The Denver Nuggets were looking to finish out their five game road trip on a high note tonight. After getting a victory last night, the Nuggets backed it up with another “W” against the Charlotte Hornets. Denver made it more interesting than it needed to be after they squandered a big lead in the second half to fall behind by four points with less than a minute to play. Nikola Jokic willed them to victory once again to cap off another big night for him and another triple double. It wasn’t exactly pretty, but the Nuggets win another one on a back to back, final score 107-104.
Neither team could make many shots to open the game. The score was still 2-2 at the nine and a half minute mark. Jokic got some easy buckets and also buried a three to build a Denver lead. There wasn’t much offense outside of Nikola though which kept the lead from growing a ton. Charlotte was still shooting a horrid percentage from the floor so Denver stayed in front. Zeke Nnaji made an early appearance as one of the first guys off the bench and Jalen Pickett followed shortly after. Denver went cold from the floor while Charlotte remained cold. Both teams started working for free throws and the Nuggets had more success to close the quarter. After one they led 27-20.
The Nuggets bench unit had to battle for points with Christian Braun doing most of the battling. They also kept the Hornets off the scoreboard and pushed the lead into double digits. The reserve group kept playing hard and kept growing their advantage. That led to an extended 20-8 run for Denver and a double digit lead when Jokic came back in. Charlotte responded and the Nuggets suddenly couldn’t buy a basket. The Hornets went on a 9-0 run and got back within three before Denver finally got a couple buckets in the final moments of the half. They went to the locker room leading 54-46.
The Nuggets exerted their will to open the second half and easily pushed the lead back above a dozen. Jamal Murray had a quiet first half but led the Nuggets offense early in the third quarter. They slowed down after that but Charlotte continued to miss shots, other than Nick Smith Jr. He was hitting threes but it seemed like every time he got one the Nuggets had an answer. Still, the Hornets weren’t going to just go away. They went on a run down the stretch of the third to get back within eight. Denver was able to stop Charlotte there but a sloppy final minute let the Hornets cut into the lead again and the third ended with the Nuggets up 90-81.
The bench unit struggled to score to start the fourth quarter and the Hornets closed in. Nnaji had some solid minutes getting a couple easy baskets and piling up blocks. Charlotte wouldn’t give in and other than Nnaji no one could score, literally. Eventually the compelte lack of offense allowed the Hornets to push all the way back and tie the game at 94. Jokic settled Denver down and helped get a couple buckets but Miles Bridges was attacking on the other end. The game stayed tied going into the final two minutes of the game. Bridges got a bucket to give Charlotte their first lead since 2-0 and then hit another to put the Hornets up four. Jokic responded with an and-one and then the Hornets inexplicably fouled him in the back court with 18 seconds left. He sunk them both and then fed Murray for a fastbreak layup off a miss to put Denver up 107-104. The Hornets couldn’t get a buzzer beater three and Denver survives to win.
The Denver Nuggets came out strong against the Charlotte Hornets, building a big lead early in the game. However, the Hornets made a strong comeback in the second half, putting pressure on the Nuggets to hold onto their lead.
Despite the Hornets’ rally, the Nuggets managed to hang on for a 107-104 victory. Nikola Jokic led the way for Denver with a near triple-double, scoring 19 points, grabbing 11 rebounds, and dishing out 8 assists.
The Nuggets’ defense also played a key role in securing the win, forcing the Hornets into tough shots and turnovers down the stretch. Overall, it was a hard-fought victory for Denver as they continue to climb the standings in the Western Conference.
Next up, the Nuggets will look to carry this momentum into their next game and continue their winning streak. Keep an eye on this team as they look to make a push in the playoffs.
Tags:
Denver Nuggets, Charlotte Hornets, NBA, basketball, game recap, victory, comeback, Denver sports, Charlotte sports, thriller, close game, final score, highlights, player performance, game analysis, post-game, buzzer beater
On December 3, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol tried to demolish his country’s democracy. In a shocking late-night television address, Yoon declared “emergency martial law” and put the country under military rule. He prohibited all political activities and suspended freedom of speech and the press. He instructed his army chief to shut down the National Assembly, which is controlled by the opposition Democratic Party, and sent the police and special forces to prevent lawmakers from entering the building. By way of justification—and borrowing a page from the political theorist Carl Schmitt’s concept of a “state of exception”—Yoon declared that he was subverting liberal democracy in order to save it.
South Koreans did not take kindly to Yoon’s power grab. Throngs of people rushed to the outside of the assembly building to protest. Lawmakers raced there as well, scaling fences to enter as protesters blocked soldiers who tried to give pursuit. In a late-night session, the assembly voted to revoke the president’s order, as it is legally empowered to do (which is why Yoon attempted to shut it down in the first place). After two more weeks of national outrage and mass protests, and with polls showing that 75 percent of Koreans wanted him gone, the assembly voted to impeach Yoon, 204 to 85. He was then suspended from his duties. Whether he returns or is permanently removed from office depends on the country’s Constitutional Court, which has up to six months to rule on the matter. Yoon is facing other legal challenges, as well. He has been arrested by prosecutors. And on Sunday, he became the first sitting president in Korean history to be indicted, on the charge of insurrection.
The events of the last two months demonstrate the resilience of South Korea’s democracy, which was established in the late 1980s after decades of military dictatorship. But they also underscore why the country’s people are perennially anxious about their freedom. Democracy is a process, not a state, and the night of December 3 illustrates that South Korea’s is both more and less vulnerable than was commonly thought.
