Category: Culture

  • Camus comes to America

    Camus comes to America

    The 20th-century French writer Albert Camus remains a living author, a permanent contemporary, in a way that the far more dogmatic and ideological Jean-Paul Sartre does not. The latter provided a caricature of “existentialism,” nihilism dressed up as absolute freedom, beholden to no limits and no enduring truths. In contrast, the author of The Stranger and The Plague rejected Sartre’s facile nihilism, as well as his repellant accommodation with murderous messianism, typically conveyed in fashionable leftist nostrums. The more hopeful side of Camus comes through in his recently re-released Travels in the Americas: Notes and Impressions of a New World.

    An entry from his travel notebook from his four-month long trip to New York, the east coast of the US and parts of Canada in the spring and summer of 1946, reveals just how distant Camus had grown from the “official philosophy” of Saint-Germain-des-Près. Indeed, Camus had come to reject completely the cult of ideological revolution inspired by a “messianism” that is indistinguishable from “fanaticism.” This unbeliever, however, refused to reject the sacred tout court. He found himself increasingly attracted to a Greek thinking that was not essentially historical and that affirmed values that “are preexistent.” He forthrightly declared himself “against modern existentialism,” as well as opposed to messianic, totalitarian socialism.

    By then, Camus was well on his way to the recovery of moderation grounded in an appreciation of limits and the firmest rejection of the ideological justification of murder. This recovery would find its finest expression in his 1951 book, L’homme révolté (or The Rebel in English). In the two interview-portraits appended to the volume, one from the New Yorker and the other from the New York Post, Camus expressed his displeasure at being assimilated to the camp of existentialism. He was not content with pessimism as the final word, opting instead for hope grounded in dialogue and respect for human dignity. He freely invoked Plato’s Socrates in that regard in some of his major writings from this period.

    As the noted Camus scholar Alice Kaplan writes in her lucid introduction to the volume, Camus’ “philosophizing” forms only a backdrop, even if an essential one, to these travel notebooks. This is above all “observational writing,” an artful account of choses vues (things seen). In them, we discover the man, as much or more than the thinker – at once curious, excited, witty, ironic and, often, weary. He is always coming down with, or recovering from, flu and fever, with a regularity that is alarming. Although he never acknowledges it even to himself, at least in writing, Camus was dealing with the residues of tuberculosis. This makes the spirit that shines through even more remarkable, and the illness and exhaustion more understandable.

    The second of the two travel notebooks to the Americas in this volume provides a record of Camus’ two-month trip, by ship, from Marseilles to Dakar, then on to Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile, in the summer of 1949. We witness Camus suffering from more serious bouts of illness, fatigue at seeing the “human face” too many times in a concentrated period of time, and from an occasionally deep melancholy whose source is never acknowledged by the author. We learn, however, from Kaplan that in 1948 Camus reignited his love affair with the Spanish actress Maria Casarès after a three-year interruption (this despite the fact that the French writer was married and the father of young twin sons). Camus remained lovestruck until his death in a car crash in 1960, causing no small amount of misery for all involved. This otherwise thoroughly decent man largely exempted affairs of the heart from supervision by his rigorous standards of moral responsibility. In South America in 1949, he “suffers from feelings of isolation and melancholy,” as Kaplan puts it, as a result of his separation from Casarès, and the considerable delays in his mail from her catching up with him.

    As the notebooks richly illustrate, Camus was a master of observation. Even on the ship from Le Havre to New York, Camus describes the varied characters and personalities he meets in a frank, enjoyable, but never biting way. Things are very tight on the SS Oregon, but Camus does not unduly complain. His descriptions of the sea – at times calm, also rough, and more often beautiful – reveal an artist’s power of description and a philosophical poet’s meditations on the natural order of things. Nature remains a powerful standard of judgment for Camus, as well as a source of solace, and a powerful reminder of constancy and change. As Kaplan points out, when the city is “crass,” when people are “indigestible,” Camus turns his contemplative gaze to the sea. He revealingly writes: “I’ve always been able to make peace with things out at sea, and for a moment the infinite solitude does me good, though I can’t help but feel all the world’s tears are rolling atop the sea now.” Torn between commitment and contemplation, the Algerian-born Camus  remained a quintessential child of the Mediterranean.

    Camus shared some of the prejudices of the French intellectual class, including, arguably, an excessive dislike for the bourgeois, the mercantile, the industrial and the utilitarian. He is at first overwhelmed by the vulgarity of New York, and the inhuman character of its skyscrapers. (He wittily observes that, thankfully, human beings do not always look up.) But the city grows on him. He admires its energy, and the gregariousness and generosity of Americans. He makes many friends in the publishing and intellectual worlds, including a crucial one with his longtime publisher, Blanche Knopf. He enjoyed going to a lively bar in the down-and-out Bowery with his friends, and taking strolls with French and American friends alike. He was fully aware of America’s “race problem” but avoided constant moralizing about it. He took to the passion and energy of black music.

