Richard Riehle, best known for his show-stealing role as Tom Smykowski in Office Space, has died. He was 78 years old.
As reported by multiple outlets, those close to Riehle confirmed he died on October 15 of natural causes.
Though his answer to the question: “What would you say…you do here?” is perhaps the most quotable of his career, Richard Riehle was a renowned character actor, appearing in hundreds of movies and TV shows over the course of nearly 50 years. Additionally, he performed twice on Broadway, first in Execution of Justice (1986) and then The Iceman Cometh (1999).
No matter your television preferences, you’ve likely seen Riehle in a favorite show. He appeared in everything from NCIS to Modern Family to The West Wing.
The role to which he returned most, however, was none other than Santa Claus. Richard Riehle played jolly old Saint Nick a total of eight times over the course of his career, including five movies, two TV shows, and a straight to TV film.
Riehle is survived by his wife, Jane Latham, and their four children.
Fed up with ads, tracking, and sluggish interfaces, some smart TV owners are turning to AI agents to strip away bloatware and take back control of their TVs.
John Ford’s classic 1950 WesternRio Grande stars John Wayne as Lieutenant Colonel Kirby Yorke, whose regiment is tasked with defending settlers in Texas from Apaches during the late 1800s. Kirby is in charge of training new recruits and soon learns that his son, Jefferson, whom he hasn’t seen in more than a decade, has enlisted as a private in the Army. Kirby informs the teenage boy (played by Claude Jarman Jr.) that he won’t be getting any special treatment and proceeds to whip him into shape. However, before long, Kirby’s estranged wife, Kathleen (Maureen O’Hara), shows up to take their son home.
A little over an hour into the film, Kirby tells his wife that he’s decided not to bring Jefferson along with him in pursuit of the Apaches in Mexico. Though Rio Grande remains beloved for a great many reasons, this scene in particular has attracted considerable attention in recent years—and not for anything that was intended by the cast or crew. If you keep your eye on the top left-hand part of the screen as Kirby’s breaking the news to Kathleen, you’ll see what looks like a UFO shooting across the sky in the background. Check out the clip for yourself below.
Did John Ford Accidentally Capture a UFO in His 1950 Western ‘Rio Grande’?
Naturally, this discovery has sparked an ongoing debate regarding what’s actually happening in that footage. While several sources claim that Rio Grande was filmed entirely on location in Monument Valley, some parts of the movie were said to have been shot at Republic Studios in Los Angeles. The zoomed-in portions of the video above make it appear as though the sequence in question was recorded on a soundstage. So, for that to be an alien craft flying around behind John Wayne, keep in mind that it would have to be a pretty tiny one.
Is that enough to rule out the possibility of a UFO in everyone’s mind? Of course not, but the fact that neither of the actors in the scene noticed or reacted to what was going on reveals how insignificant it was. After all, even a really small craft would make a noise if it was right next to you, no? The more likely explanation is that Ford captured light reflecting off of the backdrop, and probably just didn’t realize it—or care enough about it to bother reshooting the sequence.
The October 28, 1995 episode of MADtv featured a parody trailer for a fictional horror movie called Apollo the 13th: Jason Takes NASA. This was, of course, referencing both Apollo 13 and the Friday the 13th films (the eighth entry of which was subtitled Jason Takes Manhattan). In the apparent crossover—that we’re told has been directed by Ron Howard—Jason Voorhees somehow ends up aboard a spaceship on its way to the cosmos. Predictably, this leads to plenty of bloodshed.
One by one, Jason picks off the ship’s other passengers, much like he would in a typical Friday the 13th sequel. “No American’s ever been hacked to pieces in space by a hockey mask wearing homicidal maniac, and it sure as hell isn’t gonna happen on my watch,” says the flight director, played by Artie Lange—who’s clearly spoofing Ed Harris’s character from Apollo 13. The two-minute “teaser” concludes with the narrator saying, “One small step for man, one giant slash for Jason.” Check it out for yourself below.
A 1995 ‘MADtv’ Sketch Basically Predicted the Entire Premise of ‘Jason X’
Hilariously enough, six years after MADtv aired that segment, the folks at New Line Cinema decided it was time to take Jason to outer space for real. 2001’s Jason X finds the beloved serial killer in pretty much the same exact situation as his Apollo the 13th counterpart. The plot of the film might not be identical to the skit, but the basic premise seems almost too close to be a coincidence: Jason gets brought into space, it unsurprisingly doesn’t curb his desire to murder people, and a rampage ensues.
It’s ironic that the movie even got made, considering that the whole point of the MADtv send-up was to show how ridiculous the idea was. As you probably could’ve guessed, Jason X wasn’t exactly well-received. Not that any of the Friday the 13th entries were ever critically acclaimed, but the earlier sequels are at least looked at as classics by some horror fans. At press time, Jason X has the second-lowest audience score out of the entire series on Rotten Tomatoes—putting it only slightly behind 1993’s Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday.
