Reporting from Washington — A pair of influential senators presented President Obama with a three-page blueprint for a bipartisan agreement to overhaul the nation’s immigration system, but the proposal’s viability is threatened by politics surrounding the healthcare debate.
Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), in a 45-minute meeting Thursday in the Oval Office, also asked for Obama’s help in rounding up enough Republican votes to pass an immigration bill this year.
Although details of their blueprint were not released, Graham said the elements included tougher border security, a program to admit temporary immigrant workers and a biometric Social Security card that would prevent people here illegally from getting jobs.
Graham also said the proposal included “a rational plan to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States.” He did not elaborate on what the plan would be. But in a recent interview, he suggested that onerous measures were unrealistic.
“We’re not going to mass-deport people and put them in jail, nor should we,” Graham said. “But we need a system so they don’t get an advantage over others for citizenship.”
In a statement after the Obama meeting, Graham predicted that their effort would collapse if Senate Democrats proceeded with a strategy to pass a healthcare bill through a simple majority vote — a process known as “reconciliation.” Senate leaders say they are committed to doing just that.
“I expressed, in no uncertain terms, my belief that immigration reform could come to a halt for the year if healthcare reconciliation goes forward,” said Graham, who portrayed the document handed to Obama as “a work in progress.”
Graham added: “For more than a year, healthcare has sucked most of the energy out of the room. Using reconciliation to push healthcare through will make it much harder for Congress to come together on a topic as important as immigration.”
In their own statements, Obama and Schumer sounded more upbeat.
The president said: “Today I met with Sens. Schumer and Graham and was pleased to learn of their progress in forging a proposal to fix our broken immigration system. I look forward to reviewing their promising framework, and every American should applaud their efforts to reach across party lines and find common sense answers to one of our most vexing problems.”
Immigration has gotten scant attention of late. Obama had initially promised to address the issue in his first year, but the deadline slipped as he struggled to pass a healthcare bill. Latino voters, who were a crucial piece of Obama’s winning coalition in the 2008 campaign, have grown impatient. Some advocates of an immigration overhaul warn that Latino voters will stay home in the November mid-term elections if the issue is delayed again.
In an attempt to defuse the anger, Obama met with a group of 14 immigration advocates in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, hours before his meeting with the two senators.
Afterward, some of the guests described the atmosphere in the room as tense. They said they told Obama that families were being severed by widespread deportations. In the fiscal year that ended in September, the U.S. deported 388,000 illegal immigrants, according to the Department of Homeland Security — up from 369,000 the year before.
“I don’t think the president liked hearing that the immigration system is tearing apart families. But that’s our reality,” said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, who attended the meeting.
Obama agreed to have them meet with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to discuss deportation policies, the White House said.
Even without the healthcare obstacle, passing an immigration bill would be difficult. Schumer has been trying to line up additional Republican co-sponsors in hopes of broadening the bill’s bipartisan support. None has signed up.
Those who attended the meeting said that Obama committed to helping find Republican votes. But he also conceded that in a polarized Senate, that was a difficult mission.
“He was very frank about the challenge of moving this or anything else in the U.S. Congress,” said John Wilhelm, president of the labor union Unite Here.
European allies of Ukraine have given a cautious welcome to efforts to refine a United States peace proposal initially criticised for appearing to be weighted in favour of Russia’s maximalist demands.
The leaders Germany, Finland, Poland and the United Kingdom were among those agreeing on Monday that progress had been made in the previous day’s talks between Washington and Kyiv in Geneva that yielded what the US and Ukraine called a “refined peace framework”.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Still, the European leaders stressed work remained to be done.
“It was possible to clear up some questions, but we also know that there won’t be peace in Ukraine overnight,” said German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, adding that the peace plan initially drafted by the US had been “modified in significant parts”.
He welcomed the “interim result”.
“The next step must be that Russia must come to the table,” he said from Angola, where he was attending a summit between African and European Union countries. “This is a laborious process. It will move forward at most in smaller steps this week. I do not expect there to be a breakthrough this week.”
US President Donald Trump had blindsided Kyiv and its European countries last week with a 28-point peace plan criticised by some as a Russian wish list that called for Ukraine to cede more territory, accept limits on its military and abandon its ambitions to join NATO.
