The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge made a somber appearance at the Leicester City Football Club today to pay tribute to those killed in a helicopter crash. LCFC Chairman Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha was one of those killed, and he and William knew each other and had some kind of friendship. William and Kate were welcomed by his widow, and they laid flowers at the tribute.

For this appearance, Kate wore a new Catherine Walker look. Initially, I thought this was just a straight-up dress, but it’s not. It’s a coat, and Kate is wearing some kind of short black dress underneath it. What I like about the coat/dress: the shoulders aren’t puffy, and the top part looks very well tailored. What I dislike: the puffy pleats of the “skirt.” And the big cloth buttons are… there. Most of the women attending this tribute event were in black, so even though Kate was in a conservative shade of grey, she still stood out. Also: I really don’t get her current “ponytail with ribbon” trend.

After the tribute, William and Kate met with the LCFC team, plus volunteers and club supporters. Then they went inside the stadium to meet with some of the charities supported by LCFC.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Just recorded my “At-Home Eyelash Extension Video” it will hopefully be up this week on my YouTube ? Used @colourpopcosmetics ‘Afternoon Delight’ Pressed Powder Bronzer , ‘Black n’ Brown’ Precision Brow Pencil ? Lenses: @ttd_eye in ‘caramel’ use “emma” for money off ?

A post shared by EMMA HALLBERG (@eemmahallberg) on Nov 12, 2018 at 12:41pm PST

You can believe that race is a social construct, or you can believe that race is a biology, or you can believe that race is both biological and social. I tend to believe it’s both. Genetics work in funny ways – sometimes – but of course race and racism seeps into cultural, political and social life in a million different ways. This is the first time I’ve heard the term “blackfishing” – apparently, it’s where white women use tanning, hair & makeup trickery to “look black,” especially online. The idea of blackfishing has been in the news recently because apparently, there’s a wave of white women and girls on social media who are pretending to be black… for, like, attention and profit.

The young woman in these IGs is named Emma Hallberg. She’s just 19 years old, and she’s Swedish and a self-styled “Instagram influencer,” meaning that she’s got a lot of followers and she posts a lot of stuff about fashion/hair/makeup. She’s also white. She was recently “outed” as white when someone posted a candid photo of her. Note the stark difference between how she presents herself on Instagram versus how she looks normally.

White girls if you want to pass as Black, how about using your platforms to address the injustices and discrimation actual Black people face. Don’t just appropriate, Appreciate the people you are imitating #emmahallberg pic.twitter.com/gpmkvB0BZj

— Niccole Nero Gaines (@2CsNiccole) November 19, 2018

Emma has a bit of Kardashian to her, eh? Initially, Emma addressed the criticism by messaging a fan, writing: “Yes I’m white and I’ve never claimed to be anything else. And by no way, there are no “before” pictures, the pictures that has been spread are just two diefferent [sic] pictures taken on two different seasons of the year.” Then she went on Instagram Stories with this message:

“Let me explain. You’ve probably seen these two pictures besides [sic] each other all over Instagram, Twitter and Facebook, where they are called the ‘before & after. The left picture was taken 2 years ago right before summer with barely any makeup and my hair straightened. The right picture was taken in July right after I came home from a vacation, with makeup. I’ve been accused of doing frequent spray tans, taking melatonin, getting hair perms and lip injections and many more. When I haven’t done anything of the above.” Hallberg then shared a series of recent photos of herself and credited her skin tone to spending a lot of time in the sun. “This is how the sun tans my skin naturally during the summer.”

[From People]

As I said at the beginning of this post, I believe race is both a biology and social construct. Of course there are white people with olive skin tones, white people who tan very deeply whenever they’ve been out in the sun, and of course there are white folks with naturally curly hair. There are people who are biologically white who can easily pass for mixed-race or black, just as there are black or mixed race people who can pass for white. So, is that what’s happening here? Or was Emma hoping that the “I never claimed I was black” technicality will get her through? Because she certainly seemed to be presenting herself as a black or mixed-race woman, and this definitely feels like blackfishing (from my understanding of it).

