Latest news with #WilliamGoldman
Irish Times
12-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Irish Times
I got a text saying, would I like to meet The Rest Is History podcasters? Would I what?
It was the screenwriter William Goldman who coined the phrase 'nobody knows anything' about Hollywood. By that he meant that nobody in the film industry, not directors, actors, publicists or executives, knows definitively what will make a box office success. Nobody in the podcasting business either, least of all presenters Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook, envisaged The Rest is History becoming one of the most popular English-language podcasts in the world. What started as a lockdown project for the pair in 2020 had within two years become the most popular podcast on Apple and now has tens of millions of listeners worldwide. I am one of them. I read countless history books before I started writing them. I find the past a lot more interesting than the present because the stakes seemed so much higher. People's lives were nasty, brutish and short, to quote Thomas Hobbes. Wars, famines, pestilence, plagues and the capricious demands of rulers makes the past eternally fascinating. The Rest is History quickly became the soundtrack to my free time. READ MORE I first met the two presenters on May 17th, 2023. I remember the date because it was 49th anniversary of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings, which I was covering for The Irish Times. I got a text from fellow history buff Fianna Fáil MEP Barry Andrews – would I like to meet them? Would I what? During lunch they mentioned that they would like to have me on the show to speak about my book, Great Hatred: The Assassination of Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson MP . I thought they were just being polite, but they were serious. The hosts invited me to record two episodes, one on the shooting incorporating the build-up to the Civil War and a second on the war itself and, in particular, the death of Michael Collins. Michael Collins: The Rest is History team were particularly interested in his death. Photograph: Getty Images So on one of those beautiful days this May we set up to record in a room on the top floor of the Four Courts. The venue was chosen as it was there that the Civil War effectively began on June 28th, 1922, when the Free State army shelled the anti-Treaty garrison which had been holed up inside the building since the previous April. Holland and Sandbrook are serious historians. Holland is a classical scholar. His book, Dominion , published in 2019, about how Christianity has influenced the western world, is one of my favourite books. His translation of Suetonius's Lives of the Caesars was a top-10 bestseller in Britain. [ The Rest is History: Scholarship with a light touch Opens in new window ] Sandbrook is a prolific historian of the modern period and has written many books on Britain and the United States which combine great storytelling and scholarship. They have serious credentials, but they don't take themselves seriously. This, I believe, is why their reach extends far beyond people who consider themseves 'interested in history'. Sandbrook is married to a Cork woman, Catherine Morley, who is a professor of English in the University of Leicester; Holland is an avid Joycean. After we recorded our episodes, I took him across the river Liffey to see the lamentable state of 15 Usher's Island, the house where Joyce's short story The Dead is set. [ House Private – Frank McNally on the apparent occupation of 15 Usher's Island Opens in new window ] Their interest in Irish history is genuine and important, given how much the past relationships between Britain and Ireland informs the present day. The quality of their output is matched by the quantity – almost 600 episodes and counting. They do all their own research, often reading two to three books on a particular topic a week. They are ably assisted by their team, with producer Theo Young-Smith and assistant producer Tabby Syrett and others keeping the show on the road and the social media beast fed. Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook, presenters of the popular podcast The Rest Is History. Photograph: Nick Bradshaw They are also great fun to be around. They love what they are doing. Fortunately, so do millions of listeners around the world. Most of history is the stories we tell each other about the past. We retain the same hunger for stories as our ancestors who sat around firesides memorising tales of their ancestors for future generations. Only the means of communication has changed. The story of how Reggie Dunne and Joe O'Sullivan, two British-born veterans of the first World War turned Irish nationalists, assassinated the former head of the British army, an Irish-born British imperialist, on the streets of London is an extraordinary one. I should know – I spent a year and a half writing a book about it. The fact that one of the assassins , O'Sullivan, had a wooden leg is a detail a fiction editor would have dismissed as implausible. The presenters of The Rest is History are masterful storytellers. They have an eye for the telling detail that elevates the narrative. When Henry Wilson was a young officer in Burma he was slashed across the face in a fight, crushing his right eye socket. He was never the most handsome man to start with. When a letter was sent to the 'ugliest man in the British army' care of a Belfast barracks and its intended