Connect with us

Best Of

Meghan Markle Has ‘Lost Friends And Allies Everywhere,’ Claims Royal Expert

Meghan Markle, once a prominent actress recognized for her role in the television series Suits, transitioned into the spotlight as a royal when she married Prince Harry. The couple’s relationship became one of the most publicized unions in recent history, symbolizing both a fairy-tale romance and the challenges that come with royal life. In 2020, they chose to step back from their roles in the United Kingdom, marking a significant shift in their lives and sparking conversations across the globe. Their departure was coupled with numerous criticisms aimed at their outspoken nature, particularly regarding the British Royal Family, which they have spoken about extensively. Now settled in the United States, they seem to be seeking a quieter, more private existence.

Both Meghan and Harry have since embarked on new individual projects in their post-royal lives. Meghan recently launched a lifestyle brand called American Riviera Orchid, focusing on home décor and various culinary products. Meanwhile, Harry has taken several solo trips internationally, leading to rumors about possible strains in their marriage. These speculations have only added to the media frenzy surrounding them.

Since relocating to the U.S., Meghan has faced challenges in maintaining her circle of friends and supporters. Recently, renowned royal commentator Tina Brown—who also shared a friendship with Princess Diana—expressed blunt opinions about Meghan’s journey and actions. Her words echoed sentiments voiced by others in the media, attributing some of the criticism Meghan faces to her own decisions and behavior.

The Sussexes’ transition into American life has not been seamless, despite their privileged lifestyle. They have a luxurious home and are raising two young children, Archie and Lilibet, but this new chapter has brought its own share of scrutiny and challenges. Public perception has been a struggle, as media outlets closely examine each of their decisions, particularly in light of their highly publicized departure from royal duties.

The couple has been vocal in interviews and memoirs, sharing their grievances with the Royal Family and detailing personal struggles. However, these revelations have not come without backlash. Their disclosures led to fractured relationships and, reportedly, the loss of friendships with those who disagreed with their public critiques. Rumors about Harry potentially returning to the UK have circulated widely, especially given his separate public engagements in recent months. This, in turn, has fueled speculation about the status of their marriage. According to sources close to the couple, Meghan is reportedly distressed by the persistence of these rumors, which she feels unfairly target her while Harry garners praise for his initiatives.
A close source conveyed Meghan’s frustrations, stating that the ongoing whispers about their relationship are difficult for her to ignore. The source suggested that their choice to pursue individual projects may be a strategic one, allowing them to focus on causes close to their hearts. Yet Meghan’s sense of discomfort is amplified when she faces harsh criticism, particularly for things as minor as her attire or public comments. Such scrutiny, she believes, echoes her experiences while a member of the Royal Family, where she often felt unjustly judged.
Royal commentator Ed Coram James speculated on the reasons behind the Sussexes’ separate appearances. He suggested that their brand, once seen as a cohesive unit, began shifting after their infamous interview with Oprah Winfrey. According to James, the interview set off a chain reaction, transforming their image in the public eye and making partnerships with large brands more difficult to secure. The Sussexes’ vocal disputes with both the British Royal Family and some of Meghan’s relatives painted a picture of a couple willing to air grievances publicly. This led to perceptions of them as somewhat confrontational and combative, especially as several of their projects failed to meet expectations.
