CBSCorporation – Michmutters
Categories
Entertainment

Olivia Newton-John: Re-watching Grease highlighted rape culture of the film

This week the 1970s classic grease aired on Nine in prime time viewing in tribute to the very much beloved Olivia Newton-John, who tragically passed away earlier this week. But celebrating grease again is a dangerous game.

Unfortunately, looking at grease through a 2022 lens leaves plenty to be desired. The movie enforces stereotypes, makes rape jokes and trivializes consent. Watching it with fresh eyes feels less nostalgic and more concerning.

I understand our desire to revisit the film, considering Newton-John’s death. It was the film that made her a star. She played Sandy, and she gave a Mary-Sue character dimension and charm.

It was the biggest film of the year when it was released, and it’s still very much a cultural touchstone. Who doesn’t know the words to, You Are The One That I Want? (I bet you’re singing the, ooh ooh ooh’s in your head).

But sadly, besides the chemistry between high school sweethearts Newton-John and John Travolta as Sandy and Danny, the film sends some harrowing messages. Let’s break it down, shall we?

For instance, at the beginning of the iconic movie, Danny brags to his mates about meeting a hot Australian girl during summer break. His friends pestered him for details of the relationship, including the line: “Tell me more, tell me more, did she put up a fight?”

Basically, the guys were making light of the idea of ​​Danny having to force Sandy into sex. As if it would be perfectly acceptable for a guy to push a woman into sex.

Then there’s the scene in the drive-in, Danny is desperately trying to make out with Sandy and make things right. She pushes him away several times and then eventually screams “no” while Danny pins her down and says: “Nobody’s watching!” Ick, right?

Seems more rapey than romantic. If a woman says no, a man shouldn’t touch or force her. He should respect her de ella wishes de ella and not try to talk her into it and a movie romanticizing the opposite is grim.

If that wasn’t stressful enough, when Rizzo, a character in the film becomes pregnant and plans to get an abortion sings the song, There Are Worse Things I Could Do.

“There are worse things I could do, than go with a boy or two…. I could flirt with all the guys, smile at them and bat my eyes. Press against them when we dance, make them think they stand a chance, then refuse to see it through. That’s a thing I’d never do,” she sings.

She is suggesting that the worse thing a woman could be is a tease, which is not true. Women can say no and set boundaries whenever they want. Women have the right to flirt and make eyes, and we don’t need to sleep with a man.

Then there’s the overarching message; ultimately, good girl Sandy turns herself into a more vampy version of herself to earn Danny’s affections. So, the overall message is, change who you are to get the guy? Not very heartening.

I understand it’s a movie, it was made in the 1970s, and we weren’t having such loud and important conversations about consent, but re-watching it feels less like a trip down memory lane and more of a reminder that so much of our aging pop culture references just reinforce rape culture.

I miss Olivia Newton-John, but I think there are better ways to remember her than watching Grease. Her de ella entire body of work de ella and her de ella endlessly contributions de ella to create a better world for everyone speaks volumes, particularly being an advocate for Breast Cancer Awareness.

I’d much rather stare at the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness & Research Center to remember her than watch her character Sandy wade through misogyny through song and dance.

Mary Madigan is a freelance writer.

.

Categories
Entertainment

Olivia Newton-John in flashback photo with Daryl Braithwaite

What are the odds that two of Australia’s biggest music stars attended the same primary school together?

A school photo of the late Olivia Newton-John alongside horses hit maker Daryl Braithwaite has emerged, unearthing the little-known fact the duo attended school together.

Braithwaite, 73, shared the black-and-white class photo taken at Christ Church Grammar School in Melbourne in 1961 – some 15 years before Newton-John shot to global superstardom on grease.

“This is a lovely shot to look back at when Olivia was at (school) with all her friends back in 1961. Olivia is 2nd from the right and 3rd row from the bottom,” Braithwaite wrote.

He added: “She also loved all animals and was a beautiful soul who left a legacy that will last forever.”

Braithwaite has previously opened up about how the duo were briefly “boyfriend and girlfriend” while attending school, before Newton-John moved to London in her teens.

“She was one of the prettiest girls in the class, (we were) 11 or 12 I think,” he told The Morning Show in 2017.

“I don’t know how, we must have sat next to each other and thought, ‘Oh yeah that’s good’ and we were talking and then we held hands and then it was over.”

He further opened up about the pair being school sweethearts in an interview with now to lovein 2020.

“Olivia won’t mind saying that we did start out as boyfriend and girlfriend back when we were around 12 or 13 at the most,” he said.

“We held hands and we were in the same class. But then it all disintegrated. I think she left and went to England. I never actually knew that she could sing at the time.”

