Latest news with #AChristmasStory
Indianapolis Star
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Indianapolis Star
'Great Gatsby' and 'Scarlet Letter' are on Civic Theatre's new season
Classic literature and drama form the backbone of Booth Tarkington Civic Theatre's new season. Kicking off the season in October is "Something Rotten" — a musical comedy that plays on connections to William Shakespeare's work and even makes the iconic playwright himself a cause of action. In early 2026, the theater, which is a resident company at Carmel's Allied Solutions Center for the Performing Arts, will perform stage adaptations of "The Great Gatsby" and "The Scarlet Letter." Beloved classics "A Christmas Story" and "Fiddler on the Roof" will round out the season. Subscriptions are on sale now via or by contacting the Allied Solutions Center for the Performing Arts box office at 317-843-3800 or tickets@ Single tickets will go on sale July 24. All shows take place in the Tarkington theater unless otherwise noted. Here's the Civic Theatre season lineup. Oct. 3-18 In this musical comedy set in 1590, brothers Nick and Nigel Bottom are struggling to write a hit play and finding it impossible to compete with a famed playwright known as "The Bard." After a soothsayer predicts that theater's future combines singing, drama and dancing, the duo begins to write the first-ever musical. Summer plans: 100+ free live concerts around central Indiana in 2025 Dec. 5-27 Growing up in fictional Hohman, Indiana, in the 1940s, 9-year-old Ralphie Parker exhausts all possible avenues to obtain his dream Christmas gift: an official Red Ryder carbine-action 200-shot Range Model air rifle. Feb. 6-21, 2026 in the Studio Theater Long Island newcomer Nick Carraway chronicles the story of Jay Gatsby, a self-made millionaire who pursues the love of his life, the already-married Daisy Buchanan, against the decadent backdrop of Jazz Age New York. The IndianapoLIST newsletter has the best shows, art and eats — and the stories behind them March 13-28, 2026 in the Studio Theater In this reimagining of the classic novel, Hester Prynne raises her daughter in a Massachusetts Bay society where women are punished for asserting independence and colonists deal with violence, superstition and repression that will wind their way into the soon-to-be-formed America. April 24-May 9, 2026 In the small village of Anatevka, a milkman's family deals with the clash between tradition and changing times as they face antisemitism in Czarist Russia.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's latest tariff agenda: Make movies crap again
Each day of Donald Trump's second presidential administration has felt like the scene in 'A Christmas Story,' where Ralphie speeds to the bathroom to use his 'Little Orphan Annie' decoder ring to spell out a gravely important, super-secret message. After some considerable suspense, Ralphie, of course, finds out that he's been duped by the hand of Big Advertising. Despite feeling like life-or-death in the moment, the message piped to him over the airwaves is ultimately meaningless bull. That's precisely what it's like to wake up, check your phone and find out that Trump has once again spouted off some new, seemingly horrific policy that, in reality, has zero actionable planning to enforce it. One of the latest and most confounding of Trump's plans is an addendum to his crippling tariffs. As part of ongoing trade wars, the Trump administration placed a 10% baseline tariff on all imports into the United States, with China, Mexico and Canada hit with additional tariffs, all of which have fluctuated since Trump postponed his initial proposal. These levies on goods and materials are obnoxious and have the consumer paying the price, but at least they had an identifiable (if petty) reason for existing. Trump's newest proposed tariff, however, is a real head-scratcher. The president took to his Truth Social platform last week to scream into the void that the 'movie industry in America is dying a very fast death' due to international tax credits encouraging filmmakers and production companies to shoot their movies overseas. 'This is a concerted effort by other nations, and, therefore, a National Security threat,' Trump wrote. He sees international film production as a form of propaganda, saying, 'WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!' To stimulate that dying industry, the president said he'd immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% tariff on 'any and all movies coming into our country that are produced on foreign lands.' Both Hollywood executives and everyday, average film lovers were sent into a spiral. How would a 100% tariff on something like a film even work, and how would it affect film production? Would the tariff trickle down to the moviegoer's ticket price, like tolls placed on goods such as clothing coming into the United States from international distributors? As is the case with most of his haphazard policy-making, even Trump himself doesn't have a clear answer to these questions. It turns out that this proposed tariff has a good bit of legal and practical red tape holding it back. But if Trump can successfully enact the 100% film tariff in the coming months, he stands to cripple the American film industry much faster and far more severely than any international