Latest news with #PaulSchrader
Telegraph
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
The freakiest thing about Freakier Friday is the airbrushing of Lindsay Lohan's past
2003, as we're often reminded in the easy-breezy Freakier Friday, was a simpler time. Lindsay Lohan was 17 and right on the verge of being, albeit briefly, a megastar. Meanwhile, Jamie Lee Curtis got to rock out and rediscover her youth when they swapped bodies as mother and daughter in Freaky Friday, a bright, winning, frisky summer romp, which was an even bigger hit than Lohan's next film, Mean Girls. A great deal has changed – especially for Lohan – in the intervening 22 years. She's been through a crash-and-burn pariah phase, which involved jail time and multiple rehab stints. In 2013, she was opportunistically cast in Paul Schrader's grim meta-porno The Canyons. And now – after paving the way with three Netflix romcoms – she is finally mounting this Disney-approved comeback. Freakier Friday waves a wand and asks us to pretend that none of Lohan's struggles ever happened – which is perhaps the one freaky thing about it. The film is an Etch-a-Sketch wiped clean; unobjectionable fun, if a trifle anodyne. We shouldn't belabour the plot that causes single mum Anna (Lohan) and solicitous gran Tess (Curtis) to swap bodies yet again. Crucially (and awkwardly) it's not with each other. This time, it's with a pair of Gen Z family members who are sworn enemies. Harper (The Fabelmans' Julia Butters) is Anna's sullen rebel of a daughter, while Lily (Sophia Hammons) is her snooty British stepsister-to-be, after a whirlwind romance between Anna and a fellow single parent, her new fiancé Eric (Manny Jacinto). These complications want to spin off into fluffy absurdity. Instead they thicken into treacle. It's a mistake to have Lohan and Curtis mainly interact as new characters, because the emotional core between their old pair gets dislodged – though it certainly helps that Butters is such a splendid, grounding co-star both before and after the switcheroo. We might forget that Curtis has now won an Oscar (for Everything Everywhere All At Once), if it weren't that her reliable comedic chops are, thankfully, right to the fore. This time, when she bolts up in horror to bemoan the crevices in her face and 'having no lips', it's a disarming self-roast, and one of the funniest moments. You do wish, though, that they'd have let Lohan, who seems theoretically game, risk a touch of that sort of thing herself. You get your money's worth of that jolly staple, American actors putting on intentionally bad British accents. You also get, by my count, one A+ one-liner about Facebook, and one great overall scene. It's in a record shop, where Lohan-as-Harper tries to sabotage the wedding by throwing herself in front of Anna's old flame Jake (Chad Michael Murray, who played her boyfriend in the original, amusingly wheeled on as a befuddled man-prop). The kicker there is Curtis-as-Lily lurking behind the LPs, and occasionally surfacing with her face masked by a boomer time capsule – The Best of Sade! Sinead O'Connor! – to remain incognito. I probably chortled as much in that few minutes as in the rest of the film's runtime combined, because they strike the perfect tone of goofy nostalgia sprinkled over tart physical comedy. The rest is not going to rock anyone's world, but go in with the right expectations, and it may work some modest magic. PG cert, 111 min. In cinemas from Aug 8
Time of India
19-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Uma Thurman gets nervous eating in front of the camera
Hollywood star revealed that the idea of consuming food on set is something she still gets nervous about. Thurman told the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon: "First of all, you have to do lots of takes. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Second of all, you don't pick what's on the menu, and you have to speak sometimes and swallow, and then you start to worry about choking because you don't want to be chewing when you say that line. " The 55-year-old star discovered her anxiety after filling out a DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which brought up the issue. She said: "Do you know that eating in front of strangers is one of the questions on the DSM? Do you know what the DSM is? It's like one of these check things that psychiatrists do to find out what your neuroses are." Thurman was determined to be "just fine" after filling out the test, but noted she does get nervous about eating during a scene. However, she thinks a "good eating scene" is one of the main things she still wants to nail on screen, reports The actress added: "A good eating scene should be on my bucket list of stuff I haven't nailed. It's like skinny-dipping or something, like one of those things you know that you haven't done." Despite a filmography boasting of numerous filmmakers over several decades in Hollywood, Thurman previously revealed she was "very nervous" about her role in 2024 drama Oh, Canada! Speaking during a Q+A session at the New York Film Festival in 2024, she said: "I mean, Paul Schrader! I'm a really big fan of Paul Schrader. So to get to contribute, to lend myself to his piece, and get to see him working was a real, real privilege. I was very nervous to meet him, you know, this macho filmmaker [who] made these legendary films." --IANS dc/
Perth Now
18-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Perth Now
Uma Thurman reveals biggest fear on film sets
