Jade Bahr

Leonardo DiCaprio ‘Distancing’ From Camila Morrone Before She Turns 25 Leonardo DiCaprio’s current girlfriend, an actress and model Camila Morrone, turning 25 years old this summer, does this spell doom for the pair’s four-year relationship? That’s what one tabloid reports this week. Leonardo DiCaprio ‘Tiring’ Of Camila Morrone? Life & StyleThis week’s question: “Is Leo Tiring of Camila?”According to tabloids, Leonardo DiCaprio’s career as an actor has been characterized by a reputation for being a “regular guy” over the past 20 years. “perpetual bachelor” thanks to the fact that he hasn’t publicly dated anyone over the age of 25. Since Camila Morrone, DiCaprio’s girlfriend of four years, is turning 25 in June this year, the outlet and its sources aren’t too optimistic about the couple’s future together. “They really have had a great relationship,”Insisted on a source. “He’s the perpetual bachelor, though, and can’t seem to shake that mentality.” Morrone hasn’t even turned the big two-five yet, but the relationship is allegedly already cooling off, the source continues. These are the Two Reasons Why ‘Cooling Off’ “Leo has been distancing himself from Camila and spending more time partying with his boys,”The snitch comments, adding: “Friends see the same clues he always shows before dumping a girl!” What’s the cause of this sudden shift? The source has answers, but we aren’t too certain those answers are trustworthy. Apparently, Morrone’s rising star and recent successes as an actress are to blame for the couple’s relationship woes. Until fairly recently, Morrone’s biggest role was as the lead in the 2019 indie film Mickey and the Bear, but she’s been cast in a main role in Amazon’s new original series Daisy Jones & The SixThis is what has catapulted her career even further. “Leo seems to lose interest when his partner becomes more successful,”The source claims. “No one in his inner circle is exactly why, but it could just be because it means more time apart.” Despite the fact that DiCaprio and Morrone were recently spotted vacationing with friends in St. Barts, the source seems convinced that the end is nigh for the two’s relationship. “Camila is sweet, very positive and super low-maintenance. Leo could end up regretting it if he lets her go.” Though the source appears to think of Morrone and DiCaprio’s split as a forgone conclusion, we’re not so certain. Gossip Cop has its own take on the matter First of all, it’s ridiculous that this source and tabloid claim Leonardo DiCaprio drops his lady loves as soon as their star begins to rise. He dated Blake Lively in 2011, who was at the height of her career after four years of leading Teen Drama. Gossip Girl. He also dated one of the world’s most famous supermodels, Giselle Bündchen, from 1999 to 2004. It would appear that success is not a factor in DiCaprio’s break ups since he’s consistently dated some of the most successful women in Hollywood and beyond. It’s also too early to tell if Camila Morrone’s upcoming birthday will spell doom or signal a new era in DiCaprio’s dating life. It’s true that DiCaprio’s previous partners’ ages topped off at 25, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Morrone’s on her way out the door. She’s only 24 years old. She still has a little over a year before turning 26, which would mark a historic milestone in DiCaprio’s dating career. It doesn’t help L&S’s case that we’ve caught them spreading misinformation about DiCaprio’s relationship with Morrone multiple times in the past. In the past two years, the outlet has flipped between claiming DiCaprio was ready and not ready to propose and claiming they were at the breaking point and ready to leave each other. Neither story had any truth to it, which is why we can’t help but view anything the tabloid publishes on the subject with a healthy amount of skepticism. Source

Not sure if I get that list completely but I think it's the top 10 of most watched movies over christmas (in the US?). Nielsen's movie streaming chart over Christmas week 1. Elf (Hulu), 782 million minutes viewed 2. Home Alone (Disney), 700 million minutes 3. Being the Ricardos* (Amazon), 604 million 4. Don’t Look Up* (Netflix), 521 million 5. How the Grinch Who Stole Christmas (Netflix), 453 million 6. It’s a Wonderful Life (Amazon), 435 million 7. Encanto (Disney+), 407 million 8. Home Alone 2: Lost in New New York (Disney+), 399 million 9. The Christmas Chronicles* (Netflix), 391 million 10. The Santa Claus (Netflix), 356 million (...) Netflix and Adam McKay’s Don’t Look Up, which is competing with Being the Ricardos in this year’s awards race, also popped up on Nielsen’s top 10 chart for the week with 521 million minutes viewed. However, Don’t Look Up didn’t begin streaming until Christmas Eve, making comparisons with Being the Ricardos difficult. Additionally, Nielsen will release revised viewership numbers for Don’t Look Up‘s first two days because of a glitch. Either way, both films attracted strong numbers as the year-end holidays got underway in earnest. Nielsen’s streaming ratings, which are delayed by four weeks, cover viewing on TV sets and don’t include content watched on computers or mobile devices. And they apply to the U.S. only. Separately, Netflix numbers — which are more current and count hours instead of minutes — show that Don’t Look Up (350 million hours) is the streamer’s most viewed movie ever on its service in its first 28 days behind Red Notice (364 million hours). Full article

