life

Glaciers aren’t stationary. Immense and imposing, formed through the downward trajectory of water from mountains as it collects and freezes, they have always moved. Now, however, they’re leaving. The demise of glaciers is a fact inherent in all the bad news about the effects of climate change on what once seemed permanent. But for Icelanders, whose connection to glaciers is ancient and mythic, our human epoch has become an extended hospice for the landscape of their lives.

Somehow, though, Sara Dosa’s documentary on this matter, “Time and Water,” avoids playing like a funeral in waiting. Built around Icelandic writer Andri Snær Magnason’s voiced lamentations on a vanishing frozen world, along with archival footage of his family, it’s no simple howl of grief, even when it takes us to a publicly held memorial in 2019 for Iceland’s Ok glacier, the first such “death” diagnosis in the country’s history. Rather, Dosa’s film is a meditation on change — both the kind that we accept with a heavy heart and something more general. “Time and Water” is a curiously vibrant elegy, teeming with appreciation for the intimate majesty that is all life, generational and geologic.

Dosa has finessed this emotional-meets-elemental space before in her Academy Award-nominated 2022 documentary “Fire of Love,” about married volcanologists Katia and Maurice Krafft. That was a wonderfully eccentric romance forged in molten lava. Here, she’s in a collaboration of sorts with her subjects, both human and elemental. Magnason’s opening narration over spectacular footage of glaciers — up close and from far away — gently informs us that we’re watching a time capsule, one where the bonds of family and environment are intertwined.

We learn how Iceland’s glaciers, essentially rivers of varying pace, begat their unique ecosystems, but also how they provided the breathtaking terrain upon which Magnason’s grandparents Hulda and Árni fell in love. (Grandma Hulda was the first woman to fly in Iceland, itself a very cool fact.) The onset of dementia in Árni spurs his grandson to consider what’s lost when the markers of memory depart. “Time and Water” touches on the epic verse called rimurs, passed down via chanted song by Icelandic women, their descriptive, sorrowful tales like dispatches from previous ages.

“Tone poem” is an overused term in cinema, but the humbling “Time and Water,” graced with a playful, atmospheric Dan Deacon score, earns that distinction. Naturally, it helps that you can never tire of all the air-crisped glacier imagery, captured digitally and in 16mm. Folded into the cozy slide-show vibe of Magnason’s home videos and the carefully chosen archival footage, the movie plays like a scrapbook portrait in which home just happens to boast the grandest of backyards.

How much longer will Icelanders enjoy it? The glaciers are predicted to be gone within 200 years. That’s an eternity or a drip, depending on whose survival we’re talking about. Still, “Time and Water” collapses the notion that we are somehow separate from these ancient, essential formations: an encouraging hello to the future from inside a sobering goodbye.

Opposition leader and dozens of other defendants handed lengthy prison terms for ‘forming a terrorist alliance’.

A Tunisian court has handed down sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment against opposition leader Rached Ghannouchi and dozens of other defendants in the so-called “secret apparatus” case involving the Ennahdha party.

The Tunis Court of First Instance on Tuesday sentenced Ghannouchi, the leader of Ennahdha and a former parliamentary speaker, to life in prison plus 30 years on terrorism-related charges, reported Tunis Afrique Presse, Tunisia’s official news agency.

Eleven other defendants, including Ali Laarayedh, an adviser to former Tunisian Prime Minister Ali Laarayedh, were handed life sentences in addition to prison terms of up to 96 years, Tunis Afrique Presse reported.

Thirteen others were handed prison terms of between 10 and 48 years, according to the news agency.

The court found Ghannouchi and the other defendants guilty of “forming a terrorist alliance” and other crimes, including “placing skills and expertise at the disposal of a terrorist alliance and of persons linked to terrorist crimes”, according to Tunis Afrique Presse.

The court ordered all defendants to be placed under administrative monitoring for five years.

Authorities opened the case against Ghannouchi and his co-defendants in early 2022 following a complaint by the public prosecutor’s office and lawyers for the families of leftist politicians Chokri Belaid and Mohamed Brahmi, vocal Ennahdha critics who were assassinated in 2013.

Lawyers representing Belaid and Brahmi’s families accused what they called Ennahda’s “secret apparatus” of involvement in the assassinations, as well as “conducting espionage and infiltrating state institutions”.

Ennahdha denied the allegations, describing them as “politically motivated”.

The public prosecutor’s office at the Ariana Court of First Instance initially took up the case, before handing it over to the judicial counterterrorism unit in 2023.

In April, Ennahdha said Ghannouchi had been urgently transferred from prison to hospital after a sharp deterioration in his health and called for his immediate release.

The opposition National Salvation Front also called for Ghannouchi’s release, citing his deteriorating health.

Tunisian security forces arrested Ghannouchi at his home during a Ramadan gathering in 2023, before a court of first instance ordered his imprisonment on charges of making statements that “incite chaos and disobedience”.

On April 15, a court sentenced Ghannouchi and three other Ennahdha leaders to 20 years in prison in what came to be known as the “Ramadan soirée case”.

Tunisian authorities have denied accusations that Ghannouchi and the other detainees are being held on political grounds.

Nick Pasqual, an actor who appeared in “How I Met Your Mother,” has been sentenced to 32 years to life for the attempted murder of his estranged girlfriend, L.A.-based makeup artist Allie Shehorn.

Following a jury trial, Pasqual was also convicted of counts of injuring a spouse or partner, first-degree burglary and rape, according to court documents. During the trial, Shehorn had visible scars on her hands and neck when she testified, per ABC.

The incident occurred in May 2024, when Pasqual repeatedly stabbed Shehorn in her Shadow Hills home. Prosecutors said that the actor broke into Shehorn’s home just before 4:30 a.m. on May 23, attacked her with a knife and fled California.

Days before the attack, Shehorn had filed a restraining order against Pasqual, detailing acts of sexual and physical assault. While the judge approved the order, it was unclear whether Pasqual had been served prior to the stabbing.

Christine White, Shehorn’s friend and roommate, discovered the makeup artist lying in a pool of blood and called emergency services. Friends believe Shehorn was stabbed more than 20 times. Following the attack, Shehorn underwent emergency surgery and spent days in intensive care.

Pasqual was ultimately stopped by authorities at a border checkpoint in Sierra Blanca, Texas, and extradited to Los Angeles.

The former couple met on the set of Zack Snyder’s film “Rebel Moon,” where Pasqual worked as a background actor and Shehorn worked as a makeup artist.

Last week, Shehorn sued the actor for sexual battery, assault and negligence, among other counts, according to a lawsuit submitted in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The 17-page complaint echoes details about the May 2024 stabbing that led to Pasqual’s arrest two years ago and his attempted murder conviction.

Staff writer Alexandra Del Rosario and former staff writer Nathan Solis contributed to this report.

Mindy Kaling was in her early 30s when the first TV series she created, “The Mindy Project,” made its debut and set in motion her attempt at forging an identity as a prolific multi-hyphenate after “The Office,” where she was a writer and cast member for eight seasons. But if you ask her to reflect on that time of her life, she says, it’s a bit of a blur.

As she explained recently, “I remember it, but not all that distinctly. It was such a grind — waking up at 6 a.m. to be on camera, wrapping late. And I did that for 117 episodes.”

But ask her about her 20s, when she was living in New York City and trying to figure out how she could break into the industry as a comedy writer? “I remember incredibly vividly,” she says. “I’m like, did I feel things more intensely back then? I’m not sure. But that period of time … there was just so many highs and lows. And it felt cinematic to me.”

So she made a TV show about it.

Premiering Tuesday with three episodes, “Not Suitable for Work” follows five ambitious 20-somethings living in Manhattan who are navigating the early stages of their careers while trying to have a semblance of a life and the heightened emotions they experience during this period. Kaling calls it the third chapter in her semi-autobiographical TV trilogy, which includes “Never Have I Ever,” about a first-generation Indian American teenager coping with her father’s death while trying to be popular (or at least not super uncool), and “The Sex Lives of College Girls,” about four young women who dorm together and boldly maneuver their new, uninhibited lives on campus.

In the new Hulu series, viewers are introduced to AJ Pascarelli (Ella Hunt), a hard-working and disciplined young woman who moves to town to start a high-pressure finance job, and her roommate Abhinaya “Abby” Chilukuri (Avantika), a savvy and fashion-obsessed assistant to a celebrity stylist. They live across the hall from Josh Teitelbaum (Jack Martin), an idealistic nepo baby of a media titan — he’ll lean into his privilege when it suits him while also trying to distance himself from it — with ambitions of making it in journalism. His two roommates are Kel Washington (Nicholas Duvernay), an insecure but earnest med student who would rather be acting, and Davis Beau Bradley Barrett III (Will Angus), a high-energy, bumbling financial analyst who works at the same corporate firm as AJ and is an undercover hopeless romantic. As one might expect, there are some messy entanglements within and outside the group.

1

2

1. Abby (Avantika), left, and AJ (Ella Hunt) move in together. 2. Across the hall live Davis (Will Angus), left, Josh (Jack Martin) and Kel (Nicholas Duvernay). (Gwen Capistran / Disney)

“I hope that young people will respond to the show, “ Kaling says. “We did so much research in it because at a certain point it is funny — I’m in my 40s, and I am often like, ‘I wonder if young people are suspicious about why I’m so obsessed with writing shows about young people.’”

So, why is she?

“Because I find it almost impossible to reflect on the current time I’m in,” she says. “It would be too painful to be too introspective about the time that I’m in. I need a real sense of distance to look back on it, especially since having kids. Once you have kids, it triggers these memories of your own childhood.”

Over video call from New York City, Kaling reflected on the series and her early years of trying to make it. These are edited excerpts from the conversation.

How did you land on the professions that your characters would be pursuing and what did you want to say about ambition at this stage of life?

I love people who have big wants, and sometimes the audience is like, “Maybe you want the wrong thing” and they [the characters] don’t quite know that yet. I love writing about the underdog. And with their particular professions, they’re all things that I had some interest in researching. I’ve always been fascinated by investment bankers. I went to Dartmouth, so I have a lot of friends who went into that, and I swear I’ve had my friends explain their job so many times to me, and I still didn’t totally understand it. We were lucky; a very famous investment bank very generously offered to let me come for a day and meet with young bankers. I also … write about the children of immigrants. I’m very, very interested in that story, and so we got to research what it’s like being the child of Nigerian immigrants. But every single character has a journey, or there’s an aspect of them that I feel like I really relate to, and that is in almost all my shows.

What was it like observing young people in the investment banking world?

They were wary — because they’re smart — of someone from Hollywood coming in to document what they were doing and asking questions. It helped that a lot of the guys liked “The Office” and a lot of the women liked “The Mindy Project” and “Sex Lives of College Girls” because they’re all kind of young. I think that made them trust me a little bit more. For the AJ and Davis characters, so much of what I researched when I was there fed into their plot line … almost all the characters have a boss they fear and idolize, and the way that first-year bankers feel about their managing directors is not dissimilar to the way I felt about Greg Daniels when I started at “The Office.” And the hours are actually not dissimilar.

There’s a moment early on where Jay Ellis’ character, Bill, who is a managing director at this fictional investment banking firm, is asked about work-life balance. I’m curious how you thought about that at the start of your career versus now.

I didn’t care at all about anything except my job for 16 years. It was my entire personality and purpose. When I was in my 20s, the only thing that mattered was being a good comedy writer and succeeding, and one day maybe being able to create my own shows. There was no balance. I didn’t want balance. I wanted to live and breathe comedy writing for my entire life. I hated the weekends, actually. And who wouldn’t? I was a friendless transplant in Los Angeles and I just wanted to get back to working at “The Office.” Every year I was there, I got more ambitious and I wanted to go off and create my own show and have a bigger part as an actor and everything.

It wasn’t until after I did that on “The Mindy Project” … that I just felt like, “OK, I get this. I want to now try being a mom.” Once I had my daughter, Katherine [at 37], it wasn’t that the balance changed, it was my first real, legitimate interest outside of work — that I cared about more than work.

“When I was in my 20s, the only thing that mattered was being a good comedy writer and succeeding, and one day maybe being able to create my own shows,” Kaling says. “There was no balance. I didn’t want balance.”

(Ebru Yildiz / For The Times)

After college, you moved to Brooklyn with two Dartmouth friends to pursue a career in comedy. You eventually got a full-time job as a production assistant on “Crossing Over with John Edward,” a program where people would receive psychic readings. Tell me about that time in your life.

I remember feeling like I had no access and that I didn’t have any place to put my ambition. It was so far away from anything I wanted to do — scripted comedy and reality television could not be further apart. It was a fascinating time because there were such highs and lows. There was the excitement of new crushes and having fun in a new city with two friends, but there was also the crushing disappointment of feeling like I was never gonna make it. I didn’t even have a path forward to making it, but I was lucky, because I lived with my two best friends. We would go to open mic nights, and we would go to restaurant week and see how the rich people in Manhattan were living. We would take the subway uptown to Central Park and walk along Fifth Avenue and like look at these amazing homes and just dream what it was like to be like a wealthy New Yorker who could buy everything that they read about on DailyCandy — now I’m really dating myself here, back when DailyCandy was a thing. But that’s what it was like, I just I felt a lot of extreme emotions.

How did you approach that job?