At the time, Braithwaite said the old friends were still connecting all these years later.

“It is one of those friendships where there was a decade, or maybe more, where we didn’t speak to each other, mainly because we were too busy or whatever, but over the last year or so I have made more contact with her than ever before, and she is lovely, she really is,” he said.

Newton-John died at her ranch in California on Tuesday aged 73, after a decades-long battle with breast cancer.

She was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 1992. It went into remission but reappeared in 2013 and then again in 2017. At one point she said she was partly in “denial” about the disease, because if she dwelled upon it too much it would mean she wouldn’t “enjoy life”.

Her family, including husband John Easterling and daughter Chloe Lattanzi, have accepted Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’ offer of a state funeral to honor her legacy and celebrate her life.

.

Categories
Sports

UFC 2022: Champ’s brother Mohammed Usman stuns with brutal KO to win The Ultimate Fighter

The UFC heavyweight division could have another superstar on its hands if a brutal knockout finish on Sunday (AEST) is anything to go by.

Mohammed Usman, the younger brother of UFC welterweight champion Kamaru Usman, defeated Zac Pauga via TKO to win the season 30 finale of The Ultimate Fighter.

Watch Live UFC with ESPN on Kayo. Full Fight Night Events, PPV Prelims, Ultimate Fighter Series & More. New to Kayo? Start your free trial now >

Usman had a lackluster opening round but only needed 36 seconds to end the bout in the second round.

He landed a heavy but deft left hook on Pauga, who immediately fell to the canvas, where he lay motionless.

The referee stopped the fight and launched himself over Pauga to ensure Usman didn’t do any more damage.

Usman flexed and slapped his chest as he claimed victory in The Ultimate Fighter — the reality MMA series run by UFC boss Dana White.

Kamaru and Mohammed became the first brothers to both win the competition.

Mohammed’s performance blew fans away and had many predicting big things for him if and when he makes his UFC debut.

CBS Sports’ Shakiel Mahjouri tweeted: “WOAH! Mohammad Usman erases a terrible first round and evaporates Zac Pauga from this universe.”

ESPN’s Myron Medcalf joked: “Imagine being a kid on the playground and you decide to mess with one of the Usman kids.

“And then they’re like, OK. Let me go and get my brothers. And those dudes show up. Ain’t gonna be fun.”

Kamaru, who is No. 1 in the UFC’s pound for pound rankings, defended his welterweight belt against Colby Covington last year and is set to return to the octagon against Leon Edwards at UFC 278 later this month.

.

Categories
Entertainment

Kate and William at Commonwealth Games shows where Meghan went wrong

Of all the gin joints, chintzy drawing rooms, Chelsea pub back rooms, Norfolk kitchens, and private members’ clubs in the UK; of all possible backdrops for a couple of deeply illuminating royal moments, whoever would have thought the 22nd Commonwealth Games in Birmingham would be it?

The first one took place outside a train toilet. really.

Matthew Syed is a journalist and Commonwealth Games gold medal winner – for table tennis, no less. This week, he and his son Ted were traveling to the Games to catch the action and he took to the pages of the Times to recount a truly extraordinary tale about the trip.

“Five minutes before pulling into [the Birmingham station], I use the bathroom (we are traveling first class) as Ted waits outside. As I am doing my thing, I hear him talking to a woman in the vestibule.

“They continue chatting as I use the soap, then tap, then dryer. Judging by the laughter, they are having a whale of a time… By the time I am finished, we are only a couple of minutes from the station.

“’Come on Ted,’ I say, ‘we have to get off!’

“’Oh, and thanks for keeping him company,’ I say, turning to the woman waiting [for] her turn when I am stopped in my tracks. My brow furrows, my face works. ‘Kate?’ I blurt out. There are no security guards in the vestibule; not armed guards. But here is the Duchess of Cambridge, chatting merrily with my son.”

Then we get to our second moment, starring Kate’s husband, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge in a chlorine-soaked aquatic center.

On Tuesday, the Duke, the Duchess and their daughter Princess Charlotte attended the swimming. While sitting in the middle of the crowd, he happily posed for a selfie with a group of Games volunteers who were seated in front of him.

Now, both of these instances could be filed under ‘Aw, aren’t they lovely?’ examples of two people who might be destined for coronations and crowns but who have not let their elevated status turn their heads.

But, this all comes after the publication of Tom Bower’s Revenge: Meghan, Harry And The War Between The Windsorsa 464-page full-frontal take-down of Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

And this week’s William and Kate stories? Those two, simple, brief interactions with the public? Well, they go a way to underscoring one of his key arguments about him, which is that Meghan’s expectations of royal life were a world away from the often unglamorous reality. Think, more making polite chitchat outside a public loo than private jets and Pol Roger.