Uma Thurman has a fear of eating on camera. The Kill Bill star is a veteran of Hollywood, but she admitted the idea of consuming food on set is something she still gets nervous about. She told the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon: "First of all, you have to do lots of takes. 'Second of all, you don't pick what's on the menu, and you have to speak sometimes and swallow, and then you start to worry about choking because you don't want to be chewing when you say that line.' The 55-year-old star discovered her anxiety after filling out a DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), which brought up the issue. She said: 'Do you know that eating in front of strangers is one of the questions on the DSM? Do you know what the DSM is? "It's like one of these check things that psychiatrists do to find out what your neuroses are.' Uma was determined to be "just fine" after filling out the test, but noted she does get nervous about eating during a scene. However, she thinks a "good eating scene" is one of the main things she still wants to nail on screen. She added: 'A good eating scene should be on my bucket list of stuff I haven't nailed. 'It's like skinny-dipping or something, like one of those things you know that you haven't done.' Despite a storied career working with numerous filmmakers over several decades in Hollywood, Uma previously revealed she was "very nervous" about her role in 2024 drama Oh, Canada! Speaking during a Q+A session at the New York Film Festival in 2024, she said: 'I mean, Paul Schrader! "I'm a really big fan of Paul Schrader. So to get to contribute, to lend myself to his piece, and get to see him working was a real, real privilege. 'I was very nervous to meet him, you know, this macho filmmaker [who] made these legendary films.'
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Paul Schrader Responds to Sexual Assault Allegation In Open Letter: ‘I Have Nothing to Hide About My Conduct'
Paul Schrader has written a letter to his friends and associates responding to sexual assault allegations posed by his 26-year-old former assistant, claiming her accusations couldn't be 'further from the truth.' On April 3, Schrader's former assistant, identified as Jane Doe, alleged in a legal filing that the 'Taxi Driver' screenwriter had sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions. One alleged incident occurred shortly after last year's 'Oh, Canada' premiere at the Cannes Film Festival, where she claims Schrader exposed his penis to her in his hotel room. She also claimed that Schrader's lawyer agreed on a monetary settlement after the alleged abuse, but after some 'soul searching,' he pulled out of the deal. The Jane Doe's lawyers then filed a motion in New York state court to enforce the settlement and recoup litigation expenses. More from Variety Paul Schrader Accused of Sexually Harassing Assistant and Reneging on Settlement Paul Schrader Says He Asked ChatGPT for Film Ideas and They Were All 'Original' and 'Fleshed Out': 'Why Should Writers Sit Around for Months' When 'AI Can Provide One in Seconds?' 'Oh, Canada' Trailer: Jacob Elordi Plays Young Richard Gere and Dodges the Vietnam War Draft in Paul Schrader's Cannes Favorite Schrader has since responded to the claims in a letter sent Monday. In it, he writes that it's 'important' for the masses to 'hear from me directly about the subject' to get his side of the accusations, which he claims to be 'false and misleading.' The letter reads, 'Out of the blue, in the fall of last year, a lawyer I had never heard of, representing my former assistant, sent me a letter demanding that I pay my former assistant millions of dollars or she would go public with sensational, false and misleading accusations about our relationship and my conduct via a lawsuit.' He explains that he felt 'legally entitled' to back out of a settlement, which he claims 'would not be effective unless both Plaintiff and I signed it.' Schrader then goes on to detail the most 'physically 'intimate' experiences' he shared with his former assistant, claiming they shared 'two kisses on the lips.' He stressed that they 'never had sex in any form.' 'The first kiss was in December 2023 in a New York bar after we had both been drinking. She continued working actively with me thereafter. She did not indicate to me that she had been troubled by the kiss, much less that she preferred to change or end our relationship,' Schrader wrote. 'The second kiss took place in May 2024 at Cannes where she had accompanied me for the premiere of my most recent film. Once again, after we had been drinking together, I kissed her. This time she indicated displeasure. I never attempted to kiss her again and I also apologized. Even after Cannes, Plaintiff expressed emphatically her desire to continue to work, dine and travel with me.' Schrader ends his letter by saying he understands he will be 'presumed guilty' in the 'current climate' surrounding sexual assault in Hollywood, but remains confident the court would 'see the truth' if he goes to trial. 'I have nothing to hide about my conduct — and that includes my decision not to yield to the pressure of my former assistant's threat to make her sensational allegations public, a threat that she and her lawyers have now executed,' Schrader wrote. 