Entertainment

The Films, the Friendship, and the Forging of an American Hero – My Blog

Long, long ago John ford first noticed him in 1928, herding a flock of geese on the set of Mother Machree, an otherwise forgettable shanty-Irish weepie. The kid was huge, but innocent—or at least innocent-seeming. He had (he later claimed) “no desire” to be an actor. He was just a college football player earning spare cash as a property boy, an extra. Ford noticed him, but concluded that he wasn’t ready. (“I wanted some pain written on his face to offset the innocence.”) Looking at a still from 1930, you see immediately that Ford was right: He is soft and creamy, a “come-hither” carved out of a half-baked cheesecake. It was Raoul Walsh who finally cast him in his first lead role, in The Big Trail, released in 1930, and who told him, after consulting with the studio bosses, to change his name to John Wayne.

The Big Trail bombed—magnificently, on the scale of Cleopatra and Heaven’s Gate—and this sent Wayne back to Hollywood purgatory. He made dozens of Westerns for the so-called Poverty Row studios, disposable Saturday-matinee “oaters” for boys. (That Wayne endured making them for nearly a decade somewhat belies his claim of having no ambitions as an actor.) When Ford spotted him again, he was fishing off a pier in Long Beach, a B-level player whose confidence was shot. Ford didn’t care; he prized men for their mateyness. He invited Wayne onto his boat, the Araner, and after a while added him to his inner circle. One day in 1938, Ford—an Academy Award–winning director now—tossed his hanger-on a script and, calling him an “idiot,” offered him the lead in Stagecoach.
In the final tally, they made 23 pictures together. Three of them—Stagecoach (1939), The Searchers (1956), and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)—are, by any standard, among the best and most important Hollywood films ever made. In their creative partnership, “the two men succeeded in defining an ideal of American masculinity that dominated for nearly half a century,” Nancy Schoenberger writes in Wayne and Ford: The Films, the Friendship, and the Forging of an American Hero. Schoenberger, an English professor at William & Mary, gamely argues that the masculine ideal, as championed by Ford and embodied by Wayne, is still salvageable, honorable even, and she cites her admiration for her own father, a test pilot. Stoic, humble, gallant, self-sufficient, loyal—put that way, who could disagree?But that is not the whole story. Schoenberger has hidden a provocative thesis inside a Christmas present for Dad. She asks us to remember the beauty of masculine self-mastery as Ford presented it in his very best films. And yet, from the bulk of the evidence here, masculinity (like the Western) is a by-product of nostalgia, a maudlin elegy for something that never existed—or worse, a masquerade that allows no man, not even John Wayne, to be comfortable in his own skin.
In the long working friendship

In the long working “friendship” between the two men, unless I missed it, Ford never spared a kind word for his protégé. In fact, Ford was savage in his mistreatment of Wayne, even though—or because?—Wayne worshipped him. (“My whole set up was that he was my mentor and my ideal! I think that deep down inside, he’s one of the greatest human beings that I have ever known.”) From Stagecoach through Liberty Valance, their last Western together, Ford rode Wayne so mercilessly that fellow performers—remarkably, given the terror Ford inspired—stepped in on Wayne’s behalf. Filming Stagecoach, Wayne revealed his inexperience as a leading man, and this made Ford jumpy. “Why are you moving your mouth so much?” he demanded, grabbing Wayne by the chin. “Don’t you know that you don’t act with your mouth in pictures?” And he hated the way Wayne moved. “Can’t you walk, instead of skipping like a goddamn fairy?”
Masculinity, says Schoenberger, echoing Yeats, was for Ford a quarrel with himself out of which he made poetry. Jacques Lacan’s definition of love might be more apt: “Giving something you don’t have to someone who doesn’t want it.” Ford was terrified of his own feminine side, so he foisted a longed-for masculinity on Wayne. A much simpler creature than Ford, Wayne turned this into a cartoon, and then went further and politicized it. There was an awful pathos to their relationship—Wayne patterning himself on Ford, at the same time that Ford was turning Wayne into a paragon no man could live up to.
John and John were private though and great friends.

Entertainment

Can you solve this puzzle?

### Puzzle Details:
1. **Frank says:** “I didn’t do it.”
2. **John says:** “Frank is lying.”
3. **Peter says:** “Frank is telling the truth.”

