Brad Pitt 'a natural' with card skills, says Doncaster film coach
The movie hit cinema screens across the world on 25 June and centres on a fictional Formula 1 team, APXGP.Mr Chipman, 32, said: "Brad plays an ex-gambler. So he needed to learn how to handle a deck of cards, because his character would have known how to."
Mr Chipman was on set for several months teaching Pitt how to master playing cards, but said nerves had taken their toll on the first day.He said he stood outside Pitt's trailer deciding on what approach to take in meeting the star."I was like, how do I approach him. Do I do this professionally, do I do it casually? "I'm from Doncaster, so do I go 'hey up Brad' - what do I do?"In the end he said he decided on a straightforward approach."I just went in and said nice to meet you. I shook his hand and he was the most down-to-earth guy, really nice."And then every time he saw me he'd say hello and ask how my day had been."However, Mr Chipman said Pitt's skills did occasionally let him down on some of the sleight of hand required by his character."With the one-hand deck cut, he was a natural, but throwing cards across a room into a bin, that took a little longer."He had to be accurate and that took a little time...take after take in fact."
Listen to highlights from South Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
A Bend it Like Beckham sequel is coming – here's where to watch the original in the UK
Football fans across the country are celebrating the Lionesses' win at the Euro 2025 final, so some other football news may have flown under the radar. But it's been revealed that a sequel to cult classic Bend It Like Beckham is in the works. The second instalment of Bend It Like Beckham has been awaited for more than two decades. Written and directed by Gurinder Chadha OBE, the original is beloved for its humorous and moving exploration of identity, race, gender and religion. In fact, speaking to the BBC on Saturday, Chadha revealed that she's been asked for a sequel almost twice a week. The hope is that the cast will reprise their roles, including Parminder Nagra as Jess and Keira Knightley as Jules. Chadha even hinted at potential cameo roles for England's Lionesses. In the first film, Jess, a British-Asian football fan with an undiscovered talent, is scouted by Jules for their local girls' team, the Hounslow Harriers. Throughout the film, there's a tension between her love of football and the traditional gender roles in her Punjabi family, as well as a love triangle between Jess, Jules, and their coach, Jo. Spoiler alert, but the original film ends with Jess and Jules leaving for a football scholarship in America, and Jess reconciling her football career with her parents, who had previously disapproved. But there's very little to know about the sequel so far. It's also unclear which form the second instalment might take; it may be either a film or a television series. But with the target date set for 2027 – coinciding with the film's 25th anniversary and the Fifa Women's World Cup – there's a little wait before the story continues. In the meantime, you might want to relive the fun of the first film. Where to watch 'Bend it Like Beckham' There are several ways to watch Bend It Like Beckham in the UK. It's available on Disney Plus, which costs £12.99 per month or £129.90 per year for the Premium subscription. You can also watch the film for free on ITVX with ads, or you can rent or buy it on Prime Video for £3.49. Prime Video comes included with an Amazon Prime account, which costs £8.99 per month or £95 per year.
