Tag Archives: memoir

Sarah Polley: ‘It took me years to see how responsible Terry Gilliam was for my terror’ | Autobiography and memoir

When I was four years old, I treated my junior kindergarten class at North Toronto Christian School to a raucous rendition of Sit on My Face by Monty Python. It was show and tell, after all, so I sang them my favourite song, which included the lines: “I love to hear you oralise / When I’m between your thighs / You blow me away!”

I knew the song because among my father’s most treasured possessions were the albums of Monty Python’s Flying Circus. Over and over we would listen, as a family, to the Lumberjack Song, the Dead Parrot sketch and the Argument Clinic and watch The Meaning of Life, Life of Brian and Monty Python and the Holy Grail. By the time I was four, I could recite most Monty Python sketches and scenes by heart.

In 1987, when I was eight and already a child actor, Monty Python member Terry Gilliam came to Toronto to do a screen test with John Neville for the title role in his new fantasy-comedy film, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. He was auditioning girls all over the world for the part of Sally Salt, the Baron’s trusty sidekick. The collective blood pressure in our house almost exploded over my getting the chance to meet Terry, let alone a chance to work with him.

Terry was giggly, fun, rambunctious. He reminded me of the kind of disobedient, unregulated child I had avoided in school in order to keep out of trouble.

When my mother got the phone call that I had got the part, I saw her cover her mouth in what looked like a mixture of shock, excitement and fear. I witnessed in my father a pure, unmitigated elation, which was simultaneously exhilarating and daunting. I had been cast in a movie directed by Terry Gilliam, in which Eric Idle, another former Monty Python member, would also perform. The pinnacle of my success, and of my father’s pride, had been reached. I was eight years old.

Production would begin in three months’ time in Rome, primarily at the legendary studio Cinecittà, where Fellini had made his movies, as well as two locations in Spain. I began counting down the days until my departure.

Our apartment in Rome was in a tiny little square called Largo dei Librari, just off the Campo de’ Fiori. Almost every night, my mother and father and I ate dinner in the same small restaurant courtesy of my per diem. On days off, my family went sightseeing. We went to the Pantheon, the Colosseum, Piazza Navona. We had at our disposal a driver and a stretch-limo Mercedes. My siblings all came over on first-class tickets. This glamorous life we suddenly found ourselves in the middle of was a shock to our family’s system, although not an unwelcome one.

The cast included Alison Steadman, Bill Paterson, Eric Idle, Jonathan Pryce, Oliver Reed and a 17-year-old Uma Thurman, who was appearing as Venus in her first major film role. As we rehearsed, Terry’s insane hyena giggle would greet me whenever I said or did something he found funny.

As we went into production, things quickly began to fall apart. Terry was erratic, a dreamer, someone who didn’t live in the world of “logic and reason” – just as the Baron himself didn’t. I would overhear the crew complain that plans, months in the making, would suddenly be replaced at the last minute with wild, ambitious impulses that put enormous pressure on the crew, the budget and the schedule.

Born in Toronto, Canada into a theatrical family.

“,”unixDate”:284688000000},{“title”:” “,”date”:”1985″,”body”:”

First appears on screen as Molly in Disney’s One Magic Christmas and soon becomes known as “Canada’s sweetheart” for her appearances in several long-running children’s TV series.

“,”unixDate”:487123200000},{“title”:” “,”date”:”1987″,”body”:”

Stars in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen and goes on to appear in many other films, including ExoticaThe Sweet HereafterThe Weight of Water and Dawn of the Dead.

“,”unixDate”:550195200000},{“title”:” “,”date”:”2006″,”body”:”

Her directorial debut, Away From Her, adapted from an Alice Munro short story and starring Julie Christie, is nominated for two Oscars.

“,”unixDate”:1149811200000},{“title”:” “,”date”:”2012″,”body”:”

Explores her complicated family history in the documentary Stories We Tell, winner of the Toronto Film Critics Association best Canadian film of the year.

“,”unixDate”:1339200000000},{“title”:” “,”date”:”2017″,”body”:”

Writes the Netflix miniseries Alias Grace, based on Margaret Atwood’s novel of the same name.

“,”unixDate”:1496966400000},{“title”:” “,”date”:”2022″,”body”:”

Reviewing her memoir, the New York Times described her as “a stunningly sophisticated observer of the world”.

“,”unixDate”:1654778020000}],”description”:”

“}”>

Timeline

Sarah Polley: her career so far

Show

Born in Toronto, Canada into a theatrical family.

First appears on screen as Molly in Disney’s One Magic Christmas and soon becomes known as “Canada’s sweetheart” for her appearances in several long-running children’s TV series.

Stars in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen and goes on to appear in many other films, including ExoticaThe Sweet HereafterThe Weight of Water and Dawn of the Dead.

Her directorial debut, Away From Her, adapted from an Alice Munro short story and starring Julie Christie, is nominated for two Oscars.

Explores her complicated family history in the documentary Stories We Tell, winner of the Toronto Film Critics Association best Canadian film of the year.

Writes the Netflix miniseries Alias Grace, based on Margaret Atwood’s novel of the same name.

Reviewing her memoir, the New York Times described her as “a stunningly sophisticated observer of the world”.

Thank you for your feedback.

There were many special effects in the film; scenes of battle, exploding bombs, space and moonwalking. As we were about to shoot a sequence involving explosives, Terry led me down a route I was to run through – the set of a bombed-out city. I was told there would be explosives going off as I ran, but I wasn’t concerned. It would all be perfectly safe, I was told. I was given two cotton balls to put into my ears in case the sound was too loud for me. After Terry yelled “Action!” I began my run as instructed. Blasts of debris exploded on the ground around me, accompanied by deafening booms that made me feel as if I myself had exploded. A log I was to run under was partially on fire. The gigantic blasts continued and shook everything around me. I ran, terrified, straight into the camera, tripping over the dolly tracks.

Terry laughed and looked perplexed. “What happened?” he asked, as though I had just run screaming from a slow-moving merry-go-round. I couldn’t breathe. It didn’t seem possible that this could have been the plan, that things hadn’t just gone terribly wrong. But they hadn’t. This was the plan. And I had just ruined the take. I was mortified. It took a long time to reset the take and while Terry didn’t show any frustration about the delay, he also didn’t seem to notice how scared I was.

I had to do it again. I had to do it until I got it right. I went cold with fear, shaking. I sobbed in my father’s arms in between takes and pleaded with him to intervene.He held me close, soothing me. But when an assistant director came over to say they needed another take, my father said, with genuine remorse: “I’m afraid they have to do it again, love. I’m sorry. There’s nothing I can do.” And so I ran the gauntlet of explosives again. And again. And again.

Sarah Polley as Sally Salt alongside John Neville’s Baron Munchausen. Photograph: Collection Christophel/Alamy

There were many subsequent scenes in which explosives were used. One took place in a rowing boat, which was placed in a giant tank of water to mimic the sea. Jack Purvis, Eric Idle and I were seated in the rowing boat behind Angelo Ragusa (John Neville’s stuntman), who sat astride a large Arabian horse. As I remember it, a series of smallish explosions were to go off beside the boat, followed by a larger explosive that was so powerful, it was placed deep underwater at the bottom of the tank. On the first take, the small explosions scared the horse and it began backing up into us. Angelo forced it to jump overboard into the water to save us from being trampled. As the horse hit the bottom of the tank, its hooves pulled the larger explosive up and as it surfaced, it detonated quite close to me.

I remember not hearing anything, Eric’s terrified face, the crew looking panicked at the edge of the tank. I remember a hard, crushing sensation in my chest and being carried towards an ambulance as the crew looked on, alarmed. I remember that the doctors were kind, that my parents were told there was nothing wrong with me and that I went back to work the next day. The scenes with explosions continued, each one terrifying me more than the last.

We shot quite a few scenes in that same giant tank of water, wetsuits under our costumes. Once, we shook with cold in the tank for several hours, until Eric Idle yelled at Terry and I was taken out early. In another scene, I dangled from from the underside of the Baron’s hot-air balloon high above the ground in the parking lot of the studio. I was very scared and at one point I screamed as I heard a loud ripping sound that I thought was my harness coming loose. It turned out to be a minor rip in my dress. Terry giggled at my fear, telling me I was fine. “Don’t worry!” he yelled up. “We can’t afford to lose you!”

The hours were crushingly long sometimes. I started drinking coffee. A lot of it. I sneaked it from the craft services truck. If I had coffee in me, I knew I could do what was asked of me, even if my body was resistant. My heart might beat too fast, but at least I wouldn’t fall asleep standing up.

‘A childlike incapacity for understanding grown-up problems’: film director Terry Gilliam. Photograph: Richard Saker/The Observer

There was chaos, almost daily. Between the problems with the producers, the studio and Terry, the production always felt on the brink of disaster.

After the production moved to Spain, I came down with an illness that had me vomiting and feverish for days. I listened, through a haze, as my father explained that there was no choice but for me to work. The next day, legs shaking, fever raging, I ran with hundreds of people out of the gates of the town, in the last scene in the film. The war against the Turks, which is the main struggle of the film, had been won. I had to look happy. And I did, between rounds of barfing.