My boss was a producer and would approach the families and get their information, and then we would have to do research on them, but it was mostly because they would do a little clip package on the different families. I had to get them to sign releases to be on the show and get photographs of their deceased [loved ones] and them. I actually thought it was pretty interesting work. It just had nothing to do with comedy writing, and that job was not clearly going to lead anywhere toward comedy writing, and I came to New York because of “Saturday Night Live.” When I was working there is when my friend Brenda [Withers] … and I started writing this play “Matt & Ben” [a satirical play that imagines the story of Matt Damon and Ben Affleck before “Good Will Hunting” made them famous] in the time we had off. We started writing it, then I got that job as a PA, then the show went up at the Fringe Festival, and then it was going to go off off Broadway, and when it went off-off-Broadway, and I had a steady income, that’s when I quit my job there. I was only at “Crossing Over” for three or so months.

Greg Daniels attended a performance of “Matt & Ben” and it’s what led to you getting on “The Office” at 24. What was that first meeting like?

Back then, because the internet was so different, when I looked up Greg, besides his credits, you couldn’t find a lot of biographical information about him, or even a photo. I don’t think I even knew what he looked like. When I met him, I don’t think I had seen the British “Office” yet; I wasn’t cool. At that time, I had put so much pressure on this job. I only had two interviews — it was this and there was a show that ended up getting canceled while I was waiting to meet the showrunner. It was a pilot called “Nevermind Nirvana,” about an Indian man who married a white woman, and Ajay Sahgal was the writer. I was like, “Oh my God, if anyone is going to get hired to work on the show, it has to be me.” I was pretty excited about that meeting, but when I was sitting in the waiting room at the production offices to meet with Ajay, they told them they weren’t going to pick up the pilot, so I never even got to meet him, and they just told me I could leave.

I’d only had that interview, and then I met with Greg. This is my memory: it was a high-rise building in Century City, in the offices of “King of the Hill,” so there was a lot of like “King of the Hill” cutouts and stuff there. And he’s just a very thoughtful, quiet guy who doesn’t push conversation … I’m someone who’s pathologically chatty, and so talking to Greg, who is completely fine with there being pauses in conversation, and is just a confident grown-up, it was incredibly intimidating. I was very stressed out in our meeting, but I also was blown away by him.

That first season, you were also the only female writer on staff and the youngest —

B.J.[Novak] is a month younger than me. I want to correct that because he’ll read this and go, “Hey … !”

How did that play into how you felt in the room?

I haven’t really ever had imposter syndrome. And this is my probably my personality defect — I felt that even if I hadn’t seen anyone like me in these roles, that I was just going to be the first one, and I was going to work really hard and prove it to them. The staff was super competitive, but they were smart feminist guys. It was hierarchical and stressful, but it was not because of my fellow writers, except that I wanted to impress them. I felt nervous because I wanted to be contributing, but I don’t know why — I just loved the pilot so much that Greg had made, and I loved these characters, and this world — I was like, I can’t possibly lose my job, I love it too much. Which is probably really stupid, I didn’t ever think there’s a possibility that I could get fired here.

Phyllis (Phyllis Smith), Kelly (Mindy Kaling), Dwight (Rainn Wilson) and Michael (Steve Carell) in a scene from Season 2 of “The Office.”

(Paul Drinkwater / NBCUniversal via Getty Images)

We see how AJ wants to impress the boss and takes on more than she can chew and screws up some data before a big presentation. What was that first big mistake or misstep that you made in those early years that you still think about?

I remember Season 2 — because I just wanted to prove to Greg and to the cast and to the director, the cinematographer, and everyone that I was super invested — we were shooting “The Dundies” [episode]. I was an actor on the show as well, but I wasn’t acting in this scene, but it was my episode [that I wrote], and in between takes, John [Krasinski, who played Jim Halpert] and Jenna [Fischer, who played Pam Beesly] were just on set, and I remember going up to them and being like, “Guys, that take was so great!” And I walked away. Greg came up to me and was like, “You know, we really should let just the director talk to the cast between takes.” Greg, he’s my mentor, but he definitely, over the course of the eight years I lived there, had corrected me many times, as he should have, but that was one of the first times. I remember I was so embarrassed, but I didn’t understand it’s not the role of a story editor to be giving feedback to the cast between takes on a show.

The bosses on the show all have different styles and expectations that may seem demanding or annoying on the surface. How do they reflect where you’re at now?

No one trains you on how to be a good boss. And bad bosses are so prevalent. The entire premise of “The Office” hinges on this funny concept that terrible bosses exist. It wasn’t until I was on “The Mindy Project” that I was the employer for the first time. Every single year of that show, it was a battle getting a new season. One of the challenges of being a good boss is being able to put aside those personal, professional battles you’re fighting … but then also realizing that you’re a mentor to other people, and you have to start thinking about things that you never thought you needed to — overtime, maternity leave, respect in the workplace, the things that make the workplace enjoyable for everyone else who’s there working for you. And it’s not like that comes naturally.

The double blessing of having a good boss, which I did in Greg Daniels and Howard Klein [an executive producer on “The Office”], is that they modeled that for me. Even though I could not be more different than Greg. Even to this day, I’m realizing I have all the unique challenges of being a single mom, being the creator of these shows with crews and casts, but then also being able to be empathetic for all the people that work for me and making sure I make time to listen to them when they want to talk to me about an issue that they’re having; it’s a continual challenge that I’m hoping I’m getting better and better at [managing].

When Bill is asked about work-life balance, he’s also asked if he has inspirational words to impart. It’s very much about overworking and being productive. How do you tackle the question today?

I used to say “you have to write your own part.” And everyone would get annoyed because they’re like, “I’m not a writer.” I’ve had to really think about the question so I could be helpful. We all want a linear path to success. And if my career has taught me anything, it’s that the linear path just was not how I got my job. You know when you go on Google Maps and it shows you all the different paths — the fastest, one path with the toll road and one path that’s going to take seven minutes longer. I’ve only ever taken the one that’s seven minutes longer, or the toll; it’s never been the easy way. The sooner I got used to that, the better.

Before I let you go, in the show, one of the celebrity clients Abby is dealing with is Austin Blanchett, Cate Blanchett’s fictional nephew. Was it always going to be Cate? What other celebs were in the running?

It was Cate Blanchett’s nephew before we had Harry Richardson. When I worked on “Ocean’s Eight,” one of the biggest surprises on it was that Cate Blanchett was incredibly funny and did not take herself seriously at all. I suspect if anyone was going to think it was funny that in this fictional world of the show she had this useless nepo nephew that she had to help get jobs, it would be Cate. I hope she doesn’t sue me. I think she would think it was funny.

52-year-old Ryan McFarland killed six of his family members and later took his own life when confronted by the police in Muscatine in the US state of Iowa.

Arthur B. Laffer, professor, businessman and possible candidate for next year’s Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate from California, speeds down the freeway in his telephone-equipped BMW 733i, sipping a can of Diet Pepsi and reflecting on his life in the fast lane.

The impatient energizer of the nationwide tax-cut movement–a tenured professor at age 28, chief economist of the White House Office of Management and Budget at 29–has long prided himself on his ability to keep several balls in the air at once. But he acknowledges that his high-speed juggling act can sometimes get him in trouble.

“When you move very fast, you rustle the fields,” said Laffer, whose choirboy looks belie his 44 years. “You cause a commotion. Without meaning to, you create squalls.”

Controversial Figure

As a result, his life has been marked by controversy as well as achievement. Squalls spawned by Laffer’s frenetic pace have cost him a marriage and two college professorships.

Most recently, the designer of the Laffer Curve–which illustrates his disputed theory that cutting taxes can actually increase government revenues while a tax hike might reduce them–relinquished his post at USC’s School of Business Administration last September after a bitter dispute with the school’s dean. Toward the end, Laffer, who by all accounts is an excellent teacher, and the dean, Jack D. Steele, refused to even speak to each other.

USC blames Laffer’s schedule for the rupture. “With all his outside affairs, he was spreading himself too thin,” said Cornelius J. Pings, USC’s provost and senior vice president for academic affairs. “He just wasn’t meeting his obligations on campus.”

He Disputes View

Steele confirmed that Laffer’s extracurricular activities were a problem, although Laffer disputed that view.

As if to prove that he can run his $2.7-million-a-year economic consulting business and explore the possibility of seeking public office and advise President Reagan and teach, Laffer recently joined the faculty of Pepperdine University’s School of Business and Management. It was a step down in the academic world, though in many ways he and his new employer are well matched.

Pepperdine, founded in 1937 by a conservative auto-parts magnate, shares Laffer’s passion for the free enterprise system and his knack for self-promotion. Indeed, Pepperdine recently ran advertisements picturing “the renowned originator of the Laffer Curve” in the Wall Street Journal and The Times.

Although Laffer’s economic views mesh well with those of the Church of Christ-affiliated school, he is no fan of Pepperdine’s strait-laced social scene. Drinking is banned on campus and chapel attendance is mandatory.

Laffer, on the other hand, maintains an extensive cellar of German and California wines at his Rolling Hills Estates home. And, though raised as a Presbyterian, he doesn’t attend church–and says he won’t start should he decide to run for office.

About the only concession the plump professor has made to the image makers while testing the political waters has been to shed 15 pounds by substituting Very Vanilla Sego, a diet drink (“Yuk–I hate it!”), for his beloved sushi. Currently weighing in at 175, the 5-foot, 7-inch Laffer figures he has another 15 or 20 pounds to go.

Although considering a run for the Senate, Laffer is openly contemptuous of Congress. “If you look at congressmen and senators,” he tells audiences across the state, “you see a group who invariably prefer complex error over simple truth.” It is his biggest applause line. “If you ever saw what those guys actually did for a living, you’d recognize their banality and you’d throw them out of office.”

Six Children

Laffer’s personal life is as packed with activity as his professional one. Besides Traci, the 25-year-old second wife he fondly calls “my Valley girl” (she grew up in Ontario), the Laffer clan includes six children ranging in age from 6 months to 20 years, 15 rabbits, 10 parrots, 4 macaws, 3 tortoises, 2 horses, a Jack Russell terrier and a Norwegian blue fox. Laffer, an amateur biologist who once considered forsaking economics for a career in biology, manages to find time for all of them.

The menagerie used to be bigger. Fern, a pet weasel, drowned in the Laffers’ swimming pool, though her place in family folklore is secure. Laffer cackles when he remembers the time his daughter, Rachel, then 6, tossed the wriggling creature onto First Lady Nancy Reagan’s lap at a 1980 dinner party.

“I don’t think I’ve ever come so close to heart stoppage,” said Laffer, who at the time was trying to sell his supply-side theories to presidential candidate Ronald Reagan. “Everyone held their breath waiting to see how she’d react, but Mrs. Reagan was quite the lady about it.”

Unconventional Ideas

The economist revels in his new and unconventional ideas. He would reward elected officials and the head of the Federal Reserve Board with big bonuses when the economy booms and slash their salaries during recessions. He would wipe out the capital gains tax. He would amend the Constitution to provide for national referenda. And he would give $15,000, tax free, to the top 5% of scorers on the Scholastic Aptitude Test.

“Can you imagine if all of a sudden you could get out of the ghetto by studying instead of by playing basketball?” Laffer asked. “If you play basketball 16 hours a day, you become a great basketball player. If we could get these kids to study 16 hours a day, they’d become great students.”

Such schemes have won Laffer the friendship of “new ideas” Democrat Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado and the grudging admiration of some fellow economists. “Whatever you think of Laffer’s ideas, at least he thinks,” said Lester C. Thurow, a liberal professor of management and economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose views often differ from Laffer’s.

Some say Laffer’s boyish looks and small stature could prove a liability should he decide to seek office. Characteristically, Laffer employs humor to disarm the size issue. In speeches, he invariably mentions flat-tax advocate Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), the former New York Knicks basketball star. Then, in his best Joan Rivers delivery, he adds: “It’s disgusting how tall he is.”

Penchant for One-Liners

Indeed, Laffer’s penchant for jokes and one-liners (sample: “The British pound is so weak that they’ve started calling it the ounce”) have led some to question his seriousness. Samuel Armacost, president and chief executive officer of BankAmerica Corp., recently quipped that a speech by Laffer “isn’t economics–it’s entertainment.” Laffer says he uses humor to make complex subjects palatable.

Although he is a polished speaker, Laffer appears to be reining in his glib, shoot-from-the-hip style. He disavows a 1981 comment embracing “the freedom to smoke pot if we want to.” Laffer acknowledged having made the remark, but said: “I think I was probably showing off at the time–trying to show you don’t have to be a conservative on all issues to favor tax cuts.”

Other Laffer views reflect his coming of age as an undergraduate at Yale and a graduate student at Stanford during the turbulent ‘60s. He staunchly opposes the draft, contending that Vietnam-era draft resisters were the spiritual ancestors of today’s anti-tax movement. “The draft is a specific tax on your body,” Laffer said.

Still, Laffer rarely wanders from economic matters in his speeches and articles. He strongly supports the concept of a flat tax, predicting that some sort of bill equalizing personal-income tax rates will emerge from Congress this year.

‘Enterprise Zones’

Another Laffer idea that has been picked up and championed by the Reagan Administration is the establishment of inner-city “enterprise zones.” Corporations locating factories in such zones would get big tax breaks and relief from minimum-wage and other regulations. The economist argues that setting up such zones would break the cycle of poverty and dependency in urban ghettos.

Despite Laffer’s emphasis on economics, mainstream economists and even conservative allies question the quality of his scholarship. “He really wasn’t interested in the life of a scholar,” said George Stigler, a professor at the University of Chicago’s Graduate School of Business, where Laffer held his first teaching job. “Doing painstaking, detailed work wasn’t his game. He went for quick and glamorous results.”

It was a trauma at Chicago, Laffer said, that turned him away from academia and pointed him toward the business and public policy arenas. In 1971, some colleagues at Chicago accused Laffer, who hadn’t yet earned his Ph.D. from Stanford, of misleading a faculty committee that had earlier promoted him to full professor.