If you spend any time on r/synthesizers or watch a lot of synth videos on YouTube, you've probably noticed the explosion of custom firmware for hardware synthesizers, samplers, and grooveboxes. What unites almost all of them is that they were made possible by increasingly sophisticated vibe-coding tools.
These sorts of custom firmware were exceedingly rare in the pre-LLM days and required both deep expertise and an incredible investment of time. It could take weeks or months to add a simple feature like velocity sensitivity to a Korg Volca. Now, hobbyist hackers are able to turn Temu synths into full-fledged grooveboxes in a matter of days.
Buffy the Vampire Slayerwas one of the biggest television shows of the late 90s, launching the careers of many big Hollywood names, including Sarah Michelle Gellar. However, Buffy also featured guest stars who had accomplished careers at the time of filming—and ones who had scheduling conflicts.
Keep reading for five stars who nearly appeared on Buffy. Oh, what could’ve been…
1. Britney Spears
Britney Spears is one of Hollywood’s most recognizable names, and she was a big fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. She was also friends with Gellar, so a cameo seemed like a natural fit. Spears was lined up to play April, a robot “girlfriend” Warren created to make him happy. Ultimately, actress Shonda Farr got the role because Spears had scheduling conflicts. When the episode aired in 2001, Spears was at the height of her fame; her name was on every headline. The media scrutinized her to no end, and had she appeared on Buffy in this role, it would’ve given her harshest critics even more ammo to bully her. So while we would’ve loved to see Spears on the show, it was probably for the best.
2. Freddie Prinze Jr.
Speaking of people with a real-life connection to Gellar, her longtime husband, Freddie Prinze Jr., auditioned for a role on the show. He auditioned for Dracula on Season 5, but Randolph Martin got the role. If Freddie had gotten it, it would’ve been the third project they’d starred in together early in their careers. They met on the set of I Know What You Did Last Summer in 1997 and started dating three years later, eventually filming the live-action Scooby-Doo films as Fred and Daphne. Since then, they’ve starred in several animated projects together.
3. Katie Holmes
Before she starred in Dawson’s Creek, Katie Holmes auditioned for the titular character on Buffy the Vampire Slayer but turned it down to finish high school. Although she never appeared on Buffy, other actresses who auditioned for the role landed roles on the show, including Julie Benz and Mercedes McNab.
4. Ryan Reynolds
Ryan Reynolds was offered the role of Buffy’s best friend Xander Harris—a key member of the Scooby Gang—but declined because he didn’t want to play a high school character. Xander appeared in all seven seasons, which would’ve given Reynolds a consistent paycheck. However, it’s a prime example of betting on yourself. In 1998, he made his big break on NBC’s sitcom Two Guys and a Girl.
5. Natasha Lyonne
A fresh-faced Natasha Lyonne was making a name for herself on the indie film circuit, which eventually helped land her a breakout feature film role in 1999’s American Pie. Before that, though, Lyonne alleges she was first in the running to play Buffy Summers. However, she didn’t want to commit to a network at 16, so she turned down the role and other WB roles.
Since 2016, Netflix’s Stranger Things has shown fans a much darker side of Indiana. Although the show had its series finale last year, it remains a huge fixture of pop culture. But 25 years before The Duffer Brothers introduced millions to Hawkins, Indiana, and The Party, NBC aired its own sci-fi show, Eerie, Indiana.
‘Eerie, Indiana’ walked so ‘Stranger Things’ could run
Eerie, Indiana follows teenager Marshall Teller, who has just moved to a small Midwestern town. The more he explores, the more he realizes there’s strange paranormal activity. With the help of his friends, they investigate the urban legends and supernatural events plaguing the town.
Although it only aired 19 episodes, Eerie, Indiana has developed a cult following. It dared to be different in a time when conventional television was the way forward. Shows like Eerie proved that oddball stuff had a place too, inspiring many shows we see today. It directly inspired Disney’s beloved animated series, Gravity Falls. “I was obsessed with Eerie Indiana,” Gravity Falls creator Alex Hirsch wrote on X. “Gravity Falls was literally just me as an adult trying to reboot my favorite cancelled show from when I was a kid.”
They both follow groups of children who uncover supernatural elements and otherworldly creatures in the heartland of America—unassuming Midwest towns. They also have the nostalgic factor. While Stranger Things is a modern interpretation of the ‘80s, Eerie, Indiana was filmed in the ‘90s, making it an authentic time capsule for the 90s babies.
They share a lot of similarities, but their biggest difference is their format. Stranger Things is a serialized sci-fi drama, while Eerie, Indiana leans into comedy and surrealism. Stranger Things isn’t an exact copy of Eerie, Indiana. However, for sci-fi fans, it fills the void that the Netflix show leaves behind.
how to watch ‘eerie, indiana’ for FRee
Unlike other shows from the era, Eerie, Indiana is free to watch. You can stream all episodes on Tubi, PLEX, The CW app, and Pluto TV. Other childhood favorites can be streamed for free on sites like Tubi, including Goosebumps, Are You Afraid of the Dark?, The Nightmare Room, and Tales From the Cryptkeeper.
