matters

WASHINGTON — Rep. Augustus Hawkins, 81, vividly remembers riding a bus in his home town of Los Angeles many years ago when a white woman sat down beside him. “She kept moving over to be next to me,” he recalled, “and then she said, ‘You know, we sure are getting a lot of blacks in this neighborhood. I don’t like sitting next to them because they smell.’ ”

Hawkins, both curious and offended, asked the woman if he smelled. When she answered no, he said, “If I were to tell you that I’m black, what would you say?” Her answer: “I wouldn’t believe you.”

‘Assumed I Was Lying’

“That woman’s view has never changed,” said Hawkins. “She probably assumed I was lying just to kid her.”

What was a disagreeable incident for Hawkins, who represents such areas as Watts, South Gate and Huntington Park, is an all-too-common occurrence for many very light-skinned black people: They are born between two worlds. Some choose to join the white world, “passing” in order to gain privileges denied to black people. Others prefer to live black, gaining the satisfaction of feeling true to themselves and their race.

As Hawkins’ experience shows, it is not a new predicament.

But today, with interracial marriages more common–according to the Census Bureau, there were 218,000 black-white marriages by last year, compared with 51,000 in 1960–and racial confrontations once again grabbing headlines, the issue of what determines a person’s race is more prevalent in our society. By being mistaken for white, black people often see white behavior and attitudes–ranging from the humorous to the sinister–that would otherwise be concealed.

Mistaken for White

What follows are some of the stories of blacks who have been mistaken for white.

Carla Dancy, 34, now a lobbyist with a computer firm in Washington, received a welcome to Raleigh, N.C., that she will never forget. “I went there on a Saturday,” she said, “and my boss was taking me around, introducing me to people.

“One of the people who greeted me welcomed me by saying, ‘Hi, so glad to meet you. You’re going to love North Carolina. We still lynch niggers and burn crosses down here.’ ”

Dancy, noting that the man was a customer of the firm she was starting to work for, said nothing to him because she did not want to sour the professional relationship. She said: “I didn’t tell him. I don’t know what my face looked like or how I handled it in front of him. I said, ‘Yeah, I’m glad to be here,’ or something like that, and kept on going.”

But “someone must have told him after that that I am black,” she said, because “he could never look me in the eye for the four years we worked together. And he never said he was sorry. We never discussed it.” Three other white people present, including her boss, knew she was black and “were flabbergasted,” said Dancy.

On another occasion, she was waiting a long time in line for a North Carolina driver’s license, slogging her way through the bureaucracy and finally dashing out of the examination office only to find that her license said she was white.

“The people had never asked me my race,” she said, “so I had to go back and get the picture taken again. I don’t know why they did not have me fill out something that told my race.”

Dancy’s reaction to being mistaken for white is not uncommon, according to Joyce Ladner, a sociologist and professor of social work at Howard University. The mistake “is like calling you out of your name,” she said. “You want to be recognized for what you are.”

Ladner asserted that attention to race continues, even though many legal barriers to race-mixing have fallen, largely because the Reagan Administration fostered “a heightened awareness of racial tensions.”

“That unleashed people’s most base instincts,” she said.

Amid increasing cultural and ethnic diversity in the United States, race remains unshakable as the ultimate identifier. One can change dress, life style, weight and many other characteristics, but race, as Ladner put it, remains “fixed and immutable.”

When Carol Tyler, 54, a Red Cross executive in Columbus, Ohio, went to a blood banking meeting in Toledo, she and a few white associates started a conversation about another acquaintance, who was black. They were “speculating about her age.”

Amid the banter, one of the white women said, “Don’t you know you can’t tell about those people?”

Tyler remembered being “completely taken aback, but I didn’t say anything about it. The next day somebody said something about my age.” Recalling that moment, Tyler laughed and said, “Oh, that was the perfect set-up.” She said she told the group: “You know I’m one of those people whose age you can’t tell about.”

The white woman, who also was taken aback, “was so upset that she couldn’t look at me,” Tyler recalled. “I finally said, ‘Hey, I didn’t intend to make you feel bad, but you never know who you’re talking to.’ ”

Tyler said that when she saw the woman during annual meetings after the incident, “our relationship was a little strained.”

Like Tyler, many light-skinned blacks “enjoy being able to smoke out white people,” said Charles King, who as director of the Urban Crisis Center in Atlanta, conducts seminars for businesses, schools and government agencies to help them deal with racial problems.

But mistaken identity can lead to angry confrontations.

Derek Henson, 35, a Los Angeles hotel executive, was in a Veterans Administration counseling session earlier this year with a group of white men in Long Beach, when a casual conversation turned ugly.

“This guy was talking,” Henson recalled, “and he said, ‘You know, my daughter is hanging around with a whole lot of (blacks), and it’s really starting to (irritate) me.’ ”

A furious Henson told the man: “Excuse me, we’re all men here. We’re all veterans. We can talk (about sex and profanity) and all this stuff, but if you say that word one more time, I’m going to bust you over the head. . . .

“He was shocked. He was beet red. He followed me to my car and said, ‘No offense.’ I said there was offense.” Henson said he sees the man weekly and “he’s never brought it up again.”

Henson, who is suing a Beverly Hills hotel, charging that he lost his job as executive assistant manager last year when his boss found out he was black, said he frequently has to “pull people to the curb” to warn them of his color.

He told the moderator of the VA class that he was shocked that he would allow such a conversation.

“It was totally inappropriate, even if there weren’t a black person there. I looked at everybody in the class and I said, ‘You can talk all the (black) talk you want, but when I walk through the door, it ceases because I don’t want to hear it.’ ”

If Henson had not spoken out, it is unlikely anyone else would have, said King. “Very seldom will a white person correct another white person about race. They feel it’s impossible to get that person to change his mind.”

This cold reality conflicts with America’s idealistic view of itself, King said. “America lives in a myth of a melting pot, teaching children that this country is for everyone. But the practical reality is that equality has never been lived out.”

Hazel McConnell, a widowed 74-year-old retired federal employee who lives in Wakefield, Mass., dated a man long ago in Columbus, Ohio, “and we were out for a ride. All of a sudden, four white men drove up beside us on the side I was sitting on.

They shouted racial slurs, she recalled. “My friend reached down and said he had a club under the seat, just in case they stop and try to do anything. It was really scary. There were four of them, and I thought they might jump out and beat us up or something.”

Her friend was “really angry,” McConnell said, “and I was scared. It was a very threatening situation. But afterward, I felt he just expected it as something that you have to deal with when you’re a minority person.”

King says that, whether light- or dark-skinned, black people always expect the worst in race relations.

“Being black,” he said, “means you don’t expect to have a good time. There’s no shock value left in being black.”

Nonetheless, cases of mistaken identity can lead to some remarkable responses. Jessica Daniel, a Boston psychologist, said that some light-skinned blacks “go to extra lengths to prove they’re ‘blacker’ than somebody who is dark-skinned.” In the 1960s and 1970s, wearing the biggest Afro and the brightest dashiki provided the proof. Today, joining black groups and speaking out on black issues show blackness, Daniel said.

Why does a person’s race matter?

For Anthony Browder, a Washingtonian who studies and lectures on African culture, the answer is simple: “We live in a racist society where people are judged by the color of their skin.”

Underscoring his assertion, Browder was a key organizer of the third annual Melanin Conference, which explored political, economic and social issues involving skin color.

Browder sees the emphasis on color as part of the “divide and conquer syndrome” fostered historically by whites. “Many African Americans have bought into this idea that if you’re light, you’re all right,” he said.

