Jennifer Lopez is a jack of all trades. She can sing, she can dance, and she can act. Like, really act. Not only does she nail roles on the small screen, like Detective Harlee Santos in Shades of Blue, but also in big-ticket movies. Lopez has built a film career for herself since nabbing a part in the 1986 drama My Little Girl, and in light of the news of her latest film, Second Act — which she’s starring in with real-life BFF Leah Remini — we’re taking a look at some of her best roles. From playing Selena in the biopic of the same name to fighting to get her life back in Enough, Lopez has won us over with her silver screen roles for over 30 years and counting.
There are very few TV shows that compare to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Sarah Michelle Gellar knows it. Not only did the supernatural drama spawn 144 episodes and seven whole seasons, but it also gave rise to Gellar’s empowering, vampire-slaying heroine, a character who ended up paving the way for more bold female figures on TV down the road. It’s no wonder that, even after 20 years, the show’s fan base is insanely dedicated. While there were tons of memorable moments during its seven seasons, there are two episodes in particular that really stand out to the show’s star, albeit for different reasons.
As for her overall favorite? «I like ‘The Prom,'» Gellar told me of the heartbreaking season three episode during Capital One’s event with Priceless Table to promote its new Savor rewards credit card. «Just because to me that was all about who she was and the isolation that you feel as a teenager.»
When it comes to narrowing down the scariest episode, though, she loves season four’s «Hush» — which was predominately filmed without any dialogue — just as much as the fans do. «I thought that it would be really easy to have no lines for eight days, but it was so hard,» she admitted. «I was like, ‘This is way harder. I’d rather learn lines.’ And they had the scariest costumes.» You can say that again. The Gentlemen’s sunken eyes and creepy smiles still give me nightmares.
Seeing that the show recently celebrated a huge anniversary this year, I couldn’t help but ask what her favorite part about playing the incredibly fierce and inspiring Buffy Summers was. «If I say her wardrobe, I seem shallow,» she quipped. «If I say hitting men, that sounds awful.»
All joking aside, it’s obvious that Gellar is just grateful she got to be a part of something so iconic that stands the test of time. «We all talk about legacy and what we leave behind and what we represent — I’m just very proud of the story we told and the characters we created ultimately.»
It looks like Anna Faris may have a new man in her life after announcing her separation from Chris Pratt in August. According to TMZ, the Mom actress is dating 47-year-old cinematographer Michael Barrett, with whom she was spotted at a carnival in LA on Sept. 9. The pair was also seen together at a restaurant in Malibu on Sept. 23.
Michael is credited as a cinematographer in her upcoming film Overboard. Although Anna has yet to comment on the romance rumors, sources told E! News that Anna and Michael were spotted having dinner together on what «looked like a date.»
Anna recently spoke about her split from Chris in an interview with People, saying, «We’ll always have each other and be incredible friends. We truly adore each other, and we love each other. I think it still comes through.»
Madelaine Petsch has quickly become one of Riverdale‘s biggest breakout stars, and it’s not hard to see why. Not only is she an insanely talented actress, but she also leads a pretty interesting life. Did you know she’s never had ice cream before? Or that she actually read for Betty? While she’s definitely not a mean girl like Cheryl Blossom, there’s one thing she has in common with her fan-favorite character: she is the ultimate cool girl. See even more fun facts about the 23-year-old ahead.
Where do you start when it comes to analysing Trump’s language? If you ask him, he’ll tell you: «I know words. I have the best words.» There have been countless linguistic studies on the man himself already, and those experts would respectfully disagree.
We can all probably do a passable impression of Trumpspeak; ‘thanks’ to his Twitter feed, it is not hard to mimic or parody Trump’s distinctive idiolect. We are used to more polished speakers most of the time, certain world leaders excluded. We are used to speeches that have been crafted in advance. Eloquent speakers can improvise in this polished way as well.
Some linguists argue that Trump’s language is much more ‘normal’ than we might first think. He seems «unique» because he doesn’t speak like a politician; «he speaks like everyone else.» Jennifer Sclafani’s two year study of Trump’s language concluded that although Trump «creates a spectacle» and «a brand» with his language, most of the features we associate with Trumpspeak («a casual tone, a simple vocabulary and grammar, repetitions, hyperbole and sudden switches of topic») are merely conventions of «everyday speech.» She adds, «It’s just unusual to hear it from a president speaking in a public, formal context.»