production ever could. The tariff isn't just an attempt to curb non-domestic film production, it's a deceptive way to hinder filmmaking that doesn't align with his agenda. But first: deep breath. What the president is proposing in his erratically capitalized rant isn't something that can be immediately enacted like an executive order, at least in most cases. Historically, Congress had the power to oversee and implement tariffs. Over the decades, some of that power was diverted to the president, especially in trade cases designated threats to national security. That would explain why Trump specifically called internationally produced films an affront to our domestic security, despite a total lack of sound reasoning or defense to that point. However, quick action is often legally untested and could conceivably result in a lawsuit from within the film industry to make the 100% tariff a judicial matter, meaning it would be out of Trump's control. That might explain why, when pressed about his film tariff, Trump dodged a firm answer about what the fees were specifically intended to do and how they would be enforced. 'Other nations have been stealing the movie-making capabilities from the United States,' he yelled to CNN as an Air Force One chopper revved behind him. 'Hollywood is being destroyed. Now, you have a grossly incompetent governor [Gavin Newsom] who allowed that to happen. So I'm not just blaming other nations . . . If they're not willing to make a movie inside the United States, then we should have a tariff on movies that come in. And not only that, governments are actually giving big money. They're supporting them financially. That's sort of a threat to our country in a sense.' Squeezed by reporters, Trump said that he would do research and personally ask Hollywood studios if they agree to his tariff proposal. 'I want to make sure that they're happy with it, because we're all about jobs,' Trump told reporters. What looked like it might spell trouble for an already-flailing industry quickly turned out to be little more than big talk, at least for now. The World Trade Organization has a moratorium on digital goods until 2026, and films would presumably fall into that category. Whether Trump could use the law citing reasons of national security to implement a tariff on films is another question entirely, given that the full text of that specific written law excludes films, publications and that some of the fear-mongering dust has settled, Trump's likelier intentions are in clearer view. The president and his designated team of Hollywood 'special ambassadors' Jon Voight, Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone are seeking ways to bolster the American film industry after a major and swift economic downturn over the first half of the decade. COVID lockdowns at the top of the 2020s buckled the film industry and sent more domestic productions overseas. Recent tentpole blockbusters like 'Wicked' and 'Deadpool & Wolverine' were shot internationally, and many major American studios have production hubs in cities like London and Vancouver. Countries outside the United States have found that introducing a wealth of production incentives for American films can attract filmmakers looking to cut costs while bolstering the local film and television production sectors. Put simply, international production benefits other countries as much as it benefits American filmmakers, and figures show that the number of incentivized productions overseas is way up. It's not exactly inconceivable that Trump would want to keep productions local if he is, as he says, 'all about jobs.' But this isn't just about jobs, it's about the right kinds of jobs — and therefore, the right kinds of films. Trump has had a bee in his incontinence diapers ever since Bong Joon-ho's 'Parasite' won the Oscar for best picture in 2020. Trump criticized the win at the time, saying, 'What the hell was that all about? We've got enough problems with South Korea with trade, on top of it they give it the best movie of the year? Let's get 'Gone with the Wind' back, please.' Notably, Trump cited international trade while he spoke about 'Parasite,' as both media and trade have been converging objects of the president's skewed, sickening affection for some time. Now, Trump is grasping at straws to do what he can to hinder the current state of American filmmaking. Trump and his special Hollywood ambassadors could develop a national tax incentive program of their own to encourage economic stimulus in the domestic filmmaking sector, but that seems like a less likely option than the president's continued focus on what he already sees as an assault on American security. If Trump successfully implements his proposed 100% tariff, it would effectively bludgeon the international sales market for small and mid-budget titles at festivals like Cannes, where the industry is convening this week. If these movies can't sell to American distributors due to a massive tariff, an equally colossal section of the potential money-spending audience is removed from the equation. In that case, even internationally shot, American-made movies without a large enough budget to recoup the cost of a tariff would not get made at all. We'd quickly see the American film industry become completely reliant on big-budget blockbusters. In a time when small-to-mid-budget