Latest news with #narrative
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Monica Lewinsky, 51, shows off her taut complexion as she slips into a floral sundress for Cannes talk about 'reclaiming her narrative' after Bill Clinton affair scandal
She famously made global headlines after being embroiled in a scandalous affair with then-President Bill Clinton. But Monica Lewinsky has kickstarted her crusade to 'reclaim her narrative', as she made an appearance at a talk on the subject at Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity on Monday. The activist, 51, showed off her taut complexion in a floral sundress as she spoke at the event, titled 'Reclaiming and Reframing: Moving your narrative forward.' Embracing the warm Cannes weather, Monica cut a stylish figure in her colourful printed sundress to take to the stage. During the talk, Monica was also joined by CEO of media company The Female Quotient Shelley Zalis, and Jen Sargent, the CEO of podcast network Wondery. From A-list scandals and red carpet mishaps to exclusive pictures and viral moments, subscribe to the Daily Mail's new showbiz newsletter to stay in the loop. Monica recently shed light on having 'lost her future' after becoming notoriously famous for her affair with Bill Clinton during an appearance on the Call Her Daddy podcast. The chat with host Alex Cooper delved into what Lewinsky experienced in the fallout from the most famous extramarital relationship in American history. Cooper framed the situation: 'You were 22 years old, he was 49, you were an intern. he was the president of the United States.' Monica then said: 'I was very quickly painted as a stalker, mentally unstable, not attractive enough.' She now realizes her mistakes and how it cast a negative view of both herself and other women. 'Because of the power dynamics, and the power differential, I never should've been in that f***ing position,' she told Cooper. 'There was so much collateral damage for women of my generation to watch a young woman to be pilloried on the world stage, to be torn apart for my sexuality, for my mistakes, for my everything.' She then discussed how much she'd lost not just in the immediate aftermath but in years to come. Monica recently shed light on having 'lost her future' after becoming notoriously famous for her affair with Bill Clinton during an appearance on the Call Her Daddy podcast 'I was in my early 30s, I had nothing. That was the point when I realized how much had been taken from me. I lost my future,' she said. Lewinsky also revealed that she believes Bill Clinton should have resigned after the scandal became public. 'I think the right way to handle a situation like that would have been to probably say it was nobody's business and to resign,' she began. 'Or, to find a way of staying in office that was not lying and not throwing a young person that was just starting out in the world under the bus.' Monica has been back in the public eye and giving interviews in recent weeks, having told Rolling Stone about her current dating life. She noted that she has found dating tough at times, but that most of her romantic encounters come through being set up by friends because she's not on the apps. 'I'm not on the apps,' she shared. 'I am like, I can't. I'm going to be catfished. I am so gullible. I think it's a level of trust that is just not quite there yet.' 'I date,' Lewinsky continued to Rolling Stone. 'I have relationships, situationships, all the things. I've had connections with some extraordinary men. 'I've been really lucky. Not lucky enough that it's been with someone where it's worked out at the right time. It just hasn't.' Lewinsky's infamous affair with former president Clinton eventually led to his impeachment. On August 17, 1998, after multiple denials, the former leader appeared on television and finally confessed he was 'solely and completely responsible' for the relationship. Monica has talked about the affair numerous times since it was made public. She initially retreated from the public eye, admitting she was left feeling suicidal after being hounded by reporters and ridiculed on talk shows. 'I just couldn't see a way out, and I thought that maybe was the solution,' she said years later. She admitted it was 'terrifying' to make the decision to step back into the public eye, but it has helped her to 'reclaim' the narrative about her life, following the infamous fallout over her affair with then-president. After spending time away from the public, Lewinsky made a grand return in 2014 with a personal essay for Vanity Fair. She has since dedicated a large portion of her time to advocating against online bullying and working to help create a safer social media environment. In 2019, she then signed on as a producer on Impeachment: American Crime Story, Ryan Murphy's series chronicling her affair with Clinton and his impeachment trial. She went on to launch her own production company, Alt Ending Productions, in 2021 - signing a first-look deal for scripted dramas with 20th Television. In his memoir, which was released in November, Clinton admitted he never apologized directly to Monica over the scandal. In Citizen, he wrote about a 2018 interview on NBC's Today Show when he admitted he was 'caught off guard' by questions on the subject. At the time, host Craig Melvin brought up the #MeToo movement and asked whether the Monica affair would warrant his resignation if it happened today. Clinton said no and insisted that he had to fight an illegitimate impeachment. Melvin followed by quoting a Lewinsky column about how the #MeToo movement had changed her view of sexual harassment and asked whether Clinton also felt differently today. Recalling the exchange, Clinton wrote: 'I said, "No, I felt terrible then."' '"Did you ever apologize to her?" I said that I had apologized to her and everybody else I wronged. I was caught off guard by what came next. '"But you didn't apologize to her, at least according to folks that we've talked to." 'I fought to contain my frustration as I replied that while I'd never talked to her directly, I did say publicly on more than [one] occasion I was sorry.'