Mister Organ doesn't reach the level of societal horror of The Act of Killing or the creepypasta-meets-true-crime gruesomeness of Beware the Slenderman, but there's something deeply unsettling about Michael Organ and his intimate campaign of terror against everyone who enters his life.
Mister Organ is a documentary by David Farrier, an Auckland, New Zealand journalist. The movie starts with Farrier reporting on Bashford Antiques, a shop in Ponsonby that has begun aggressively clamping cars in its lot and demanding exorbitant fees to release them - up to $760. Farrier's article for The Spinoff eventually led the government to introduce legi …
The filing also says that the “vast majority” of Character.AI employees who were offered jobs at Disney accepted them. However, this is a stalking horse bid, so another company could come forward with a higher offer.
J Mascis on stage during Dinosaur Jr.’s Baby’s Alright show in NYC. | Photo: Terrence O’Brien
Dinosaur Jr. frontman J Mascis is known as something of a slacker guitar god. He stands stoically onstage, barely moving, as he seemingly effortlessly works through deft guitar solos and lopsided riffs. Unfortunately, Mascis has developed a similar reputation as an interview subject, quietly sitting and offering deft nonanswers.
That's not to say that Mascis can't be funny or charming. As our interview was winding down and I was thanking him for his time, he started to loosen up a bit. He told me about his youth as a mini golf "enthusiast." "I had a 3-foot putt for the win" at a mini-golf tournament, he said, but "that's when I realized tha …
Peter Benchley’s 1974 novel Jaws was an immediate success upon release and was subsequently adapted into the blockbuster Steven Spielberg movie of the same name the following year. But despite the book putting Benchley on the map and making him a millionaire, the author began to second-guess his work as time went on. “What I now know, which wasn’t known when I wrote Jaws, is that there is no such thing as a rogue shark which develops a taste for human flesh,” Benchley was quoted as saying in 2000. “No one appreciates how vulnerable they are to destruction.”
Furthermore, Benchley explained that he never would’ve written the hit novel if he’d realized how much damage it would do to the reputation of the great white shark. After the book’s debut, Benchley became a shark expert and spent the rest of his life advocating for the creatures he’d unintentionally demonized. “Considering the knowledge accumulated about great whites in the past 25 years, I couldn’t possibly write Jaws today…not in good conscience, anyway,” Benchley told the Cape Cod Times ahead of the premiere of his National Geographic documentary Great White, Deep Trouble.
The Author of ‘Jaws’ Became a Shark Conservationist After Learning the Truth About Great Whites
According to scientist Simon Thorrold of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Jaws helped legitimize shark hunting. An estimated 50 to 100 million sharks are killed by humans each year, but sharks are only responsible for a small number of human deaths by comparison. “If you bought into the fact that you had this rogue, cold-blooded killer going around hunting humans, then obviously anything you could do to stop those sharks was good,” said Thorrold. “It provided cover for people who simply wanted to go out and kill sharks under the guise of somehow making people safer.”
However, Benchley, who died in 2006, insisted that reports of him regretting the book were untrue. “Regret is a waste of time in a case like this,” he argued. “There’s nothing I can do about it.” He eventually learned that stories revolving around sharks attacking boats and staying in a single area to feed on humans were implausible. As he tells it, things wouldn’t happen that way in real life because the animals have a tendency to spit people out.
The Party at Kitty and Stud’s is a softcore porno flick from 1970 that would probably be completely forgotten today if it weren’t for one minor detail: it happens to star Sylvester Stallone. The story, appropriately enough, revolves around a young couple named Kitty (Henrietta Holm) and Stud (Stallone). Despite Stud having his fair share of flaws, the two have a very active sex life, which sometimes ventures into sadomasochism. After Stud posts a party invitation on a bulletin board, a few people drop by the pair’s apartment, and their little get-together quickly turns into a full-blown orgy.
While speaking with Playboyin 1978, Stallone explained that he was destitute when he decided to take the part, which ended up being his first starring role in a movie. “I’d been bounced out of my apartment and had spent four nights in a row at the Port Authority Bus Terminal, trying to avoid the cops, trying to get some sleep and keeping my pens and books in a 25-cent locker,” the actor revealed. “That’s why I thought it was extraordinary when I read in one of the trade papers that I could make $100 a day,” he continued. “And the fact that I had to take off my clothes to do it was no big deal.”
Why Sylvester Stallone Agreed to Star in a Softcore Porn Movie Before He Was Famous
Though The Party at Kitty and Stud’s only appears to have had a limited release initially, the owners of the film, of course, tried to milk it for what it was worth when Stallone had his big breakthrough with Rocky a few years later. Stallone’s raunchy debut was subsequently reissued under the title Italian Stallion—a reference to Rocky Balboa’s nickname. “I can assure you that everything you ever wanted to see of Sylvester Stallone can be seen in this new X-rated movie,” editor Gail Palmer promised viewers in the trailer.
