Is That Clint Eastwood Interview Real? HFPA Journalist Says She Aggregated Old Quotes After Director Calls Out ‘Phony' Story
In a statement to Variety, Elisabeth Sereda, a journalist and longtime member of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, says that she was tapped by Austrian publication Kurier to write a tribute timed to Eastwood's 95th birthday on May 31. Sereda says she pulled quotes from various Eastwood interviews conducted by the HFPA, dating back to 1976.
More from Variety
Clint Eastwood Plans to Direct New Movie at 95, Shades 'Era of Remakes and Franchises': 'Do Something New or Stay at Home'
Bill Murray Says There's One Director He Wishes He Had Worked With: 'It's One of the Few Regrets I Have'
Theo Kingma, Former HFPA President, Dies at 58
'Quotes from Mr. Eastwood cited in the story are culled from several of those 14 press conferences I attended and covered,' Sereda writes.
The Kurier tribute, published in German, was then translated and aggregated by various outlets, including Variety. On Monday, Eastwood released a statement to Deadline in which he 'set the record straight,' and clarified that 'I never gave an interview to an Austrian publication called Kurier, or any other writer in recent weeks, and that the interview is entirely phony.'
Per Reuters, Kurier has since pulled the article, reporting that the publication said 'the article fell short of its standards.'
It's not the first time that a Hollywood Foreign Press member has claimed that they drew from group press conferences for an article. In 2018, former HFPA president Aida Takla O'Reilly said a bizarre interview with Drew Barrymore, published by EgyptAir's in-flight magazine, was 'genuine and far from fake,' though may have been erroneously edited by the publication.
Sereda's statement would indicate that Eastwood did, in fact, give the quotes contained within her article — but they could've been spoken at any time over several decades. One quote, in which Eastwood says he's 'shot sequels three times,' may provide a hint. By 1980, Eastwood had made two 'Dirty Harry' follow-ups — 'Magnum Force' (1973) and 'The Enforcer' (1976) — as well as the primate buddy-comedy sequel 'Any Which Way You Can.' Another 'Dirty Harry' sequel, his self-directed 'Sudden Impact,' released in 1983. (This isn't counting Sergio Leone's The Man With No Name spaghetti westerns, which were packaged and marketed as a trilogy after the production of 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.')
With that math, this full Eastwood quote — 'We live in an era of remakes and franchises. I've shot sequels three times, but I haven't been interested in that for a long while. My philosophy is: do something new or stay at home' — may date back to the early-'80s. That that potentially decades-old statement was widely interpreted as contemporaneous, and still resonates with readers now, is certainly something though.
Best of Variety
What's Coming to Netflix in June 2025
New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week
'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
an hour ago
- Buzz Feed
Trump's Smithsonian Order Sparks Backlash
It's true — as a part of his "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History" executive order, the White House will be reviewing exhibits in Smithsonian museums to fit Donald Trump's interpretation of American history. In an open letter to the Smithsonian, the White House wrote that officials will conduct a "comprehensive internal review of selected Smithsonian museums and exhibitions. This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions." Online, people have compared the Trump administration's actions to those of nazis in the 1930s, when Adolf Hitler organized the removal of about 20,000 works of art from museums and private collections in an effort to align "German politics, society, and culture with Nazi goals," according to the Holocaust Memorial Museum. This comparison is not the only way the Trump administration's museum audit has appeared controversial online. There's a wide range of dissenting opinions. Here's what people are saying: What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
‘And Just Like That' showrunner defends bizarre finale toilet scene that left fans enraged: ‘Relationships are a lot of s–t'
He stands by it. 