At the heart of Bower’s book is the contention that when Meghan, clad in several hundred thousand dollars worth of couture Givenchy, made her way up the aisle of the 15th century St George’s Chapel at Windsor, she had little understanding of, or interest in learning about, the fabled institution she was joining.

Having, for so many long years, failed to claw her way out of the B-list, here she was, finally, about to become one of the most famous women in the world. The case that Bower makes is that the California native’s assumptions about what would follow were markedly different from what was, in actual fact, about to come next.

In Bower’s telling, even before the opening strains of Handel’s Eternal Source Of Light Divinewhich played as she made her way towards the altar, things were going off the rails.

Pre-engagement, when the couple was dating, Bower says that after “Harry’s demand for a dedicated female bodyguard for Meghan had been approved” that on one occasion, he met the Duke “on the tarmac at Heathrow with a police escort”.

“Meghan sped out of the airport towards Kensington. This was indeed the super-celebrity lifestyle for which she had always yearned.”

Then in the run-up to the big day, Meghan already “was confusing being famous with being a royal,” he writes. However, “the royal world is expected to be one of altruism, history, tradition and low-key patronage for no personal gain.”

Meghan’s misconception, in Bower’s reading of the situation, is that she fundamentally mistook the global fame of the royal family with Hollywood stardom, not grasping that, despite having become a Duchess and been catapulted to the highest stratosphere of stardom, she was not therefore automatically entitled to Beyonce-worthy treatment.

Take the issue of luxury gifts. Bower writes: “Palace gossip related that the publicity departments of some famous designer labels – Chanel, Dior, Armani, Givenchy and others – had been surprised by calls from a member of Meghan’s staff with a request: Meghan would be delighted if the House were to bequeath a handbag, shoes or an accessory to Kensington Palace in the near future. These items would be treated as goodwill gifts, the publicists were told. The women were puzzled by what they called ‘the Duchess’s discount’.

“In the past, their offers of gifts to Kate had been rejected on principle that the royal family did not accept freebies. Meghan’s staff, it appeared, were not worried about that rule.”

The veteran biographer writes that it would only be in 2019 that the Duchess “began to understand that the British monarchy, costing the public just £85 million ($A148 million) a year, was neither flush with money nor an invincible luxury Rolls-Royce machine. The power and influence which she assumed to have acquired from her marriage to Harry was an illusion.”

In the summer of that same year, one particular Meghan incident made international headlines. Attending Wimbledon with a couple of friends, their party de ella sat in the middle of a sea of ​​empty seats for a match, unlike when Kate regularly attended and took her place de ella in the stands, sitting in the midst of other tennis fans.

At one stage during the match, when a man sitting in the section in front of Meghan’s, got up to take a selfie of himself with the players, one of the Duchess’ protection officers “warned him about taking pictures in her vicinity,” according to the Daily Mail.

Former BBC sports commentator Sally Jones was also courtside.

“I felt this tap on my shoulder and was asked not to take pictures of the Duchess – but I had no idea she was there until then. I was absolutely gobsmacked,” Jones told the Email.

That Meghan took umbrage (or someone on her team took umbrage) at anyone trying to take her picture, despite that she had chosen to sit in a public place, where there were live TV cameras, looked all too much like suspiciously diva-ish behaviour. .

Contrast that scene with the events this week in Birmingham: In each instance, we have members of the royal family, at sporting events yet demonstrating two starkly different approaches to royalty.

At the end of the day, what William and Kate seem to fundamentally understand is that royalty is not the same thing as celebrity; it is not about special treatment, favorable seats or four-figure accessories finding their way into your wardrobe, free. It is about tedious devotion to duty no matter how repetitive or dull it might often be. (How many times do you think the Queen has asked, “And what do you do?” In her life de ella? I think we could confidently say the figure would have to be in the hundreds of thousands.)

The meat and potatoes of royal life is not swanning off to New York for an A-list baby shower held in a $100,000-a-night hotel suite but sitting through hospital wing openings and charming pensioners.

Really, HRHs are part public servants, albeit ones who don’t have to contend with home brand tea bags in the office kitchen, and part politicians stuck on lifelong hustings, forever trying to win the public over one handshake and smile at a time.

None of this is any sort of secret; none of this is insider knowledge. So why wasn’t Meghan better prepared?

One of the points that the Duchess of Sussex made during the Sussexes’ infamous Oprah Winfrey interview last year was that she “didn’t do any research about what that would mean” to marry into the royal family.