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Short and Sweet: From ‘Adolescence' to ‘Sirens,' This Season's Best New Shows Are Barely Longer Than a Movie
On the surface, freshman series 'Sirens,' 'The Bondsman,' 'Adolescence' and 'The Four Seasons' don't have much in common. Yet they are all key examples of TV's new trend of going short. Whether it's an absurdly low episode count ('Adolescence' with four, 'Sirens' with five) or brief runtimes ('The Bondsman' episodes rarely exceed 30 minutes, while 'The Four Seasons' tops out at 35 minutes), it's a relief from a culture where recommendations are cushioned with warnings that, 'The show doesn't really pick up until the eighth episode,' which begs the question, 'How much time do you think I have to watch all of these shows?!?' The good news is that the short lengths are sharpening the narrative punch, creating higher highs and having the decency to duck out before the good time ends. More from Variety Limited Series Writers on the Impact of Casting, Writing Emotional Journeys, and Finding a Tonal Balance David E. Kelley on Shaping 'Presumed Innocent' With Ruth Negga's Barbara as the Killer - Then Changing the Ending After Filming Began Comedy TV Writers on the Importance of Filming in Los Angeles, Sharing Soundstages and the Power of the Will They/Won't They Relationship Perhaps the best example is Netflix's 'Sirens.' It's easy to see the concept — a woman has to save her sister from a potential cult run by a mega-wealthy family — stretched out over dozens of episodes, leaning into the series' frothier moments and completely breaking any semblance of reality in order to stretch out the mysteries. Yet the show plays like a weekend at a luxe New England resort: Live a little but sneak out before the magic wears off and you're turning into a townie. The twists hit quickly, and you're left satisfied, an amuse-bouche of life among maniacal rich people. A similar mental vacation, though much more down to earth, is the midlife crisis dramedy 'The Four Seasons.' Each seasonal vacation is broken into two episodes, and the rigid structure is a compelling gift to the audience, as it allows for sensible time jumps in which things are shaken up between episodes. Lest any character in the Tina Fey-led ensemble seems too petty or pathetic, the dynamic has shifted by the next group trip. Because of this, the emotional weight never seems off-balance. 'The Bondsman' has the highest concept: A bounty hunter named Hub (Kevin Bacon) gets murdered and goes to hell but is allowed to return to Earth if he uses his skills to kill rogue demons. The short Prime Video episodes pair well with the 'monster of the week' setup, and the series doles out backstory on a need-to-know basis. Sure enough, as time goes on, we learn more about Hub's past, his family, his enemies and even the bureaucracy developed in hell. As for 'Adolescence,' the series is gorgeously acted and gut-wrenchingly realistic, but living in the world of a potentially evil British child for an extended amount of time is too much — especially considering the roaming camera gives the impression of oner, putting the audience right in the face of a grisly murder. Even an episode more would move the narrative from bold and impactful to emotionally taxing and unpleasant. The idea of a short drama is nothing new — one of the best series of all time, 'The Twilight Zone,' managed to tell a standalone story each week using a 30-minute network TV slot, complete with commercials. What's made modern times feel different is the bloat allowed by the no-rules streamers. Sure, it's fair to say we're miles away from 22-episode seasons of network fare. But that incremental pacing has been flipped on its head by a binging model, which also operates under the butt-numbing miscalculation that more is more. When it was announced that episodes in the back half of 'Stranger Things' Season 4 would match the runtimes of the '80s blockbusters the show remixed, it felt like any previous rules were completely off the table. After all, did the season finale of a show that once hovered around the 50-minute mark really need to arrive at two hours and 22 minutes? There is inevitably a 'pressure makes diamonds' situation at play when shows aim to tell a story in a succinct amount of time. During a conversation with 'The Bondsman' showrunner, executive producer and writer Erik Oleson, he mentioned that the succinct episode length forced him to make tough choices. 'I very much am an advocate that every character on one of my shows has to be worthy of being the hero of their own show,' he says. 