Not all linguists agree. While these spoken language features are typical in spontaneous speech, there are other conventions that are strangely absent. Trump even breaks some of the most basic ‘rules’ of spoken language, notably the cooperative principle. Paul Grice theorised that there are four ‘maxims’ in spoken communication. These are the unwritten rules and the assumptions that we make when interacting with others, and the key to effective communication. The four maxims are quality, quantity, relation and manner. If someone is deliberately not following these principles, then they are not speaking and interacting in a cooperative manner. When Trump breaks the maxim of quality, the reaction is (rightly) fear, disbelief, outrage and lots of headlines.
The maxim of quality:
Try to make your contribution one that is true.
Do not say what you believe to be false.
Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
Leaders sometimes lie, granted. But rarely are the lies so obvious, immediately identified, immediately countered with evidence, and yet still denied.
Here it is essential to distinguish between different levels of ‘untruths’: an untruth may be a deliberate lie, an error, and a delusion. With the latter, the speaker may firmly believe that they are telling the truth. They may pass a lie-detector test, so certain are they of their truth.
Errors happen. Everyone makes the odd mistake here and there, especially in unplanned, spontaneous spoken language. Errors may be accidental or the result of ignorance. When an error is pointed out to us, we have some choices: we can accept the error quietly, we may address it publicly, or we may reject it. If we continue to believe that we were correct, then our error becomes a delusion. If we know we made an error but we persist in repeating it, it becomes a lie.
Deliberately lying in politics is, sadly, nothing new, but its potential can be highly dangerous. Orwell had a lot to say about the insidious potential of lying in politics, and it is entirely understandable for us to jump to the conclusion that Trump has a masterplan to destroy truth and replace it with Trumpian Newspeak in a fascist dystopia. But Trump’s relationship with the truth is more complex than that.
Lawrence Douglas explored some typical features of Trumpspeak in his piece for the Guardian, following Trump’s interview with Time magazine, back in March. Douglas noted that Trump «overwhelmed his interviewer with such a profusion of misstatements, half-truths, dodges and red herrings that one grows dizzy trying to untangle it all.» He analysed Trump’s relationship with the truth, and drew the following conclusions:
In Trumpspeak, a speaker can never be accused of lying if he’s simply repeating the statements of others.
Truthful statements do not necessarily offer an accurate account of events in the world. They provide an approximation or exaggeration of something that might, in theory, have occurred.
Trumpspeak confuses prophecy with honesty. If a news organisation failed to correctly anticipate the president’s win at the polls, Trumpspeak treats this as evidence of the falseness and mendacity of that organisation’s reportage about all of reality.
Belief is a signal of truth. If his supporters believe him, then what Trump is saying must be true.
Trumpspeak places no independent value on truth. The value of speech is to be measured, exclusively in terms of its effects. If a statement gets me closer to my goal, then it is valuable; if it does not, it is worthless.
Douglas points out at the end of his piece that he does not «mean to suggest that Trumpspeak is a conscious construct of the president,» and that, I think, is key to understanding Trump’s flexible attitude to the truth. I do not think this is deliberate. I don’t think this is case of reframing truth, and an Orwellian «destruction of words.» I mean, it’s clearly not working, for a start. Orwell wrote, «Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.» That’s not what is happening here. Trump is not a convincing liar in the slightest.
I think it is more likely that Trump has long believed that the truth is what he says it is. And that this is because he has always had power, not because he is trying to claim power. I think he believes what he is saying, and this means we are firmly in delusion territory. Fake News is anything that threatens his narrative, not because he’s ticking off ‘destroy the media’ from his word domination checklist, but because for once, he is not being told what he wants to hear. Decades of sycophantic support have fed this delusion; it is not easy to speak truth to power. And now he faces countless journalists and broadcasters, whose job it is to do just that. World leaders do the same. Renowned experts do the same. Here is the emperor who has just been told that he’s been walking around naked. Of course he’d rather believe he’s decked out in the snazziest new fashions. To do that, he must discredit the experts, the journalists, the broadcasters and even other world leaders. All of them threaten his understanding of truth.