'If this case ever makes it to trial, I will be honest with the judge and jury who I am confident will see the truth.' Read the full letter below. You may have read that my former assistant filed a lawsuit making some allegations about me. I am writing because you are important to me and I want you to hear from me directly about this subject. Out of the blue, in the fall of last year, a lawyer I had never heard of, representing my former assistant, sent me a letter demanding that I pay my former assistant millions of dollars or she would go public with sensational, false and misleading accusations about our relationship and my conduct via a lawsuit. I understood that the mere assertion of such accusations would be damaging and hurtful. As a result, I nearly committed to settling the claims by paying a small fraction of the amount that had been initially demanded to avoid the hurt and harm that the publicity surrounding a lawsuit with these kinds of false and misleading accusations would cause, to say nothing of the cost of litigation. Upon reflection, I changed my mind, which I believe I was legally entitled to do, and declined to sign the written settlement agreement the lawyers had prepared. I refused to bow to the coercion created by what I regard as unwarranted and opportunistic claims and resolved to defend myself. Plaintiff has now filed suit, apparently hoping against hope for a quick money grab. She hasn't sued for sexual harassment; she has sued to enforce against me the settlement agreement I declined to sign—even though the agreement says clearly that it would not be effective unless both Plaintiff and I signed it. Although her lawsuit is for breach of the settlement agreement draft, it gratuitously includes some of the sensational, false, and misleading accusations that were contained in her demand letter. I am not a mind reader, but I believe that the accusations were included as a tactic—to bully me into writing a check. If that is their plan, it will not succeed. The lawsuit labors to create a false impression about my character and my interactions with her. It also rewrites history, in a desperate attempt to transform our relationship of more than three years, which consisted of Plaintiff's diligent work and very willing non-sexual companionship, into something unwelcome, coercive and odious to her. Nothing could be further from the truth. To be absolutely clear: I never had sex in any form with Plaintiff. Nor did I ever attempt such a thing—period. I never exposed myself to Plaintiff—at any time. Our most physically 'intimate' experiences together consisted of two kisses on the lips, which occurred months apart. We also often kissed one another on the cheek in gestures of greeting and farewell. The first kiss was in December 2023 in a New York bar after we had both been drinking. She continued working actively with me thereafter. She did not indicate to me that she had been troubled by the kiss, much less that she preferred to change or end our relationship. She even co-wrote a script with me after this kiss. The second kiss took place in May 2024 at Cannes where she had accompanied me for the premiere of my most recent film. Once again, after we had been drinking together, I kissed her. This time she indicated displeasure. I never attempted to kiss her again and I also apologized. Even after Cannes, Plaintiff expressed emphatically her desire to continue to work, dine and travel with me. She also expressed her desire to work with me on my next film, which was scheduled for production last fall. Finally, she participated in an interview and voluntarily made personal social media posts in which she chose to praise me. Plaintiff was my Production Assistant from June 2021 until September 2024. During our more than three years of work together, she eagerly accompanied me to numerous work and social events as my guest. These events included small, private dinners with prominent celebrities in the entertainment industry. We also dined together in restaurants, drank together in bars, visited museums, and attended concerts, plays and film festivals. She never expressed any reluctance to attend these events or to join me in these one-on-one activities. If she was unhappy to participate in these activities, she didn't show or mention it. On the contrary, she repeatedly expressed to me enthusiasm about her participation. Her lawsuit tries to paint a very different picture—one that isn't true. It is more than a little revealing that, throughout her employment, Plaintiff chose on her own to make flattering social media remarks about me, emphasizing her belief in my talent and her delight in my mentorship. I think it is at least as revealing that a number of her social media posts have been deleted since she engaged counsel and asserted her claims. The deletions include her reference to me as 'my man'. In the summer of 2024, having completed my most recent film, I had no need for a full-time assistant. Plaintiff was living in Arizona then, caring for her ailing grandfather, who subsequently passed away. Rather than eliminating her position, I reduced her compensation by approximately 50% even though she was not doing much work for me. I hoped that she would return to full-time work in the not-too-distant future when my next contemplated film project would create a need for an assistant. I also emphasized to her that if she was ready to move on in her career, she should do so and would have my unqualified encouragement. Within a few months of this reduction in pay, I heard for the first time about the grievances detailed in the demand letter, which have been partially published in the lawsuit papers. I understand that in the current climate a defendant accused of sexual harassment is often presumed guilty in the court of public opinion without the fairness of due process– unless and until the defendant proves his or her innocence. But that presumption is not always true. It is not true in this case. I have nothing to hide about my conduct— and that includes my decision not to yield to the pressure of my former assistant's threat to make her sensational allegations public, a threat that she and her lawyers have now executed. If this case ever makes it to trial, I will be honest with the judge and jury who I am confident will see the truth. Best of Variety New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week What's Coming to Disney+ in April 2025 The Best Celebrity Memoirs to Read This Year: From Chelsea Handler to Anthony Hopkins