When the film was finally released into the world, it came out with a deafening thud. It was a bomb for the ages, right up there with Heaven’s Gate in terms of ill-fated, budget-bloated failures. It was too closely associated with outgoing executive David Puttnam, who was leaving Columbia Pictures on bad terms, and the release was purposefully botched. I was stunned that after about $46m spent, horror endured and survived, and a pretty great movie made, a production’s fate could be reduced to the outcome of a petty studio squabble.

When I was in my mid-20s, I met a nine-year-old actress on a film set who I will call Sandra. Sandra’s mother, who I will call Jessica, clearly had big ambitions for her kid. One day, she emailed me to say that her daughter was close to landing a part in Terry Gilliam’s new film, Tideland, which would be shooting in Canada. Was there anything I could do to help or put in a good word for Sandra? I gagged when I read the email. I told her how big a mistake I thought it would be for Sandra (who I happened to be very fond of ) to work on a Terry Gilliam production. I told her about my experiences on The Adventures of Baron Munchausen and how lightly my safety and sense of security had been taken. None of it got through to her. In a panic, I finally wrote to Terry hoping it might spare another kid from the kind of traumatising experience I had had. Here is our email exchange.

Hi there Terry

I hear you’re making a film in saskatchewan this summer. i hope you have a great time – there are some great crew people you’ll probably be using from Winnipeg who got into making films because of you. (it’s actually pretty bizarre – i worked out there this winter and at least 5 people told me that Baron Munchausen was the film that made them choose to be in film.)

I guess i just wanted to touch base and share a few things about my experience working on that movie. I know you’ll be working with a young girl and i realise we’ve never had a chance to talk about that time – or i guess i mean i haven’t communicated to you what my experiences were, or how i remember them now, or how i feel they affected me. I know you’ve heard varying reports (i can’t remember who told me that) and i realise that it’s not really fair for me to not communicate it all to you directly. especially since the only people who i hold responsible (and who, by definition, were supposed to be responsible) were my parents.

Basically, I remember being afraid a lot of the time. I felt incredibly unsafe. I remember a couple of trips to the hospital after being in freezing water for long periods of time, losing quite a bit of my hearing for days at a time due to explosives, having my heart monitored when one went off relatively close to me, etc. I remember running through this long sort of corridor where explosives went off every few feet, things were on fire, etc. i cried hysterically in my dad’s lap and begged him to make sure i wouldn’t have to do it again, but I did. I think i did it quite a few more times. I remember the terrifying scene where we were in the boat and the horse jumped out and ended up surfacing a plastic explosive that went off right under my face. i remember being half trampled by a mob of extras and then repeating the scene several times. i remember working very long hours.

i know i had some fun as well, but it’s pretty much obliterated by the sense of fear and exhaustion and of not being protected by the adults around me. And again, the adults who should have been there to protect me were my parents, not you. This of course took some time to arrive at. I admit i was pretty furious at you for a lot of years.

what i went through is nothing compared to what many kids in the world suffer. but it certainly was unusual for a middle-class kid in toronto and it hardened and isolated me for many years i think. it also created a pretty substantial lack of trust in my parents (again, not your fault, but a byproduct of the experience).

this – contrary to how it may read – is not meant to be a guilt trip. you were always fun and fascinating and you gave me a ton of confidence. you’re a genius and it was a privilege (no matter what my age) to watch you make a great film. I think that film was hell for you too and you had enough responsibility just keeping it going without having to be a parent to someone else’s child. I believe that you felt that if there was something that was particularly traumatic to me that my parents would have informed you and pulled the plug. of course this is what should have happened on many occasions. i don’t think my parents were monsters by any stretch of the imagination. i do think, though, that you can’t overestimate how in awe of you people like them can be. i think they were so shocked and thrilled to have their daughter in a Terry Gilliam movie that they couldn’t see past that. they didn’t want to be an annoyance or an inconvenience to anyone and it must have been daunting to imagine holding up 100 people for your kid.

so here’s my point. who knows who you’ll cast and what their parents will be like. my suspicion is that you might need to be constantly analysing whether you would put your own nine-year-old in the positions you’ll be putting this kid in. because it’s entirely likely that the child’s own parents will be (for whatever reason) incapable of making the right call. this is a huge responsibility but i’m starting to think (from watching other kids and parents) that this is a fundamental part of the job when you’re working with kids who should really be in school anyway.

here’s some unsolicited advice:

try to keep a close eye on the mood of the kid, ask them a lot of questions about how they’re doing, if they want to stop doing what they’re doing, etc. if they seem uncomfortable, afraid, take it upon yourself to make the call as to whether or not it’s best to stop or keep going.

if there are water scenes in this one – make sure it’s warm!!!! if there are explosions in this one – i really can’t emphasise enough how much better it would be if you could do reaction shots separate from the explosions themselves. I still duck when a car door slams too close or too loud.

i know it’s probably a sucky way to shoot it – but it might save you another email like this one.

sorry for the babbling. i just realised i wasn’t doing either of us any favours by not letting you know this stuff. and i really think you’re a decent person so hearing this might have an impact without being too alienating (i hope).

good luck with the film. i know it’ll be brilliant.

sarah polley

He wrote back the very next day.

Sarah,
Ever since I started this Canadian project your name has been at the forefront of most of my Toronto conversations. Every potential crew member I interview ends up including you in the chat. You are ubiquitous. How many people get that adjective thrown at them? I also hear you are about to start your first film as director. Congratulations. You’ve done brilliantly. You’ve continued to be a wonderful actress and I’m certain you’ll handle the directing business just as well. As far as the scars of Munchausen go, I had no idea that they were that deep. What always impressed me from my side of the camera was how professional you were …always prepared and willing to dive into anything, no matter how difficult, that we organised (possibly that should read, disorganised). In fact, I started taking for granted that you could always be counted on, unlike some of the adults. You seemed so focused, I had no idea you were having such a terrifying time. For what it’s worth, we were always concerned to make things safe for you (you were too valuable to the production to allow anything to happen to you). Although things might have seemed to be dangerous, they weren’t. The only time events got close to trouble was when the horse jumped from the boat. We all were terrified, however I knew that Angelo Raguzzo [sic] was one of the most brilliant horsemen I had ever seen and that he would make sure none of you in the boat were harmed. Nevertheless the explosion was a fuckup and I apologise.

One thing I’m curious about. Can you tell, when you see Sally in the film, in which of the shots it’s you … and which ones are your double? Do you remember that the shots of you in the boat were right at the edge of the tank with stuntmen in the water next to the boat?
I only ask, not to minimise your bad memories, but to try to understand the differences in the way you and I remember the events… especially since you were so young and impressionable and sensitive and yet seemed to be so wise and about 30 years old.

Luckily, for the girl in the film we are starting, there are no physically dangerous or terrifying scenes. I grant you there are some disturbing ones for adults but I don’t think so for her. Like you, she is in every scene. It’s her film. She’s nine years old and has been acting since she was four. Extraordinary! Luckily for her, I’m much older now. And a lot more tired. Possibly a bit more wise as well. And I will take to heart your suggestions.

Thanks for making contact. Hopefully, next time I’m in Toronto we can manage a dinner together. I’m curious to learn who you are now. Terry

hi terry

thanks a lot for getting back to me. i do know in retrospect that many things that terrified me were not as terrifying as they seemed then. (and i definitely remember that the boat was in a tank.) and i’m pretty sure i know which shots were the double. however – it does raise a question of what i remember vs what happened. it’s like this with photographs. whole memories get built around them, which is sometimes a reflection of a general sense of things as they felt at the time as opposed to what actually occurred. so i’m willing to accept that my impressions may have been unlike what an adult might have. i think that’s sort of the point. it wasn’t a good environment for a kid because there were things that could easily be interpreted as dangerous without actually being dangerous. i think it’s harder to make those distinctions as a child, and i didn’t have a lot of support in trying to make them. the really traumatic things that happened are distinct memories that gave me nightmares well before the film came out so confusion between what the stunt double was doing as opposed to me didn’t really play into my bad memories i don’t think.

i really appreciate you responding. i wasn’t sure how you’d react. i hope the film goes really well. i’d love to get together when you are next in toronto. i’ve really appreciated this exchange.

Sarah

In the end, Sandra wasn’t cast in Tideland. The part went to 10-year-old Jodelle Ferland. When Tideland was released, the Globe and Mail published an article called “Twinkle, twinkle little star.” The writer, Gayle MacDonald, wrote: “Film-makers like Gilliam keep coming to the Canadian talent trough for child actors because our kids, by all accounts, tend to be easy to direct, manage and mould. Chalk it up to our easygoing, accommodating national character.”

Unsettled by MacDonald’s framing, I asked for Terry’s permission to publish our email exchange as part of an article I wrote for the Toronto Star in response to MacDonald’s piece and, to his credit, without hesitation he agreed. (One of the things I still admire about Terry is this lack of fear, this lack of an instinct to hide and protect himself from exposure or attack. I think most people would have refused to let their emails be published this way.) I wrote the following conclusion to the piece:

At a film festival event a few weeks ago, I saw Terry for the first time in 17 years. We had a friendly chat and spoke about Jodelle. He said, “She had a great time, you could tell she really loved it …and she was happy to be there …” He paused, and looked at me thoughtfully. “Then again,” he said, “I remember thinking the same thing about you . . . that’s why I was so surprised to get your emails.” He looked confused.

