matters

The small constituency of Makerfield in northwest England has found itself in the eye of the storm of British politics with a by-election on Thursday that will not only produce a new member of parliament but could also pave the way for a new prime minister.

The by-election was triggered last month when the previous MP, Josh Simons, stood down to allow Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham to contest the seat. If Burnham wins, he intends to challenge UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer for the leadership of the ruling Labour Party.

Starmer is facing mounting pressure to step aside following dismal council election results last month and this week’s resignation of Secretary of State for Defence John Healey and Armed Forces Minister Al Carns over the United Kingdom’s defence budget.

Seeking to derail Burham’s hopes for the Labour leadership, however, is far-right Reform UK candidate Robert Kenyon, whose campaign has been dogged by controversy over alleged sexist and misogynistic social media posts but who remains within striking distance in the polls. Reform came second at the last election in Makerfield, however, and are seen as presenting a real challenge to Labour, which has held the seat since its creation in 1983.

Here’s a closer look at the race, why it matters and how its consequences could extend far beyond Makerfield.

Why is a by-election happening in Makerfield?

Despite winning the 2024 general election in a landslide, Labour’s popularity has tanked over the past two years as support for the far-right, anti-immigration Reform UK has soared. In council elections last month, Reform swept up hundreds of council seats at Labour’s expense. Overall, Labour lost nearly 1,500 local council seats while Reform surged from 100 to about 1,450 seats.

On the right, Labour’s rhetoric on immigration has failed to stem support for Reform UK, which continues to attract both former Conservative voters and sections of Labour’s traditional working-class base – particularly in the north of England. On the left of the party, many voters who feel aggrieved by Starmer’s stance on Israel and cuts to welfare have shifted towards the Green Party.

Now, according to polling group Ipsos, Starmer is the most unpopular prime minister since it began voter surveys in the late 1970s.

As Labour’s internal tensions have grown as a result, Burnham has consistently emerged as one of the party membership’s preferred alternatives to Starmer. Recent polling suggests Starmer would defeat most potential challengers in a leadership contest, with one notable exception: Burnham.

As Mayor of Manchester, Burnham is not an MP and cannot currently stand for leadership of the Labour Party. Earlier this year, he was blocked from standing for Parliament via another by-election in Gorton and Denton, a seat Labour ultimately lost to the Green Party.

As pressure on the prime minister has mounted, however, Labour’s National Executive Committee has been increasingly unwilling to block Burnham from standing as an MP again.

Announcing his resignation as Makerfield MP following the council elections, Simons said Labour was heading towards a divisive leadership contest with “no hope, no energy that anything would change”. He described Makerfield as “where Andy Burnham has lived for 25 years” and said the mayor was “coming home”.

“Labour needs to change and the whole government needs to change,” Simons added.

Who is standing and what are they campaigning on?

Labour: Andy Burnham

Burnham currently serves as the highly popular Mayor of Greater Manchester, having left Westminster after previously serving in several cabinet positions under former Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

As mayor, Burnham has built a reputation as one of Labour’s most recognisable politicians, benefitting from his distance from Westminster while arguing that it could learn from what he calls “Manchesterism” – a blend of pro-business policies designed to attract investment while bringing essential services back under public control.

Known by some supporters as the “King of the North”, Burnham gained national prominence for challenging the Conservative government during the COVID-19 pandemic and for his long-running campaign for justice for the victims of the Hillsborough disaster.

His appeal to Labour’s working-class base in the north of England has led some party members to view him as Labour’s strongest candidate for winning back the so-called “Red Wall” – former industrial constituencies that have increasingly shifted towards Reform UK in the north of England.

Political commentator and journalist Aaron Bastani told Al Jazeera that Burnham’s personal reputation “makes a difference” and that he represents Labour’s best chance against Reform UK.

“A lot of Reform voters actually like him. Many people have a good word to say about him, and he’s been a politician in the area for 25 years.”

But he added that, among some voters, he is still tarred by his “association with Labour as the party of government”.

“Many Reform voters see Labour as the party that backed the Iraq war, and there’s a deep sense of disillusionment with the political establishment … What’s interesting is that some Reform voters were making left-wing criticisms of Burnham, such as the cuts to winter fuel payments and broader dissatisfaction with the government’s direction.”

Reform UK: Robert Kenyon

Hoping to spoil Burnham’s chances is Reform’s Kenyon, affectionately referred to by some members of the UK media as “the plucky plumber” in reference to his profession. He represents a party whose rapid rise and anti-immigrant message has transformed Britain’s political landscape.

Reform UK’s rise has largely been driven by Nigel Farage, the architect of Brexit, whose party has capitalised on the collapse of support for the former ruling Conservative Party. Many big names from the Conservatives have defected to Reform in recent months. That has enabled Reform to attract both traditional right-wing voters and some former Labour supporters, largely on a platform that directs local grievances towards migration.

“For many voters, the proliferation of vape shops and takeaways on high streets has become a shorthand for a sense of decline,” Bastani told Al Jazeera.

“It’s often one of the first things people talk about when discussing immigration and changes to their local area. The concern isn’t really about vape shops themselves – they’re seen as visible symbols of a declining economic model, the loss of local identity and a feeling that places are deteriorating.”

Bastani, however, described Kenyon as “unimpressive”. His campaign has been overshadowed by allegations relating to historic social media activity.

Anti-extremism group HOPE not hate published posts attributed to Kenyon that included COVID-19 conspiracy theories, endorsements of sexualised comments about television presenter Carol Vorderman and remarks about female rugby players.

The group also highlighted comments on an online forum in which Kenyon allegedly described himself as sexist and suggested women make false rape allegations to obtain abortions.

Restore Britain: Rebecca Shepherd

Another factor is Restore Britain, a breakaway far-right party founded by former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe, who argues that Reform UK has become too mainstream and is no longer hard enough on combating undocumented immigration.

Lowe, a former Reform member, was suspended by Reform UK in March 2025 after publicly criticising party leader Nigel Farage and was later expelled following a series of workplace bullying allegations and complaints from female staff members, which he denies.

Since launching the new party less than four months ago, Restore Britain claims to have attracted more than 96,000 members and 13 councillors, many of them former Reform figures. Should a significant share of those voters ultimately switch from Reform UK, it could dent Reform’s share of the vote just enough to benefit Labour.

Conservative: Michael Winstanley

Winstanley is the former mayor of Wigan, standing as candidate for the former ruling Conservative Party. He was elected as a councillor for the local ward of Orrell and 2000, and served for 16 years.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called Winstanley “an excellent champion of the area having lived in, worked in and represented the local community for years”.

Observers do not expect any great show of Conservative voters at this election, however. In May’s local elections in Wigan, Labour won 42 seats, Reform 25, and the Conservatives got none. And, in the last general election in Makerfield, the Tories came in third – behind Labour and Reform – with just over 10 percent of the vote.

