Yellowstone star Kevin Costner dines with a mystery woman following the divorce. Who is this new ‘date'?
Kevin Costner stirred up fresh buzz on Monday, April 22, when he was seen having lunch in Los Angeles with a 'mystery' woman. Is this the Yellowstone star's new flame? Or someone else?
Radar Online reported that the woman accompanying the 70-year-old actor is actually his longtime assistant, who's been working closely with him for the past two years. The lunch was all business, a work-related meeting, not a date. The two have been lensed together before, such as on an errands run to the expensive Erewhon Market in Calabasas.
Costner officially ended his 18-year marriage with Christine Baumgartner in February 2024. 'Kevin still harbours resentment and anger toward Christine. She's far from his biggest fan, too. It is still so bitter between them,' an insider shared.
ALSO READ| Kevin Costner felt 'sucker punched' as ex-wife Christine Baumgartner gets engaged with his old pal
The divorce was allegedly filled with tension over financial matters and the prenuptial agreement. Finally, Christine's engagement to financier Josh Connor, a friend of Costner's, took things even more in a dramatic turn.
However, the former couple continues to co-parent their three children, Cayden, Hayes, and Grace, with joint physical custody.
Costner's rumoured relationship with singer Jewel reportedly fizzled out, and his ambitious Western film project, Horizon: An American Saga, flopped at the box office. 'He's eating the stress away, and it's caused him to gain about 30 pounds,' a source told Radar Online.
'Almost overnight, Kevin's gone from studly to tubby, and people around him are shaking their heads.'
'He's let himself go, eating takeout from his favorite restaurants – steak and fries, pizza and pasta, and sky-high hamburgers. But he should rein it in because that gut is unattractive, not to mention unhealthy,' they added.
Costner revealed his Baptist upbringing anchored him during this upheaval: 'The thing about prayer is, it's not on your time. You can pray for what you want, but it comes to you when it comes to you.'
'That's the difficulty of being human, of being mortal. You want things right now, but that's not the way it works. I just kept working towards what I've wanted to do.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
6 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘We don't have to take appointments to have dinner with parents': When Aishwarya Rai gave a befitting reply to David Letterman for looking down on Indian culture
When Aishwarya Rai appeared on The Late Show with David Letterman in the early 2000s, it was supposed to be a light-hearted celebrity interview. What it turned into, however, was a quietly powerful moment of cultural assertion–and for many Indians watching from across the globe, it felt like a dignified mic-drop. During the interview, Letterman asked Aishwarya whether it was true that she still lived with her parents. The tone was casual, slightly amused—tinged with that brand of humour often reserved for questioning cultures that don't mirror the West. Without skipping a beat, Aishwarya replied, 'Yes, I live with my parents. It's very common in India. And we don't have to take appointments to have dinner with them either.' Rai had just articulated, in a single sentence, the depth of Indian familial bonds — something often misunderstood or stereotyped in Western media. The interview, which began with Letterman attempting to grasp the nuances of Indian cinema and culture, covered a variety of topics — from the origins of 'Bollywood' to the number of languages Aishwarya speaks (four, by the way, including Hindi, Marathi, Tulu, and Tamil). She shared details about her upbringing in Mumbai, her modelling career that began 'by accident,' and the joy of starring in musicals that reflect the celebratory nature of Indian society. According to counselling psychologist Srishti Vatsa, what Aishwarya did was flip the power dynamic—without any showmanship. 'Put-downs often aren't just questions,' she explains. 'They're power moves. Especially when disguised as humour or curiosity. These are called microaggressions—subtle, often unintentional slights that communicate bias or disrespect. Whether or not the intent is harmful, the impact is the same: you feel small, or like something's off.' In Aishwarya's case, the remark about living with her parents came laced with judgement, as if choosing closeness with family was somehow regressive. But instead of falling into the trap of explaining or justifying her culture, she simply responded with what felt true to her. 'It's not sarcasm. It's not defence,' says Srishti. 'It's a boundary. Quiet and clear.' And that's what makes the moment powerful. Microaggressions, even when subtle, are forms of passive-aggressive control—especially when repeated in public spaces or by people in positions of power. It's the friend who mocks your accent. The relative who says, 'You've put on weight, but it suits you.' The message is framed as harmless. But the discomfort it leaves behind? That's real—and often intentional. Srishti adds, 'When someone questions your choices, especially under the pretext of humour, it's often their own discomfort speaking. But you're not required to make them feel better about that. You don't owe them understanding.' So what do you owe yourself? In the end, Aishwarya didn't just defend Indian culture on an American talk show. She showed that self-respect doesn't need a performance. Just presence.