Laffer quickly finished up his Stanford doctoral dissertation and got the degree. “It was just a question of dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s,” Laffer said, explaining that he never finished in the first place because he got swept away by his other commitments. A university committee headed by Stigler investigated the matter and found Laffer guilty of nothing worse than “carelessness,” Stigler says.

Career at a Standstill

Nonetheless, as Laffer tells it, lingering suspicion from the incident “put a stop to my career.” For the next five years, he didn’t get a raise at Chicago and academic journals shunned his articles. Suddenly, the boy wonder was a pariah. “So what do you do?” Laffer asked, “sit there and commit suicide? No, you find new avenues of expression.”

It was during this period that Laffer in 1974 sketched his now-famous curve for former journalist Jude Wanniski and an aide to President Gerald R. Ford on a cocktail napkin in a Washington restaurant. “He just scribbled it out,” Wanniski recalled, “and I thought it was a useful device for getting the message across.” The message (see chart) was a simple one: that cutting taxes could actually result in an increase in government revenues by creating incentives for people to work harder and save and invest more.

The curve didn’t gain notoriety until 1978, when Wanniski included it in his book “The Way the World Works: How Economies Fail and Succeed.” “At first,” Wanniski said, “Art was embarrassed by the name Laffer Curve–until he started to make a lot of money off it.”

Indeed, Laffer has used his high visibility to build his consulting company, A. B. Laffer Associates, into a multimillion-dollar enterprise with 20 full-time and 15 part-time employees. The firm has about 300 corporate clients who pay between $6,000 and $8,000 a year for Laffer’s economic analyses; special contracts added another $200,000 to the firm’s 1984 revenues, and about 85 speaking engagements by Laffer himself yielded $433,000.

Two Homes

Business profits and Laffer’s Pepperdine salary afford the family a comfortable life style in their antique-filled Rolling Hills Estates home and a 17-acre mountaintop retreat in Rancho Santa Fe. Such wealth is nothing new for Laffer; his late father was chairman of the board of Gould Inc., the big electronics concern, and young Arthur attended private day school in a prosperous Cleveland suburb before going on to Yale.

Despite Laffer’s commercial success, the jury is still out on his celebrated curve. Donald W. Kiefer, an economist with the Congressional Research Service, calls it “an overly simplistic approach which ignores complex economic relationships.” Critics say that the huge budget deficits that followed the Laffer-supported Kemp-Roth bill that reduced personal income taxes by 25% underscore the shortcomings of Laffer’s theory.

Laffer, on the other hand, blames delays in the tax cuts and increased government spending for the deficits. Besides, he argues, this year’s $200-billion deficit is neither “a crisis” nor “a panic situation” given the U.S. economy’s underlying vigor. Like Reagan (and unlike most economists), he believes that economic growth eventually will take care of the problem. Laffer gets to promote his economic views at periodic meetings of the President’s Economic Policy Advisory Board, of which he is a member.

Moved to California

In 1976, with his academic career going nowhere, Laffer gave up on Chicago and moved to USC. In California, he became a key supporter of 1978’s landmark real-estate tax-cutting initiative, Proposition 13. A year later, his first marriage broke up, the victim of Laffer’s four-day-a-week travel schedule. “I came home from a business trip and the kids told me my wife had been gone for three days,” Laffer recalled.

He met Traci Laffer when she was a political science major at USC moonlighting as a secretary to Dean Steele. The pair hit it off when they realized they shared a love for exotic birds. Laffer proposed to her in Paris and they were married in 1982 in an elaborate Beverly Hills wedding attended by 800 friends.

“I got a package deal,” Traci Laffer said, referring to the four children from Laffer’s previous marriage and the large collection of animals.

Laffer still travels frequently, often sleeping on “red eye” flights to the East Coast, doing his business and flying home that day. “He has this idea that you can, in effect, live two lives by cramming as much as possible into your finite number of years on Earth,” said Wanniski, who now operates his own competing economics consulting firm.

None of Laffer’s friends expect him to slow down anytime soon.

MISBEHAVING Brits could be slapped with a permanent flight ban under new Labour rules.

Labour Ministers are currently looking at establishing a blacklist to stop abusive behaviour towards cabin crew and disruption to travel.

This includes considering how information about drunk and abusive passengers could be shared between airlines.

Currently, if you misbehave on a flight you can be banned by the airline you are travelling with – but other airlines would not know this.

If the new rules were to go ahead, it would mean that public officials could keep information about passengers, including a history of any bad behaviour during flights.

In an airport setting, public officials would likely include police, border force officers and immigration officers.

Read more on travel inspo

TRAVEL TIP

The £2.99 SIM hack that can save Brits HUNDREDS abroad

CHEAP BREAKS

UK’s best 100 cheap stays – our pick of the top hotels, holiday parks and pubs

The official would then warn an airline if the passenger was trying to check in with them.

Then, the airline could decide whether or not they want the passenger travelling with them.

The new system would be compliant with data protection rules, so no new legislation would need to be created for the rules to be introduced.

Having said this, data protection rules don’t allow airlines to share information about travellers, hence the need for a public official.

It comes as the number of drunken and violent incidents on planes has risen in recent years.

Earlier this month, a drunk woman believed to be British lunged at another passenger, causing chaos on an easyJet flight.

A government source said: “Everyone should be able to enjoy a pint at the airport, but anti-social behaviour on flights is totally unacceptable.

“It threatens the safety of passengers and crew, and disrupts hard-earned holidays.

“There are already tough laws in place to deal with offences committed on flights, but we are exploring with industry how we can better address this issue, ensuring we crack down on people who persistently cause chaos.

“Everyone should be able to fly without fuss.”

Tim Alderslade, Chief Executive of industry body Airlines UK, said: “UK airlines have a zero-tolerance approach to disruptive behaviour.

“Additional measures for the most serious cases of disruption, including the creation of a national ban list, are an important next step in ensuring a tiny minority of passengers cannot disrupt air travel for the majority.

“We welcome the government’s support for further action and will work closely with ministers on delivering the right solutions.”

According to LBC, Phil Ward, Chief Operations Officer of Jet2, also said the airline would support new rules of sharing passenger information between airlines.

He said: “The creation of a national database will mean that, as well as being banned from flying with us, disruptive passengers can also be banned from flying with other UK airlines.”

In a recent YouGov survey of 5,000 adults, 37 per cent said they supported the proposal for new rules, with 38 per cent saying they somewhat supported it.

Only 11 per cent opposed.

Being drunk on a flight is a criminal offence and can lead to a fine of up to £5,000 and two years in prison.

A meeting will be held later this month where industry leaders will discuss the plans.

The Sun’s Head of Travel shares her thoughts

LISA Minot, The Sun’s Head of Travel, shares her thoughts:

Plans to blacklist drunk and abusive passengers on a nationwide database can’t come soon enough.

Onboard incidents have skyrocketed in recent years and a full ban on those found guilty across all airlines would be the kind of punishment that would have real consequences.

At the moment, while one airline can ban a passenger for life, data protection means other airlines are not alerted.

Having seen the chaos a drunken passenger can wreak myself on a flight from Cape Verde back to the UK anything that will show disruptive passengers there are real consequences is a good move.

Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary has repeatedly called for a ban on passengers drinking in departure lounges but why should the vast, innocent majority pay for the sins of a tiny minority?

This proposal is a much more sensible way of ensuring planes are not turned into battlegrounds without punishing the law-abiding passengers.

I come from a family of priests and devoted Catholics. Catholicism is the blood in my veins. My father was not a disciplinarian, but if you lived under his roof you went to church. Saturday evening or Sunday morning, didn’t matter, you went. My four siblings and I were not miscreants, but we drank beer and sneaked out, and I was once cited for stealing liquor. I can’t recall my father ever yelling at me for anything other than missing Mass.

My great-uncle Dan was a diocesan priest at St. Charles Borromeo in Drexel Hill, Pa. Dan was a fire-and-brimstone hard-liner. Every Thursday we’d gather as a family for a roast beef dinner at my grandmother’s house. Dan would drink Manhattans — plenty — and if someone expressed a view of God contrary to his own, he’d say, “It’s awfully hot down there.” “There” meant hell. My uncle Ed, my mother’s eldest brother, was an Augustinian. Patient, compassionate, inclusive, Ed’s God was very different from Dan’s. While discussing God, Ed would quote Michael Himes, “There is nothing we can do to make God not love us,” and the Trappist monk Thomas Merton, “Mercy, within Mercy, within Mercy.”

Sports was in my family too — basketball, specifically — and I came to view Dan and Ed as head and assistant coach, respectively. The head coach shouting harsh critiques from the sideline, the assistant coach there to put his arm around you when you made it, crestfallen and ashamed, back to the bench. I loved them both, but I aligned with Ed’s view of God. Dan passed away a decade ago. Ed has since left the priesthood and married a kind and patient woman named Kathy. Over the years, Ed’s views on God have changed drastically. We meet for dinner once a month to talk about life and faith, and it was during one of our conversations that “Task” was born.

Mark Ruffalo in “Task.”

(Peter Kramer / HBO)

Tom Brandis, played by the singular Mark Ruffalo, is a former priest-turned-FBI agent who has lost his faith. Everything he held as truth in his life has come crashing down in the wake of a family tragedy. Tom believes he was called by God to adopt two children, Emily and Ethan. Adopting these children has resulted in the death of his wife, Susan. Matricide. What kind of God allows that? I have struggled with my Catholic faith over the years, but nothing has perplexed me more than the idea of suffering. The poet Archibald MacLeish wrote, “If God is God, He is not good / If God is good, He is not God.” The message is clear: If God is God, the author of everything, then He created evil and suffering and therefore cannot be good.

In “Task,” I wanted to explore a crisis of faith with honesty and without easy answers, because that is exactly how I have found my own faith journey — arduous and circuitous. I believe in God, but I find that belief tested daily. Faith and religion are separable. Tom’s journey in “Task” is a journey of faith. In the fifth episode, Tom is kidnapped by the criminal Robbie Prendergast, played by the brilliant Tom Pelphrey. During a long and tense car ride to the Poconos, Robbie tells Tom that he doesn’t believe in God. Never has. God is an idea conjured to make life bearable. “There’s nothing after this life,” Robbie says. Tom doesn’t argue. His own beliefs have veered in that direction. The car pulls into a secluded, wooded area. Facing death, Tom suddenly wants to call his son, Ethan, and forgive him. Robbie doesn’t allow it. Instead, he walks Tom to the edge of the woods, tells him he’s a decent man, and sets him free. Because Robbie has his own plan: to sacrifice his life in the hopes of providing a better one for his family. It’s through Robbie’s act of mercy that Tom regains faith. He believes in goodness again.

Brad Ingelsby.

(Ian Spanier / For The Times)

In the final episode, Tom finds himself taking care of a young and suddenly parentless boy, Sam. Sam reminds him of his own son, Ethan. Sam wants to live with Tom. And Tom desperately wants Sam to stay with him. But Tom also recognizes that Sam would be better served in the care of a young family capable of meeting his needs. Sam shouldn’t be stuck with an old man like him. Tom lets Sam go; he believes the boy will be taken care of. That is Tom’s act of faith.

When Ed and I met for dinner last month, we talked about how his idea of God has changed over the years. He no longer sees God as a bearded white man tallying our sins and waiting to judge us in heaven. He thought God was everywhere, all the time. The love that exists between people. He thought he could feel God right then, among us at the table as we laughed. We talked about Camp Mystic. The young girls swept away. Why, God? They were there to serve You. We didn’t have any answers. We never do. But the food and wine were good, and we talked about great-uncle Dan, about how he was so different from us but how much we loved him anyway, and how, when he drank Manhattans — plenty — he could turn harsh and opinionated, but it didn’t matter because he loved God. He loved Him with his whole heart, and we thought about the unimpeachable dignity of that and what an amazing gift it would be — to believe and never doubt.

This article contains spoilers for the series finale of “Hacks.”

After five seasons and (thus far) 12 Emmys, “Hacks” has come to an end. The story of how Deborah Vance (Jean Smart), a 70-something comedian of the Joan Rivers type, and Ava Daniels (Hannah Einbinder), a prickly 20-something comedy writer, came together to resurrect both their careers was a roller coaster ride of intergenerational judgment, wins, setbacks, ruthless behavior, personal growth, power reclamation and much general hilarity.

Deborah sees Ava as entitled and self-righteous, Ava sees Deborah as washed-up and boring. Eventually, of course, they realize they are kindred spirits who do their best work together.

In Season 5, Deborah attempts yet another comeback. Having walked off her late-night show rather than fire Ava in Season 4, she is determined to rewrite her premature obituary by playing Madison Square Garden. When that too is snatched away, she pivots (with much difficulty and hilarity, including a show-stopping monologue by Laurie Metcalf’s tour manager Weed) to Central Park, where she is finally allowed a moment of glory, basking in the adulation of applauding thousands.

But that is not the end of “Hacks.” In the final episode, Deborah reveals she has cancer and rather than undergo treatment, she is choosing to “go out on top” with the aid of a Zurich clinic. She asks Ava to accompany her, after they take a girls trip to Paris. After an emotional meltdown, Ava agrees, hoping to persuade Deborah to change her mind. She does, but only after Deborah realizes that she cannot bear to walk away from the jokes she could write about dying. And so the show ends, with the two women walking arm in arm, first in Paris and then in Las Vegas, working on Deborah Vance’s final show.

Here, Times TV and culture critics Robert Lloyd and Mary McNamara discuss the ending, and legacy, of “Hacks.”

Deborah, left, decides she doesn’t want to get treatment for cancer despite Ava’s protests. Deborah changes her mind when she realizes she could write jokes about dying.