films are already struggling, that incredibly important section of filmmaking — the kind that typically produces the most interesting, intriguing, important art — would be the first to go. But the proposed tariff isn't just a boneheaded move that would destroy small-budget filmmaking, it's a covert way for Trump to keep undermining and disabling state funding for progressive noncommercial filmmaking and art. Early in May, the Trump administration terminated dozens of publicly funded arts grants that were due to be paid out, citing that the recipients 'did not align' with the president's priorities. Many fear the National Endowment for the Arts, the federal agency that funds and supports independent artists and filmmakers, could be next. Given that Trump is going after PBS, which has a long history of airing 'controversial' and 'blasphemous' NEA-sponsored art like Marlon Riggs' 1989 video essay 'Tongues Untied,' the pipeline is easy to follow. Those trying to make culturally significant, noncommercial art with public grants are having their funding yanked away in favor of work that 'celebrates America's greatness.' They have no chance to become commercial filmmakers like those awarded public grants in other countries. And with no domestic incentive for international filmmakers to produce work in the United States, no publicly funded grants for up-and-coming artists, and a potential tariff lopping off internationally produced American films, the artistic side of filmmaking dies. All that's left would be shoddy, state-sponsored movies promoting conservative values and monotonous, crash-bang-boom blockbusters. I don't know about you, but I'd say that's a far more bleak state of filmmaking than some American productions scoring a tax break for filming in Italy. Trump's latest move might not have the fate of the planet hanging in the balance — as Ralphie briefly thought in 'A Christmas Story' — but the fate of movie-making very well might.
Chicago Tribune
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
From the Farm: Farm friends' visit to Mar-a-Lago reminds of roots to cereal heiress Marjorie Post
Our farming friends the Wappel Family, who live just a couple fields away down our same country road, spent a few days in March in Palm Beach, Florida for a charity dinner event hosted at Mar-a-Lago, the winter estate of President Donald Trump, after purchasing the property in 1985. My last time writing about Mar-a-Lago in my columns was in 2005, for an item I published about the guests who attended his third wedding, held at the winter home property: 'Hammond's own local girl turned millionairess, Georgette Mosbacher, flew to Florida last weekend to attend Donald Trump's wedding to Melania Knauss. Mosbacher spent much of her time at the reception chatting it up with former President Bill Clinton. If you're keeping track, the former Georgette Paulsin's mother became a widow in 1959 and remarried Randy Shepherd, a Hessville neighborhood milkman and brother to another local notable, the late Jean Shepherd, author of 'A Christmas Story.' Georgette made her fortune in cosmetics after marrying Robert Mosbacher, who was U.S. Secretary of Commerce under President George Bush. The couple divorced in 1998.' Mosbacher, now 78, would eventually be appointed as the U.S. Ambassador to Poland from 2018 to 2021. As for our pals Larry and Debbie Wappel, the charity dinner and performance they attended at Mar-a-Lago did have President Trump, clad in a tuxedo, on the property and greeting guests. The Wappels were among several locals who attended The Sunshine Gala on March 28 to raise funds and awareness for Sunshine Community Center Network, created to serve various charities, most often for organizations supporting individuals with disabilities, particularly children with disabilities and those with severe or chronic conditions. The gala also supports programs that provide therapy, education, and advocacy for these individuals, according to the Sunshine Foundation website. Mar-a-Lago has a fascinating famous mother connection tale to recount on Mother's Day. The first time I ever heard about any of the rich history associated with the Mar-a-Lago Estate was even before President Trump owned it. Late and famous funny friend Phyllis Diller had told me on more than a few occasions during my visits to her home in the Brentwood neighborhood of Los Angeles that much of the ornate furniture in her 22-room mansion was purchased during an auction of the estate of Marjorie Merriweather Post, the cereal heiress who died in 1973 at 86. Born in Springfield, Illinois, Marjorie was the daughter and only child of C.W. Post, founder of Post Cereals. The Mar-a-Lago Estate, centered on 17 sprawling acres, was designed and built as a 'winter cottage' with 126 rooms for the Post Family and constructed from 1924 to 1927, a decade after Marjorie's father's death and during her marriage to financial wizard E.F. Hutton. The couple raised their daughter Nedenia 'Dina' at the estate before her successful career as a Hollywood actress until her own passing at age 93 in 2017, following three marriages, including Colgate fortune heir Stanely Rumbough Jr., and later, Hollywood actor Cliff Robertson. Dina's infamous, much-married (eight times) cousin Barbara Woolworth Hutton also spent a great deal of time during the winter months