^When my best friend texted me like a maniac in the middle of the frickin night I thought for a horrible second something happened to a family member or Leo (who's basically family lol). What a terrible day. I'm exhausted. Sometimes I think I'm the silliest person ever being devistated over a strangers dead. But yeah it hurts and I will miss him forever. Sry for spamming you, guys. I will stop now. Thx for listening/reading

Guuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuys, I'm so crushed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yesterday we lost a great human being and I think he would be ok when I call him a big Leo fan: French actor Gaspard Ulliel (37) died after a tragic skiing accident 😪 He worked with Marty on this Blue de Chanel commercial: He talked several times about his admiration for Leo as an actor (even though he could be a bit critical lol): In a completely different register, we find you this back to school in the advertising film for Bleu de Chanel perfume, directed by Martin Scorsese. How did you live this experience? I worked with him for five days in New York. He took part in the project 100%, by sending visual references and a very detailed synopsis: photos of the young Stones or Bob Dylan, night images taken from his films with a slightly bluish grain... The brand of the big ones, it is this precision. He shoots few takes, he speaks very quickly, with 40,000 ideas per second... He's a real conductor, whom everyone follows to the note. There was an incredible energy on set, it was very lively. How was your first interview? I arrived several days before the shooting and his schedule was so full that the meeting had to be rescheduled three or four times. I met him in his office one evening and it was amazing to see all his films piled up on the shelves! He even showed me a preview of Shutter Island in his screening room. There is a real sweetness in his eyes and his way of expressing himself. What's your favorite Scorsese movie? Taxi Driver remains a strong memory. It was the first film of his that I saw, on VHS tape, in a hotel in New York, during one of the first trips I made alone. Recently, I discovered After Hours , one of his only commissioned feature films but which corresponds to his cinema with all the paranoia of the main character. And your favorite character? The interpretations of Robert de Niro obviously amazed me, but also those of Leonardo DiCaprio, who brought something new to Scorsese's cinema. I had a little trouble with his image of a twink from the beginning, at the time of The Beach and Titanic . He knew how to evolve by the rigor of his choices and a subtle game. Source He was at Leos Foundation Gala in 2016. Source (Sadly no pics of him and Leo together). He left behind his longtime girlfriend model Gaëlle Piétri and their little son Orso (7). 💔 I know he wasn't that famous, but good god I had the biggest crush on him back in 2007 when he played young Hannibal Lecter in "Hannibal Rising". 😍 Critics didn't really like his performance but I think he was just brilliant (with only 22 he managed to fill the big footsteps of Anthony Hokins quite well in a foreign language in one scene he even sings in german). Not gonna lie I even traveled to Paris with a friend to meet him Didn't happen and now it will never happen omg. 😰 His most beautiful movie is probably the french period drama "A Very Long Engagement" next to Audrey Tautou, Marion Cotillard and Jodie Foster. Gaspards own thread here in the forum is kinda dead -yeah not funny sry - and I just wanted to give him the little tribute/last recognition he deserved. We lost a gifted young actor, truly beautiful inside and outside (I don't think I ever heard one single bad thing about him in all those years) and this whole tragedy is so fucking sad, senseless and heartbreaking I just wanna cry forever Source Au revoir, Gaspard.