What do the polls say about the candidates?

Polling suggests the contest is effectively a two-horse race between Labour and Reform UK. The largest survey of the campaign, conducted by Opinium for Forward Democracy, indicates Burnham holds a narrow lead.

Based on a mixed-method survey of 543 local residents, Burnham leads Kenyon by five percentage points among voters most likely to cast a ballot. Among those rating themselves at least seven out of 10 likely to vote, Burnham stands on 46 percent compared with Kenyon’s 41 percent.

However, Kenyon’s share may have been damaged by the 7 percent that Shepherd is expected to win in Restore Britain’s first parliamentary outing. The Conservatives are polling at just 2 percent.

Furthermore, while Labour currently leads in the by-election campaign, the constituency’s longer-term political trajectory may ultimately favour Reform UK. When respondents were asked how they would vote in a future general election, Reform UK led with 42 percent compared with Labour’s 34 percent, suggesting that Burnham’s personal appeal may be helping Labour outperform its own national reputation.

In May, Labour lost all eight of its local council seats in Makerfield to Reform.

Tom de Grunwald, founder of Forward Democracy and StopReformUK.Vote, said tactical voting could prove decisive. “If you live in Makerfield and you would normally vote Green, Liberal Democrat, or anyone else, and you don’t want Reform UK to win this seat, the maths is clear: Andy Burnham is the only candidate who can stop them,” he said.

However, Bastani said he is sceptical that many Restore Britain supporters will ultimately return to Reform UK. “A lot of those voters now see Farage as part of the establishment,” he said, adding that Restore Britain could outperform expectations on polling day – which could split the far-right vote and benefit Burnham. While he expects Burnham to win, Bastani said the result should not obscure the rise of Reform.

“I’d be surprised if Burnham didn’t win. But if Reform were running a stronger candidate, this could look very different. If Farage somehow managed to win a seat like this against someone with Burnham’s profile, it would rank among the most significant political achievements of his career.”

India’s fertility rate has for the first time fallen below the level needed to stop the population from shrinking, raising concerns about future labour shortages and an ageing society.

For decades, India has seen rapid population growth. According to government statistics, including the Sample Registration System (SRS) Statistical Report — the country’s largest demographic survey — India has had a falling fertility rate for some years, but the reproduction rate remained high enough to keep the population growing.

The latest SRS report, released last month by India’s Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, said that India’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) had dropped to 1.9 children per woman – lower than the benchmark level of 2.1 needed to keep the population stable in the long run. TFR is the average number of children that a woman is expected to have in her lifetime. In the 2000s, India’s TFR was around 3.3 births per woman.

So, what is behind reduced fertility? Why does it matter and what are the consequences?

Here’s what we know:

What has led to the falling fertility rate ?

For decades starting in the 1970s, Indian governments and policymakers have tried to battle what they argued was overpopulation — too many people, and too few resources to manage for what was then a relatively poor nation.

Many top-down government initiatives — including a brief controversial effort to forcibly sterilise people in the 1970s — aimed to control India’s population.

Despite that, by 2019, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi was still warning of a “population explosion”.

But by 2022, the first signs that India was about to tip over into uncharted territory: The National Family Health Survey released data suggesting that India’s TFR was falling fast, across communities. Yet a year later, India surpassed China to become the world’s most populous nation — and the trend of a declining fertility rate was swamped by the headlines of a 1.5 billion population.

Now, latest survey suggests that the prospect of a shrinking population might be more imminent than policymakers had planned for.

Experts say better access to education and contraceptives are among key factors behind the falling fertility rate — along with the increased costs of bringing up children.

“Total fertility rate often drops when more women in society have access to education, contraceptives and more agency in decision-making in households,”  Dipa Sinha, a development economist who works on social policy in India, told Al Jazeera. “It also drops when the economy becomes expensive so raising children also becomes expensive.”

She said there’s another reason too.

As infant mortality reduces, the desire to have more children also decreases. According to the latest SRS report, India has recorded a significant decline in infant deaths from 30 per 1,000 live births in 2019 to 24 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2024.

These factors also correlate almost perfectly with the differential levels of fertility rates across the country.

According to the May demographic survey report, India’s poorest states, such as Bihar in northern India with the lowest levels of education and high infant mortality rates, also recorded the highest fertility rate in the country at 2.9, followed by 2.6 in Uttar Pradesh.

By contrast, India’s capital New Delhi — with among the highest levels of education and lowest infant mortality rates — registered the lowest fertility rate, with an average of 1.2 births per woman. Southern states such as Tamil Nadu and Kerala, with among the best health and education systems in India, recorded a rate of 1.3.

“A lot of studies on regional development in India from the early 80s have revealed that states in the South have developed faster with respect to both the economy and women’s status in society. So these reasons have contributed to the lower fertility rate,” Sinha said.

What are the consequences of a falling fertility rate?

In 2005, India’s population entered a stage called ‘demographic dividend’, a phase when the proportion of a country’s working age population (15-64 years) is higher than the number of old people and children who are not in the labour force. According to the UNFPA, India’s demographic dividend is expected to last until 2055.

Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong entered this phase in the 1960s and rapidly became developed economies. China entered this phase in the 1980s and — coupled with economic reforms — rapidly rose as an economy. Today it’s the world’s second-largest economy.

In India too, the demographic dividend has helped propel the economy. But millions remain unemployed and — as with China — India is far from a developed economy.

Now, with a declining fertility rate, India might not be able to reap the benefits of a demographic dividend, experts are cautioning, because of a shrinking workforce and a rapidly ageing population.

“If there are fewer children born, then in about 30 to 40 years, India will have more older people who cannot participate in the labour force as much, posing a challenge to the country’s workforce,”  Sinha said.

What is the politics behind India’s population data?

The widely varying fertility rates in different parts of the country mean that northern states — which already have higher populations — will in coming years be home to an ever-increasing share of India’s population.

Southern states have already in recent years been complaining that the Indian federal government — especially under Modi — are being “punished” with fewer funds, Sinha said. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has historically struggled to make major political inroads in southern India, though it has made gains in recent years.

Now, “the distribution of financial resources by the country’s government to state governments” could become an even bigger political flashpoint, she suggested. Later this year, India’s government will introduce a policy in parliament called “delimitation”, which will assign seats to each state according to population figures based on the subcontinent’s new census that began earlier this year and conclude in 2027.

“When delimitation comes into effect, there is a fear that the share of southern seats in the Parliament will reduce,” Sinha added.

Moreover, India’s ruling BJP has long stirred the stereotype that Muslims in India are producing more children than Hindus — fanning fears among Hindus that Muslims might some day overtake them as the majority faith in India. The Hindu far-right has been urging Hindus to have more kids. In February, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief, Mohan Bhagwat, urged Hindu couples to have at least three to four children to prevent the community’s long-term societal decline.