It would have been difficult for anyone to see how unhappy I was at the time. Like many kids, I was eager to please and good at adapting to difficult situations, storing them away to unpack later.

In every interview I’ve read with Jodelle Ferland, she talks about shooting Tideland as a very positive experience. Based on my own experiences, I’m curious about whether her impressions will change. Perhaps I’ll drop her a line in a decade or two to find out.

I wrote this conclusion to the article in another time, in another political climate. Here’s what I left out: when Terry first saw me at that film festival event, he grabbed my shirt “playfully”, turned me around, tried to pull it up and said: “Come on – show me the scars! Where are the scars?!” I actually have a really long scar on my spine from scoliosis surgery and, not understanding that he was speaking in metaphor, I said: “Um. It’s right there.”

I asked him how Jodelle Ferland had fared on set. I told him I had called my union to ask them to visit the set often to check on her, given my own experience with him. He laughed and said: “They came once or twice. She was great and we worked overtime a lot. No one paid much attention!”

I felt sick to my stomach. Despite my emailed pleas to him to be careful with children, a big part of me felt, deep down, that it was hopeless for me to imagine him taking responsibility.

When I was in my late 20s, an assistant director on a film I was acting in said to me: “Our special effects guy really wants to introduce himself to you, but he’s scared you might hate him. He did the special effects on Baron Munchausen.”

Later that day, when I reintroduced myself to special effects icon Richard Conway, who I hadn’t seen since I was a child, his eyes filled with tears. He said: “I’m sorry. I’m so sorry about what happened to you on that movie.”

I replied, in earnest: “What did happen to me?”

“A lot of things went wrong,” he said. “Everyone in my job carries around an image that haunts them of something that went wrong at work. For me, it’s the look on your face as you were carried out of the water tank and into the ambulance after the explosive surfaced so close to you. You were crying. No – you weren’t crying. You were hysterical. Screaming in terror.”

As Richard and I got to know one another better, he suggested we watch the movie together. “It would be a kind of exorcism, maybe. For both of us.” Neither of us had watched the film in many years, fearful of how it would make us feel. One evening after wrap, we watched it together at the hotel. During the scenes that had been most terrifying to shoot, my breath caught in my throat. Richard said: “Can we hold hands?” I reached for his hand and held it tight. During the scene in the boat, I felt him squeeze my hand harder and turned to see tears streaming down his face. “I’m so, so sorry,” he said. I hugged him, so grateful for the apology, even though I didn’t think it was his to make.

At one point, as the Baron and Sally make their way up into the sky on their way to the moon, we found ourselves marvelling at the artistry of the film, the hand-painted backgrounds, the meticulously crafted analogue illusions. As the Baron and Sally sail through a sky of perfect clouds, Richard said, “I spent weeks with my crew making those clouds by hand. No one gets to do anything like that any more. No one gets to feel what it’s like to create a magic image with your own hands. Since CGI, it’s all a lost art.” We watched as Eric Idle and I climbed along the edge of a perfect crescent moon, watched horses and tigers materialise out of the stars, were swallowed whole and stayed intact in the belly of a sea creature. We watched together in wonder, holding hands until the end.

In 2018, when Terry was in the middle of a firestorm of controversy over comments he had made about the #MeToo movement, someone tweeted out the old email exchange between Terry and me as evidence of his subpar character. In response, Eric Idle, who I hadn’t heard from since I was a child, tweeted a response:

“She was right. She was in danger. Many times. It was amazing we never lost anyone.”

She was right. She was in danger. Many times. I read these nine words over and over again. Someone who was there was appearing from out of nowhere to confirm my memories and verify my version of events.

I swear it was around that time that I stopped ducking for cover when I heard the sudden noise of a car door slam.

Because he was so childlike and full of genuine wonder, it was hard for me, for many years, to see how responsible Terry Gilliam was for the terror of being on that set. And so I blamed my parents. I’m struck by how many times in my emails to him I make sure to tell him I don’t hold him responsible and lay the blame at my parents’ feet. No matter how much I thought about him over the years, Terry still stubbornly lived in my memory primarily as someone who was brilliant and who had also had that look in his eye that is precious to children: the look that says, “I’m glad you’re here.” Because he had never really removed himself from a state of childhood himself, he was just like a playmate with a very large stash of expensive, dangerous toys.

I think the truth is that I let Terry off the hook in part because, even as a child, I had bought into the glamour of the idea of the enfant terrible director, the out-of-control mad white male genius – a myth that has dominated the film industry’s understanding of what brilliance must necessarily look like. As an adult, I find myself wholly intolerant of the fetishisation of this archetype of genius, having seen, first-hand, great works made by decent, conscientious people, and having witnessed sharp impatience with female or Bipoc [Black, Indigenous and people of colour] film-makers who show any similar signs of irresponsibility. Terry lived for so long in the film world’s imagination as a “mad genius” whose madness and recklessness somehow elevated his work.

I don’t blame my parents as much as I used to, understanding more now how hard it would be to stand up and stop an enormous production under dire financial and time pressures. As the years go on and Terry makes more and more comments that demonstrate not just a childlike incapacity for understanding grown-up problems but a wilful dismissal of movements that seek to claim equality and acknowledgment for past harms, I see him, and the role he played in the mayhem back then, differently. I see it in the context of a cultural phenomenon of what many white men have been allowed to get away with in the name of art. Though he was magical and brilliant and made images and stories that will live for a long, long time, it’s hard to calculate whether they were worth the price of the hell that so many went through over the years to help him make them.

The other day, my child Eve raised the idea of watching The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Eve is now the exact age I was when I made the film. As we watch, I find myself grateful for the comparatively predictable nature of my children’s childhood. At nine, there have been no great adventures for Eve, and no great traumas. Eve is captivated by the film, and finds it hilarious, mesmerising, and strange to see how much we look alike. Halfway through, when the characters’ lives are in danger for the eighth or ninth time, Eve gets scared and wants to stop watching. Just before I press the power button, Eve grabs the remote from me and says, “Actually, let’s watch to the end. I have to know if it turns out okay.”

It does. When we arrive at the last scene, there I am, smiling in a crowd of hundreds of people. The war is won, the adventure over. Sally Salt can now go back to her regular life, and the Baron says goodbye. If I try, I can conjure up the feeling of what it was like to shoot that last scene; that harrowing day, when I was so ill and forced to work anyway. But the memory loses its power in the presence of my child’s delight at having discovered a joyful ending, worth waiting for.

Read original article here

Barr Rebukes Trump as ‘Off the Rails’ in New Memoir

WASHINGTON — Former Attorney General William P. Barr writes in a new memoir that former President Donald J. Trump’s “self-indulgence and lack of self-control” cost him the 2020 election and says “the absurd lengths to which he took his ‘stolen election’ claim led to the rioting on Capitol Hill.”

In the book, “One Damn Thing After Another: Memoirs of an Attorney General,” Mr. Barr also calls on his fellow Republicans to pick someone else as the party’s nominee for the 2024 election, calling the prospect of another presidential run by Mr. Trump “dismaying.”

“Donald Trump has shown he has neither the temperament nor persuasive powers to provide the kind of positive leadership that is needed,” Mr. Barr writes.

The memoir — an account of Mr. Barr’s time as attorney general under President George H.W. Bush and then again under Mr. Trump — defends his own actions in the Trump administration that led to sharp criticism of a Justice Department setting aside its independence to bend to White House pressure.

Mr. Barr was long considered a close ally of Mr. Trump. But the two fell out toward the end of the Trump administration, when Mr. Barr refused to go along with Mr. Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election had been stolen.

In a statement last June, Mr. Trump denounced his former attorney general, calling him a “swamp creature” and a “RINO” — meaning Republican in Name Only — who “was afraid, weak and frankly, now that I see what he is saying, pathetic.”

For his part, Mr. Barr portrays Mr. Trump as a president who — despite sometimes displaying “the menacing mannerisms” of a strongman ruler as a “schtick” to project an image of strength — had operated within guardrails set up by his advisers and achieved many conservative policy goals. But Mr. Trump “lost his grip” after the election, he writes.

“He stopped listening to his advisers, became manic and unreasonable, and was off the rails,” Mr. Barr writes. “He surrounded himself with sycophants, including many whack jobs from outside the government, who fed him a steady diet of comforting but unsupported conspiracy theories.”

Throughout the book, Mr. Barr scorns the news media, accusing them of “corruption” and “active support for progressive ideology.” The political left, he writes, became radicalized during President Barack Obama’s second term. He compares its support for social justice issues to “the same kind of revolutionary and totalitarian ideas that propelled the French Revolution, the Communists of the Russian Revolution and the fascists of 20th-century Europe.”

Mr. Barr also denounces the inquiry by the F.B.I. and then the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into links between Russia and Trump campaign aides in 2016. He writes that “the matter that really required investigation” was “how did the phony Russiagate scandal get going, and why did the F.B.I. leadership handle the matter in such an inexplicable and heavy-handed way?”

Mr. Barr rejects as “drivel” the criticism that his summary of the special counsel’s report that he issued before the report became public was distorted in a way that favored Mr. Trump. Mr. Barr insists that his description — including his declaration that Mr. Trump did not commit obstruction of justice — was “entirely accurate.”