I'm heartbroken 🥺💔

Have to post this because it's another proof the internet is full of shit and every moron is just buying it No wonder we are doomed. Here's A Brief Explainer Debunking A Viral Story About Leonardo DiCaprio Taking His Girlfriend Camila Morrone On The "Worst Date Of My Life" Not to be confused with the very real story of him making Jonah Hill watch "The Mandalorian." Leonardo DiCaprio is a huge Star Wars nerd — new information to me, but I feel that it checks out. However, with that said, he did not, in fact, make his girlfriend sit through the entire franchise's movies, prompting her to call the experience the "worst date of my life." Let me backtrack a little: Last night, a satire page on Twitter with the handle @LeCinephiles tweeted a fake breaking news story about the Don't Look Up star. It read, "BREAKING: Leonardo DiCaprio’s ex-girlfriend, Camila Morrone details the 'worst date of my life' with the actor." The tweet was accompanied by a fake quote: "He rented out a whole cinema, and made me watch every single Star Wars movie while he ran around with his lightsaber pretending to fight bad guys." First, the 47-year-old A-lister is still presumably dating 24-year-old actor and model Camila Morrone. They were first romantically linked back in 2017. Second, in case you don't want to take me at my word, the page has reaffirmed multiple times that it's a satirical account. For example, it once tweeted about a new James Corden variant called "Cordiant" that "has unique symptoms, including the necessity to be unfunny, and the need to appear in every single Hollywood production." Now, as far as celebs being absolute weirdos go, this is certainly not high on the list, and I can totally see why people would take it at face value. Also, objectively, picturing Leo running around a dark, empty theater making lightsaber noises is so hilarious, I desperately wish it were true. And let's not forget, there's somewhat of a precedent: Jonah Hill recently revealed (in an actual interview with an actual magazine, namely W Mag) that his costar made him watch The Mandalorian while filming the Adam McKay satire. "And it was like, Baby Yoda was so cute, but I just didn't give a fuck because I didn't know anything that it was about," Jonah said, adding that he previously had a rule about not watching fantasy series because he would often "lose focus." After the initial tweet from @LeCinephiles went viral, the account asked journalists to interview the star about the viral phenomenon. By the looks of it on Twitter, both the real and fake Star Wars-themed stories seem to have elevated Leo's star status, as fans proclaimed their readiness for a marathon date. But tell me, if Leo HAD rented out a movie theater and made you watch Star Wars (yes, I'm talking all 12 films), how would you feel about the date? Source