In reality, the Muslim population of India was 13 percent in the last census in 2011. Government data shows that the Muslim fertility rate has been falling faster than in any other religious group, India, including Hindus. The fertility rate among Muslims fell from 4.41 to 2.36 between 1992 and 2021, while it dropped from 3.3 to 1.94 for Hindus.

The latest survey further suggests that India’s fertility rate is falling sharply across faiths.

Is India responding to its declining fertility rate?

While the Indian government has not yet announced a nationwide policy to tackle its falling fertility rate, individual states have been trying to encourage people to have more children.

Last month, the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh said families will receive 30,000 rupees ($314) for the birth of a third child and 40,000 for a fourth child ($418). According to the SRS data, Andhra Pradesh’s total fertility rate is 1.4.

States such as Goa in the west and Karnataka and Telangana in the south have introduced state-funded IVF centres for first-time parents, encouraging people to have more children.

Sinha said the Indian government should respect people’s individual reproductive choices and support them.

“It is important for countries like India to develop a public policy based on its demographic structure and future needs. So if we are going to be an ageing population, then we have to be ready to help a lot of old people,” she said. The country needs “a policy now which guarantees that they have better healthcare, pensions and social security in old age”.

Which other countries in Asia have seen dramatic fertility rate declines?

Other Asian countries such as China, Taiwan and South Korea are also experiencing fast-falling fertility rates.

According to the World Bank, China’s 1.0 fertility rate is well below the 2.1 replacement level.

Taiwan’s interior ministry said earlier this year that its total fertility rate is around 0.86 and likely to fall below that.

The United Nations says South Korea’s rate is approximately 0.75 children per woman – the lowest worldwide.

Lawmakers in the United States are quietly advancing a proposal that could deepen military ties between the US and Israel in unprecedented ways, at a time when public support for Israel among Americans is increasingly fractured.

Among the provisions included in the 2027 National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA) released this week is Section 224, the “United States-Israel Defence Technology Cooperation Initiative”.

The NDAA, which Congress passes annually to set military policy and authorise defence spending, will undergo further debate and amendments before becoming law. Some legislators have already signalled opposition, with Representative Thomas Massie saying he would seek to remove the provision if it reaches the House floor.

The measure remains at an early stage, but analysts say if passed, it would limit political oversight over the defence relationship.

Analysts added that it could mark a significant shift in the US-Israel relationship, moving beyond a model centred on American military aid towards deeper institutional integration between the two countries’ defence industries and militaries.

Critics argue that such a move would make support for Israel less a matter of political choice and more a structural feature of US national security policy, embedding the relationship within joint military and industrial programmes that would be difficult to unwind.

What does the proposal include?

Section 224 incorporates elements of the US-Israel Future of Warfare Act legislation introduced by Representative Ronny Jackson, according to Track AIPAC. While the legislation did not advance as a standalone bill, key elements of it were instead folded into the NDAA.

The provision would require the US defence secretary to designate an official responsible for coordinating military cooperation between the two countries. According to the text, that official would be tasked with “synchronising cooperative efforts between the United States and Israel”, including “bilateral defence technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration and industrial cooperation”.

The legislation envisages cooperation across a wide range of military technologies. It specifically identifies as priority areas; “counter-unmanned systems including aerial, maritime and ground platforms”, “anti-tunnelling and subterranean threats”, and “missile and air defence technologies”.

The proposal also seeks to deepen collaboration on emerging technologies, including “artificial intelligence, quantum machine learning and autonomous systems”, as well as “directed energy and advanced sensing”, “cyber defence, electronic warfare and digital resilience”, and “biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and medical defence”.

The inclusion of “network integration” and “data fusion” has drawn particular attention because it suggests significantly closer integration of military information systems between the two countries.

The United States and Israel already cooperate on defence projects, including missile defence systems such as Iron Dome. However, analysts say that Section 224 would expand cooperation into nearly every major area of emerging military technology, and could create a “lock-in” between the two countries military infrastructure.

Mark Hilborne, a senior lecturer, the School of Security Studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera the proposal goes well beyond the traditional foundations of the US-Israel defence relationship.

“While historically, the US-Israel defence relationship has included US military aid and weapons transfers, joint missile defence programmes such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow, and intelligence and operational cooperation, the proposed agreement increases cooperation to include a wider set of emerging technologies,” he said.

“So this all suggests a much tighter integration – less about provision and perhaps sharing technologies and capabilities, and more about jointly developing these.

“It would point to a more institutionalised relationship, and perhaps one that might survive changing administrations in the US, as some of the development cycles could be very long and would become entrenched,” he said.

Why is it controversial?

The proposal comes amid growing debate in the US over military support for Israel, particularly as Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza continues, and concerns mount over the use of US-made weapons.

Human rights organisations and United Nations experts have repeatedly raised concerns about Israeli military actions in Gaza, where despite a so-called ceasefire in place since last October, at least 850 Palestinians have been killed. Israel is also advancing into southern Lebanon, where it has killed more than 3,000 people since the beginning of March.

These wars have led to increasing scepticism among Americans towards unconditional support for Israel, recent opinion polls suggest.

A New York Times poll in May found that only 30 percent of respondents believed Donald Trump made the right decision in ordering military strikes against Iran, while 64 percent said it was the wrong decision.

An Institute for Global Affairs poll released last week found that only 16 percent of Americans support continuing weapons transfers to Israel without additional restrictions. Thirty-eight percent said the US should stop supplying weapons entirely, while 24 percent said military aid should be conditioned on how the weapons are used.

Opposition has also emerged from parts of the Republican Party, which traditionally has always been aligned with Israel.

Former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene criticised the proposal on social media, writing: “This is what complete capture to a foreign government looks like, and there hasn’t been a single shot fired.”

Massie, who has opposed military aid to Israel, likewise pledged to introduce an amendment removing the provision from the NDAA. The Republican senator was defeated in the primary elections last month, highlighting the financial and political influence of pro-Israel lobby groups in the US.

Influential conservative commentator, Tucker Carlson, has increasingly criticised US support for Israel, reflecting divisions within the broader MAGA movement. Criticism has also intensified among left-wing Democrats, with many calling for restrictions on military aid to Israel.

What could it mean in practice?

Critics of the measures warn that the proposal could create a form of institutional “lock-in” that makes both countries simultaneously reliant on each other for military development and procurement.

Some analysts say such integration would move key aspects of the US-Israel relationship away from highly visible aid votes or commercial contracting, and into the less transparent world of defence procurement and industrial partnerships at a state-to-state level.