at Mar-a-Lago before her own passing at age 66 in 1979. When Marjorie Merriweather Post died in 1973, she bequeathed Mar-a-Lago to the National Park Service with the strict intent the estate be utilized as 'a Winter White House' for U.S. presidents. By December 1980, through an act of Congress, the estate was returned to The Post Foundation with an explanation that the cost and upkeep were too great to be funded by the taxpayers. Trump purchased the property for roughly $10 million, with the remaining interior furnishings alone valued at $8 million. Debbie Wappel shared several incredible photos of the opulent estate, both interiors and landscaping. From the formal dinner place settings to the floral arrangements and surrounding furnishings, Mar-a-Lago is still frozen in time as a nod to yesteryear's entertaining elegance. My 2010 published cookbook 'Further From the Farm' included a recipe from the late Dina Merrill, who liked to joke she opted to save her mother's favorite recipes rather than her collection of jewelry. Most of the latter is now displayed at the Smithsonian Institute, such as the Napolean Diamond Necklace, a gift from the French ruler to his second wife, and a pair of 20-carat diamond earrings that once belonged to Queen Marie Antoinette. While Dina's previously published cream of zucchini and curry soup is decadent and delicious, her recipe for 'Merrill's Mussels Mariniere' is just as rich and satisfying. 4 pints fresh mussels in shells 1 cup dry white American wine 1 tablespoon chopped scallions Chopped parsley, scattering 1/2 clove of garlic, crushed 1 bay leaf 1/4 teaspoon dried thyme Freshly grated black pepper 3 tablespoons butter Salt to taste Additional chopped parsley for garnish Directions: Scrub mussel shells thoroughly with a stiff brush, rinsing repeated in cold water. Place mussels in shells in a soup kettle with wine, scallions, parsley, garlic, bay leaf, thyme and pepper. Cover kettle tightly with lid and cook on high heat until shells open, about 5 minutes. Remove the mussels and shells from kettle. Remove just the top shell from each mussel and place on a warm plate. Strain the stock and reduce it over a high heat until it is one-third remaining. Add butter and salt to taste and bring to a simmer. Place mussels in a soup tureen for serving and pour hot liquid over the mussels. Add chopped parsley for garnish. Serving immediately with thick slices for crusty French bread.
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - How did Republicans pass that spending bill? Credit Speaker Johnson
The most underestimated person in Washington, D.C. once again pulled off what the media and Beltway prognosticators said was impossible. In doing so, he further exposed Democrats as a party in complete disarray, blinded by their hatred of President Trump. With a government funding deadline looming, and the slimmest of majorities, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Trump pushed through a six-month spending bill to avert a partial government shutdown. In a solid lesson of political gamesmanship, Johnson gave them the ole 'triple dog dare' from the famous scene from the movie 'A Christmas Story,' where an anxious Flick is dared to stick his tongue to a frozen flag pole. In this case, after passing the bill, the Speaker immediately sent members home for a two-week recess, daring Senate Democrats to let the government shut down. Keeping our federal government open should have been a much easier decision for Senate Democrats than the intense back-and-forths that 9-year-olds face on the playground. But it turns out, not so much. Because at this juncture, shutting down our government versus giving Trump any kind of victory is the ultimate Hobson's Choice for Democrats. In one fell swoop, Democrats who spent years lecturing Republicans on the necessity of keeping government open whatever the cost declared that Trump, the man 77 million voters just elected to be president, is so bad they must now shut it all down. Yet they could not outline what they wanted or would do if they did shut down the government. From screams in private meetings to a complete meltdown over Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declaring he would (gasp!) vote with Republicans to advance the spending bill, Democrats' doom loop seemingly knows no end. Following the president's lead, Johnson continues taking advantage of a Democratic Party living with a pre-Nov. 5 mindset. House bills popular with the public, such as tougher penalties for illegal immigrants who commit crimes or banning biological males from playing in girls' and women's sports, are forcing many Democrats to choose between their left-wing base and the 80 percent of voters who support these issues. When it arrived in the Senate, 45 Democrats voted to block the bill banning boys from girls sports. That might explain why the Democratic Party is the most unpopular it has been at any point since at least 2008. It's not as if Johnson does it alone or bats 1.000. He's got the full backing of the White House, which certainly helps in those crunch moments. But managing 200-some members in a slim majority requires a level of skill and leadership that Johnson rarely gets credit for inside the Beltway. Analyzing the last 16 months of his speakership, some of those leadership traits are obvious. He allows members