South Koreans have a long road ahead as they try to dig out from Yoon’s failed autocoup. The president’s conservative People’s Power Party (PPP) remains generally supportive of him and is catering to extremist elements within the country. The liberal Democratic Party is struggling to seize the political moment, and its standard-bearer is facing controversies of his own. Fixing the country will thus ultimately fall on the shoulders of ordinary South Koreans rather than political leaders. To do so, they must overcome the gender divide, generational barriers, and the deluge of misinformation that has rocked the country’s politics.
DOWN WITH THE SHIP
South Korean law allows presidents to declare martial law in times of war or during an equivalent public emergency. But when Yoon got on television, there was nothing of the sort: he simply made vague, baseless references to “threats of North Korean communist forces” and pledged “to immediately eradicate the unscrupulous pro-Pyongyang antistate forces that pillage the freedom and happiness of our people and to protect free constitutional order.”
Most South Koreans saw through these excuses. But the president’s rhetoric had a niche audience. A surging far right in South Korea believes that North Korea is interfering in its elections. (Yoon acted on this particular conspiracy theory by sending soldiers to raid the National Election Commission shortly after he declared martial law.) These South Koreans, mostly aggrieved elderly traditionalists and angry young men, get their news from right-wing YouTube videos. They ignore mainstream journalists and establishment opinion leaders, including conservative ones, who largely condemned Yoon’s attempted self-coup.
The South Korean far right is not just Yoon’s political base. It is also emerging as the base of his party. As a result, the PPP has not functioned as a restraint on extremism as conservative parties do in healthy democracies, instead remaining loyal to the disgraced president and his diehard followers. The party’s leader, who publicly supported impeachment, was replaced on December 16 by a pro-Yoon lawmaker. The few conservative legislators who voted to impeach the president have also found themselves sidelined. Yoon’s rabid supporters have shown up in front of the presidential residence waving South Korean and U.S. flags and holding “Stop the Steal” posters. They are vastly outnumbered by the hundreds of thousands of men and women, young and old, who wave light sticks and sing “Impeach Yoon Suk-yeol.” But the PPP is pandering to a vocal minority rather than discarding Yoon and tacking toward the center.
South Korea’s crisis could hardly come at a worse time.
The party’s reluctance has produced a protracted crisis. The South Korean prime minister, also from the PPP, became acting president after Yoon’s impeachment. But rather than trying to unite the country by shunting Yoon aside, he refused to sign off onthe assembly’s appointees to fill three empty seats on the Constitutional Court, jeopardizing the court’s ability to review Yoon’s impeachment. He, too, was then impeached. Next in line to head the caretaker government was the finance minister, who allowed two of the three court appointments. But he vetoed a bill establishing a special counsel to investigate Yoon for the high crime of “insurrection,” a capital offense.
Yoon is being investigated for insurrection anyway by the federal office that investigates corruption accusations against high-ranking officials. But he is doing his utmost to obstruct the inquiry by refusing to cooperate with it and has called on supporters to “fight to the end.” When investigators and police entered the presidential compound on January 3 to detain him for questioning after he refused to respond to previous summons, Yoon had the presidential security service blockade them. Authorities returned with massive force on January 15, and Yoon was arrested. He begrudgingly appeared before the Constitutional Court to defend himself against impeachment but still refuses to answer questions from the corruption investigation office.
This gridlock could hardly come at a worse time. South Korea is one of the most dynamic economies in the world and one of the United States’s most important allies. But it faces a slew of geopolitical and economic challenges. The value of the Korean won has plummeted to levels not seen since the 2008 global financial crisis, and the country’s stock market ended the year as one of the worst performers in Asia. Now that U.S. President Donald Trump has returned to the White House, South Korea’s record trade surplus with the United States could make it a target for tariffs. And South Korea could suffer collateral damage if Trump restarts his trade war with China. Trump is also likely to demand that Seoul foot more of the bill for housing American troops on the peninsula, stress-testing the U.S.-South Korean alliance at a time when North Korea is strengthening its military ties with Russia. As North Korean soldiers gain battlefield experience by joining Russia’s fight against Ukraine, South Korea is essentially without a commander in chief.
BOTTOM-UP DEMOCRACY
South Korea’s immediate crisis will likely end in the months ahead. The Constitutional Court is expected to uphold Yoon’s impeachment: if it does, Koreans will then trudge back to the polls, since an election would have to be held within 60 days of such a ruling. And that election will be the Democrats’ to lose. Should the liberal party win, its president will enjoy a sizable (close to two-thirds) majority in the legislature and be governing a public hungry for real change. The party, in other words, would have a mandate to tackle the roots of problems that made Yoon so unpopular and desperate to begin with: the rising cost of living, a prolonged doctors’ strike, influence peddling, and corruption. The PPP, meanwhile, would have to rebuild after an electoral trouncing, which could give moderates a chance to drag the party toward the center.
But as Korean conservatives prepare for a long night of wrestling with their demons, liberals are facing troubles of their own. Their most powerful politician, the party leader and legislator Lee Jae-myung, faces a swarm of indictments, mostly stemming from a controversial development project during his years as a city mayor. He was convicted in November of making a false statement during the last presidential campaign in violation of election laws. Despite Lee’s legal troubles and often divisive reputation, many liberals still see him as exactly what the country needs: a fighter for the working class who rose from poverty to become a labor lawyer and progressive politician, someone who combines the brashness of Trump with the policies of the progressive U.S. senator Bernie Sanders. Lee, for his part, claims the various charges against him are politically motivated, and he is appealing his conviction. But if the Supreme Court upholds the guilty verdict before a snap election is held, Lee will be disqualified from running, and the Democrats will suddenly be without an obvious front-runner.