Hilborne from the King’s College said the initiative could also have direct implications for Palestinians. “If joint R&D produces more effective technology, then systems related to surveillance, autonomous vehicles, AI and targeting, and various counter-drone or counter-missile technology would be improved, providing a capability boost to Israeli forces operating in Gaza or the West Bank,” he said.

“This enhanced integration would further embed US technology into Israeli forces. These would all be concerns from a Palestinian perspective.”

Critics also point to the economic implications, where expanded co-production agreements could lead to new manufacturing facilities and defence jobs in the United States, creating a further reliance on Israel.

Hilborne also argued that deeper integration could reduce Washington’s leverage over Israel. “The deeper integration may also mean that the US loses some degree of leverage over Israel, as it would be less able to withhold certain capabilities from Israel,” he said.

“As a consequence, Israel might be emboldened in its policies.”

The proposal could also have implications beyond the US-Israel relationship, according to Imad Salamey, an international relations professor at the Lebanese American University. “The proposed US-Israeli defence integration can be seen as the next phase of the Abraham Accords: moving from normalisation toward a US-backed regional security regime centred on Israel as the dominant military and technological hub,” he told Al Jazeera.

Such a framework would strengthen efforts to contain Iran, limit Turkiye’s independent regional influence and deepen security cooperation with Arab partners, he said.

“For Lebanon and Gaza, it may translate into greater pressure to accommodate Israeli-led security arrangements as part of a broader emerging Middle Eastern order.”

Whether Section 224 survives the legislative process is uncertain.

But its inclusion in the NDAA shows how some politicians, many backed by the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC, are attempting to bind the two countries’ militaries closer together, creating long-term industrial links that future administrations may find difficult to reverse.

Hello! I’m Mark Olsen. Welcome to another edition of your regular field guide to a world of Only Good Movies.

Both made by 20-something directors who emerged from the world of YouTube, the horror movies “Obsession” and “Backrooms” are dominating the conversation. They could come to represent a pivotal moment for how Hollywood engages with young talent and audiences alike.

I saw Curry Barker’s “Obsession” this week at a packed holiday matinee and Kane Parsons’ “Backrooms” is on track for a huge opening weekend — maybe the largest in A24’s history. The fact that audiences are responding to these films is exciting and one has to hope that Hollywood takes the right message from their successes: to give young filmmakers the space to create the projects they want to make, rather than shoehorn them into preconceived notions of what people want. Audiences right now seem to be proving themselves to be adventuresome when given the opportunity to try something new.

Marilyn at 100

Marilyn Monroe in the 1953 classic “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.”

(Academy Museum)

When Marilyn Monroe’s death was first reported in The Times on Aug. 6, 1962, the news read, “Marilyn Monroe, a troubled beauty who failed to find happiness as Hollywood’s brightest star, was discovered dead in her Brentwood home of an apparent overdose of sleeping pills.”

That intertwining of the glamour and sex appeal of her public persona with an air of doomed tragedy would permanently attach itself to her image, making her one of the most unforgettable stars Hollywood has ever created.

Monday marks the 100th anniversary of Monroe’s birth in L.A.’s Boyle Heights, where she was born Norma Jeane Mortenson. In celebration of Monroe’s centennial, the Academy Museum will open a new exhibition on Sunday, “Marilyn Monroe: Hollywood Icon,” featuring hundreds of objects including personal materials never before displayed and a number of her most memorable costumes.

The museum will also launch a 17-film series spotlighting Monroe’s remarkable career, including her versatile talent as both a comedian and a more dramatic performer. Highlights include the 1953 thriller “Niagara,” 1950’s backstage drama “All About Eve” in a new 35mm print with an introduction from journalist Lorraine Nicholson and 1955’s “The Seven Year Itch” with writer Kim Morgan introducing. Elsewhere, “Some Like It Hot” from 1959 and Monroe’s final completed film, “The Misfits,” will both show in 4K.

On Sunday, “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” will play in the Academy’s David Geffen Theater in 4K. There are also other Monroe screenings and events around the city, including multiple shows of “Gentlemen” at the Gardena Cinema on Saturday.

Marilyn Monroe and photographer Bruno Bernard backstage at the Hollywood Bowl in 1953.

(Bernard of Hollywood Foundation Archive)

Authors Mark A. Fortin and Joshua John Miller have collaborated on a new book, “The Marilyn Monroe Century: From Norma Jeane to Icon — A Story in Photographs.” The culmination of a seven-year-long research process, the book unearths original negatives of pictures of Monroe taken by Miller’s grandfather, acclaimed photographer Bruno Bernard. Bernard, who died in 1987, shot with her before she had even adopted the name Marilyn Monroe and took the best-known images of her, standing on a subway grate with her white dress billowing up while in production on “The Seven Year Itch.”

“One of the stories I’m trying to tell with a lot of these pictures is to counter the narrative that Marilyn didn’t have agency in the creation of her persona,” says Miller in a recent Zoom call from a room at the Chateau Marmont. “The truth is she was very much instrumental in constructing her image. And Bruno was a big part of that. Photographers at that time were not only the photographer — they were the best friend, the therapist, the agent, the stylist. I think it’s really important to have context for these pictures because this kind of history gets lost.”

The book does a remarkable job of providing additional atmosphere around images that might already be familiar, giving a fuller sense of what was going on both inside and outside of the frame. The notorious subway-grate scene was actually shot twice, first in New York and again in Los Angeles.

“I think what I’ve been trying to do is not rewrite the narrative, but thread [Bruno] correctly back into the stitching of Marilyn’s mythology,” Miller says. “He is one of the only photographers who deeply knew both Norma Jeane and Marilyn. I know everyone says they know the ‘real Marilyn,’ but he was part of the construction with her to create that.”

The joy of sadness with ‘Bleak Week’

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Brady Corbet in the movie “Mysterious Skin.”

(Tartan Films)

“Bleak Week: Cinema of Despair” has become the signature program of the American Cinematheque, expanding beyond its L.A. footprint for editions at other theaters not just around the country but around the world. Turning sadness, depression and defeat into group activities to be enjoyed together has been an ingenious masterstroke of programming.

Now in its fifth edition, this year’s highlight will be a series with Isabelle Huppert, who will be present for screenings of such downbeat fare as “The Piano Teacher,” “Le Cérémonie,” Violètte Noziere,” “Elle,” “Time of the Wolf” and “Heaven’s Gate.”

Filmmaker Ari Aster will also be present for a complete retrospective of his four features. Other guests include Denis Villeneuve with “Incendies,” Allen Hughes with “Dead Presidents,” Al Pacino with “The Godfather Part II,” Gregg Araki with “Mysterious Skin,” Robert Englund with “Buster and Billie,” Werner Herzog with “Heart of Glass” and Theresa Russell with “Bad Timing.”