However, this was only after the film’s producers offered Stallone the opportunity to purchase the footage from them. “I think they asked for $100,000, but I wouldn’t buy it for two bucks, and my lawyer told them to hit the pike,” the Rambo star recalled. Looking back on his involvement with the project, Stallone said, “You know, when you’re hungry, you do a lot of things you wouldn’t ordinarily do, and it’s funny how you can readjust your morality for the sake of self-preservation.” He went on to say, “It was either do that movie or rob someone, because I was at the end—the very end—of my rope.”
On October 6, 1993, five-year-old Austin Messner accidentally burned down his mobile home in Moraine, Ohio, which resulted in his two-year-old sister, Jessica Matthews, being killed. Austin had reportedly been playing with a lighter when he inadvertently set fire to his bed. “There was smoke everywhere, I tried to make it past my bedroom door, but the flames were too much,” said Austin’s mother, Darcy Burk, while recounting the story in 2011. “I had to jump out my window.”
Darcy quickly pointed the finger at Beavis and Butt-Head for inspiring the deadly blaze, citing Beavis’s well-known fascination with fire. As she tells it, Austin’s babysitter allowed him to watch the show, and he would go around imitating the characters’ signature laughs. MTV responded to the controversy by moving the series to a later time slot so that kids were less likely to see it. They also went back and removed all the fire references from earlier episodes.
But that wasn’t enough for Darcy, who was quoted as saying that she wanted Beavis and Butt-Head “completely off the air.” Furthermore, Darcy vowed that she would do everything she could to see that the show was canceled. However, MTV’s Carole Robinson pushed back against Darcy’s assertion that the series was to blame, telling the press, “I think the fire was an unbelievable, terrible tragedy. But we do not feel the program is responsible.”
For his part, Beavis and Butt-Head creator Mike Judge echoed Robinson’s sentiments when it came to the show being held accountable. “First of all, I don’t agree with any of that [kind of criticism] and I don’t take any responsibility for any of it at all,” Judge told The Spokesman-Reviewin 1996. “They didn’t get cable [in the trailer park where the fire occurred],” he continued. “No one mentioned that when the story was getting inflated.”
Steve Burns hosted the Nickelodeon series Blue’s Clues for four seasons between 1996 and 2002, which is pretty weird, considering he was supposed to have died in 1998. That was the year rumors started making the rounds—for whatever reason—that Burns had passed away from a heroin overdose. In other versions of the story, he’d either committed suicide or been killed in a car accident. But as it turns out, this is just another one of the internet’s favorite urban legends.
While appearing on Rainn Wilson’s Soul Boom podcast last year, Burns revealed that he was in the “throes of depression” when he left Blue’s Clues in 2002, and speculation about his death was not what he wanted to be hearing. “When a rumor like that persists for three or four years, it stops being funny,” Burns explained. “When it persists for 10 years it feels like a cultural preference,” he continued. “When it persists for 15 or 20 years, you start to feel like you’re supposed to be [dead].”
Steve From ‘Blue’s Clues’ Wasn’t Dead, but the Rumors Nearly Broke Him
Following his departure from the show, Burns turned to alcohol and barely left his Brooklyn home. “I didn’t recognize me,” the actor told Wilson. “Everyone thought I was dead, and eventually I started playing along.” But although the experience took a toll on Burns as time went on, he said that he learned one valuable lesson from it: “Never Google myself.”
Nowadays, the rumors have died down significantly (no pun intended), but Burns still finds himself addressing them on occasion. However, he opts to treat them with playful humor at this point in his life. For example, Burns’s current Instagram handle is @steveburnsalive. And just to make it perfectly clear to his hundreds of thousands of followers, Burns posted a picture of himself in 2024 sporting a shirt that says, “Not dead yet”:
The folks at the Goodrich Capital 8 movie theater in Jefferson City, Missouri, have some weird ideas for entertaining their patrons. For example, in May 2013, when Iron Man 3 premiered, reports said a man walked into the theater wearing tactical gear and carrying guns. As it turns out, the theater hired the guy to give customers a little more bang for their buck. Not everyone realized that, however.
“We had just finished watching Iron Man 3. We’re just getting into the car when I spotted a man in full assault gear, carrying what appeared to be a modified M4 and 9mm on his side,” John Morlock, a retired Army veteran who suffers from PTSD, told ABC News. Morlock didn’t tell the police, but according to JCPD captain Doug Shoemaker, the department received a series of calls pertaining to the incident. As a result, officers believed they were responding to an active shooter investigation.