Okayyy so I just realized that I’ve over 1000 subscribers on YouTube ? ask me some questions down below that you would like me to answer in a Q&A ?? (I know you already have but since that was a couple of months ago I thought it would be fun with some new questions instead ) FULL OUTFIT: @fashionnova #NovaBabe ?

A post shared by EMMA HALLBERG (@eemmahallberg) on Sep 24, 2018 at 11:22am PDT

Photos courtesy of Instagram.

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt were supposed to be locked in last minute negotiations with their lawyers this week, and next week. Originally, they were due in court on December 4th to begin their contentious custody hearing, which would decide on custody of the five youngest Jolie-Pitt children. I’m still not 100% sure why they chose to tackle custody first, before they had even worked out a preliminary financial agreement, but I suspect that the financial stuff is tied to custody, as in… if Angelina gets primary custody, Brad will owe her more in support. Still, it feels like after two-plus years, they should be a lot further along. Unfortunately, the process seems to be slowing down – Angelina just asked for an extension while her lawyers negotiate with Brad’s lawyers.

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are locked in discussions to try and reach a settlement on the custody of their children and just asked the court to give them more time with the private judge so they can reach the finish line. According to documents, obtained by The Blast, Jolie filed a stipulation to extend the appointment of the Honorable John Ouderkirk as the judge dealing with the custody issue in their divorce. As we reported, Ouderkirk is the same guy who officiated the Pitt-Jolie wedding in 2014.

Jolie, who notes that Ouderkirk is privately compensated by the two stars, wants to make sure he oversee all the pre-trial motions and requests, and then handles the private custody trial, if necessary. The couple is asking that the judge be extended until December 31st, 2019. Ouderkirk was previously slated to be on board until June, so it seems the stars are making sure they have enough time to reach a settlement without going to a trial.

[From The Blast]

My reading of this is that the custody hearing – if it happens – will be pushed back until 2019, but both sides are truly trying to settle this part out of court. I still don’t know how I feel about that, incidentally. Like, I do think that an actual custody hearing will be difficult for the kids, but I also think that Brad will probably get more generous terms from an out-of-court settlement deal. Maybe I’m wrong? Like, a year ago, I would have said that Angelina would never even sit down and talk about a deal. But she seems to have softened a bit. Or maybe there’s some other angle I’ve haven’t considered.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Here are more photos from the Duchess of Cambridge’s appearance last Wednesday, when she made a surprise trip to the Psychology and Language Sciences Division of University College London. Kate was highlighting part of one of her causes, which is early childhood development and the mental health of children. The lab she visited studies the effect of language on infants and young children, basically making the scientific argument that it’s good for parents to talk a lot to their kids, from an educational and psychological standpoint. As it turns out, Kate had an interest in psychology when she attended St. Andrews, but she didn’t end up doing much about it:

The Duchess of Cambridge has revealed she studied psychology at university, as she discussed the importance of early intervention with vulnerable young children. As well as talking to researchers, led by Prof Eamon McCrory, co-director of the unit, she was shown its MRI scanning facility and was told about the university’s ground-breaking research on how early experiences can shape brain function and development, both socially and emotionally.

She asked: “Is the idea as well that you follow the child you are looking at into adulthood? It would be really fascinating. The research in general, have they [the children and their families] got much understanding of the bigger picture?”

The Duchess said yesterday: “I started off doing psychology at St Andrews, with History of Art.” She added, laughing: “It was a bit full on, but it was really interesting.”

At most Scottish universities students will take three subjects in first and second years before specialising in their final subject. The Duchess said her experience in the MRI suite had been “fascinating”. She was particularly keen to discuss how the research could be translated into practical help for families and the wider community.

“It’s trying to translate the amazing research you are doing here into something that parents can understand,” she remarked. “What do you feel is going to make the difference in this field? Is it increased funding? Is it awareness about the importance of early years intervention?” She added: ‘You hear a lot from people who have addiction in the family: have they any chance at all in being able to change the outcome? When you have got addiction stretching across three generations, can you change what will happen?”