James suggested that to overcome the challenges surrounding their brand, the Sussexes would need to reposition themselves by focusing on qualities like humility and grace. For now, their individual efforts might help them forge unique identities and eventually enable a reimagined brand if they choose to reunite their public personas down the road. By moving in separate directions for now, they could cultivate distinct, positive reputations that might reshape the public narrative.
Meghan’s latest endeavor, American Riviera Orchid, aims to bring a fresh perspective to home and lifestyle goods. The brand includes kitchen items, cookbooks, preserves, and edible oils, showcasing her interest in wellness and home decor. However, some experts remain skeptical about its potential success, voicing concerns about the public’s readiness to embrace her new business direction.
In an interview on a podcast, Tina Brown did not hesitate to share her skepticism about the Sussexes’ post-royal career choices. Brown pointed out that while Harry naturally thrives in his public role, Meghan has faced challenges in crafting a consistent, successful brand image. According to Brown, Harry’s skills align closely with the expectations of a royal figure, and he reportedly carries a unique charm that suited his previous role in the monarchy well.
When discussing Meghan, Brown offered sharp criticism, stating that her judgment in business matters has been consistently flawed. Brown even asserted that Meghan tends to ignore advice, often choosing to go her own way despite consulting experts. Her comments underscored the challenges Meghan faces in shifting public opinion, a task made more difficult by perceived missteps in her professional decisions.
Over the years, Harry and Meghan’s candid remarks about the Royal Family have made headlines, especially with the release of Harry’s memoir, Spare. The book’s release was reportedly one of the factors behind their eviction from Frogmore Cottage by King Charles. Additionally, Harry’s strained relationship with his brother William is believed to be unresolved, with no plans for reconciliation at this time.
Opinions differ on who bears responsibility for the divide within the family, though Brown suggests that Harry is largely guided by Meghan’s influence. Brown even characterized Harry’s admiration for Meghan as unwavering, describing him as being captivated by her ambition and confidence in the Hollywood scene. According to Brown, this dynamic has shaped many of Harry’s decisions.
Another royal expert, Hugo Vickers, offered insights into Meghan’s tendency to lose supporters. Vickers suggested that her path since joining the Royal Family has been marked by burned bridges, including with notable supporters such as Tina Brown. Initially, many believed Meghan’s presence in the Royal Family could bring a modern, progressive influence, especially given her history of addressing issues at forums like the United Nations. But Vickers implied that she may not have fully grasped the demands of royal duty, which prioritize service over personal ambition.
Despite the turbulent nature of her departure from the UK, Meghan hinted at having more stories to tell. During an interview with The Cut, she revealed that she kept a personal diary during her time in the Royal Family. The existence of this journal has sparked curiosity, as it could contain further insights into her experiences within the monarchy.
In another interview, royal commentator Roya Nikkhah pointed to Meghan’s mention of the journal as a potential signal to the Royal Family. Nikkhah noted that Meghan’s reference to her journal and comments on speaking openly could be perceived as a subtle warning. Should Meghan ever choose to publish a memoir, it could further complicate her relationship with the Royal Family, especially if it revisits past grievances.
While speculation about Meghan’s intentions continues, royal expert Jennie Bond suggests that Meghan may prefer to move forward and leave her royal controversies behind. Bond expressed doubt that Meghan would release a memoir but acknowledged that the journal remains in her possession, potentially holding private reflections from her time as a senior royal. For now, however, Meghan appears focused on building a new chapter in the U.S., seemingly prioritizing a peaceful, forward-looking approach over revisiting past conflicts.PROC.BY MOVIES