The Time an ‘Iron Man 3’ Publicity Stunt Went Horribly Wrong
The theater manager, Bob Wilkins, later claimed the man with the guns was there for promotional purposes and that the stunt was planned months in advance. Wilkins also said only a few people were upset, but “hundreds were entertained.” When asked if he’d taken the Aurora movie theater shooting from the previous year into consideration while planning this bizarre gimmick, Wilkins replied, “Absolutely. That’s my number-one priority every day. It’s the safety and security of our guests.”
The theater quickly posted an apology on its Facebook page afterward. “We apologize and are sympathetic to those who felt they were in harm’s way with our character promotion for Iron Man 3,” it began. “We have worked with the Cosplacon group on many movies to dress up and help entertain our customers,” the statement continued. “We have had many complaints about the members dressed specifically as S.H.I.E.L.D. operatives carrying fake guns. We didn’t clearly tell our customers and some people didn’t realize it was for entertainment purposes.”
For the record, S.H.I.E.L.D. operatives weren’t even featured in the movie.
When Freddy vs. Jason hit theaters in 2003, it included a line of dialogue that even caught the writers off guard. During Kelly Rowland’s character Kia’s brief encounter with Freddy Krueger, she uses a certain gay slur that you can probably guess without us having to type it out for you.
In the event that you’re unable to narrow it down on your own, you can check out the scene in question right here:
It’s only natural for people to blame the film’s screenwriters in a situation like this, but they say someone else is responsible for the line’s inclusion. Damian Shannon and Mark Swift, who penned the final draft of the screenplay, spoke to Bloody Disgusting about the controversial sequence in 2016, and though it’s not clear which one of them was quoted, they firmly denied that the slur came from them.
A Controversial ‘Freddy vs. Jason’ Scene Was Originally Written Very Differently
“All we can tell you is…we didn’t write it, and we were really shocked when we heard it in the movie,” their response began. “We complained about it after the first screening, but it was never changed,” they continued. The pair went as far as to say that the dialogue was “a real stain on the movie,” in their opinion.
While it remains a mystery who came up with the line, a quick look at Shannon and Swift’s script confirms their story. In fact, that scene was completely different as originally written. Instead of ripping on Freddy like she does in the video above, Kia was supposed to mistake Jason for Freddy and simply tell him that she wasn’t afraid of him. Freddy then pops up just before Jason kills her and says, “Wrong one, b—h!”
The viral sensation known as Vlad Ncl, whose real name is Vladimiros Nicola, has worked his way into the hearts of millions by going “undercover as a woman.” The Cypriot-Russian with an international following has created and embodied the characters of Belle Delphine and Natalie UwU, or Natalia Munarova. He transforms into the different incarnations of his female best selves with stunning results. Whether choosing (with the help of prosthetics and his very own makeup wizardry) to morph into a sophisticated blonde, redheaded vixen, brunette with bangs, or pink-haired gamer girl, Vladimir amounts to one stunning femme fatale. In regard to his craft, Vladimir has proved a true artist, improv genius, and master thespian.
As a woman, I feel a certain warmth when I watch Vlad’s videos. At times, they make me laugh so hard that it hurts. At other times, the tension he so artfully builds makes me cringe so intensely it seems impossible. With Vlad, we always feel right there in the room with him. However, perhaps the most important aspect of Vlad’s work is not the smiles he brings viewers or the unforgettable lines he delivers impromptu, but rather the fact that his stunts expose and raise awareness of the dangers of being a woman. On duty, Vlad has been sexually assaulted on endless occasions (on the street, subway platforms, the beach, etc.), and in shocking manners which I do not wish to repeat here.
Vlad Ncl: Influencer Who Exposes Dangers of Being a Woman by Going ‘Undercover’
Taking the show on the road, Vladimir has conducted his “investigations” into what it’s like to be a woman in various cities around the world, though he is also beloved for his online antics, memorably on the now shuttered chat service Omegle, where he was more devilish and provocative. Our valiant perv-buster often interviews women from these different cities about how safe (or vulnerable) they feel in their home bases. Given that many politicians and media outlets try to tell us to get down into those subways, or that we can walk home alone from work at night, since busy-bee workers fuel the economy and therefore their wardrobes, the real and raw picture that Vlad captures is truly needed.
The fact that the respectable Natalia/Natalie often just strolls around minding her own business leading up to those aforementioned, typically outlandishly brazen assaults, involving skin-crawlingly creepy language and/or touching, helps to dispel the idea that women who are harassed must have done something to provoke the indignities received. You would have to see what Natalia faces to believe it, and, even then, there are doubters. Not only are Vlad’s videos great educational material for men, who really need to step up in helping ensure that society better protects women, but they also serve as an important reminder to women to be extra careful.
At least in her street videos, the chronic victim Natalia really does tend to appear innocent as an angel — a woman of class. A woman of tact. A woman who is gentle and admirably composed yet assertive. She’s ever so charming in a way that I interpret as distinctively Russian. (And as a Russian, her “red flag,” which she has proudly shown to men, is the Soviet banner…) Natalia may be statuesque, standing at over six feet tall, and looks like she could throw a good punch (if absolutely required), but even that does nothing to stop men from sticking their hands where they don’t belong.