(HBO Max)

Mary McNamara: Hey there, Robert; are you as devastated as I am that we have no more “Hacks” to look forward to? The only solace I can find is the news that creators Lucia Aniello, Paul W. Downs and Jen Statsky are planning to release a DVD box set of the series. And the possibility that there could be a movie sequel — I for one want to see Deborah Vance’s death tour, especially since you know she’ll beat the odds and survive.

Seriously, though, sad as I am to contemplate life without “Hacks,” I am equally thrilled that the show so thoroughly stuck its landing. Finales are always a crap shoot and I appreciated how this season managed to show growth and cosmic justice while never tipping into treacle. I love that everyone ended on a win — including Marty! (Christopher McDonald) — and I didn’t even mind that suddenly Deborah had cancer (what?), was choosing assisted suicide (double what?) or that we were whisked to Paris (sure, I guess, why not?) because it made just enough narrative sense to set up Deborah’s decision to live because she just couldn’t leave good material on the table. “I may not have 30 years, but I do have one more hour,” may be the best line from a TV finale ever.

It is too easy to think of people like Deborah as clawing back their careers for fame, validation or money rather than a deep and essential love of their art. Having Deborah decide to prolong her life with chemo because she could not resist mining this final seam of comedic gold was a coup de grace.

What did you think?

Robert Lloyd: Hail, Mary. Reviewing the first-season finale, I wrote that the series was at heart a romantic comedy. And though many timely points were made along the way about artificial intelligence, the fate of late-night television and the awfulness of rich jerks who control media companies — Deborah’s Madison Square Garden show was undermined by the network head she named on national television in her resignation speech — the show asserted itself as a love story once again in the end. Where earlier seasons had depended on creating friction between Deborah and Ava, this one was mostly of concord, their only real clash being Deborah’s decision, introduced late in the season, to end her life (in a clean, posh way); her climactic change of heart spared us a medical tearjerker, but, believe me, I shed plenty of tears along the way. Unlike most seasons of “Hacks,” the fifth and final was orchestrated very much as a feel-good experience — “Ted Lasso” has nothing on it. A fairy tale, almost, as you point out, full of fairy-tale endings and plot points that were as good as magic. It could be contrived and improbable and old-fashioned in its triumphs snatched from the jaws of defeat, and I completely loved it.

Deborah Vance (Jean Smart) didn’t get the Madison Square Garden show she imagined, but she did get one at Central Park.

(HBO Max)

McNamara: The series had a lot to say about a lot of things (including vengeful power brokers/network executives) that feel particularly pointed now. But I deeply appreciated that while underlining the real obstacles Deborah and Ava faced, the writers showcased and explored how the bad choices each women had made, and defended, also contributed to their situations. Obviously having the great Jean Smart in the driver’s seat helped a lot — she revealed the woman beneath the diva even in Deborah’s most outrageous actions. The writers did not shy away from calling attention to the blatant sexism female comedians faced (and continue to face) or how the “woke” women of Ava’s generation are often able to see that kind of injustice more clearly.

It was, as you say, more rom-com than morality play, and rom-coms are often based on discovering that the differences that initially divide are too often based on, well, to put it in its original form, pride and prejudice. So while there was some hilarious and spot-on commentary about intergenerational miscommunication, there was also a clear message of how important it is for people with vastly different experiences to listen to, and learn from each other, which also feels incredibly important at this moment in time, especially given the show’s essential, and deeply human, respect for creative work. What motivated Deborah and Ava, and virtually every character in “Hacks” — agent Jimmy (Downs), his assistant Kayla (Megan Stalter) and later Randi (Robby Hoffman); Deborah’s staff, including Marcus (Carl Clemons Hopkins), Damien (Mark Indelicato) and Josefina (Rose Abdoo) — was a belief in the importance, and difficulty, of the creative process. It’s something that is rarely, if ever, the work of a single individual — as Deborah finally acknowledges at the opening of the Diva casino. Or as Laurie Metcalf’s Weed makes clear in her hilarious monologue before the Central Park gig.

1

2

1. Creativity isn’t the work of a single individual: Damien (Mark Indelicato), Marcus (Carl Clemons-Hopkins) and Deborah (Jean Smart) at work on the casino. (HBO Max) 2. Deborah’s crew at her Central Park show. (HBO Max)

Lloyd: In a way Deborah’s speech summed up what we’d already been seeing through an especially generous season that served as “Hacks’” tribute to itself and its people. It was a party to which most every significant and many minor characters were invited, including Metcalf and McDonald; Luenell as comedian Miss Loretta; Poppy Liu as Deborah’s personal blackjack dealer, Kiki; Jane Adams as Ava’s mother, Nina; J. Smith-Cameron as Deborah’s estranged sister, Kathy; and Kaitlin Olson as Deborah’s daughter, DJ, who finally got her mom to partner with her on “The Amazing Race” and was allowed to sell her detachable earrings on QVC.

Gifts were distributed widely, including a previously unseen interview with Deborah’s late husband and co-star, Frank (Peter Strauss), giving her credit for their success — credit he had previously accepted for himself — and thus removing a giant thorn that drove the early plot. These kind-hearted acts of closure were performed both for the benefit of these very real, made-up people, and for We the Viewers, who have made them our family. Declarations, or at least demonstrations of love, were abundant, not merely between Deborah and Ava, with the characters acting as our proxies, feeling what we want them to feel, and what we feel for them ourselves. (There are moments this year when Einbinder — whose brilliance Smart could seem to outshine, but who was never less than an equal partner — absolutely killed me, just in the tender way she gazed upon Deborah.) That’s why it’s so hard to let go of a show like this, even when we know it’s time to say goodbye. You can only stretch an arc so far before it breaks.

McNamara: You’re right, of course. But I still want to see the “Hacks” movie.

In Deborah Levy’s new novel “My Year in Paris With Gertrude Stein,” the celebrated British author turns her keen observational and critical eye toward Stein, a writer that Levy feels has been criminally redacted from the canon of modernist masters that emerged at the turn of the 20th century. “My Year in Paris With Gertrude Stein,” however, is anything but a dry-as-dust revisionist treatise.

Levy couches her thoughts on Stein’s life and work within the story of three women in contemporary Paris, including Levy’s fictive avatar as the narrator, grappling with her own notions of identity as she writes about Stein and her partner Alice B. Toklas. I spoke with Levy about Stein, Toklas and Picasso.

✍️ Author Chat

Have you always had an abiding interest in Gertrude Stein?

She has always been lurking there for a number of reasons. When I was studying modernist literature, I was pointed to all the usual suspects — T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Beckett, Joyce. But no one ever pointed to Gertrude Stein. She was absent in Britain, anyway. I’m not sure it’s the same in America.

I feel like in America she certainly is not frequently cited among that pantheon of modernist writers that you just mentioned.

I thought her most commercial work, “The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas,” was quite enchanting. But when you start to dig into her other writing, you find this mixture of very obtuse, very violent work, and some brilliant work.

You write in the book that you sometimes don’t understand Stein, but this doesn’t diminish your enjoyment of her work.

The thing about avant-garde writers is that they either crash or they triumph. For readers, it’s either someone popping a vein at the new and strange, or someone over-praising the work. And I thought, well I’m allowed to have mixed emotions about Stein’s writing. Sometimes she is totally brilliant, and sometimes less so.

Author Deborah Levy

(Sheila Burnett)

You also celebrate Stein and Toklas’ fierce individuality, which runs counter to the usual narratives about female authors during this time.

Well, female writers are supposed to suffer or commit suicide. And the glorious thing about Stein and Alice is that the art of living was very important to them. Travel, conversation, or driving around. This really appeals to me. You know, Stein would have a roast chicken leg in one hand and one hand on the steering wheel, with the dogs in the back.

I feel like Stein’s legacy as a writer has been occluded by her renown as a collector of the greatest modern art of the century, most notably Picasso before he became Picasso. She is remembered more for collecting others’ art than for her own art.

If you’re going to collect this bold, daring art of your own time, and you’re buying it cheap, because it’s being mocked, you have to know how to defend it. Stein wasn’t an art historian. She studied psychology with William James and then studied medicine at Johns Hopkins. Through her conversations with Picasso and others, she really began to acquire the apparatus to defend the work, and that fascinated me.

You write that Stein wanted to kill the 19th century with her work by dismantling and then reassembling language.

She was going to write through continuous present tense. She got rid of commas so she could hurtle through time and make her thoughts move forward. No question marks, because it was self-evident to her when someone was asking a question in her writing. She really was a pioneer.

Her prose reads like Beckett’s, decades before his novels were published.

The critic Roland Barthes wrote that all writing has some kind of behavior. A lot of avant-garde writing behaves like Stein, but she wasn’t imitating any other thing. She made something new for her century.

(This Q&A was edited for length and clarity.)

📰 The Week(s) in Books

Book jacket for “Marilyn and Her Books: The Literary Life of Marilyn Monroe” by Gail Crowther

(Los Angeles Times illustration; book jacket from Galley Books)

Marilyn Monroe was an avid reader who traveled with her treasured library of books wherever she lived. Yet, the stubborn image of Monroe as a literary dilettante remains. Now Gail Crowther has written “Marilyn and Her Books” which sets out to debunk that misconception of the screen legend. Crowther’s sharp account is both the story of Monroe’s library and “what we’ve projected upon Monroe when we’re asked to consider that she had one,” writes Mark Athitakis.

As Cuba struggles with a faltering economy and President Trump’s saber-rattling overtures, Ada Ferrer’s timely new memoir “Keeper of My Kin” “argues that the grand narratives of exile and revolution are, at their core, made up of private reckonings with irretrievable consequences,” writes Mariella Rudi.

When Eagle Rock’s Read Books was threatened with a massive rent hike from its landlord, co-owners Jeremy and Debbie Kaplan rallied the community around the fight for tenant’s rights and started an activist organization called Save North East Los Angeles Shops. “Commercial landlords [have] unbelievably unrealistic expectations of rent, and a small business can only sell a T-shirt or a hamburger or a service for what the market will bear,” neighborhood preservationist Aaron Peskin told Emily St. Martin.

Finally, Swan Huntley found a novel way to put off writing her next book: She hiked to every Erewhon store in Los Angeles.

📖 Bookstore Faves

A Good Used Book’s beautiful interior

(A Good Used Book)

Jenny Yang and Chris Capizzi started A Good Used Book in 2017 by selling secondhand titles at local flea markets and the Grand Central Market downtown. Seven years later, after a brief COVID blowback, the pair opened their own storefront in Historic Filipinotown. Now, A Good Used Book has blossomed into a vital community space featuring a vast selection of previously loved books across all genres. The store also hosts pop-up markets on the weekends, with more events scheduled in the coming year. I spoke with Capizzi about his store.

Who are your customers?

Our customer base is pretty broad. We’re selective about the books we carry, but we want anyone to be able to find themselves somewhere in the shop, whether you’re just getting back into reading or you’re the kind of person who already has strong opinions about translations. And we try not to take ourselves too seriously, so even though we may have critical theory, we also have “Choose Your Own Adventure.”

How do you pick inventory? Is there any emphasis on any particular genres that might be popular?

We definitely do the work to find books, but honestly a lot of the time the books seem to find us. In terms of what we carry, we focus mostly on classic, modern and contemporary fiction, but we love genre fiction too, like sci-fi, crime and horror. And a big part of what makes the store feel like us are our nonfiction and culture sections — humanities, sciences, film, music, fashion and design. Anything for that curious person who just wants to go a little deeper.

I know the store is about much more than books. Can you tell me about some of the other community events you guys organize?

During the week we’re all about the books. Every Sunday we host the Every Sunday Funday Market that features two food pop-ups out front, one savory and one sweet, and four or five local vendors and artists inside. We rotate vendors selling and making ceramics, jewelry, Japanese retro radios, soaps and candles, zines and prints, and even Persian perfumes. And we always have drinks going out of our vintage Coleman cooler, too. It’s a lot of things happening at once, but it adds up to a pretty easy, fun Sunday afternoon.

A Good Used Book is located at 307 Glendale Blvd., Los Angeles.

(Please note: The Times may earn a commission through links to Bookshop.org, whose fees support independent bookstores.)

Spencer Pratt is a showboat, a loudmouth, a troll and a self-proclaimed villain who seems willing to say anything in his quest to be the next mayor of Los Angeles.

Little wonder that his critics rolled their eyes when the former reality television star told CNN host Elex Michaelson a few weeks ago that his campaign role model is Jesus Christ, because “he was a politician.” How on earth did Pratt — a man who tosses insults with the ease of someone spitting loogies — come off boasting that his political hero was the Prince of Peace?

But anyone who ridicules the exchange as a blasphemous moment by a deluded wannabe isn’t paying attention — which is exactly the error that has allowed Pratt to storm L.A. politics. He isn’t running on an explicitly Christian message — that would be risky in a city with large Jewish, Catholic and secular constituencies. But the proud born-again evangelical is channeling the zeal of an old-fashioned tent revival, even if some of his rhetoric falls far outside the bounds of the Good Book.

In his recent memoir, Pratt recounted his conversion — actor Stephen Baldwin baptized him in a river during the 2009 season of the reality show “I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here.” Before that, his Christianity had consisted of wearing a black diamond cross necklace he described as “thirty grand of Jesus bling” bought from a Beverly Hills boutique. Pratt credits his faith with providing direction at a low moment in his life, as he embraced Jesus with such fervor that a pastor told him to stop joining altar calls so much during church services — once was enough.

“I needed the receipt stamped weekly,” Pratt wrote, “like a parking validation, just to make sure it stuck.”

Seventeen years later, he’s still seeking that affirmation.