[From The Telegraph]

I don’t completely understand the degree system in the UK, but I believe Kate has the equivalent of, like, a Bachelor’s in Art History. She basically took one or two classes in Psychology to fulfill some requirements for her liberal arts degree. I actually believe that she did have an interest in psychology, but she was probably convinced not to pursue it at university so she could spend more time pursuing William and tailoring her interests to his. But now that she has her MRS degree, she’s still finding some way to pursue an old interest.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

View this post on Instagram

Never let anyone burst your bubble. ???????

A post shared by Paris Hilton (@parishilton) on Nov 26, 2018 at 11:04pm PST

Paris Hilton is one of the four cover stars of December’s Gay Times. They put her in a retro photoshoot that’s monochromatic but interesting in a milquetoast way, like Paris herself so they captured that. She’s predictable, she’s been saying and doing the same things year after year and there’s something comforting about her sameness. Paris always talks about how she was a pioneer in reality television with The Simple Life. There’s the feeling that she wants to recapture her early fame but is unwilling to admit that or change her approach at all. That’s why I’m skeptical of the claim she makes in this interview that she turned down a Simple Life reboot. They didn’t offer her enough money to do it or it wasn’t on brand or something. Or maybe Nicole Richie refused to sign on. Otherwise Paris would have jumped at it. I’m assuming this was before she broke it off with her fiance or she would have talked aboutiit. Or maybe not since her narcissism probably doesn’t leave her much room for caring about another person. She’s all about herself and her career and she’ll tell you about it. I’m relying on E!’s coverage as the article is not on Gay Times’ site yet:

On her product lines being sold worldwide
“It’s definitely a surprise for people when they hear that my product lines are sold all over the world. They’re always asking me why I travel so much and it’s because I love what I do.”

“I love meeting with my fans around the world and getting to spend time with them, and it’s important for me to optimize my time when I’m back in these different cities and countries and visit local charities and give back.”

She claimed she didn’t have enough time to do a Simple Life reboot
“They actually approached me to re-do it again but my schedule was so insane that I didn’t have time to do it so I said no, but it would be pretty epic.

“It changed my whole life since it was the first of its kind. There really was nothing out there like it in the world. After that show, I got to go all around the world and it really just started my career in this business.”

On the LGBTQ community
“They’re incredibly supportive of me as a person and a business woman, and they’ve been on this amazing journey throughout my career and taught me so much along the way. They’re so inspirational to me in every way.”

She is for trans rights, but didn’t she vote for Trump?
“No community deserves to have their rights taken from them, and the trans community shouldn’t be targeted with administrative regulations on their human lives. I plan to use my platform to speak out and to continue to give this community a voice.”

On her future plans
“World domination. I’m just going to continue working hard, living life to the fullest, releasing new products, music, and DJ-ing around the world. Just being a boss babe and killing it.”

[From Gay Times via E! Online]

I was going to make this story about Paris saying she was going for world domination, but then I read the comments on Gay Times’ Instagram below. So many people were calling them out for featuring a celebrity who voted for Trump. Paris did say in 2016 that she voted for Trump because she’s “known him since I’m a little girl [sic].” Now, like Caitlyn Jenner, she’s appalled at Trump’s treatment of the transgender community when everyone knew this would happen. We knew that every marginalized group, including gay people, trans people, immigrants, minorities, woman and even animals, would have their rights stripped under this villainous administration. But sure, she’s going to “continue to give this community a voice.” Trans people don’t need Paris f-ing Hilton to have a voice. Is Paris going to support Democratic candidates from now on or is she going to continue to vote with her white girl wallet and blow smoke about supporting LGBTQ rights? Also, last year she later tried to dial it back and claimed she didn’t even vote. She lies through her veneers regularly and in that same interview she said that the many women accusing Trump of assault “are just trying to get attention and get fame.” WHAT ARE YOU DOING THEN PARIS? Isn’t that your whole career? I can’t with her.