Browder and others noted that light-skinned blacks used to be deemed by whites as more intelligent and better looking. Blacks, in turn, used various “tests” to determine whether a person was light enough to join certain organizations.

Nowadays, in an ironic twist, darker skinned blacks often are deemed more desirable by some employers who want to make sure their affirmative action employees are visible.

Gus Hawkins remembers the days after the 1965 Watts uprising, when he “had to be careful going through” the area he still represents in Congress because “there was a strong hostility to whites in the neighborhoods at that time. It hurt me not to be able to get around the area,” he said, but he was afraid someone “might take a shot at you” thinking he was “a white face passing through.”

In fact, Hawkins said, “I recall once in Will Rogers Park, I was walking from the clubhouse out to my automobile and some fellow ran down to attack me on the basis of ‘here’s whitey in our neighborhood.’ ”

Hawkins said friends who knew he is black rescued him. He did not report the incident, he said, but it taught him a lesson.

“Usually, in the areas where I have that situation,” he said, “I always have a person obviously black along with me. You learn to adjust to some of these situations and reduce the risk.”

One of the ways he reduces the risk of being mistaken by whites these days is by removing his Masonic ring, which identifies him as a member of the secret fraternity whose members use secret handshakes in greeting each other.

“I have had white Masons attempt to give me the (white) grip,” Hawkins said. “I have become so embarrassed . . . I just refuse to be a Mason when I’m traveling.”

Reflecting the experiences of many people like himself, Hawkins said, “I get accused on both sides. Blacks think that you’re passing, and whites think that you’re the uppity type and are challenging them. So, in a sense you’re an outcast. This has been a problem all through the years for me.”

And for many others, including Walter White, who led the NAACP through the 1930s and 1940s until he died in 1955. In his 1948 autobiography, he wrote of his “insistence, day after day, year in and year out,” on identifying himself as black, asserting that when white people discover his color they are upset by a “startling removal of the blackness.” Then, he said, “they find it impossible suddenly to endow me with the skin, the odor, the dialect, the shuffle, the imbecile good nature traditionally attributed to” black people.

“Instantly they are aware that these things are not part of me,” White wrote. “They think there must be some mistake. There is no mistake. I am a Negro.”

Many light-skinned black people today are just as avowedly black and take pains to avoid being mistaken for white–partly because they are proud of their race and partly because they want to avoid the pain of hearing other blacks denigrated. They, like White, say many whites are amazed that anyone would decline to be white.

Whites often assume black people are white because of context–where they live, shop and go for fun, say many blacks. To signal her race, Dancy said, her resume “has always said, NAACP, Urban League, African Methodist Episcopal Church–you know, things that make people look and say, ‘Oh!’ ”

She and others note that black people are more likely than whites to believe that a person is black, regardless of how light his or her skin may be.

Henson said: “We always know. I don’t care how light you are, if you have green eyes or whatever, there’s something about you, and when you pass each other, you’ll get that look.”

Whenever mistakes are made, light-skinned blacks say they often get blamed for them.

“It’s as if you’ve insulted people,” said McConnell, “by allowing them to believe you’re white. They think you’re supposed to say, ‘Don’t talk to me. I’m black.’ ”

Mistakes are made in all kinds of ways, as Beatrice de Munick Keizer of Boston knows. Personnel administrator at the headquarters of the Unitarian Universalist Assn., she said a black woman came to her office and said, “It’s so wonderful to see a black person in this job.”

“Yes, it’s great,” replied de Munick Keizer, who is white.

Recalling the conversation, she said, “It all goes to show how meaningless these things (racial distinctions) are.”

Ideally, yes. Eventually, maybe. But not yet. After all, until six years ago Louisiana had a law saying anyone was legally black if she had more than 1/32 black blood. The law was repealed in 1983 because of a contentious court case involving Susie Guillory Phipps, who wanted to change the designation on her birth certificate from “colored” to “white.”

While the 1/32 law was repealed, Phipps is still legally black.

“We lost,” said her lawyer, Brian Begue. “The world wasn’t ready for a race-free society.”

Race freedom is available only to whites, said King. “They never have to deal with any problem of who they are.” He added: “One of the truisms is everyone in America has to adopt to another identity to succeed except a white male Protestant heterosexual. He is the only one who escapes the trauma of identity.”

For light-skinned blacks, there is no way out.

“They’re in a twilight zone,” King said.

Taylor Swift has already conquered the music world and the concert business, so it’s no surprise that this weekend she reigned supreme over the box office — again.

Swift’s latest venture into theaters came in the form of a listening session/fan party of sorts for her latest album, “The Life of a Showgirl.”

The 89-minute movie, titled “The Official Release Party of a Showgirl,” featured the premiere of the Swift-directed “The Fate of Ophelia” music video, as well as behind-the-scenes footage and commentary from Swift about the inspiration for her new songs.

As expected with anything Swift, the film quickly rocketed to the top of a weekend box office that didn’t have a lot of new big-name releases. The one-weekend-only affair hauled in $34 million in the U.S. and Canada, AMC said Monday morning. Globally, it made more than $50 million. Paul Thomas Anderson’s “One Battle After Another” was the runner-up in its second outing this weekend, grossing about $11 million domestically.

But the lack of competition doesn’t dilute the impact Swift had — and has had — on the box office. Her three-day theatrical total beats opening weekend grosses for other recent, studio films such as the Leonardo DiCaprio-led “One Battle After Another” ($22 million), 22-year sequel “Freakier Friday” reuniting Lindsay Lohan and Jamie Lee Curtis ($28.6 million) and my personal favorite, “Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale” ($18.1 million).

I may not be a Swiftie, but I know plenty who made their way to theaters this weekend, with some dressing up for the occasion. My colleague, Malia Mendez, wrote about the Taylormania that took over AMC Century City, which screened the Swift film 21 times over three screens, just on Saturday.

There’s something to be said about harnessing the power of a fan base to drive people to theaters. Look at Swift’s last theatrical appearance — 2023’s “Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour” made about $180 million domestically and brought in more than $261 million worldwide, making it the highest-grossing concert film of all time.

As she did with the “Eras Tour” film, Swift bypassed the typical Hollywood system and worked directly with AMC Theatres Distribution to release “The Official Release Party of a Showgirl.” The film played at all of AMC’s 540 locations and also showed at other theaters such as Cinemark and Regal.

The unconventional release was welcome news for theaters, which have struggled to bring in crowds as they did before the pandemic

“On behalf of AMC Theatres and the entire theatrical exhibition industry, I extend our sincerest appreciation to the iconic Taylor Swift for bringing her brilliance and magic to movie theatres this weekend,” AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron said in a statement. “Her vision to add a cinematic element to her incredible album debut was nothing less than a triumph.”

The film’s success is another reminder of the value of nontraditional, alternative content for theaters at a time when they need to employ fresh strategies to lure younger audiences to the multiplex.

As the number of movies released by studios has decreased, theaters are on the hunt for content to put on their screens. Lately, that’s ranged from episodic streaming series like “The Chosen,” which chronicles the life of Jesus, to concert films, opera performances and anniversary screenings of hits such as “The Sound of Music,” “Jaws” or “Back to the Future.”

It’s a business that really took off after the pandemic. Distributor Fathom Entertainment has specialized in this kind of nontraditional content for more than 20 years, but it is now seeing increased interest in these types of titles, particularly anniversary screenings, which now tend to make up between 20% and 40% of the company’s annual revenue.

Providing these kinds of titles is a way to mitigate the uncertainty of the film business, where there can be highs driven by hotly anticipated releases and lows when there’s little in the lineup.