It is only when our protagonist switches from his high-pitched, soft-spoken demeanor into his low-voiced male persona, flexing his guns, that the men cower in fear… But even this fear doesn’t always wipe away their lechery, as some still express the readiness to take Vladimir back to a hotel room. Indeed, Vlad nobly performs a truly dangerous job. He frequently has to discreetly hush fans who recognize him, lest they not only give away the act at an inopportune moment but, in so doing, cause one of those sleazeballs caught on camera to harm Vlad. One Irish man actually punched Vlad during a livestream, yet Vlad remained calm and didn’t seek revenge physically, though he did file a police report.
My all-time favorite Vladimir moment is his (and Natalia’s) dealing with a man who tried to snuggle up to him on a bench in front of a picturesque carousel: With perfect comic timing, Vladimir places a threatening arm around the “sneaky” little fox, whom he calls out in his male voice for trying to kiss him. He then asks the man if he still wants his kiss.
Vlad further plays with his predator-turned-prey:
“Come here, my brother. […] you know what happens to people who touch Vladimir without permission? […] Promise me that you’re not gonna touch another woman without her permission again. […] Because if you touch another woman without her permission, I will find you… Okay, shut up […] and I will touch you without your permission.“
Needless to say, Vlad brilliantly transitioned into the appropriately menacing role of an interrogator, speaking with the authority of someone with the right to use deadly means of torture.
Vlad’s mission and bravery are even more touching given his backstory. In an interview with Eddy Nassar, for example, Vlad opened up about his abusive father and his heroic mother who survived the cretin’s beatings. To make a traumatic childhood even worse, when Vlad was 10, his eldest brother was tragically murdered by a car bomb. Reflecting, Vlad states, “[…] the type of men that do the things in my videos are the type of men my father was.” Vlad’s mother’s hardships heightened his sense of empathy. Now that he has fully blossomed and is in a position of power, Vlad admits that he aims to make perpetrators “the woman,” giving them a taste of their own squirm-inducing medicine.
Earlier this year, Vlad travelled to South Korea for an 11-hour surgery, which, to my dismay, was intended to address facial insecurities — it’s not my business, but Vlad absolutely did not need any work done. Vlad recently broke up with his girlfriend Samantha and came out as bisexual, so we hope his friendship with Samantha stays strong and wish them both the best in moving forward.
May Vlad have all the freedom to be himself, as he continues to empower others.
Mr. Lars von Trier is a self-proclaimed idiot. And he made the polarizing yet truly inventive film Idiotene (1998), or Dogme #2, for idiots and about a group of idiots. Idiotene, which I initially decided to watch after seeing that celebrity author Karl Ove Knausgård had given his endorsement, just might provoke your pearl-clutching indignation with (what may initially appear to be) its brazenly bad taste. During my first viewing, I had to keep pausing this graphic oddity because I was laughing so hard it hurt. But in the end, the profound meaning, which is revealed by way of the absurd, earned my tears in streams. (Von Trier has a knack for making women weep, as his previous masterpiece, Breaking the Waves, caused Georgia Brown of The Village Voice to run out of its 1996 Cannes screening crying, with rock-star journalist Janet Maslin of NYT following to comfort her.) The outrageous shenanigans throughout Idiotene make sense and are justified when one considers what Mr. von Trier, the auto-diagnosed “best film director in the world,” truly had in mind. I could discuss this milestone and what I take away from it endlessly. However, that is a rant for another time…
In 2025, I watched a film by a different notable Nordic director responsible for another one of my favorite movies… In infinite respects, it was thoroughly insufferable — a big empty, albeit ambitious, slab of rubbish, or what one might call ego fuel for those vanilla and undiscriminating normies wishing to pride themselves on their self-perceived depth, sensitivity, and rarefied nature. Needless to say, the film failed to activate a single one of my facial muscles, except to yawn. Alright, I’ll admit: I couldn’t resist a solitary smile upon seeing a Danish veteran actor step in to make a cameo of sorts. Having been a script reader and knowing more than a bit about acting, I could dissect the audio-visual banality in question bit by bit. And yet, since it is genius that isn’t typically received kindly in its own time, this contrived two-plus-hour pretext for adults to pat themselves on the back for the feat of having endured it would garner comparisons to the work of the immortal Ingmar Bergman — as if there were any modern-day Bergmans, Dreyers, or Tarkovskys. (And where are the genuinely fascinating characters like Agnès Varda?)