Hindustan Times
8 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
The Taste by Vir Sanghvi: Is the era of the anonymous restaurant critic over?
Is the cult of the anonymous restaurant critic dead? I think it probably is. What read like a death notice appeared this week in The New York Times. Foodies will know that the Times has long prided itself on anonymous reviewers. Part of the legend surrounding reviews by such former critics as Mimi Sheraton and Ruth Reichl was that they were never recognised at restaurants. Some even wore wigs and other disguises to remain unrecognisable - and then, published books about their adventures in anonymity. Well, all that's in the past. Two days ago, The New York Times announced that it had finally appointed full time successors to Pete Wells, its respected reviewer who stepped down in 2024 after trying to preserve his anonymity (with varying degrees of success) for years. The new critics are Tejal Rao and Ligaya Mishan. Both are well regarded food writers but they are hardly unknown or anonymous: For instance, I have praised Rao's writing in this column before. Sensibly the Times has decided to come clean. The announcement was accompanied by pictures and videos of the new critics. So, what happened to Ruth Reichl's disguises and Mimi Sheraton's masks (yes, she actually wore one to appear on a TV show angering a chef who was also on the show and tried to pull it off)? What happened to all that stuff about how reviewers had to be anonymous so that they could have the same experience as the average guest? Well, the Times conceded that the lack of anonymity could make a difference. 'It is true that there are things restaurant staff members can do once they realize a critic is in their restaurant,' it wrote. Also Read | The Taste by Vir Sanghvi: Why Indian chefs hide their recipes unlike Western chefs 'Service can be more attentive (though that's not always a good thing); the critic can be seated at a great table; the kitchen can cook each dish twice (at least) and send out the best versions in generous portions.' They could have added more. If a critic is recognised then it is rarely the line cook who makes his or her food. It's the head chef who will put every dish together personally. The best ingredients will be used: The freshest fish, the finest steak and so on. So yes, it does make a difference: Up to a point. But there are two crucial factors we need to consider. The first was famously summed up by Henri Gault and Christian Millau who founded the Gault Millau guide in France in the 1960s. Yes, they said, it is always possible to get a bad meal at a great restaurant. It happens all the time and one has to take that into account. But it is impossible to get a good meal at a bad restaurant. Even if you are recognised (as Gault and Millau always were) a bad restaurant has very little room for manoeuvre. Even The New York Times's own critics have used a variation of this explanation. In her book The Fourth Star about the New York restaurant Daniel's quest for the top rating from The New York Times, Leslie Brenner writes about how William Grimes who was then the critic for the Times was recognised when he came to Daniel to review it. After a rave review appeared she called him to ask whether his lack of anonymity could have affected the kind of meal he was served. 'A restaurant can't make itself better than what it is,' he responded. 'At a restaurant of that calibre I don't think they are serving two kinds of food to two kinds of people.' Which is basically the Gault-Millau explanation all over again. As the Times now concedes the lack of anonymity does make a difference. But it doesn't make as great a difference as Mimi Sheraton or Ruth Reichl believed. Pete Wells tried to be anonymous but most New York restaurants put his picture up in their kitchens so he was usually recognised. But that did not stop him from doing hatchet jobs on such great restaurants as Eleven Madison Park (three Michelin stars), Per Se (also three stars) and most famously Peter Luger, a New York legend. Basically, if you know how to do your job, you can tell how good or bad a restaurant is even if you are not anonymous. In the UK, for instance, restaurant critics are not anonymous (with the notable exception of Marina O'Loughlin who was rarely photographed during her time as a reviewer) The two greatest critics of the last 50 years, Fay Maschler and AA Gill were recognised on the streets, not just when they went to restaurants. The lack of anonymity doesn't necessarily mean they always eat well. Years ago, I went with Maschler to Le Chabanais a much-hyped London restaurant opened by trendy French chef Inaki Aziparte. The food was crap and Maschler was unenthusiastic