View this post on Instagram

GAY TIMES DECEMBER 2018 • PARIS HILTON in conversation with KIM PETRAS The OG influencer, inventor of the selfie, philanthropist, businesswoman, animal lover, ally. It’s hard to describe Paris Hilton in just one sentence, and far harder to speak on her enduring impact on modern popular culture. In conversation with pop star Kim Petras, she speaks on her admiration for the LGBTQ community, her thoughts on the Tr*mp administration’s harmful policies against trans people and wraps it all with a conclusive “That’s Hot” list. Photography: @vijatm Fashion: @sammykstyle In conversation with: @kimpetras Makeup: @samvissermakeup Set & Props: @sarah_hein_ Set: @mykpierce Hair: @hairbyiggy Nails: @mazzhannabeauty As told to: @wjconnolly Subscribe now via our bio link!

A post shared by GAY TIMES (@gaytimesmag) on Nov 23, 2018 at 8:57am PST

View this post on Instagram

The way you look at me makes my heart melt… ???

A post shared by Paris Hilton (@parishilton) on Nov 26, 2018 at 7:52pm PST

Photos credit: Avalon.red and via Instagram

As we discussed yesterday, people really want to believe that Meghan Markle somehow made the Duchess of Cambridge cry just days before Meghan’s wedding. “Sources” came short of saying that Meghan did or said something to Kate to make her cry, but we’re supposed to draw the conclusion. It happened at a fitting for Princess Charlotte’s bridesmaid’s dress, and just weeks after Kate had given birth to baby Louis. Well, even People Magazine made it seem like it was nothing – they made a point of saying that William and Kate were both in good spirits at the wedding:

Kate Middleton was said to be “left in tears” after a fitting for Princess Charlotte‘s bridesmaid dress ahead of Meghan Markle‘s royal wedding to Prince Harry, according to a new report in the U.K. press. A source told veteran royals reporter Camilla Tominey of The Daily Telegraph, “Kate had only just given birth to Prince Louis and was feeling quite emotional” — though just what upset her is unclear.

Several insiders have told PEOPLE that there was a notable amount of “stress” surrounding those involved in the wedding. Still, a royal wedding guest previously told PEOPLE that Prince William “was in a jokey, wonderful mood” at Meghan and Prince Harry‘s private evening reception — and that Kate was in “great form.”

Although Kate, 36, and Meghan, 37, have made several joint appearances as part of the Royal Fab Four – and even attending Wimbledon for a girls’ day without their husbands over the summer – they’re “very different women, despite their similar circumstances,” a source told The Daily Telegraph. “Meghan is an extrovert, whereas Kate is quite shy.”

[From People]

Have I seen that quote before? “Meghan is an extrovert, whereas Kate is quite shy.” Apparently not – it first appeared in the Telegraph article about Kate’s tears. But it’s been the undercurrent of a lot of reporting and a lot of Keen-stan and Meg-stan gossip – the idea that Meghan is ONLY good at this because she’s an extrovert, and poor weepy Kate is so painfully shy. I don’t think Kate is shy – she’s an introvert, for sure, but that’s different than being shy.

Also, the same Telegraph article claims that Meghan and Harry both cried before the wedding, but their tears were about Thomas Markle:

When Meghan Markle’s father, Thomas Markle, revealed last minute that he couldn’t attend the royal wedding, the future Duchess of Sussex confirmed the news in a brief yet cordial statement. “Sadly, my father will not be attending our wedding. I have always cared for my father and hope he can be given the space he needs to focus on his health,” her message began. But her reaction behind the scenes was much more emotional. According to a new report from The Telegraph, the shocking news of Thomas Markle’s absence from the nuptials “reduced both Meghan and Harry to tears.”

The back-and-forth drama, which unraveled just days before the wedding, “perhaps explains why the prince went to such great lengths to ensure his bride-to-be could have everything she wanted on her big day,” according to The Telegraph. A source told reporter Camilla Tominey that the Duke of Sussex is “understandably extremely protective” of the Duchess.

[From Harper’s Bazaar]

I felt like crying in the days leading up to their wedding too. That was the craziest lead-up I’ve ever seen, with Thomas Markle giving impromptu interviews to TMZ and refusing to take his daughter’s calls, and Prince Charles being called in to save the day. It was hectic and stressful and it was a miracle that Meghan and Harry sorted themselves out for the wedding. So, yes, everybody was crying. Meg, Harry, Kate, probably Charles too.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Awards season began this year with a whimper, not a bang. I think it’s just one of those timing things – people are paying attention to politics and thinking about the holiday season. The biggest films of the year are not the ones which will get big award nomination, like Creed 2, or Black Panther. But I also think there’s just been a fundamental shift over the past decade, and even more so in the past couple of years – the awards season is boring. It’s a slog. Some of the worst films end up winning the biggest prizes. And so people have really checked out.