Hollywood Needs More Weirdos Like Lars von Trier
I came away from this-since awarded soporific with a sense of sadness, resulting both from now having to bear the memory of one of my favorite actors participating in something so worthless as well as disappointment in the director. Granted, I shouldn’t have been at all surprised that the now-Conformist Without a (Much of a) Cause exposed his true (gray and beige) colors, as his loss of edge even predated his perilous transition to fatherhood, which can either dull or enrich a person’s perspective. Yet, fortunately, there is a silver lining: My respect for Scandinavia’s true reigning king, “The Boss of It All,” was renewed. Thank you, Lars von Trier, for your completely uncompromising, incorrigibly obnoxious (in a real way, not a pandering marionette way), and forever utterly brilliant approach to cinema. Von Trier does not seem to have lost an ounce of that childlike wonder with which he animated his first short film as an 11-year-old, Turen til Squashland (1967), and he continues to impart that same unshakeable, (ir)reverent, wide-eyed awe in audiences. His titles aren’t messy and outlandish because they are flawed, but because they are human and impregnated with the (oftentimes manipulative) unpredictability of life. Von Trier delivers raw emotion, transformative power, and everlasting cinematic images. In short, the rogue Lars von Trier is everything that the vast majority of prevailing filmmakers are not — an auteur genius, brave, inspired, inventive, chokingly hard to swallow. These are the elements missing from the contrived, derivative, and meaningless cesspit that cinema has become.
Whereas von Trier co-founded Zentropa, his own production company, in 1992, in part, so that he could take risks and embark upon endeavors that might lose money, other filmmakers and the systems they exist within are obviously too money-oriented, which is especially unfortunate given worsening consumer taste (You are what you’ve been fed, so the loop continues…). The entertainment business generally does not award opportunities to the best directors, actors, writers, etc., and can make it difficult for more innocent souls to persist. True (as in challenging) individualism and eccentricity (as opposed to superficial outward weirdness) are discouraged. I’m not a fan of today’s Hollywood’s workings and releases (and I sigh because the American influence has quite clearly had a corrosive effect on foreign offerings, creeping into matters as minute as the way actors hold themselves, as annoying and fake little behavioral Americanisms have infected people across the world)… State funding can allow uniquely gifted creators to emerge, but it comes with its own problems.
What’s Wrong With Modern Movies? Too Many Filmmakers Are Afraid to Take Risks.
The fact that hardly anything is well-written, well-directed, and well-acted can also, to an extent, be attributed to professors and pedagogues. A shocking number of prestigious institutions claiming to teach film and the dramatic arts have degenerated into sad jokes — the useless humiliation rituals frequently required of aspiring thespians can, indeed, be even worse than one might imagine, as I can well attest. Let it be understood: Great performances don’t always come from “professionals,” as demonstrated with especially moving effect by the French giants of yesterday like Louis Malle. Poor training is even more disadvantageous than none at all — the awkward results of the former, with its telltale signs, and (the even worse menace that is) a lack of talent are presently reflected in most recent motion pictures. Cringe-inducing and artificial are the words that describe most popular actors… and civilians. Part of the charm of old movies lies in the fact that a good percentage of our ancestors were more poised and better dressed than us — I am of the view that Western civilization, for one, has been on the decline, and the state of cinema is naturally symptomatic of that.
Most casting directors need to do a better job, yes. While we are all aware that nepotism is running rampant and is responsible for some unfairness, there are certainly countless bad and bland actors who haven’t earned their places and yet do not come from positions of privilege. (I would like to acknowledge that some so-called nepo babies are incredible, hardworking, and natural talents, and there are obviously cases where it makes sense for family to work with family.) Blaming casting agents too much can be problematic, however, as they don’t call all the shots, and their efforts can be undermined by their collaborators’ stubbornness. Moreover, sometimes, a movie is just so dreadful that even a superb actor will just fail in their role.
Along those lines, films frequently suffer from having too many cooks in the kitchen, some of whom are literally scribbling over each other in counterproductive manners. I once heard a writer reveal that he never had the experience of feeling proud of his work because, by the time it hit the screen, it no longer remotely felt like his. It can be especially irksome when those on the business end decide to give nonsensical input or hire more writers than necessary. The sense of cohesion in productions can feel almost nonexistent, especially since industry egos seem to be constantly inflating. Not to mention, heavy-handed editing or forced sanitization can destroy so much.
Women’s rights and more aren’t a way for your grubby paws to make money to spend cheating on your wife, pal.
Returning to the truth that an actor can’t save a drowning ship, I have observed a disappointing related phenomenon: Especially as skilled performers age, they might become more susceptible to flattery and/or the thought of helping out, as in signing on to a passion project by a subpar filmmaker who really admires them. Thus, you can have established titans eagerly involving themselves in utter garbage. Critics will then be even more likely to join in, lending a hand to the ceremonious w*nking festivities. While there are still some amazing reviewers, a decent portion have either become afraid or discouraged from penning what they truly mean, lest they offend a bigwig by attempting to hold them accountable for wasting the public’s time and money. Have you ever noticed that a lot of reviews aren’t reviews at all but rather synopses?