Now that's a story I didn't know I need in my life

Of course Leos movie is "the years most talked one" The Real Message of Adam McKay’s “Don’t Look Up” The year’s most talked about movie focuses as much on cultural decline as climate change and signals the death of satire. Released just before Christmas on Netflix, Adam McKay’s “Don’t Look Up” instantly became the most talked about movie of 2021. The professional film critics immediately weighed in, mostly with unfavorable reviews. By the following week, the reviews were being reviewed. “Don’t Look Up” had taken on the status of an event rather than a piece of entertainment or a work of art. The reason for this curious phenomenon, similar to what occurred for the movie “Bonnie and Clyde” 55 years ago, lies in the fact that, while capturing the mood of an epoch focused on the very real possibility of the collapse of civilization, as a work of art, the movie is visibly flawed in a number of ways that no professional critic could ignore. Given McKay’s track record and the star power he brought together in the case, the critics felt that the film failed to live up to its advertised promise. When the viewership statistics began appearing, the disconnect between critical assessment and the public’s appreciation became flagrant. “Don’t Look Up” broke the record for Netflix viewership for a new release. The gap in judgment between the critics and the public itself became a topic for discussion in the media. Some may see this as a demonstration of the inexorable loss of prestige of movie reviewers in the era of social media. Once respected pillars of popular journalism, most consumers now see cinema critics as irrelevant. This has something to do with the ambiguity of cinema itself. Traditionally consumed in a dark movie theater as a collective experience amid a responsive audience, most people now watch their movies at home on television. The distinction between movies and TV has become increasingly blurred. Getting Talked About No one doubts that audiences were drawn to the film principally through the appeal of the star-studded cast featuring, among others, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Meryl Streep, Ariana Grande and Cate Blanchett. But there may be another cultural factor that complements the roster of stars: the power of the traditional and non-traditional news media. That includes the uncountable bevy of pundits on social media. Commentary on the news has become another form of entertainment, thanks in part to its much lower production costs than Hollywood movies. Once the critics had done their job, most outlets in the US treated the film’s release and reception as a news story in and of itself. The media began talking about the movie, no longer in terms of its artistic success or failure, but as a kind of psy-op designed to sensitize the public to the urgency of combating climate change. Anyone with access to Netflix felt obliged to watch it. By becoming not only a much-viewed work of entertainment but more significantly an object of endless discussion in the media, the movie achieved the director’s real goal: getting talked about. The attention the media is still giving “Don’t Look Up,” weeks after its Netflix release, reveals more about the state of US culture than it does about the movie itself. It highlights the paradox, specifically targeted in the movie’s satire, of the public’s addiction to the media’s blather and its growing distrust of all institutions, including the very media to which the public is addicted. Were the Critics Right? In the case of “Bonnie and Clyde,” released in 1967, Newsweek’s Joe Morgenstern “initially panned [the movie], only to come back and proclaim it (wisely) a great movie,” according to David Ansen (a later Newsweek critic and a friend of mine). He penned a second review celebrating Penn’s accomplishment. I’m not sure I agree with David about it being a great movie, but “Bonnie and Clyde” became such a popular success that Morgenstern had to sit down and rethink the cultural conditions that made it, if not a great movie, then at least a movie for its time. And what a time it was! 1967 is remembered as the year of the “summer of love,” a propitious moment for any cultural artifact that could be perceived as being “for its time.” More significantly, “Bonnie and Clyde” became a trend-setter for the next generation of filmmakers. Can we compare our era with the ebullition of the sixties? Can “Don’t Look Up” pretend to be the “Bonnie and Clyde” of the 21st century? Because of COVID-19 and Donald Trump, 2020 and 2021 may be remembered by future generations as two years as significant 1967, 1968 (assassinations of MLK and RFK, “mai 68”) or 1969 (Woodstock). Then again, future generations may simply remember these two years as a period of gradual but certain decline marked by a debilitating indifference to the impending crisis that “Don’t Look Up” wants us to respond to. McKay intended “Don’t Look Up” to be a satire. The mood of the movie is clearly satirical, but some critics noticed that the plot and characterization easily broke the mood, slipping dangerously at times into parody. True satire treats a serious subject seriously before introducing the elements of ironic perspective that subtly or unsubtly undermine the characters’ pretention of seriousness. For a director, this means controlling both the timing and the gap between the sober and the comic. Hollywood satire, which always employs humor, has traditionally fallen into two broad categories: dramatic and comic. The Marx Brothers were specialized in comic satire. It achieved its effects through immediate exaggeration of recognizable social behaviors, almost always including the relationship between a woman from the American upper class (Margaret Dumont) and an upstart male gold digger (Groucho) and a penniless southern European immigrant trying to make it in WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) America (Chico). In this Marxian (rather than Marxist) world, the three brothers in real life represented three different types of cultural marginality. Chico’s character comprised both Italians and Jews; the mute Harpo represented an extreme form of marginality, combining the handicapped and the poet (and natural musician). He even had his place in the poor black community (Harpo’s “Who dat man?” in “A Day at the Races”). All