Daily Mirror
15 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
England 2005 Ashes hero warns Ben Stokes and co over final India Test match
EXCLUSIVE: England head to The Oval this week knowing they will win the series against India if they avoid defeat in the fifth Test, just like against Australia in 2005 Ashes legend Matthew Hoggard now runs a barbecue school - and after landing the holy grill in 2005 he says England must cook up a storm this week. Going to The Oval 2-1 up in a gripping marquee series? Hoggard has been there and done that 20 years ago as Michael Vaughan's heroes recaptured the urn in a seismic summer when cricket was the only show in town. Now England are in the same boat after a tetchy, thrilling win at Lord's and a sour finish to the stalemate at Old Trafford as Ben Stokes fed two Indian batters joke bowling to bring up their centuries when they refused to shake hands on the draw earlier. And Hoggard was thrilled the class of 2005 was namechecked by Joe Root as one of his inspirations growing up after Yorkshire's batting royalty unfurled his 38th Test century at the weekend. Hoggy, who took 248 wickets in 67 Tests, said: 'Listening to Joe being interviewed, after he had just become the second-greatest run scorer of all time in Test cricket, saying he had been inspired by the Ashes winners of 2005 was music to my ears. That's why we play cricket - to leave a legacy, and leave something behind to inspire younger generations, still gives you goosebumps. 'I think back to 2005 with 10,000 people being turned away from the final day at Old Trafford, people bunking off work or school to watch the finale at The Oval and, yes, it was the best of times. 'When I look at footage of the open-top bus parade to Trafalgar Square, and none of us look sober, in the social media age we would probably have been crucified but I genuinely can't remember anyone giving us any stick. We went round the Prime Minister's house a bit worse for wear, went to Trafalgar Square for the parade a bit bleary-eyed and went back to Lord's for a reception in a state of disrepair - but nobody minded because we were winners.' Hoggard hopes Stokes' side will turn up cooking on the front burner on Thursday after a nerve-jangling climax in 2005 was only settled by Kevin Pietersen's audacious 158 on the final afternoon. 'We had gone 2-1 up at Trent Bridge in an unbearably tense finish when I was hiding under towels and trembling in the physio's room, unable to watch as the wickets fell as we chased 129 to win,' Hoggard who is now working as one of the UK's leading Motivational Speakers, told Mirror Sport. 'But when it was my turn to bat, with 13 runs still needed and Brett Lee's bowling 95mph rockets, you switch on and it gets easier - because you're the one who is empowered to take charge and get the job done. 'Lee was either trying to kill me or york me, but when he got one wrong and I managed to send it to the extra cover boundary I think Vaughany (captain Michael Vaughan) nearly fell off the balcony. I'm not sure he'd ever seen me hit an extra cover drive before. 'As Ashley Giles, who hit the winning runs, and I walked off, he said, 'Enjoy the moment, we're kings for the night.' He was right - our pace attack was called the Fab Four but it was really a fab five because Gilo was the forgotten man of that bowling unit. He was immense. 'But when we got to The Oval for the final Test, the nerves took over again. The night before I was out for dinner with my wife and I was so uptight I called for the bill and walked out. My head was all over the place, I'm afraid I was a bit of a t**t.' England's pace attack was detained in the field 143 overs as they chased victory in vain at Old Trafford, and Hoggard warned: 'It's going to be survival of the fittest and it reminds me of 2005. You can't go to The Oval and play for a draw because you'll come unstuck if the mentality isn't right. 'In an ideal world we bat first, go big and put India under pressure to match us or go past us. England have more gears in the batting line-up than India, especially if they are going to be without Rishabh Pant. 'It's been hard graft for bowlers on both sides, but we score quicker than India and if they have to put their foot down to chase the game, that's when The Oval can be a tricky customer.'
Daily Mail
15 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Social media posts by Laurence Fox calling two people paedophiles would not have been taken 'seriously' by many people, Court of Appeal hears
Social media posts by Laurence Fox referring to two men as paedophiles likely would not have been taken 'seriously' by many people, the Court of Appeal has heard. The actor-turned-activist was successfully sued by now-Stonewall CEO Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal over a row on Twitter, now known as X. Fox, 47, called Mr Blake and the former RuPaul 's Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, 'paedophiles' in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury's to mark Black History Month in October 2020. A High Court judge said Fox should pay both men £90,000 each in damages and slammed the Reclaim Party founder for trying to 'attach blame and discredit' the pair during litigation. Fox called for a boycott of the supermarket and was called 'a racist' by the pair, as well as broadcaster Nicola Thorp, before he responded with the 'paedophile' tweets, which led to the libel claims. The judge dismissed Mr Fox's counter claims against the pair and Ms Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism. The 47-year-old is now challenging the £180,000 High Court ruling at the Court of Appeal in London, attending the first day