in her review. When AA Gill said much the same sort of thing, the restaurant closed. So, the general view that critics always eat well is wrong. There is a second factor behind the Times's decision to shed the anonymity of its reviewers. The days when the only reviews that mattered appeared in mainstream media are over. We are now bombarded with opinions about restaurants on social media. Many of these opinions are sincere even if they come from people who are not particularly knowledgeable about food. But many of them come from so-called influencers who are not bound by the same standards as mainstream media journalists and will happily accept financial considerations from restaurants (usually through agencies that are paid to secure social media publicity). Over the years the share of voice of PR companies and the influencers they hire has grown to unprecedented levels. Many of these influencers then vote in lists of great chefs or 50 Best Restaurants. As a result, many restaurants have vast budgets dedicated to securing good influencer reviews and places on these lists. Chefs and restaurateurs know how the lists are compiled but they also know that a high position on any list will vastly increase their business. In such a situation, newspapers must hire the best critics who have written well about food, understand restaurants and will cut through the lying hype. Such people do exist but they are rarely anonymous these days. They have appeared on food shows, have written and publicised books, have made their own videos and have social media profiles. Once upon a time it was possible for the Times to take say, a relatively anonymous foreign correspondent who had just returned from Rome and appoint him as the restaurant critic. You can't do that any longer. You need experts with experience and some standing of their own to tell the world's greatest restaurants and the world's best chefs what they are doing wrong. (Or right.) Anonymity works well for influencers you have never heard of. But not for serious critics. There is, of course, one exception to this general rule. Michelin is now a global organisation. Its inspectors are always anonymous even though they are rigorously trained and must eat at least 300 restaurant meals a year to keep track of trends and quality. Many operate internationally. If you run an Indian restaurant in Singapore you might be visited by an inspector from London. Chefs try very hard to spot Michelin inspectors but rarely succeed mainly because all the cliches you hear about them are not true: They aren't all French or Paris-based, they don't necessarily eat alone, they don't deliberately drop napkins on the floor to see how long it takes the servers to pick them up etc. Michelin is now the last bastion of anonymous and independent reviewing. It judges quality and consistency and not trendiness. That's why it's the one recognition that chefs respect. Let's hope it stays that way.
News18
19 hours ago
- News18
Bruce Springsteens Berlin concert echoes with history and a stark warning
Last Updated: Berlin, Jun 11 (AP) Veteran rock star Bruce Springsteen, a high-profile critic of President Donald Trump, slammed the US administration as 'corrupt, incompetent and treasonous" during a concert on Wednesday in Berlin. He was addressing tens of thousands of fans at a stadium built for the 1936 Olympic Games that still bears the scars of World War II and contains relics from the country's dark Nazi past. 'Tonight, we ask all who believe in democracy and the best of our American experiment to rise with us, raise your voices, stand with us against authoritarianism, and let freedom reign," he said. Springsteen, long a political opponent of the president, has made increasingly pointed and contentious public statements in recent concerts. He denounced Trump's politics during a concert last month in Manchester, calling him an 'unfit president" leading a 'rogue government" of people who have 'no concern or idea for what it means to be deeply American." Springsteen is no stranger to Berlin. In July 1988, he became one of the first Western musicians to perform in East Germany, performing to a ravenous crowd of 1,60,000 East Germans yearning for American rock 'n' roll and the freedom it represented to the youth living under the crumbling communist regime. An Associated Press news story from that period says 'fireworks steaked through the sky" and hundreds of people in the audience waved handmade American flags as they sang along to 'Born in the USA." Almost four decades later, Springsteen issued a stark warning, 'The America that I love, the America that I've sung to you about, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous administration." (AP) RUK RUK