“Our bread and butter is, and has continued to be, the big studio releases,” said Daniel Fastlicht, chief operating officer of the Lot, a luxury dine-in theater chain based in La Jolla with four locations. “What we want to see more than anybody is more content. But if that doesn’t happen, we still need to fill our auditoriums with people.”

All of the Lot’s theaters had at least one or two screens showing the Swift film, and the atmosphere was light, with people singing and dressing up, including a few in Travis Kelce jerseys, said Marcos Sayd, director of operations. He noted that alternative content helps their theaters fill the less-scheduled holes in their calendar. In addition to the Swift release, the Lot also programs local documentaries and films, as well as one-off events such as the Newport Beach Film Festival to draw audiences in.

And they’re not alone. Other theaters have been looking to position themselves as gathering places for communal experiences, whether that’s to celebrate T-Swift fandom, sing and dance to “KPop Demon Hunters” or collectively scream at a horror movie. Will the post-pandemic zeal for connection repopulate theaters again? Only time will tell, but the popularity of Swift’s latest film is a positive sign.

Stuff we wrote

Film shoots

Number of the week

Last week, YouTube agreed to pay $24.5 million to settle a lawsuit President Trump filed after his account was banned by the Google-owned streamer following the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the U.S. Capitol.

San Bruno-based YouTube is the latest tech and media company to settle one of Trump’s lawsuits. Meta, Twitter (now X), Paramount Global and Walt Disney Co.-owned ABC News have all paid multimillion dollar sums in settlements. Most of the YouTube settlement dollars will go to Trump, who plans to contribute it to the Trust for the National Mall, which is “dedicated to restoring, preserving, and elevating the National Mall” and will also fund construction of the White House State Ballroom, according to court documents.

Finally …

My colleagues, Matthew Ormseth and Summer Lin, wrote about how the strange case of an illicit casino-turned-marijuana stash house/psilocybin mushroom-growing location that eventually led police to find an Arcadia mansion filled with 15 children, most of whom were born to surrogates.

“We just haven’t had the Muslim players coming through,” Lunat adds. “Muslims haven’t had enough opportunities or enough role models for young, aspiring players to follow on from.

“There have been some issues with scouts not being in the right places in the country to spot talented young Muslim players, so they’re not picked up. Some scouts just go to the same regional clubs that have historically generated players.

“It’s not particularly good that it’s taken until 2025 for a Muslim to play for England.”

Yorkshireman Nathan Ellington converted to Islam later in life, during a career in which he scored more than 100 goals.

“When you first become Muslim, you try to navigate some of the things that are new,” Ellington explains. “You stop doing certain things and slowly change. What happens is sometimes people in football clubs don’t know much about the religion and they just look at it negatively.

“But then maybe they start to learn and realise ‘oh, it’s not that different, he just needs this adjustment, this food, time to pray’.

Those adjustments require coaching staff and team-mates to engage in good faith, and for resources to be on hand to help as much as possible.

Spence has thrived in the early days of Thomas Frank’s Tottenham reign.

“We spent time with Thomas Frank, the sports scientists, nutritionists and doctors at [his previous club] Brentford to talk about Islam, and go through how the club could best support their Muslim players,” says Riz Rehman, Zesh’s brother, who works as a player inclusion executive for the Professional Footballers’ Association.

“It’s not easy when players are fasting during Ramadan and playing at the same time, but with proper support it can be done.

“We also speak to clubs about ensuring players have a space to pray, how to include their families and understand their faith as much as possible.

“It’s all about education.”

TORONTO — Kicking off Thursday night, the Toronto International Film Festival marks its 50th edition this year, bringing together a heady combination of art, business and celebrity.

The festival has become a reliable launching pad for films in North America, particularly those looking to enter the Oscar race. Though TIFF’s status as an awards-season kingmaker has found fiercer competition in recent years from adjacent events in Telluride and Venice, it unquestionably still matters, remaining an essential spot on the annual calendar of any movie year.

“I think TIFF is a really adaptable festival,” said Robyn Citizen, the festival’s director of programming, over Zoom this week. “We can’t always tell where the industry’s going, but we do want to be able to still serve our audiences and our industry the best we possibly can.”

Here are just a handful of reasons why TIFF has maintained such a significant role for so long.

It’s the ultimate one-stop shop

There will be more than 200 features screening at this year’s festival. Among those having their world premieres are Aziz Ansari’s wealth-inequality comedy “Good Fortune,” Nia DaCosta’s updated Ibsen adaptation “Hedda,” Derek Cianfrance’s true-crime caper “Roofman,” Hikari’s family drama “Rental Family,” Nic Pizzollatto’s Las Vegas-set “Easy’s Waltz,” David Michôd’s Sydney Sweeney-starring boxing drama “Christy” and Rian Johnson’s latest Benoit Blanc adventure “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery.” The festival will open with Colin Hanks’ documentary “John Candy: I Like Me,” also having its first screening ever.

Tessa Thompson stars in director Nia DaCosta’s “Hedda,” an adaptation of Ibsen’s “Hedda Gabler.” The movie will have its world premiere at the 2025 Toronto International Film Festival.

(Prime Video)

TIFF remains valuable for more than just its world premieres, though. Among those titles playing at Toronto after having just bowed last week at Venice or Telluride (or even both) are Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein,” Chloé Zhao’s Shakespeare-inspired “Hamnet,” Mona Fastvold’s historical musical “The Testament of Ann Lee” and Edward Berger’s gambling drama “Ballad of a Small Player.”

Movies that played even earlier in the year at festivals such as Sundance, Berlin or Cannes are also featured in the lineup: Joachim Trier’s “Sentimental Value,” Mary Bronstein’s “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” Rebecca Zlotowski’s “A Private Life,” Jafar Panahi’s Palme d’Or-winning “It Was Just an Accident” and Richard Linklater’s “Blue Moon” and “Nouvelle Vague” will all be at TIFF.

It is exactly that combination of the best from different festivals and different parts of the calendar that makes TIFF unique. The event was originally known as the “Festival of Festivals,” meaning that it has always been a part of its mission to present a curated selection of the year’s best films. For better or worse, TIFF is often trying to be something for everyone.

“It’s important to us to curate with an attention to films that we know our audience may want to see, but that also includes films that we think our audience needs to see,” said Citizen. “We want to be that bridge between the filmmakers, the industry and the audience.”

Journalists covering the event can catch up with films from earlier in the year, get a jump on awards-season titles just beginning to find their way to audiences and even see projects that may not be released until a year or more later.

Add to that spirit of efficiency the fact that for increasingly budget-conscious U.S. media outlets, sending reporters to Toronto can often be a more cost-effective choice than pricier destinations such as Cannes, Telluride or Venice.

These are the festival world’s friendliest audiences

Toronto-born writer-director Chandler Levack will be world-premiering her “Mile End Kicks,” which stars Barbie Ferreira in a story based on Levack’s own experiences as a young music journalist. Levack said she is excited to see how a moment when Ferreira’s character flips off Toronto’s landmark CN Tower plays to a local audience.

Levack has experienced TIFF from multiple perspectives, first as a film student waiting in line for last-minute tickets, then as a journalist hustling for interviews, then working for the festival as a writer and now as a returning filmmaker.

Barbie Ferreira in Chandler Levack’s “Mile End Kicks.”

(TIFF)

“I think it still sets the tone for the cultural conversation in cinema,” said Levack. “The ways that I’ve seen movies at TIFF with those audiences — the way those films hit me and affected me — they’ve been really the most profound cinematic experiences of my life.”