of the hearing today. Sporting a tattoo of a crucifix on his neck and smoking a cigarette, Fox arrived hand-in-hand with his wife Elizabeth, who he married earlier this year during a private ceremony. The former actor was dressed in a white shirt, jeans and a pair of tan Vivo barefoot hiking boots worth about £296. Patrick Green KC, for Mr Fox, said in written submissions that the judgment which found Mr Fox had libelled the pair should be quashed due to 'errors of approach' by the judge, including over whether Mr Blake and Mr Seymour were caused serious harm. Mr Green said: 'Her conclusions were in any event, plainly wrong, on any fair consideration of the evidence.' The barrister added that Mrs Justice Collins Rice had wrongly decided damages for the two men, who, along with Ms Thorp, are opposing the appeal. Mr Green said that the decision on damages did not consider the actual words Mr Fox used 'and the likelihood that many or the vast majority of readers would have not have taken them seriously, particularly in their context'. The barrister said that in one of her rulings, the judge 'ignores the actual words used, or their all important context'. He also said the judge 'failed to account adequately or at all' for an apology Mr Fox made, or alleged misconduct by Mr Blake and Mr Seymour in 'exaggerating' the harm and distress caused. Mr Fox told the original trial in November 2023 that his use of the term was 'rhetorical', and 'there was no inference at any point that I thought they were a paedophile'. 'I was diminishing the ridiculousness of calling me a racist,' he said. And on Monday, Mr Green said it was clear Mr Fox was being rhetorical. The barrister told appeal judges: 'He's not saying "I am a racist and they are paedophiles' and everyone understood it in that way." Adrienne Page KC, for Mr Blake, Mr Seymour and Ms Thorp, said in written submissions that Mr Fox's appeal was 'lacking in merit'. She continued: 'The "paedophile" tweets did not embody the appellant's opinions about Mr Blake and Mr Seymour. 'They conveyed factual imputations of the most serious defamatory character.' The barrister added there was 'no meaningful retraction or apology' by Mr Fox. She later said: 'Whichever way one looks at it, the judge was fully entitled to reach the factual conclusions that she did on the serious, real-world, reputational impact of the appellant's tweets, for the reasons which she gave. There was nothing wrong with her analysis in fact or law.' Ms Page added that Mr Fox's case at trial had been 'largely devoted to hypothesising, as already noted, a series of different scenarios as to the various ways or settings in which his tweets may have appeared to different readers'. 'After very careful and conscientious evaluation, the judge was, unsurprisingly, not persuaded of this on the facts,' she continued. Ms Page continued that the sums of £90,000 in damages awarded to the pair were 'unexceptionable'. The hearing before Lord Justice Dingemans, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Warby is expected to conclude on Tuesday. During the last court battle, Fox had counter-sued Mr Blake and Mr Seymour and broadcaster Nicola Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism. In a previous judgment in January 2024, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, dismissing Mr Fox's counter-claims. During a ruling in April of that year, the judge said Mr Fox should pay Mr Blake and Mr Seymour £90,000 each in damages. She said: 'By calling Mr Blake and Mr Seymour paedophiles, Mr Fox subjected them to a wholly undeserved public ordeal. It was a gross, groundless and indefensible libel, with distressing and harmful real-world consequences for them.' During the previous court case, Lorna Skinner KC, for Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, had said the pair should receive 'at least six-figure sums' from Mr Fox, calling a suggestion the pair should only receive a 'modest' award 'nonsense'. However, Patrick Green KC, for Fox, said the starting point of damages should be between £10,000 and £20,000, with the total being 'substantially lowered' due to an apology from Mr Fox and the absence of malice. Fox previously described the original judgment as a 'bullies charter' and said he disagreed 'profoundly' with the result. He said in a post on X at the time: 'I don't know what the judge will award these people. But the costs of these proceedings are enormous. So a whopper of a cheque is getting written in the next few days.' Fox added: 'We are seeing the courts used maliciously across the west and that is a very concerning trend. So enjoy the victory guys and I hope it is short lived!' Mrs Justice Collins Rice declined to make an order requiring the 47-year-old to publish a summary of the judge's decision on his X account. During a hearing in March 2024, Mr Green had said there was no need for the Lewis actor to publicise the ruling decision on his social media. He said in written submissions: 'This has been the most high-profile libel action of the year and both the trial and the judgment were massively reported in the media.... There can be few, if any, original publishees in the present case who will be unaware of its outcome.' The barrister added: 'The outcome of this long-running case literally could not be better known than it is already. 'For whatever passing doubts or vague suspicions that may have at some time subsisted in the minds of readers, only a modest financial award in compensation should be due.' Mr Green added: 'The remarks were quickly retracted and apologised for, and at the very least it was clear to the public at large at an early stage that the allegation was baseless.'