'I don't underwrite or underbake characters, and so finding the space and time to give every one of our terrific actors their due was one of the bigger challenges that any showrunner faces, but certainly in a half-hour format it makes it all the more difficult.' That drive and determination allowed Oleson to shepherd a show that had plenty of character-building, laughs and scary moments — things were just cut down to the essentials, allowing the viewer to understand everything without luxuriating in the creative team's deep thoughts. Sometimes a story about a wisecracking demon hunter can just be that, and nothing more. Additionally, the truncated runtimes encourage visual storytelling where essential information is conveyed onscreen versus housed in a monologue dump that could drag the show down. The costumes alone of 'Sirens' immediately tell audiences all they need to know about Meghann Fahy's Devon, decked out in punky outfits and combat boots, kicking down the door of a Lilly Pulitzer fever dream. The nonstop camera of 'Adolescence' quickly sets the scene for viewers, as bits of caught conversation can simultaneously move the plot along as the perspective — ranging from high above the community to ground level — sets the scene. And what is not seen in 'The Four Seasons' is as important as what is, given that key moments take place off camera, leaving more time for unique reactions and fallout. There's a reason why one of Shakespeare's most well-known lines — 'Brevity is the soul of wit' — is a truism in writing. (Never mind that Polonius coined it somewhat ironically in 'Hamlet,' Shakespeare's longest play.) So, give a round of applause for the short shows — but make it quick, I've got more TV to watch. Best of Variety 'Blue Velvet,' 'Chinatown' and 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' Arrive on 4K in June All the Godzilla Movies Ranked 'House of the Dragon': Every Character and What You Need to Know About the 'Game of Thrones' Prequel
Gizmodo
06-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Gizmodo
Where Does ‘Doctor Who' Go From Here?
The end of the latest season of Doctor Who would be controversial for a good many reasons beyond its shocking cliffhanger ending—from its confounding narrative choices to its complete character re-writing of its latest companion—but perhaps what has made it reach another level of ire is that, for the foreseeable future, this might be it. Right now, the continuation of Doctor Who on TV is in about as unsure a place as it can be for the first time in 20 years. Of course, the show has contemplated disaster across those two decades, but we mostly learned of those moments well after the fact: on the public front, Doctor Who persisted into the institution it has become, in spite of it all. But Doctor Who ends its latest run of episodes without that public acknowledgement of its own inevitability. For all the talk of scripts and eventual, possible continuity, right now there is currently no further Doctor Who confirmed beyond a five-episode spinoff series, War Between the Land and the Sea. The show will not air this holiday season; for the first time since it returned, a third season of this Disney-BBC partnership era has not been commissioned. Doctor Who, on-screen at least, is currently standing on the edge of a proverbial cliff. That does not mean that Doctor Who is necessarily dead. Doctor Who will always live on in some form or another: it did back in 1989 when it was first cancelled, thriving in books, audio dramas, the brief spike of the 1996 TV movie, all before it came roaring back to life again in 2005. It also doesn't mean that there aren't options for the series, either, even in this moment of uncertainty. Let's explore a few of them. Option 1: Doctor Who Continues As-Is Of all the options on the table right now, this seems like the least likely. Not because of the perspective of Doctor Who's shaky reputation coming out if its finale, and its wild stunt-casting Hail Mary to close out Ncuti Gatwa's time on the show (it's currently unclear whether or not Billie Piper is going to be a full-fledged 16th incarnation of the Doctor; much like the show's current status, details about that are still up the air), but because at this point it's pretty much logistically impossible for the series to make a return any time soon unless it enters production immediately. A week out from the finale and with no official statement on the renewal of the BBC's licensing partnership with Disney—with the latter already having made it clear that there was going to be a review of Doctor Who's viewership across the latest season before any decision about the deal—it seems unlikely that we're going to hear anything soon, whether Disney backs out or carries on financially supporting the series. A Christmas special for 2025 is already out of the picture at this point; one was not included in the original agreement. And even if we got news of a deal imminently, the likeliness of a new season of Doctor Who being broadcast before 2027 narrows to the point of impossibility with each passing day. The question is, however, even if Doctor Who was renewed in the immediate future, should it continue as-is? It's become clear—and it's also clearly part of the reason why an official renewal didn't come with the conclusion of the latest season—that Doctor Who has struggled in the past few years to reclaim a wider audience again. Putting aside right-wing culture war accusations of overt 'wokeness' in the series (it has arguably been an era where Doctor