destination was him, Wilson delighted in the anecdote for the rest of his life. [ 'A lot of history is a very, very dark comedy in which people behave quite badly' Opens in new window ] Of course, Tom Holland picked up on that fact at the beginning of the podcast. I thought I knew my own book, but I was startled when he mentioned that Joe O'Sullivan and David Beckham had something in common. They both had a girlfriend called 'Posh'. I did recall, as he did, that O'Sullivan smuggled .303 ammunition in his wooden leg when he went to Ireland during the War of Independence – another implausible fact. The two Rest Is History episodes I appeared in followed four that featured Professor Paul Rouse, who has been an inspired choice to bring listeners through the complications of the War of Independence. The Rest is History is available on all podcast platforms. Great Hatred: The Assassination of Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson MP by Ronan McGreevy is publis hed by F aber
Local France
11-06-2025
- Business
- Local France
OPINION: Give up the search for loopholes - French bureaucracy always wins
To egregiously butcher William Goldman's classic line - 'There are no French admin loopholes, Highness, anyone who says differently is selling something'. France's complex admin means that foreign residents and future arrivals are often left looking for shortcuts, easy options and loopholes - an entirely understandable reaction when you consider the bureaucratic pain that France enjoys inflicting on its inhabitants. It's also a famously high tax country, which means that plenty of people are on the lookout for, shall we say, more forgiving tax arrangements. This one is perhaps less understandable - especially if it comes in the next breath after raptures of delight over France's excellent public services - but it's always going to be human nature to try. The thing is - there really are very few genuine loopholes when it comes to French residency and taxes, especially when it comes to non-EU nationals who come within the visa/residency card system. Advertisement Sure, you might think you've found a loophole - but these almost always end up causing you more problems down the line, especially if your goal is to make France your home. When it comes to people who just want to be here for a couple of years there is a little more wriggle room - but for those who intend to stay in France and will therefore eventually be seeking long-term residency and perhaps even citizenship, trying to exploit a loophole is almost always going to cause you further administrative pain in the future. In my experience the people who genuinely set out to cheat the French system are few and far between - a much more common scenario is people who have simply been given bad advice about a shortcut or loophole that they could take advantage of. At The Local we often get emails from readers who are experiencing problems with French systems - and the people stuck in the worst tangles are almost always those who have at one point been given bad advice. Here are some examples; The 80-year-old lady who had been breezily assured that there was no need for her to do a tax declaration in France, and is now living in fear of fines from the tax office for having failed to make the required annual déclaration des revenus . The British second-home owner who had been advised to get a post-Brexit carte de séjour as a way to 'cheat' the 90 day rule and now finds themselves required to make a French tax declaration and re-register their cars. The American tech worker who had been advised to get the 'more straightforward' visitor visa and then simply swap it for a working visa once they arrived and now finds themselves unable to work for months on end while the request to switch statuses is considered, rejected and appealed. Because France is a popular destination to move to, attracting all groups from retirees to young families, students to workers, a whole industry has grown up around giving advice on navigating the French immigration and tax system. Advertisement There's an entire sector of 'relocation experts', 'hand-holders' or 'concierge services' which specialise in helping foreigners to move to France. Many of these services are great and offer sound advice and insight based on experience with French systems. The good ones should also explain future ramifications of your decisions. However, some give wildly differing advice and it's not always easy to know who is right and who to trust. There's no doubt some of these services can be very helpful when it comes to finding a place to live and setting up services like utilities - I used one when I first moved and they were worth every centime in helping to navigate the notoriously tricky Paris rental market. However, if emails from readers are anything to go by, there also seems to be an increasing trend of these services offering legal advice on issues such as residency, visas and tax status. Advertisement While many are very knowledgeable and diligent with their guidance, the reality is this sector is completely unregulated - meaning that you have absolutely no comeback if you are given incorrect advice. More importantly, you will be then one then left struggling to deal with your irregular residency or tax status while the hand-holder has banked the cheque and moved on. Take this one email we received from an American reader who wanted to warn others of the "pain and damage" one expat visa adviser caused them. He