### Analyzing the Statements:
Let’s analyze the implications of their statements:

– If **Frank** is telling the truth (he didn’t do it):
– Then **John** is lying (since he claims Frank is lying).
– If John is lying, that means **Frank** is indeed innocent.
– **Peter** is telling the truth by claiming Frank is honest.

Thus, if Frank is telling the truth:
– Frank = Innocent
– John = Guilty (because he lied)
– Peter = Innocent

– If **Frank** is lying (he did it):
– Then **John** is telling the truth (as he says Frank is lying).
– If John is telling the truth, then Frank is indeed guilty.
– **Peter** is lying (as he claims Frank is telling the truth).

Thus, if Frank is lying:
– Frank = Guilty
– John = Innocent
– Peter = Guilty (because he lied)

### Summary of Scenarios:
1. **Frank is Innocent:** (Frank: Truth, John: Lie, Peter: Truth)
2. **Frank is Guilty:** (Frank: Lie, John: Truth, Peter: Lie)

### Conclusion:
– If Frank is innocent, John’s statement indicates he is guilty, which means Peter must be innocent.
– If Frank is guilty, then John is innocent but Peter must now be guilty.

**In both scenarios, we can determine that John cannot be guilty at the same time as Frank.**

Thus, the only consistent solution appears to be:
– **Frank is guilty.**
– **John is innocent.**
– **Peter is lying.**

Therefore, only one man is guilty, which is **Frank.**

Entertainment

Look closer, the photographer was not expecting this photo

For most couples, their wedding day is the happiest day of their lives.

A wedding is a celebration of love between two people who choose to spend their lives together. It marks the start of a new journey filled with shared experiences, personal growth, and mutual support.

A wedding is a happy time for the whole family to come together. From saying vows to sharing the first dance, weddings are full of special moments that create lasting memories. These memories are cherished by the couple and their loved ones for years.

When planning their wedding, couples carefully consider every detail to make sure it’s perfect. From choosing the venue to picking the décor and theme, weddings show the couple’s unique love story.

However, in trying to give their guests a unique experience, some couples do strange things. Whether they regret it when they look back at their wedding photos years later, we don’t know. But we do know that some weddings are so awkward they make us question the bride and groom’s sanity, while others are so fun they make us smile.

Check out the video below to see some of the most interesting weddings you’ve ever seen.

Entertainment

Sydney Sweeney hits back at horrific body shaming comments on viral pictures with incredible response

Sydney Sweeney has posted an Instagram video which included body shaming comments

Sydney Sweeney has hit back at horrific body shaming comments she’s received online with an incredible response.

For famous faces, social media can be an extremely toxic place, and it’s why we’ve seen some celebrities reduce their online presence as a result.

Euphoria star Sydney Sweeney has become the subject of body shaming comments in recent times, and she responded to these on Instagram in the best possible way.

The actor posted a shot clip that began with screenshots of a bunch of body shaming comments she’s received online, including some calling her ‘quite frumpy’, ‘very chunky’ and ‘tubby’.

Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell discuss chemistry
After many screenshots of horrible comments were shown on screen, the video cut to Sweeney in her training gear at the gym.

The video cut to a sign that said ‘hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard’ as Sweeney worked hard with a trainer, struck a punching bag and even flipped a large tire in what looked like an extremely intense workout.

Many have flocked to the comments section of the Instagram video to praise Sweeney for her response to the trolls.

“I will never understand the hate in people‘s hearts when it comes to leaving comments like this,” one person commented.

A second added: “Ngl why do people feel entitled to talk about someone’s body specially someone you don’t personally know,” while a third remarked: “No one has the right or reason to make comments on anyones body, ever.”

Meanwhile, Lili Reinhart penned: “It’s always wild to see people publicly out themselves as pieces of shit with comments like that. You look incredible and your dedication to your project is very inspiring.”

The video actually concluded with the name ‘Christy Martin’ being shown on the screen, which is a nod to Sweeney’s upcoming biopic where she plays a famed female boxer.

Boxing fans will likely know Martin is a is a former professional boxer who earned herself the WBC female super welterweight title in 2009.

Sweeney has spoken previously about her process of getting into her movie character, telling The Los Angeles Times in March that she’s a ‘very hands-on collaborator’.

“I like being able to give ideas, be a part of it, help come up with solutions. It just changes the whole process,” she said.

Sweeney continued: “It’s so hard for me now to be on a set and not be able to help in any type of way and be able to take action. And being able to actually have a voice and have a valued opinion—it means so much.”