AP PHOTOS: Highlights from Day 5 of the Cannes Film Festival
News
AP PHOTOS: Highlights from Day 5 of the Cannes Film Festival
Show all 24
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
37 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
'Tone deaf' Beyonce CANCELED by her own fans after wearing offensive shirt on Cowboy Carter tour
Beyonce is currently facing fierce backlash from her progressive fanbase after wearing an 'offensive' T-shirt. The diva, 43, sparked outrage at the Paris stop of her Cowboy Carter tour after donning a T-shirt emblazoned with the Buffalo Soldiers, who were some of the first African Americans to serve in the US military. While on its surface the shirt seems like a celebration of an often overlooked part of America's history, there's more to Bey's T-shirt than meets the eye. In the 1800s, the Buffalo Soldiers fought on the side of European colonizers against the Native Americans in the Indian Wars. Fans pointed out that not only did Beyonce wear a shirt with the Buffalo Soldiers on the front of it, the back of the shirt also featured controversial text about the Native Americans that they went up against. According to ONTD, one verse on the garment reads, 'Their antagonists were the enemies of peace, order and settlement: warring Indians, bandits, cattle thieves, murderous gunmen, bootleggers, trespassers, and Mexican revolutionaries.' A number of Beyonce's loyal fans were outraged by the text and took to social media and Reddit to express their outrage. 'Not everything in Black history needs to be revered and turned into an aesthetic,' wrote one. 'The Buffalo Soldiers did awful things to indigenous people. The way she waves away their atrocities against indigenous people is gross. Beyoncé's romanticism of this is beyond the pale.' Another wrote, 'Beyoncé wearing a Buffalo Soldiers shirt, an American army unit comprised exclusively of African Americans that helped European and white American colonists fight back Native Americans and seize control of their land, is not the serve she thinks it is.' They added, 'That Cowboy Carter album got her feeling all kinds of patriotic in all the wrong ways.' A third commented, 'I'm glad I'm seeing so many posts against Beyoncé peddling this Buffalo Soldier nonsense because I love her music but she's not beyond being rightfully criticized especially for selling merch calling Native Americans enemies of peace, like how dare you.' Another wrote, 'Saying that Indigenous and Mexican people defending their land from Americans looking to take it makes them "enemies of peace" is f***ing insane... I think this is terrible.' One commented, 'I love her but I really wish that there was much more thought put into this before giving it the green light.' A number of Beyonce's loyal fans were outraged by the text and took to social media and Reddit to express their outrage Another fan complained about Beyonce's 'silence' on political issues. 'We have no idea what her intentions are with this shirt or even this whole album and tour,' they wrote. 'Beyoncé hasn't come out unequivocally against/for anything. Her silence protects her but also invalidates her.' Another commented, 'That shirt... ma'am someone in your team should've done a triple check. That's tone deaf as hell.' Initially the name Buffalo Soldiers was used for the men of the 10th Cavalry Regiment, which was formed by Congress in 1866, though was later expanded to include the 9th Cavalry and 24th and 25th Infantry regiments which were created at the same time. Their nickname was given to them by the Native American tribes they fought against during the Indian Wars, and supposedly came about because of a private by the name of John Randall who was attacked by dozens of Cheyenne warriors while escorting a hunting party. Despite being shot in the shoulder and lanced 11 times, he held the Cheyenne off using only his pistol until help arrived. Afterward, the warriors described a man 'who had fought like a cornered buffalo; who like a buffalo had suffered wound after wound, yet had not died; and who like a buffalo had a thick and shaggy mane of hair.'