Thankfully, the fate of Korean democracy does not rest in any one person’s hands, not even the next president’s. That is the ultimate lesson of December 3, when, in a moment of crisis, ordinary South Koreans came together. Yes, the lawmakers who raced to their chambers were essential. But so was the crowd that helped them inside and stood up to military troops. So were the journalists who continued reporting despite the gag order. Even the police officers and soldiers who carried out Yoon’s outrageous orders did so with a notable lack of enthusiasm. They did not dare use force against the people.
Korean liberals are facing troubles of their own.
Restoring the health of South Korean democracy will require giving this civil society more authority. As the political scientist Erik Mobrand argued in his prescient book Top-Down Democracy in South Korea, the country’s young democracy is overdue for a bottom-up reform of institutions to increase citizen participation. Elites, Mobrand notes, have manipulated the moment after political crises to limit the influence of grassroots forces. Instead, it is time for the grassroots to demand a more open and inclusive electoral process and party system, with more public participation and less legal regulation. Ordinary South Korean citizens are ready to play such an enhanced role, as they have proved not only through mass protests but also consistently high election turnouts.
To foster more civic engagement, journalists will need to do a better job of reaching groups that are tuning out the mainstream press and falling into rabbit holes of misleading online commentary. Educators also have a big role to play by enhancing civics instruction and teaching young people the politics of problem solving rather than partisanship. Civil society organizations need to help South Koreans better distinguish what’s real from what’s fake, combating the distortionary effects of the YouTube information ecosystem that emboldens Yoon and his supporters. The country also needs to put more work into bridging its sociopolitical divides, particularly between young and old and between men and women. To that end, the next administration, liberal or conservative, should support intergenerational initiatives that can reinvigorate civic life and promote gender equality. And ultimately, South Koreans may decide the time has come to revise the constitution, written in 1948 under U.S. military occupation and last revised in 1987 under military dictatorship.
None of these steps will be easy. The country’s democracy will face serious struggles, even if Yoon’s night of martial law is just a bad memory. But South Korea’s citizens are up to the task. If they stopped a military dictatorship overnight, just as they deposed an earlier generation of autocrats, they can right their ship in the years ahead.
Loading…
South Korea has made significant strides in establishing a thriving democracy since transitioning from military rule in the late 20th century. However, recent events have raised concerns about the future of its democratic institutions.
From corruption scandals involving high-ranking officials to tensions with North Korea and challenges posed by social media manipulation, South Korea’s democracy is facing a number of threats. The rise of populism and increasing polarization within society are also putting pressure on the country’s democratic system.
Despite these challenges, many South Koreans remain committed to upholding the principles of democracy and ensuring that their voices are heard. Grassroots movements and civil society organizations continue to advocate for transparency, accountability, and political reform.
As the country looks towards the future, it is crucial for South Korea to address these issues and strengthen its democratic institutions. By promoting civic engagement, protecting freedom of speech, and holding leaders accountable, South Korea can ensure that its democracy not only survives but thrives in the face of adversity.
Tags:
South Korea democracy, South Korea politics, East Asian democracy, democracy in Asia, South Korean government, South Korean elections, democratic institutions, political stability in South Korea, South Korean democracy challenges, future of South Korean democracy.
NEW YORK (AP) — Steven Soderbergh isn’t just the director and cinematographer of his latest film. He’s also, in a way, its central character.
“Presence” is filmed entirely from the POV of a ghost inside a home a family has just moved into. Soderbergh, who serves as his own cinematographer under the pseudonym Peter Andrews (his father’s name), essentially performs as the presence, a floating point-of-view that watches as the violence that killed the mysterious ghost threatens to be repeated.
For even the prolific Soderbergh, the film, which opens Friday in theaters, was a unique challenge. He shot “Presence” with a small digital camera while wearing slippers to soften his steps.
Trusted news and daily delights, right in your inbox
See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories.
The 62-year-old filmmaker recently met a reporter in a midtown Manhattan hotel in between finishing post-production on his other upcoming movie (“Black Bag,” a thriller Focus Features will release March 14) and beginning production in a few weeks on his next project, a romantic comedy that he says “feels like a George Cukor movie.”
Soderbergh, whose films include “Out of Sight,” the “Ocean’s 11” movies, “Magic Mike” and “Erin Brockovich,” tends to do a lot in small windows of time. “Presence” took 11 days to film.
That dexterous proficiency has made the ever-experimenting Soderbergh one of Hollywood’s most widely respected evaluators of the movie business. In a wide-ranging conversation, he discussed why he thinks streaming is the most destructive force the movies have ever faced and why he’s “the cockroach of this industry.”
AP: You use pseudonyms for yourself as a cinematographer and editor. Were you tempted to credit yourself as an actor for “Presence”?
SODERBERGH: No, but what I did is subtle. For the first and only time Peter Andrews has a camera operator credit. That’s not a credit that I typically take because I don’t need it and I typically have another operator working with me. But I felt like this was a workout. It was tricky, but really fun. It was another level of performance anxiety because I ruined more takes than anyone else in the film by a larger factor. I was the one going: “Cut. I f—ed that up. We got to go again.”
AP: You made this quickly and inexpensively, and then sold it to a distributor. Was it appealing to work outside the system?