Best Of

Clint Eastwood: They both have an adventure, It’s a new adventure

admin

Actor Clint Eastwood has worked with a variety of filmmakers during his years in the film industry. In his experience, there was one filmmaking habit he could barely tolerate from other directors.

It might have also showed Eastwood what not to do when he indulged in a career behind the camera.

Clint Eastwood once called out directors who did too many takes

Eastwood became interested in directing fairly early in his acting career. After getting his big break in the classic Western series Rawhide, he asked to direct a couple of episodes.

“Then, the production company reneged on their promise that I could do it,” Eastwood once told DGA.“They said that CBS didn’t want actors who were in the shows to be directing the shows. So I kind of dropped the idea for a while and then, after I’d been working with Sergio Leone on A Fistful of Dollars, observing the crews in Europe and getting a broader look at filmmaking around the world, I got interested again.”
Opportunity presented itself when Eastwood eventually directed his first feature Play Misty for Me.
“It was a great experience, and I had the bug after that,” Eastwood said.
It was perhaps because of his own time as a filmmaker that Eastwood understood the process behind other directors. At one point, Eastwood became very critical of directors who did multiple takes. So much so that he called into question their qualifications and expertise as filmmakers.
“Some of these new directors will shoot 30 takes of a scene just because they don’t know what they want. They wind up with thousands of feet [of film], then they cry for some some editor to come in and save their butts. If you can’t see It yourself, you shouldn’t be a director,” Eastwood once told The New York Times.
Clint Eastwood has been known for only doing a couple of takes
Eastwood seems to have maintained his philosophy for limited takes in his more mature years. Actors like Matt Damon have been pleasantly surprised by the veteran star’s efficiency as a filmmaker. The Bourne Identity star had even gotten chewed out by Eastwood for wanting to do more than one take in Invictus.
“We did the first take, it went pretty well, but Clint says, ‘Cut. Print. Check the gate.’ Which means we’re gonna move on,” Damon recalled on Hot Ones. “And I said, ‘Hey, boss, maybe you think we can get one more?’ And he just turned and he goes, ‘Why? You wanna waste everybody’s time?’ I was like, ‘Ok, we’re done. Alright good, let’s move on.’”
But Eastwood believed his own habit for working quickly in films came down to his work on the small screen.
“I came up through television, and in television you had to move fast. The important thing, of course, is what comes out on the screen. I like to move fast only because I think it works well for the actors and the crew to feel like we’re progressing forward,” he said.
However, Eastwood cautioned that his reputation as a quick director could easily backfire.
“You don’t want to do Plan 9 from Outer Space, where the gravestones fall over and you say, ‘I can’t do another take. We’re too busy. Move on.’ You’re still making a film that you want to be right. But I find, as an actor, that I worked better when the directors were working fast,” he said.
Clint Eastwood once preferred directing over acting
Although he’s experienced massive success doing both, Eastwood asserted that there were certain benefits being a filmmaker had over being an actor.
“To doing both jobs, I’ve done it so many times that I never put the difference in. Directing a film is the same… it’s a little more leisurely that way. You don’t have to suit up. People aren’t coming in and combing your hair or whatever. It’s a little more leisurely, but different. But they both have an adventure. It’s a new adventure,” he said.
PROC.BY MOVIES

Continue Reading

Best Of

John Wayne Turned Down Oscar-Winning Lead Role Because It’s ‘the Most Un-American Thing I’ve Ever Seen in My Whole Life,’

Oscar-winning actor John Wayne is one of Hollywood’s biggest icons. The world knows him for his war and western movies that audiences of all ages could enjoy. However, he also turned down a fair amount of roles over the course of his career. Wayne rejected the lead role in High Noon and called it “the most un-American thing I’ve ever seen in my whole life.”

Wayne didn’t serve in the military, which would later become one of his biggest regrets. Nevertheless, he was still a major patriot. Wayne was vocal when it came to speaking his mind about his conservative Republican values. He frequently spoke his mind about his perspective and how they related to the social and political climate in interviews. Wayne turned down some roles in movies such as Steven Spielberg’s 1941 as a result of his patriotism.

However, Wayne’s views were also at odds with many of his colleagues. His 1971 Playboy interview remains in many minds. Wayne openly said a slur against the LGBTQ community and made racially problematic statements. He’s a Hollywood icon who was never afraid to speak his mind, regardless of who or what it was about.

Ronald L. Davis’ Duke: The Life and Image of John Wayne explores the Oscar-winner’s past and his interactions with various Hollywood productions. He was offered the role of Marshal Will Kane in Fred Zinnemann’s High Noon. He turned the role down, which then went to actor Gary Cooper instead.

The story follows Will as he’s getting ready to leave the small town of Hadleyville, New Mexico, with his new wife, Amy (Grace Kelly). He discovers a criminal who was set free and is set on seeking revenge on the marshal who originally turned him in. The townsfolk cower in fear of his return, so Will has to face him alone.
“The most un-American thing I’ve ever seen in my whole life,” Wayne said. “I’ll never regret having helped run Carl Foreman [High Noon’s screenwriter] out of the country.” Foreman was a member of the Communist Party for a time, which Wayne called out.
Davis noted that “Duke incorrectly remembered the Western’s final scene as one in which the United States marshal played by Gary Cooper throws his badge to the ground and steps on it.” However, Cooper’s character never steps on the badge. Rather, he tosses it to the ground before retreating to the desert.
Gary Cooper won an Oscar for ‘High Noon’
Wayne would finally win an Oscar with his third nomination for Best Actor in a Leading Role for 1969’s True Grit. However, he was earlier nominated for Best Actor in a Leading Role for Sands of Iwo Jima and Best Picture for The Alamo.

Continue Reading

Best Of

John Wayne famously stormed up to Douglas after a screening to rage: “Christ, Kirk, how can you play a part like that

admin

I’m Spartacus!” – “I’m Spartacus!” – “I’M SPARTACUS!” Every film buff knows that moment, every panel-show comedian riffs on it. A mob of defeated slave rebels in the pre-Christian Roman empire is told their wretched lives will be spared, but only if their ringleader, Spartacus (Kirk Douglas), comes out and gives himself up to be executed. Just as he is about to sacrifice himself, one slave, Antoninus (Tony Curtis) jumps up and claims to be Spartacus, then another, and another, then all of them, a magnificent display of solidarity, while the man himself allows a tear to fall in closeup.