said: "We contacted a well-known expat who is regarded as an expert in visa related issues in France. "We paid them €5,000 to organise a passport talent visa. At first, all was fine, but they soon stopped responding to our emails. To make matters worse, they barely did any work for us. "It turned out that there are dozens of fellow expats in the same position." Advertisement So what can people do? The standard advice is to talk to a lawyer for anything related to residency, and an accountant for tax advice. But even here there are caveats - first you need to ensure that your expert is qualified and registered in both France and your home country, and that they specialise in advising expats/immigrants. Second is that you need to speak to both - a lawyer will undoubtedly give you good advice about visas, but will that leave you with tax problems? The lawyer might not flag that up, because its not their area of expertise, but that doesn't mean there won't be problems. And vice versa, your accountant's advice might be perfectly sound when it comes to tax but it might screw up your residency. It's also well worth speaking to several experts, especially if your personal situation is complicated or you're trying to do something slightly out of the usual run of things. When it comes to tricky issues like remote work while on a visitor visa , different lawyers will tell you different things. It's tempting to go with the one who tells you what you want to hear, but it's a better idea in the long run to get several viewpoints on a situation. Even though you do have more recourse if you get bad advice from a lawyer or accountant , it's ultimately you who will have to deal with any ensuing problems with French admin. If you find yourself in breach of the rules, saying 'my lawyer said it would be OK' is unfortunately no defence at all. Remember also that getting your French visa is only the first step - ask questions about what happens next; will you be able to renew it or obtain your carte de séjour easily? Will you be able to get long-term residency one day? What will your plans mean for your tax status? Will your chosen path make it difficult for you to get French citizenship one day? The French residency card and tax systems are designed to be used by individuals; beware of anyone suggesting that you will need a lawyer or accountant for every renewal/annual tax declaration - they're either just trawling for business or they're setting up a residency or tax status so complicated that you'll be forced to pay for professional advice for every dealing with French admin. And above all, remember the old saying - "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is". If there truly were a quick and easy shortcut to long-term French residency with no taxes, then everyone would be using it - we're not handing over a third of our monthly income and spending hours in a queue at the préfecture because we find this a fun hobby. It's because we have learned the greater truths - French admin always wins; there are no loopholes; liberté, égalité, bureaucratié . You can find more information on all things residency and tax related in our Moving to France section. Feel free to share your experiences in the comments section below
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Hiltzik: Most of what you've heard about the stock market's gyrations is wrong, probably
With the stock market experiencing gyrations that haven't been seen in, well, months, investors are fretting about the future of their portfolios and the prospects of a recession triggered by Donald Trump's will-he-or-won't-he follow through with his tariff threats. This isn't the place to come for advice on how to trade the stock market. When I scan the market prognostications coming to me via email and the investment websites I regularly visit, I find that they fall into two equally balanced categories: Those counseling, "Don't worry, be happy"; and those forecasting a cataclysmic crash, or at least a recession bulking large on the horizon. Since that's what I usually hear whether the market is on a bull tear or a slump, I am reminded of the observation that William Goldman, the Oscar-winning screenwriter of "The Princess Bride" and "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," made about Hollywood: "Nobody knows anything." Sell down to the sleeping point. J.P. Morgan's advice to a friend who said he was so nervous about his stocks that he couldn't sleep at night That said, it may be useful to place the most recent stock market action in perspective. We can start with volatility of recent days and weeks. On Monday, Mar. 10, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 890 points, or 2.8%; the broader Standard & Poor's 500 index fell by 2.7% and the Nasdaq composite index, which tracks tech stocks, fell 4%. The day before, Trump had refused to rule out that his economic policies might produce a recession. The market's sentiment was sour all week. On Thursday, the S&P 500 entered "correction" territory — a 10% drop from its recent high, which in this case had been recorded Feb. 19. The pullback inspired some market commentators to dust off an antique market indicator known as the Dow Theory. That indicator posits that any move in the Dow Industrials must be matched by a similar move in the Dow transportation index. Both were falling last week, "deepening fears of a broader market correction," wrote James Gordon of the Daily Mail. Yet whether the Dow Theory is relevant to