I will be introducing the U.S. theatrical premiere of a 4K restoration of Carlos Saura’s 1966 “The Hunt” and moderating Q&As with filmmaker Richard Kelly for the 20th anniversary of the Cannes cut of “Southland Tales” and actor Haley Joel Osment for a 25th anniversary 35mm screening of “A.I. Artificial Intelligence.” And The Times’ Joshua Rothkopf will moderate a Q&A with Aster for “Eddington,” while Amy Nicholson will talk to Aster for “Midsommar.”

UCLA’s Festival of Preservation

Leslie Uggams in 1972’s “Black Girl.”

(UCLA Film & Television Archive)

The UCLA Festival of Preservation is one of the city’s most-longstanding and venerated events for film lovers, celebrating revered classics and rediscovered obscurities alike. This year’s edition, the 22nd, opens with the West Coast premiere of a new restoration of Ossie Davis’ 1972 “Black Girl,” an adaptation of J.E. Franklin’s successful play about thee generations of Black women.

Jose Luis Ruiz’s groundbreaking 1975 documentary on Latino immigrants, “The Unwanted,” will have a restoration world premiere. The restoration of Budd Boetticher’s 1955 melodrama “The Magnificent Matador,” starring Anthony Quinn and Maureen O’Hara, brings back the film’s stunning look in Cinemascope and Eastmancolor.

Andre de Toth’s 1948 thriller “Pitfall,” starring Dick Powell and Lisbeth Scott, will have a world premiere restoration. The series concludes with De Toth’s stylish romantic drama “The Other Love” from 1947 starring Barbara Stanwyck. The restoration reinstitutes the original ending of the film unseen by audiences since the 1940s.

Former Times critic Keneth Turan has made his own picks for what not to miss.

A tender coming-of-age romance

Vincent Spano and Rosanna Arquette in the movie “Baby, It’s You.”

(Paramount Pictures)

Produced by Amy Robinson and Griffin Dunne between their work on Joan Micklin Silver’s “Chilly Scenes of Winter” and Martin Scorsese’s “After Hours,” the 1983 movie “Baby It’s You” captures a number of rising talents at just the right moment. Only the third feature written and directed by John Sayles (and still his only movie made at a Hollywood studio), the film is a particularly smart take on the coming-of-age romance, with a sharp sense of time and place. It’s even shot by cinematographer Michael Ballhaus, fresh off his collaborations with Rainer Werner Fassbinder but before his long collaboration with Scorsese.

Set in late-1960s New Jersey, the story involves a good-girl high schooler preparing for college (Rosanna Arquette, who lights up the screen) who falls for a bad boy with few future prospects (Vincent Spano). The film will show on Wednesday in a 4K restoration at the Academy Museum with Arquette and Spano both scheduled to attend.

In a 1983 Times review, Shelia Benson said the film “explores questions of class and unequal opportunity with humor and tender insight,” adding that Spano and Arquette “together conjure up every improbable, love-struck couple who ever dazzled us ordinary mortals in the halls or at the senior prom.”

New this week

• Kane Parson’s horror film “Backrooms” stars Renate Reinsve and Chiwetel Ejiofor in an adaptation of Parson’s own popular YouTube videos. As Amy Nicholson wrote, “Given that backdrop, ‘Backrooms’ would be one of the year’s most significant releases even if the movie itself was merely fine. But it’s better than fine — it’s a work of honest-to-goodness art.”
• Katie Walsh reviews the crime thriller “Tuner,” starring Leo Woodall as a piano tuner who gets in over his head with the wrong people. The film is the fiction feature debut from Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker Daniel Roher.
• The latest music-themed film from Irish writer-director John Carney, “Power Ballad” is about a failed-to-launch songwriter (Paul Rudd) trying to get credit for the tune he co-wrote with a boy band star (Nick Jonas). Amy Nicholson reviews.

After successfully launching Nigeria’s only operational oil refinery in 2024, billionaire businessman Aliko Dangote has set his sights on East Africa as the next location for another mega refinery project, according to recent reports.

It comes as African countries are actively seeking ways to make energy more secure, following huge global disruptions amid the US and Israel’s war on Iran and Tehran’s subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil and natural gas is shipped.

Dangote, Africa’s richest man, appeared to be one of the winners from this fallout when his newly operational refinery, located in Nigeria’s commercial Lagos State, began selling large volumes of crude oil across the continent as the war on Iran escalated in March and global oil prices soared.

At present, West, South and East Africa rely primarily on importing refined petroleum products from the Middle East, meaning they are highly vulnerable to disruptions there.

Neighbours of Nigeria – Cameroon, Togo, Ghana and even Tanzania, further to the east – are among the countries that have turned to Nigeria as supplies from the Middle East dry up.

By the end of March, the refinery, which has the capacity to produce 650,000 barrels per day (bpd), reported it was also receiving orders from beyond the continent, especially for severely scarce jet fuel as hundreds of flights were cancelled across regions.

Supply from Dangote’s refinery has cushioned the impact of the war in terms of fuel supply for Nigeria and neighbouring countries, analysts say.

Nigeria is Africa’s largest oil producer, and the $19bn project in Lagos is currently the world’s largest single-train refinery, meaning it employs a single processing line rather than multiple units. But it hit full production capacity in February 2026, the same month the war with Iran started.

Nigeria has no functional state-owned refinery, so Dangote’s refinery is now positioning the country to be a net exporter of jet fuel and diesel.

Here’s why more refining capacity in Africa matters for the continent:

What is Dangote’s plan for an East Africa refinery?

In April, Kenya’s President William Ruto announced that East African countries were in talks to build a joint oil refinery at Tanzania’s Tanga port, which would have a similar capacity to Dangote’s Lagos operation.

“We do not want to be held hostage any more by the Strait of Hormuz,” Ruto said at a Nairobi business event in April, which Dangote was present at.

“We do not want to be held hostage by wars that are started by other people. We have our resources here, and we are saying we are going to use our African resources to industrialise our region.”

In an interview with the Financial Times on Sunday, however, Dangote said he would prefer to build the new operation in Kenya rather than Tanzania.

“I’m leaning more towards Mombasa because Mombasa has a much larger, deeper port,” the billionaire told the UK newspaper.

“Kenyans consume more. It’s a bigger economy,” he said, adding that “the ball is in the hands of President Ruto … Whatever President Ruto says is what I’ll do.”

He has projected construction costs of between $15bn and $17bn.

But venturing into East Africa, which has a very different commercial landscape from West Africa, could prove a challenge, analyst Dumebi Oluwole of Lagos-based intelligence firm Stears told Al Jazeera.

“Dangote has proven it [his operation] can build at scale,” she said. “The East African test will be whether it can also navigate the political and logistical landscape of a fragmented, multi-country market.”

Why aren’t African countries already producing more oil?