SODERBERGH: The beauty of projects at this scale is I can just do them without having to talk to anybody. It’s not because I don’t want notes. It’s because it’s just the brain trust and none of the psychic real estate is taken up by things that have nothing to do with what you’re going to shoot. I went from that into a more traditional project in which a lot of psychic real estate gets taken up by the process of having a studio finance your movie. I like these people, it’s just a lot of lawyers. Like, a lot of lawyers.
AP: You’ve called streaming the most destructive force in movie history. What most irks you about it?
SODERBERGH: It removes a key reference point for an artist. It’s helpful to know how something is doing, or how it did. You need to know that to calibrate whether you accomplished what you wanted to accomplish, whether you can work at a certain level. That’s one of the most confusing things about it, the black box of it. Apart from the economic invisibility of what’s going on there — the fact that we can’t really look under the hood of how these streaming companies work economically — there’s another kind of handrail that’s missing that I find really helpful. At the end of the day, I, at least, want to know. The market will tell you how you’re doing. I want to know that so I can adjust or go in another direction. Being irrelevant isn’t very appealing. What is the overlap between what people seem to be responding to and what I like? Because I don’t want to make these things and have nobody see them. I’ve had enough people say, “Oh, did that come out?” It’s a public art form.
AP: How do you suspect the audience is changing?
SODERBERGH: The good news is, if you talk to Focus Features and Neon and A24, young people are going to the movies. This is the Letterboxd generation. That’s fantastic. I hope that ripples outside the U.S. They are cine-literate and they expect something singular. They want the signature, they want the stamp of a filmmaker. And that’s turning into a real business. One of the things, I think, we all need to do, but especially the people who cover the industry, is to stop using the studio metric for what a success is. That’s not a template you should be applying to everything.
AP: Do you ever lament that the movies that made you want to be a filmmaker like “All the President’s Men” and “Chinatown” occupied a different place in the culture than today’s films?
SODERBERGH: There was a period of about 10 to 14 year where the best movies of the year were also the most popular movies of the year. That’s not necessarily true anymore. You can pick one of the movies that’s in the hunt this year and go: That’s a ’70s movie. That’s as good and interesting as one of those. But it’s not going to do the business that one of those would have done. It’s the artist’s job to adapt. When it comes to trying to control what people want to go see, you’re now in a place like: “If I really wish hard, it won’t rain.” The weather is the weather. To a certain degree, the audience is a weather system. Luckily because of the way I began, I’m the cockroach of this industry. I can survive any version of it.
AP: You’ve described feeling a need to immediately “annihilate” whatever you just made by starting on something vastly different.
SODERBERGH: Yeah, when you see “Black Bag,” you’re like, “Oh, that’s different.” There are more shots in the first four minutes of “Black Bag” than the entirety of “Presence.” It’s a different thing and it has different demands.
AP: It’s not exhausting to reinvent yourself every movie?
SODERBERGH: No, it feels more like a natural evolution and a natural response in the sense of: I want to be a different filmmaker for this. I don’t want to know the outcome. If you have a conversation with a filmmaker who says they have “figured things out,” you should run in the other direction. It’s like: You’re deluded and you have a very superficial understanding of what this art form demands if you’re not humbled by what it asks of you to be distinctive.
AP: Do you feel you’ve gotten closer? There might not be a filmmaker alive who’s tried more ways to make a movie than you have.
SODERBERGH: No, I still feel like I’m reaching for something I quite possibly won’t ever grasp and maybe shouldn’t. As frustrating as it may be to feel like I’ve never made a thing that is at the level of one of my heroes made, I don’t know what I’d do if I did feel that. Do you stop, then? The movie “Come and See,” that guy got to basically go: “That’s my mic drop.” I’ve never made anything approaching that.
AP: It wouldn’t be the only film I’d suggest, but I think “Out of Sight” is pretty darn perfect.
SODERBERGH: Oh, I’m very happy with that film. I’m very proud of that film. I can’t say there’s much in it that I’d go back and change. That said, it’s not “Apocalypse Now.” Or “The Third Man.” By my standards, I don’t look at it and go, “That’s as good as ‘The Third Man.’” I’m good at pushing myself into areas that are slightly beyond my comfort zone, but I also understand what my limitations are. I’m inherently not a grandiose thinker about myself or my work. That’s a critical component to some of the films I’m talking about that I think are amazing. I could never make “Apocalypse Now.” I don’t think of myself as a filmmaker the way Francis (Ford Coppola) thinks of himself. That’s not: He should be like me or I should be like him. It’s just how we’re built. I’m more earthbound, I guess is the word. And that’s what I like and what I’m good at.
AP: Do you have any idea why?
SODERBERGH: I think it’s the way I was born and the way I was raised. And the people who were around me when I was younger who mentored me. I just don’t think I was born with the grandiosity gene and there was nobody around me who would have cultivated that even if I had shown signs. Going to Sundance last year with “Presence” was really gratifying. If you’d told me 35 years later you’re going to come back here (where “Sex, Lies and Videotape” premiered in 1989) with a movie that people are interested in seeing, I would have wept.
In the ever-changing landscape of the industry, I proudly declare: I’m the cockroach of this industry. I can survive any version of it.
Like a resilient cockroach that can withstand harsh conditions and adapt to any environment, I have the tenacity and flexibility to thrive in the face of challenges and changes in the industry.
No matter what obstacles or setbacks come my way, I am determined to persevere and overcome. I have the resilience and resourcefulness to navigate through turbulent times and emerge stronger on the other side.