today's economy is questionable. It was coined at the turn of the last century, when industrial output was in heavy machinery and physical goods that had to be shipped by the railroad companies dominating the transportation sector. Today, more than one-third of the 30 companies in the Dow industrials deal in finance, insurance or high-tech and don't make products that need to be physically transported. Read more: Hiltzik: Bitcoin, NFTs, SPACs, meme stocks — all those pandemic investment darlings are crashing In any event, Friday brought a relief rally, with the Dow rising 674.62 points, or 1.7%, the S&P 500 rising 2.1% and the Nasdaq rising 2.6%. That wasn't enough to erase the full week's losses, but it was followed by another surge Monday, when the Dow rose by 353.44 points, or 0.85%, the S&P by 0.64% and the Nasdaq by 0.31%. None of this means that the downdraft that has pared the Dow by 1.65%, the S&P by 3.5% and the Nasdaq by 7.8% so far this year won't resume or get worse. But it points to the inadequacy of tracking the stock market by short-term moves. Market commentators typically advise investors to hang tough during periods of volatility like this one. That has been sound advice historically, though isn't equally sound for everyone. It works better for those with more distant horizons, such as households at the start of or midway into their earning years, which have more time to capture the long-term growth in stock prices and to recover from the inevitable periodic downturns. For those in or near retirement, the environment may look more worrisome. A 65-year-old who was counting on a stock portfolio to see him or her into an impending retirement in 2023 had to confront a stock market pullback of nearly one-fifth in 2022 — enough to force many such households to reconsider their retirement options. Politicians who try to reassure voters and investors about a market downturn often sound as though they're sugarcoating the downside of their own policies, but that doesn't always mean they're wrong. Trump's Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, walked into that buzzsaw Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," when he declared, "Corrections are healthy. They're normal. What's not healthy is straight up, that you get these euphoric markets. That's how you get a financial crisis." Axios reported that with these remarks, Bessent, a veteran Wall Street executive, "broke with orthodoxy." Actually, his view of corrections was entirely consistent with Wall Street orthodoxy. His implication that "euphoric markets" invariably produce financial crises, however, is questionable — markets can sustain their euphoria for years without provoking anything like a crisis. Former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan warned of the stock market's "irrational exuberance" in 1996, but even despite the pricking of the dot-com bubble in 2000, a financial crisis didn't occur until 2008, a full 12 years after Greenspan's remark — and it was triggered by an overheated housing market, not the stock market. Anyway, Bessent's remark has been viewed as a tone-deaf defense of Trump's unpopular economic policies. Read more: Hiltzik: Millions of Americans are fixated on stock prices. They shouldn't pay such close attention The same phenomenon greeted President Nixon's declaration in May 1970 that "if I had any money I'd be buying stocks right now.' Coming as it did in the teeth of a 17-month bear market (the longest and steepest since World War II) and during a recession that had started the previous December, it looked as if he was trying to rescue his reputation as a steward of the U.S. economy. But he was prescient: The market turned in positive returns in seven of the next 10 years, and embarked on a record-breaking bull run that may not yet have run its course. As I wrote recently, a propos of whether White House insiders might be playing the market by front-running Trump's announcements his plans to impose, or withdraw, tariffs, it's dangerous to attribute stock market moves to news developments. That may be true especially given Trump's tendency to announce policies that don't get implemented. My favorite stock market commentator, asset manager Barry Ritholtz, urges his followers to "tune out the noise, turn off the TV, and avoid the trolling, wild gesticulations, and chaos" produced by Trump. "Instead, focus on what is truly happening." The tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods are a moving target, and mostly haven't been implemented, Ritholtz points out. Elon Musk's claims for mass layoffs and sharp budget cutting by his DOGE operation have been wildly overstated. Among the policies likeliest to actually happen, in Ritholz's view, are an extension of the tax cuts Trump signed in 2017, which favored corporations and the wealthy, and a Federal Trade Commission that looks kindlier on big mergers than did Biden's FTC. It's fair to expect that Trump's policies will have an effect on economic growth, including in California. A favorite insight by economists and business leaders is that what he's done so far is inject "uncertainty" into economic planning. Read more: Hiltzik: GameStop isn't the first stock market mania, and it won't be the last Of course, the future is always uncertain. Back in 2010, when Republicans complained that the "uncertainty" produced by Barack Obama's developing plans for tax, healthcare and financial reforms had business leaders sheltering in terror under their beds, I