This variant on the Christian myth – in the face of crucifixion, Spartacus’s disciples do not deny him – is a pointed political fiction. In real life, Spartacus was killed on the battlefield. The screenplay was written by Dalton Trumbo, the blacklisted author who had to work under aliases and found no solidarity in Hollywood. Yet Douglas himself, as the film’s producer, stood up for Trumbo. He put Trumbo’s real name in the credits, and ended the McCarthy-ite hysteria.

Kirk Douglas in SpartacusHe’s Spartacus: Douglas in his most famous role.The main reason the scene is so potent is its extraordinary irony. Who on earth could claim to be Spartacus when Spartacus looked like that? Douglas is a one-man Hollywood Rushmore, almost hyperreal in his masculinity. He is the movie-world’s Colossus of Rhodes, a figure of pure-granite maleness yet with something feline, and a sinuous, gravelly voice. Douglas is a heart-on-sleeve actor, mercurial and excitable; he has played tough guys and vulnerable guys, heroes and villains. And, as a pioneering producer, he brought two Stanley Kubrick films to the screen: Spartacus (he hired Kubrick to replace Anthony Mann) and his first world war classic Paths of Glory in which he was superb, playing a principled French army officer.

One hundred years ago today, Douglas was born Issur Danielovitch, the son of a Moscow-born Russian Jewish ragman, in upstate New York. An uncle had been killed in the pogroms at home. In his 1988 memoir, The Ragman’s Son, Douglas describes the casual antisemitism he faced almost throughout his career. Rebranding yourself with a Waspy stage-name was what actors – and immigrants in general – had to do in America to survive and thrive.

After a start on the Broadway stage, he made his screen reputation playing the driven fighter Midge Kelly in the exhilarating boxing movie Champion (1949), which earned him the first of his three Oscar nominations. Champion has stunning images and a notable slo-mo scene: it is much admired by Martin Scorsese and transparently an influence on Raging Bull. In Detective Story (1951), directed by William Wyler, Douglas gives a grandstanding star turn in a melodrama set in a police station, playing the vindictive, violent McLeod, an officer with an awful secret. It was a movie that laid down the template for all cop TV shows, including The Streets of San Francisco, which was to star Douglas’s son Michael.
But it was in Ace in the Hole (1951), directed by Billy Wilder, that Douglas gives his first classic performance: the sinister newspaper reporter Chuck Tatum, who prolongs the ordeal of a man trapped in a cave to create a better story. He is an electrifying villain in that film, a Phineas T Barnum of media untruth. At one stage he slaps the wife of the trapped man (whom he is also seducing) because she wasn’t sufficiently demure and sad-looking for his purposes, like an imperious film director looking for a better performance. He is also brilliant in Vincente Minnelli’s The Bad and the Beautiful (1952) as Jonathan Shields, the diabolically persuasive movie producer who betrays everyone.
Arguably, it is in Paths of Glory (1958) that Douglas finds his finest hour as the tough, principled Colonel Dax, who stands up to the callous and incompetent senior officers of the high command. Douglas’s handsome, unsmiling face is set like a bayonet of contempt.
Douglas himself prizes his sensitive and Oscar-nominated performance as Vincent van Gogh in another Vincente Minnelli film, Lust for Life, from 1956. Some may smile a little at this earnest and high-minded movie now, but it is very watchable, with a heartfelt belief that Van Gogh’s art can be understood by everyone. There is a bold, passionate performance from Douglas, who simply blazes with agony. Not everyone liked it. John Wayne famously stormed up to Douglas after a screening to rage: “Christ, Kirk, how can you play a part like that? There’s so goddamn few of us left. We got to play tough, strong characters. Not those weak queers!”
Douglas has endured a scene of almost Freudian trauma in his career. Having bought the rights to Ken Kesey’s novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest in the 1960s, he himself played the lead for its Broadway adaptation: McMurphy, the subversive wild-man imprisoned in a psychiatric hospital.
PROC. BY MOVIES

Continue Reading

Trending