Latest news with #Coraline
What's On
27-05-2025
- Entertainment
- What's On
There's a cool movie-inspired menu coming to Abu Dhabi
And it's being served at one of Abu Dhabi's finest… If you're unfamiliar with Taparelle or are just new on Abu Dhabi's dining circuit, this Mediterranean eat at Manarat Al Saadiyat has been making waves for a while. And now, it's bringing you a special new movie-inspired menu, called 'Le Cartoon'. The limited-edition culinary journey will be served up throughout June, and will be inspired by some of your favourite animated titles including A Goofy Movie and Coraline. Held in collaboration with CineMAS, the unique event will be held from June 26 to July 1. Images: supplied What's On the Menu? As you might've already guessed, dishes on this special menu will be an ode to iconic movie moments, and will feature three courses and a special themed beverage. You can taste everything from Coraline's olive tapenade, Max's cheese diavola pizza, fish cakes and tartar sauce inspired by Ponyo (2008), Flint's spicy arrabbiata and Kiki's coupe glacée. To make your experience even more memorable, each guest will also receive a special gift and free access to film screenings during the day. More on Taparelle The arrival of Taparelle at Manarat Al Saadiyat, one of Abu Dhabi's leading art and culture hubs, has allowed diners to enjoy neat Mediterranean fare while checking out cool new art installations and enjoying prized Saadiyat Island vibes. In addition to a menu that's fast become a hit with Abu Dhabi's diners, you're greeted by pottery and artistic creations that are for sale. Upping the cool factor is the fact that Taparelle's cutlery is also handmade by the same artist. Dine-W/Me, Taparelle, Manarat Al Saadiyat, Abu Dhabi, June 26 to July 1, Dhs200, 7pm, 8.15pm, 9.30pm, and 10.45pm. @taparellerestaurant > Sign up for FREE to get exclusive updates that you are interested in
Scroll.in
25-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Scroll.in
‘Consent': How does one define consent when systemic inequalities define gendered interactions?
At the beginning of 2025, New York Magazine published a gripping cover story by Lila Shapiro titled ' Call Me Master ', which detailed the disturbing allegations of sexual assault made by eight women against The Sandman and Coraline author Neil Gaiman. In response, Gaiman categorically denied any wrongdoing, stating, 'I have never engaged in non-consensual sexual activity with anyone. Ever.' Yet, this is not an isolated case; it is part of a much larger reckoning shaped by the #MeToo movement – a movement that has repeatedly challenged the simplistic binary of yes and no when it comes to consent. It forces us to confront the complexities of power, coercion, and agency in intimate relationships, where lines are often blurred, and consent is not always as straightforward as it seems. The conversation around sexual violence has long been framed in terms of clear-cut violations, but the reality is far more nuanced. Power dynamics – shaped by gender, social hierarchies, and emotional dependencies – can render consent ambiguous, sometimes making coercion feel like choice. The #MeToo movement has laid bare these murky zones, compelling us to rethink the very foundations of how we understand consent, desire, and agency in interpersonal relationships. The concept of consent In her concise yet thought-provoking book, Consent: Fearful Asymmetry, Nilofer Kaul critically examines the concept of consent, unpacking its underlying assumptions of equality, rationality, and clear communication. But how do we navigate consent in a world that is inherently and unequally structured, where power imbalances are persistent and deeply entrenched? While consent may seem like a simple, straightforward principle, Kaul argues that it is anything but. Through her analysis, she highlights how the dynamics between two individuals are rarely equal – social, emotional, and structural power imbalances inevitably shape their choices, whether consciously or unconsciously. By focusing solely on consent as an isolated act of agreement or refusal, we risk overlooking the deeper violence embedded within these asymmetrical relationships. Kaul's work forces us to question whether the language of consent alone is sufficient when it often serves to mask the systemic inequalities that define gendered interactions. In reality, consent is far more complex than it appears – especially in a society where a woman's smile, her body language, or even the length of her clothing is frequently misinterpreted as consent. The very notion that consent is specific and does not automatically extend from one act to another is something our culture often struggles to acknowledge. As a result, the boundary between consent and coercion becomes perilously thin. It is precisely on this line that Nilofer Kaul situates her analysis. She writes, 'Consent works well only if the two parties stand in perfect symmetry, a desirable but somewhat utopian situation.' By highlighting this fundamental imbalance, Kaul challenges the assumption that consent can function as a clear-cut, transactional agreement. Instead, she forces us to confront the uncomfortable reality that, in a world riddled with asymmetries, the very framework of consent