life is open-ended. It doesn't have labels, and it doesn't have happy endings. I like the form of the documentary novel. I might do another in the same vein. * You suggest that we are all on a lifelong journey, never belonging to a place. And yet you capture how the world is turning to hate because of ideas such as nationality and race… As someone who began travelling at the age of eight, I've known for a while that all travellers are not equal. A traveller of colour understands this before they begin to understand cultures other than their own. It's more than the colonial-era hierarchy of the visa process. It's also a question of belonging. As the world becomes increasingly intolerant, it becomes increasingly intolerable. When divisions between nations and races deepen, you realise there are places you are not welcome. For me, the sense of being an outsider has always had an upside. It has sharpened my perception. * Are we all Elsewhereans then? All of us. There's a moment in the book that describes what it's like to feel like a foreigner in one's own house. Even if you've never left your hometown, you might feel as if the world around you has changed so much it doesn't feel like home anymore. * Given that it is set across 70 years and a dozen countries, what did the research for this book involve? I looked up accounts of the various time periods and places in which each chapter is set. I interviewed my parents over the course of about three years. That was a useful thing about moving to the family home in Bengaluru in 2018. I started work on this book in 2020. As soon as I knew I was going to write it, I began talking to my parents about the past. They remembered a lot of it, in striking detail. Then I looked at my dad's notebooks. He kept extensive notes of his years as a journalist. I went through a lot of material and asked both their permissions before I started to write. My mother may not have been very pleased with the idea, but there's no way she was going to say no, which is why the first epigraph in the book is Czeslaw Milosz: 'When a writer is born into a family, the family is finished.'