The memoir comes off as a millennial version of “The Confessions of St. Augustine” — perhaps the most famous literary example of someone who saw their wreck of a life not as a series of mistakes to apologize for but as necessary failures on the road to grace. That’s why Pratt and his followers don’t see his sketchy past as a disqualifier, but rather his biggest strength. Only someone who says he was reborn in the inferno of the Palisades fire could possess the clarity and willpower needed to bring salvation to an accursed land, they argue.

In another era, Pratt would have been a welcome edition to the roster of bombastic Southern California preachers a la Aimee Semple McPherson, Chuck Smith and Gene Scott, as well as radio titans such as George Putnam and John Kobylt. His claims that only he can deliver us from damnation and that we need to repent of City Hall’s status quo at the ballot box are nothing less than a modern-day gospel to his followers. Pratt feels the pulse of L.A.’s civic malaise far better than Mayor Karen Bass or another of his opponents, City Councilmember Nithya Raman. Like any good pastor, he knows how to distill that discontent into soundbites and stories.

That’s why the self-designated “Pratt Daddy” has cast this moment in L.A. history as a modern-day Armageddon, urging voters to wage war against apostates and usher in a Second Coming, lest the city continue its supposed descent into hell. He admits in his memoir to holding “epiphanies and apocalyptic visions” in equal measure — no wonder he told a Canadian podcaster in March that life for him is a “spiritual battlefield” where “however I can be to stop evil at this point feels like a purpose.”

Spencer Pratt is shown on a television while journalists work during the 2026 Los Angeles mayoral debate at Skirball Cultural Center on May 6.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Far from me to criticize someone’s faith. But I urge Pratt to reacquaint himself with the words of the messiah in whose path he professes to follow. Humility, frugality, turning the other cheek — it’s what Jesus taught and what Pratt has long rejected.

Nowhere does Pratt need more of refresher on Jesus’ lessons than when it comes to homeless people.

Instead of offering compassion or viable initiatives, Pratt consistently calls the unhoused “zombies,” “vagrants,” “drug addicts” and “bums,” with a particular fixation on the naked ones. He vowed to ABC 7 recently that he would push people off L.A.’s streets and onto federal land — like herding stray wildlife. The mayoral hopeful added that “scam homeless nonprofits” exacerbate homelessness, which must have been news to Scripture-based organizations such as the Los Angeles Catholic Worker, Union Rescue Mission and the Salvation Army, which have been trying to help homeless people since before Pratt was born.

Pratt also told ABC 7 reporter Josh Haskell that most of L.A.’s homeless are not locals.

“These people, when I unplug them … they’re all going to Seattle, where the mayor will welcome them,” Pratt proclaimed.

Jesus would not only roll out the welcome mat for homeless people — he would embrace them.

Spencer, what New Testament book says that your crude campaign against the most destitute among us is holy?

Christ never looked down on itinerants, famously saying, “The Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” In the Book of Mark, when Jesus sent his disciples out into the world, he told them to bring no food or money, because good people would take care of them.

“And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them,” Jesus said.

Christ did do some name calling, but his ire was directed at the powerful, the braggarts, the hypocrites — the Pratts of his time. The Nazarene saved his kindest words for the meek, the poor, the peacemakers — who are sorely lacking in Pratt’s caravan of disaffected liberals, Trumpers and the wealthy. Christ didn’t offer counsel to the comfortable but to outcasts — lepers, prostitutes, people possessed by demons or afflicted with disease — whose modern-day contemporaries live on our streets and whom Pratt World blames for all of L.A.’s ills.

Jesus especially embraced outsiders — the Canaanite woman he initially compared to a dog because she sought help for her daughter, the Samaritan lady at the well, the Roman centurion in the Book of Matthew of whom Jesus proclaimed, “I have not found so great faith” anywhere in Israel. Pratt would have rounded up all of them in donkey carts and dumped them in Babylon, if he had been around back then.

I understand how frustrating it is to see homeless encampments in neighborhoods and to deal with unhoused people who disrupt one’s day, as my wife does at her restaurant in Santa Ana. But whenever annoyance gets the better of me, I remember what Jesus told his followers: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me,” warning that he would keep this in mind on Judgment Day.

Those who didn’t take his advice? “Depart from me, ye cursed,” Christ thundered, “into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Christianity — and good society — calls for us to look to our better angels, not to demonize others, as Pratt regularly does. He knows this too.

“When the whole world hates you,” Pratt wrote, “it’s comforting to think at least the big guy upstairs has your back, so long as you repent.”

But repentance means admitting you’ve done wrong. Instead, Pratt is doubling down on his anti-homelessness nastiness as more and more people join his crusade.

Let’s see how many Angelenos embrace this false prophet on election day.

MADONNA has revealed the celebrity who was the “best sex of her life” – and he’s very famous.

The Vogue singer, 67, teamed up with LGBTQ+ dating app Grindr for a new video promoting her upcoming album, Confessions II.

In a sneak peek obtained by Page Six, fashion designer Raul Lopez asked the Queen of Pop to name the “best d*** down” she has ever experienced.

“I’m only going to name dead people,” replied Madonna.

She then covered her mouth and whispered: “John Kennedy Jr.”

Raul added: “Everyone says his d*** was crazy and he was a good f***.”

SUSHI DIVA

Madonna takes own chef on BA flight to serve sushi as she follows strict diet

HEL OF A JOB

Helen Flanagan’s bikini struggles to contain her boob job as she soaks up sun

“Mmmhmm,” Madonna confirmed.

Raul continued: “You’re the third person I’ve heard say that.”

Madonna dated Kennedy in the late 1980s as her infamously turbulent marriage to Sean Penn was coming to an end.

Kennedy’s competition amongst late lovers include Jean-Michel Basquiat, Luke Perry and Tupac Shakur.

According to JFK Jr.: An Intimate Oral Biography, published in 2024 by RoseMarie Terenzio and Liz McNeil, the romance was short-lived and never developed into anything serious.

“Madonna was totally a fling. Nothing more. Barely a fling at that,” one of Kennedy’s close friends says in the book.

According to the biography, Kennedy was dating actress Christina Haag when he met Madonna, while the pop star was married to Sean Penn.

Meanwhile, the Queen of Pop has royal standards when it comes to travel as we revealed that the hitmaker brought her own private chef on a British Airways flight last month.

After eating a lot of fast food, some of it on roller coasters, YouTuber Allen Ferrell has been banned by Six Flags from all of its amusement parks nationwide. For life.

McDonald’s chicken nuggets were apparently an ultra-processed food item too far for the folks at Six Flags’ Cedar Point in Sandusky, Ohio.

“This guest has been banned from all Six Flags parks for life,” a Cedar Point spokesman explained in an email Thursday to Cleveland TV station WKYC. “Safety is a cornerstone of our business and we have zero tolerance for inappropriate and unsafe behavior.”

Zero tolerance for inappropriate behavior? Zero? Where’s the fun in that?

“Our ride safety policy strictly prohibits all loose articles on rides, including food which can become a choking hazard,” the spokesperson continued.

“I had no idea that eating a 10-piece chicken nugget on a roller coaster would be a national headline, but here we are,” Ferrell told Fox 8 News in Cleveland.

He said he gets the park’s point with the ban, even though he’s been going there since he was a kid and is a huge fan of the operation.

“I understand. And we kind of worked it out,” he told Fox 8 News. “They just don’t want other people getting hurt on the ride. But me personally, it was a really fun challenge.”

Ferrell’s shtick on social media is accepting challenges from his followers and then taping himself attempting to do what they propose. Eat a McDonald’s Big Mac inside a Burger King. Throw a plunger at a Target sign. Bowl blindfolded until he gets a strike.

“If anyone asks,” Ferrell tells one apparently bored ride operator in the video that documented this particular coaster crime, “I do not have chicken nuggets in my underwear.”

Ferrell decided to try the challenge on the park’s Millennium Force ride, a “looming giant amongst a park full of them,” a coaster that was “designed for the purpose of proving bigger is better.” A roller coaster that when it was created in 2000 “demanded an all-new category just to classify its one of a kind nature,” giving rise to the “giga-coaster.” According to Cedar Point, as all of this verbiage is, Millennium Force “shoots riders over hills, past lagoons and through tunnels, all at unthinkable speeds.”

The ride actually tops out at 93 mph, a speed often thought about on freeways in the Los Angeles area when traffic is going 8 mph. It’s quite thinkable to eat fast food in a car in L.A. But it turns out what was really unthinkable was Ferrell getting all 10 nuggets down the hatch before the Six Flags ride was over.

In the video, which had almost 800,000 views on YouTube as of Friday afternoon, he morphs from happy snacking dude to dude moaning in discomfort, struggling to shove nuggets in his mouth while unintentionally applying dipping sauce to his face via G-force.

“Oh, I failed,” Ferrell says, wiping off the face-sauce as the coaster pulls up to the platform and someone in line blurts, “Are those chicken nuggets?”

Turns out he snarfed seven of them, he confesses to the two guys in front of him in the coaster car. Ferrell said later that he was glad to be in the back row because it meant nobody behind him got sauced.

That said, watching the sweet-and-sour sauce flying in slow motion is actually quite amusing. But eating nuggets that have been in one’s underwear?

The perma-ban sounds like the least of his problems.

DES MOINES, Iowa — The former superintendent of Iowa’s largest school district who was arrested last year in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown was sentenced Friday to two years in prison.

Ian Roberts is likely to be deported to his native Guyana in South America once he serves the sentence. He pleaded guilty in January to falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen and illegally possessing firearms, which together carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. His lawyers had proposed that he be put on probation “to facilitate his removal from the United States,” but prosecutors had argued that his likely deportation should not be a factor.

Prosecutors alleged Roberts knowingly lacked employment authorization for nearly all of his two-decade career in urban education and submitted a counterfeit Social Security card when he was hired as superintendent of the Des Moines public school district, which serves 30,000 students.

Roberts’ stunning case bookended the school year. His September arrest occurred as President Trump’s administration was sending increased numbers of federal immigration officers into American cities to round up immigrants.

Des Moines Public Schools said last month that it revised its conflict-of-interest policy after an audit found Roberts awarded district business to a consulting firm he worked for, affirming findings first reported by the Associated Press in the weeks after federal immigration officers detained him.

Roberts was in his school-issued vehicle when officers stopped him on Sept. 26 in a targeted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation. He allegedly fled before he was located with the help of state troopers. Authorities said a loaded handgun was wrapped in a towel under the seat and $3,000 in cash was in the car. Three other weapons were recovered during a search of his home.

In a court filing, attorneys for Roberts said he has dedicated his life in the U.S. to public service and has not been a threat to public safety. After Roberts married a U.S. citizen, his attorneys said, he was denied lawful permanent residency because he failed to disclose that he had been arrested. He said he did not think he needed to because the charges against him were dropped.

“While Dr. Roberts tried to adjust his status three more times, this initial mistake by Dr. Roberts sealed his fate,” his attorneys wrote. “In the background of his career for the next 24 years, this denial of his adjustment of status haunted Dr. Roberts like a ghost, eventually derailing his life and career.”

Dozens of people submitted letters on Roberts’ behalf to dispute how he has been portrayed and provide details of his positive impact. His lawyers wrote that he likely faces deportation to Guyana, where he will “be left without his career, without his wife, without his children, in a country where he has not lived for thirty years.”

In recommending a three-year sentence, prosecutors described a yearslong and deliberate misrepresentation of his legal status. Prosecutors said a reduced sentence is not appropriate just because Roberts is likely to be deported.

They said they do not know what documents Roberts presented to show eligibility for work dating back to 2008, years before he was approved for temporary status in 2018, but he “deliberately obtained employment without work authorization at school after school, within state after state.”

Fingerhut writes for the Associated Press.

It’s hard to believe we’re approaching the end of May and the midpoint of the year, which means some of our favorite shows have come to a close, including “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” which aired its final episode on CBS last week. Our critics and columnists weighed in on Colbert’s tenure as host of “The Late Show” over the years, writing about why he was the risky but right choice to host, his faith and his next chapter. And “Hacks,” starring Jean Smart and Hannah Einbinder, dropped its series finale on HBO Max last night. Times culture columnist Mary McNamara and television critic Robert Lloyd took a moment to discuss the course of the show after five seasons, the characters and why they found the finale satisfying.

While those series have come to an end, a new television show, Prime Video’s “Spider-Noir,” arrived this week with a different take on a beloved superhero, Spider-Man. “Spider-Noir” stars Nicolas Cage as Ben Reilly and his alter ego the Spider. Writer Carlos Aguilar spoke to Cage and co-star Lamorne Morris about their spin on the comic book-based characters they portray, and this week, Karen Rodriguez, who plays Ben’s secretary Janet Ruiz on the show, stopped by Guest Spot to talk about her character, working with the ensemble cast and how she gets a nice prize at the end of the season (be warned, a few spoilers ahead).

Also in this week’s Screen Gab, our writers recommend a trio of newly arrived second seasons and a collection of films based on Homer’s “The Odyssey” that will get you in the mood for Christopher Nolan’s epic arriving later this summer. Vacation screen time can’t come soon enough. — Maira Garcia

Turn on

Recommendations from the film and TV experts at The Times

Asif Ali, Poorna Jagannathan and Saagar Shaikh in Season 2 of “Deli Boys.”