In defending that conclusion, Mr. Barr writes that it was a “simple fact that the president never did anything to interfere with the special counsel’s investigation.”

But his book does not address any of the specific incidents that Mr. Mueller’s report laid out as raising potential obstruction-of-justice concerns, such as the fact that Mr. Trump dangled a pardon at his former campaign chairman, Paul J. Manafort, while urging Mr. Manafort not to cooperate with the inquiry.

In a chapter titled “Upholding Fairness, Even for Rascals,” Mr. Barr defends his handling of two other cases arising from the Mueller investigation. Mr. Barr writes that it was “reasonable” for him to overrule line prosecutors and seek a more lenient sentence for Mr. Trump’s ally Roger J. Stone Jr.

And addressing his decision to drop the prosecution of Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, for lying to the F.B.I. — even though Mr. Flynn had already pleaded guilty — he writes that the evidence was insufficient, the F.B.I.’s handling of the case had been “an abuse of power” and Mr. Mueller’s charges against him were not “fair.”

As he did while in office, Mr. Barr laments that Mr. Trump’s public comments about the Justice Department undermined his ability to do his job.

“Even though I was basing decisions on what I thought was right under the law and facts, if my decisions ended up the same as the president’s expressed opinion, it made it easier to attack my actions as politically motivated,” he writes.

Mr. Barr also describes resisting Mr. Trump’s bidding in some cases. He declined to charge the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey Jr. for allegedly leaking classified information; insisted that the administration had run out of time to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census; and rejected Mr. Trump’s “bad” idea that he could use an executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants.

Lawyers at the White House and the Justice Department had to talk Mr. Trump out of those ideas, which could be “bruising” and amounted to “eating grenades,” Mr. Barr writes.

On the scandal that led to Mr. Trump’s first impeachment, in which Mr. Trump withheld aid to Ukraine as leverage to try to get Ukraine’s president to announce an investigation into Joseph R. Biden Jr., Mr. Barr was scathing.

He calls it “another mess — this one self-inflicted and the result of abject stupidity,” a “harebrained gambit” and “idiotic beyond belief.” But while Mr. Barr describes the conversation Mr. Trump had with Ukraine’s president on the topic as “unseemly and injudicious,” he maintains that it did not rise to a “criminal offense.”

Similarly, Mr. Barr writes that he did not think Mr. Trump’s actions before the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — which he had condemned in a statement the day after as “orchestrating a mob to pressure Congress” and “a betrayal of his office and his supporters” — met the legal standard for the crime of incitement, even though they were “wrong.”

The book opens with a Dec. 1, 2020, meeting with Mr. Trump hours after Mr. Barr gave an interview contradicting the president’s claims of a stolen election, saying the Justice Department had “not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

Mr. Trump was furious, he writes, accusing Mr. Barr of “pulling the rug out from under me” and saying he must “hate Trump.” After Mr. Barr says he explained why claims of various fraud were unfounded, he offered to resign and Mr. Trump slammed the table and yelled “accepted!” Mr. Trump reversed himself as Mr. Barr left the White House, but Mr. Barr stepped down before the end of the month.

His book expands on that theme, going through specific “fact-free claims of fraud” that Mr. Trump has put forward and explaining why the Justice Department found them baseless. He lists several reasons, for example, that claims about purportedly hacked Dominion voting machines were “absolute nonsense” and “meaningless twaddle.”

“The election was not ‘stolen,’” Mr. Barr writes. “Trump lost it.”

Read original article here

Britney Spears’ Lawyer Sent Jamie Lynn Spears A Cease-And-Desist Letter Over Claims In Her Memoir

Mathew Rosengart is threatening legal action against Jamie Lynn for “publicly airing false or fantastical grievances” in order to “sell books,” just days after Britney accused her of selling a memoir at her “expense.”

Posted on January 19, 2022, at 10:15 a.m. ET


Britney Spears’ lawyer, Mathew Rosengart, has issued her sister, Jamie Lynn Spears, with a cease-and-desist letter threatening legal action if she continues to speak about her during the promotion of her new memoir.


Anthony Harvey / Getty Images

Jamie Lynn’s book — titled Things I Should Have Said, which charts her life and experiences — hit shelves on Jan. 18.


Michael Loccisano / Getty Images

In the days ahead of the memoir’s release, the Zoey 101 actor made several public appearances to discuss some of its contents. She quickly found herself facing a large amount of criticism for repeatedly commenting on her sister’s decadelong conservatorship over the book’s promotional run.


Good Morning America / Via Good Morning America

Britney has been vocal about how she felt constrained and abused under the legal arrangement, which saw her life and financial affairs controlled by her father and other lawyers from 2008 until Nov. 2021. Speaking out against the conservatorship in court last year, the singer memorably accused her family, including Jamie Lynn, of doing “nothing” to help.

In light of the fact that the “Toxic” singer hasn’t formally discussed the conservatorship since it was terminated, and particularly her recent remarks about being “scared” to do interviews, several people — including Britney herself — have condemned Jamie Lynn for not only choosing to release a memoir now, but also for participating in televised interviews to promote it.

And though Britney herself has made her feelings about Jamie Lynn’s memoir very clear — even accusing her of selling the book at her “expense” just last week — things have now taken a more serious turn.


Image Group La / Disney General Entertainment Content via Getty Images

It looks like Britney has called on the help of her attorney Rosengart — who played an instrumental role in terminating the conservatorship — to make a more serious appeal.


Chelsea Guglielmino / Getty Images

Filing a formal cease-and-desist letter on Jan. 17, Rosengart requested that Jamie Lynn refrain from mentioning Britney throughout the rest of her promotional campaign.


Valerie Macon / AFP via Getty Images

“Dear Ms. Spears: As you know, I represent your sister Britney Spears, and I write at her request concerning the above-referenced matter. We write with some hesitation because the last thing Britney wants is to bring more attention to your ill-timed book and its misleading or outrageous claims about her,” reads the letter, which was obtained by Page Six.


Valerie Macon / AFP via Getty Images

“Although Britney has not read and does not intend to read your book, she and millions of her fans were shocked to see how you have exploited her for monetary gain. She will not tolerate it, nor should she,” it states.


Kevin Winter / Getty Images

The letter continues, “You of all people know the abuse and wrongdoing Britney had to endure during the conservatorship, after initially growing up with a ‘ruinous,’ alcoholic father. In fact, your own book reportedly states that your father ‘spent most of my life in that cycle of ruinous behavior. His bouts of drinking caused me periods of torment and sorrow.’” 

“As I have previously stated, having endured a 13-year conservatorship that stripped her of civil rights and fundamental liberties, Britney will no longer be bullied by her father or anyone else,” it adds.

Rosengart goes on to emphasize that Britney was the family “breadwinner” — perhaps referencing the Spears’ family denials that they’ve used her money to their benefit.


Tim Mosenfelder / Getty Images

“Publicly airing false or fantastical grievances is wrong, especially when designed to sell books. It is also potentially unlawful and defamatory,” the letter reads.


Valerie Macon / AFP via Getty Images

“You recently reportedly stated that the book was ‘not about her.’ She takes you at your word and we, therefore, demand that you cease and desist from referencing Britney derogatorily during your promotional campaign. If you fail to do so or defame her, Britney will be forced to consider and take all appropriate legal action,” it states.


Erika Goldring / WireImage

As Rosengart notes, Jamie Lynn makes several references to Britney throughout the personal memoir, in spite of her public claims that the book “is not about her.”


Steve Granitz / WireImage

Following Jamie Lynn’s recent appearance on Good Morning America last week — which saw the actor repeatedly affirming her love for Britney while discussing the traumatic conservatorship — the “Gimme More” singer quickly accused her sister of selling a book at her “expense.”


Good Morning America / Via Good Morning America

“The two things that did bother me that my sister said was that my behavior was out of control. She was never around me much 15 years ago at that time, so why are they even talking about that unless she wants to sell a book at my expense?” questioned Britney in a Twitter post.

In a near-immediate response, Jamie Lynn shared a statement to Instagram rebuking the idea that the memoir was about Britney.


Michael Loccisano / Getty Images

“I hate to burst my sister’s bubble, but my book is not about her. I can’t help that I was born a Spears too, and that some of my experiences involve my sister,” she wrote.

“I’ve worked hard since before I was even a teenager, and I’ve built my career in spite of just being someone’s little sister,” she added.

And though Britney initially hit back at the post and called her Jamie Lynn “scum,” she went on to insist that she has unconditional love for her sister in a separate Twitter post, while calling their feud “tacky.”


Twitter: @britneyspears

“I know you worked hard for the life you have and you have done amazing!!!! But I think we would both have to agree to the fact that the family has never been remotely as hard on you as they have been on me,” she wrote.

“All I know is I love you unconditionally,” she went on. “So go ahead and say whatever you want… it’s so tacky for a family to fight publicly like this!!! You say you love me… yet your loyalty is still with the people that hurt me the most.”

Hopping onto Instagram shortly after, Jamie Lynn begged her sister to call her, so that they could sort things out away from the public eye.

But ironically, just days after Jamie Lynn urged Britney to handle things privately, she appeared on the popular podcast Call Her Daddy to discuss the matter once again.