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Paul Schrader Details Kissing Former Assistant in Letter Addressing Sexual Harassment Lawsuit: ‘I Have Nothing to Hide'
Paul Schrader continued mounting his defense Monday against a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by his former assistant last week, detailing in a written appeal to friends and family two instances where he kissed the young woman on the mouth. He maintained that they 'never had sex in any form' and that he never exposed himself to her in a Cannes hotel room, as she claimed in her Thursday filing. 'I have nothing to hide about my conduct — and that includes my decision not to yield to the pressure of my former assistant's threat to make her sensational allegations public, a threat that she and her lawyers have now executed,' Schrader wrote in the letter, obtained and reviewed by TheWrap. 'If this case ever makes it to trial, I will be honest with the judge and jury who I am confident will see the truth.' The 'Taxi Driver' screenwriter, 78, slammed the 26-year-old woman and her allegations as a 'quick money grab' in an attempt to have him pay out a settlement she claims he reneged on in February. He says he never signed the settlement agreement when she first made her allegations last year, despite knowing that doing so would have kept the them confidential. 'I understood that the mere assertion of such accusations would be damaging and hurtful. As a result, I nearly committed to settling the claims by paying a small fraction of the amount that had been initially demanded to avoid the hurt and harm that the publicity surrounding a lawsuit with these kinds of false and misleading accusations would cause, to say nothing of the cost of litigation,' he explained. 'Upon reflection, I changed my mind, which I believe I was legally entitled to do, and declined to sign the written settlement agreement the lawyers had prepared. I refused to bow to the coercion created by what I regard as unwarranted and opportunistic claims and resolved to defend myself.' Elsewhere in the letter, Schrader detailed the two instances he and the assistant kissed on the mouth, both after nights of drinking. The first instance was in December 2023 in New York City. Schrader wrote that 'she did not indicate to me that she had been troubled by the kiss' and continued working with him. The second instance was at the 2024 Cannes Film Festival. 'Once again, after we had been drinking together, I kissed her. This time she indicated displeasure. I never attempted to kiss her again and I also apologized,' Schrader wrote. 'Even after Cannes, Plaintiff expressed emphatically her desire to continue to work, dine and travel with me. She also expressed her desire to work with me on my next film, which was scheduled for production last fall. Finally, she participated in an interview and voluntarily made personal social media posts in which she chose to praise me.' Thursday's lawsuit, Schrader said, is an attempt to 'enforce against me the settlement agreement I declined to sign — even though the agreement says clearly that it would not be effective unless both Plaintiff and I signed it.' Terms of the agreement, which included monetary payment to the former assistant, were not disclosed in court documents or Schrader's letter. Of the lawsuit, the woman's lawyer Gregory Chiarello wrote last week, 'This is an open-and-shut settlement enforcement matter.' Schrader's lawyer Philip J. Kessler echoed the filmmaker, arguing the claims against his client 'desperate, opportunistic and frivolous.' 'We absolutely deny that there was ever a sexual relationship of any kind between Mr. Schrader and his former assistant, and we deny that Mr. Schrader ever made an attempt to have a sexual relationship of any kind with his former assistant,' Kessler said. Read Schrader's letter in full below: You may have read that my former assistant filed a lawsuit making some allegations about me. I am writing because you are important to me and I want you to hear from me directly about this subject. Out of the blue, in the fall of last year, a lawyer I had never heard of, representing my former assistant, sent me a letter demanding that I pay my former assistant millions of dollars or she would go public with sensational, false and misleading accusations about our relationship and my conduct via a lawsuit. I understood that the mere assertion of such accusations would be damaging and hurtful. As a result, I nearly committed to settling the claims by paying a small fraction of the amount that had been initially demanded to avoid the hurt and harm that the publicity surrounding a lawsuit with these kinds of false and misleading