So much for the maxim of quality, then. But Trump flouts the other maxims too. He does not make his speech as informative as he needs to. He drifts from the topic at hand. But the other really worrying area of Trump’s spoken language is where he flouts the maxim of manner. This fourth maxim refers to lucidity, clarity and precision. If we are following the cooperative principle, we should avoid ambiguity and obscurity, we should be brief, and we should be orderly.
In Sharon Begley’s article on Trump’s language for STAT, she opens with an example of a spontaneous utterance that, well, you can see for yourself:
It was the kind of utterance that makes professional transcribers question their career choice:
«…there is no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign, but I can always speak for myself — and the Russians, zero.»
When President Trump offered that response to a question at a press conference last week, it was the latest example of his tortured syntax, mid-thought changes of subject, and apparent trouble formulating complete sentences, let alone a coherent paragraph, in unscripted speech.
Where Begley’s article takes the analysis of Trumpspeak further is in her exploration of how Trump «was not always so linguistically challenged.»
In interviews Trump gave in the 1980s and 1990s, he spoke articulately, used sophisticated vocabulary, inserted dependent clauses into his sentences without losing his train of thought, and strung together sentences into a polished paragraph, which — and this is no mean feat — would have scanned just fine in print.
So what’s changed? It could be stress, or emotional upheaval. It could be strategic; «maybe Trump thinks his supporters like to hear him speak simply and with more passion than proper syntax.» But Begley isn’t convinced that it’s just that.
Research has shown that changes in speaking style can result from cognitive decline. (….) For decades, studies have found that deterioration in the fluency, complexity and vocabulary level of spontaneous speech can indicate slipping brain function due to normal aging or neurodegenerative disease. (…) Although [none of the experts STAT consulted] said [Trump’s] apparent loss of linguistic fluency was unambiguous evidence of mental decline, most thought something was going on.»
This isn’t the first time researchers have analysed the language of a president in this manner, either:
Researchers have used neurolinguistics analysis of past presidents to detect, retrospectively, early Alzheimer’s disease. In a famous 2015 study, scientists at Arizona State University evaluated how Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush spoke at their news conferences. Reagan’s speech was riddled with indefinite nouns (something, anything), «low imageability» verbs (have, go, get), incomplete sentences, limited vocabulary, simple grammar, and fillers (well, basically, um, ah, so) — all characteristic of cognitive problems. That suggested Reagan’s brain was slipping just a few years into his 1981-1989 tenure; that decline continued. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease in 1994. Bush showed no linguistic deterioration; he remained mentally sharp throughout his 1989-1993 tenure and beyond.
If you can bear to, have a look at this video and ask yourself whether you think this is a man who is deliberately lying, consciously performing, or merely believing his own delusions.
There’s nothing I can add to this pic.twitter.com/QJW3ukhXUG
— Stephen Fry (@stephenfry) October 13, 2017
George Orwell once said, «In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.» There are deliberate deceptions that must be addressed, of course, perpetrated by Trump’s official and unofficial allies. But with Trump himself, we are not so much in a time of deceit as we are in a time of delusion, and therefore telling the truth becomes a revelatory act. To tell Trump the truth is to reveal what has been hidden from him for decades. It is to tell the emperor that he is naked. Revelations can fall on deaf ears; they can be painful. But we must keep presenting an honest reflection rather than feeding the delusion. Like Sylvia Plath’s ‘Mirror’, we are «not cruel, only truthful»; it’s time for Trump to take a long, hard look at himself.
Sophie Turner certainly has a lot going on at the moment: she just got engaged to Joe Jonas, she has a new X-Men movie on the horizon, and she’s getting ready to say goodbye to Game of Thrones and her fan-favorite character Sansa forever. On top of all that, she’s also featured in Marie Claire‘s November «Power» issue. While she doesn’t give any details about her romance with the DNCE singer, she does talk about a few other important people in her life — her GOT costars! Did you know most of them actually live about 10 minutes away from each other? The upcoming eighth season may be the last in the series, but it sounds like the stars’ friendship is here to stay. See some of Sophie’s best quotes from her interview ahead.