'And Just Like That' showrunner Michael Patrick King is defending his choice to feature a disgusting toilet scene in the series finale of the 'Sex and the City' spinoff. In an interview published Thursday night, King told Variety, 'We cannot take ourselves too seriously. For the gorgeousness of Carrie's pink, sparkly top and tulle skirt — that's the high — the low is a toilet filled up with s–t.' He added, 'Because guess what? Being single, there's a lot of s–t, and relationships are a lot of s–t. It's the comedy, with the drama, with the romance, with the fairy tale. I guess it's a response to the fairy tale.' 12 Sarah Jessica Parker as Carrie in the 'And Just Like That' finale. Craig Blankenhorn/HBO Max 12 Michael Patrick King in Paris, on May 28, 2025. AFP via Getty Images 'And Just Like That' had its series finale on Thursday night after 3 Seasons – ending Carrie Bradshaw's (Sarah Jessica Parker) reign on TV that began when 'Sex and the City' premiered in 1998. During the episode, Carrie attends an awkward dinner party where there's an incident with a toilet overflowing. The camera shows crap in the toilet onscreen. Enraged fans slammed the scene on social media, saying it made them feel 'insulted' and made them 'vomit.' The episode ends with Carrie alone, in no relationship after Big (Chris Noth) died, and after she split with Aidan (John Corbett) for the umpteenth time. 12 The toilet scene in the 'And Just Like That' series finale. HBO 12 Cynthia Nixon and Sarah Jessica Parker in the 'And Just Like That' finale. HBO King said Carrie ending up alone is a 'call and response' to the criticism 'Sex and the City' got when that show's 2004 series finale ended with Carrie, Miranda (Cynthia Nixon), Charlotte (Kristin Davis) and Samantha (Kim Cattrall) all in relationships. 'It is something that I've always thought about. Because, as much as I made sure in the 'Sex and the City' finale that they weren't all married — because the anarchy of 'Sex and the City' was that, at that time, that being 34, with someone, but unmarried, was unacceptable…So Samantha was not married. That was my loophole,' he said. The showrunner added about the end of 'SATC' that Carrie 'did say that beautiful last speech about the most significant relationship of all being the one you have with yourself — while holding a phone, with Big calling.' 12 Sarah Jessica Parker, Cynthia Nixon, Kristin Davis and Kim Cattrall in 'Sex and the City.' HBO 12 Cynthia Nixon, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Kristin Davis in 'And Just Like That.' HBO 12 Sarah Jessica Parker, Cynthia Nixon, Kim Cattrall and Kristin Davis in 2002. Getty Images The end of 'And Just Like That' finds Carrie dancing around her apartment, seemingly at peace with being single. 'It's 'the real, real, this-is-now Carrie. Many, many years later, having gone through deaths, heartbreaks, new romances, saying, 'I'm grown-up enough to face this, because I've created a life that's so magnificent for myself,'' King told the outlet. He added, 'She's on her own. And that sentence is… mostly for someone who feels bad because they don't have someone. That's really what it is. It's to say: Look at her, how fabulous she is, and she's exactly where you are. That's what it's for.' 12 Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) dancing in her apartment at the end of 'And Just Like That.' HBO 12 Carrie writing the epilogue to her book at the end of 'And Just Like That.' HBO Before Season 3 premiered, HBO didn't announce that it would be the final season. King and Parker both made the announcement on social media on Aug. 1, just two weeks before the series finale aired. He explained, 'We didn't tell the press — people do tell, to get a bump. And I didn't need the bump, and I didn't want people looking at the Carrie-Aidan relationship with the word 'final' over it. I don't think they would have invested. They would have said, 'All right, just end it.'' 12 Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) in 'And Just Like That.' HBO The showrunner said, 'If the word 'final' had been in the mix, you would have seen everything differently. You would have seen Harry's prostate cancer as final. And we never wanted that to be final.' He continued, 'If we had told the press at the premiere 'final,' they would have said 'How does it end?' Guess what? We didn't know. None of the actors knew. We were just following the feelings of the writing and story and where we could bring Carrie that would be enough of a finish that people could continue with their fan fiction writing on their own.' At the end of Season 3, Carrie – who is writing a novel about a woman in the 1800s – ends the book by writing, 'The woman realized she was not alone — she was on her own.' 12 Kristin Davis, Sarah Jessica Parker and Cynthia Nixon in 'And Just Like That.' GC Images King wrote that scene in the middle of the Season 3 production, he said. 'The resonance of that felt so profound that I knew it was a very significant end to the season as we wrote it.' He continued, 'And then… wait, more is coming? Can we do more? I talked to Sarah Jessica and said, 'I think this is it. This feels like where we should leave Carrie Bradshaw.' She said, 'Then we stop.'' 12 Sarah Jessica Parker in 'And Just Like That.' Photograph by Craig Blankenhorn / HBO Max When asked if Carrie's story could ever return to TV, he said, 'It is closed. Because I care so much about what we've done. …she's this hero in her late 50s, wearing a Hindenburg hat and eating sherbet in Washington Square Park,' he said, referring to the giant cloud-like accessory that Carrie wore on her head in Season 3 of 'And Just Like That.' He explained that Carrie has 'made her mark,' and 'as a writer, I feel we've made our mark. I never thought once about continuing…Anyone else could keep going. I can't.'