“I didn’t feel any need to, because everything I needed to know, he was sharing with me. Everything we thought I needed to know, he was telling me,” Meghan said.

That turned out to be a bit of a mistake now kids, didn’t it?

That an intelligent, educated woman would give up her career, adopted homeland, one of her dogs, and all of her friends to move across the world to dedicate her life to an ancient institution she knew nothing about defies all logic.

If she had done even a cursory Google search, she might have come across an excellent piece that Patrick Jephson, Diana, Princess of Wales’ long-time private secretary, had written way back in 2006 called “What Kate Should Know” in which he imagined what advice his old boss might give the younger woman.

Jepshon argues that the Princess would have urged Kate, that “modesty must be your watchword” and to “go easy on the conspicuous consumption”.

He writes: “Remember that living in a very big house surrounded by servants and riding in a gold carriage are all the excess that your future subjects will readily tolerate in their royal family. Don’t overlook the priceless symbolic value of Tupperware boxes, and try to develop a famous enthusiasm for turning off unnecessary electric lights.”

The piece (you can read it here) is basically a very sensible warning: Don’t let the gilded trappings of royalty go to your head. Understand the job for what it really is and get on with it.

If only Meghan had read Jephson’s piece; if only she had gone into royal life with a much clearer sense of what she was signing up for. That’s not to say ella she should have swallowed it holus bolus once she got there or not have tried to inject at least something fresh into the creaky monarchy – but forewarned is forearmed.

If Meghan had done a spot of Googling, she might also have come across the famous essay written by the journalist and satirist Malcolm Muggeridge in 1955 at the height of Princess Margaret’s fling with Group Captain Peter Townsend. In the piece, Muggeridge argued that “the application of film star techniques” to the royal family would ultimately have “disastrous consequences”.

He also said that the monarchy was “an institution that is accorded the respect and accoutrements of power without the reality”.

And, if the former Suits star had read a bit more still, she would have learned that the reaction to Muggeridge’s essay was so swift and furious it forced him out of the Garrick Club. (What a horrendous!)

Taking on the monarchy is not for the faint-hearted but joining it? That’s for people happy to take trains, make small talk with the public and to pretend to like watching competitive bowls.

Daniela Elser is a royal expert and a writer with more than 15 years’ experience working with a number of Australia’s leading media titles.

Read related topics:Kate Middleton Meghan Markle

.

Categories
Entertainment

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s unprecedented pressure after 12 hellish days

The very best thing about being Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex, right now, as far as I can tell, is that no one is going to make them go to Birmingham. On Friday, the Commonwealth Games opened in the Midlands city and in the coming days, various members of the royal family will be sent forth to do their flag-waving best.

Never mind that much of Europe is busy slathering on the SPF 50 or that the Queen has begun her usual summer hols or that the beaches of Mustique are calling. To be a working member of the British monarchy this week requires that all available HRHs front up while looking jolly pleased to have to wear a Team GB polo shirt and watch badminton.

Having absconded more than two and a half years ago for sunnier climes and fatter bank accounts, this sort of tedious duty is no longer part of the Sussexes’ lives.

Small mercies, huh?

However, aside from the fact that the couple won’t have to contend with so much polyester and so many hours of archery anytime soon, things are not exactly looking that rosy over Montecito way, with the couple having taken hit after hit over the last 12 days or so.

Rewind to July 18 and Harry and Meghan were jetting into New York where they had an appointment at the UN, with the duke having been asked to give the address to mark Nelson Mandela Day. In the couple strode to the famed building’s foyer, a masterful demonstration of what has become a hallmark of their post-royal careers – purposefully marching into the important buildings for supposedly important meetings and events after which … nothing much would seem to happen.

Anyway, they were back! Back at doing their quasi-royal darnedest! Harry had a speech, Meghan had a Jackie O-esque black dress – what could possibly go wrong?

Well, for one thing, not that many people turned up. As the Duke of Sussex gave his address to him, talking about climate change (conveniently forgetting that the family uses private jets on the reg), disinformation and abortion rights (all the good stars on these fronts) the vast majority of the seats were visibly empty.

For whatever reason, the bulk of the great and good of the international body would seem to have decided to be elsewhere and not watch the sixth in line to the throne have a crack at international statesmanship. (Maybe the UN cafeteria was serving waffles?)

If Harry looked grim when the couple was caught by the paparazzi leaving Italian restaurant Locanda Verde, he had every reason to look sour. That week saw the publication of biographer Tom Bower’s Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the War Between the Windsors.