TIFF is often referred to as an audience festival, meaning that the audiences there are particularly receptive, giving warmly enthusiastic responses. The area of the festival’s downtown core around King Street where some of the key venues are located can often be jam-packed with fans trying to catch an autograph, a selfie or even just a glimpse of some of their favorite stars. The most significant prize given by the festival is its People’s Choice audience award, which has often been a strong bellwather for its winner’s chances at the Oscars.

The distributor Sony Pictures Classics has eight movies playing in this year’s edition alone, including “Blue Moon,” Haifaa Al Mansour’s “Unidentified” and Scarlett Johansson’s “Eleanor the Great.” Over the years the company has brought more than 400 titles to TIFF.

“The audience is one of the most sophisticated in the world, for my money,” said Tom Bernard, who along with Michael Barker is co-founder and co-president of Sony Pictures Classics. “They get every nuance of every tick in a film, be it a comedy, a drama, a gasp that happens where they gasp with it. When you go see a movie in Toronto, you have to be careful because the reaction is so enthusiastic that many times you say, ‘Well, wow, that movie would be great.’ But it might be a little more difficult than the way that it plays in that town.”

The road to the Oscars often goes through Toronto

Though none of them had their world premieres at the festival, last year’s winners “Anora,” The Brutalist,” “Emilia Pérez,” “Conclave,” “Flow,” “I’m Still Here,” “The Substance” and “No Other Land” all played there. The Oscar nominated film “Sing Sing” had its world premiere at the 2023 edition of TIFF.

“Wake Up Dead Man” is the third film in director Rian Johnson’s series of mysteries starring Daniel Craig; all three premiered at TIFF. This marks the fifth time producer Ram Berman and Johnson have premiered one of their films at the festival. Both previous “Knives Out” mysteries earned Oscar nominations for Johnson for original screenplay.

Josh O’Connor, left, and Daniel Craig in the movie “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery.”

(Netflix)

Their company, T-Street Productions, also produced “American Fiction,” which premiered at the fest in 2023 and won the coveted People’s Choice audience award (other recent winners include “The Fabelmans,” “Belfast,” “Nomadland” and “Jojo Rabbit”), beginning a wave that took the film all the way to five Academy Award nominations, including best picture and winning the Oscar for adapted screenplay.

Though the new “Knives Out” film has been finished for a few months, Bergman said the plan was always to premiere again in Toronto, even playing in the same theater on the same day at the same time as the previous two films.

“I like going to Toronto and premiering there because the audience is always great,” said Bergman. “And really that’s who we make the movies for. We are not in the game, we’re not strategizing awards or anything, we just want people to have fun. We’ve always had a great time playing the movies in Toronto, so we should continue playing the movies in Toronto. It’s really that simple.”

Provocative documentaries often stir the pot

Nonfiction has always been a big part of Toronto’s identity going back to its very beginnings, which saw the likes of “Harlan County, USA.” and “Roger & Me” playing the festival.

Oscar-winner Laura Poitras returns to Toronto with “Cover-Up,” a portrait of investigative journalist Seymour Hersh that she co-directed with Mark Obenhaus. “Free Solo” directors Chai Vasarhelyi and Jimmy Chin also return with “Love+War,” a look at the life of photojournalist Lynsey Addario.

This year, Ben Proudfoot’s “The Eyes of Ghana,” a portrait of African cinematographer Chris Hesse, will have its world premiere. Proudfoot previously won two Oscars for the documentary shorts “The Queen of Basketball” and “The Last Repair Shop.” (the latter a film that LA Times Studios co-distributed).

Cameraman Chris Hess in Ben Proudfoot’s documentary “The Eyes of Ghana.”

(TIFF)

“Canceled: The Paula Deen Story,” a look at the rise and fall of the food-world star, will have its world premiere, as will “EPiC: Elvis Presley in Concert,” Baz Luhrmann’s documentary.

Documentaries that touch on hot button issues can raise problems for the festival as well. Last year Anastasia Trofimova’s film “Russians at War,” for which the filmmaker embedded herself with Russian soldiers to depict the war in Ukraine, sparked public outcry, threats of protest and safety concerns that caused the festival to ultimately show it after the main TIFF event had officially ended.

This year the festival initially invited the documentary “The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue,” about a hostage rescue mission undertaken by a retired Israel Defense Forces officer following the Hamas attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. The festival then withdrew the film, directed by Toronto filmmaker (and former TIFF board member) Barry Avrich, from the lineup and following public uproar subsequently rescheduled it for a single public showing.

“This is the world we live in,” said Thom Powers, lead programmer of TIFF docs, about the way in which impassioned controversy erupts over films people have not even seen yet — the result of overly politicized environments and the short fuses of the social media era. “We can see this at many festivals.”

A proven half-century track record

For the first four years that Sony Classics’ Bernard brought films to Toronto, he would play then-festival chief Wayne Clarkson in tennis, with the loser paying for talent’s travel expenses. (Bernard won most of the time.)

He also recalled the time that he was able to have the training staff of the NHL’s Toronto Maple Leafs come right to the hotel room of Spanish auteur Pedro Almodóvar to reset his back.

But mainly there are memories of movies, times the festival’s specific magic cast its spell.

“I remember sitting in the theater watching ‘Il Postino’ and the guy who’s selling it is sitting next to me,” said Bernard of the 1994 film that would go on to be nominated for five Oscars, winning one. “And as the movie continues, the guy’s smile is getting bigger and bigger and bigger because he knows he’s going to be able to jack the price up way beyond anything I could pay.

“On the other hand, I remember being at the end of the festival and sitting in ‘Orlando’ and nobody was there but me,” he said of Sally Potter’s 1992 film that was a breakthrough for performer Tilda Swinton. “And I sent it back to the office, everybody saw it and it’s one of those all-time movies just because we were hanging around.”

For Levack, the festival has already provided a launching pad. After her first feature “I Like Movies,” premiered at the festival in 2022, it eventually made its way to the attention of Adam Sandler. Levack is currently finishing “Roommates” for Sandler’s Happy Madison production company.

“TIFF was unbelievably instrumental in making our film not only exist but matter,” said Levack of the response to her debut. “We really broke out and became sort of a viral unexpected hit at that festival and that really made my entire career from that point exist.”

Even as Toronto has weathered the changing fortunes of the film business and grappled with competition from other festivals, there is still something unique that happens when some of the year’s most anticipated new films meet these audiences.

“People say, ‘We’re going to put it in Toronto and then we’re getting into the Oscar game,’” said Bernard. “But it’s the audience [that decides]. You don’t fool anybody in Toronto.”

American warships edging closer to Venezuelan waters earlier this year barely made global headlines, overshadowed by louder crises in Ukraine and the South China Sea. Yet this quiet buildup is not accidental. It is part of Washington’s long pattern of targeting regimes that stand at the crossroads of energy and geopolitics. Venezuela, sitting atop the world’s largest proven oil reserves, remains an indispensable square on the global chessboard, despite years of economic decay. The question worth asking is: Why does the United States persist in exerting pressure on Venezuela, Iran, and Russia and even spar with rising oil consumers like India? The answer lies in a combination of old-fashioned energy security, the logic of sanctions, and a twenty-first-century version of tariff wars.

Energy, Empire, and the Logic of Control

From the early Cold War to the Gulf Wars, American power has been tethered to oil. Securing access to hydrocarbons was never about mere consumption; it was about leverage. Whoever controlled the flow of oil controlled the arteries of the global economy. Venezuela, like Iran and Russia, belongs to the category of states with energy abundance but frail political legitimacy in Washington’s eyes. These states could, in theory, undermine the U.S.-led order by weaponizing supply.