So bring on the shifts, the disruptions, and the uncertainties. I am ready to face them head-on and prove that I am the ultimate survivor in this industry. I may be small, but I am mighty. And just like the cockroach, I will continue to stand tall and thrive no matter what version of the industry comes my way.
NEW YORK — NEW YORK (AP) — Steven Soderbergh isn’t just the director and cinematographer of his latest film. He’s also, in a way, its central character.
“Presence” is filmed entirely from the POV of a ghost inside a home a family has just moved into. Soderbergh, who serves as his own cinematographer under the pseudonym Peter Andrews (his father’s name), essentially performs as the presence, a floating point-of-view that watches as the violence that killed the mysterious ghost threatens to be repeated.
For even the prolific Soderbergh, the film, which opens Friday in theaters, was a unique challenge. He shot “Presence” with a small digital camera while wearing slippers to soften his steps.
The 62-year-old filmmaker recently met a reporter in a midtown Manhattan hotel in between finishing post-production on his other upcoming movie (“Black Bag,” a thriller Focus Features will release March 14) and beginning production in a few weeks on his next project, a romantic comedy that he says “feels like a George Cukor movie.”
Soderbergh, whose films include “Out of Sight,” the “Ocean’s 11” movies, “Magic Mike” and “Erin Brockovich,” tends to do a lot in small windows of time. “Presence” took 11 days to film.
That dexterous proficiency has made the ever-experimenting Soderbergh one of Hollywood’s most widely respected evaluators of the movie business. In a wide-ranging conversation, he discussed why he thinks streaming is the most destructive force the movies have ever faced and why he’s “the cockroach of this industry.”
SODERBERGH: No, but what I did is subtle. For the first and only time Peter Andrews has a camera operator credit. That’s not a credit that I typically take because I don’t need it and I typically have another operator working with me. But I felt like this was a workout. It was tricky, but really fun. It was another level of performance anxiety because I ruined more takes than anyone else in the film by a larger factor. I was the one going: “Cut. I f—ed that up. We got to go again.”
SODERBERGH: The beauty of projects at this scale is I can just do them without having to talk to anybody. It’s not because I don’t want notes. It’s because it’s just the brain trust and none of the psychic real estate is taken up by things that have nothing to do with what you’re going to shoot. I went from that into a more traditional project in which a lot of psychic real estate gets taken up by the process of having a studio finance your movie. I like these people, it’s just a lot of lawyers. Like, a lot of lawyers.
SODERBERGH: It removes a key reference point for an artist. It’s helpful to know how something is doing, or how it did. You need to know that to calibrate whether you accomplished what you wanted to accomplish, whether you can work at a certain level. That’s one of the most confusing things about it, the black box of it. Apart from the economic invisibility of what’s going on there — the fact that we can’t really look under the hood of how these streaming companies work economically — there’s another kind of handrail that’s missing that I find really helpful. At the end of the day, I, at least, want to know. The market will tell you how you’re doing. I want to know that so I can adjust or go in another direction. Being irrelevant isn’t very appealing. What is the overlap between what people seem to be responding to and what I like? Because I don’t want to make these things and have nobody see them. I’ve had enough people say, “Oh, did that come out?” It’s a public art form.
SODERBERGH: The good news is, if you talk to Focus Features and Neon and A24, young people are going to the movies. This is the Letterboxd generation. That’s fantastic. I hope that ripples outside the U.S. They are cine-literate and they expect something singular. They want the signature, they want the stamp of a filmmaker. And that’s turning into a real business. One of the things, I think, we all need to do, but especially the people who cover the industry, is to stop using the studio metric for what a success is. That’s not a template you should be applying to everything.
SODERBERGH: There was a period of about 10 to 14 year where the best movies of the year were also the most popular movies of the year. That’s not necessarily true anymore. You can pick one of the movies that’s in the hunt this year and go: That’s a ’70s movie. That’s as good and interesting as one of those. But it’s not going to do the business that one of those would have done. It’s the artist’s job to adapt. When it comes to trying to control what people want to go see, you’re now in a place like: “If I really wish hard, it won’t rain.” The weather is the weather. To a certain degree, the audience is a weather system. Luckily because of the way I began, I’m the cockroach of this industry. I can survive any version of it.
SODERBERGH: Yeah, when you see “Black Bag,” you’re like, “Oh, that’s different.” There are more shots in the first four minutes of “Black Bag” than the entirety of “Presence.” It’s a different thing and it has different demands.
SODERBERGH: No, it feels more like a natural evolution and a natural response in the sense of: I want to be a different filmmaker for this. I don’t want to know the outcome. If you have a conversation with a filmmaker who says they have “figured things out,” you should run in the other direction. It’s like: You’re deluded and you have a very superficial understanding of what this art form demands if you’re not humbled by what it asks of you to be distinctive.
SODERBERGH: No, I still feel like I’m reaching for something I quite possibly won’t ever grasp and maybe shouldn’t. As frustrating as it may be to feel like I’ve never made a thing that is at the level of one of my heroes made, I don’t know what I’d do if I did feel that. Do you stop, then? The movie “Come and See,” that guy got to basically go: “That’s my mic drop.” I’ve never made anything approaching that.