to publicly share their concerns about big pieces of legislation, giving them room to breathe without strong pushback. While some have argued he takes in too many opinions, hearing more as opposed to less makes sense and appears to be working, given this Republican caucus. Today's House GOP is a far cry from the days when former House Majority Leader Tom 'The Hammer' DeLay (R-Texas) wielded a big stick. Johnson is also quick to credit others when bills pass, particularly his leadership team — a trait not often found in politicians. This culminates in an ability to deliver Trump's agenda. It's no surprise the president fought to keep him in the Speaker's chair. Johnson's victories likely won't earn him the headlines he deserves among the mainstream media, which will continue the hair-on-fire stories and the second-guessing of whether he can get such-and-such bill over the line. There are many more fights ahead, but Johnson has so far risen to meet the moment. And about that whole government funding thing? Johnson's triple dog dare paid off — it turns out a few Democrats weren't about to stick their tongue to the proverbial frozen flagpole. Lance Trover served as spokesman for Doug Burgum's 2024 presidential campaign. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
20-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
How did Republicans pass that spending bill? Credit Speaker Johnson
The most underestimated person in Washington, D.C. once again pulled off what the media and Beltway prognosticators said was impossible. In doing so, he further exposed Democrats as a party in complete disarray, blinded by their hatred of President Trump. With a government funding deadline looming, and the slimmest of majorities, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Trump pushed through a six-month spending bill to avert a partial government shutdown. In a solid lesson of political gamesmanship, Johnson gave them the ole ' triple dog dare ' from the famous scene from the movie 'A Christmas Story,' where an anxious Flick is dared to stick his tongue to a frozen flag pole. In this case, after passing the bill, the Speaker immediately sent members home for a two-week recess, daring Senate Democrats to let the government shut down. Keeping our federal government open should have been a much easier decision for Senate Democrats than the intense back-and-forths that 9-year-olds face on the playground. But it turns out, not so much. Because at this juncture, shutting down our government versus giving Trump any kind of victory is the ultimate Hobson's Choice for Democrats. In one fell swoop, Democrats who spent years lecturing Republicans on the necessity of keeping government open whatever the cost declared that Trump, the man 77 million voters just elected to be president, is so bad they must now shut it all down. Yet they could not outline what they wanted or would do if they did shut down the government. From screams in private meetings to a complete meltdown over Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declaring he would (gasp!) vote with Republicans to advance the spending bill, Democrats' doom loop seemingly knows no end. Following the president's lead, Johnson continues taking advantage of a Democratic Party living with a pre-Nov. 5 mindset. House bills popular with the public, such as tougher penalties for illegal immigrants who commit crimes or banning biological males from playing in girls' and women's sports, are forcing many Democrats to choose between their left-wing base and the 80 percent of voters who support these issues. When it arrived in the Senate, 45 Democrats voted to block the bill banning boys from girls sports. That might explain why the Democratic Party is the most unpopular it has been at any point since at least 2008. It's not as if Johnson does it alone or bats 1.000. He's got the full backing of the White House, which certainly helps in those crunch moments. But managing 200-some members in a slim majority requires a level of skill and leadership that Johnson rarely gets credit for inside the Beltway. Analyzing the last 16 months of his speakership, some of those leadership traits are obvious. He allows members to publicly share their concerns about big pieces of legislation, giving them room to breathe without strong pushback. While some have argued he takes in too many opinions, hearing more as opposed to less makes sense and appears to be working, given this Republican caucus. Today's House GOP is a far cry from the days when former House Majority Leader Tom 'The Hammer' DeLay (R-Texas) wielded a big stick. Johnson is also quick to credit others when bills pass, particularly his leadership team — a trait not often found in politicians. This culminates in an ability to deliver Trump's agenda. It's no surprise the president fought to keep him in the Speaker's chair. Johnson's victories likely won't earn him the headlines he deserves among the mainstream media, which will continue the hair-on-fire stories and the second-guessing of whether he can get such-and-such bill over the line. There are many more fights ahead, but Johnson has so far risen to meet the moment. And about that whole government funding thing? Johnson's triple dog dare paid off — it turns out a few Democrats weren't about to stick their tongue to the proverbial frozen flagpole.