Despite having sizeable crude reserves, African countries only refine about 44 percent of the total oil consumed themselves, with imports making up the rest, according to a 2022 African Union report.

The top producers of refined oil are Algeria, Egypt and South Africa. There are about 21 refineries in North Africa.

Southern Africa has another seven, while West Africa has 14. However, most refineries in the two regions are either not operating or are producing below the capacity they are equipped to.

East Africa’s only existing refinery is in Mombasa, but it stopped operating in 2013 due to a combination of slow government policies and exiting investors, who deemed it commercially unviable as a result.

There is currently no refining capacity at all in East Africa, despite the region having about 4.7 billion barrels of crude reserves, according to the African Union, mainly in Uganda, South Sudan, Kenya and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Kenya imported 40 million barrels of petroleum in 2025. It regularly buys oil from the UAE, Saudi Arabia, India and Oman, all of which have been hampered by Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Nigeria itself is Africa’s biggest net crude producer with a 1.5 million to 1.6 million bpd capacity. The country has not refined meaningfully since 2019.

What difference will local refineries make for African countries?

Exporting most of its crude to then import refined products is expensive and puts Africa on the back foot, analyst Oluwole said.

More oil refined on the continent would mean lower petrol pump prices, lower transport costs, and more energy available for people and businesses, in theory. It would also mean greater access to by-products like fertilisers for farmers, for example, or petrochemicals for manufacturers.

“Dangote has demonstrated that a viable, scalable, intra-African energy supply option is possible – that proof of concept matters enormously,” said Oluwole.

“It reflects a growing continental conviction that Africa can provide for itself, and that this is no longer wishful thinking,” she added.

In Nigeria’s case, Dangote’s refinery is yet to ease pressures, though. Local airlines, for example, have complained about having to pay high prices for jet fuel even with improved local supplies. Analysts say that could be because Nigeria’s government removed fuel subsidies in 2023. Bureaucracy within the state oil company also forced Dangote’s refinery to import crude.

Still, the refinery is contributing to “a more transparent and competitive market”, Oluwole said, adding that results should eventually show.

Other countries are stepping up. Last week, Angola’s $470m Cabinda refinery began supplying domestic as well as foreign markets. The project is owned primarily by the United Kingdom’s Gemcorp Capital and has a capacity of 30,000bpd, with plans to double by the end of 2026.

Dangote’s planned refinery in Kenya, if completed, could also help to reduce East Africa’s reliance on the Middle East.

A separate, government-funded refinery project in Uganda’s Hoima region is also in the works. Authorities expect the project to be able to refine 60,000bpd when it starts operations in 2029. It will be fed by the joint Uganda-Tanzania East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), an ongoing project which will transport crude from Uganda’s Lake Albert to Tanzania’s Tanga Port.

Uganda also plans to produce diesel, jet fuel, kerosene and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG).

With big plans in place, Oluwole says it’s now left to African governments to create enabling business environments for the private sector.

“Dangote has opened the door,” she said. “The question now is whether African institutions and governments will walk through it.”

The UK bond market is currently experiencing a period of intense volatility, with the yield on 30-year government bonds, known as gilts, climbing to its highest point since 1998.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

On Tuesday, 30-year gilt yields rose as much as 0.14% to 5.79%, their highest level this century, before dipping slightly to around 5.6% at the time of writing.

The yield on the 10-year gilt also climbed as much as 0.15% to 5.11%, very close to the 18-year high of 5.12% hit earlier in the Iran war. It has since lowered somewhat to roughly 4.93% on Thursday.

Bond prices and yields have an inverse relationship. Bond yields rise when prices fall in order to increase investment attractiveness as demand for the debt weakens.

The surge in gilt yields indicates that investors currently perceive UK debt as a riskier prospect than other lending options, requiring a larger premium to commit their capital over the long term.

Presently, there are several reasons for this evident but abnormal lack of confidence.

The primary catalyst is the fear that the Bank of England may be forced to keep interest rates higher for longer to mitigate the chance that inflation will remain “sticky” and not return to the 2% target as quickly as previously hoped.

This estimation has been fuelled by surging energy prices due to the disruption caused by the Iran war. Gilts have continuously sold off during the conflict.

Speaking to Euronews, Richard Carter, head of fixed interest research at Quilter Cheviot, added that “the UK is expected to be the worst hit developed economy by events in the Middle East due to its reliance on energy imports, so the longer energy prices remain elevated, the deeper the pain the country is likely to experience.”

Beyond geopolitics and global energy markets, there are many domestic factors currently contributing to the exceptional distrust in UK debt.

Keir Starmer, fiscal policy and local elections

Political uncertainty and fiscal policy are also playing a central role in the recent and severe gilts sell-off.

In 2024, after Keir Starmer’s election, the Labour party pledged “fiscal discipline” and established a long-term framework in the Autumn Budget to distinguish the new government’s approach from the former.

The plan introduced the “Stability Rule” mandating that the current budget, which covers day-to-day costs such as public sector salaries and welfare, must be in surplus by the end of 2029/30. This effectively prohibits borrowing to fund the ongoing operations of the British state.

Additionally, the “Investment Rule” was also put forward to target the national balance sheet. This norm requires Public Sector Net Financial Liabilities (PSNFL) to be falling as a percentage of GDP within the same timeframe as the “Stability Rule”.

By using PSNFL rather than the traditional measure of net debt, the UK Treasury has more room to borrow for long-term capital projects like infrastructure and green energy, which are technically classified as “investments” rather than “spending”.

Finally, the Budget Responsibility Act 2024established a “fiscal lock”, legally preventing any significant tax or spending changes from being introduced without an independent assessment from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

Despite all these rigid guardrails, bond markets are now sceptical because investors fear political necessity will eventually override fiscal prudence.

Recent scrutiny of Starmer has intensified as he faces a mounting challenge from the left of his party, where dissenting voices are calling for a shift away from “fiscal conservatism” to address funding crises in the NHS and local government.

On top of that, the disastrous appointment of Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to Washington, and the revelations of his past friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, have severely damaged Starmer’s administration over the last few months.

The problems have culminated in the local elections taking place in 136 authorities for more than 5,000 council seats on Thursday. More than half of the seats up for grabs this week are being defended by Starmer’s party.

Analysts project that Labour will suffer a massive loss and potentially end up over 1,000 councillors down. Any major setback will certainly increase internal pressure to oust Keir Starmer as the leader in which case snap elections could be triggered.

The head of markets at AJ Bell, Dan Coatsworth, explained to Euronews that “investors will be watching bond markets like a hawk over the coming days as the results of the UK local elections are released. Any major setback to Labour will fuel calls for Keir Starmer to be replaced as prime minister and if that happens, bond markets will want to know who is taking over.”