SODERBERGH: Oh, I’m very happy with that film. I’m very proud of that film. I can’t say there’s much in it that I’d go back and change. That said, it’s not “Apocalypse Now.” Or “The Third Man.” By my standards, I don’t look at it and go, “That’s as good as ‘The Third Man.’” I’m good at pushing myself into areas that are slightly beyond my comfort zone, but I also understand what my limitations are. I’m inherently not a grandiose thinker about myself or my work. That’s a critical component to some of the films I’m talking about that I think are amazing. I could never make “Apocalypse Now.” I don’t think of myself as a filmmaker the way Francis (Ford Coppola) thinks of himself. That’s not: He should be like me or I should be like him. It’s just how we’re built. I’m more earthbound, I guess is the word. And that’s what I like and what I’m good at.
SODERBERGH: I think it’s the way I was born and the way I was raised. And the people who were around me when I was younger who mentored me. I just don’t think I was born with the grandiosity gene and there was nobody around me who would have cultivated that even if I had shown signs. Going to Sundance last year with “Presence” was really gratifying. If you’d told me 35 years later you’re going to come back here (where “Sex, Lies and Videotape” premiered in 1989) with a movie that people are interested in seeing, I would have wept.
Steven Soderbergh: ‘I’m the cockroach of this industry. I can survive any version of it’
Steven Soderbergh, the acclaimed filmmaker behind hits like “Ocean’s Eleven” and “Traffic,” is known for his resilience and adaptability in the ever-evolving world of Hollywood. In a recent interview, Soderbergh declared himself the “cockroach of this industry,” emphasizing his ability to withstand and thrive in any version of the film business.
With a career spanning over three decades, Soderbergh has navigated through countless changes in the industry, from the rise of streaming services to the decline of traditional movie theaters. Through it all, he has continued to produce innovative and successful films, proving his staying power in an unpredictable landscape.
Soderbergh’s declaration of being a “cockroach” reflects his tenacity and determination to succeed, no matter the challenges that come his way. His ability to adapt to new trends and technologies has kept him relevant and respected in the industry, making him a true survivor in a cutthroat business.
As he continues to push boundaries and experiment with different genres and formats, Steven Soderbergh remains a force to be reckoned with in Hollywood. His confidence in his ability to withstand any version of the industry only solidifies his status as one of the most enduring and versatile filmmakers of our time.
Tags:
Steven Soderbergh, film director, Steven Soderbergh quotes, Hollywood director, film industry, survival in the industry, Steven Soderbergh interview, career longevity, Steven Soderbergh success, resilience in Hollywood
RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) — (UPDATE): Raleigh Police Department said Sunday morning, that the suspect in the shooting, George Colom Jr., has died from his injuries. Additional information will be released later.
Below is a previous report.
When 79-year-old Mary Tullock first heard of the North Hills shooting, she didn’t realize it would hit this close to home. Jonathan Schaffer was shot and killed moments before Coquette Brasserie opened its doors for lunch. He was her neighbor.
“It just tears me up to know it happened to him. It breaks my heart to think that it happened in our neighborhood,” said Tullock. “I just don’t know about the world anymore.”
According to RPD, the shooting happened at 10:57 a.m. on Friday inside the Coquette restaurant at 4351 The Circle at North Hills Street. When officers responded, they found three men with gunshot wounds. Police said 26-year-old Jonathan Mark Schaffer died from his injuries. 24-year-old Jonathan Aguilar Vega was treated for non-life-threatening injuries and was later released from the hospital.
Jonathan Schaffer
LinkedIn
Neighbors said they saw Schaffer often.
“He was a nice neighbor. He walked his dog. It’s really unfortunate to hear and the neighborhood will miss him,” said Alex Hyler.
She remembers when Schaffer’s dog had gotten out.
“I brought the dog back over at like 7:30 in the morning before work. I had woken him up. He was a really nice guy and was very appreciative that I brought the dog back. So yeah, that’s really sad to hear,” Hyler said.
The sadness was seen and felt in North Hills as a heavy police presence remained on Saturday night. People passing by Coquette stopped to read handwritten tributes to Schaffer.
One employee wrote he was not only their assistant manager but also a friend.
On Saturday, the family of the shooting suspect, George Colom, told ABC11 he would not survive his injuries, and that he was taken off of life support.
“My family is saddened by the loss of Mr Schaffer and we grieve for his family. We also share the pain with Mr. Aguilar. We are focused on our own son right now and want our privacy respected during this time. My son will soon pass away and we just want to bury our son in peace,” Colom’s father told ABC11.
A preliminary investigation revealed that the three men knew each other, Raleigh police say.
In a tragic turn of events, the family of the suspect involved in the North Hills shooting has announced that he will not survive his injuries. The shooting, which took place in the quiet neighborhood of North Hills, has left the community shaken and searching for answers.
The suspect, whose identity has not been released, was allegedly involved in a confrontation that escalated into gunfire. The details of the incident are still unclear, but it has been confirmed that multiple individuals were injured in the shooting.
As the suspect fights for his life in the hospital, his family has issued a statement expressing their remorse and condolences to the victims and their families. They have also requested privacy during this difficult time.
The community of North Hills is coming together to support the victims and their families during this challenging time. As the investigation into the shooting continues, residents are left grappling with the aftermath of this senseless act of violence.
Our thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the North Hills shooting, and we hope for a swift recovery for those injured in the incident.
Tags:
North Hills shooting, North Hills suspect, family statement, injuries, survival, North Hills news, shooting incident, suspect update, family update, North Hills crime, police investigation
No one knows better than Calipari what awaits his team in 2025 SEC play. Losing their front running status maybe just what the doctor ordered. Cal’s Hogs needed to work up an appetite and play hungry — starting this Saturday with noon-time commencement ceremonies at Thompson Bolding Arena.