Britain, France and Germany responded by drawing up a counter-proposal that would cease fighting at present front lines, leaving discussions of territory for later, and include a NATO-style US security guarantee for Ukraine, according to a draft seen by Reuters news agency.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that Ukraine’s allies in the “coalition of the willing” – a broad term for about 30 countries supporting Kyiv – will hold talks about the negotiations on Tuesday by video.
The German Foreign Office said that chief diplomats of Germany, Finland, France, the UK, Italy and Poland consulted Monday with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha on further steps toward ending the war.
Also attending the summit in Angola, European Council President Antonio Costa said there was “new momentum” in negotiations.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the European Union would “engage further tomorrow with our partners from the coalition of the willing”.
‘Big progress’
On Monday, Trump indicated Sunday’s talks had gone well.
“Is it really possible that big progress is being made in Peace Talks between Russia and Ukraine??? Don’t believe it until you see it, but something good just may be happening,” the US President wrote on Truth Social.
Trump had given Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is under the doubled pressure of Russia’s continued advance on the front line and a corruption scandal that has tainted his administration, until Thursday to agree to a framework to end the war. He also accused Zelenskyy of showing “zero gratitude” for peace efforts.
Zelenskyy said on X on Monday that he was expecting a full report that evening on the Geneva talks.
“To achieve real peace, more, more is needed. Of course, we all continue working with partners, especially the United States, and look for compromises that strengthen but not weaken us,” he said.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk also said on Monday that negotiations were a “delicate matter” since “no one wants to discourage Americans and President Trump from having the United States on our side in this process”.
The Kremlin said it had not been informed of the results of the Geneva talks, but that it was aware that “adjustments” were made to the US proposal.
In a call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin repeated his view that the initial US plan could “serve as a basis for a final peace settlement”.
During the call, Erdogan said Turkiye was ready to support efforts to bring Russia and Ukraine together, including helping to facilitate direct talks between the two.
However, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov said the European plan appeared “entirely unconstructive and unsuitable for us”, according to a report in the Russian state-run TASS news agency.
Reporting from Moscow, Al Jazeera’s Yulia Shapovalova said Russia was unlikely to accept the European revisions.
“If all Russian conditions and interests are not taken into account, Russia is ready to continue fighting because, according to Vladimir Putin, Russia is pretty successful on the battlefield and it wants to achieve its goals,” she said.
In comments made by video to a meeting at the Swedish Parliament, Zelenskyy had indicated that territory would still be a key sticking point, accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin of seeking “legal recognition for what he has stolen”.
Grim reality
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has decimated the east of the country, forcing millions to flee their homes, ravaging towns and cities, and killing tens of thousands in Europe’s worst conflict since World War II.
On Monday, the war continued to grind on, with Russian forces keeping up their deadly and devastating strikes on civilian areas while making battlefield advances in Ukraine’s southeastern Zaporizhia region.
Russian drones hit residential areas of Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city overnight, killing four people and wounding 13, including two children, authorities said.
On Monday, Russian forces struck the city of Pavlohrad in Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk region with drones, wounding three people and damaging industrial facilities, according to regional authorities.
That morning, Russian shelling killed a 61-year-old woman in Kherson, according to the military administration of the city in southern Ukraine.
Across the border, Russian air defences downed Ukrainian drones en route to Moscow, forcing three airports serving the capital to pause flights.
A reported Ukrainian drone strike on Sunday knocked power out for thousands of residents near Moscow, a rare reversal of Russian attacks on energy targets that regularly cause power blackouts for millions of Ukrainians.
Trailing most of the game with five transfer students still not declared eligible, top-ranked Sierra Canyon turned to point guard Jordan Askew to deliver a 67-65 win over Millikan on Wednesday night.
The Trailblazers forced a turnover and got the ball near midcourt with 3.3 seconds left in a 65-65 tie. Askew took the inbounds pass and drove to make a layup before the buzzer sounded for the win.
What a debut for Millikan freshman point guard Quali Giran. He finished with 31 points. The Trailblazers couldn’t stop him except at the end, when they put together a double team to create a turnover. He had made a 15-foot shot earlier, but the basket was nullified because of a foul called before the shot.
Stephen Kankole had 20 points, Jordan Mize 19 and Maxi Adams 13 points and 10 rebounds for Sierra Canyon.
Brentwood 84, Simi Valley 54: AJ Okoh scored 28 points and had seven assists, and Ethan Hill contributed 15 points and 14 rebounds for 2-0 Brentwood.
Fairmont Prep 58, Tesoro 45: Fairmont Prep advanced to the semifinals of the Ocean View tournament.