Call Her Daddy / Via Spotify

Sitting down with host Alex Cooper for an in-depth chat, Jamie Lynn got incredibly candid about the complex dynamics of the Spears family, especially opening up about the impact that her father’s alcohol abuse had on the household.


Call Her Daddy / Via Spotify

Going on to discuss how she felt like an “afterthought” in the family, Jamie Lynn mentions that “the world” has long been comparing her and Britney, before breaking down into tears while questioning her own worth.


Call Her Daddy / Via Spotify

“It’s like my whole life I felt like I didn’t matter,” she said in tears.

She also reflects on Britney’s past relationship with Justin Timberlake — whom she describes as “one of the first healthy, male, father figures” in her life — and their infamous 2002 breakup.


Ron Galella, Ltd. / Ron Galella Collection via Getty Images

“I remember him fondly because that was probably one of the best times in the whole family’s life,” she says. “You know, things were good.”

Speaking about how she was affected by the split — which saw Britney being scrutinized in the media for years — Jamie Lynn said she was “so sad.”

“I think everybody thought it was forever,” she says “I was so sad [because] my sister was so sad.”

Since its release, the podcast appearance has attracted criticism online, with fans arguing — once again — that Jamie Lynn shouldn’t be speaking out on such a large platform before Britney has had the chance to do so.


Jason Merritt / Getty Images

Well, it wasn’t long before Britney entered the discussion herself to let everyone — namely Jamie Lynn — know how she was feeling.


Alberto E. Rodriguez / Getty Images

Firstly sharing a video of herself rocking a nostalgic fit, Britney reminded people of the hardships she’s faced throughout her life.

“In life a lot of people say “DO I MATTER ????”… try eating alone for 4 months morning… noon… and night Jamie Lynn,” she wrote.


Kevin Winter / Getty Images

“I asked myself every day “DOES ANYBODY CARE ??? WTF ??? DO I MATTER ???” I would honestly be very interested to see your pretty face in the setting I was forced to be in and asking yourself “DO I MATTER ???”” she added.

“I didn’t get to cry… I had to be strong … TOO STRONG,” she wrote. “So yes … YOU DO MATTER and don’t you ever think for one fucking second you don’t.”

In a second post shared moments later, Britney directly addressed her sister’s comments on her and Justin’s breakup.

“I flew home to Jamie Lynn on the couch watching her tv shows right after Justin and I broke up… I was a ghost there,” Britney wrote. “I had worked my whole life and I didn’t know how to be served by Mamma.”


Jeffrey Mayer / WireImage

“Sit there and get served the chocolate milkshakes with the perfectly crushed ice with the secret chunky sugar meanwhile Jamie Lynn is 12, she indulges with the TV for hours then goes to lay out on a raft at the pool … I’m in shock because this was never my life,” she went on.

“Justin’s family was all I knew for many years … Things were different now and Jamie Lynn had a new Nickelodeon show … All I remember saying was “DAMN !!! How the hell does a 12 year old land a Nickelodeon show ????” she added.

Going on to address the highly-publicized interview she did following the breakup, Britney wrote, “It was a People Magazine cover … The people show up and as Jamie Lynn says, I was scared,” adding that she might have needed “a little support.”

“My Mamma was on pain medication and could barely hold a conversation in the house because her and my dad split and she was more messed up than anything !!!! I remember her sitting on the floor in a conversation and she never got up,” she added.

And following her emotional and candid reflection on the breakup, Britney rounded things off with a very upfront message directed toward her sister.


Kevin Winter / Getty Images

“I’m sorry Jamie Lynn, I wasn’t strong enough to do what should have been done … slapped you and Mamma right across your fucking faces,” she wrote.

Jamie Lynn has yet to comment on the latest instalment in this ongoing feud, nor has she publicly addressed the cease and desist request. But if the past week is anything to go by, we can assume she’ll be responding soon.


Image Group La / Disney General Entertainment Content via Getty Images



Read original article here

Author Alice Sebold’s memoir ‘Lucky’ pulled from shelves following exoneration of man convicted of 1981 rape

The publishers for Alice Sebold’s memoir, “Lucky,” have pulled the title from shelves after a man was exonerated last week of the 1981 rape that was the basis for her book, Fox News has confirmed. 

“Following the recent exoneration of Anthony Broadwater, and in consultation with the author, Scribner and Simon & Schuster will cease distribution of all formats of Alice Sebold’s 1999 memoir ‘Lucky’ while Sebold and Scribner together consider how the work might be revised,” a spokesperson for Simon & Schuster, which owns Sebold’s publisher, Scribner, wrote in a statement to Fox News Digital on Wednesday.

The publisher also shared the memorandum to its social media.

Anthony Broadwater was convicted of raping Sebold in 1982. Broadwater, now 61, spent 16 years in prison for the wrongful conviction, and reports indicate he was also denied parole at least five times because he continuously maintained his innocence.

MAN CONVICTED OF RAPING BESTSELLING AUTHOR ALICE SEBOLD EXONERATED AFTER FILM PRODUCER FINDS INCONSISTENCIES

Anthony Broadwater, 61, center, appears after a judge overturned his conviction that wrongfully put him in state prison for the rape of author Alice Sebold, Nov. 22, 2021, in Syracuse, N.Y.  
(Katrina Tulloch/The Post-Standard via AP, File)

While Broadwater was released from prison in 1999, he was ordered to register as a sex offender and has since lived his life on the registry database. In the interim, he has worked as a trash hauler and a handyman.

Sebold, 58, addressed Broadwater’s exoneration in a statement posted to Medium on Tuesday.

AUTHOR ALICE SEBOLD ISSUES STATEMENT TO MAN EXONERATED IN 1981 RAPE CASE

“I want to say that I am truly sorry to Anthony Broadwater and I deeply regret what you have been through,” she wrote in the scribe. “I am sorry most of all for the fact that the life you could have led was unjustly robbed from you, and I know that no apology can change what happened to you and never will. Of the many things I wish for you, I hope most of all that you and your family will be granted the time and privacy to heal.”

Elsewhere, Sebold writes: “I am grateful that Mr. Broadwater has finally been vindicated, but the fact remains that 40 years ago, he became another young Black man brutalized by our flawed legal system. I will forever be sorry for what was done to him.”

Alice Sebold apologized to Anthony Broadwater on Tuesday. Her 1981 rape was the basis for her memoir ‘Lucky.’
(AP Photo/Tina Fineberg, File)

The exoneration comes after a producer working on a film adaptation of the memoir became skeptical that Broadwater was a guilty man. Initial media reports stated the adaptation of “Lucky” was a Netflix project, but the streaming and production company said it is not involved in the project. 

Tim Mucciante, who has a production company called Red Badge Films, had signed on as executive producer of the adaptation but became skeptical of Broadwater’s guilt when the first draft of the script came out because it differed so much from the book.

FLORIDA’S ‘GROVELAND FOUR’ EXONERATED MORE THAN 70 YEARS AFTER BEING ACCUSED OF RAPING WHITE GIRL

“I started poking around and trying to figure out what really happened here,” Mucciante told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

Melissa Swartz, an attorney for Broadwater, said he had no comment on Sebold’s statement.

Author Alice Sebold apologized to Anthony Broadwater ‘for her role within a system that sent an innocent man to jail’ after he was exonerated of a 1981 rape against Sebold.
(Photo by Paul Marotta)

Sebold wrote in 1999’s “Lucky” of being raped and then spotting a Black man in the street several months later who she believed was her attacker.

After she went to the police following the alleged incident, an officer said the man in the street must have been Broadwater, who had supposedly been seen in the area.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Following Broadwater’s arrest, Sebold failed to identify him in a police lineup, picking a different man as her attacker because she was frightened of “the expression in his eyes.”

On the witness stand, Sebold identified him as her rapist. And an expert said microscopic hair analysis had tied Broadwater to the crime. That type of analysis has since been deemed junk science by the U.S. Department of Justice.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER

“Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it’s the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction,” Hammond told the Post-Standard of Syracuse.

Fox News’ Emma Colton and The Associated Press contributed to this report.



Read original article here

Anthony Broadwater spent years in prison for the rape of author Alice Sebold, the subject of her memoir, ‘Lucky.’ A judge just exonerated him

Convicted in 1982, Broadwater spent more than 16 years in prison. He was denied parole at least five times because he wouldn’t admit to a crime he didn’t commit, according to his attorneys. And he passed two lie detector tests.

Broadwater, 61, tried five times to get the conviction overturned. And even after he was released, he didn’t give up. But it didn’t happen — until Monday, when New York State Supreme Court Justice Gordon Cuffy vacated the rape conviction and other counts related to it.

Sebold described the rape, which happened when she was a freshman at Syracuse University in 1981, in painstaking detail in her memoir. It was published in 1999, the year after Broadwater’s release from prison.

Almost five months after she was raped, Sebold saw Broadwater on the street in Syracuse. He reminded her of the rapist, and she reported the encounter to police, according to Broadwater’s attorneys’ affirmation. But later, she failed to identify Broadwater in a police lineup.

Broadwater was convicted on two pieces of evidence — Sebold’s account — a cross-racial identification, since the author is White and Broadwater is Black — and the analysis of a piece of hair that was later determined to be faulty, his attorneys wrote.

