Audrey Hepburn and Mark Bolan to get blue plaques in London
English Heritage's curatorial director Matt Thompson said: "From literature and art to dance and music, these figures helped shape the London we know today. "Their contributions not only had a profound impact on their fields but also continue to inspire generations."
Bolan helped spearhead the Glam Rock movement of the 1970s and was known for his flamboyant style and fusion of rock, folk, and glittering theatrics, making hits like Get It On and Ride a White Swan.English Heritage said his "iconic look, featuring sequins, feather boas, and platform boots" defined Glam Rock's aesthetic and "challenged traditional notions of masculinity".He was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 2020 and English Heritage said his plaque would hopefully be installed at one of his west London addresses.
Hepburn's early years in London, during which she transitioned from ballet to acting, will be commemorated with a blue plaque in Mayfair. During her time in the capital she gained her first film and stage roles including her Broadway debut in Gigi and secured an Oscar for her portrayal of Princess Ann in Roman Holiday, while she also became known for her style and fashion influence.Renowned 20th Century ballerina Markova, a co-founder of the English National Ballet and an influential figure in the Royal Ballet, will also be celebrated with a blue plaque at her childhood home in Muswell Hill.
Jamaican poet, playwright, broadcaster and campaigner for racial and gender equality Marson will also be recognised. As the first black woman to be employed as a programme assistant, and later as the first black producer at the BBC, Marson spearheaded a wave of change in British broadcasting.
Meanwhile the London childhood home of Sutherland, who once painted Sir Winston Churchill, will be the location for his plaque as English Heritage said it played a formative role in his artistic development.Novelist Pym's Pimlico home, from where her novel Excellent Women draws its inspiration and setting, will also be marked with a plaque.English Heritage said all blue plaques were subject to full owner approval and it was working with the property owners.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
5 hours ago
- Spectator
How can Gwyneth Paltrow bear so much ridicule?
There is nobody who finds Gwyneth Paltrow, 52, more interesting than the woman who was a teenager in the 1990s. This was the last era of the true pin-up, the heart-throb, the movie star as icon, rather than the whiffy melange of brand-pusher, pound-shop activist and reality star that constitutes celebrity today. I was as Nineties as the next girl living in provincial Massachusetts and when I first saw Shakespeare in Love in 1998, Paltrow's first and only Oscar-winning role as the late-16th-century actress-in-male-garb Viola de Lesseps, I'd never enjoyed anything as much in my life. And in 2025, Paltrow's career's Take Two fascinates the early middle-aged woman who finally gives in to the barrage of wellness marketing sent her way on Instagram. She now finds herself ordering 'adaptogens' (plants that are meant to help the body adapt to stress) such as reishi mushroom powder 'for immunity' and bovine collagen powder 'for hormone balance and joints'. Naturally, Paltrow's much-ridiculed lifestyle brand and newsletter Goop, which she founded in 2008 when good acting parts began to dry up, sells its own adaptogens: Paltrow was an early adopter and evangelist of almost every current wellness trend. As we learn here, she is extremely shrewd and, when it serves her, thick-skinned – a curious combination of entrepreneurial survivor and woo-woo artiste. Altogether, Paltrow's ability to fascinate and allure has served her very well, as this detailed, gossipy and slightly catty biography by the fashion journalist Amy Odell makes clear. There was something predestined about Paltrow's success, for 'as her parents and their world always taught her, she was just that special'. She was also just that talented, with her ear for languages. She learned fluent Spanish on a school exchange in just a few months and, despite being a New Yorker, managed different English accents for Sliding Doors (1998), Emma (1996) and Shakespeare in Love. Gwyneth is not just of interest to long-term viewers or followers of Paltrow, but to all students of celebrity, culture, media and the complex interactions between nepotism, talent and sex appeal. What makes it more than a repetitious biography of a movie icon is the subject's obvious complexities, beginning with