The Trump administration revived this logic with unusual bluntness. Sanctions on Venezuela’s PDVSA, Iran’s National Iranian Oil Company, and Russia’s energy giants were not simply punitive. They were instruments of economic siege, aimed at reducing rivals’ fiscal lifelines while simultaneously making American shale oil more competitive on the global market. The “tariff war” with China, and by extension India, fit the same pattern: weaken alternative energy partnerships and redirect trade flows toward U.S.-friendly networks.

Venezuela: A Pawn or a Prize?

Venezuela is not merely an oil state; it is a symbolic battleground. For Washington, Nicolás Maduro’s survival is a reminder that authoritarian regimes can withstand Western pressure when shielded by Moscow and Beijing. For Russia and China, supporting Caracas is inexpensive but symbolically priceless: it frustrates U.S. hegemony in its own hemisphere.

This symbolism has recently translated into direct diplomatic gestures. When Washington deployed warships off Venezuela’s coast, Beijing condemned the action as a violation of sovereignty and publicly reaffirmed its support for President Maduro. India, in contrast, has been more circumspect: while historically engaged with Venezuelan crude, New Delhi stepped back from oil imports earlier this year under U.S. tariff threats, signaling its preference for strategic neutrality. These divergent responses underscore how Venezuela has become a stage where multipolar fault lines are performed in real time.

The irony is that Venezuela’s oil industry today is a ghost of its former self. Decades of mismanagement and sanctions have collapsed production to levels unthinkable in the 1990s. And yet, the reserves beneath Venezuelan soil still represent untapped potential insurance against a future where Middle Eastern supply chains might be disrupted. U.S. naval maneuvers around Venezuela send a dual message: to Caracas, that Washington retains coercive power; to global markets, that American dominance in the Western Hemisphere is not up for negotiation.

Tariffs, Sanctions, and the Shifting Global Economy

Sanctions and tariffs are often portrayed as separate instruments, but in practice they converge. By sanctioning Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, Washington narrows the playing field for global oil suppliers. By imposing tariffs on India and China, it simultaneously curbs the bargaining power of large consumers. The effect is to reinforce the role of the United States as both an energy producer (through shale) and a gatekeeper of energy commerce (through financial sanctions and naval dominance).

This strategy, however, comes with risks. Sanctions have accelerated experiments in de-dollarization, as Russia and China expand oil trade in rubles and yuan. India, caught between cheap Russian crude and American pressure, finds itself hedging. Venezuela, despite its pariah status, has quietly courted Asian markets with barter-style deals. In short, the very pressure that once guaranteed U.S. leverage is now incubating alternatives.

History’s Echoes

To understand today’s maneuvers, one must recall history. Washington’s approach to oil-rich adversaries is not new; it is a recycled script. The 1953 coup in Iran, the sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the 1990s, and even the naval blockades against Cuba: each reflects a doctrine that energy and ideology cannot be separated.

Yet, history also reminds us that such strategies rarely yield clean victories. Sanctions tend to harden regimes rather than topple them. Tariffs often spark retaliation rather than capitulation. Recent analyses have underscored this dynamic: for instance, an Investopedia study notes that overuse of dollar-based sanctions has accelerated global de-dollarization, with the dollar’s share of global reserves dropping below 47%—as nations increasingly shift into gold, yuan, and local currencies. Venezuela under Maduro looks less like a state on the verge of collapse than a state perpetually enduring collapse, too weak to recover, too stubborn to die.

Theoretical Lens: Realism with a Neoliberal Mask

International relations theory offers a useful lens. Realists would argue that Washington is simply acting in line with its structural interests: preventing rival powers from weaponizing energy. But a neoliberal reading highlights how this coercion is cloaked in the rhetoric of democracy, human rights, and market freedom. Sanctions are framed as moral instruments, when in reality they are economic tools of statecraft. Tariffs are justified as corrections for “unfair trade,” though their deeper function is to secure strategic dominance.

The United States, in effect, performs a balancing act: dressing realist power politics in neoliberal language. Venezuela becomes not just a state to be disciplined but a case study in how the American order sustains itself through economic pressure rather than outright invasion.

Conclusion: A Risky Bet

The naval encirclement of Venezuela may not escalate into open conflict, but it signals a broader pattern: Washington is unwilling to let go of energy geopolitics as the anchor of its global primacy. By targeting Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, and by sparring with India and China over tariffs, the U.S. reasserts its role as the central broker of oil and trade.

The gamble, however, is whether this strategy is sustainable in a world edging toward multipolarity. Sanctions fatigue is growing; tariff wars strain alliances; and new financial infrastructures are slowly eroding the dollar’s monopoly. History teaches us that great powers can overextend. The United States risks learning that lesson the hard way, with Venezuela serving less as a pawn to be cornered and more as a mirror reflecting the limits of American power.

The afternoon sun glimmered off the ocean as I drove down MacArthur Boulevard in Newport Beach to fulfill a promise.

This September marks five years since I debuted as a columnist for The Times. My first dispatch was from the mausoleum niche at Pacific View Memorial Park that holds the cremains of one of my predecessors, Ruben Salazar.

Exactly 55 years ago, Salazar was killed in an East Los Angeles bar by a tear gas canister launched by an L.A. County sheriff’s deputy that tore through his head. He was one of three people who died that day during the Chicano Moratorium, a rally against the Vietnam War that out-of-control cops turned into a melee.

Salazar was only eight months into his columnist gig. He was a well-respected Times veteran who had done stints covering immigration, as a foreign correspondent and Metro reporter for the paper. Once he got a Friday slot on the op-ed page at the start of 1970, the journalist became a must-read chronicler of the Chicano experience.

In death, Salazar became immortal. Murals of him sprang up around the Southwest. Wearing a suit jacket and tie, with a full head of hair and a confident look on his face, he symbolized the potential and peril of being a Mexican American in the United States. Even as the decades passed, and his clips were relegated to archives and the memories of those who had read him in real time, Salazar has thankfully yet to fade from L.A.’s physical and spiritual landscape.

A high school is named after him in Pico Rivera, as are Salazar Park in East L.A. and Salazar Hall at Cal State L.A. The U.S. Postal Service sells stamps with his likeness.

United Teachers Los Angeles gives out a scholarship in his name, just like the National Assn. of Hispanic Journalists. The nonprofit CCNMA: Latino Journalists of California honors reporters who cover Latinos with the annual Ruben Salazar Awards, handing out medallions bearing his image.

When I visited Salazar’s final resting place in 2020, I brought a bottle of Manzanilla to toast the hard-charging bon vivant’s memory and ask for his blessing in my new role. I promised to visit and offer an update about my career every year near the anniversary of his death … but, well, the job got in the way.

A historic pandemic. The storming of the U.S. Capitol. A racist audio leak scandal that upended L.A. City Hall. Corrupt politicians. Increasing poverty. The rise, fall and return of Donald Trump. Horrible fires. A cruel deportation deluge. I’ve barely had time to spend with friends and family, let alone an afternoon driving to a far-off cemetery for a few minutes with a long-gone man I had never met.

For 2025, there would be no excuses. Because in a year that seems to get worse by the day, we need to remember Salazar more than ever.

A painting of former Los Angeles Times journalist Ruben Salazar and a copy of his last column, published on Aug. 28, 1970, the day before he died, are on display inside Ruben Salazar Hall on the campus of Cal State Los Angeles.