“Research has found that the risk of eyewitness misidentification is significantly increased when the witness and the subject are of different races,” the affirmation stated.

As to the hair analysis, in 2015, “the FBI testified that microscopic hair analysis contained errors in at least 90 percent of the cases the agency reviewed,” according to the attorneys’ news release.

“We know now that the testimony of the forensic chemist stemmed from a largely debunked forensic approach to hair microscopy,” the affirmation stated.

In “Lucky,” Sebold wrote that “a detective and a prosecutor told her after the lineup that she picked out the wrong man and how the prosecutor deliberately coached her into rehabilitating her misidentification,” according to the affirmation.

CNN has reached out to Sebold and her publishing company multiple times for comment.

The unreliability of the hair analysis and the conversation between the prosecutor and Sebold after the lineup would probably have led to a different verdict if it had been presented at trial, the attorneys said.

“I won’t sully these proceedings by saying I’m sorry,” District Attorney William Fitzpatrick said in the courtroom. “That doesn’t cut it. This should never have happened.”

Broadwater broke down in tears when the judge announced his decision.

“When the district attorney spoke to me, his words were so profound — so strong — it shook me,” Broadwater told CNN on Wednesday. “It made me cry with joy and happiness because a man of this magnitude would say what he said on my behalf … it’s, it’s beyond whatever I can say myself.”

After his release, Broadwater remained on a sex offender list. He described how the conviction had ruined his life.

He struggled to find work after getting out of jail when employers found out about his criminal record.

“I did what I could do, and that was just you know — creating work for myself doing landscaping, tree removal, hauling, clean-outs,” he said.

His wife wanted children, but “I wouldn’t bring children in the world because of this. And now, we’re past days, we can’t have children,” Broadwater told reporters after the court hearing.

The couple met in 1999, about a year after he was released from prison, he told CNN. After their first date, he gave her the transcripts and other documents from his case, telling her to read them and decide if she wanted to be with him.

“She believed me and she gave me more strength,” he said. “I just wanted a better quality of life, but I could never get a better quality of jobs.”

Part of the reason Broadwater’s attorneys, J. David Hammond and Melissa Swartz, got involved in the case is thanks to Tim Mucciante, who was involved in a project to develop a film adaptation of “Lucky.”

Mucciante “had doubts that the story was the way that it was being portrayed in the film,” said Hammond, which led him to hire a private investigator who is associated with their law firm.

“It didn’t take long, digging around, that we realized, OK, there’s something here,” said Hammond. He and Swartz listened to the transcript of the trial and found “serious legal issues,” which prompted them to bring a motion, he said.

Hammond and Swartz are at least the fifth set of lawyers he hired to help with his case, Broadwater said.

“I never gave up. I could never, ever give up and live under these conditions … I was going to do everything I could to prove my innocence,” he said.

Days after the judge’s decision, Broadwater said, “it feels so surreal, I’m still soaking it in. I’m kind of like — afraid in a sense. I’m so happy.”

As to Sebold, Broadwater said he would like an apology.

“I sympathize with her, what happened to her,” he said. “I just hope there’s a sincere apology. I would accept it. I’m not bitter or have malice towards her.”

Read original article here

Man Is Exonerated in Rape Case Described in Alice Sebold’s Memoir

The rape took place in a Syracuse, N.Y., park in 1981 and was described in raw detail in a memoir published nearly 20 years after it occurred, as the man convicted of the crime struggled to rebuild his life after his release from prison.

The book, titled “Lucky,” launched the career of the author Alice Sebold, who later rose to international fame with “The Lovely Bones,” a novel that also centers on sexual assault and sold millions of copies.

The man who was convicted of the attack, Anthony J. Broadwater, had always maintained he was innocent. On Monday, he was exonerated, as a state judge, his defense lawyers and the Onondaga County district attorney agreed that the case against him had been woefully flawed.

“It’s a long day coming,” Mr. Broadwater, 61, said in an interview on Tuesday, recalling the years of stigma and isolation he faced as a registered sex offender.

He got married and sought work after spending 16 years in prison, but found himself cut off from opportunities because of the conviction.

“On my two hands, I can count the people that allowed me to grace their homes and dinners, and I don’t get past 10,” he said. “That’s very traumatic to me.”

The attack took place when Ms. Sebold was a freshman at Syracuse University. She writes in her memoir, which was published in 1999, about how she told campus security about the attack right away and went to the police.

After evidence was collected from a rape kit, she described her assailant’s features to the police, but the resulting composite sketch didn’t resemble him, she wrote.

Mr. Broadwater was arrested five months later, after Ms. Sebold passed him on the street and contacted the police, saying she may have seen her attacker.

But she identified a different man as her attacker in a police lineup. In her memoir, she writes that Mr. Broadwater and the man next to him looked alike and that moments after she made her choice, she felt she had picked the wrong man. She later identified Mr. Broadwater in court.

Ms. Sebold used a fictitious name for Mr. Broadwater in her memoir, identifying him as Gregory Madison.

In their motion to vacate the conviction, the defense lawyers J. David Hammond and Melissa K. Swartz wrote that the case had relied solely on Ms. Sebold’s identification of Mr. Broadwater in the courtroom and a now-discredited method of microscopic hair analysis.

They also argued that prosecutorial misconduct was a factor during the police lineup — that the prosecutor had falsely told Ms. Sebold that Mr. Broadwater and the man next to him were friends who had purposely appeared in the lineup together to trick her — and that it had improperly influenced Ms. Sebold’s later testimony.

The motion to vacate the conviction was joined by Onondaga County District Attorney William J. Fitzpatrick, who noted that witness identifications of strangers, particularly those that cross racial lines, are often unreliable. Ms. Sebold is white, and Mr. Broadwater is Black.

“I’m not going to sully these proceedings by saying, ‘I’m sorry,’” Mr. Fitzpatrick said in court on Monday. “That doesn’t cut it. This should never have happened.”

State Supreme Court Justice Gordon J. Cuffy agreed, and overturned Mr. Broadwater’s conviction of first-degree rape and five related charges. He will no longer be categorized as a sex offender.

Ms. Sebold had no comment on the decision, a spokesman for Scribner, which published “Lucky,” said. The spokesman said that the publisher had no plans to update the text.

A planned film adaptation of “Lucky” played a role in raising doubts about the case against Mr. Broadwater.

Timothy Mucciante was working as executive producer of the adaptation of “Lucky,” but began to question the story that the movie was based on earlier this year, after he noticed discrepancies between the memoir and the script.

“I started having some doubts, not about the story that Alice told about her assault, which was tragic, but the second part of her book about the trial, which didn’t hang together,” Mr. Mucciante said in an interview.

Mr. Mucciante said that he ended up leaving the production in June because of his skepticism about the case and how it was being portrayed.

He hired a private investigator, Dan Myers, who spent 20 years working for the Onondaga County Sheriff’s Office and retired as a detective in 2020, to look into the evidence against Mr. Broadwater, and became convinced of Mr. Broadwater’s innocence.

Mr. Myers suggested they bring the evidence they gathered to a lawyer and recommended Mr. Hammond, who reviewed the investigation and agreed there was a strong case. Around the same time, Mr. Broadwater decided to hire Mr. Hammond based on the recommendation of another local lawyer.

Mr. Broadwater, who was released in 1998, had been scrimping and saving to hire lawyer after lawyer to try and prove his innocence.

He said that he and his wife, Elizabeth, had wanted to have children, but he felt they could not given the stigma of his conviction.

Mr. Broadwater recalled that he had just returned home to Syracuse from a stint serving in the Marine Corps in California when he was arrested. He was 20 years old at the time.

He had gone home because his father was ill, he said. His father’s health worsened during the trial, and he died shortly after Mr. Broadwater was sent to prison.

“I just hope and pray that maybe Ms. Sebold will come forward and say, ‘Hey, I made a grave mistake,’ and give me an apology,” Mr. Broadwater said.

“I sympathize with her,” he said. “But she was wrong.”

Sheelagh McNeill contributed research.

Read original article here

‘Maybe I Do Have a Story to Tell’: Kal Penn on His Memoir

In what way is the book you wrote different from the book you set out to write?

I was sure that I wanted to share two stories: one about my parents and their upbringing; and the story of how Josh and I met. He showed up with an 18-pack of Coors and turned my TV from “SpongeBob” to NASCAR. I thought, “This guy’s leaving here in 40 minutes with 16 beers.” So the fact that we’re together 11 years later is funny because so many people have stories of dates that went awry but now they’re married and have kids.

In the book’s outline, there was no ending. I always struggled with that. I thought there was going to have to be some kind of a positive wrap-up, a story of triumph after years of typecasting and racism. And then “Sunnyside” happened. I sold this show after I had already started writing the book. There’s a chapter I write about how it’s truly my dream show: a big network [NBC], a diverse, patriotic comedy that would hopefully bring people together and make them laugh.

And then it slowly unraveled. With everything else in the book, I have the perspective of time. This was still raw. I ended up putting it as the last real chapter because it’s a perfect example of how much has changed and how much has yet to change.

We often think of goals as: Everything has now been fixed, so end of story. In reality, everything is a constant mess of back and forth.

What creative person who isn’t a writer has influenced you and your work?