her background. Her parents, Blythe Danner, a stage actress of birdlike frame, was famous, and Bruce Paltrow, a producer, was rich. They were an unusual couple. Danner was anxious, reflective, introverted and always more interested in the art of theatre – stage – than celebrity and success. She was posh and Episcopalian, whereas Bruce was 'brash' and Jewish, with a father called Buster. But they loved each other and stayed together – until Bruce, the 'love of [Gwyneth's] life', died, aged 58, in 2002 from throat cancer. The parents had tried to give their daughter and her younger brother Jake a 'normal' upbringing. Bruce cut Paltrow off financially when she dropped out of the University of Santa Barbara to pursue acting, and she waited tables out of necessity. The family was decidedly cultured, and when Gwyneth was a child went every year to the elite Williamstown theatre festival in the Berkshires, where Blythe joined huge names on stage. Theatre buffs will relish this roll call of late 1970s and 1980s acting aristocracy. Gwyneth the precocious child was popped into a range of parts, including one in a Chekhov play. Later, when a movie star, she returned in a highly acclaimed turn as Rosalind in As You Like It. She was born the definition of white privilege and has always been hated – and envied – for it. She got screen roles easily through connections, and with her love of partying, willowy frame and ethereal beauty soon became an haute couture clothes horse and It Girl. Much is made of the importance of being Brad Pitt's girlfriend in the mid-1990s when he was the world's biggest heart-throb, but it made her increasingly miserable because, in part, he just wasn't good enough. He was from ultra-conservative Christians in Missouri and couldn't understand her Upper East Side sophistication. There were bad parts and failed movies (Hush, Great Expectations, View From the Top), but her work with Harvey Weinstein at Miramax – she was the studio's 'muse' for a decade – clinched her reputation as a quality superstar. Somehow she survived Weinstein's rapacity and manipulativeness, but her account of his predatory behaviour when filming Emma, when she was 24 and he was 43, provided key early testimony for the first major #MeToo story, broken by Jodi Kantor in the New York Times in 2018. We see how Paltrow aggressively covets the fine things in life – demanding private jets and suites at the Ritz as a breakthrough star, and she can clearly be a cold, bitchy diva. This is a feature Odell returns to repeatedly, interviewing people who knew her at school, who worked with her on set at different times, and who went from being useful to not useful or, like erstwhile friends Madonna and Winona Ryder, somehow annoyed her. But for all the garbage, there is also an impressive resilience. Most people who endure half as much loathing and ridicule as Paltrow would be having public mental health struggles. She famously doesn't care what most people think, and seems to concentrate mainly on her children and her next winning hand. There is a shrewd simplicity and perceptiveness to some of her pronouncements. Of the idea to start Goop, she says: I was privy to such good information, and I thought, 'Well, if my girlfriends want to know this information, surely other girls and guys may want to know too. So, if they do, I'll do it, I'll just put out a newsletter. This is perfectly sensible. 'I would rather die than give my child a Cup-O-Soup' she said in 2005, making everyone hate her, again. But her point, brand and personality was at least succinctly presented. And she can be wise. At one point when her star crested in the late 1990s, her father sat her down for a talk with his bratty daughter: 'You know, you're getting a little weird… you're kind of an asshole.' Instead of blocking him, as her contemporary equivalent might have done, Paltrow felt 'devastated' and thought: 'Oh my God, I'm on the wrong track.' This led to an important reflection. By the age of 26, she didn't have to wait in line at a restaurant, and if a car doesn't show up, someone else gives you theirs. There is nothing worse for the growth of a human being than not having obstacles and disappointments. Her life in the 21st century as a businesswoman is less interesting than her late-20th-century one because it is a far more commonplace story. But her antennae for the next big thing are nonetheless remarkable. Long before MAHA tsar Robert Kennedy Jnr was saying the sun 'is good for you' – cancer be damned – Paltrow was saying the same. But few in the MAHA movement ever won an Oscar.