Westlake 55, Golden Valley 48: Axel Ostergard and Zachary Kalinski each scored 16 points for the 2-0 Warriors.
Inglewood 86, Long Beach Cabrillo 38: Kevin Singleton scored 26 points and Jason Crowe Jr. had 24 points for Inglewood.
Oaks Christian 67, Milken 41: Grayson Coleman had 20 points in his debut for Milken after transferring from Calabasas to play for his father.
Watch: New priority scheduling system being created for Fifa game visas, says Trump
President Donald Trump has announced US embassies will give visa appointment priority to travellers with tickets to the 2026 World Cup.
The Fifa Prioritised Appointment Scheduling System (Pass) will “allow World Cup ticket-holders with long wait times to opt with Fifa for a prioritised interview,” Trump said at the White House on Monday.
Ticket-holders for the tournament – set for next June and July in the US, Canada and Mexico – will not be automatically granted a tourist visa, said Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
But foreign nationals with tickets to World Cup football matches could get an interview at an embassy or consulate within six to eight weeks of applying, Rubio said.
“Your ticket is not a visa; it doesn’t guarantee admission to the US,” Rubio said, also at the White House on Monday.
“We’re going to do the same vetting as anybody else would get. The only difference here is we’re moving them up in the queue.”
The 2026 men’s World Cup will be co-hosted across North America, with Mexico and Canada, with most matches played in the United States.
Speaking in the Oval Office with Trump and Rubio, Fifa President Gianni Infantino said up to 10 million visitors could come to the US to watch World Cup matches.
“With this Fifa Pass, we can make sure that those who buy a ticket, that are legitimate football fans or soccer fans, they can come and attend the World Cup in the best conditions, starting from getting their visa,” he said.
Some countries whose national teams have already qualified for next year’s tournament currently have long wait times for visa appointments.
In Colombia, travellers applying for US visas are currently waiting around 11 months for an interview appointment, according to data published by the US State Department, the agency which processes visa applications.
The average wait time in Mexico City is nine and half months, while non-Canadian citizen residents of Toronto can expect a wait of 14 months for appointments.
If those wait times hold, the World Cup will have already been played and the golden trophy already awarded by the time fans from some countries have their visas approved or denied.
Monday’s announcement was lauded by US Travel Association, a tourism industry trade group. “The expedited process for Fifa ticket-holders adds needed efficiency without sacrificing security,” its CEO Geoff Freeman said in a statement.
“This is the kind of practical action that strengthens security, increases capacity and cuts wait times, putting the U.S. on stronger footing to welcome millions of visitors next year.”
It is unclear if the new appointment rules will cover ticket-holders from countries whose citizens are mostly or entirely banned from travelling to the US. In June, Trump signed an executive order banning nationals from 12 countries from entering the US, citing an effort to manage security threats
Iran, whose football team has qualified for the World Cup, is among the countries affected by the ban. The June executive order exempts athletes and coaching staff travelling for the World Cup and 2028 Olympics, though its fans could still face a ban.
The BBC has contacted the US State Department for comment.
Not all travellers coming to the US next year will need a visa. Most citizens of countries under the US waiver programme can ordinarily travel visa-free for up to 90 days. That scheme covers much of Europe, including the UK, along with Japan, Australia and others.
At the two most recent World Cups, in Russia and Qatar, a ticket to a game generated a fan ID that could be used like a visa to enter the host country.
Balvinder is a lifelong fan of Strictly who has wanted to take part for 20 years – let’s help her to enjoy Blackpool this weekend
13:25, 17 Nov 2025Updated 13:25, 17 Nov 2025
Balvinder has survived four dance-offs – now it’s someone else’s turn(Image: BBC/Guy Levy)
Spare a thought for Balvinder Sopal. When she said last night that she just didn’t want to do the Strictly dance off, you’d have to have a heart of stone not to feel sorry for her, after she failed to get enough votes for the FOURTH time.
She’s now equalled 2015 contestant Jamelia for the all-time record she never wanted to hold – of having to fight for survival more than anyone else in the show’s history. One more, and she will take the title.
But surely, in Blackpool, the voting public needs to give the EastEnders star the support she deserves and let her just sail through to the following week without needing to perform twice? After all, in the jungle Ant and Dec have brought in new rules to stop the same people doing the Bushtucker Trials over and over again, so it seems only fair that Bal is also given a break.