three of the Marx Brothers embodied, in contrasting ways, characters bent on destabilizing a self-satisfied majority that could neither understand them nor integrate them into their putative order. The very existence of the three non-conformists challenged the legitimacy of the institutions they interacted with. Comic vs. Dramatic Satire The Marx Brothers’ may have produced raucous comedy intended to provoke non-stop laughter, but their humor was built on a foundation of social satire. Audiences didn’t necessarily think about it in that way. They didn’t exit the movie theater reflecting deeply on the presumption, injustice and cluelessness of the ruling class. But the worlds and situations the Marx Brothers interacted with skewered a range of institutional targets: political and military (“Duck Soup”), academic (“Horsefeathers”), the arts (“A Night at the Opera”) or even medical (“A Day at the Races”). In so doing, they subtly altered the audience’s perception of the class system in the US and some of its most prestigious institutions. All of these movies appeared during the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Like Jonathan Swift in “Gulliver’s Travels,” the Marx Brothers created parallel worlds, clearly differentiated from our own, in which recognizable social and transactional behavior became exaggerated to the point of producing immediate comic effects that highlighted the illogic and even injustice of the real world. Like the Marx Brothers, Charlie Chaplin, W.C. Fields and Laurel and Hardy produced variants on the same principle of comic satire. Each created and gave life to distinctive marginal personalities, at odds with respectable society and usually defeated by it. Dramatic satire has in common with comic satire the aim of making its points by producing laughter. But it follows a radically different set of rules. Instead of throwing absurdity straight in the face of the audience by staging wildly exaggerated behavior designed to challenge and upset the veneer of seriousness attributed to what is presented as “normal society,” dramatic satire first takes the time to create the audience’s belief in a realistic situation that will later be challenged by an unexpected event or external force. It turns around the eruption of an anomaly erupts that will inevitably provoke reactions from a range of characters unprepared for the surprise. In other words, dramatic satire gives deadpan seriousness a head start. It is the gap between the nature of the anomalous event and the quality of the characters’ reaction that produces what comes across not as the pretext for a joke, but as unintentional humor. In the history of cinema, the most perfect example of dramatic satire — and the most appropriate to compare with “Don’t Look Up” — is Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film, “Dr. Strangelove” or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,” the archetypal doomsday satire. McKay was acutely aware of that when he made “Don’t Look Up.” Kubrick’s drama literally turns around the plot device of a Soviet “doomsday machine” that, if triggered, will destroy human life on the surface of the earth. The plot begins in total seriousness, like any dramatic movie. The key to its brilliance as satire is the gradual pace at which the exaggerated behavior of some of the characters unfolds. Playing their designated roles to the hilt, the politicians and generals become overtly comic when they go one step (and sometimes two or three) beyond what is reasonable. There are several points in the first third of the movie where it becomes apparent to the viewer that they are watching a comedy. But this happens gradually and only through significant, but credible details in the dialogue, such as Brigadier General Ripper’s obsession with “purity of essence.” As the plot develops, at key moments, the comedy can erupt at the highest level of absurdity, as when President Muffley interjects: “Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room.” Such absurdly comic moments emerge logically, without ever undermining the fundamentally dramatic plot structure as it builds toward a final crescendo that will be followed by an instantaneous release. Adam McKay’s Compromise McKay’s script attempts to respect the same principle of dramatic satire as “Dr. Strangelove.” The initial scenes reveal the introverted scientist (DiCaprio) and his research student (Lawrence) making the disquieting discovery of a comet certain to strike the earth within half a year. The impending catastrophe is fully confirmed before the audience can get a reasonable feeling for the characters. That is the movie’s first glaring flaw. The apparent tension seems unjustified. The audience doesn’t yet care enough about the characters to start seriously worrying about whether they or the earth they (and we) stand on will survive the comet’s assault. A quick transition leads us to the corridors of the White House in Washington, DC. We spend some time with the troubled scientists who are kept waiting before meeting President Orlean (Meryl Streep). She turns out to be a clever composite of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. There’s even a gratuitous hint of a link to Barack Obama, the secret smoker. The characters in “Dr. Strangelove” are each given the time to appear as reasonable, conscientious, professionally competent human beings. Their irrationality and moral failure only appear as they attempt to deal with the impending threat. In contrast, “Don’t Look Up’s” president and colleagues are simply the embodiments of the algorithm that now dominates US politics, aimed at winning elections. This is where the mood of the movie moves from satire to parody. We then move to New York where a serious news bureau modeled after The New York Times and a daytime TV interview show demonstrate the same algorithmic principle predicated this time essentially on optimizing ratings. At this point, the spectacle of increasingly trivial behavior by all the establishment parties definitively takes over. What follows is a dynamically edited series of acts and scenes that riff on the gap between the serious intentions of the scientists and the endless venality and psychological triviality of politicians, entertainers and techno-capitalists. The specific critique of institutions and the media is usually on target. But it too