“The obvious challengers, Angela Rayner and Andy Burnham, are seen as candidates who might push for greater government borrowing and spending, which could take gilt yields even higher. Fundamentally, there is a real risk of gilt yields soaring if Labour experiences a wipeout in the local elections,” Coatsworth added.

Speaking to Euronews, the head of fixed interest research at Quilter Cheviot, Richard Carter, conveyed the same sentiment.

“The uncertain UK political backdrop has played a role ahead of the local elections with gilt investors concerned about a Labour Party lurch to the left should Keir Starmer either be replaced or have little choice but to appease his backbenchers in the wake of challenging results.”

Effectively, these local results are no longer just a measure of regional popularity, but a high-stakes verdict of political viability that could determine the long-term stability of British borrowing costs.

The cost to the UK Treasury, businesses and households

For the British government, the consequences of the ongoing bond market shift are measured in billions of pounds as the UK’s debt-interest bill is highly sensitive to fluctuations in gilt yields.

According to estimates from fiscal watchdogs, every 0.25% rise in government borrowing costs adds approximately £2.5 billion (€2.9bn) to the annual debt-servicing cost. A 0.5% increase, which has already been observed this spring, therefore requires the UK Treasury to find an extra £5 billion (€5.8bn) every year just to pay interest.

The rise in gilt yields also has a direct and immediate impact on the real economy as they serve as the benchmark for pricing a vast array of financial products, most notably fixed-rate mortgages.

As yields climb, lenders adjust their swap rates, which inevitably leads to higher monthly repayments for millions of homeowners looking to refinance.

Businesses also feel the squeeze. The cost of corporate loans and commercial credit is often tied to the yield curve. When the state has to pay more to borrow, the private sector follows suit, potentially stifling investment and slowing economic growth.

“A gilt yield shock might be called a stealth tax, but it is not an intentional one. It would be the knock-on effects of bond prices falling and yields going up, which can negatively affect asset prices and tighten financial conditions,” Coatsworth told Euronews.

“Consumers would experience higher mortgage costs and potentially spend less money, particularly if companies scale back hiring if their borrowing costs rise from higher gilt yields, as the two are intertwined. It could also lead to lower public spending and pave the way for tax rises,” Coatsworth added.

Every increase in the cost of debt limits the amount of capital available for private innovation and reduces the disposable income of households already struggling with the cost of living.

The United States has transferred 22 crew members from the Iranian container ship, the Touska, to Pakistan, in what Islamabad describes as a “confidence-building measure” during tension in the Strait of Hormuz.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesman, Captain Tim Hawkins, said the crew had been handed over for repatriation. Pakistan’s foreign ministry confirmed the transfer, saying the sailors would be returned to Iranian authorities.

The Touska was seized by US forces in the Gulf of Oman in the early hours of April 20, in what Tehran described as an act of “piracy”, after the US declared a naval blockade of Iranian ports. Iran had effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz following the start of the US-Israeli war on Iran.

On Monday, tensions continued to escalate in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

First, US President Donald Trump announced that US naval ships would help guide stranded vessels through the strait in an operation he dubbed “Project Freedom”.

Iran issued a new map of the strait with new boundaries further to the east, and warned shipping not to attempt to pass without coordinating with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Then, state media reported that two Iranian missiles struck a US naval vessel near Jask Island in the strait after ignoring warnings from the IRGC to turn back. Washington denied any attack.

Amid continued interceptions and seizures of vessels by both sides, questions remain over whether the two countries can de-escalate and reach a broader peace agreement. Pakistan has been central to these efforts, seeking to keep diplomatic channels open, but talks hosted in Islamabad last month ended without a breakthrough.

Iran’s foreign ministry says it is reviewing Washington’s response to its 14-point proposal aimed at ending the conflict sent via Pakistan on Friday. As Pakistan continues to mediate, Trump previously described Tehran’s offer as “unacceptable”.

What happened to the Touska?

The Iran-flagged Touska was seized by US forces in the Gulf of Oman, close to the Strait of Hormuz, on April 20 after Washington accused the crew of failing to comply with the US naval blockade on Iranian ports. Shortly after midnight local time in Iran, CENTCOM said the USS Spruance fired its 5-inch (127mm) deck gun at the vessel’s engine room, disabling it.

According to the US military, the ship was attempting to transit the Strait of Hormuz en route to Iran’s main commercial port, Bandar Abbas.

The Touska, a small container ship operated by the sanctioned Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), was boarded near Iran’s Chabahar port. US Marines from the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit captured the vessel after what CENTCOM said were repeated warnings over six hours.

Video released by the US military showed Marines descending from helicopters launched from the USS Tripoli and securing the Tusk.

Iran condemned the capture as a violation of international law and an act of “piracy“, before demanding the immediate release of the vessel and its crew.

What does the release of the Touska’s crew mean, diplomatically?

Pakistan has positioned itself as a mediator between Washington and Tehran, and is now framing the transfer of the Touska crew as a step towards de-escalation of tensions. In a statement, the Pakistani foreign ministry said the move reflected a “confidence-building measure” and reaffirmed its commitment to facilitating dialogue.

US and Iranian delegations met in Islamabad last month for their first talks since 1979. Although negotiations ended without a deal, they marked a rare moment of direct engagement.

Pakistan has since coordinated with regional powers, including Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, Qatar and Egypt, while maintaining close communications with China, in an effort to build broader support for de-escalation.

In a call with Iran’s Foreign Minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, on Monday, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister, Ishaq Dar, reiterated that diplomacy remains the only viable path to stability. Tehran, in turn, acknowledged Islamabad’s mediation efforts.

Will this de-escalate tensions in the Strait of Hormuz?

There are not many signs that it will.

Indeed, tensions in the Strait of Hormuz have continued to increase despite the release of the crew members.

Most notably, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard published a new map on Monday outlining what it claims is an expanded zone of control in the waterway, stretching from Iranian and Omani territory to include the territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates as well.

Analysts say this new claim exceeds internationally recognised boundaries. The UAE has accused Iran of launching drones at an oil tanker linked to Abu Dhabi’s national energy company, while Washington has dismissed Iranian reports of an attack on a US warship as false.

Military analyst Alexandru Hudisteanu, a maritime security expert who served 13 years in the Romanian navy, told Al Jazeera on Monday that the conflicting claims reflect a broader test of resolve. “Any attempt to open the strait will likely be met with resistance from Iran,” he said, adding that Tehran views control of Hormuz as its primary leverage in negotiations.

Hudisteanu warned that the situation carries a high risk of miscalculation, with both sides continuing to operate in close proximity. For Iran, the Strait of Hormuz is the “only leverage” it has for peace negotiations, Hudisteanu said.