(Sandy Morris / Disney)

Season 2 of “The Four Seasons” (Netflix), “Patience” (PBS) and “Deli Boys” (Hulu)

There is a season, goes the song, and there is sometimes a second season. Here’s your chance to turn (turn, turn) on your TV to three fine, finally returning series. Tina Fey’s “The Four Seasons” demonstrates there’s still life in this bumpy midlife friend-com about couples (in flux) who vacation together four times a year because apparently there are people who can afford to do that. (On this year’s itinerary: the Catskills, the Jersey Shore and Italy.) It stars Fey, Colman Domingo, Will Forte and others, and even a little bit of Steve Carell, though his character died at the end of Season 1. (Flashbacks, baby.) “Patience,” a charming British mystery, airing here as part of PBS’ “Masterpiece,” stars charismatic autistic actor Ella Maisy Purvis as a neurodivergent amateur detective, assisting the police in York, England. This season replaces Laura Fraser’s finally understanding detective investigator Bea Metcalf with Frankie Monroe (Jessica Hynes), a less sympathetic successor, but Mark Benton (whom you may know from Britbox’s “Shakespeare & Hathaway: Private Investigators,” or should) as Calvin Baxter is happily still around as the boss. Abdullah Saeed’s hectic, hilarious “Deli Boys” retails the further misadventures of brothers Mir (Asif Ali) and Raj (Saagar Shaikh), who last season stumbled unaware into their late father’s drug business, fronted by a chain of convenience stores. New to the show this season are Fred Armisen as a casino owner, Andrew Rannells as a district attorney and Kumail Nanjiani as the lawyer for the brothers’ Lucky Auntie (Poorna Jagannathan, majestic). — Robert Lloyd

John Turturro, left, Tim Blake Nelson and George Clooney in “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”

(Melinda Sue Gordon / Universal Pictures)

Odysseys (Criterion Channel)

All hail original IP, which is great and all, but sometimes a 3,000-year-old story sticks around for a reason. Homer crystallized the impulse to return home after a long time away from all that is familiar. We’ll watch Matt Damon make that journey in Nolan’s “The Odyssey,” hitting theaters July 17, but until then, Criterion builds anticipation with some of the most notable homeward journeys. Martin Scorsese achieves a kind of cosmic misfortune with 1985’s “After Hours,” in which Griffin Dunne’s yuppie only wants to escape Soho and go back to his apartment after a late-night date gone sour. You can bop to the Coens’ tuneful “O Brother, Where Art Thou?,” a faithful Homeric translation, then check out the Preston Sturges satire “Sullivan’s Travels,” which inspired the Coens’ title. But don’t let David Lynch’s “The Straight Story” pass you by: It was the least name-checked of his films when the director died last year, but it’s one of his most gentle and improbable triumphs, about a road trip via lawn tractor to a dying brother. — Joshua Rothkopf

Guest spot

A weekly chat with actors, writers, directors and more about what they’re working on — and what they’re watching

Janet Ruiz (Karen Rodriguez) in “Spider-Noir.”

(Aaron Epstein / Prime)

Being exceptionally competent at your job is a superhero power — so says this editor. In “Spider-Noir,” Rodriguez plays Janet, a secretary to private investigator Ben Reilly, a.k.a. the Spider. But Janet is not just someone who sits behind the desk answering phones and filing paperwork. She’s as much a gumshoe as Reilly, walking into a police station with poise and ease to sweet-talk the officer into giving her crucial information on an investigation (all it takes is a good sandwich). Her ability to ask the right questions and find answers puts her on equal ground with Reilly and his best friend Robbie Robertson, the investigative journalist played by Morris, leading her to a rightful promotion at the end of series. Don’t you love it when good old-fashioned hard work gets you ahead?

While Rodriguez has been busy lately with her breakout role in “Spider-Noir,” she has also been at work on “The Hunting Wives,” Netflix’s hit drama in which she plays Deputy Wanda Salazar and is slated to return later this year. The actor spoke to us about going toe to toe with Cage, why she loved working with her various cast mates and what she’s watching now. — M.G.

“Spider-Noir” is a comic book adaption, but it’s also a take on classic noir films. How did you prepare for your role as Janet given the mix of genres?

I had a little more freedom because Janet is strictly based on the Girl Friday archetype from classic noir. So I first started with the scripts. Oren [Uziel]’s vision for Janet was very precise in the writing, and from that arc I wanted to figure out why this particular woman in this particular world and what does she offer the environment that no one else can. Then I delved into “The Maltese Falcon” (Janet was based off of Effie Perine), “Double Indemnity,” “His Girl Friday,” among others. And then I mixed it all in with Nick’s take on Ben Reilly because so much of who Janet is absolutely informed by who Ben is.

Janet is very no-nonsense, especially with Ben, even though he’s her boss. What was it like “managing up” and playing off of Nick’s acting? Have you ever dealt with a boss like that in real life?

Well, I think that what’s great about Janet is that she is no-nonsense but she also has a killer sense of humor and wit. I think it makes her someone who’s very skilled at getting what she wants, a little sugar with the medicine. Nick is the ultimate scene partner — so prepared, so playful and most importantly, unpredictable. For Janet, Ben’s antics are her obstacle in the scene and Nick always made sure Ben gave Janet plenty of obstacles. All I had to do was know Janet is the boss and the voice of reason, then listen and respond to him. We had a great time keeping each other on our toes and I’m so grateful to have had that experience with him. No, I haven’t had a boss like that!

Janet shares a lot of scenes with different characters, like Robbie (Morris), Lonnie (Abraham Popoola) or even Frankie (Cary Christopher), the little boy who’s friendly with Ben. She is very good at connecting with people. How was it creating a rapport with so many different cast mates and was there a scene or moment that stood out to you?

Thank you for saying that! Her ability to connect with people is one of my favorite parts about her. And oh, I loved it. The ensemble acting of it all thrills me. It allows me to explore different facets of the character and it’s just fun to collide with different actors. And this particular cast made it so joyful — they’re all mega-talented but also super-focused and hardworking. We just wanted to make the best show we could.

A moment that stood out to me … I loved seeing Janet’s superpower in the scene with Lonnie, how her kindness and ability to make people feel seen makes her a powerful player in this world. And Abraham Popoola is just magnificent so it was a really fun day on set with him and Lamorne.

In the end Janet and Ben become partners. Was that inevitable given her skills?

I would like to think so! And I think Janet would too! But it still made me cry when I read the episode and when I saw the office door sign with both their names. I think for Janet, too — despite knowing she’s worth it, it is still momentous to have Ben give her her due.

Along with “Spider-Noir,” you’ll be back on “The Hunting Wives” for Season 2 later this year. Anything you can tease about what Wanda Salazar might be up to?

You know Maple Brook is going to give her plenty to do! She’s definitely going to have her hands full this season. And I’m excited because I think fans are in for some shocking moments!

What have you watched recently that you are recommending to everyone you know?

“Ponies” [Peacock]. Oh, and I’ve been watching “The Comeback” [HBO Max], Season 1-3. Lisa Kudrow forever.

What’s your go-to comfort watch, the movie or TV show you go back to again and again?

“The Office” [Peacock]. “Bridget Jones’s Diary” [YouTube, Paramount+]. “Pride and Prejudice,” 2005 vibes [Britbox, Prime Video].

ICYMI

Must-read stories you might have missed

Animator Jorge R. Gutierrez is facing online backlash following news that his latest series, “Punky Duck,” will use artificial intelligence for its production.

Amazon MGM Studios and Amazon Web Services announced on Wednesday the launch of the GenAI Creators’ Fund, a joint initiative that gives creators access to professional-grade AI tools and funding to produce cinematic entertainment.

Three animation projects have already been greenlighted, including Gutierrez’s “Punky Duck,” which follows a punk duck and his best friend, Smiley Cat, through a wildly exaggerated Los Angeles filled with alien invasions, giant monsters, robot criminal conspiracies, telenovela-style family drama and supernatural mayhem.

BuzzFeed Studios’ “Cupcake & Friends” and Albie Hecht’s “Love, Diana Music Hunters” are also part of the initiative.

Speaking at the AI on the Lot event at Culver Studios, Gutierrez spoke positively of using the controversial new technology, comparing it to “having sex and then they hand you the baby.”

Fans took to social media to critique the “Book of Life” creator, sharing their disappointment. Many pointed out how the tool is actively reshaping traditional Hollywood jobs, from storyboarding to production design, raising concerns over creative control.

As a response to the backlash, Gutierrez uploaded a screenshot to Instagram that same day featuring news articles by Variety and the Hollywood Reporter with a caption addressing the collaboration: “I understand a lot of you are happy for me and a lot of you are really angry at me for experimenting with AI at Amazon. I’m going to leave the comments open so you can get it all out and hopefully feel better.”

Gutierrez also warned that any death threats will be reported, as well as threats to his family. The post has since been deleted.

In a subsequent Instagram post, he shared a screenshot of a post on X, which showed edits to Gutierrez’s Wikipedia page, where he is described as a “sellout.” Gutierrez captioned his Instagram: “Whoever did this I thought it was really funny!”

The Mexican creator is behind Nickelodeon’s “El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera” and Netflix’s “Maya and the Three.” He is also currently developing the long-awaited Speedy Gonzales film with Warner Bros. Pictures Animation.

It took over a decade for Gutierrez to get approval for his 2014 film “The Book of Life,” a beloved storybook animation about the Day of the Dead. After multiple rejections from top animation studios, it was eventually produced by Mexican director Guillermo del Toro — a staunch critic of AI, who described its use as “sharting” at a party to The Times late last year.

By comparison, “Punky Duck,” was greenlighted in two months, according to Cartoon Brew.

In a statement to The Times, Gutierrez said he is “cautiously optimistic” about his collaboration with Amazon MGM Studios: “Artists driving tech, and not the other way around, is my goal.”

“It’s a big experiment for me, and like all experiments it might not work, and I will be as cautious and ethical as possible with AI,” he said.

Gutierrez has been critical of AI in the past, expressing distaste for the tool through a series of cheeky memes shared in 2023, 2024 and 2025. Last year, he referred to the nascent technology as a “mutant AI cockroach.”

The prodigal “Daughter From Hell” returns: Gracie Abrams just announced her upcoming tour, and it includes four nights in her hometown of Los Angeles.

The 64-date Look at My Life tour hits arenas across North America and Europe starting Dec. 2 in Denver, before the singer lands in L.A. later that month. Abrams will take the stage at Inglewood’s Kia Forum for four nights: Dec. 14, 18, 19 and 20. The North American leg of the tour concludes in Brooklyn in March, and she kicks off the European leg in April.

The tour will follow the release of Abrams’ third studio album, “Daughter From Hell,” which drops July 17 via Interscope Records. Abrams took to Instagram to share her upcoming tour dates, teasing fans with the caption, “we’re baaaaaack.”

At the Kia Forum, Abrams will be supported by openers Rachel Chinouriri and Holly Humberstone, both popular British singer-songwriters. Fans can sign up on Abrams’ website for access to the June 2 pre-sale for all dates before tickets go on sale to the general public June 5.

Abrams most recently played in L.A. as part of a three-night residency at the Kia Forum in August 2025 for the Secret of Us Deluxe tour. There, she brought out surprise guest Audrey Hobert, Abrams’ longtime best friend and collaborator. Abrams’ other frequent collaborator, musician and producer Aaron Dessner, co-wrote and produced her latest single, “Hit the Wall,” which dropped in mid-May in advance of her new album.

“There’s nothing I wouldn’t tell either of them, so it makes it easy to be completely open when writing,” Abrams told The Times of Hobart and Dessner in 2024.

Her September 2024 shows at L.A.’s Greek Theater sold out so quickly that the singer-songwriter had to add two additional dates to meet demand. At the time, Abrams told The Times that she would keep performing if the fan support continued.

“As long as they’ll have me, I’ll do this,” she said.

Mexico’s consulate in Los Angeles helps thousands of citizens each week, assisting them with registering births, obtaining passports and, increasingly since President Trump’s second term began, accessing legal help for loved ones who have fallen afoul of his administration’s immigration policies.

Although it serves the country’s biggest Mexican community, all 53 Mexican consulates in the U.S. provide services that make Mexican people’s lives easier — just like the nine U.S. consulates in Mexico improve the lives of Americans south of the border.

The U.S. State Department has launched a review that might lead to the closure of an unknown number of Mexican consulates. Although it hasn’t said why, the review is happening against the backdrop of the immigration crackdown, some thorny bilateral issues and far-right theories that the consulates have been interfering in U.S. politics and encouraging Mexicans to migrate northward.

Azucena Aviles, a 33-year-old mother who drove more than an hour to the L.A. consulate this month to renew her Mexican passport and get one for her daughter, said consular services are invaluable — especially in California, which is home to nearly 13 million people of Mexican descent, including an estimated 1.7 million who are in the U.S. illegally.

“It wouldn’t be fair if they messed with the Mexican people, especially with our support systems, which come from the Mexican consulate and which, in some way, help or protect our fellow Mexicans,” she said.

Trump has been exerting growing pressure on Mexico, with questions looming over issues including human rights, national sovereignty and regional diplomacy.

His administration has given only the broadest of explanations for launching its review.

“Department of State is constantly reviewing all aspects of American foreign relations to ensure they are in line with the President’s America First foreign policy agenda and advance American interests,” Dylan Johnson, assistant secretary of State for global public affairs, wrote in an email.

Among the possible reasons for the review is that it could somehow fit into the Trump administration’s immigration efforts to deport people in the U.S. illegally. The largest contingent of such people — an estimated 4.3 million, according to the Pew Research Center — are Mexican.

Relations between the two countries could also play a role, with Trump increasing pressure on Mexico in the run-up to free trade negotiations important to both nations’ economies, taking a more aggressive approach toward the U.S.’ southern neighbor and even threatening to take military action against Mexican cartels.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has avoided head-on conflicts with Trump and instead relied on diplomacy, including sending top officials to Washington and seeking to maintain a strong relationship with the Trump administration by cracking down on Mexican cartels. Sheinbaum and her predecessor have also been key allies in slowing migration to the U.S. and speeding up the deportation of other Latin American migrants.