often appears to be an exercise of making fun of what is visible every day in our media simply by duplicating its most consistent behaviors. The Difficulty of Satirizing Hyperreality In other words, McKay’s parody suffers from the already hyperreal nature of what it seeks to critique. The culture it puts on display, already accessible in today’s media, is too recognizable and predictable, in a certain sense, too true to (hyperreal) life. It may be a thankless task to try for comic effect by further exaggerating anything in the real world that is already so exaggerated in its triviality and cynical efficiency that on its own it tends to be laughable. McKay ends up faithfully reproducing a world that, through its media, endlessly parodies itself. That may be what made the critics feel uncomfortable. The actors do their best to parody what it already a parody. The movie rarely achieves the sense of queasy discomfort satire normally seeks to inspire. “Dr. Strangelove” does so by slowly building that discomfort to a fever pitch. Kubrick shows his characters thinking, strategizing, trying to adapt to an unusual situation. McKay’s characters too often appear to be reading from a script. We never get the impression that they are grappling with anything. Instead, they are playing out their algorithmically determined roles. Perhaps the real lesson, worth being talked about, from “Don’t Look Up” is that in a world so dominated by the hyperreality projected not just by our media but also by our politicians, technology gurus and even academics, true satire is no longer possible. When the media reaches the level of superficiality and sheer venality that it has achieved today, as revealed in every scene of “Don’t Look Up,” the link to reality in today’s culture is too tenuous for effective political satire to be produced. Hollywood Satire and Contemporary History Over the past century, Hollywood has produced many successful and indeed unforgettable satires. They fall into a variety of styles and with a wide range of comic techniques. “Duck Soup” (Marx Brothers), “Blazing Saddles” (Mel Brooks), “M*A*S*H”(Robert Altman), “Mulholland Drive” (David Lynch) and many others stand as great Hollywood satires that achieved their effect by creating largely unbelievable frameworks that become believable by virtue of the director’s control of exaggeration, coupled with the capacity to build a coherent intricacy of contrasts and conflicts in the plotting. “Don’t Look Up” never quite makes up its mind about whether it wishes to embrace “Dr. Strangelove’s” focused drama or the liberated wackiness of Mel Brooks. That may be why the critics found it to be an unsatisfying hybrid. In its defense, however, we should recognize — and future generations should note — that it does stand as an effective parody of the most predictable behavior of public figures incapable of responding to an existential crisis because they have been programmed according to a different set of algorithmic rules. For that reason, the film should be considered a resounding success. It has raised in the public forum the most serious facet of the climate crisis: that even our awareness of it cannot serve to find a solution. The system we are trying to save is built to resist anyone’s saving it. For all its cinematic quality, brilliant humor and critical success, “Dr. Strangelove” had no immediate impact on the arms race. Still, it is worth noting that when Ronald Reagan was elected president, sixteen years after the movie’s release, as he was making the rounds of the federal government’s installations, upon visiting the Pentagon he “asked the chief of staff to show him the war room of Dr. Strangelove.” The Hollywood actor, who had spent plenty of time in his earlier career in sound studios, believed Kubrick’s set was real. Reagan’s public anti-communist philosophy was not radically different from Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper’s as detailed in “Dr. Strangelove.” The man who, before his election, “had argued that the United States was falling behind the Soviets in the nuclear competition” personally initiated the negotiations that led to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), “the first treaty that required U.S. and Soviet/Russian reductions of strategic nuclear weapons.” Could it have been Reagan’s memory of the lessons of “Dr. Strangelove” that ultimately guided him towards that decision? A Tale of Two Cold Wars The original Cold War nuclear arms race Kubrick denounced in his movie is still going on to this day. Perhaps more than ever it can be triggered in a heartbeat. In contrast, climate change promises a slow agony, whose groans may already be discernible. America’s current president, Joe Biden, says he wants to rein it in but seems incapable of exercising any real leadership to achieve that goal. At the time Kubrick was shooting “Dr. Strangelove,” John F. Kennedy was still president. In his first year of office, JFK called for the abolition of nuclear weapons “before they abolish us.” In the summer of 1963, he initiated the first nuclear test ban treaty. Four months later, he was successfully “abolished” himself in the streets of Dallas. It appears clear now that, willingly or unwillingly, President Biden will accomplish little to limit the effects of climate change. Seeking to raise the stakes of the US rivalry with China and increasing the pressure on Russia over Ukraine in a spirit that sometimes resembles a new cold war, he has also made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of banishing nuclear weapons. In the first week of 2022, the White House affirmed the principle that “nuclear weapons—for as long as they continue to exist—should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war.” The first cold war ended in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union. The lesson of “Dr. Strangelove” no longer lives in any president’s memory. But can we suppose or perhaps even hope that a future president who happened to watch “Don’t Look Up” at the end of 2021 will, like Reagan, remember its message and dare, even decades later, to take some kind of serious action to address it? That seems unlikely. As President Orlean pointed out, unless the end of the world is scheduled to take place before the next presidential or midterm election, there are more important things to attend to. Source