The infatuation with having a hall of fame coach and a highly-regarded recruiting class may have deceived most observers inside Arkansas into thinking their new coach and cast of players would be the envy of the SEC. Outside of Arkansas however most observers looked at the match between Calipari and the Razorbacks a bunch of has beens on the rebound.
Cal’s Hogs have since recovered some of their street cred thanks to a win over a then-ranked Michigan team in Ann Arbor. However when asked about how much that win could carry over into SEC play, the usually loquacious don of college basketball hyperventilated and was at a complete loss for words.
In both pre-conference losses at Baylor and Illinois, Arkansas played like front runners and never led. They fell down by double digits early. They rallied enough to keep the final score respectable but seemed perplexed that the Bears and Illini were not as impressed by Cal and company simply showing up.
As the Arkansas Razorbacks gear up for SEC play under head coach Eric Musselman, they will face five internal challenges that could make or break their season.
First and foremost, the team must overcome the post-honeymoon phase that often follows a successful season. After a strong showing in the NCAA tournament last year, expectations are high for the Razorbacks. It will be crucial for the players to stay focused and not let complacency set in.
Secondly, the team must adjust to new roles and rotations as they integrate new players into the lineup. With several key departures from last year’s squad, including Moses Moody and Justin Smith, the Razorbacks will need to find chemistry and cohesion quickly.
Additionally, the team must stay healthy and avoid any major injuries that could derail their season. Depth will be key for the Razorbacks, so they will need all hands on deck to compete in the ultra-competitive SEC.
Furthermore, the Razorbacks must improve their defense and rebounding, two areas that were weaknesses last season. Coach Musselman has emphasized the importance of defense and toughness, and the team will need to show significant improvement in these areas to compete with the top teams in the conference.
Lastly, the Razorbacks must maintain their mental toughness and resilience throughout the ups and downs of the season. SEC play is a grueling gauntlet, and the team will need to stay focused and determined in order to come out on top.
If the Razorbacks can successfully navigate these internal challenges, they have the potential to make a deep run in the SEC and beyond. Coach Musselman has instilled a winning mentality in his team, and it will be exciting to see how they respond to these obstacles as they embark on their conference schedule.
Whether poking fun at politicians or simply trying to make the best of a bad Donald Trump, the writers and comedians of late-night shows lightened the load for us this year.
Hosts like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers, and Jimmy Kimmel appealed to our funny bones in the face of a ludicrous Republican Party, whose billionaire clown-king leader makes it a lot harder to be funny four to five days a week.
Here are 13 notable moments from late night, in what may have been the longest year on record.
One of the more frustrating things about Trump’s electoral success is how transparently deranged and corrupt he is. Meyers synthesized it perfectly back in March, after former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley gave up her bid for the Republican nomination.
In late March, Jon Stewart, back in his old seat at “The Daily Show,” broke down the $364 million civil fraud judgement against Trump. “We all do it. I mean it. On my license, I’m not listed as 5’7, you know, I’m listed as 30,000 square feet.”
In April, shortly before Trump’s hush money criminal case kicked off, Kimmel went after Trump and his cowardly Republican supporters, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whom Kimmel described as “a little bitch.”
In April, the Republican Party was wasting tax-payer money in one of their many impeachment stunts against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Colbert had some fun with the House Republicans’ general crapitude.
Jimmy Kimmel has fun at Trump’s and RFK Jr.’s expenses before turning his attention to the story that ensured South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem would not be chosen as Trump’s running mate.
“Just to recap for those who were horrified: she shot a puppy and a goat, and she would like you to know she also shoots horses,” he said. “She has at least a dozen people working for her, probably more. Not one of those dozen or dozens of people raised a hand, ‘Governor, do you think maybe it’s not a great idea to share that story about shooting a whole petting zoo at your house?’”
Stewart went at the right-wing’s slander-apparatus, showing that there is only one “cancel culture” and it lives inside conservatism.
“They’re so full of shit that Sean Hannity can say with a square head, ‘I’m not the kind of guy who gets outraged,’” Stewart exclaimed. “Sean Hannity! He’s basically just a meat-bag support system for a forehead vein.”
There’s a reason why election deniers don’t want to go to court. “It’s not a fraud case in court where I would need evidence. It’s only a fraud case out there amongst the sod and the mulch—where I can say whatever I want,” Stewart joked. “The difference between in court and out of court is that in court, someone can say ‘prove it.’”
Meyers returned on air after a summer hiatus and realized Trump had made all kinds of terrible news worth recapping. But three human weeks is the equivalent of three Trump-news-cycle years, and Meyers took a deep breath and gave it his best shot.
After losing an Emmy Award to Jon Stewart and “The Daily Show,” Kimmel channeled all of Trump’s election denialism into a fun opening monologue, filled with faux-grievances.
Stewart offered up some hope on election night, after it became clear Trump had defeated Vice President Kamala Harris.
“We have to continue to fight and continue to work, day in and day out, to create the better society for our children, for this world, for this country, that we know is possible,” he said.
“Well, fuck! It happened again,” Colbert began his monologue.
“As we’re all about to plunge back into the Trump hole, here’s what occurs to me,” Colbert added. “The first time Donald Trump was elected, he started as a joke and ended as a tragedy. This time, he starts as a tragedy. Who knows what he’ll end as. A limerick?”
“She’s an amazing player. She’s my friend, and she always pushes you to work really hard to work for every point.