All that being said, I have high hopes for this awards season. One, Black Panther actually came to play, and I feel like there will be hell to pay if BP doesn’t end up with some Best Picture nominations. Two, there are a couple of “hit films” which will end up being major contenders, like A Star Is Born. ASIB was a financial and critical success, and Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga let it be known that they were coming for #AllTheOscars back in AUGUST. And their plan seems to be working out – the prestigious National Board of Reviews gave their biggest awards to Green Book and ASIB.

The National Board of Review on Tuesday revealed its 2018 award winners, naming Green Book as its pick for best film. In addition to Green Book receiving the top honor, Viggo Mortensen, the star of the Universal release, was named best actor.

Bradley Cooper’s box-office and critical-smash remake of A Star Is Born, from Warner Bros., received three awards from the NBR; Cooper was named best director, with star Lady Gaga tapped as best actress and co-star Sam Elliott named best supporting actor.

Barry Jenkins’ Moonlight follow-up If Beale Street Could Talk, which Annapurna is set to release in theaters starting Dec. 14, won two awards: best supporting actress for Regina King and best adapted screenplay for Jenkins. Other major winners include Paul Schrader’s First Reformed script (best original screenplay), Incredibles 2 (best animated feature), Leave No Trace’s Thomasin McKenzie (breakthrough performance), Bo Burnham’s Eighth Grade (best directorial debut), RBG (best documentary), Crazy Rich Asians (best ensemble) and Cold War (best foreign-language film).

[From THR]

I say this every year, but I put a lot of stock in what the NBR says – while they don’t have the best record with picking winners, their awards usually help narrow the field and predict early front-runners. I feel like Green Book is going to stumble, if it hasn’t already, by the time the Oscar nominations come out. But A Star Is Born? That’s here to stay. Lady Gaga will get nominated for Best Actress across the board, I’m absolutely sure. Bradley Cooper will get nominated for Best Director. ASIB is a huge Oscar contender.

Also: the Gotham Awards happened this week, and they are not a good prognosticator of what will happen later in the awards season. You can see this year’s Gotham winners here.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

When I first heard of Green Book, I really did think to myself, “Oh, I bet it gets lots of Oscars, because it’s the kind of palatable film about race and racism that Hollywood loves to tell.” It’s historical (set in the early ‘60s), it’s loosely based on a true story (Dr. Don Shirley and his driver), and it stars two of the best actors of their generations, Mahershala Ali (an Oscar winner) and Viggo Mortensen (a multiple Oscar nominee). It’s about dudes and racism and it seemed vaguely reminiscent of Driving Miss Daisy. Green Book made the rounds at several film festivals and critics liked it, and some festivals even gave it some awards. Green Book got a wide release (following a limited release) this past weekend. And it went nowhere during the long holiday weekend. Which caused Vulture to wonder if American audiences have outgrown the simplistic and Trumpian Both-Sidesism of Hollywood’s race politics. From Vulture:

To understand why [the film bombed], it’s necessary to take a closer look at Green Book’s strategic and timeworn take on racism — a “we all have something to learn” approach that, on paper, may mark it as both a reaction to the polarization of the Trump era and a symptom of the both-sides-ism that often defines it. Tony is a tough working-class-Italian family man who applies for a job driving Don Shirley through the South. That might be a reasonable setup through which to explore some of the, what’s it called again, “anxiety” that many white people felt when Obama was elected, except that the movie stacks the deck against Don from the first time we meet him. Chilly, aloof, and so refined that he literally lives above Carnegie Hall, Don conducts Tony’s job interview in gold raiment, sitting on a thronelike chair on a raised platform.

Another movie might have explored Don’s costumed hauteur from within, understanding it as a defense, a calculation, even a performance. (The real Shirley was also a psychologist, a fact about which Green Book expresses virtually no interest.) But this film uses his remoteness geometrically; it’s one point on a triangle, exactly as far from the apex that represents a warm and human ideal as the other point — Tony’s unregenerate coarseness and frank racism — is.