^And yet DLU is one of his most successful movies ever. Or at least one of netflix most successful movies ever. So I'm not really convinced his private love life/enviromental behaviour is overshadowing his reputation as an actor. I think the real question is if things would be really different if he were dating someone else (what's literally none of our business I didn't even understand why people so obsessed with the age of his girlfriends LOL) and staying away from yachts? I mean in the end of the day he would be still Leonardo. Honestly I think most people don't even know the meaning of the word hypocrite. They just see something inappropriate without ANY research and spreading the word to describe their indignation. Here is an interesting article about the stretch Leo have to made as the rich climate activist he is and his carbon intensive lifestyle and that he's far away from being a so called 'hypocrite'. Rich climate activist Leonardo DiCaprio lives a carbon-intensive lifestyle, and that's (mostly) fine At the 2016 Academy Awards, Leo DiCaprio accepted his Best Actor trophy with a speech that included a passionate call to action on climate change. As inevitably as night follows day, social media was flooded with people attacking DiCaprio as a hypocrite for living a carbon-intensive lifestyle. This kind of thing has been around for as long as I've been writing about climate change. People never tire of pointing out that Al Gore lives in a "mansion" or that scientists fly all over the world to climate conferences, spewing CO2. Any time I mention a vacation online I am immediately scolded as a hypocrite by at least one of the trolls who follow me around waiting for such opportunities. It's not just conservatives or climate skeptics, either. There have always been plenty of environmentalists and liberals who scorn Gore and other climate leaders for their supposed hypocrisy. There's clearly something powerful in the critique. It elicits strong, intuitive reactions, which is rare with arguments related to climate change. But I don't think it holds up. In particular, I think it runs two different arguments together. Argument 1: Climate advocates who don't reduce their emissions are hypocrites This is the claim that really grabs people at a gut level. And it makes a certain sense: If you say carbon emissions are bad, and you emit lots of carbon, and you don't work to reduce your own carbon emissions, then either a) you don't really think carbon emissions are bad, or b) you're a hypocrite. But there's a hidden premise here, which lots of people take for granted but shouldn't. The premise is that personal emission reductions are an important part of the fight against climate change — if you take climate seriously, you take on an obligation to reduce your own emissions. Is that true? Not necessarily. It is entirely possible to believe, as many people do, that voluntary emission reductions are pointless vanity, that the only efficacious solutions to climate change involve extended, coordinated action by governments. They view the moralism around personal emissions as a distraction, a way of diverting environmentalist energy and alienating non-environmentalists. People who believe that are not engaged in hypocrisy if they fly, or buy an SUV, or eat a hamburger. They are not advocating sacrifice or asceticism; they don't believe it would do any good. They believe people will take advantage of the options available to them until some combination of regulation and innovation makes cleaner options available. If they advocate for, and are willing to abide by, taxes and regulations designed to reduce emissions, then such folks are being true to their beliefs. You might think they are wrong about the value of personal behavior, but they are not hypocrites. Is there any evidence that DiCaprio has advocated personal emission reductions or told anyone they ought to forgo planes or boats? If so, I haven't seen it. Perhaps he has done the math and realized that the emissions of any single rich person are insignificant to the big picture on climate. Here are the per capita carbon emissions of the world's top 10 overall carbon emitters: More recent data has shifted slightly, but we don't need to be all that precise. The world average is around 7 metric tons a year per person. In the US, it's around 20 metric tons. Let's say that by flying and yachting all over the world, DiCaprio is responsible for 500 times the emissions of the average American — 10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases a year. How much is that? Here are some annual greenhouse gas emission figures, in metric tons (years range from 2010 to 2013): Global: 46 billion US: 6.673 billion California: 459.3 million Walmart: 21 million Los Angeles: 18.595 million California film industry: 8.4 million Even if extravagant by mere mortal standards, DiCaprio's personal emissions are a fart in the wind when it comes to climate change. If he vanished tomorrow, and all his emissions with him, the effect on global temperature, even on US emissions, even on film-industry emissions, would be lost in the noise. Climate change is extremely large. No single human can directly generate enough emissions to make a dent. And all indications are that DiCaprio knows that. That's why he said: We need to support leaders around the world who do not speak for the big polluters, but who speak for all of humanity, for the indigenous people of the world, for the billions and billions of underprivileged people out there who would be most affected by this. He didn't say, "We need to buy LED lightbulbs. And avoid yachts." His focus is on political leadership. So the "hypocrisy" charge fails. You're not a hypocrite for not doing things you haven't said anyone else should do either. (Note: There are certainly people who think reducing one's personal emissions is a moral obligation, for everyone, and that high-profile climate leaders ought to lead the way. I disagree, but it's a legitimate claim. But even if you accept the claim, the conclusion is that DiCaprio is wrong, not that he's a hypocrite.) Argument 2: Public figures ought to do more climate signaling You could agree that voluntary personal emission reductions are irrelevant to the big picture on climate change and still think that high-profile public figures like DiCaprio are in a unique position to signal. Their choices and habits have outsize effects on culture. People look to them for indications about what is and isn't important, so they have an obligation to send the right signals. There's definitely something to this argument. But there are two important things to remember about it. First, if signaling is the issue, well, DiCaprio is supporting electric cars and pushing for clean energy in the film industry and building eco-resorts and supporting clean energy campaigns and starting a friggin' climate charity. Oh, and making heartfelt appeals in front of 9 million people at the Academy Awards. That's a lot of signaling! Read this piece in Rolling Stone or this one in the Guardian. DiCaprio has a long history of serious work on this issue. By any measure, he's doing better on signaling than the vast majority of wealthy, influential people. Do pictures of him on a yacht undo all that? No one's provided any evidence to support that claim. Second, note that this argument applies to all wealthy, influential people, not just the ones who advocate for action on climate change. If it is a moral good for influential people to signal that low carbon is a priority, then it is a moral good for all of them. Those who speak up about climate change are under no special obligation over and above that. All that said, yes, conspicuous consumption is a kind of signaling too — a bad kind, for reasons that go far beyond climate change. Generally, parading your hyperconsumption is corrosive to social solidarity. (Oddly, very few of the conservatives who yell at DiCaprio make this argument.) So if there's any grounds for complaint against DiCaprio, it's the same complaint fairly directed at any wealthy hyperconsumer: Signaling restraint is a gesture of social solidarity. They should all do more of it. Including the ones who never say a word about climate change. To sum up We've got to stop using fossil fuels as rapidly as possible. Doing that will mean some mix of technological, political, and social change. Undoubtedly lifestyle changes will come along with any such transition. I wouldn't presume to predict what those lifestyle changes will be. But insofar as progress on decarbonization proceeds at the pace it needs to, it will do so because lower-carbon alternatives are cheaper or more convenient, or offer features and benefits their dirty competitors can't. I have trouble envisioning voluntary restraint catching on at any scale that makes a difference. Cleaner energy will be more fun, more prosperous, better, or it won't happen. So sure, maybe DiCaprio ought to rein it in with the yachts and personal jets. But only for the same reasons all rich people ought to, not because he's advocating for better climate policy. Everyone ought to advocate for better climate policy! Policy is the big picture. If we get that right, both income inequality and emissions will decline and more people will be better off. If we get it wrong, the size of DiCaprio's boat won't matter one way or the other. Source