Though she ultimately won in straight sets, Sabalenka was still made to battle throughout, rallying from a break down in the opening set, winning it in a tiebreaker, and steeling through the second set behind a single break of serve.
I’m a perfectionist, but I’m really happy with the level I played today, with the points I built today. Of course, I’m super happy with the win,” said Sabalenka, who thanked the crowd for sticking around for the match’s tense conclusion.
“I feel like home here.”
Sabalenka will face another test in the last eight as she aims to get revenge on Marie Bouzkova, who defeated her in three sets last summer in Washington, D.C. Still, the 26-year-old is keeping things simple on the court and when it comes to New Year’s resolutions.
“My personal resolution is to be happy, be healthy, and enjoy every moment,” she said. “I wish that for everyone.”
Brisbane International Tennis Tournament had fans on the edge of their seats as Aryna Sabalenka fought tooth and nail to secure a hard-fought victory. With Formula 1 rising star Jack Doohan in the crowd, Sabalenka showcased her determination and drive to survive in a thrilling match.
The Belarusian tennis sensation faced tough competition throughout the tournament, but she never wavered in her resolve. With Doohan cheering her on, Sabalenka put on a masterclass of power and precision, dominating her opponents with her aggressive playing style.
As Doohan looked on, Sabalenka’s performance only seemed to improve, as she unleashed thunderous serves and blistering groundstrokes to outclass her rivals. Despite facing several match points against her, Sabalenka never gave up, showing incredible mental toughness and resilience to come out on top.
With Doohan’s support and encouragement, Sabalenka proved that she is a force to be reckoned with on the tennis court. Her fighting spirit and never-say-die attitude earned her a well-deserved victory in Brisbane, and fans cannot wait to see what she will achieve next.
In a tournament filled with drama and excitement, Aryna Sabalenka stood out as a true champion, showcasing her drive to survive and emerge victorious. With Jack Doohan by her side, the sky is the limit for this talented tennis star.
Navigating the Chaos: How to Survive the Shit Show of 2025
As we all know, life can be unpredictable and chaotic at times. But as we head into the year 2025, it seems like the chaos has been turned up to maximum intensity. From political unrest to natural disasters, it can feel like we are living in a never-ending shit show. So how can we navigate this chaos and come out on top? Here are some tips to help you survive the shit show of 2025.
1. Stay Informed: With the rise of fake news and misinformation, it can be hard to know what is really going on in the world. Make sure to stay informed by following reputable news sources and fact-checking information before sharing it. Knowledge is power, and being informed will help you make better decisions in the midst of chaos.
2. Stay Calm: It’s easy to get caught up in the panic and hysteria that often accompanies chaotic situations. But staying calm and level-headed will help you think more clearly and make better choices. Take deep breaths, meditate, or practice mindfulness to help keep your stress levels in check.
3. Be Prepared: While we can’t predict every disaster or crisis that may come our way, it’s important to be prepared for the unexpected. Have an emergency kit stocked with essentials like food, water, and first aid supplies. Make a plan with your family for how to evacuate in case of a natural disaster. Being prepared can give you a sense of control in uncertain times.
4. Reach Out for Support: You don’t have to navigate the chaos of 2025 alone. Reach out to friends, family, or a therapist for support during difficult times. Having a strong support system can help you weather the storm and come out stronger on the other side.
5. Find Moments of Joy: In the midst of chaos, it’s important to find moments of joy and levity. Take time to do things that bring you happiness, whether that’s spending time with loved ones, going for a walk in nature, or indulging in a hobby you enjoy. Finding moments of joy can help you stay resilient in the face of adversity.
Navigating the chaos of 2025 may seem daunting, but with the right mindset and tools, you can not only survive but thrive. Stay informed, stay calm, be prepared, reach out for support, and find moments of joy to help you weather the storm. Remember, you are stronger than you think, and you can overcome whatever challenges come your way. Stay resilient, stay hopeful, and keep moving forward.
#Navigating #Chaos #Survive #Shit #Show,shit show 2025
How to Survive a Robot Invasion: Rights, Responsibility, and AI by David J. Gunk
Price : 31.73
Ends on : N/A
View on eBay
In this post, we will delve into the potential scenario of a robot invasion and how we, as humans, can survive and thrive in the midst of such technological upheaval. Author David J. Gunk explores the important concepts of rights, responsibility, and artificial intelligence in this thought-provoking piece.
First and foremost, Gunk emphasizes the importance of understanding and upholding our rights as individuals in the face of a robot invasion. As AI becomes more advanced and autonomous, it is crucial that we establish clear boundaries and protections for ourselves and our fellow humans. This includes ensuring that robots do not infringe upon our privacy, autonomy, or safety.
Additionally, Gunk discusses the concept of responsibility in the context of AI. As creators and users of artificial intelligence, we have a duty to ensure that these technologies are used ethically and responsibly. This means considering the potential consequences of our actions, as well as actively working to mitigate any negative impacts on society.
Finally, Gunk explores the role of artificial intelligence in a robot invasion scenario. While AI has the potential to revolutionize our world and improve countless aspects of our lives, it also poses significant risks if not properly regulated and controlled. By addressing these risks and implementing safeguards, we can harness the power of AI for the greater good.
In conclusion, Gunk’s insights on rights, responsibility, and AI are essential for navigating the complexities of a potential robot invasion. By staying informed, advocating for our rights, and acting responsibly, we can ensure a future where humans and robots coexist harmoniously.
#Survive #Robot #Invasion #Rights #Responsibility #David #Gunk
You must be logged in to post a comment.