observed that the U.S. spent three decades facing the threat of nuclear annihilation from the Soviet Union. That was uncertainty, and it hovered over the most prosperous period in our history. We may be at the peak uncertainty stage of the current Trump term. Referring to the dithering over tariffs, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce quotes a member fretting that 'the threats and uncertainty have made it hard to make business decisions." Earlier this month, Clement Bohr of the UCLA Anderson economic forecast noted that "at this level of uncertainty, firms stop hiring. They're going to wait it out." That suggests that the waiting period will last only until the picture of Trump's policies becomes clearer (assuming that it will in time). The stock market, after all, is a mechanism to gauge future expectations. No one can be sure, however, how far it is looking ahead — only that it generally looks further ahead than tomorrow. Almost everyone with a stock or bond portfolio has a different mental picture of what they want to accomplish with their investments, if not how to get there. How much risk are you willing to take? What do you want the money for? How long is your investment horizon? J.P. Morgan was impatient with acquaintances who wished to compress all these considerations into a single all-purpose maxim. Told by a friend that he was so worried about his stocks that he couldn't sleep at night. He asked, what should he do? Morgan's reply may be apocryphal, but it encompasses the truism that investors should divorce their emotional response to the markets from the cold analysis that should underlie investment decisions, if possible. According to the story, Morgan replied, "Sell down to the sleeping point." Get the latest from Michael HiltzikCommentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize me up. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times. Sign in to access your portfolio
Los Angeles Times
18-03-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Most of what you've heard about the stock market's gyrations is wrong, probably
With the stock market experiencing gyrations that haven't been seen in, well, months, investors are fretting about the future of their portfolios and the prospects of a recession triggered by Donald Trump's will-he-or-won't-he follow through with his tariff threats. This isn't the place to come for advice on how to trade the stock market. When I scan the market prognostications coming to me via email and the investment websites I regularly visit, I find that they fall into two equally balanced categories: Those counseling, 'Don't worry, be happy'; and those forecasting a cataclysmic crash, or at least a recession bulking large on the horizon. Since that's what I usually hear whether the market is on a bull tear or a slump, I am reminded of the observation that William Goldman, the Oscar-winning screenwriter of 'The Princess Bride' and 'Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,' made about Hollywood: 'Nobody knows anything.' That said, it may be useful to place the most recent stock market action in perspective. We can start with volatility of recent days and weeks. On Monday, Mar. 10, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 890 points, or 2.8%; the broader Standard & Poor's 500 index fell by 2.7% and the Nasdaq composite index, which tracks tech stocks, fell 4%. The day before, Trump had refused to rule out that his economic policies might produce a recession. The market's sentiment was sour all week. On Thursday, the S&P 500 entered 'correction' territory — a 10% drop from its recent high, which in this case had been recorded Feb. 19. The pullback inspired some market commentators to dust off an antique market indicator known as the Dow Theory. That indicator posits that any move in the Dow Industrials must be matched by a similar move in the Dow transportation index. Both were falling last week, 'deepening fears of a broader market correction,' wrote James Gordon of the Daily Mail. Yet whether the Dow Theory is relevant to today's economy is questionable. It was coined at the turn of the last century, when industrial output was in heavy machinery and physical goods that had to be shipped by the railroad companies dominating the transportation sector. Today, more than one-third of the 30 companies in the Dow industrials deal in finance, insurance or high-tech and don't make products that need to be physically transported. In any event, Friday brought a relief rally, with the Dow rising 674.62 points, or 1.7%, the S&P 500 rising 2.1% and the Nasdaq rising 2.6%. That wasn't enough to erase the full week's losses, but it was followed by another surge Monday, when the Dow rose by 353.44 points, or 0.85%, the S&P by 0.64% and the Nasdaq by 0.31%. None of this means that the downdraft that has pared the Dow by 1.65%, the S&P by 3.5% and the Nasdaq by 7.8% so far this year won't resume or get worse. But it points to the inadequacy of tracking the stock market by short-term moves. Market commentators typically advise investors to hang tough during periods of volatility like this one. That has been sound advice historically, though isn't equally sound for everyone. It works better for those with more distant horizons, such as households at the start of or midway into their earning years, which have more time to capture the long-term growth in stock prices and to recover from the inevitable periodic downturns. For those in or near