Iranian analyst Foad Izadi argued that the ceasefire effectively collapsed when the US imposed its blockade, which he described as “an act of war”. He added that the targeting and seizure of ships along the Strait of Hormuz further undermined any notion of a truce.

“Attacking an Iranian ship’s engine is an act of war as well,” he added, despite the release of the Touska’s crew signalling some short-term goodwill between the US and Iran.

“All the President’s Men” was released 50 years ago this month, an anniversary that’s been greeted with equal parts rue and reverence by the journalists, political junkies and discerning cinephiles who have worshiped the film for five decades.

As a member of all three of those constituencies, I’ve done my share of genuflecting, most recently as chief film critic at the Washington Post, whose city room was as vivid and fully realized in the movie as Robert Redford’s Bob Woodward and Dustin Hoffman’s Carl Bernstein.

Like so many Posties of my generation, I’ll never forget the so-real-it’s-surreal experience of walking into the fifth-floor newsroom for the first time in 2002. By then, standard-issue electric typewriters and six-ply carbon paper had been replaced by far less visually interesting computers. But the office’s pervading atmosphere of hard work and quiet focus felt uncannily similar to its big-screen analog.

For the last two years, I have been researching a book about the making of “All the President’s Men,” whose production involved almost as many contingencies and unresolved questions as Watergate itself. Among the film’s many mysteries, one I’ve found particularly intriguing has to do with Katharine Graham, publisher of the Washington Post and CEO of its parent company during the Watergate investigations. As the movie amply demonstrates, it took guts for Woodward and Bernstein to persevere with their reporting in the face of terrified sources and their own growing paranoia. But, unbeknownst to many observers at the time, Graham was enduring even more withering pressures, with determination that was all the more impressive for being almost entirely invisible.

I’m still in the process of discovering why she remained invisible in “All the President’s Men.” For now, it’s clear that the backstory is more nuanced than mere oversight or, as many are quick to assume, simple sexism.

In fact, William Goldman’s first script of the film featured a sequence with Graham and Woodward, a scene that appeared in every subsequent draft. Based on an actual meeting between the two, it’s a cagey game of cat-and-mouse, with the publisher taking the measure of a nervous, still-inexperienced journalist, looking for reassurance that his reporting will prove out.

Earlier this year, at a January staged reading of “All the President’s Men” at Harmony Gold Theater in Hollywood — a fundraiser for the Stella Adler Academy — it was possible for fans to conjure what might have been. Mark Ruffalo played Woodward and Ethan Hawke played Bernstein in a version of the movie assembled from different Goldman drafts.

A high point of the evening was when Ruffalo and actor Susan Traylor brought the Graham-Woodward scene to tentative, tense and teasingly playful life. After grilling Woodward about his sources and coyly asking him about Deep Throat’s identity, Traylor’s Graham asked him if the truth about Watergate would ever be revealed. “It may never come out,” Ruffalo’s Woodward replied. “Don’t tell me ‘never,’” Graham laments, before bringing the meeting to a close with a gently peremptory “Do better.”

In poring over director Alan J. Pakula and Goldman’s papers, I’ve probably read that scene dozens of times. But when I heard it play out in real time, I was ambushed by the emotions it stirred — a mixture of pride in Graham’s legacy and deep sadness at how that legacy has been so inexplicably ignored in recent years.

I was also sad that Redford, who died in September, wasn’t there. He often expressed regret that Graham wasn’t a featured character in “All the President’s Men.” Keenly aware of how her spine and steadfastness made Woodward and Bernstein’s work possible, he wanted to honor that crucial support. When I interviewed him for the first time in 2005, he insisted that fearless owners were every bit as important in preserving democracy as the reporters he and Hoffman helped glamorize.

Over the next two decades, every time I saw Redford, he bemoaned the “downward slide of this thing,” by which he meant the constellation of institutions “All the President’s Men” celebrates: not just journalism and a robust First Amendment but a Washington where investigators, prosecutors, judges, the Senate and Congress did their jobs regardless of partisan loyalties, and a Hollywood where a studio as mainstream as Warner Bros. would agree to finance a tough-minded film about a contentious and still-raw period in recent history.

Granted, that film was based on a bestselling book and anchored by two huge stars. But today, with political and corporate leaders — including media companies — falling over each other to curry favor with President Trump, “All the President’s Men” feels like an artifact from a vanished age.

Nowhere is this more distressingly true than at the Post itself, where the newsroom immortalized by the movie has been slashed by more than a third, and where Jeff Bezos, who bought the paper in 2013, seems intent on erasing Katharine Graham’s legacy until it vanishes completely. During the first Trump administration, Bezos stood up to threats against the Post and the press at large that would make Nixon blush, or at least pea-green with envy.

Now, Bezos has become a one-man meme of what author Timothy Snyder calls “obedience in advance,” quashing an endorsement of Kamala Harris, ostentatiously grinning his way through Trump’s second inauguration, vastly overpaying for a promotional film about First Lady Melania Trump and staying conspicuously mum (at least publicly) when a Post reporter’s home was raided by the FBI in January.

All of this has come at an enormous moral and material cost, with thousands of readers canceling their subscriptions and an alarming number of the Post’s finest reporters and writers leaving for other publications and platforms. As my former boss Marty Baron told my former colleague Ruth Marcus in the New Yorker in February, Bezos’ turnaround has been “sickening” to witness: “a case study in near-instant, self-inflicted brand destruction.”

Of course, that brand was built, in no small part, by “All the President’s Men,” which taught a generation how to walk, talk, dress and act like real reporters. (Hint: A good corduroy jacket and a pen in your mouth can’t hurt.)

In 1976, Pakula was interviewed about his dealings with Graham, whom he admired tremendously and with whom he would become close friends. “I could do a film about the Katharine Graham story,” he enthused. “It’s a superb story.”

Thirty years later, Steven Spielberg would bring Pakula’s idea to fruition with “The Post,” about Graham’s decision to publish the Pentagon Papers, a dress rehearsal for the even higher stakes of Watergate a year later.

“The Post,” which starred Meryl Streep in a shrewdly judged performance of aristocratic assurance and creeping insecurity, premiered in Washington less than a year into Trump’s first administration. Bezos attended that screening, which many of us saw as tacit acknowledgment that he was taking her lessons in character, comportment and competence to heart.

That was clearly wishful thinking. Graham may have finally assumed her rightful place in the newspaper-movie canon, but we’re still left to ponder her absence from the most iconic journalism movie of the 20th century.

It’s no longer the shoe-leather reporters who need a big-screen tutorial in how to do their jobs. It’s their bosses. A simple place to start would be to memorize the best two-word speech to never appear in a major motion picture: Do better.

Ann Hornaday was a film critic at the Washington Post from 2002 to 2025, when she retired. “All the President’s Men” plays at TCM Classic Film Festival Saturday at 2:45 p.m.