(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)

Every time my Times colleagues report from a protest, I invoke Salazar’s name in my prayers to God that He watch over them. Our profession faces existential threats — and I’m not just talking finances.

The Trump administration has pursued scorched-earth campaigns against news organizations it doesn’t like with lawsuits and funding cuts, while limiting access to mainstream reporters in favor of sycophantic press coverage. Journalists have suffered injuries at the hands of LAPD officers while covering this summer’s anti-migra protests, from being struck with less-lethal projectiles to getting smacked with batons.

The climate against my profession is so ugly that the L.A. County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a motion this month requiring the Sheriff’s Department to send them a report about what training, if any, deputies receive on allowing reporters to do their jobs during protests. Supervisor Hilda Solis, who authored the motion, cited Salazar as an impetus, calling his killing “one of the most painful chapters in Los Angeles County history.”

She also described him as “a crucial voice for the Latino community, dedicated to covering stories that mainstream outlets often ignored” — a legacy that all Latino reporters at The Times must try and live up to. So every time I open my laptop to start my next columna, I ask myself:

What would Ruben write?

That Salazar died in the course of doing his job has sadly eclipsed what he actually wrote, so I always encourage people to read his columns. The Times republished them online for the 50th anniversary of his death, so there’s no excuse not to familiarize yourself with his work. It would have seamlessly fit into this hell year — the 1970 in his columnas reads eerily similar to what we’re going through right now.

Immigration raids were terrorizing Los Angeles. Democrats were still lost after suffering a historic beatdown from a once-defeated Republican presidential candidate. Young progressives were disgusted with their moderate Democratic elders and tiring of the party altogether. Latinos were pushing for more political power. A redistricting battle in California was about to explode. The rise of computers was upending life. Politicians were going after nonprofits they accused of fomenting wokosos.

And there was Salazar, covering every development and hero and villain with crisp columns that got better with every month. All of this at just 42, four years younger than I am today.

I think he would have been thrilled to see regular people filming the cruelties of la migra as a counternarrative to the lies of the Trump administration. He would have urged young reporters who believe in so-called movement journalism — unapologetically leftist, with talking to the other side considered unnecessary and even immoral — to not let their biases get in the way of a good story.

I know he wouldn’t have been lionized the way he is today. In a June 19, 1970 columna, he antagonized the left by describing the pachucos of a previous generation as “anarchistic.” In the same column, he angered the right, arguing that because of programs such as Head Start and Chicano studies, gang members were “experiencing a social revolution and so is learning and liking political power.”

And that’s what makes Salazar more important today than ever.

He wanted Chicanos to better themselves, so he wasn’t afraid to call out their failures. He was skeptical of our legal system but wanted it to succeed — “A Beautiful Sight: the System Working the Way It Should” was the title of a July 24, 1970, column about the federal grand jury indictment of seven Los Angeles Police Department officers in the deaths of two unarmed Mexican immigrants.

As an immigrant himself, he loved a United States he had no problem criticizing. For his sole Fourth of July column, he urged people to tone down their pomp and circumstance and to relate to their fellow Americans rather than “to fixed ideas that apparently are not working.”

To paraphrase a 2014 PBS documentary about his life, Salazar was a man in the middle. His business was truth-telling for the greater cause of a just society. He literally lost his life for it. The least we can do is follow his example.

A bronze marker hangs outside the niche that holds the cremains of former L.A. Times columnist Ruben Salazar, who was killed in East L.A. on Aug. 29, 1970, while reporting on the Chicano Moratorium, a protest against the involvement of Chicanos in the Vietnam War.

(Gustavo Arellano / Los Angles Times)

No one was around when I finally got to Salazar’s niche, in a section of the cemetery called the Alcove of Time. A simple bronze plaque included the accent over the “e” in “Rubén,” which his Times byline never had. Instead of Spanish wine, I brought a flask of mezcal — I don’t think he would have minded the stiffer drink in this 2025.

I thanked Salazar again for his work — I learn more from it every time I read it. I told him about some of the columnas I’ve published and those I want to do. I shared how there are far more Latino reporters at The Times and beyond, but still not nearly enough. I apologized for not visiting more often and swore to never stop talking about him and his words.

“To you, Ruben,” I quietly said. I hoisted my flask in the air, took a small swig and splashed some in front of where he rested.

I made the sign of the cross, offered a short prayer, then drove back home. Another columna loomed. I’m sure Salazar would have understood and hopefully would have been proud.

Jackie Chan wielding panda bear plushies at the 89th Academy Awards. Brad Pitt serving duck face at the 92nd. Anya Taylor-Joy’s otherworldly hair flip just last year. These are some of the most iconic Glambot videos shot by director Cole Walliser, who has been operating E!’s high-speed red carpet camera, a staple of awards season, since 2016.

It was a much different entertainment landscape then, before #MeToo and #AskHerMore, the latter of which Walliser says he’s inoculated from by virtue of the slo-mo clips the Glambot generates. “For better or worse, it doesn’t allow me to ask more!” he chuckles from his Venice Beach office six weeks out from this year’s Emmys, which will be Walliser’s 10th, though he admits he’s ignorant of the nominees. “I try to stay tuned out to who’s nominated and who’s coming because I don’t want to get nervous,” he tells The Envelope.

Walliser, whose résumé includes music videos for Pink, Katy Perry and Tinashe and commercials for CoverGirl cosmetics, saw early on with Glambot that celebrity culture was poised to break out beyond red carpet telecasts and tabloid magazines: “If I look forward five years, what’s the climate going to be?” he recalls thinking. “It was very clear that it was going to be more on socials. So I thought, ‘If I start now I can be [ahead] of the curve.’”

Nor is he concerned about the growing presence of influencers in the awards space, whether in the form of now-regular campaign stops like “Hot Ones” and “Chicken Shop Date” to the red carpet itself. After all, Glambot is the ultimate short-form content, coming in at one second apiece, and helped pave the way for such successors.

“Part of what people gravitate to with the Glambot is the candid [nature of it],” Walliser says. “There’s a barrier that is broken down that people seem to enjoy.”

It took him a few years to arrive at the synergy between slow-motion clips and behind-the-scenes content that gives the Glambot a second life on social media during the six months outside of the awards season churn.

“It happened organically,” Walliser says, when he asked his assistant to be prepared to take a photo of him and Chan, whom Walliser grew up watching in Vancouver, if the opportunity arose. Ultimately, “it didn’t feel right, so I didn’t ask for a picture.” But unknown to Walliser, his assistant had been surreptitiously filming footage of Walliser directing Chan. He asked her to do it a few more times with other big celebrities. “Seeing how it works in real time was kind of interesting, so I cut it together and put it [online].

“It wasn’t until the 2020 awards season that I really dialed into what the behind-the-scenes content would be,” he continues. “Then the pandemic hit, so I was at home editing my footage and putting it on socials, and that’s when it exploded.”

Now the rise of TikTok and influencers has changed celebrities’ relationship with social media and the entertainment ecosystem at large. The Glambot remains, but it jostles for red carpet real estate alongside streamers and indeed celebs themselves, revealing their looks on Instagram or filming “Get Ready With Me” videos for fashion glossies like “Vogue” and “Elle.”

Does Walliser think the Glambot will go the way of “E! News”?

“Until celebrities are doing their at-home Glambots as good as I am on the red carpet, there’s still job security!” he says with a laugh. Still, the collaboration function on Instagram has been a godsend. “There was a switch when [celebrities] started going, ‘How do I get this? I want to post it.’”