The first time she was in the dance-off, against Ross King in week two, you could see it had massively knocked her confidence the following week. Since then she has also competed, and won, against rugby player Chris Robshaw, model Ellie Goldstein and now reality star Vicky Pattison.
The poor woman must be wondering how on earth she is still in the competition and also why it keeps on happening. But one thing is sure. Even though the situation is inevitably making her feel a bit unloved, it’s also making her fight. And boy, is she proving good at that.
Balvinder should also take heart over how judges have picked her to stay time and time again, showing that when she’s on the ropes, she can find something a little bit extra to impress them all. Craig said on Sunday that he’d noticed a “massive improvement” after her second go at the American Smooth – and so did the audience.
Of course today there are lots of people moaning that Vicky Pattison should have stayed in the competition – but the simple truth is that she and Kai were out of synch at times and it was all a bit messy while Balvinder and Julian went up a notch. They absolutely deserved to stay.
One fan lamenting Vicky’s demise moaned: “It’s crazy Balvinder got through – four times in the dance off, what does that tell you?” Well, what it tells me is that she’s got some resilience to come back each time and see off her opponents. Both women had the same score on Saturday, with 27 points apiece, but Bal did far better in the dance off. In the end, the decision was simple.
Balvinder is the perfect Strictly contestant – she’s not a trained dancer but she’s giving it her all and showing real signs of improvement each week. So let’s give her the treat she deserves for Blackpool – as a huge fan of the show for many years she’s bound to be hugely excited to make it to the iconic Tower Ballroom.
The Walford veteran many get to dance the Argentine tango that she’s long been dreaming to do this week – here’s hoping – but whatever she does, if it goes well, let’s stick some votes on her.
I’m backing an idea I saw being suggested by a fan who sensed she was “absolutely crushed” at the weekend. They said that if a few George Clarke fans threw Bal a side vote, she could have a week away from the dreaded red zone. “George would still avoid the dance off due to the apparent huge size of his fanbase and Bal could get a much needed break,” they said. Sounds like a plan to me.
So come on all you EastEnders fans. Suki needs you!
KIM Kardashian broke down in tears and sobbed in the days leading up to her law exam.
The reality TV star, 45, finally took the California bar after seven years of studying but she was ultimately unsuccessful.
Sign up for the Showbiz newsletter
Thank you!
Kim Kardashian was left in tears in the days leading up to her bar examCredit: Instagram/kimkardashianShe could not stop crying as she spoke on the difficulties of her law journeyCredit: Instagram/kimkardashianThe vlog showcased her final two weeks studying for the examCredit: Instagram/kimkardashian
It was revealed earlier this month that she hadn’t passed but Kim has remained determined to try again in the hopes of qualifying as a practising lawyer.
Now, the All’s Fair actress has shared an intimate look at her two weeks leading up to the exam in which she shunned all other work commitments to focus on her studies.
The nine-minute social media vlog features an emotional scene in which a bare-faced Kim can be seen sobbing in bed after a long day of studying for her exam.
Heavily emotional, Kim spoke to the camera as she opened up about her law journey difficulties.
Kim said: “F***, I’m gonna film this because oh my god I am just so tired.
“It is like every time I feel like I am a step ahead, something happens to try and stop me from doing this.
“A part of me just wants to stop.
“I feel like my brain is going to explode and i still have so much more to go.”
Most read in Entertainment
Whilst Kim didn’t expand on what was stopping her from studying, she was clearly suffering with problems relating to her back during the two-week period the video was filmed.
She confirmed her back had “given out” and was causing her pain.
Kim wore a large back brace throughout most of the clips in the video in order to help with the pain.
She also revealed she had undergone an MRI scan which confirmed she was dealing with some issues relating to the discs in her back.
Despite her initial worries, she admitted she was feeling confident the day before the exam and was looking forward to taking on the challenge.
The news that Kim hadn’t passed the bar exam came at the same time as her hotly-anticipated legal drama, in which she plays a lawyer, Allura Grant, premiered across the world.
Kim leads the show alongside a cast of stars including Glenn Close, Sarah Paulson, Naomi Watts and Nicey Nash.
Confirming the news earlier this month, the billionaire said: “Well… I’m not a lawyer yet, I just play a very well-dressed one on TV.
“Six years into this law journey, and I’m still all in until I pass the bar. No shortcuts, no giving up – just more studying and even more determination.”