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Van Gogh/Kiefer review— everything about this exhibition is wrong
Some people were meant to come together — Lennon and McCartney, Fonteyn and Nureyev, Ant and Dec. But nowhere in God's swirling universe was it ever a good idea to pair Anselm Kiefer with Vincent van Gogh. Yet that, absurdly, is what the Royal Academy has chosen to attempt in a show that jars like fingernails scratching a blackboard. A modest handful of Van Gogh paintings and drawings take up a corner of the event. But the vast majority of the space, the papal portion, is devoted to the huge, sprawling, doomy responses of Kiefer. On and on they go, ever bigger and less delicate. An elephant is trying to piggyback a mouse, with ludicrous results. We'll get on to Kiefer and his bombastic hugeness later in this lament, but first we need to shed a communal tear for poor old Vincent: the neon sign saying 'roll up, roll up' that gets attached to everything these days by anyone seeking attention. If you've been to Arles in the south of France, where Van Gogh cut off his ear during his heartbreaking mental collapse, you will know what I mean. Arles today is a collection of Van Gogh memorabilia masquerading as a town. • Why the Van Gogh Museum deliberately slashed visitor numbers More dismaying still is the preposterous belief by artistic peacocks that they have a special insight into Van Gogh's intentions — that they can see things through his eyes. We saw it most ridiculously in Julian Schnabel's 2018 film At Eternity's Gate, where the supremely arrogant Schnabel cast a 62-year-old Willem Dafoe as the 37-year-old Van Gogh and found himself so out of sync with reality that the sketchbook he employed to frame the story turned out to be a forgery. My point is that Van Gogh's extraordinary popularity has not only made him the go-to artist on the ker-ching front, but that the powerful Van Gogh magnet distorts the direction and values of the iron filings it attracts. Which brings us to Kiefer. In this preposterous two-hander, the Wagnerian painter of charred wheatfields that are only a tiny bit smaller than real wheatfields is presenting himself as an heir to the humble Dutch genius who helps us to see the beauty of small things. The two of them, Kiefer says, have a special affinity. To prove it, a smattering of Van Gogh's art is shown alongside a Panzer division of the colossal, bellicose, gnarled, dark and doomy slabs of Teutonic angst that have poured out of Kiefer. The unlikely union goes back to when Kiefer was 18 and spent a few weeks following in Van Gogh's footsteps from the Netherlands to Belgium to France. He recorded this gap year adventure in a diary and some imitative drawings in which he tried to view the landscape with the endearing clumsiness that he admired in Van Gogh. Kiefer's student fascination with Van Gogh is the only occasion here where he shows any signs of being genuinely responsive or sensitive. Student adulation out of the way, the rest of the journey has him ignoring Van Gogh's artistic lessons in a manner that becomes increasingly absurd. Van Gogh's madness is but a thimbleful of unease compared with the gigantic, trembly, obliterating megalomania of Kiefer. • The best exhibitions in London and the UK to book for June 2025 Where it can, the show tries to compare a Van Gogh source with a Kiefer reply. Van Gogh painted the small field he could see from his asylum window, so Kiefer gives us his trademark mega-fields where the barrenness of the modern soul is evoked with yard after yard of blackened stubble. Van Gogh painted sunflowers, so Kiefer, who now lives in France, where he owns and runs an empire of creative spaces, crushes up entire wastelands of horticulture and glues them to a canvas covered in gold leaf. I think he was after the glistening of the setting sun, but the results feel as rich and kitsch as gold taps in a Monaco bathroom. There's even a sculpture of a single sunflower rising from a collection of lead books, where, alas, the drooping bloom reminds you instantly of an outdoor shower. This time it is the sunflower's seeds that are covered in showy gold. In key instances, the comparison between the two artists has to remain conceptual since the Van Gogh original that triggered a Kiefer response is not available. We see it most notably in The Starry Night, a gigantic Kiefer sky of swirling straw inspired by Van Gogh's Starry Night in the Museum of Modern Art in New York, which cannot be lent. Van Gogh's ecstatic view of a swirling cosmos filling the sky above Saint-Rémy is probably his most famous painting. It captures, so perfectly, so memorably, an elated moment of looking up at the stars on a clear Provençal