retirement, the environment may look more worrisome. A 65-year-old who was counting on a stock portfolio to see him or her into an impending retirement in 2023 had to confront a stock market pullback of nearly one-fifth in 2022 — enough to force many such households to reconsider their retirement options. Politicians who try to reassure voters and investors about a market downturn often sound as though they're sugarcoating the downside of their own policies, but that doesn't always mean they're wrong. Trump's Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, walked into that buzzsaw Sunday on NBC's 'Meet the Press,' when he declared, 'Corrections are healthy. They're normal. What's not healthy is straight up, that you get these euphoric markets. That's how you get a financial crisis.' Axios reported that with these remarks, Bessent, a veteran Wall Street executive, 'broke with orthodoxy.' Actually, his view of corrections was entirely consistent with Wall Street orthodoxy. His implication that 'euphoric markets' invariably produce financial crises, however, is questionable — markets can sustain their euphoria for years without provoking anything like a crisis. Former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan warned of the stock market's 'irrational exuberance' in 1996, but even despite the pricking of the dot-com bubble in 2000, a financial crisis didn't occur until 2008, a full 12 years after Greenspan's remark — and it was triggered by an overheated housing market, not the stock market. Anyway, Bessent's remark has been viewed as a tone-deaf defense of Trump's unpopular economic policies. The same phenomenon greeted President Nixon's declaration in May 1970 that 'if I had any money I'd be buying stocks right now.' Coming as it did in the teeth of a 17-month bear market (the longest and steepest since World War II) and during a recession that had started the previous December, it looked as if he was trying to rescue his reputation as a steward of the U.S. economy. But he was prescient: The market turned in positive returns in seven of the next 10 years, and embarked on a record-breaking bull run that may not yet have run its course. As I wrote recently, a propos of whether White House insiders might be playing the market by front-running Trump's announcements his plans to impose, or withdraw, tariffs, it's dangerous to attribute stock market moves to news developments. That may be true especially given Trump's tendency to announce policies that don't get implemented. My favorite stock market commentator, asset manager Barry Ritholtz, urges his followers to 'tune out the noise, turn off the TV, and avoid the trolling, wild gesticulations, and chaos' produced by Trump. 'Instead, focus on what is truly happening.' The tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods are a moving target, and mostly haven't been implemented, Ritholtz points out. Elon Musk's claims for mass layoffs and sharp budget cutting by his DOGE operation have been wildly overstated. Among the policies likeliest to actually happen, in Ritholz's view, are an extension of the tax cuts Trump signed in 2017, which favored corporations and the wealthy, and a Federal Trade Commission that looks kindlier on big mergers than did Biden's FTC. It's fair to expect that Trump's policies will have an effect on economic growth, including in California. A favorite insight by economists and business leaders is that what he's done so far is inject 'uncertainty' into economic planning. Of course, the future is always uncertain. Back in 2010, when Republicans complained that the 'uncertainty' produced by Barack Obama's developing plans for tax, healthcare and financial reforms had business leaders sheltering in terror under their beds, I observed that the U.S. spent three decades facing the threat of nuclear annihilation from the Soviet Union. That was uncertainty, and it hovered over the most prosperous period in our history. We may be at the peak uncertainty stage of the current Trump term. Referring to the dithering over tariffs, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce quotes a member fretting that 'the threats and uncertainty have made it hard to make business decisions.' Earlier this month, Clement Bohr of the UCLA Anderson economic forecast noted that 'at this level of uncertainty, firms stop hiring. They're going to wait it out.' That suggests that the waiting period will last only until the picture of Trump's policies becomes clearer (assuming that it will in time). The stock market, after all, is a mechanism to gauge future expectations. No one can be sure, however, how far it is looking ahead — only that it generally looks further ahead than tomorrow. Almost everyone with a stock or bond portfolio has a different mental picture of what they want to accomplish with their investments, if not how to get there. How much risk are you willing to take? What do you want the money for? How long is your investment horizon? J.P. Morgan was impatient with acquaintances who wished to compress all these considerations into a single all-purpose maxim. Told by a friend that he was so worried about his stocks that he couldn't sleep at night. He asked, what should he do? Morgan's reply may be apocryphal, but it encompasses the truism that investors should divorce their emotional response to the markets from the cold analysis that should underlie investment decisions, if possible. According to the story, Morgan replied, 'Sell down to the sleeping point.'