Kim was working hard to attain her goal of being a lawyerCredit: Instagram/kimkardashianThe Hollywood icon took two weeks off work to fully dedicate herself to practiseCredit: InstagramKim has been on her law journey since 2018Credit: Getty
1 of 2 | American Catholic bishops pictured April 2008 singing in the Crypt Church of the Basilica of the National Shrine in Washington, D.C. On Wednesday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued sharp criticism to the Trump administration’s ongoing mass deportation of immigrants. File Photo by Alexis C. Glenn/UPI | License Photo
Nov. 13 (UPI) — America’s Catholic bishops sent sharp criticism of rising fear in the United States and ongoing mass deportations in a rebuke of Trump administration immigration policy.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said its some 273 active bishops were “disturbed” to see that “among our people a climate of fear and anxiety around questions of profiling and immigration enforcement.”
“We are saddened by the state of contemporary debate and the vilification of immigrants,” the group wrote in its statement.
It arrived after U.S.-born Pope Leo XIV directed bishops in the United States to be vocal and speak out against President Donald Trump‘s hardline crackdown on migration.
The U.S. religious leaders approved the rare “special message” with 5 votes against and 3 abstentions of 216 ballots cast at its meeting Wednesday in Baltimore, Md.
“We recognize that nations have a responsibility to regulate their borders and establish a just and orderly immigration system for the sake of the common good,” the plethora of all-male bishops added. “Without such processes, immigrants face the risk of trafficking and other forms of exploitation. Safe and legal pathways serve as an antidote to such risks.”
It marked the first time in 12 years the USCCB invoked its urgent way of collectively speaking as a body.
“We are concerned about the conditions in detention centers and the lack of access to pastoral care,” the bishops added. “We lament that some immigrants in the United States have arbitrarily lost their legal status.”
The bishops wrote that Catholic teaching “exhorts nations to recognize the fundamental dignity of all persons, including immigrants.”
“We bishops advocate for a meaningful reform of our nation’s immigration laws and procedures,” they continued. “Human dignity and national security are not in conflict.”
When e-commerce company Jumia wanted to go public in 2019, Africa’s most celebrated start-up didn’t list in Lagos, Nairobi, Kigali or Johannesburg. It went to New York instead. That tells you everything about Africa’s start-up problem: It’s not a money problem; it’s an exit problem.
African entrepreneurs can build world-class businesses, but investors hesitate because they cannot see how or when they will get their money back. Initial public offerings (IPOs) remain extremely rare, and most exits take the form of trade sales – often unpredictable and slow to clear. Our stock exchanges offer little comfort either with liquidity outside the largest firms still limited.
Start-ups here can remain “start-ups” for decades with no clear path to maturity.
By contrast, Silicon Valley hums along because everyone knows the playbook: build fast, scale up and within five to seven years either list on an exchange or get acquired. Investors know they will not be stuck forever. That certainty, not just the capital, drives the flow of billions.
If Africa wants its tech ecosystems to thrive, we need a parallel play alongside any new funds. Yes, let’s mobilise sovereign wealth, pensions, banks and guarantees. But equally, let’s change the rules of the game. Let’s build an exit clarity framework that gives investors confidence.
That means fast-track “growth IPO lanes” on our exchanges with lighter costs and simpler disclosures. It means standardised merger templates that guarantee regulatory reviews within clear time limits.
It means regulated secondary markets where early investors and employees can sell shares before an IPO.
It means modernising employee stock ownership rules so talent can build wealth too.
And it means creating anchor-exit facilities where big domestic players like South Africa’s Public Investments Corporation or IDC commit to buy into IPOs with risk-sharing from development partners.
The evidence shows why these matter. More than 80 percent of startup funding in Africa comes from abroad. African unicorns are overwhelmingly funded by foreign venture capital, with several having foreign co-founders or being incorporated outside the continent. This means exits and wealth creation largely flow offshore. When global shocks hit, whether interest rate hikes in Washington or political turmoil in Europe, our ventures shake.
On the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, small-cap boards make up only a sliver of daily trading activity, underscoring how limited liquidity is outside the blue chips.
In Kenya, the Growth Enterprise Market Segment, set up to serve fast-growing firms, has struggled to gain traction with only five companies currently listed as of 2024 – more than a decade after its 2013 launch.
To be sure, there are those who will argue that exits already exist: Trade sales are happening, holding periods in Africa are shorter than in many markets and capital is trickling in regardless.