Who's long-standing progressive themes have never been so purely surface-level), a mix of a streaming-first approach that has shaken up broadcast times in Doctor Who's home nation and plotlines that are failing to energize either diehard fans or new audiences has led to the series being on a ratings decline. In a period that was meant to be a new onboarding point for curious global audiences—a new Doctor, a new companion, a distancing for recent and further flung continuity threads—the series has instead wrapped itself in increasing insularity, building its dramatic climaxes on arcane connections to Who's past and season arcs that build towards the return of increasingly obscure old villains, while also paradoxically failing to capitalize on those returning characters. Even if Doctor Who was greenlit for more seasons, whether or not its current self is working would remain uncertain. Option 2: Doctor Who Takes a Break So maybe the show takes a break that's longer than the logistically enforced couple of years it would take to continue on as it has been. Whether that's three years rather than two, whether it's three or four or even five, it would give the show the chance to have a creative reset behind the scenes and return with a renewed plan for its future and a renewed energy with a completely new Doctor and companion. That doesn't necessarily mean that much changes behind the scenes, but it could depending on the length of the break. We have, at least, the upcoming War Between the Land and the Sea to act as something already made that could be broadcast in the place of a traditional season. But given the current uncertainty as to what Billie Piper's role in this transitional period could be—whether she's the Doctor at all, whether she's a regeneration similar to David Tennant's 14th and won't stick around long, or whether she is indeed a fully-fledged incarnation that will stay as the face of the series for multiple seasons—perhaps we could even see something akin to what happened with Doctor Who in 2009. Then, as the series prepared to transition between the exit of both its main star in David Tennant and its creative leadership in showrunner Russell T Davies, Who went on a quasi-break for the year, instead broadcasting four one-off special episodes throughout 2009, while a new creative team under Steven Moffat began working on getting the next era of the show ready for broadcast in 2010. Maybe after War Between the Land and the Sea we'll see a similar 'specials' era for Piper, before a return to regular seasons with a new incarnation of the Doctor. Regardless, it would give time for Doctor Who's creative team to take a look at the last couple of years of the show, see what's working and what isn't, and lay out a new plan for what the series could eventually look like upon its return. Option 3: Doctor Who Dies (But Not Really) Or maybe, this is it. In not having a deal renewed at all, whether with Disney's help or without it, Doctor Who is effectively cancelled as it was back in 1989. On screen Who goes out with Piper's smiling face cutting to credits, a more open-ended but similar conclusion akin to the Seventh Doctor and Ace walking off into adventures unseen at the end of 'Survival.' Of course, this means that we know that even if Doctor Who on TV is dead, it really isn't dead at all. Just as was the case nearly 40 years ago, the show's first wandering into 'The Wilderness Years,' as they came to be known in Doctor Who fandom, didn't really mean that Who ceased to exist. Virgin's New Adventures novels carried on the stories of the Doctor and Ace, and yet further beyond, providing a treasure trove of stories pushing the world of Doctor Who beyond the imaginings of its televised self. The Big Finish audio drama series began in 1999 and continues to this day, simultaneously giving Paul McGann's Eighth Doctor from the TV movie a whole life of adventures while also revisiting Doctors past, enriching their own histories with more stories and spinoffs. In fits and starts, we did still get glimpses of new Doctor Who media, from the cheesy reunions of Dimensions in Time, to the aforementioned attempted revival with the 1996 movie, and then things like the online web animation Scream of the Shalka in 2003. But while Doctor Who wasn't regularly on TV any more, it was far from dormant. We've already seen the series survive one such period, only to come back and change the face of genre television all over again. Who's to say it couldn't do the same again? After all, cheating death is part of the key to Doctor Who's longevity!
Bloomberg
28-05-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
The Fallacy of Market Narratives
To get John Authers' newsletter delivered directly to your inbox, sign up here. Humans think in terms of narratives. We're hot-wired to do so; condense something complicated into a story, and we understand it more easily. That raises the risk of over-simplification and narrative fallacy — a notion from Nassim Taleb — in which we grab hold of a version of events and allow it to color incoming data.