is often inadequate to capture the complexities of agency, power, and coercion. Kaul employs psychoanalysis – drawing extensively from Freud – to examine the unequal distribution of power between the sexes, particularly within intimate spaces. While this theoretical approach offers deep insights, it may pose a challenge for readers unfamiliar with psychoanalytic discourse. She argues that masculinity is not just associated with power but is burdened with the need to constantly prove and assert it. This relentless assertion often manifests through displays of violence, reinforcing a fragile and delusional sense of dominance. According to Kaul, this constructed potency is sustained by the systematic erasure of vulnerability, emotional depth, and introspection – qualities deemed incompatible with masculinity. Instead, these 'undesirable' traits are projected onto femininity, reinforcing a rigid and unequal gender binary. Through this lens, she reveals how patriarchal structures perpetuate a cycle where power is both inherited and violently maintained, making true agency within intimate relationships an ongoing struggle. Kaul delves into the fundamental asymmetry embedded within the very structure of gender organisation, where masculinity is exalted while femininity is systematically devalued. In this deeply entrenched hierarchy, men are positioned as inherently superior, while women are expected to exist in a state of subservience. Consent, coercion, and constraint Given this power imbalance, Kaul challenges the assumption that consent, as it operates within such a system, can ever be entirely free of coercion or constraint. When one gender is socialised to dominate and the other to submit, can consent truly be considered an act of untainted agency? By interrogating these dynamics, she compels us to rethink consent not as a neutral agreement between equals but as something that is always shaped – and often distorted – by the unequal structures within which it is negotiated. While Consent: Fearful Asymmetry makes an urgent and necessary intervention in understanding the complexities of consent, its analysis remains largely confined to a binary understanding of gender, leaving unexamined the many intersections that further complicate power dynamics – class, caste, religion, and race, to name a few. These factors do not merely exist alongside gender but actively shape and intensify the asymmetry Kaul critiques. Additionally, her exploration of consent is primarily situated within the realm of romantic or intimate relationships, overlooking the many contexts where coercion operates beyond these boundaries. What about situations where women are pressured into providing sexual favours in exchange for employment, financial security, or other forms of survival? Or in conflict zones, where the imbalance of power is not just social but militarised, exacerbating the violence of forced consent? While Kaul's work is a valuable starting point, these questions remain crucial for a more comprehensive understanding of how consent operates in a deeply stratified world.
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Trump's Kneejerk Hollywood Fix Is No Tariff-ic Idea: Bill Mechanic Examines The Pitfalls & Tells How The Town Really Feels
Editor's note: Bill Mechanic is chairman and CEO of Pandemonium Films and a former top executive at Paramount and Disney and chairman and CEO of Fox Filmed Entertainment. He also is a former producer of the Oscars and Oscar-nominated films like Hacksaw Ridge and Coraline. He also is a teller of hard truths to whom Deadline turns when nobody else will speak up on a hot-button issue. That certainly is the case right now, a day after President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social how he plans to 'fix' runaway production by imposing tariffs on films and TV shows that film outside the U.S. The common refrain today has been that a film business finally on its firmest footing since Covid doesn't need a force to destabilize the hard-won forward momentum. Mechanic takes it a step further, questioning Trump's motives behind a power play that puts Hollywood on its heels, a feeling familiar to many other industries and segments of the economy struggling in this tariff moment. As anyone who refuses to log onto Truth Social knows, the site has changed the old newspaper slogan 'All the news that's fit to print' into 'All the lies fit to put online.' More from Deadline Trump Receives Jon Voight's Plan To 'Make Hollywood Great Again'; Studio Bosses Not Confirmed Yet To Meet POTUS Over Movie Tariffs Industry Reacts To Trump's 'Insane' Movie Tariff Threat: 'This Would Destroy The Independent Film Sector' IATSE Is "Engaging" With Trump On Movie Tariff Proposal, But Insists Federal Solution To Runaway Production Must "Do No Harm" To International Territories There is no truth on Truth. So what to make of Agent Orange, the King of Chaos, proclaiming he is going to save Hollywood? Last night he wrote: 'The movie industry is DYING a very fast death' and that he would help save America, on the grounds that shooting films overseas is a 'threat to national security.' Throwing those two big ideas together doesn't change that he has no intention of helping the film industry. All he wants is another