That is true, but partial. Trade sales can be an option, but they are often unpredictable. Regulatory approvals take time, and deal terms are not always transparent enough for investors to build them confidently into their models.
This is not a system that inspires confidence from our own pension funds or sovereign wealth managers.
The response, then, is not to simply wait for more money to arrive but to fix the structures that govern its movement. If we could walk into investor meetings and say, “Here’s the pipeline of companies. Here’s the capital vehicle, and here is a clear five-year exit pathway,” we could shift the conversation entirely.
We could make African innovation not only attractive to foreign investors but also bankable for African ones. South Africa is uniquely positioned to lead this change. It has deep capital markets, capable regulators and institutional pools of capital looking for new growth opportunities.
The ask is not just to invest in start-ups but to invest in a new rulebook that makes exits real. If we succeed, we will have built more than another fund. We will have built a system that recycles African savings into African innovation, creating African wealth.
For too long, the debate has been framed around scarcity of money. But the truth is less about scarcity and more about certainty. Investors do not only chase returns. They chase predictable exits. Without exits, funds hesitate. With exits, funds multiply.
So, yes, let us mobilise capital and launch new funds. But let us also do the harder, braver thing: change the rules, not just the money. That is how we ensure our unicorns aren’t built on foreign capital alone. That is how we give our own savers and pensioners a stake in Africa’s growth.
And that is how we finally write a new playbook under which African innovation, African capital and African ownership all run on the same page because, in the end, the real lesson of Jumia is not that Africa cannot produce billion-dollar start-ups. It is that until we change the rules of exit, we risk exporting the wealth that should be owned and grown at home.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.
Sarah Paulson appears to be having a blast in Ryan Murphy’s new Hulu “legal” drama “All’s Fair,” and that’s about the only good thing about the show.
The New York Times recently ran a piece extolling it’s reimagining of the power suit (down to at least one visible thong) and I suppose that’s one way of avoiding the obvious. Still, I’m going to stick with Paulson’s obvious glee in playing a villain. Her Carrington Lane was left behind to fester in the comic-book sexism of a male-dominated divorce law firm when two of her colleagues stalked away to form an all-female team and Carrington is not one to surrender a grudge.
It’s impossible not to like Paulson and she is clearly enjoying the opportunity to glare and hiss and indulge in the kind of gross but creative profanity Melissa McCarthy likes to unleash when her characters hit the brink.
As for the rest … well, let’s just say with “All’s Fair,” American culture is getting exactly what it deserves: A series that wallows in the shiny, knockoff-ready trappings of new money (immaculate and soulless homes, private jets, diamonds the size of a Rubik’s Cube), defines “sisterhood” as the belief that any personal crisis can be alleviated by vaginal rejuvenation combined with a girls’ trip to a jewelry auction and gauges power by the ability to plot and take revenge. Preferably in the form of huge amounts of money.
“All’s Fair” may or may not be, as some have said, the worst show of the year (or possibly of all time), but with its celebration of the 1%, personal feuds and financial vengeance, it is certainly the first to truly embody the culture of the Trump presidency.
Down to the reality star at its center. “All’s Fair” gives top billing not to any of the fine and seasoned actors that star — Paulson, Niecy Nash, Naomi Watts, Glenn Close — but to Kim Kardashian, who plays Allura Grant, head of the law firm Grant, Ronson and Greene.
Niecy Nash, from left, Glenn Close and Kim Kardashian are among the stars of Ryan Murphy’s new Hulu drama “All’s Fair.”
(Ser Baffo / Disney)
That Kardashian (and Kris Jenner, who serves as a producer) were able to summon such forces of the galaxy to showcase her, shall we say, limited thespian abilities could be justifiably viewed as yet another “you go girl” testament to her seemingly limitless business acumen.
On the other hand, “All’s Fair” makes the dismal final season of “And Just Like That” look like Chekhov.
Murphy, and the forces at Disney, which owns Hulu, the home of “The Kardashians,” understand Kardashian’s cult-like following and are operating under the assumption that viewers will be so entranced by her and the fashions (which include an alarming amount of hats, capes and gloves) that they won’t notice that the main player is relying on her eyelash extensions to do her acting for her.
To be fair to Kardashian, few nonprofessional actors would shine beside scene partners like Close, Watts and Nash, and the writing of the series, which flirts with camp but never fully commits, does no one any favors.