You know when there’s also an afternoon briefing that it’s been a bug-sh*t day in politics. And it has. The latest? Look at this asshole deny he said what he said:
Trump, asked about his "proof" Rep. Wilson was inaccurate in her description of the call, responds: "Let her make her statement again." pic.twitter.com/lTOwJ7iCFl
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) October 18, 2017
I mean, the body language alone shows how much the man is lying. Crossed arms, defensive posture. Also, «that Congresswoman» is Frederica Wilson, and «that woman,» «the wife» he spoke to is Myeshia Johnson, but of course he doesn’t know that because he couldn’t be bothered to learn the name of the soldier who died before calling Myeshia Johnson. His name is La David T. Johnson — he had the name of his wife and children tattooed on his chest.
And guess what? La David’s mom, Cowanda Jones-Johnson, was also present during the call, and she confirms Representative Wilson’s account. «President Trump did disrespect my son and my daughter and also me and my husband.»
Anyway, Trump dared Congresswoman Wilson to repeat her statement, and then he’d come out with proof that she is lying. She repeated the statement.
I still stand by my account of the call b/t @realDonaldTrump and Myeshia Johnson. That is her name, Mr. Trump. Not "the woman" or "the wife"
— Rep Frederica Wilson (@RepWilson) October 18, 2017
We await the proof, Donny. Or are you going to go with your fellow sexual assaulter, Bill O’Reilly:
I don't know what was said, and neither does any other member of the press. But this whole thing has the look of a setup, does it not?
— Bill O'Reilly (@billoreilly) October 18, 2017
— Meanwhile, how is that bi-partisan agreement the Senate came up with and Donald Trump seemed to support to fund the CSRs for Obamacare going? Oh, Trump is backpedaling?
I am supportive of Lamar as a person & also of the process, but I can never support bailing out ins co's who have made a fortune w/ O'Care.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2017
Color us shocked. But hey! If the Senate and the House pass it, I’m sure he’ll sign it, right? I mean, Trump claimed credit as the architect of the damn bill just yesterday, so …
What’s that, Paul Ryan? «The speaker does not see anything that changes his view that the Senate should keep its focus on repeal and replace of Obamacare.» Oh, good. So, the Speaker of the House is against the bill, which is almost but not quite a death blow. Cool, cool. I look forward to a 20 percent hike in all of our premiums in 2018.
— Maybe we can offset those premium hikes with the tax cuts we’re getting, right?
In meeting with senators, Trump pledges "the largest tax cut in the history of our country"
— MJ Lee (@mj_lee) October 18, 2017
Must be really good if the middle class is going to be the recipient of the biggest tax break in the history of the country. Oh what’s that again, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin?
«So when you’re cutting taxes across the board, it’s very hard not to give tax cuts to the wealthy with tax cuts to the middle class,» he concluded. «The math, given how much you are collecting, is just hard to do.»
Really? Because here’s a thought, and I’m just spitballing here: Maybe instead of «across the board» tax cuts, you just narrowly tailor it to 90 PERCENT OF AMERICA and leave, say, the richest 10 percent out of it. Maybe apply that money to, say, healthcare! Or roads! Or job training for all those out-of-work coal miners.
I know. It’s too crazy to work!
— In case you’ve forgotten, since the thing that’s most likely to end Trump’s presidency has fallen down on the list of priorities, but the investigation into Trump campaign’s collusion with the Russians is still ongoing. Sessions met with the Senate Intelligence Committee today, and he seems pleasant.
"We're moving the goal post every time." The full heated exchange between Franken and Sessions (via ABC). pic.twitter.com/PijoXBvpQ3
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) October 18, 2017
I don’t think Senator Franken and Attorney General care for each other, you guys.
— Finally, here’s a voice mail «someone» left with Forbes Magazine, and by «someone,» I mean, «John Barron,» and by «John Barron,» I mean «Donald Trump.»
Someone left this voicemail at Forbes' front desk last night. For the record, there is no conspiracy. We just count the numbers. pic.twitter.com/EGY1fi8rJL
— Dan Alexander (@DanAlexander21) October 18, 2017
Anna Faris understands why fans are so invested in her relationship with Chris Pratt. When the couple announced their split in August, people were devastated by the news, having watched the couple share sweet moments in the spotlight for years.