dumpster fire in order to obfuscate the blowback his tariffs have caused havoc for American industry, the American economy and, oh yes, problems for everyone pretty much everywhere in the world. So what does he propose to help Hollywood? More tariffs. What Trump was really saying, to paraphrase Mark Antony, is: 'I come to bury Hollywood, not save it.' What he's after is more chaos (as if there isn't enough). Everything's backfiring and his unpopularity has reached a historic level. So he goes back to the tried-and-true lie — he's 'fixing' something broken. That, of course, is absurd. He's exacerbating the economic issues in the content-creation business, which covers both movies and all the various forms of television. There is nothing in his idea that will help the industry. Let's take it piece by piece (I may be missing a piece or two, but when attacked broadside, strike back in the same manner). Start with the notion that national security is threatened. Maybe he's doing that, but there isn't a kernel of the truth in the concept that shooting overseas can lead to embedding code or revealing war plans (for those, all you have to do is log into his Cabinet's chat groups). This isn't Fight Club, where porn can be inserted in between frames (especially considering that now, virtually everything is shot on video). I've produced or overseen hundreds of movies that were shot overseas, even built studios in Australia and Mexico for that purpose. Other than China, which offered rigid co-production terms, no foreign government has ever even commented on any political content in any of those movies. None has never asked for any changes, and never proposed a single idea. Shooting overseas used to happen mainly because it presented a more appropriate location, or because there were cost savings. More and more in the last decade-plus, money forces the decision, not location. I would guess lawsuits against any official decree will argue this point. Trump is butting into another area where he has no jurisdiction. I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, but if national security is the foundation of the decree, it's a losing proposition. He's made up a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Trump was, is and always will be an outsider in Hollywood. Like so many other harebrained ideas coming out of Washington these days, this one seems spewed out rather than thought through, and it presents a solution that doesn't solve anything but aims to create headlines and noise as opposed to making things better. It is all part of Trump's revenge tour. He's out to destroy anyone or anything that has not bowed at his altar. Voters, law firms, educational institutions, for God's sakes — our allies! He's the guy lighting the fire to burn down Hollywood, not the one putting it out. Production has left California due to economic issues, but it has not left the U.S. Try booking a stage in Georgia or Louisiana. Those states have trained crews and valuable subsidies. There are many other states also attracting production with incentives but aren't as advanced. Much like Detroit lost its hold on the auto industry, California has lost its dominance, mostly due to the arrogance of not understanding there are always alternatives. More than 20 years ago, the film commission came to see me when I ran Fox to find out what could be done. I told them the labor costs were higher and the incentives at that time didn't exist at all. No-brainer to shoot elsewhere. Nothing was done until the problem grew to disaster levels. There are current bills before the California Legislature that, if passed, would be a godsend and reverse a lot of the production decisions based on money. If Trump really cared, he'd create a federal program of incentives (much like the one in Australia). What are the chances of that happening? Zero. He's too busy slashing and burning everything in his path that doesn't throw him money. Georgia, Louisiana, New Mexico and even New York aren't losing projects over subsidies. California is — but California is part of the revenge tour, not a place he'd even think to play a round of golf. So what kind of potential harm will Trump's proposed fix create? Virtually no independent movie can be made without subsidies. Yes, if I can shoot in Australia and pick up 15% over one of our subsidy states, I would. I have. Because I'm not patriotic? Hardly. Then why? Because the current movie business is such a mess – the studios and streamers have damaged theatrical, eliminating the biggest part of sequential distribution and severely wounding international. Meaning every single bit of cost savings counts. Enough to be the difference between making a movie or scrapping it. If I produced Hacksaw Ridge 30 years ago, I would have had a much bigger budget and would not have shot the Okinawa section in Australia, and certainly would have shot the American section in the South. But to make the movie, I had to slice the budge by 30%, needing to shoot everything in Australia, where we were fortunately blessed by the world's best subsidies, and then raised the rest of the budget through equity and presales. Otherwise, the Oscar-nominated film wouldn't have been made. Under Trump's decree, Hacksaw Ridge would die before it had a chance to