Vox
3 hours ago
- Vox
The real reason Trump's DC takeover is scary
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers ideology and challenges to democracy, both at home and abroad. His book on democracy,, was published 0n July 16. You can purchase it here. Depending on who you listen to, President Donald Trump's decision to seize control over law enforcement in Washington, DC, is either an authoritarian menace or a farce. The authoritarian menace case is straightforward: Trump is (again) asserting the power to deploy the National Guard to a major US city, while adding the new wrinkle of federalizing the local police force based on a wholly made-up emergency. He is, political scientist Barbara Walter warns, 'building the machinery of repression before it's needed,' getting the tools to violently shut down big protests 'in place before the next election.' The farce case focuses less on these broad fears and more on the actual way it has played out. Instead of nabbing DC residents who oppose the president, federal agents appear to be aimlessly strolling the streets in safe touristy areas like Georgetown or the National Mall. During a pointless Sunday night deployment to the U Street corridor, a popular nightlife area, they faced down the terrifying threat of a drunk man throwing a sandwich. 'This ostensible show of strength is more like an admission of weakness,' The Atlantic's Quinta Jurecic writes. 'It is the behavior of a bully: very bad for the people it touches, but not a likely prelude to full authoritarian takeover.' So who's right? In a sense, both of them. Trump's show of force in DC is both cartoonish and ominous, farcical and dangerous. It serves to normalize abuses of power that could very well be expanded — in fact, that Trump himself is openly promising to try it out in other cities. However, both the DC deployment and Trump's prior National Guard misadventure in Los Angeles show that it's actually quite hard to create effective tools of domestic repression. Executing on his threats requires a level of legal and tactical acumen that it's not obvious the Trump administration possesses. Or, put differently: The power they're claiming is scary in the abstract, but the way they're currently wielding it is too incompetent to do meaningful damage to democracy. The key question going forward — not just for DC, but the nation — is whether they get better with practice. The DC crackdown has been impotent so far Carl Schmitt, a reactionary German legal theorist who would later become a Nazi jurist, famously claimed that emergency powers create an insuperable problem for the liberal-democratic ideal of the rule of law. In theory, the law can limit how and when a person in government can wield emergency powers. But in practice, it all comes down to who has the power to give those words meaning. Who says what an emergency is, and when it ends? That person, and not the legal text or its underlying intent, is what determines what the law means — and thus has the real power. Schmitt expressed this idea in a famous dictum: 'Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.' And while Trump has surely never heard of Schmitt, let alone read him, this is basically the way his administration has operated. On issues ranging from trade to federalizing DC law enforcement, Trump has decided that ordinary problems — job losses from trade, crime — are emergencies that justify him invoking powers designed for times of war, natural disaster, or rebellion. And so far, he's mostly gotten away with it. His federalization of DC will test the limits of Trump's Schmittian approach. By law, Trump's emergency power only allows him to federalize control over city police — the Metropolitan Police Department, or MPD — for 30 days. And federal agents, be they National Guard or the DEA or Homeland Security, have circumscribed legal responsibilities and personnel limitations that prevent them from fully replacing MPD as ultimate authority in the capital city. This is the first thing to watch in DC: Will Trump go full Schmitt, and simply declare that these constraints on his power are moot? And if so, who — if anyone — will try and stop him? It's important to emphasize that we don't know the answers to these questions. While Trump has claimed the power to maintain federal control over MPD beyond the 30-day limit, Trump is constantly claiming all sorts of things that aren't true. It is entirely possible that, next month, MPD reverts to local control with basically no long-term ill effects. But even if Trump does defy a court order to release the MPD back to DC, or otherwise maintain some