    His talk at Columbia University, “The Crisis of Man,” read in French, drew an oversized crowd. It brilliantly sketched his ongoing efforts to move beyond political and philosophical pessimism and negation. Thus, while remaining eminently French-Algerian and European in character and outlook, Camus avoided anything that smacked of fashionable “anti-Americanism.” His moderate and humane libertarian socialism was largely devoid of utopian illusions, and he never gave way to inhuman abstractions. And with the one significant exception, he practiced what he preached.

    Camus was even more famous by the time he travelled to South America in 1949. The Brazil he describes is a half-Western country, racially divided, and with “a framework of modernity” barely covering its searing passions and ideological tensions. Camus meets brilliant and talented poets, strange intellectuals, beautiful and boorish society ladies, and sees the full array of semi-pagan “Black Catholicism” on display. He visits a favela in Rio de Janeiro and is struck by the good will of its inhabitants, as well as their poverty. He witnesses macumbas and hours-long dances where the participants are seemingly possessed. He is exhausted by meeting after meeting and dinner after dinner. He is charmed to find an Afro-Brazilian theater group putting on a version of his play Caligula in a samba hall, but surprised to see this satire of Hitlerite despotism turned into a “sensual, flirtatious dance,” as Alice Kaplan puts it. In the Brazil of 1949, “Hitler is a distant reference.”

    Camus’ visit to Argentina becomes an “unofficial” one to protest a ban on the performance by an Argentinian troupe of one of his plays. During his four-day visit to Chile, its alluring cities and towns crowded between the Andes and the sea, Camus witnesses public unrest over an increase in subway fares (a perennial occurrence in that country) and the outlawing of the Communist party (fully Stalinist at the time, one might add). An exhausted Camus flies back to Paris this time in what he tellingly describes as “a metal box.”

    In Latin America, Camus delivered his powerful text “The Time of Murderers,” published in French that year and a portent of what is to come in L’homme révolté. I recommend that American readers of this fine, inviting book follow up by reading “The Crisis of Man” (1946) and “Time of the Murderers” (1949) in Albert Camus, Speaking Out: Lectures and Speeches, 1937-1958 (Vintage, 2021). There one finds Camus at his wisest, most dignified, and humane, a permanent contemporary.

  • Is Hilma af Klint overrated?

    Is Hilma af Klint overrated?

    At the corner of Manhattan’s Tenth Avenue and 22nd Street, there is a mural by the Brazilian artist Eduardo Kobra. Situated over the landmark Empire Diner, Kobra’s painting reimagines Mount Rushmore as a paean to art stardom or, depending on how one looks at these things, the tragically hip and perpetually overrated. 

    Kobra supplants George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt with the graffiti artists Keith Haring and Jean-Michel Basquiat, the Mexican fabulist Frida Kahlo and the melanin-deprived panjandrum of Pop, Andy Warhol. These cultural icons loom over the crowds supping on blistered shishitos and tuna tartare inside the diner.

    Having walked the dog past Kobra’s mural more times than bears counting, I’ve often wondered when the Swedish painter Hilma af Klint (1862-1944) will join their ranks. Few artists in recent memory have scaled the heights of popular taste quite as rapidly. A 2018 exhibition at the Guggenheim, Hilma af Klint: Paintings for the Future, was a watershed moment – Af Klint’s story keyed into ideological currents held dear by our educated classes, to wit: prescient womanhood, anticapitalism and a denial of rationalism. She was dubbed the real inventor of abstract art.

    You mean to say that a lady painter beat Vassily Kandinsky to the punch as the inventor of abstraction and did so by ignoring the marketplace and conferring with otherworldly entities? Audiences who previously had little taste for nonrepresentational art found themselves entranced by her diagrammatic accumulations of swirls and circles, blips and biomorphs. Frank Lloyd Wright’s rotunda could barely accommodate the crowds. Since then, the af Klint fan base has only grown.

    Should you be curious about an artist who considered herself an “atom in the universe, possessing infinite possibilities,” be advised that the Museum of Modern Art’s exhibition Hilma af Klint: What Stands Behind the Flowers offers a sampling of preparatory works-on-paper. Curated by Jodi Hauptman, the exhibition showcases MOMA’s acquisition of nearly 50 of af Klint’s botanical studies. 

    Af Klint’s family summers were spent at Hanmora, an exclusive manor on an island in Lake Mälaren, a locale where Hilma first had unmediated contact with the natural world. She went on to study at Stockholm’s Royal Academy of Fine Arts, where she proved herself adept at realism – so much so that she earned an income from portrait commissions and landscapes. 

    Historians conjecture that it was the death of her younger sister, Hermine, that prompted af Klint’s interest in Spiritism, but, hey, that stuff was in the air back in the day. The Russian mystic Madame Blavatsky and proud New Jerseyite Henry Steel Olcott cofounded The Theosophical Society, a group that cherry-picked its tenets from philosophical, scientific and occultist beliefs from all over the world. Af Klint joined the society’s Swedish branch and fostered a community of like-minds overseen by a cadre of deities known as The High Masters.