live. A film about American courage, an American humanitarian — an America we all believe in or want to believe in and one that bore no foreign influence but was proudly shot entirely in New South Wales. Independent production requires subsidies, not tariff wars. How many industries are being destroyed by tariffs? Small production companies and independent producers might become a thing of the past. The studios and streamers will survive the decree, but my guess is it will cut production because of higher costs. Disney, WB, Uni, and Sony will only make the surest bets (not that they aren't already), meaning the edges of production will be narrowed, and there is barely anything there now. Netflix and the streamers, whose growth now comes mainly from overseas, will have to adjust. It certainly is worse for them as they have allocated a good portion of their budgets to international production in order to have enough local product. Trump said he proposed his film tariffs after deep discussion with a couple of people. My guess is he was referencing talking to himself in the mirror, or to a vision of himself in some other wacky manner. This is an idea that has no thought behind it. It helps no one. It doesn't make America stronger. It only makes us a more hated country. Let's hope it dies a natural death, and that someone in the industry shows the courage to challenge the decree in court. The rest of us are just collateral damage in his revenge tour, where there is no such thing as collateral damage. There is only revenge. Like Mr. Magoo, he never notices the dead bodies left in the road. Best of Deadline How To Watch The 2025 Met Gala Arrivals And Everything To Know About The Theme 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery
Time of India
27-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Neil Gaiman files $500,000 claim against former accuser over alleged NDA breach
Neil Gaiman 'Famed fantasy' writer Neil Gaiman has launched a major legal action seeking more than $500,000 from Caroline Wallner, the woman who accused him of coercive sexual behavior. The dispute that was first reported by Tortoise, stems from Wallner's claims that Gaiman pressured her into a sexual relationship while she was living at his property in upstate New York. Wallner alleges that Gaiman conditioned her stay at the residence on their sexual involvement, an accusation the author flatly denies. Gaiman maintains that their relationship was entirely consensual and disputes any suggestion of misconduct. In 2021, the two reportedly signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with Wallner receiving a payment of $275,000. This financial settlement, according to Wallner was intended to assist her in dealing with the psychological aftermath of the relationship, including symptoms of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Legal clash intensifies: accusations of broken agreements The dispute has now escalated into a messy legal confrontation. Gaiman claims Wallner breached their confidentiality agreement by speaking to the media about their interactions, violating the terms they had agreed upon. In response, he filed for arbitration seeking damages exceeding half a million dollars. Wallner, for her part has countersued, asserting that it was Gaiman who first violated their agreement. According to New York Magazine, she alleges that Gaiman's legal team improperly retained digital evidence of their relationship, material that she says should have been destroyed under the terms of their NDA. The situation highlights the often fraught nature of private settlements especially when power dynamics, allegations of coercion and sensitive personal relationships are involved. JK Rowling enters the conversation The controversy reached an even wider audience when bestselling author J.K. Rowling weighed in publicly. Sharing a link to the story on X (formerly known as Twitter), Rowling remarked: 'During a long career I've somehow never got round to sleeping with vulnerable young fans, using them for unpaid labour or having sex with an employee. I know that sounds unbelievable, but it's surely not as astounding as Neil Gaiman's most recent move.' Rowling's post quickly went viral, stirring heated reactions online. Some praised her for calling out alleged abuses of power in the entertainment and literary industries while others criticized her for speaking out before a legal resolution is reached. A complicated chapter for Gaiman Neil Gaiman best known for acclaimed works like 'The Sandman, American Gods and Coraline,' has enjoyed a celebrated career spanning decades. His imaginative storytelling has earned him international acclaim, a loyal fanbase and numerous awards. This legal battle now casts a long shadow over his public image. For an author whose work often explores the fine line between reality and fantasy, the real-world courtroom drama is a sharp contrast to the fictional worlds he has built. As arbitration proceedings move forward, both Gaiman and Wallner are poised for a legal showdown that could have significant consequences not just for them but for how public figures handle private accusations and settlements in the digital age. At this stage, neither side appears ready to back down, and the outcome remains uncertain.