kind of long-term federal presence on the streets of DC, there's a question of what exactly he is accomplishing. Here, we have to separate damage to democracy from other concrete harms. Trump's crackdown may already be producing unjust arrests of many unhoused people in DC. That is bad and worthy of condemnation. Such arrests do not, however, help Trump consolidate the kind of controls a would-be dictator wants from law enforcement: the ability to suppress critical speech and opposition political activity through force of arms. The mere fact that federal troops are on the street, or that MPD is technically under federal control, does not mean that they're arresting Democrats or raiding the Washington Post or opening fire on protesters. Of course, the fact that something isn't yet happening doesn't mean it won't. But the current deployments, for all their fascist aesthetics, are quite far from that — in fact, they appear to be doing a lot of impotent, haphazard traffic stops. In the U Street area, home to mixed populations of longtime residents and more recent gentrifiers, locals have confronted the cops and jeered at them — with no reports of serious retaliatory injury. Trump is doing something that has an authoritarian intent and appearance that galvanizes resistance, without any kind of plan for turning it into an effective repressive tool. One could tell a similar story about the National Guard deployment to LA. Back then, Trump sent in the troops with a big show, claiming they were necessary to get (overhyped) riots under control. In reality, they showed up and went on a few drug and immigration raids, and then almost all of them quietly slinked off without scaring the LA population into political submission. Courts are currently hearing arguments on the deployment's legality. Ad hoc authoritarianism None of this is to say that Trump's deployments are harmless. As Walter points out, he is creating legal and political precedents that could — at least in theory — be used toward repressive ends if they so desire. If Trump does something to mess with the fairness of the midterm elections, and large cities erupt with protest, he's already somewhat normalized a militarized response. From a health-of-democracy standpoint, then, what's worrying about recent events in DC is not the developments on the ground. It's the precedent they set — the powers that Trump is claiming that could be all too easily abused. The question is whether such abuse will occur. So far, there is very little evidence that the Trump administration has anything like a systematic plan for suborning American democracy. He isn't doing what someone like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán did in 2010 — come in with a blueprint for destroying the political opposition and executing on it as efficiently as possible. Rather, he's simply asserting powers whenever it's convenient to do what he wants to do at the moment. Can't get Congress to raise tariffs? Use emergency powers to impose them. Want to impose an unconstitutional export tax on Nvidia? Just make an extortionate 'deal' with its CEO. Want to stop seeing images of protesters with Mexican flags in LA? Send in the National Guard. To be clear: This ad hoc authoritarianism is still dangerous. It's just comparatively less effective than its deliberate cousin. Trump hasn't silenced the Democratic opposition or the American press or shuttered civil rights groups. He's taken steps in all of those directions, but they fit the ad hoc pattern: each troubling, but not (yet!) systematic or successful enough to fundamentally compromise the fairness of elections or Americans' rights to dissent and free speech. Where we're at, in short, is a place where the building blocks for constructing an authoritarian state are all in a row. The question is whether Trump has the will and the vision to put them together in a way that could durably compromise the viability of American democracy. This context helps us understand why the DC deployment is both absurd and dangerous. It is absurd in the sense that it does nothing, on its own, to advance an authoritarian agenda — and, if anything, compromises it by creating images of uniformed thugs on American streets that galvanize his opponents. It is dangerous in that it could normalize abuses of power that, down the line, could be wielded as part of an actually serious campaign of repression. And at this point, I don't know which scenario is more likely: that Trump's ad hoc efforts to seize control founder and ultimately amount to little, or that he follows his Schmittian logic to its dictatorial terminus.