Let’s explore another culprit behind the decline of cinema. Why is James Ivory’s Maurice (1987) a memorable film? Not only did it feature true talents and was it based on a 1971 novel by the same name by E. M. Forster, but this romantic drama, which focuses on the relationship between two men, was directed by a gay man and produced by another, Ismail Merchant, with music by yet another, Richard Robbins. The product of their shared labor is heartfelt. On the contrary, I’ve overheard dissolute producers giddily expressing that they thought pursuing topics like feminism and gender identity would lead to commercial gains because they considered them “trendy.” Women’s rights and more aren’t a way for your grubby paws to make money to spend cheating on your wife, pal.
Such thinking can backfire at the box office, as a fair share of viewers are actually hoping to be entertained and can see through the (ab)use of social issues as mere selling points by, in many cases, the last cretins, or (regardless of gender) serial sexual harassers, who should be taking on such subject matter. In a similar but less insidious vein, maybe you’ve seen a lesbian sci-fi flick or two made by a possibly decent, but aging and bored, man, attempting to connect with a younger audience while quite obviously lacking any connection to the characters and their struggles, hence giving the story the profundity of a car commercial (a reminder of the kind of work they used to do)? That said, if one dives into an area they have no first-hand experience in with enough care, then admirable outcomes can be achieved, and distance can be turned into a perspectival plus in gaining insight. The point, however, is that I think we can all agree that in desiring to be “current” in themes and practices, certain disingenuously preachy filmmakers have spawned results worthy of South Park and Ricky Gervais’ mockery. Now, I’m fully aware that there are plenty of exceptional human beings in the entertainment industry, so, for their sake too, let’s call the pretenders what they are.
As far as I’m concerned, Jessie Grant of Movie Magick gives excellent takes. I mention him here because he reminds us that Orson Welles posited that the cinephiles were ruining cinema by their excessive copying, or, as some might put it, homages. “In short, filmmakers should be more in love with ideas and philosophy than they are with movies,” Grant stated when summarizing Welles’ views. These words are very true. Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (1971), The Emigrants (1971) by the underrated genius Jan Troell, Bille August’s Pelle the Conqueror (1987), Volker Schlöndorff’s The Tin Drum (1979), and Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters (1985), as penned by director Paul Schrader with the now-late Leonard Schrader, all epitomize respect for literary tradition. As such, they provide unbelievably rewarding food for thought. I will say that some degree of on-screen worship for one’s cinematic forebears can be fruitful too: If a director is brilliant enough, their nods to their idols won’t come across as that odd mix between sycophantic and hollowly pretentious that we regularly see, but rather as genuine and clever acts of love, refreshing little caprices even.
If screenwriters took more instruction from fine and ennobling literature (and were encouraged by their bosses and colleagues), then perhaps their scripts wouldn’t be so impossibly formulaic.
The fact that our filmmakers need to be more erudite (and scrupulous) routinely comes across in period pieces, as they are not always accurate enough to warrant our belief. (Just as today’s filmmakers often seem to despise the authors they adapt, they rarely properly appreciate the nuances of past eras.) On a related note, historically, spirituality has played a massive role in art, and it simply isn’t incorporated enough in (at least, Western) cinema these days — there is no modern-day Andrei Rublev (1966), Ordet (1955), or Babette’s Feast (1987). It’s been 20 years already since Pavel Lungin’s religious triumph The Island (2006), which starred the eternally reposing one-of-a-kind master Pyotr Mamonov.
Speaking of Mamonov, if I may be a bit tangential, Nordic actors may be among the most dazzlingly natural gems, but Slavic cast and crew have taken commitment to another level. For example, child actor Aleksei Kravchenko was nearly killed during the filming of our lost hero Elem Klimov’s anti-war classic Come and See (1985), not to mention his hair temporarily lost its color due to starvation, and yet this gentleman, whom I used to see dutifully walking around The Moscow Art Theatre, still acts — almost any actor of a younger generation would have run away to the cops, but I digress…
If screenwriters took more instruction from fine and ennobling literature (and were encouraged by their bosses and colleagues), then perhaps their scripts wouldn’t be so impossibly formulaic. During a recent screening of a brand-new atrocity, I whispered, “Now he gets a call that his brother died,” approximately two whole seconds before the destined ring occurred. I can usually look at the time on my iPhone snuggled in my purse and have a pretty good sense of what is coming next.
In short, cinema has become infested with talentless morons with, behind, and in front of cameras, trying to impress us with the sense and sensibility they wish they possessed… But what we really need are more playful idiots. Idiots not only like von Trier but also Paprika Steen! Vibeke Windeløv. Molly Malene Stensgaard. Bodil Jørgensen. Jens Albinus. Nikolaj Lie Kaas. Anne Louise Hassing. The sadly deceased Mogens Rukov. And the other bouquet-worthy Danish trolls who made Idiotene, which correctly prophesied that idiots are the people of the future, the cerebral tour de force it proves.
Login