accusations would cause, to say nothing of the cost of litigation. Upon reflection, I changed my mind, which I believe I was legally entitled to do, and declined to sign the written settlement agreement the lawyers had prepared. I refused to bow to the coercion created by what I regard as unwarranted and opportunistic claims and resolved to defend myself. Plaintiff has now filed suit, apparently hoping against hope for a quick money grab. She hasn't sued for sexual harassment; she has sued to enforce against me the settlement agreement I declined to sign—even though the agreement says clearly that it would not be effective unless both Plaintiff and I signed it. Although her lawsuit is for breach of the settlement agreement draft, it gratuitously includes some of the sensational, false, and misleading accusations that were contained in her demand letter. I am not a mind reader, but I believe that the accusations were included as a tactic—to bully me into writing a check. If that is their plan, it will not succeed. The lawsuit labors to create a false impression about my character and my interactions with her. It also rewrites history, in a desperate attempt to transform our relationship of more than three years, which consisted of Plaintiff's diligent work and very willing non-sexual companionship, into something unwelcome, coercive and odious to her. Nothing could be further from the truth. To be absolutely clear: I never had sex in any form with Plaintiff. Nor did I ever attempt such a thing—period. I never exposed myself to Plaintiff—at any time. Our most physically 'intimate' experiences together consisted of two kisses on the lips, which occurred months apart. We also often kissed one another on the cheek in gestures of greeting and farewell. The first kiss was in December 2023 in a New York bar after we had both been drinking. She continued working actively with me thereafter. She did not indicate to me that she had been troubled by the kiss, much less that she preferred to change or end our relationship. She even co-wrote a script with me after this kiss. The second kiss took place in May 2024 at Cannes where she had accompanied me for the premiere of my most recent film. Once again, after we had been drinking together, I kissed her. This time she indicated displeasure. I never attempted to kiss her again and I also apologized. Even after Cannes, Plaintiff expressed emphatically her desire to continue to work, dine and travel with me. She also expressed her desire to work with me on my next film, which was scheduled for production last fall. Finally, she participated in an interview and voluntarily made personal social media posts in which she chose to praise me. Plaintiff was my Production Assistant from June 2021 until September 2024. During our more than three years of work together, she eagerly accompanied me to numerous work and social events as my guest. These events included small, private dinners with prominent celebrities in the entertainment industry. We also dined together in restaurants, drank together in bars, visited museums, and attended concerts, plays and film festivals. She never expressed any reluctance to attend these events or to join me in these one-on-one activities. If she was unhappy to participate in these activities, she didn't show or mention it. On the contrary, she repeatedly expressed to me enthusiasm about her participation. Her lawsuit tries to paint a very different picture—one that isn't true. It is more than a little revealing that, throughout her employment, Plaintiff chose on her own to make flattering social media remarks about me, emphasizing her belief in my talent and her delight in my mentorship. I think it is at least as revealing that a number of her social media posts have been deleted since she engaged counsel and asserted her claims. The deletions include her reference to me as 'my man'. In the summer of 2024, having completed my most recent film, I had no need for a full-time assistant. Plaintiff was living in Arizona then, caring for her ailing grandfather, who subsequently passed away. Rather than eliminating her position, I reduced her compensation by approximately 50% even though she was not doing much work for me. I hoped that she would return to full-time work in the not-too- distant future when my next contemplated film project would create a need for an assistant. I also emphasized to her that if she was ready to move on in her career, she should do so and would have my unqualified encouragement. Within a few months of this reduction in pay, I heard for the first time about the grievances detailed in the demand letter, which have been partially published in the lawsuit papers. I understand that in the current climate a defendant accused of sexual harassment is often presumed guilty in the court of public opinion without the fairness of due process– unless and until the defendant proves his or her innocence. But that presumption is not always true. It is not true in this case. I have nothing to hide about my conduct— and that includes my decision not to yield to the pressure of my former assistant's threat to make her sensational allegations public, a threat that she and her lawyers have now executed. If this case ever makes it to trial, I will be honest with the judge and jury who I am confident will see the truth. More to come … The post Paul Schrader Details Kissing Former Assistant in Letter Addressing Sexual Harassment Lawsuit: 'I Have Nothing to Hide' appeared first on TheWrap.