Green Book sometimes feels less imagined than measured with a protractor…. Tony needs to broaden his horizons and learn how to write his wife a nice letter (he ends up taking dictation, Cyrano-style, from Don, who naturally has nobody to write nice letters to), but also Don needs to learn to enjoy fried chicken and Aretha Franklin and be more comfortable in his skin. Tony needs to grow up (because racism is, in movies like Green Book, primarily a sign of immaturity), but also Don needs to loosen up; he’s so constricted that he owns a chess set with only white pieces! Tony needs to get a little smarter, but also Don is too smart, like Obama was. “It don’t look fun to be that smart,” Tony — so unrefined yet so observant about deeper truths! — writes home. (Don didn’t need to help him with that sentence.)

Green Book is a but also movie, a both sides movie, and in that, it extends a 50-year-plus tradition of movies that tell a story about American racism that has always been irresistibly appealing, on and offscreen, to that portion of white Americans who see themselves as mediators. They’re the reasonable, non-racist people poised halfway between unrepentant, ineducable racists on one side and, on the other, black people who, in this version of the American narrative, almost always have something to learn themselves.

[From Vulture]

Vulture’s analysis made me happy that I chose to see Widows rather than Green Book. It’s also worth noting that Viggo completely bungled the promotion just when people first started paying attention – it was Viggo who thought he had the right to drop the n-word in the middle of a Q&A session, and I truly believe that incident was the first time the public at large even heard about Green Book. Still, Green Book’s calculation is as Vulture notes – that Viggo’s crude, racist white character is the one who is “humanized” and the story is told through his eyes, as if he’s the hero. And here’s something that happened just as I was writing this up: the National Board of Review gave VIGGO their Best Actor Award and the NBR also named Green Book their best film award. So… even though the film is problematic, and even though Don Shirley’s family wants no part of it (more on that in a moment), the most influential film critics’ association is still giving Viggo their Best Actor Award, and their top honor for best film. Ugh.

As for Don Shirley’s family hating the movie – it’s true. They spoke out last week, saying that the film is a “depiction of a white man’s version of a Black man’s life,” and that the film is full of “lies” and “distortion.” My take? Don’t see this film.

Photos courtesy of ‘Green Book’ and Backgrid.

Jameela Jamill plays Tahani Al-Jamil on The Good Place. Personally, I think she’s great in the role. In her real life, she’s a self-appointed spokesperson for body positivity. Jameela has an Instagram page she started called i_weigh that invites people of every body type to post their image and all the qualities they value that don’t pertain to their weight. It’s a nice campaign and has offered many a place of support. In addition to the personal posts, Jameela uses the platform to call out sponcons promoting unsafe or unrealistic “diet” fixes. And she’s not delicate in her rebuffs. One of her favorite targets is the Kardashian Klan who make a lot of money selling placebos to vulnerable people. The latest Kardashian to catch Jameela’s ire was Khloe with her Flat Tummy partnership:

Oh my god you guys! This product that must also come with a personal trainer, a dietician and a plastic surgeon is on sale! All those things in one case of non FDA approved dog shit! fabulous! ?? pic.twitter.com/a9Qxu9jgxU

— Jameela Jamil (@jameelajamil) November 23, 2018

I mean, she’s not wrong. We all know that Khloe isn’t using this to maintain her shape. The day after Jameela went for Khloe, she targeted Cardi B and her “detox tea” post:

They got Cardi B on the laxative nonsense “detox” tea. GOD I hope all these celebrities all shit their pants in public, the way the poor women who buy this nonsense upon their recommendation do. Not that they actually take this shit. They just flog it because they need MORE MONEY pic.twitter.com/OhmTjjWVOp

— Jameela Jamil (@jameelajamil) November 24, 2018

Again, I can’t fault this, especially considering Cardi’s promoting a ‘detox’ right after she said she was depressed about not being able to stop losing weight. I’m not sure I would have phrased it the same way, but Jameela knows how to make headlines and that spreads her message farther. For what it’s worth, Cardi had a really funny comeback.