Forbes
26-05-2025
- Science
- Forbes
Explaining Climate Change in 1,000 words
In a previous post, I argued that we need a new American narrative for talking about climate change. This is a necessary but not sufficient condition for creating a bipartisan consensus across our political divide in order to establish stable, long-term policies to the benefit of all Americans. These policies must, as I've also written about before, strike the right balance between affordability, security, resiliency, and carbon intensity. Crafting this narrative won't be easy. I've been thinking about it for a while but am far from ready to try writing even a first draft. So I decided to start with something simpler which is to write 1,000 words explaining climate change. The audience is American citizens who are not experts, who have different levels of knowledge and interest, and who range across the political spectrum. I made the arbitrary decision that anyone willing to read a piece with this title would tolerate up to 1,000 words. And that's probably stretching it given people's busy lives and how much people use social media to consume information today. My first crack at this is below. I found it extremely difficult to do. It is exactly 1,000 words (excluding the title). I'm sure there are many different ways to write such a piece. I'd love to see what others would come up with—in 1,000 words or less. ____________________________________________________________ According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), fossil fuels provide about 83% of the energy needs in the United States. Nuclear and renewable energy each provide 9%, with 60% of the latter coming from biofuels. The production and consumption of fossil fuels generates carbon dioxide (CO2) which accumulates in the atmosphere and traps heat, a greenhouse effect (leading to the commonly used term 'greenhouse gas'). Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-18th century, the amount of CO2 (often called 'carbon emissions') has increased by 150%. It is difficult to put a precise figure on how much warming has taken place, but it is around 2°F or 1°C. Most of this warming has taken place over the past 40-50 years. Global warming has consequences for weather. According to NASA, global warming 'is impacting extreme weather across the planet. Record-breaking heat waves on land and in the ocean, drenching rains, severe floods, years-long droughts, extreme wildfires, and widespread flooding during hurricanes are all becoming more frequent and more intense.' If global warming continues, these effects will be even more severe, such as rising sea levels which could put many U.S. cities underwater by 2050. The year 2050 is often cited by those who study climate change, trying to anticipate its effects and how to mitigate and adapt to global warming. The general scientific consensus is that in order to avoid the most serious consequences of global warming, the temperature rise should be kept to around 2°C or 3.6°F by 2050. The issue of climate change due to global warming is an extremely complex one and it has become highly politicized in the U.S. While 72% of Americans believe that global warming is happening and 59% believe it's due to human activity, there is substantial variance in opinion about how serious of a problem it is now and will be in the future, what and how much should be done about it, who is responsible for dealing with it, and what costs should be incurred and by whom to address it. I have written about the vast divide between Republicans and Democrats, with Independents in the middle, (closer to Democrats). For many Republicans the very terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' are associated with a more general progressive Democratic political agenda which they don't support. Climate change is one of many topics about which there are strong feelings in our very polarized country. This makes it a very difficult issue from a public policy perspective, and we vividly see this when comparing the current administration to the previous one. At the heart of the debate in America about climate change is fossil fuels. Because they are a primary source of carbon emissions (although not the only one with animal agriculture, especially cattle, also being an important one) those who are most concerned about climate change think that fossil fuels should be replaced with renewable energy, especially solar and wind, as quickly as possible. Cost is a major consideration, especially if it is not competitive with fossil fuels, particularly compared to natural gas which the U.S. has in abundance. Even if renewables are cost competitive without government subsidies, these projects always face challenging permitting issues regarding the land for the project, often exacerbated by permitting issues to build the transmission lines to get the energy into the electrical grid. There are also challenges with reliability since battery storage technologies need further development. Nuclear power provides carbon-free baseload power but faces challenges of public acceptance, cost, and permitting. Geothermal can also provide very low-carbon baseload power but this technology is still being developed. Other technologies being developed are capturing carbon that is produced and removing carbon that is already in the atmosphere (direct air capture). Another important debate concerns the relative roles of the public and private sectors. Liberals typically advocate for strong government action such as subsidizing renewable energy, providing incentives to purchase electric vehicles and heat pumps, requiring companies to report on and reduce their carbon emissions, asking financial institutions to do the same regarding their portfolio companies, and putting a price on carbon. The concept of 'net zero,' meaning the company or financial institution is no longer contributing to an increase in atmospheric CO2 plays a prominent role. Conservatives who work on climate change put a greater emphasis on market forces and innovative, even breakthrough, technologies. Those who favor strong government action see global warming as a more immediate and pressing problem than do those who prefer market forces. A third important debate is the relative emphasis on mitigation (efforts to prevent global warming) vs. adaptation (dealing with the effects in various ways). Those who emphasize mitigation argue that costs incurred today are less than the costs of dealing with the problem in the future. Those more focused on adaptation argue the reverse. There are no simple answers here. While the effects of climate change exist today, it is still very difficult to know the extent to which extreme weather events are due to global warming vs. other factors. Constructing future scenarios far into the future (like 2100) in order to assess mitigation vs. adaptation strategies is extremely difficult and filled with uncertainty. Where does this leave the average American? Each person has to decide for themselves such things as how much time they want to spend learning about and engaging on this issue (e.g., through voting, community efforts, and expressing their views in various ways), how important it is in the total picture of their life, and what changes (if any) they want to make in their own lifestyles (such as diet and frequency and modes of transportation). People who have more money have the luxury of having more choices. Another important choice is the extent to which a person engages with others, including those who have a very different view. Whatever choices an individual person makes will have no effect on climate change. That said, America will benefit if everyone respects the choices that others make.