Not since “Charlie’s Angels” has there been a “feminist fantasy” with such a male gaze. (Apologies to “Charlie’s Angels,” which was in many ways a groundbreaking show.)
After suffering on the sidelines of a mostly male law firm, Allura and Liberty Ronson (Watts) decide to branch out on their own. They do so with the blessing of Dina Standish (Close), that firm’s only female partner, and take with them ace investigator Emerald Greene (Nash). When we meet them again, 10 years later, Allura also has an assistant/mentee in Milan (Teyana Taylor), who later provides a predictable plot twist.
The names alone suggest a level of parody, and, in the first episode, a send-up quality flits in and out of the proceedings, but the show chooses cynicism over satire every time.
Instead of sexist jokes, the partners of Grant, Ronson and Greene spend much of their time discussing how awful men are, with the possible exception of Liberty’s beau, Reggie (“The Handmaid’s Tale’s” O-T Fagbenle), and Standish’s ailing husband, Doug (Ed O’Neill).
That is, after all, the raison d’etre of the firm: Grant, Ronson and Greene are intent on protecting rich women from the perils of the prenup and generally making the bastards pay, sometimes through their “superior” knowledge of the law (in one storyline, this involves explaining that gifts are the sole property of the recipient, which even I knew), but more often blackmail (if you have chosen to live your life without ever seeing a butt plug the size of a traffic cone, keep your eyes shut when Emerald starts her slideshow).
A brief, and seemingly contractually required, mention of the firm raising money to help the underprivileged is laughable — “All’s Fair” is 100% après-moi television, in which extreme wealth is presented as too normal to even be aspirational, and any work not done by Emerald consists of sashaying in super slick shades from one successful throwdown to the next. With brief interludes in sumptuous cars and, as previously mentioned, overbidding on hideous brooches at a high-end jewelry auction (held by a firm client, which honestly seems potentially unethical, but whatevs).
If the dialogue were sharp, funny or even self-aware, Murphy and his team might get away with it, but it’s not — “It’s a shame your mother didn’t swallow,” Dina tells Carrington in what passes as proof that women can be as tough as men. Or that older women can talk trash. Or that Close will do her best to give a decent reading of any line. Or something.
There are brief nods to the women’s personal lives — as a divorce lawyer, Liberty is reluctant to marry Reggie, Dina is struggling with Doug’s decline, Emerald is a super-single mom — but it all feels very box-ticky. Including Allura’s disintegrating marriage, which becomes a major plot point as the gals gather round to make that bastard pay as well, and her realization that if she wants to become a mother, she’s running out of time.
Reading the zeitgeist, the creators of “All’s Fair” were clearly not looking for raves or awards, just viewers.
(Disney)
In many ways, “All’s Fair” is an American version of the excellent British series “The Split,” which follows a matriarchal family of female divorce lawyers. Early on, one of the daughters (played by Nicola Walker) leaves the family firm and, in her own way, attempts to right the wrongs often done to women facing divorce from rich and powerful men while dealing with her own marital breakdown and a family with actual children.
But “American version” doesn’t really cut it. This is Trump’s-America version, in which ethics, morals and virtually all human feeling are secondary to winning, and winning is defined by who ends up making their opponent pay.
Between Kardashian’s conspicuous nonacting and dialogue that often seems lifted from the all-caps regions of X, “All’s Fair” has, not surprisingly, received a critical drubbing. Which seems almost intentional.
Critics, after all, have long been routinely, and often viciously, disparaged (after the reviews were in, Close felt moved to post a sketch of the cast gathered around a “Fatal Attraction”-like “critic bunny stew”). More important, reviews, bad or good, do not (nor should they) predict audience reaction (see early theater reviews of “Wicked”). As Trump has proved again and again, bad press is still press and the worse it is, the more easily it can be cast as proof that the cultural elites (i.e. critics) are out to get … somebody.
So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that, despite a 5% score on Rotten Tomatoes, “All’s Fair” was Hulu’s most successful scripted series premiere in three years.
Reading the zeitgeist, the creators of “All’s Fair” were clearly not looking for raves or awards, just viewers. In this American moment, bad is good and shrewd operators know that if you throw in enough high-profile ingredients — Kardashian, Murphy, a bevy of fine actors — you needn’t take the trouble to ensure the mix will rise to the occasion.
As the president builds a ballroom while food banks are overrun, why wouldn’t TV audiences want to feast on fallen cake?