Forbes
25-03-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Why Mobility Data Is The Missing Link In Competitive Analysis
Geoff Michener is the CEO of dataplor, a startup focused on helping companies succeed abroad through high-quality geospatial data. getty Businesses seeking to outmaneuver their competition need deeper insights into real-world customer engagement. Sales figures, customer reviews and market reports often lack insight into what is happening on the ground and fail to account for physical customer engagement or location-specific trends. If businesses want to stay competitive, they must start at the foundation: physical storefronts and consumer behavior. Mobility data offers a powerful solution by providing deep insights into customer engagement and competitive positioning. Foot traffic patterns help businesses identify underserved markets, assess customers' interactions with competitor locations, refine strategies and remain agile to future shifts in behavior. Mobility data equips businesses with the tools to analyze their competitors' store locations. Organizations can see under what circumstances customers choose competitors by analyzing time spent at locations, hourly popularity scores and estimated visitor counts. This information lets businesses see where, when and why customers choose competitors. For example, downtown Portland saw 27.3 million visits in 2024. Data indicated their foot traffic peaked during the summer, with significant events like Coraline's Curious Cat Trail leading to an 11%-14% increase in weekend traffic. Looking for localized trends and analyzing competitors' performance near high-traffic events, like Coraline's Curious Cat Trail, could help a business ascertain when and where to open new locations in the Portland area, run promotions or create pop-up shops. A restaurant franchise could similarly use mobility data to determine why foot traffic increases on weekends at its competitor's store. By analyzing peak customer flow times at competitor locations, they can look at dwell time, surrounding attractions and promotions and decide when to offer discounts or ensure their locations aren't over or understaffed. The restaurant can even better understand consumer behavior by seeing which store customers are most likely to visit based on other stores they frequent. The granular insights from location intelligence help businesses identify the factors that influence customer loyalty and refine their marketing strategies and customer experiences. Additionally, knowing and understanding when customers favor a competitor can help companies optimize promotions and product offerings to align with customer preferences. Location intelligence also reveals areas with high foot traffic but low supplies of specific goods or services, empowering decision-makers with ideal areas for market entry. It can showcase underserved neighborhoods or regions based on traffic density and customer flow. This information removes the guesswork regarding site selection to prioritize high-potential, high-impact markets. Global retailers can use mobility to expand into new regions and identify areas with heavy foot traffic but minimal competition. By evaluating competitors' existing storefronts, businesses can enter markets with high demand and low risk of oversaturation. Data is already being utilized by hospitality platforms which use location intelligence to optimize pricing against their competitors. Analyzing neighborhood characteristics, distance to public transportation and local attractions help to ensure they are offering competitive rates and can increase bookings. Competitors that rely on static pricing or adapt too slowly will struggle to keep up in underserved or highly competitive areas. However, privacy is a critical undercurrent to any discussion about data-driven decision-making at scale. Companies should ensure they use anonymized foot traffic data, as it's the only approach that preserves individual privacy and adheres to domestic and international regulatory environments. Policy trends will continue to favor privacy and security—businesses adopting a privacy-centric approach will meet these evolving compliance requirements and help build consumer trust. Organizations no longer have to guess when it comes to site selection. Using mobility data, they can prioritize sites with high demand, avoid oversaturation and ensure they pursue impactful opportunities to compete in new markets. Mobility data enables robust comparisons against competitors and helps businesses identify where they could lose market share or fall behind. These trends help companies predict and counter competitor strategies, such as new openings or seasonal promotions. Unlocking these insights allows organizations to pivot quickly based on real-time competitor behavior. A grocery store with a new competitor location opening up down the street, for instance, could monitor the competitor's latest store opening and how it impacts customer flow in nearby storefronts. Then, they could use the data to adjust advertising strategies, launch local promotions or introduce loyalty programs to retain customers. They might also utilize foot traffic data to understand where locations perform the best and if there are businesses nearby that their target audience also visits. Real estate investors might use mobility data to identify high-traffic areas with strong commercial potential. Foot traffic trends help pinpoint emerging neighborhoods, evaluate property values based on visitor patterns and assess the viability of mixed-use or retail developments. Consumer-packaged goods brands can also benefit. Analyzing consumer behavior near outlets helps them anticipate stock demands and adjust distribution strategies. Foot traffic gives businesses unmatched insight into customer behavior, market opportunities and competitor activities. Rather than relying on incomplete information, companies can use mobility data to locate high-traffic areas ideal for expansion, refine strategies based on competitors' foot traffic trends and see consumer movement trends to adjust marketing and promotions. These insights unlock benefits across industries, from retail and consumer packaged goods to marketing, real estate, urban planning by city governments and quick-service restaurants. Mobility data offers more than just clarity on what's happening now. It gives business leaders powerful data to understand how consumer movement impacts business growth and where to plot future pivot points and growth strategies. Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