Bower’s book is a largely unrelenting, highly unflattering take on the Sussexes, casting them as fueled by ego and some misguided notion that Meghan was going to be Diana mark two, aside from the fact that, in the biographer’s telling, she seemed to have no interest in the monarchy, no willingness to learn its fusty ropes and little enthusiasm for the boring parts of HRH-dom.

As the week progressed, Bower did the press rounds, offering a series of caustic takes including that he thought “they pose a real threat to the royal family” and labeling the duchess “a very scheming” person.

What is surprising has been the reaction from Montecito, with the Sussexes having so far not commented. While in the past, the duo have filed multiple court cases against various media outlets and sent out legal letters during the storm over their daughter Lilibet’s name, however in this instance they have remained staunchly silent.

Then came the development playing out in a court in Florida when lawyers for the duchess got into the “subjective” nature of truth. Earlier this year, the former actress was sued by her estranged half-sister Samantha Markle for allegedly telling “false and malicious lies” during her bombshell Oprah Winfrey interview last year.

This week, the Duchess of Sussex’s lawyers moved to dismiss the case, with legal papers filed by their side arguing that Meghan’s description of growing up “as an only child” during the interview was “obviously not meant to be a statement of objective fact” and was “a textbook example of a subjective statement about how a person feels about her childhood.”

While it’s an argument that has more than a tinge of Philosophy 101 (what is truth?) this strategy then raises an obvious question: If Meghan’s characterization about her upbringing was “subjective” then were any of the other devastating claims she made during the two -hour tell-all “subjective” too?

One bright spot on the horizon for the duo during all this was Harry’s successful appeal to the High Court for a judicial review over the Home Office’s decision to no longer automatically grant him full-time bodyguards when he is in the UK.

Except, even this was not exactly a slam dunk; just because the review was granted does not mean it will automatically be successful.

Then there is the cost of the whole legal imbroglio. the Sun has reported that the UK government has spent $156,000 on the case from September last year to May 2020. If Harry’s costs are similar then that would mean he has also spent well into the six figures to argue the case over his security arrangements which only pertain to the handful of days per year he has spent, on average, in the UK since quitting.

That bill could only go up if he ultimately loses the case, with the Home Office having previously said it will look to recover costs if they win.

While August is a traditionally quiet month on the Planet Royal, the rest of the year is shaping up to be a barnstormer of a doozy.

Harry is looking down the barrel of some of the most monumental months of his life since the sonic boom of Megxit, with news his memoir will be published before Christmas and with Page Six having reported that Netflix wants the couple’s “at home” docu series (shush you in the back there yelling “reality show”!) to hit screens this year too.

This book and show will very likely prove to be huge commercial successes for the couple, much needed professional wins after having released exactly no content up until this point for the streaming giant, since 2020 – but at what cost?

If either or both of these projects are focused on little more than the Sussexes launching a fresh volley of complaints about their treatment by the royal family, interspersed with some vignettes of them doing some caring, then they could be playing with fire.

If this scenario came to pass, they would run the risk of looking dangerously like little more than perpetual whingers who are clinging to the self-appointed victim status inside their $20 million mansion at a time when war, fire, floods and monkeypox are blighting the world.

Then there is what toll these two releases could take for his tattered relationship with House of Windsor, a bond that is reportedly hanging by a thread.

as the Sun’s former royal editor Duncan Lacrombe recently told the Daily Beast: “Once the book is out, William will have to make a decision about what he is going to do about Harry, but he is not going to do a thing until he knows what is on.” every page of that book. The reality is that if, as a senior member of the royal family, you have written a tell-all book, you have broken rule No. 1 of the royal family.”

If Harry’s book and/or their Netflix series sees them paint big fresh targets on the monarchy’s backs then will Queen & co. sit idly by and suffer through a fresh hellish round of monarchical character assassinations?

Thus far the Sussexes’ repeated media provocations have been met with a certain imperiousness and contrived dismissiveness from London but should the duke and duchess continue to bait the royal family but we might soon discover that The Firm has some very sharp teeth.

For example, the duo do still, of course, use their gifted Sussex titles from the Queen, day in and day out. While only parliament could officially revoke those titles, that is not to say the weight of the Crown and Harry’s father and brother could not be brought to bear pressure on them to no longer use them.

Would Prince Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor (or Prince Harry and Princess Henry of Wales) as they could only then call themselves be quite so marketable for Hollywood?

There is so much on the line for them in the coming month – their image, reputations, careers and potentially even a large chunk of money. But, there is always a sliver lining: At least no one is going to be making them sit through a table tennis match any time soon.

Daniela Elser is a royal expert and a writer with more than 15 years’ experience working with a number of Australia’s leading media titles.

Read related topics:prince harry

.