Spectator
5 hours ago
- Spectator
Woody Allen without the zingers: Materialists reviewed
Celine Song's first film, the wonderful Past Lives (2023), earned two Oscar nominations. So expectations were riding high for Materialists. Perhaps way too high. And, yes, it's a letdown. It feels like an early Woody Allen but blunter, shallower, with no zingers, and a lead character that's hard to care about. Dakota Johnson is our lead, playing a matchmaker who has two dreamboats (Chris Evans, Pedro Pascal) vying for her hand and throughout I was thinking: I should have your problems, love. It's billed as a romcom but those who expect that will be disappointed. It's more an essay on modern dating. Johnson, whom we have forgiven for her horrible performance in that horrible adaptation of Persuasion – we don't hold grudges – is Lucy. She works for a swanky Manhattan dating agency called Adore (ugh) that deals exclusively with the rich elite. She sees marriage as a business transaction in which people are buyers or sellers. The montage of clients' demands and feedback from first dates – too fat, too short, too old, too balding, 'I would never swipe right on that' etc. – is fun but only one client gets any real attention. This is Sophie, a 39-year-old lawyer who fears dying alone. She is played by Zoë Winters who steals the film from under everybody despite it being a minor role. Lucy attends the wedding of one of her clients and here she meets Harry (Pascal, gliding into view in a way that put me in mind of Omar Sharif). He's a 'unicorn' – hot, rich, tall, full head of hair – but, what do you know? At the same event, serving as a 'cater waiter', is John (Chris Evans). He's her ex, an out of work actor who – a flashback informs us – she left because they were always broke. He still wants her but Harry also now wants her. I wondered why, as she comes across as neither interesting nor especially bright. Midway through there's an act of violence and she is forced to reflect on the nature of her work and you think, you've never reflected on that before? Wake up and smell the coffee, lady! As an exploration of the tension between love and money the film is surprisingly unsubtle from the word go. The opening scene involves a prehistoric cave couple – I thought I was in the wrong screen! – which even sets out the film's stall when it comes to marriage, albeit in a laughably clumsy way. Lucy, meanwhile, has the following dilemma on her hands. Should she be seduced by Harry's $12 million penthouse or return to broke John? (Harry! He has silk sheets!) This leads her to question whether we might be worth more than our 'tangible assets' but is that taking us anywhere new? What is new, I suppose, is how far people will go to 'add value' to themselves these days but that involves a surgical subplot that I can't go into as it would take us into spoiler territory. The characters feel like cinema characters rather than character characters. They have no friends, no family, no interests beyond the dating scene. The film is talky, with some sharp dialogue, but no fresh insights. A good actor has something going on behind the eyes that the audience wants to know about and I'm not sure I ever get that with Johnson. Evans and Pascal bring A-list pizazz but no chemistry is ever ignited. I only ever felt for Sophie whom the film abandons just as she's always been abandoned. Poor Sophie. And why does Lucy have to choose? Why not neither? Is this saying marriage is the pinnacle of a woman's achievement? It's lushly photographed and beautifully framed and it's not a nightmare to sit through but whereas Past Lives stayed with you, I can feel this leaving me already.
Metro
6 hours ago
- Metro
Materialists director on ending backlash: 'I'm not asking you do anything'
Oscar-nominated filmmaker Celine Song's former career as a matchmaker stood her in excellent stead to make Materialists, the rom-com about modern dating that has seemingly sent some parts of society over the edge. It stars Dakota Johnson as successful New York City matchmaker Lucy, who is faced with choosing between charming and attractive private equity partner Harry (Pedro Pascal) or her broke and struggling ex John (Chris Evans). I assume the Past Lives writer-director must have ripped some of the most ridiculous lines we hear Lucy's clients spout in the movie from real life: '39 is not 30s' complains one man in his 40s, while female clients fixate on bagging a man who's at least six feet tall with a $500,000 salary. But Song is pretty serious when recalling how much these 'dominant beauty and wealth standards' warped the job. 'Unfortunately, what I would hear is a repetition of the same values and I wasn't hearing enough variety,' she recalls. And while it's then fun to recount some of the most savage lines from Materialists with her, Song is all too aware that this cold way of looking at love was 'starting to seep into our hearts'. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video 'I think that the math of it [is] trying to overtake love,' she adds, which is exactly what drove her to tell this story. 'We're hearing about height, weight, age, income, and a lot of those things aren't going to matter very much when you're 90. When I see your face, I see your wrinkles and grey hair. Who cares what you look like now?' she asks. As it's put in the movie – we should all be looking for a 'nursing home partner, a grave buddy', someone willing to change your nappy when you're old and incontinent. 'And anybody who loves you, if you ask them 'why do you love me?', they're not going to say a single number!' This sums up the dilemma that both Lucy and her clients try to overcome – and according to some passionate fans in the US, where Materialists was released in June, Lucy made the wrong choice. Song reveals that she's more than aware of some of the heated reactions to Materialists. 'Something that I've heard is like, 'Well, are you telling me that I need to compromise and settle if I [don't] want to be single?' And I would always say, I don't know what you're talking about because I would never ask you to settle for something. I'm not asking you do anything, these are just characters, it's a movie – but these are also decisions that Lucy's making,' she points out. 