I like this part of Jameela’s message. I noticed all the “fat loss” products on Cyber Monday and came very close to adding a couple to my cart. All I knew about them was that the person in the photo had the stomach I wanted. I know Jameela is not the perfect spokesperson, but I do think she’s doing good work by calling these snake-oil salesmen out. I want to support i_weigh and hope that as it evolves and becomes more inclusive, it becomes mainstream.

Give us the discount codes to your nutritionists, personal chefs, personal trainers, airbrushers and plastic surgeons you bloody liars. pic.twitter.com/2wes19cJdb

— Jameela Jamil (@jameelajamil) November 26, 2018

Photo credit: Avalon and Twitter

Can I complain about something media-related? Ever since Graydon Carter left Vanity Fair, their cover stories have been THE WORST. It’s like the VF journalists doing celebrity cover stories have been encouraged to be as obtuse as possible, and they’re told to spend the first half of their long-read pieces not even quoting from their subject. So it is with VF’s “Holiday Issue” cover subject, Lin Manuel Miranda. Miranda is quotable, interesting, passionate, political and somewhat macabre and fatalistic. This piece should have been a slam-dunk full of interesting quotes from Miranda about EVERYTHING. Instead, they spent like three pages regurgitating the plot of the old Mary Poppins and the new Poppins movie, all before Miranda is even quoted once. You can read this mess here. Some highlights:

On moving to London to film ‘Mary Poppins Returns’: “The other thing you have to know is my wife is Dominican and Austrian. She was born in Sweden and wants to live everywhere in the world. My first musical is literally about how I do not want to leave Washington Heights.”

On watching the original ‘Poppins’: “I couldn’t get through ‘Feed the Birds.’ I was very sensitive to minor-key music, and that song was so sad that I don’t think I saw the ending of Mary Poppins until I was grown, because I would just cry. I loved ‘Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.’ I loved Dick Van Dyke. I loved the whole movie but then that one song was so sad I kind of never survived it.”

He often had emotional reactions to music as a kid: “My family had so many stories about that, about how Stevie Wonder’s ‘I Just Called to Say I Love You’ would come on and they’d have to change the channel because I would burst into tears. You know what? I actually remember the feeling. I remember it was so many ‘nos’ in the lyrics. ‘No New Year’s Day to celebrate’—it felt apocalyptic to me as a little kid. ‘No songs to sing’—I was like, ‘Turn it off!’ I was very sensitive. ‘Bridge Over Troubled Water’ apparently just laid me out when I was an infant. My parents have all kinds of stories like that.”

He’s drawn to fatalistic stories of men who die young: “[Bob] Fosse, [Jonathan] Larson, Hamilton—they’ve all got this awareness of the ticking clock and I think I very much have that, the awareness of ‘All right, this is how much time we have. How much can we get done while we’re here?’… I think the tragedy that Larson did not get to see his own legacy resonated with me enormously. But, it was his worth that I really responded to—more than his passing. I felt so seen by the character of Mark in Rent when I first saw it—the guy who just films everything because he doesn’t really want to engage.”

Where his fatalism comes from: “I had a close friend who passed away when I was about three years old. That’s among my earlier memories. It was a kid who was in my class, in my pre-K. It was one of those tragic things.” I asked if he minded explaining what had happened. “It’s really sort of not my story to tell,” he replied, “but she drowned. It was just one of those horrible stories where no one had an eye on her in a critical moment and that happened. No one’s fault. It’s just what happened…. When dying is concrete, and it’s someone you played in the sandbox with? I think it becomes very real in a way. I’m sure that’s a central part of it for me.”

[From Vanity Fair]

The interview is actually a sad read, because so much of what Miranda discusses with VF is about his sense of urgency, his decades-long fears that he will not have the chance to do everything he wants to do because he’ll die suddenly. It made me sad because… what if he’s right? The fear of death envelopes so many artists, and no one knows what will happen. At least Miranda has been appreciated and recognized in his time. But lord, this was fatalistic even for a magazine which used to regularly put dead Kennedys and Marilyn Monroe on their covers several times a year.

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty, Vanity Fair.