But Sheinbaum has taken a firmer stance in regards to the deaths of Mexicans in U.S. immigration detention centers, calling them unacceptable and saying the conditions in such lockups were “incompatible with human rights standards and the protection of life.” She instructed Mexican consulates to visit detention centers daily to help ensure detained citizens are being held in safe conditions.

Relations rapidly deteriorated in recent weeks after the U.S. indicted several Mexican officials on drug trafficking charges, and two CIA officers died following an anti-narcotics operation in northern Mexico — American involvement that Sheinbaum said her government had not authorized. That drug raid raised uncomfortable questions in Mexico about the extent of U.S. involvement in domestic security operations.

Years of tit-for-tat tariffs between the two countries have also added strain.

A review of foreign consulates is “usually a sign that a bilateral relationship is in a very, very rocky moment,” said Arturo Sarukhan, a former Mexican ambassador to the U.S. In Mexico’s case, it comes at “the worst moment of the U.S.-Mexico relations” in decades, given all the current points of contention, he said.

Further straining relations is a theory being amplified by Peter Schweizer, a writer with a following among Trump loyalist who has claimed that Mexican consulates interfere in U.S. politics and encourage migration to the U.S. Experts say that although a few Mexican consulate officials may have sought to influence politics back home, there is no evidence of them interfering in U.S. elections.

In response to the State Department review, Sheinbaum said the idea that Mexican consulates are “playing politics in the United States is completely false.” She said the job of consulates anywhere is to “always protect” citizens.

Sarukhan too said that although consulates defend the rights of Mexican citizens, there is no evidence that they are interfering in U.S. elections.

Whatever the reasons for the consulate review, it has stoked worries.

During a weekly public forum at the L.A. consulate, a woman who didn’t give her name and whose husband had been in U.S. immigration detention asked for help finding him a lawyer, highlighting one crucial service consulates provide for their citizens.

An older man said he had heard about the review and asked about possible closures.

Carlos González Gutiérrez, Mexico’s top diplomat in Los Angeles, responded that, as Sheinbaum said, there would be “no reason whatsoever” for the U.S. to close a Mexican consulate.

Indeed, consulates would have significant, devastating effects for Mexican immigrants,” especially in isolated areas, said Ariel Ruiz Soto, a senior policy analyst for the Migration Policy Institute.

Every day, consular officials go to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement holding center in downtown Los Angeles to identify and interview as many detained Mexican nationals as they can.

González Gutiérrez, 62, begins every weekly public forum by noting how many detained Mexicans consular officials have interviewed since the immigration crackdown began in Los Angeles last June.

At that May 11 meeting, the figure stood at 1,940. Nearly half had deep roots in the U.S., he said. About 46% have been deported, 35% have children born in the U.S., 69% entered the country through a port of entry, 6% overstayed a visa and 2.5% requested asylum. Most were men, and many worked in construction, agriculture, gardening and the service industry.

He also disputed the claim that Mexican consulates are interfering in U.S. politics.

“We are guests of this country’s government, just as U.S. consuls are guests of the Mexican government. In that sense, we are neither activists nor spies,” said González Gutiérrez. “We carry out our work openly, within a pluralistic and democratic society.”

Pineda and Janetsky write for the Associated Press. Janetsky reported from Mexico City.

There she stands, in that iconic hot pink gown, arms thrown open wide as if to both offer herself to the world and embrace what the world offers — love, applause, admiration and diamonds, which are, as she sang from the body-hugging confines of that pink silk in “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes,” a girl’s best friend.

It isn’t her, of course, though it is the dress, designed by William Travilla and now a part of the new “Marilyn Monroe: Hollywood Icon” installation at the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures. Opening Sunday, it is just one of many exhibitions and events timed to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Monroe’s birth.

More than 60 years after her death, Monroe still glows brightly in the Hollywood firmament. Her career only lasted 17 years, but during that time she dazzled so brightly that her image, and all that has been projected onto it, remains burned into our collective line of vision, an unfading afterimage of a bursting star.

As the Academy Museum’s exhibit underlines, Marilyn Monroe was a pioneer in many ways.

(Emily Shur / Academy Museum Foundation)

Her death — at 36 by way of overdose — did much to cement her legacy, generating international headlines and then a multitude of conspiracy theories, many of them involving powerful men, including members of the equally mythic Kennedy family.

Tragedy and mystery are powerful binding agents, but they do not quite explain the tower of books that have been, and continue to be, written about her (including several out this year) or the many films made about her life or the art she has inspired, from Andy Warhol’s iconic silkscreen “Marilyn Diptych” (done a year after her death) to Seward Johnson’s massive statue “Forever Marilyn,” which, after some controversy, made its forever home in Palm Springs five years ago.

Marilyn Monroe’s personal items on display include parts of her makeup regimen.

(Emily Shur / Academy Museum Foundation)

As the Academy Museum’s exhibit underlines, Monroe was a pioneer in many ways. In the repressive ‘50s, she was sex positive and spoke openly about psychotherapy and the vagaries of fame. She often defied studio heads, was one of the first actresses to start her own production company and demanded approval of her many photo sessions.

She had multiple marriages, problems with drugs and alcohol and a reputation for being difficult on set, but she was unafraid to both call out the press and banter with them.

Still, she is not seen by the masses as a pioneer, a term that brings to mind scientists and suffragettes. No, Monroe remains a mesmerizing, radiant symbol — of beauty, glamour, sensuality, a life force so rare that it could not be expected to survive long in a world full of envy and petty demands.

In putting together “Marilyn Monroe: Hollywood Icon,” associate curator Sophia Serrano spoke with many devoted fans, including those whose collections helped build the exhibit, and they all said the same thing.

More than 60 years after her death, Marilyn Monroe still glows brightly in the Hollywood firmament.

(Emily Shur / Academy Museum Foundation)

“Even though she had a tragic ending,” Serrano said, “people would say she is a symbol of resilience. Her story is like a movie — an orphan who makes it big, then loses it all. They see her as battling the studio, wanting to get more nuanced roles and not getting the roles she wanted. … A lot of people latch onto her because she gives them hope.”

In many ways, Monroe is, and was, a piece of art herself, onto which we could project our own longings and adulation. But that art, Serrano says, was created by Monroe, with equal parts natural magnetism and a canny, rigorous sense of her own strengths.

In 1952, when she was a rising star, a journalist realized a nude pin-up being used in calendars and posters was Monroe; she had posed for what is now known as the “Golden Dream” series five years before. Monroe was filming 20th Century Fox’s “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” at the time and studio head Darryl Zanuck pressured her to deny that the photos were of her.

Monroe did the exact opposite, shrugging it off in an interview, in which she said, “I was broke and I needed the money. … I’m not ashamed of it; I’ve done nothing wrong.”

“Marilyn Monroe: Hollywood Icon” opens Sunday at the Academy Museum.

(Emily Shur / Academy Museum Foundation)

Monroe’s unique, and, to a certain extent, self-constructed combination of vulnerability — the wide eyes, the half-open mouth, the child-like voice — and essential grit is what fuels her continued cultural resonance and what forms the guiding principal for the Academy Museum’s exhibit.

An exhibit on the life and legacy of Marilyn Monroe could fill an entire museum so for purposes of this exhibit, Serrano and her team chose objects that were relevant to her life. This being the Academy Museum, much of it focuses on her career in film. Costumes from her various movies (including the original exhibition copy of the famous white dress from “The Seven Year Itch”) occupy a big portion, in part, Serrano says, because Monroe was so often involved in their design.

“She was so smart, looking at these costumes,” Serrano says. “She was obviously Fox’s star for Cinemascope — she’s how they marketed the new technology and she didn’t like how certain silhouettes looked so she would not wear A-lines in Cinemascope because she thought the effect was unflattering. She really paid attention to how things worked and then knew how to control and edit and manage.”

Costumes from Marilyn Monroe’s various movies.

(Emily Shur / Academy Museum Foundation)

The pink gown from “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” has its own story. Monroe’s character was originally to appear in bejeweled hot pants (also on display), but when the Golden Dream “scandal” broke, Zanuck demanded that she wear something less revealing.

Many personal items are on display as well, including the shoes she wore to her wedding to Joe DiMaggio, a rare apology from gossip columnist Hedda Hopper, marked-up scripts and parts of her makeup regimen (including a face-slimming mask she wore after being told she had a double chin). The love-hate relationship she had with the press is well represented by newspaper clippings and newsreels.

Marilyn Monroe’s famous white dress from “The Seven Year Itch.”

(Emily Shur / Academy Museum Foundation)

A whole room is devoted to scenes from her more famous films and an entire long wall to countless photographs. “She understood the camera better than anyone,” Serrano says, echoing observations made by photographers and actors who worked with her, including Laurence Olivier, who famously did not get along with Monroe during the filming of “The Prince and the Showgirl.”

Her reputation as being difficult on certain sets is also documented in a rather infuriating series of telegrams between director Billy Wilder complaining to her then-husband, playwright Arthur Miller, and Miller responding in defense of his wife.

It is a well-crafted glimpse at Monroe as a totality, including pieces from her Brentwood home and some of her own clothing, which Serrano says was far simpler than the gowns and suits she was photographed in. “Her persona was carefully constructed. She knew how to give just enough, to create the illusion of something.”

A whole room is devoted to scenes from her more famous films and an entire long wall to countless photographs.

(Emily Shur / Academy Museum Foundation)

And maybe that is the reason why Monroe continues to fascinate. Yes, she owned her beauty and sexuality with a boldness that stands out even now. Her relationship with the camera remains unparalleled — when she is in frame, it is almost impossible to look away. Her hip-swaying walk remains iconic and also, perhaps, revealing. It was achieved by putting one foot directly in front of the other, much like a tight-rope walker.

Which in many ways Monroe was, treading the line, invisible to the rest of us, between innocence and worldliness, between vulnerability and power.

The tension between the human need for both love and self-determination powers both art and madness, but never was it so tangibly brought to life than by Marilyn Monroe. Art and artist, creation and creator, she left behind a now-century-old mystery we’re still trying to unravel.

Grizz Chapman, an actor best known for his role as Grizz on NBC’s Emmy-winning comedy “30 Rock,” has died. He was 52.

Chapman’s cousin, Donte Harrison, confirmed the actor’s death on social media.

“Life gave my cousin Grizz Chapman some heavy battles, but he fought them with strength and dignity until the very end,” Harrison wrote. “A lot of people knew him as the sitcom star from 30 Rock, but we knew the man behind the screen. A good heart, good energy, and somebody who made an impact in this life.

“After years of fighting illness and dialysis, he passed peacefully in his sleep on May 22nd, 2026. I’m thankful we got time to reconnect 2 months before his passing.”

Born Mack D. Chapman on April 16, 1974, in Brooklyn, N.Y., Chapman got the name Grizz while working as a security guard at nightclubs around New York. The claim to fame of the 7-foot-tall security guard turned actor would be portraying a character that resembled himself: a towering bodyguard named Grizz.

Chapman played the mild-mannered bodyguard across 80 episodes of the wildly popular sitcom “30 Rock,” which starred Tina Fey, Tracy Morgan and Alec Baldwin. Chapman’s character was part of the entourage of Tracy Jordan (played by Morgan).

Chapman told Cracked in 2024 that landing “30 Rock” was the “hardest/easiest audition I ever had in my life.”

But it wasn’t until the second season of the show that Chapman felt he really broke through as a performer. On Episode 210, he performs a rendition of “Midnight Train to Georgia” alongside the veteran ensemble. “That showed so many levels of our talents — we got a chance to dance, we got a chance to sing, we got a chance to take direction and to be funny.”

In addition to acting in various projects, including the 2014 film “The Cobbler,” which starred Adam Sandler, and the 2016 thriller “Money Monster,” starring George Clooney and Julia Roberts, Chapman was an advocate for the National Kidney Foundation.

The actor battled high blood pressure and kidney disease and struggled with his weight for years, and in 2009, he announced he was seeking a donor for a kidney transplant. During an appearance on “The Dr. Oz Show,” the actor said, “I don’t want to go through this forever.”

Chapman told Dr. Oz that he’d coped with the news by acknowledging it was “a scary situation” but deciding to “face it one way or another.”

When Dr. Oz asked him what he wished for, the actor said, “I want to stay alive.”

Chapman spent nearly two years undergoing dialysis treatments three days a week for 4½ hours a day while filming “30 Rock” and hoping for a donor. In the process, he lost more than 150 pounds, hoping to be fit enough for the procedure. After the episode of “Dr. Oz” aired, a fan of Chapman’s, Ryan Perkins, flew from Arizona to New York to meet the actor. Perkins, then in his early 20s, knew he wanted to do something that could change someone’s life.

“I was emotional. I was excited. I wanted to scream. It was exciting to meet someone with that kind of willingness to help,” Chapman told the East Valley Tribune.

“How do you ever repay someone for something like that? You can’t. It’s not like borrowing $20 from someone and telling them you’re going to give it back. It’s something that you can never repay someone for.”

PALM SPRINGS — Barry Manilow steers a golf cart to the end of a long driveway, pulls to a stop and flings a plush toy goose across a manicured lawn to the delight of his two Labrador retrievers.

“OK, where we doing this?” the 82-year-old singer asks about our interview. Dressed in a khaki shirt and slim-fitting rust-colored trousers, he’s got the look of a man prepared to undertake some très chic brush clearance; in reality, he’s motored down here merely to answer questions about his fabulous life and career.