I can't handle criticism about Leo? 😀 Give me a break. Ok. So that's really funny because I tease him every time I have the oppurtunity. Just read my posts or ask some other members here. Lots of heat discussions are going on my bank account. I just don't like to judge a person without having any proof or personal expierence. That's something different. You on the other hand makes me wonder: Why do you believe some strangers you know literally nothing about more than you believe in Leo especially as "longtime" fan? (your words) What has Leo done you lost faith in him and put bad words from others - who don't know him either - over him? (now I sound like a shrink but whatever) I don't think you're a bad person. I don't even know you. What is exactly my whole point lol

It's at least confirmed for this year by actress Cara Jade Myers:

First poster

^Beside from this I also could write you a sex story about Leo asap you could never tell it's true or not LOL So just someone is saying some shit about him in the internet doesn't mean it's true for christ sake.

I don't even get your point. Do you want him delivering "killer skills in bed"? Being not gay? More six packed? Less yachting? Less controversial? More transparent about his private life? If so I have big news for you: It's literally nothing of your business LOL

What ‘Don’t Look Up’ and ‘House of Gucci’s’ Robust BAFTA Hauls Say About the Oscar Race With SAG Awards nominations and now the BAFTA longlist, two critical groups that overlap with Oscar membership have weighed in on the awards season. First, not to be confused with actual nominations, the BAFTA Awards released its longlists across 24 categories, each having varying numbers and methods to determining them, depending on the voting chapter. Proving once again that critics and journalists don’t have the last word, despite its divided reception, Netflix’s “Don’t Look Up,” alongside the acclaimed musical “West Side Story” from 20th Century Studios, co-led the field of possible nominations still in play with 15 each. “Don’t Look Up” by Adam McKay landed among the best film, director, and original screenplay races. In addition, many of its sprawling ensemble — Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Cate Blanchett, Meryl Streep and Mark Rylance — made the top 15 in their respective categories. With film critics divided and vocal about the movie’s themes, which McKay and his co-writer David Sirota began to respond to on social media, this shines a light again on the differing opinions between critics and actual major awards voters. We don’t know how many noms for McKay’s film it will translate into, but this shows that passionate responses to movies can create waves of support, whether good or bad. You can point to films like “Green Book” (2018) as an example. The film, which also became No. 1 on Netflix after its release, was recognized by the SAG Awards for its ensemble. The actors’ branch is the largest of the Academy, and that group can have a substantial impact when they coalesce around a movie. (...) Round two voting, to determine the nominations in the member-voted categories, will open between Jan. 14-27. Nominations will be announced on Feb. 3. This will be followed by round three voting to determine the winners, which will open between Feb. 9 and Mar. 8. Full article

I mean... Bye, bye humanity

It's becoming a little frustrating sometimes I have to say.

I didn't mean I believe Leo contracted every woman in his life I rather mean I don't understand why people have everything turn into ugly when it's necessarily not.

Remember that particular time (like a frickin decade) when it was the fantasy of million of women to sign such a contract??? Just saying.

Bit disappointed Leo being snubbed but still...

I think if Leo managed a SAG nomination today his chances for another oscar nomination aren't that bad. https://www.instagram.com/sagawards/ And since SAGs loves him... We will see

What's always wonder me the most all those people who probably never met Leo knowing his sexual orientation where from exactly??? Beside from this I don't see any sense in "outing" people who cleary want their private shit private. What's coming straight to my mind when I listen to people like this Stephen Trask: I wrote briefly with that podcast lady last night via tumblr btw, she doesn't know any shit about Leo or anyone else LOL

At least according to her Leo isn't gay. Just everything else

Not lying. They both agreed to that story to cover their "true" sexuality. I think she called Taylor queer lol

Obsessed with this cover!!! 😍