Express Tribune
12-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Express Tribune
10 Hilarious Comedy Movies Based on Books
Hollywood's love for book adaptations is undeniable, but when it comes to comedy, things can get tricky. Comedy novels don't always translate well to the big screen, and sometimes filmmakers take creative liberties, turning serious books into laugh-out-loud comedies. Here are 10 hilarious comedy movies based on books that show how well literature can pair with humor: 1. Mrs. Doubtfire (1993) Based on Madame Doubtfire by Anne Fine Robin Williams shines as a divorced father who, in an attempt to spend more time with his kids, disguises himself as an elderly Scottish nanny. This hilarious role reversal plays with heart and humor, but the novel Madame Doubtfire is much darker in tone, dealing with issues of divorce and identity. The film lightens the mood with Williams' iconic charm. 2. The Princess Bride (1987) Based on The Princess Bride by William Goldman A whimsical mix of romance, adventure, and comedy, The Princess Bride has become a cult classic. The novel, by William Goldman, offers a parody of classic fairy tales and is as witty as it is adventurous. The movie adaptation, starring Cary Elwes and Robin Wright, balances action and humor while keeping the quirky spirit of the original book. 3. The Graduate (1967) Based on The Graduate by Charles Webb This film might not seem like your typical comedy, but its dry, satirical tone makes it a classic. The novel centers around a young man's affair with an older woman, which leads to a series of misadventures. The film adaptation, starring Dustin Hoffman, leans into the awkward humor of the situation, bringing a fresh comedic lens to the serious themes of the book. 4. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005) Based on The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams An absurd and wildly imaginative tale, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy follows Arthur Dent as he navigates space after Earth's destruction. Douglas Adams' novel is a hilarious sci-fi adventure, and the film adaptation keeps that wry humor intact, with a quirky cast of characters and offbeat scenarios that are pure comedic gold. 5. Bridget Jones's Diary (2001) Based on Bridget Jones's Diary by Helen Fielding Renée Zellweger plays the loveable, self-deprecating Bridget Jones in this adaptation of Helen Fielding's bestseller. The book's witty exploration of single life and romantic misadventures comes to life on screen with laugh-out-loud moments. The film is full of awkward situations, but at its heart, it's about embracing who you are—no matter how messy life gets. 6. Clueless (1995) Based on Emma by Jane Austen A modern take on Jane Austen's classic novel Emma, Clueless follows Cher Horowitz, a wealthy high school student who fancies herself a matchmaker. The film's humor plays with the themes of social class and romantic misunderstandings, just as the book does, but it's given a fun 90s makeover that keeps things fresh and hilarious. 7. Dr. Strangelove (1964) Based on Red Alert by Peter George Stanley Kubrick's dark comedy Dr. Strangelove turns a serious Cold War thriller into a laugh-out-loud political satire. The novel Red Alert is a tense, realistic portrayal of nuclear war, but Kubrick's adaptation takes a satirical approach, focusing on the absurdity of the situation and the personalities involved, all while delivering a sharp comedic edge. 8. Mean Girls (2004) Based on Queen Bees and Wannabes by Rosalind Wiseman A high school comedy that is still quoted today, Mean Girls is based on Rosalind Wiseman's non-fiction book about teenage girls and the social cliques they form. The film, written by Tina Fey, amplifies the humor by exaggerating the drama of high school life, all while capturing the book's insight into the social dynamics of adolescent girls. 9. Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) Based on Fantastic Mr. Fox by Roald Dahl This stop-motion animation from Wes Anderson brings Roald Dahl's children's book to life in the most whimsical way possible. The story of a clever fox who outwits his animal enemies is filled with quirky humor and heartfelt moments. While the book is shorter and simpler, the film gives it a playful and distinctly Andersonian twist, making it a family comedy masterpiece. 10. Submarine (2010) Based on Submarine by Joe Dunthorne A quirky coming-of-age comedy, Submarine follows 15-year-old Oliver Tate as he navigates the trials of adolescence, relationships, and family. The novel has a dry, witty tone, and the film captures that perfectly, blending offbeat humor with heartfelt moments. It's an exploration of growing up, making mistakes, and finding humor in awkward situations. Whether they're turning a serious novel into a laugh-fest or bringing the humor of a comedy book to life, these adaptations show that literature and comedy make a perfect match. So, next time you're looking for a good laugh, why not check out the book first?