I always say Mira Nair, and I would have said this years ago, before this book was ever on the table. Her second film, “Mississippi Masala,” came out when I was in eighth grade. It was the first time I’d seen South Asian characters onscreen that weren’t stereotypes or cartoon characters.

They were deeply flawed, deeply interesting humans. They make love, they have financial problems. And that happened around the time “The Wiz” happened, so she was one of the people who inspired me to pursue a career in the arts.

So when I got a chance to work with her on “The Namesake,” it meant a lot to me. And “The Namesake,” the novel — Jhumpa Lahiri’s writing was introduced to me by John Cho, from “Harold & Kumar.” All of those influences intersecting are very meaningful to me.

Persuade someone to read “You Can’t Be Serious” in 50 words or fewer.

If you want to feel like you’re having a beer with somebody who smoked weed with a fake president and served a real one, whose grandparents marched with Gandhi and whose parents certainly didn’t move to America for him to slide off a naked woman’s back in his first film.

Read original article here

Brian Cox Slams Hollywood in New Memoir – Where to Pre-Order the Book

The “Succession” star’s “Putting the Rabbit in the Hat” will be released in January.

All products and services featured by IndieWire are independently selected by IndieWire editors. However, IndieWire may receive a commission on orders placed through its retail links, and the retailer may receive certain auditable data for accounting purposes.

Brian Cox is getting brutally honest in his upcoming memoir, “Putting the Rabbit in the Hat.” In the autobiography, slated for release on January 18, Cox shares his thoughts on several former co-stars and colleagues, including Johnny Depp, David Bowie, Ed Norton, Keanu Reeves, and more. The 75-year-old actor also delivers a scathing critique of Quentin Tarantino, and heartwarming words about Alan Rickman, whom he called one of the “sweetest, kindest, nicest, and most incredibly smart men I’ve ever met.”

From portraying Hannibal Lector in “Manhunter” to media magnate Logan Roy in “Succession” (currently streaming on HBO Max), Cox is familiar to many onscreen, but few know his life story. A native of Dundee, Scotland, Cox lost his father when he was just eight years old, and was brought up with help from his three older sisters as his mother suffered numerous mental breakdowns that led to hospitalization. As a teen, Cox joined the Dundee Repertory Theatre and went on to train at the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art before graduating at age 17 in 1965.

His candid, rags-to-riches story details the journey from a troubled, working-class upbringing to a prolific career spanning theater, film, and television. “Putting the Rabbit in the Hat” captures Cox’s distinctive and unapologetic voice, painting an emotional yet straightforward portrait of his life and career.

“Putting the Rabbit in the Hat” by Brian Cox

Several of the A-listers that Cox calls out in the book are his former co-stars such as Norton (“A nice lad but a bit of a pain in the arse because he fancies himself as a writer/director”), with whom Cox worked on Spike Lee’s “25th Hour.”

Cox revealed that Steven Seagal, his co-star in “The Glimmer Man,” is “as ludicrous in real life as he appears onscreen,” but he wasn’t very impressed with David Bowie (the rocker worked with Cox on the British TV series “Redcap”), noting that while he wasn’t a “particularly good actor,” Bowie found his footing as a pop star.

Although he hasn’t shared the screen with Depp (he turned down a role in “Pirates of the Caribbean,” and from the sounds of it, he doesn’t regret it), Cox didn’t hold back when speaking on Depp’s acting skills.

“Personable though I’m sure he is, [he] is so overblown, so overrated. I mean, ‘Edward Scissorhands’. Let’s face it, if you come on with hands like that and pale, scarred-face make-up, you don’t have to do anything. And he didn’t. And subsequently, he’s done even less.”

Despite disliking Tarantino’s films, Cox admits that he would work with the Oscar-winning director. “I find his work meretricious. It’s all surface,” he writes. “Plot mechanics in place of depth. Style where there should be substance. I walked out of ‘Pulp Fiction’… That said, if the phone rang, I’d do it.”

The Emmy winner had kinder things to say about Keanu Reeves, his co-star in the ’90s sci-fi film “Chain Reaction,” alongside Morgan Freeman. Cox called Reeves a “seeker” who has “become rather good over the years,” and offered a double-sided compliment to Freeman. “I am pleased to say that although he was cold and pissed-off and watching bedlam reign around him, Morgan Freeman remained an absolute gentleman. Being the very epitome of Morgan Freeman. The Morgan Freeman you would hope to meet. The Morgan Freeman you encounter in your dreams.”

Cox recently discussed his autobiography in an interview with The Scottsman, explaining why he wanted to be so honest. “I think if you’re going to do something like that, you really have to tell the truth. Shoot the devil. It was cathartic, necessary. It was important for me because I’ve reached a certain age and I wanted to look at certain things in the light of one’s experience and be as truthful as I could be. Of course, there are things I left out, and also, have I been fair, particularly to the incredible women in my life?”

He continued, “And the other thing is, have I told the truth? Have I made it all up? You start getting panics about it. Am I being unfair to people, am I being unkind? There were all kinds of strange emotions [coming] up in the course of writing this book.”

Sign Up: Stay on top of the latest breaking film and TV news! Sign up for our Email Newsletters here.

Read original article here

Brian Cox SLAMS Johnny Depp as ‘overrated’ and Quentin Tarantino as ‘all surface’ in new memoir

Succession star Brian Cox is not holding back as he calls out some of his least-liked Hollywood faces in a fiery new memoir – that would make his character Logan Roy proud. 

The 75-year-old actor lists a number of A-listers he doesn’t think measure up to their reputations, including Johnny Depp and Quentin Tarantino, according to excerpts from his book Putting The Rabbit In The Hat shared on Thursday by The Big Issue.

The acting legend does not seem to be worried about his famous friends taking offense, and he shared that he won’t be surprised if he does not ‘hear from some people again.’

In one section of his memoir, Cox recounts how he turned down the role of the Governor in Depp’s Pirates Of The Caribbean, which eventually went to Jonathan Pryce.

Telling it like it is: Brian Cox, 75, is flush with criticisms of Johnny Depp, Quentin Tarantino and others in his memoir Putting A Rabbit In The Hat, which was excerpted by The Big Issue; seen in 2019 in London

Cox seethes about how ‘overrated’ he finds Depp.

‘Personable though I’m sure he is, is so overblown, so overrated,’ Cox complained.

‘I mean, Edward Scissorhands. Let’s face it, if you come on with hands like that and pale, scarred-face makeup, you don’t have to do anything. And he didn’t,’ he writes.

The Manhunter actor also got in a dig about Depp’s more recent, less-acclaimed work.

‘And subsequently, he’s done even less,’ he added.

Dodged a bullet: ‘Personable though I’m sure he is, is so overblown, so overrated,’ Cox complained of Depp, whom he almost worked with on Pirates Of The Caribbean; seen October 19 in Belgrade, Serbia

Ouch! ‘I mean, Edward Scissorhands. Let’s face it, if you come on with hands like that and pale, scarred-face makeup, you don’t have to do anything. And he didn’t,’ he writes

Cox also had harsh words for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood writer and director Quentin Tarantino.

‘I find his work meretricious. It’s all surface. Plot mechanics in place of depth. Style where there should be substance. I walked out of Pulp Fiction,’ he shared.

Considering his dislike for Tarantino’s style, Cox has never worked for the filmmaker, though he wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to the paycheck if the opportunity ever presented itself. 

‘That said, if the phone rang, I’d do it,’ he added.

Cox was even more lacerating when it came to action star Steven Seagal, whom he acted opposite on his 1996 police thriller The Glimmer Man.

He didn’t care for Seagal’s ‘studied serenity,’ which he though just came off as ‘ludicrous.’

‘Steven Seagal is as ludicrous in real life as he appears on screen,’ he writes. ‘He radiates a studied serenity, as though he’s on a higher plane to the rest of us, and while he’s certainly on a different plane, no doubt about that, it’s probably not a higher one.’

Not a fan: Cox writes that Quentin Tarantino is ‘all surface’ and ‘style where there should be substance,’ adding that he ‘walked out of Pulp Fiction’; seen in October 19 in Rome

Even beloved figures like David Bowie couldn’t escape Cox’s barbs.

The two appeared together on the British military series Redcap in the 1960s, where the future music icon’s acting didn’t impress him.

‘A skinny kid, and not a particularly good actor. He made a better pop star, that much is for certain,’ he said of Bowie.

Cox was mixed on Michael Caine, as he applauded his brand but bemoaned his lack of range. 

‘I wouldn’t describe Michael as my favorite, but he’s Michael Caine,’ he writes. ‘An institution. And being an institution will always beat having range.’

His costar Edward Norton, whom he appeared with in Spike Lee’s modern masterpiece 25th Hour, got called out for being presumptuous.

‘He’s a nice lad but a bit of a pain in the a** because he fancies himself as a writer-director,’ he quipped.

Stick to music: Cox and David Bowie appeared on the 1960s British military show Redcaps, and he called him  ‘a skinny kid, and not a particularly good actor,’ though he thought he was a better pop star; seen in 2010 in NYC

Limited range: The Succession star admitted Michael Caine had a strong brand, but said that ‘being an institution will always beat having range’; Cox is seen on Succession

Cox also has some harsh words about his acting colleagues Gary Oldman, Daniel Day-Lewis and John Hurt, and Michael Gambon is a frequent target of criticism, according to The Big Issue.