Manilow and his husband and longtime manager, Garry Kief, moved to this sprawling desert estate from Los Angeles in the late 1990s. “We kept coming out, and it’s so beautiful that eventually we said, ‘Screw it — let’s just stay,’” he says. By then, Manilow had long since established himself as one of music’s premier showmen, with a Grammy Award, 11 Top 10 hits and a storied 15-night run at L.A.’s Greek Theatre under his belt.

So you might’ve taken Palm Springs as a sign that he was ready to slow down. Instead, he launched a residency at the Las Vegas Hilton in 2005 that eventually surpassed the length of Elvis Presley’s show there; in 2006, he released “The Greatest Songs of the Fifties,” which went platinum and spawned a series of successful follow-up albums.

Last month, Sabrina Carpenter interpolated a bit of Manilow’s iconic “Copacabana (At the Copa)” into her headlining set at Coachella just days before he was honored by the American Advertising Federation for his work writing commercial jingles. The range of those achievements said something about his blend of music-nerd craft and pop-star razzle-dazzle.

“Barry loves music as much as anyone I’ve ever known,” says Bette Midler, who hired Manilow as her pianist for the name-making gig she played at New York’s Continental Baths in the early 1970s. Performing, Midler adds, “isn’t a job with him — it’s a vocation, a calling.”

Yet now that calling faces a threat. In December, Manilow announced that he’d been diagnosed with lung cancer and that surgery would require him to postpone a number of concert dates; five months later, he has yet to return to the stage — the longest break, COVID-19 aside, he can remember taking in decades.

Fortunately for Manilow, he has a new album, “What a Time,” with which to occupy himself. Due June 5, it consists mostly of original material — his first such LP in nearly 15 years — though it opens with a sumptuous rendition of Peter Allen and Dean Pitchford’s “Once Before I Go.” Manilow notes proudly that the song, which was produced by Kenneth “Babyface” Edmonds, recently made Billboard’s adult contemporary chart, extending his run on that tally beyond the half-century mark.

Barry Manilow performs in Beverly Hills in 2025.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Still, performing is clearly on his mind as he leads me into a tile-roofed gym equipped with weights, a treadmill and a massage table. Manilow has been working out here every morning, he says, to regain the strength needed for his show; he’s got Vegas dates on the books for July but admits he’s unsure whether they’ll happen or not. We settle into two leather club chairs, his dogs Jake and Abby at his feet.

“Please be brilliant,” he tells me. “Don’t be boring.”

What are you doing on a day you’re not working?
Working.

I see.
Since the surgery, I can’t go on the road. Ninety minutes of screaming in tune, which is what I do for a living — I’m not up for that yet. I will be, but it’s taking a long time to get my voice back. They warned me that I’d have to learn to breathe again. So these days, I get up, I go to my piano and I try to be creative. Before I know it, the afternoon’s over.

Was the diagnosis a shock?
Imagine your doctor saying, “You’ve got lung cancer.”

Fair enough.
I’ll tell you the story. I have terrible hips — bursitis and everything — and they hurt so bad that I thought maybe I broke a bone or something. So I asked my wonderful family doctor, I said, “Can you just do one of those MRIs and see?” Now, before that, I’d had two bad bouts of bronchitis, one after the next. Have you ever had bronchitis?

I have.
It stinks. So I asked him if he could check my hip, and he told the guys that were doing it, “Why don’t you check his lungs?” And I think he might have saved my life because they found a big black thing in my chest. One doctor said it was probably remnants of the bronchitis, the other doctor said it could be cancer. I voted for the bronchitis. But they went back in to see and it was a cancerous tumor.

How’d you react?
When they told me, I was on the road, and I just went back to sound check. What else could I do? I never thought cancer would get me — it wasn’t in the cards. They wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible, so we made a deal: I’d finish the couple of weeks of shows that I had, then I’d go to the hospital and they’d remove it. It was supposed to be a no-brainer — it hadn’t spread yet, thank goodness. But then my AFib kicked in and acid reflux kicked in and pneumonia kicked in. They rushed me to the ICU for seven days.

Barry Manilow with Dionne Warwick in Los Angeles in 1985.

(Paul Harris / Getty Images)

Sorry to be morbid, but were you close to death?
They said at one point — I didn’t hear them say this but I heard that they did say it — “We don’t want to lose him.” It’s all a total blur now. When they finally brought me back to my lovely room at the Eisenhower [medical center], I weighed 128 pounds.

How long you figure it had been since you weighed 128 pounds?
I don’t remember ever being 128.

You said you never thought cancer would get you. Why?
I’m too busy. Pretty stupid. What I realized is that I’ve always been the leader — leader of the band, leader of an audience — but I wasn’t the leader of this one. That was a big lesson for me. I had to rely on everybody else. Nurses, doctors, friends — you should see some of the notes people have sent.

What’s it been like to be offstage for so long?
Agony. Make an album, go on the road, come back, make an album, go on the road — that’s what my life’s been for years. And I like it. Now I just have to get better and do what the doctors are telling me. It’s the only way out.

Well, there’s one other way.
I’m not ready to croak. But I wasn’t ready to stop performing either, and it just went like that [snaps fingers]. The day before surgery, people are screaming, standing ovation, band sounds great. Next day I’m packing to go to the hospital.

Are you working with a vocal coach?
Yep. But I get winded just walking down the hallway. I turn on my old records and sing along, and three songs in I’m like [pants].

Could you do a show where you skip the uptempos? No “It’s a Miracle” or “Copacabana”?
I’m trying ballads too — my ballads end big.

Are you allowed to smoke or drink?
I stopped smoking many, many years ago. I vape but hardly — I just like holding it. I was a great smoker. Brooklyn in the ’50s? Please. I started smoking when I was 9. I got up to three packs of Pall Mall non-filters a day, and it never bothered me — never had any problem breathing. I was just a skinny piano player who smoked. That’s who I am. That’s who I was.

Before he was a skinny piano player, he was a skinny accordion player.

Manilow grew up poor in Brooklyn, the only son of a Jewish mother and an Irish father who split up right after he was born. As a kid he entertained his mom and his maternal grandparents by squeezing out the Jewish folk song “Hava Nagila”; later, his stepfather brought home records by Gerry Mulligan and Judy Garland that opened his mind to jazz and pop.

He says today that he never saw himself as a performer — he wanted to write, arrange, produce. His first success came with jingles for brands like State Farm — “Like a Good Neighbor” is his handiwork — and Band-Aid.

“My ideas were good for pop music because of the commercials,” he says. “The rules are pretty much the same — you need to grab the listener as soon as possible. For a commercial, you’ve got about five seconds. For a pop song, you’ve got 10.”

In 1971, Manilow got the job with Midler and ended up working on her million-selling debut, “The Divine Miss M,” which led to a deal of Manilow’s own with Clive Davis’ Arista Records. Despite Manilow’s insistence that he was a behind-the-scenes guy, he scored a No. 1 hit out of the box with the plaintive “Mandy,” then quickly followed that with another chart-topper, “I Write the Songs” — a pop-philosophical epic, as nobody’s tired of pointing out ever since, that Manilow didn’t actually write.

Barry Manilow at home in Palm Springs.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Bruce Johnston, who wrote “I Write the Songs” — and won a Grammy for song of the year thanks to Manilow’s recording — says the key to Manilow’s performance is that “he’s never too cool for school.” A Beach Boy for six decades until he retired from the band this year, Johnston adds that Manilow’s rendition of the song, which was also cut by Captain & Tennille and David Cassidy, “is the only one I care about, honestly. He really grabbed it — he’s just as real as he could be.”

After several more Manilow hits — “Tryin’ to Get the Feeling Again,” “Weekend in New England,” “Looks Like We Made It” — Davis asked the singer to produce a would-be comeback album by his latest Arista signing, Dionne Warwick. Warwick’s initial reaction to that idea: “Really?” she says with a laugh. “Did Barry Manilow really know anything about Dionne Warwick? As it turned out, he knew quite a bit,” adds Warwick, who recalls turning up for their first session to discover that Manilow had laid every one of her albums on his piano. “He was letting me know: I know you,” she says.

“Dionne,” the album they made together, went on to win a pair of Grammys and spun off silky hit singles including “Deja Vu” and “I’ll Never Love This Way Again” that reinvigorated Warwick’s career and helped solidify Manilow’s standing as a kind of soft-rock auteur.

Which isn’t to say that rock’s intelligentsia ever viewed him kindly. Though his best music finds an emotional truth in over-the-top theatrics, critics routinely dismissed Manilow as a lightweight or a schlockmeister; even now, he seems an unlikely candidate for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, where he’s been eligible for induction for decades.

Manilow, who entered the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 2002, insists the slights don’t bother him. “I’ve never been one of the guys,” he says. We’ve been talking for a while, and because of the bursitis, perhaps, he’s hoisted one of his legs over the arm of his chair. “I don’t think about awards and parties and stuff like that. I’m very lucky — I live in the most gorgeous place I’ve ever seen and I have the most wonderful partner that you can imagine. I’m grateful he’s chosen to share his life with me. We’ve been together for over 46 years, and we still laugh and we still love each other. That’s the greatest award I’ll ever get.”

Manilow and Kief married in 2014; the singer came out as gay three years later. (Manilow was briefly married to his high school girlfriend, Susan Deixler, in the mid-1960s.) Has he found that the world looks at him differently since he came out?

“It was a non-event. Nobody gave a s—,” he says. “They all knew. I never really hid it, but in the ’70s and ’80s, that would have killed the career, and I didn’t want to do that. So I just never talked about it.” He smiles.

“Garry and I are just two guys that live in a house on a hill with two dogs that we love.”

Like many of Manilow’s hits, “Once Before I Go” was Davis’ idea.

Allen, the late Australian entertainer portrayed by Hugh Jackman in Broadway’s Tony-winning “The Boy From Oz,” had played the tune for Manilow in the early ’80s. “And I loved it,” Manilow says now. “But I was too young to sing a song like that — that song needs age to be able to pull it off honestly.”

Davis first suggested that Manilow perform it in his set at the post-pandemic We Love NYC concert that Davis put on in Central Park in 2021. After the show, which was called off due to weather as Manilow sang “Can’t Smile Without You,” Davis repeatedly advised the singer to record it.

Clive Davis, left, with Barry Manilow at an Arista Records party in Los Angeles in 1989.

(Lester Cohen / Getty Images)

“I don’t know, he had a bug up his ass,” Manilow says. “He loved it, and he loved it for me. And I’m not even on his record label anymore — he’s just a friend at this point. But he was right once again.”

Given the cancer diagnosis, did Manilow worry that fans might interpret the song — a teary goodbye from a well-wishing lover — as a more permanent farewell?

“Not one time has anybody said, ‘Is he talking about dying?’”

You wouldn’t necessarily call “What a Time” a concept album, though many of the songs ponder the ways memory and history can shape a romance. Manilow knows he’s regarded as a singles act but says that putting together LPs is what he’s always enjoyed best. His favorite is 1984’s jazzy “2:00 AM Paradise Cafe,” on which he collaborated with Mulligan, Sarah Vaughan and Mel Tormé.

“That was one where the critics who’d been killing me, they didn’t know I was capable of doing something like that,” he says. “But frankly, I’d been surprised that I was capable of doing the pop stuff.”

You made records of hits from the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s. Why’d you stop before “The Greatest Songs of the Nineties”?
Were there songs in the ’90s?

Barry.
Didn’t it start to go downhill?

I can think of a handful of classics by Whitney Houston alone.
You can’t touch those. I’m a good arranger, but you can’t top those records. Maybe four of those albums was enough. I was ready to go back to writing.

You’ve said the problem with modern pop is that there’s no melody anymore.
That’s what I miss. Clive’s been pushing me to do “The Great New American Songbook.”

Like he did with Johnny Mathis a few years ago.
So I’ve been studying the Top 20. The one I like is Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars.

“Die With a Smile.”
Love that. But the way they’re writing songs these days is not the way I know how to write songs. They don’t do a verse, a chorus, a bridge, a chorus, a big ending. To me, when I listen, the songs feel like run-on sentences.

Barry Manilow with his dog Abby.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

I was trying to think of artists older than you who are still performing.
Name me one.

Willie Nelson.
Oh, yeah.

Johnny Mathis.
Mm-hmm.

Frankie Valli.
[Rolls eyes].

You’re invoking the widely held assumption that he lip syncs.
I loved Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons. Who didn’t?

Would you ever lip sync?
I’m terrible at it. I try now and again.

Do you find it morally objectionable?
Depends on the artist. I like being in the moment, not knowing what’s gonna happen in the next bar or at the ending. It’s exciting to me to see if I can make those high notes.

Would not being able to make them mean it’s time to hang it up?
Well, what’s happening right now, I’m on the verge. But I’m getting stronger, so maybe I don’t have to hang it up yet. I look fantastic, but I’m a hundred years old, right? I don’t know how that happened, by the way — I don’t get Botox or anything.

You’ve had no work done?
No! I must say: There was one time when we lived in L.A. that I did do a facelift. But after that it’s just been a little here, a little there.

Wait, I asked you —
“Work” is like a facelift, and I only had one of those. The rest of it — I see something falling down, sure, I’ll do that. I’m as vain as anybody else. One of my old friends, his mother said, “I always knew he was talented, but when did he get so handsome?”

Mexican actor Cristo Fernández, 35, has moved from playing professional football in fictional TV to real life after signing with an American football club.

Fernández – who plays Dani Rojas in the popular TV series Ted Lasso – has signed with USL Championship side El Paso Locomotive FC, the second-highest league in the US.

He tells the BBC that it is a “dream come true” to play professional football and that his popular Ted Lasso catchphrase “football is life” was his own invention.