Walliser’s employer’s flagship pop culture program was canceled last month after 32 years on the air, which he calls an “entertainment tragedy.” But whether exemplified by media companies’ pivot to video, then back to print, then back to video again, or broadcasting conglomerates’ mergers and spin-offs, Walliser believes the show, or at least the service it performs, could make a comeback.

“I think at some point we’re going to revalue these information curators that we trust and love because there’s too much content to do it on our own,” he says.

In the meantime, Walliser exudes serenity as he warms up for the Emmys before the hectic triple whammy of the Golden Globes, the Grammys and the Academy Awards in the new year: “I don’t have a life until after the Oscars.”

Until then, he’ll be hoping to capture the bold-faced names who’ve so far eluded the Glambot, including Rihanna, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bradley Cooper and Beyoncé. There’s always a chance — Bey’s Christmas Day NFL halftime performance is nominated for four Emmys.

Although Walliser doesn’t know that.

We won! Or, at least those of us who were rooting for Amaya Espinal and Bryan Arenales to take home the prize on Season 7 of “Love Island USA.”

After a blockbuster season with its fair share of controversy, the 25-year-old nurse from New York City and the 28-year-old accountant, bartender and real estate agent from Boston, respectively, walked out of the villa $100,000 richer and became the first Latino couple to win “Love Island.” In a time when many Latinos in the U.S. are being inundated with threats to our safety and freedom, this example of a mutual, fun and respectful Latino love is an indulgent little triumph for us all.

The dating show became appointment viewing for millions of fans, including myself, with new episodes dropping almost nightly as the show airs in near real time. “Love Island” — which launched in the U.K. in 2015 and has since spawned several international versions — confines single hotties in a Fijian villa, where they must explore romantic connections and couple up with each other to remain on the show. Viewers and cast members known as “islanders” vote regularly to decide which contestants or couples must pack up their swimsuits and go home. As with most reality TV, there’s messiness, drama, silliness and sexiness that keeps viewers glued to their screens, and we clock in for our shift at the island mines with dedication.

Espinal, a self-described “Dominican Cinderella,” entered the villa as a “bombshell,” a cast addition meant to stir things up for the original couples. Meanwhile, her Prince Charming, Arenales, who is Puerto Rican and Guatemalan, came in during the Casa Amor segment of the show, when islanders are separated by gender and introduced to hot new cast members vying for their attention.

The two coupled up several episodes after meeting in Casa Amor, igniting a romance in large part over a shared understanding of their cultures. Being super hot probably didn’t hurt either, but it was seeing Arenales stand up for our sweet Amaya Papaya against a pile-on from his fellow male islanders that sealed the deal — not just for Espinal, but for the viewers, in particular Latinx ones.

Espinal’s rough start on the series reflected the cultural valleys that exist between Latinos and their non-Latino counterparts in the United States, which can generally make for a tricky dating experience. Three of the male contestants she coupled up with expressed discomfort with her personality and bold manner of expressing herself. It started with a blowup with contestant Ace Greene after he vocalized his discomfort with Espinal touching him and using terms of endearment, in particular the word “babe.”

The same issue came up when she coupled up with Austin Shepard and Zak Srakaew, who took issue with Espinal “moving too fast” by acting overly romantic (on a show called “Love Island,” mind you). This was despite her explaining that in Dominican culture terms like “mi vida,” “mi amor” and “babe” are common terms of endearment, and asking if it was OK that she use them. (Both agreed it was fine.)

Espinal certainly lost her cool — in most cases, I would argue, rightfully so — and regularly became emotional, struggling with feeling misunderstood and attacked. Still, she defended herself with confidence and strength from those who seemed intent on painting her as erratic, intense, pushy and aggressive. During a game in which islanders wrote letters to air out any grievances, she offered them a simple option: “I’m just not your cup of tea to be drinkin’, so don’t f—ing drink it.”

It was during that game in which Greene, Shepard and Srakaew went in on Espinal that Arenales stepped in to defend her, explaining what Espinal had long been saying: Those terms of endearment are common in Latino households. “You’re telling her to meet you halfway,” he said. “You gotta meet her halfway too.”

Arenales gallantly stepping up to support Espinal against a social firing squad sparked a flame between the two. Fan votes showed this moment to be a turning point for Espinal, who became a favorite. It doesn’t hurt that her nurturing personality and adorable zaniness make her very easy to root for.

Seeing Arenales voice his appreciation for who she is and understanding her background — and Espinal herself refusing to change parts of her personality that she views as the strengths of an “emotional gangsta” — made their coupling a powerful display of Latino love. Those two crazy kids just get each other!

“This is just a message to everyone out there who’s misunderstood: Nobody should be tamed and there’s always someone out there for you who’s going to love you for you and appreciate all your craziness,” Espinal told host Ariana Madix after their win was announced. “Don’t ever settle for nobody.”

This was an especially lovely and important win after this season was marred by a racism scandal in which two Latina islanders were found to have used racial slurs online and in a podcast.

As much as Espinal may have felt misunderstood, Espinal is not a difficult person. There’s no need to decipher her because it’s not that complicated, regardless of her cultural identity. From everything I saw on the show, she showed a tremendous amount of character and kindness. She just didn’t put up with B.S. from guys who were trying to diminish her, call her irrational and insinuate she was clingy. Amaya Papaya always stood on business.

I love that Espinal found someone who sees and appreciates her in Arenales. And judging by their win, she found that in innumerable people who voted for them as well. But there’s nothing anyone should struggle to understand about her.

Yes, parts of her behavior are informed by her culture — but yelling at a man who is trying to make you seem crazy is a universal experience we should all partake in.

July 9 (UPI) — Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on Wednesday met with a bipartisan group of U.S. senators and the Defense Department while Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., works to end funding for Israel.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., were among more than a dozen senators who met with Netanyahu while the prime minister was still visiting the U.S. Capitol this week.

The meeting occurred after Netanyahu met with President Donald Trump on Monday and Tuesday evening to discuss Iran and Gaza.

Tuesday’s meeting with Trump mostly focused on Gaza and efforts to secure a cease-fire and an eventual end to hostilities in Gaza that began after Hamas attacked, killed and kidnapped Israeli civilians on Oct. 7, 2023.

Celebrating the end of the war with Iran

In addition to meeting with senators on Wednesday, Netanyahu also toured the Pentagon with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, while celebrating the end of the 12-day war with Iran.

“Absolute thanks, gratitude and admiration for [Central Command], for the U.S. military, for the secretary of defense and the president of the United States,” Netanyahu said, as reported by the Department of Defense.

Netanyahu told Hegseth the Israeli people, the Israeli government and others around the world are grateful for the June 21 Operation Hammer U.S. aerial strikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities.

Hegseth lauded “the skill of your professionals” in Israel’s military for softening Iran’s defenses and establishing aerial superiority that enabled the successful attacks.

“What was accomplished was absolutely incredible,” Hegseth told the prime minister. “It was an honor to be part of it.”

Netanyahu said the “entire world took note” of the strength of the alliance between Israel and the United States.

“It was like the roar of two lions,” he said, “and it was heard around the world.”

Greene seeks end of U.S. military funding for Israel

Despite the military success in Iran, Greene on Wednesday sought to end financial support for Israel’s military.

Greene told former Trump administration chief strategist Steve Bannon that she will introduce amendments to remove funding for Israel from the National Defense Authorization Act.

“There are some parts of this NDAA that I cannot support, and that’s continued foreign aid and foreign funding,” Greene told Bannon while being interviewed on his “War Room” podcast, The Hill reported.

Greene said she will introduce amendments that would eliminate $500 million in defense funding for Israel, which she said already gets $3.4 billion in annual funding from the United States.