night and feeling the intoxication of the cosmos. But where Starry Night is tiny, Kiefer's version takes up an entire Academy wall. I am not sure I have seen a bigger picture squeezing itself into an art gallery. Up, up, up it looms, a colossal sprawl of wood, wire, shellac and straw in which Van Gogh's ecstatic stars have been replaced by what feels like the shattered remains of an African village hit by a tornado. • Read more art reviews, guides and interviews Everything here is wrong: the scale, the texture, the atmosphere, the immodesty. An image that in Van Gogh's gentle hands captured the excitement of a fabulous night sky has been turned, by Kiefer, into a grim, effortful slab of doom. In the catalogue, Kiefer, without a shred of self-awareness, explains his responses by bringing up string theory and the ideas of the Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger. You don't need to see through Van Gogh's eyes to know, immediately and fully, what a grave misreading that must be. Kiefer/Van Gogh is at the Royal Academy of Arts, London, to Oct 26 What exhibitions have you enjoyed recently? Let us know in the comments below and follow @timesculture to read the latest reviews
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
What's wrong with a £30 million wedding? Bezos has done Venice a favour
One gathers from insiders, business journalists and whistleblowers that Amazon offers a workplace that is, shall we say, challenging at best. The company's culture is, of course, that bestowed by its CEO Jeff Bezos, one of the richest men in the world. Bezos and MacKenzie Scott, an intelligent, impressive and decent-seeming woman – who helped Bezos found Amazon – divorced as he pursued his affair with TV anchor Lauren Sanchez, a busty Latina known for her vaulting ambition and enormous personality. The Amazon CEO is a changed man with Sanchez: he's got himself a decent set of abs and a new wardrobe. The pair canoodles constantly in public, showing the world their love (and lust). The weekend saw them host a foam party aboard Bezos's yacht moored off Croatia. It was allegedly for Sanchez's son's birthday, but that didn't stop the lip-locked pair stealing the attention with their own lustful antics. Their €48 million wedding this week in Venice reflects their outsize passion. Due to take place at the Scuola Grande della Misericordia, a 16th-century compound in the centre, it has attracted all the loathing and disruption you might imagine. Protesters from a group called No Space for Bezos threatened to fill the canal with inflatable crocodiles and thus block arriving guests. As Tommaso Cacciari, a member of the No Space for Bezos protest group, put it: ' This is a big victory for us. Who would have thought that we could change the plans of one of the richest men on the planet? ' The victory is limited, however, with the ceremony merely moved to the Arsenale, an even more glorious venue, and one with crenelated walls and a drawbridge that will be better at keeping protesters out. Venice Marco Polo is a traffic jam of private jets. Guests from Diane von Furstenberg to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump have already arrived, looking hot (as in sweaty). Of course one can sympathise with the natural antipathy many feel towards a wedding like this. Bezos is not a likeable character, the wedding is hardly a fairytale sort of romance, and at a moment of extreme income inequality, Amazon's evasive tax practices, while legal, do sit badly. Even so, Bezos is absolutely within his rights to take over Venice for his nuptials in as vulgar and showy a way as he chooses. Yes, the cost of the week's celebrations alone could save many lives less fortunate, but tough cheese. It's his money and he can do with it as he pleases. Indeed, those against the wedding are simply falling prey to the old European antipathy to wealth, especially American wealth, a hatred so extreme that many in the bloc are willing to be the poorer for it. Spain's anti-tourism antics, which include cracking down on Airbnb and second homes, show as much. The truth is that Venice, like most Mediterranean cities, would be completely lost without its income from foreigners, the wealthier the better. The main home-grown economy now is tourism and the money that people spend on hotels and everything else when in town for the film festival, the Biennale, and of course the holidays is their lifeline; the Covid lockdown nearly ruined Italy by keeping tourists out and restaurants partially shut. Venice's own costs are precipitously rising due to the rising sea level. It is the most expensive city on earth to renovate. Bezos's wedding will provide much-needed cash to the city and locals alike.