But the Scottish actor isn’t just out to settle scores, and he includes some praise for other actors who have inspired him. 

Keanu Reeves appears to have won him over as he matured, and Cox calls him a ‘seeker’ who has ‘actually become rather good over the years.’ 

Alan Rickman received some of the warmest words of any of his contemporaries that Cox mentioned.

He calls the Harry Potter actor ‘one of the sweetest, kindest, nicest and most incredibly smart men I’ve ever met.’

‘Prior to acting he’d been a graphic designer and he brought the considered, laser-like precision of that profession to his work,’ he adds.

Improving with age: Rare praise was directed at Keanu Reeves, whom he said had ‘actually become rather good over the years’; seen in 2019 in LA

Respect: Alan Rickman received some of the warmest words of any of his contemporaries. Cox calls him ‘one of the sweetest, kindest, nicest and most incredibly smart men I’ve ever met’; Rickman seen in 2003 in London

Cox also applauded Morgan Freeman, calling him an ‘absolute gentleman’ after he kept his cool during a difficult shoot.

He said the Unforgiven star was ‘being the very epitome of Morgan Freeman. The Morgan Freeman you would hope to meet. The Morgan Freeman you encounter in your dreams.’

Cox admitted to the publication that none of his closest friends had had a chance to read his memoir yet, and he expected it would upset some of them. 

‘I’m expecting probably never to hear from some people again. But that’s the way it goes,’ he said nonchalantly.

Burned bridges: Cox said he expected ‘probably never to hear from’ some of his friends after he didn’t hold back in his memoir; pictured on Succession 

Read original article here

Katie Couric’s New Memoir Actually Goes There


BuzzFeed News; Getty Images

Morning shows have always been the crown jewels (and cash cows) of network television, bringing in massive advertising dollars with their high-low mix of sit-downs with world leaders and often wacky cooking segments. Even when the news business was less hospitable to women, the format helped launch the careers of broadcasters like Barbara Walters, Joan Lunden, and Jane Pauley. Arguably, though, no one became as successful and synonymous with the genre as the Today show’s Katie Couric.

As Couric puts it in her revealing new memoir, Going There, morning TV was the place where she could “comfortably converse with the Senate majority leader and the Teletubbies on the same morning.” Her willingness to share aspects of her personal life with viewers, from her two pregnancies progressing onscreen to allowing cameras into her colon after her husband’s death from cancer, helped her transcend simply being a news anchor: She became America’s morning show sweetheart in the ’90s. (And, later, a tabloid target.) But, in a surprising move at the time, she left morning television to slide into the CBS Evening News anchor chair in the aughts and later helmed her own daytime talk show, both less successful ventures she examines self-critically in her memoir.

The book has already made headlines for her candid writing about the media business; some outlets highlighted her thoughts about now-disgraced coanchor Matt Lauer and former colleague Deborah Norville, deeming the memoir vendetta-driven and misogynistic. But her memoir is actually an often-thoughtful look at the now-64-year-old Couric’s decadeslong career, tackling the ways she — and women of her generation — felt boxed in by gendered demands for relatability, even as she benefited from being able to meet that demand.


NBCUniversal via Getty Images

Katie Couric and Bryant Gumbel during a Halloween segment in 1994

It was Couric’s relationship with her father — a journalist turned frustrated public relations man — who inspired her love of journalism. She admits that it was as much for him as for herself that she initially pursued her career, even though she eventually came to love the adrenaline of pursuing stories.

Her first job was in Miami local news, then a mecca for “if it bleeds it leads” crime stories, and then she transitioned to a reporter in the early days of CNN, where she struggled with the basics of teleprompters. She moved to Pentagon coverage at NBC after being warned not to become one of those “cute girls who does features.”

It was in the jump to Today in 1989 that Couric began to find her footing as a combination news anchor and hammy host. Taking over for Norville, Couric also started figuring out how to navigate being a public figure and the gendered media coverage that came with it. In her move, Couric had stepped into the ongoing controversy surrounding Norville’s replacement of Today coanchor Jane Pauley. Norville, with her glamorous blonde looks and former pageant-winning air, was seen as chief villain against spurned everywoman Pauley. And whether in response to the backlash against Norville or not, Couric cultivated a nonthreatening sensibility for her turn as anchor.

From her short hair (termed a “defiant mop” by columnists) to a wardrobe featuring accessible brands like Gap and Ann Taylor, Couric seemingly worked hard to make sure the audience identified with her. As she developed her relationship with “cock of the walk” cohost Bryant Gumbel, who respected her background covering the Pentagon, and later Matt Lauer, with whom she developed winning onscreen chemistry, she came off as one of the boys, joking with them on camera. But while she seems to be somewhat aware of why the corporate structure deemed her the “right” kind of woman, it’s still unclear how she really feels about those parameters.

Still, she writes with sensitivity — and a little PSA-ish earnestness — about the way her mother passed on her disordered eating onto her and about her experience with postpartum depression. Her sense for titillating detail, particularly about puffed-up masculine egos, never fails, from Les Moonves’ bad breath to Tom Cruise’s too-tight black shirt and her encounters with men like Neil Simon and Larry King.

Couric also doesn’t shy away from discussing her personal life, including how her marriage to Jay Monahan devolved — before his death of colon cancer — as she became a household name and bigger star than her husband. She candidly details how fraught it was between the couple when he left corporate law to provide TV commentary for big true crime stories, seemingly moving into her turf.

Couric is also willing to grapple with the failures of ’90s media, giving us a peek into the morning TV melodrama sausage factory, including moments she thought went a little far. During an interview with a Black father and a white sibling of the 1999 Columbine shooting victims, producer Jeff Zucker asked for shots of their hands together in what she calls an unnecessarily exploitative moment. She expresses regret for the show’s framing of the 1992 LA riots; rather than contextualizing the anger of Black protesters, they focused on Reginald Denny, the white truck driver who was beaten up. She also apologizes for the cluelessly invasive questions she asked on Katie about Carmen Carrera’s and Laverne Cox’s bodies.

Couric tracks how, as her professional trajectory soared, public opinion of her soured. By the early aughts, her salary was $65 million; she was battling for guest bookings with Diane Sawyer, losing relatability, and being dismissed in the tabloids and press as a “diva.”


Mario Anzuoni / Reuters

Couric during a CBS News panel in 2006

She frames her time in the CBS Evening News anchor chair from 2006 to 2011 as a culture clash between her and the CBS “boys club,” saying that Les Moonves brought her in without properly introducing her to the power holders. But she doesn’t necessarily contextualize her own trajectory within the broader, changing news landscape — for instance, that evening news was in some ways losing ratings and relevance in the internet age. While she had ridden the wave of morning shows’ peak, she got to the party too late for evening news to matter (despite her big moment exposing Sarah Palin’s lack of expertise during the 2008 presidential election). And in the Daily Show era, her perspective wasn’t that specific or fresh beyond fiddling with the aesthetics of the old-school nightly news format, like standing up from behind the desk and addressing the viewers as “everyone.”

Her other misfire, the 2012 daytime talk show Katie, is a case study in how big budgets and market research pushed her from being, as she puts it, a journalist with a personality to a TV personality. “The music, the mood, my face, my voice are all so relentlessly chirpy — watching it now makes me cringe,” she writes of that era. And her efforts fell flat because, yet again, her timing was off: She was too early to catch the daytime talk show revival spearheaded by celebrity women like Drew Barrymore and Kelly Clarkson, who successfully leaned into their celebrity personas to attract viewers.

Couric seems to have struggled with an internalized distinction between “serious” news and human-interest fare, a gendered dichotomy that has since lessened its grip on the news landscape. She admits she was losing touch with popular culture by the time she segued into trying to help revive Yahoo News, and that coming from a local news background made her feel estranged from young colleagues who came up solely online. But now through her newsletter, Wake-Up Call, and the social media landscape, she says she gets to unite her strengths and interests and be herself again. “Sometimes I’m Katherine, sometimes I’m Katie,” she writes about the push and pull between her lighthearted and hard-news sides. “Now my work allows me to be both.” Her memoir successfully achieves this balance too.

Perhaps one of the most anticipated topics she addresses is her relationship with Lauer and how it devolved after his #MeToo downfall. Her retelling is a compelling anatomy of the way powerful men relate to women they consider peers while hiding a predatory side. She includes text messages to illustrate how their collegial work relationship quietly fell apart in the aftermath of the allegations against Lauer.

As she ponders why she never saw that side of him, she never quite hits on the fact that she became a powerful white woman at the network, and she didn’t see certain things precisely because of her privilege. And while she can now acknowledge the Today show’s white-centric melodramatic racial politics, Gumbel’s tawdry jokes about other women, and the gender politics of Norville’s sidelining, noting those things at the time and calling them out would have made her seem troublesome and affected her own career. The memoir could have been even stronger if it had explored the stakes around these issues even more.

Toward the end of Going There, Couric laments with self-awareness that it’s sad not to be the It girl anymore. But the insights in her memoir illustrate how the ways in which she saw the world — including the limitations — allowed her to hold that position for so many people for so long. ●

Read original article here