'You can make decisions that you want to make, given that it's your life. I don't think there's any reason in settling for something that you're 'entitled' to. The only thing you're entitled to from the person who loves you is that they love you!' In terms of who Lucy ends up with too, Song would also like to remind you that 'it's Lucy's life and these are fictional characters'. 'Lucy's telling you that she's not in love with [redacted], right? So, in which case, I think that she should be believed. I think that she would like to be in love with him in the way that I'm sure all of us would like to be in love with somebody who would be very convenient! It would be great if we could be relieved of financial pressure just because we are with someone, but that does not a marriage make.' Past Lives might be a more poignant film on the surface than Materialists, examining the intense nostalgia that comes with the sense of a missed childhood connection, but they're certainly films that can be viewed as in dialogue with each other – to start with, simply because they are both about a woman trying to 'make a decision about what she wants in her life'. 'So much of it is about this woman who is trying to understand her whole life and become a more actualised person,' says Song, of both. But it goes much deeper than that too. The filmmaker is delighted when I suggest that her films are more sincere and honest looks at love than we are perhaps used to, in a world where the rom-com is often overly glossy or else ready to deliver a punchline about love. She knows Materialists reflects herself as the main creative person too – which includes 'who I am beyond just as the filmmaker, but as somebody who lives and thinks in the world'. 'I feel I am pretty sincere, I'm pretty honest,' Song laughs. 'So I think that those are the only kinds of movies that I could ultimately make. It's really hard for me to be winking through a conversation or through a movie.' As someone who assembled such a stand-out A-list cast – but doesn't write scripts with actors in mind – I've got to discuss with Song how Johnson, Pascal and Evans came on board. 'I write the characters on the page and then I go out like a matchmaker in search of their soulmate,' states the director, simply, of her quest for perfection. That seems like a daunting challenge, but unsurprisingly all three of these stars were keen to meet with her following the success of Past Lives. 'I was getting to know them, and I think at some time in the middle of meeting them, I just realised and I was like, 'I think you might be a soulmate to this character, would you read the script?'' And how could anyone say no to that sort of offer? If you have even a passing interest in Materialists, it's been virtually impossible to avoid seeing spoilers for the end; but if you're even a casual consumer of rom-coms, you'll see it coming anyway. However, there is a reveal for Pascal's Harry that I didn't expect, which I won't divulge. Suffice it to say, an uptight man with a more fragile ego might have baulked at it – but Song says: 'I don't think that Pedro would have wanted to make this movie without that scene.' It also links perfectly to the central idea of Materialists and how we 'turn ourselves and each other into merchandise', according to its director – and it's something that resonated with three of Hollywood's hottest stars too. 'I think that all three of my actors really understand what it's like to be treated like merchandise. It was so clear that all three of them really fell in love with their characters as people, and that they wanted to commit to the story of the movie because they really understood it and felt it very deeply.' She adds: 'I don't know if Pedro would have wanted to play Harry if he didn't feel that all this perfection hides something that's quite broken and a lot of self-hatred: that's what really made it interesting for him. The way that Chris found John interesting because of the way that he is broken, or the way that Dakota wanted to play Lucy because of the way she's broken.' As someone making such talked-about films, I'm keen to get Song's take on the rom-com genre, and Materialists being labelled as one. This has sparked the other half of the wave of emotionally-loaded criticism, as some fans claim it's not funny or light enough, while it does also delve into darker – but relatable – dating territory than expected. I suggest maybe Materialists isn't in fact a rom-com, but Song is having none of that: 'I think it's a rom-com because I feel like it's a modern romance and you laugh!' But audiences perhaps don't expect films with serious themes and depth to be sold that way? 'I think that's unfortunate about the way that rom-com as a genre is seen and not about the movie,' Song counters. 'Because I think that rom-coms have had, in its heritage, so many movies that are deeply about things that really matter to all of us.' More Trending She namechecks American icons of the genre Billy Wilder (The Apartment), Nora Ephron (When Harry Met Sally) and James L Brooks (As Good as It Gets), whose films 'were always going to be about something'. 'I don't think I'm doing something that hasn't been a part of the genre,' argues Song. 'I get to invite the audience to two hours of thinking about love, relationships, marriage and dating in the modern world – and then I have an option to either talk about nothing or I can talk about what it's like to be a human being, which is I think the power of the rom-com as a genre.' 'It's unfortunate if that power has been felt as not an essential part of the genre, because for me that's always been an essential part of rom-coms.' Materialists is in UK cinemas from Friday, August 15. Got a story? If you've got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@ calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we'd love to hear from you. MORE: James Cameron struggling to write 'new Terminator film' over stark sci-fi fears MORE: Johnny Depp could return as Captain Jack Sparrow according to Pirates of the Caribbean producer MORE: Together promises 'the first feel-good body horror' movie but here's what I think