In a recent interview with People, Anna opened up about the breakup. «We’ll always have each other and be incredible friends,» she said. «It’s understandable that people seem so invested in our relationship,» she added, saying, «All I can say about that is, it’s all true, that we truly adore each other, and we love each other, I think it still comes through.»
As to her current relationship with Chris, Anna says there’s still a lot of laughter. «He is so proud of me, still,» she said. «We watched each other grow, and he still cracks me up all the time. And I think I crack him up — unless he’s a really good actor and great at faking laughter.»
The actress is currently promoting her upcoming book, Unqualified, which comes out on Oct. 24. Chris wrote the foreword for her book, and although it’s sort of «crazy timing,» she’s actually found it to be fitting, bringing it all «full circle.» Anna told People, «I am so grateful that he contributed to the book. Chris and I are really great friends, and I think that we always will be.»
When Beyoncé arrived at the TIDAL X Brooklyn benefit concert at the Barclays Center on Tuesday night, we’re just going to go right ahead and assume that you could hear a pin drop, because who wouldn’t be in awe of her presence? Bey, who recently welcomed twins Rumi and Sir with JAY-Z, walked the red carpet in a stunning emerald dress, and although she didn’t perform alongside her man, she did watch him front the sidelines.
This year’s TIDAL concert benefited all of the places effected by recent natural disasters, and the highlight of the night was definitely all of the strong and sexy women who dominated the stage. Jennifer Lopez, Cardi B, Remy Ma, Fifth Harmony, and Karen Rodriguez were among the artists who performed. Check out all the women who showed everyone who runs the world (pun intended), and all for a great cause, below.
Celebrities are just like us, right? They have imperfect marriage, struggle to balance work and family, and they believe shapeshifters walk among us and aliens are real.
Billy Corgan, head megalomaniac of Smashing Pumpkins, was on The Howard Stern Show recently. Stern brought up Corgan’s appearances on The Alex Jones Show, mentioning the host’s belief in lizard people. Corgan responded:
«Not to add to the conspiracy, but I’ve had paranormal experiences in my life that sort of lend itself into that category.»
DID THEY TURN INTO A BULLET WITH BUTTERFLY WINGS?? Who knows, as Corgan most certainly realized how nuts he sounded and remained evasive with Stern. You can listen below.
Tom DeLonge, former guitarist and founding member of blink-182, continues his obsession with aliens. I mean, I listened to «Aliens Exist» on their «Enema of the State» record.
I didn’t realize DeLonge was serious, though. Back in 2015, DeLonge spoke with Papermag, stating that he had made contact with aliens and was in danger.
«At the time I didn’t know it, but the person I was dealing with was being awoken in the middle of the night with clicking and buzzing noises and falling on the ground vomiting, every morning at 4 a.m. I know now that those are artifacts from mind-control experiments, where the same technology that we use to find oil underground, we can zap somebody at the same frequency that the brain operates on, and it can cause some really horrific things to happen. But I didn’t know this until 10 years later. I got caught in the middle of it, and this was the time when I was on the cover of Rolling Stone, so I think these guys, whoever was running this operation, were like, «What the fuck? How did this kid show up?»»
In 2016, DeLonge spoke about the song with Mic:
«The very last line of that song references this urban legend in UFO folklore called Majestic 12; these documents that got leaked in the ’80s that described an entire organization of top-level scientists, military people and intelligence officials that manage the information of this phenomenon. I put the name in that song, and the irony now is that I’m dealing with people from the modern version of whatever that group is called. It’s a big deal.»
DeLonge has a website called To The Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences and he is using it to crowdfund a spaceship to finally prove the existence of aliens.
«Hello, my name is Tom DeLonge from the Blink-182. I have brought together an elite team from CIA, DOD and the FMR Director of Advanced Programs at Lockheed Martin’s SkunkWorks. We are aiming to build this ElectroMagnetic Vehicle to Travel instantaneously through Space, Air and Water by engineering the fabric of Space-Time. Our company is called To The Stars… and you can INVEST in our plan to revolutionize the world with technology that can change life as we know it.» — Via Facebook
Maybe DeLonge can get some insight from Miami congressional candidate Bettina Rodriguez Aguilera. The video below is in Spanish.