She called Israel a “nuclear-armed” country that doesn’t need another $500 million from the United States for defense spending.

Chinese President Xi Jinping reached Kazakhstan on Monday to attend the second China–Central Asia Summit, a high-stakes diplomatic gathering aimed at deepening Beijing’s economic and strategic ties with the region.

The summit, which will be held on Tuesday in the Kazakh capital Astana, comes at a time when China is intensifying its outreach to Central Asian countries amid shifting global power alignments — and mounting tensions in neighbouring Iran, which is roiled in an escalating conflict with Israel.

The summit will bring together the heads of state from all five Central Asian nations — Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan — along with Xi.

The Astana summit also carries symbolic weight: it is the first time that the five Central Asian nations are holding a summit in the region with the leader of another country.

So, what is the importance of the China-Central Asia Summit? And is China battling both the United States and Russia for influence in the region?

What’s on Xi’s agenda in Astana?

On Monday, Xi was greeted by Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and other senior officials at the airport in Astana. The Astana summit follows the inaugural May 2023 China–Central Asia Summit, which was held in Xi’an, the capital city of China’s Shaanxi province.

Xi is expected to be in Astana from June 16 to 18 and is scheduled to hold bilateral meetings with Kazakhstan’s leaders on Monday before the summit on June 17.

At the summit, he is expected to deliver a keynote speech and “exchange views on the achievements of the China-Central Asia mechanism, mutually beneficial cooperation under the framework, and international and regional hotspot issues,” said a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson.

The office of Kazakhstan’s president noted that both countries are “set to further strengthen bilateral ties” and Xi will also chair “high-level talks with President [Tokayev] focused on deepening the comprehensive strategic partnership”.

Tokayev, who has been in office since 2019, is a fluent Mandarin speaker and previously served as a diplomat in China.

Zhao Long, a senior research fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS), told Al Jazeera that Central Asian countries see their partnership with China as a deep, multifaceted cooperation grounded in shared strategic and pragmatic interests.

“The alignment with China helps Central Asian states enhance their regional stability, pursue economic modernisation, and diversify their diplomatic portfolios,” said Zhao. Where Central Asia has abundant energy resources, he said, China offers vast markets, advanced technology, and infrastructure expertise.

Last Friday, Lin Jian, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, told a news briefing that establishing “the China-Central Asia mechanism was a unanimous decision among China and the five Central Asian countries, which dovetails with the region’s common desire to maintain stability and pursue high-quality development”.

Since China first formalised and chaired the China-Central Asia Summit in May 2023, Lin said, “China’s relations with Central Asian countries have entered a new era … injecting fresh impetus into regional development and delivering tangibly for the peoples of all six countries.”

“We believe through this summit, China and five Central Asian countries will further consolidate the foundation of mutual trust,” Lin added.

“During the summit, President Xi will also meet with these leaders and lay out the top-level plan for China’s relations with [the] five Central Asian countries,” said the spokesperson.

SIIS’s Zhao said Xi’s attendance at the second summit sends a clear message: “China places high strategic importance on Central Asia.”

What’s ‘C5+1’ – and is China racing the US for influence?

Experts are dubbing the China-Central Asia Summit as a C5+1 framework, because of the five regional nations involved.

The United States first initiated the concept of such a summit with all five Central Asian nations in 2015, under then-US President Barack Obama. But at the time, the conclave was held at the level of foreign ministers. Then-US Secretary of State John Kerry led the first meeting in September 2015 on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York.

In January 2022, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a virtual summit with the five Central Asian state heads, and then in June 2025, he invited them for a follow-up conclave in India.

Meanwhile, in 2023, Xi hosted the leaders in Xi’an. Four months later, then-US President Joe Biden hosted the C5 state heads on the sidelines of the UNGA in New York. It was the first time a US president met with Central Asian heads of state under this framework.

But current US President Donald Trump’s tariff policies could upset that outreach from Washington. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have all been tariffed at 10 percent.

Trump initially imposed an even higher 27 percent tariff on imports from Kazakhstan, the region’s largest economy, though as with all other countries, the US president has paused these rates, limiting tariffs to a flat 10 percent for now.

China has cited these tariff rates to project itself as a more reliable partner to Central Asia than the US. At the meeting with the foreign ministers of the region in April, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi criticised unilateralism, trade protectionism, and “the trend of anti-globalisation [that] has severely impacted the free trade system”.

The US, Wang said, was “undermining the rule-based multilateral trading system, and destabilising the global economy”.

Why does Central Asia matter to China?

The region, rich in uranium, oil, and rare earth metals, has become increasingly important to China as a key corridor for trade with Europe. Subsequently, China has increased its engagement with Central Asian countries.

Xi, who has curtailed his foreign visits since the COVID-19 pandemic, is visiting Kazakhstan for the third time since 2020. He visited in 2022, and then again in 2024.

Central Asia is also a critical part of Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) — a network of highways, railroads and ports connecting Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America — as a gateway to Europe.

Experts expect the BRI to figure prominently at the summit in Astana on Tuesday, with additional emphasis on collaboration in energy and sustainable development.

A planned $8bn railway connecting China’s Xinjiang region to Uzbekistan through Kyrgyzstan is likely to be on the agenda, the SIIS’s Zhao said. Construction on the project is scheduled to begin in July. Expected to be completed by 2030, the railway route will provide China with more direct access to Central Asia and reduce the three countries’ reliance on Russia’s transport infrastructure.

Additionally, Zhao said, the summit may feature agreements on reducing tariffs, streamlining customs procedures, and lowering non-tariff barriers to boost bilateral trade volumes.

How much does Central Asia depend on China?

A lot.

China is today the top trading partner of each of the five Central Asian republics.

• Kazakhstan imported goods worth $18.7bn from China and exported goods worth $15bn in 2023 — making up 30 percent of its total imports and 16 percent of exports.
• Tajikistan imported goods worth $3.68bn from China and exported goods worth $250m in 2023 — making up 56 percent of its total imports and 16 percent of exports.
• Kyrgyzstan imported goods worth $3.68bn and exported goods worth $887m in 2023 from China — constituting 29 percent of its total imports and 26 percent of exports.
• Uzbekistan imported goods worth $12.7bn and exported goods worth $1.82bn in 2023 from the world’s second-largest economy — representing 32 percent of its total imports and 6 percent of exports.
• Turkmenistan imported goods worth $957m and exported goods worth $9.63bn in 2023 from China — or 20 percent of its total imports and 62 percent of exports.

China is also ramping up its investments in the region. It has committed to an estimated $26bn in investments in Kazakhstan, for instance.

Is China replacing Russia in Central Asia?

It’s complicated.

Formerly parts of the Soviet Union, the five Central Asian republics have long belonged in Russia’s strategic sphere of influence. Millions of people from the five republics live and work in Russia, and since 2023, Moscow has become a supplier of natural gas to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, which have faced energy shortages — even though Central Asia was historically a supplier of energy to Russia.

But though Russia remains a major economic force in the region, China has overtaken it as the largest trading partner of Central Asian republics over the past three years — a period that has coincided with Russia’s war on Ukraine. Some of that increased trade, in fact, is believed to be the outcome of China using Central Asia as a conduit for exports to Russia of goods that face Western sanctions.

Still, there are ways in which Russia remains the region’s preeminent outside ally. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan — three of the region’s five nations — are part of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) — along with Russia, Armenia and Belarus. Like NATO, this bloc offers collective security guarantees to members. In effect, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have the cover of Russia’s protection if they are attacked by another nation — something that China does not offer.