    So much hocus-pocus, right? Still, when the High Masters called, af Klint up-and-answered. Two of the highest among them designated Hilma and only Hilma as the artist capable of creating decorative panels for a devotional space to be erected at some nebulous point in the future. The resulting pictures, collectively titled “The Paintings of the Temple,” are impressive, with their towering scale, sugary colors and bobbing pictographs.

    The MoMA show offers a peek behind the curtain from which the oracle of Stockholm laid out the building blocks of her iconography, but the peek is by no means definitive. The High Masters were a demanding lot. A stress-laden af Klint sought relief from their hectoring by stepping outside the studio and communing with buttercups, horsetails and milkwort – in so many words, the real world.

    “What Stands Behind the Flowers” is a genteel venture that highlights a sensibility rooted in the conventions of scientific illustration. The pieces are fairly uniform in size – typically about 19” x 10” – and delineated in pencil and watercolor with touches of ink and metallic pigment. Each page is dominated by a sizable rendering of botanical example or two and is offset by geometric notations with specific symbolic undercurrents – among them, “Humble longing, peace and harmony” and “Less selfishness/Greater complacency.”

    Racks of magnifying glasses are provided for those museumgoers wanting to glean the details of af Klint’s brushwork, which prove more interesting as examples of painterly shorthand than of botanical exactitude. These drawings are introduced by a group of tightly stylized floral glyphs and back-ended by loose-limbed color studies sorely in need of her lattice-like linearity. 

    A smattering of schematic charts, as well as a vitrine of documentary items (including preserved specimens of plants), punctuate an exhibition that is less an earth-shaking visitation than a diligent feat of scholarship. As such, What Stands Behind the Flowers is likely to leave the uninitiated scratching their heads in equal degrees of admiration and puzzlement.

  • I love Labubu

    I love Labubu

    I don’t recall how it happened. One moment I was a sane member of society, the next I was at an arcade, slotting coin after coin into a claw machine – and on the other side of the glass, taunting me with her feral grin, was the object of my desire: Labubu.

    Labubu is a mischievous, furry elf-monster with bunny-like ears and distinctive sharp teeth. Depending on who you ask, she is either incredibly cute or incredibly creepy. She exists in many forms – most notably as a key-ring collectible plush doll – embodying an ugly-cute aesthetic called kimo-kawaii in Japanese that both unsettles and endears. Her creator, Hong Kong–born and Netherlands-raised Kasing Lung, was inspired by Nordic folklore. “I’ve always been drawn to creatures that live in the space between fantasy and reality – figures that are both familiar and mysterious,” he said.

    Labubu made her debut as a character in Lung’s 2015 picture-book trilogy, The Monsters. In 2019, Lung began collaborating with Pop Mart, China’s largest designer toy company, and in 2023 the latter introduced a key-ring series with each model retailing for about $30. Often, the toys are sold in “blind boxes” that conceal the model you’re buying. In April 2024, the K-pop star Lisa hung a Labubu from her $2,600 purse, setting off a new fashion trend – even Birkin bags have become a medium for flaunting your Labubu. Pop Mart stock has since soared by more than 1,000 percent.

    This summer, the Labubu frenzy reached a fever pitch, fueled by hundreds of thousands of unboxing videos on TikTok, short supply and skyrocketing demand. Gone are the days when buying collectible toys made you an outcast geek; today, it’s your ticket into the coolest club in town – sometimes literally. The Brooklyn Monarch in East Williamsburg has been hosting Labubu raves, attracting hundreds of people dressed head-to-toe in toy-like clothing, Labubus clipped to their belts. In June, a four-foot Labubu figure sold at auction for $150,000. Customers have camped overnight in front of Pop Mart stores to purchase new releases, which sell out within minutes on the Pop Mart app. A new underground market of “Lafufus” – fake Labubus – has emerged to capitalize on the scarcity; they, too, have become a cult favorite despite their defects, which merely amplify the original’s unsettling charm.

    I myself got sucked into the hype by my Instagram algorithm, which for a few weeks nearly exclusively fed me Labubu reels. Some owners dress their Labubus in cute designer outfits. Other Labubu owners even give their Labubus their own mini Labubus. The chain of accessories for the accessory seems endless. They are taken out to events, promenaded, and included in human rituals. My personal favorite: when owners bring their Labubus to church to be blessed by the priest, or to receive a sprinkling of holy water.

    Some online conspiracy theorists see such blessings as necessary: Labubu’s feral grin and quick rise to fame have sparked a theory that she’s demonic. Such fears intuit the darker side of the phenomenon. Pop Mart’s marketing strategy exploits the competitive desire at the heart of consumerism: make it scarce, keep people coming back. The blind-box scheme adds an element of excitement and mystery; if people don’t get the specific Labubu they want, they must go back for more.

    A popular economic explanation for Labubu’s meteoric rise is the “Lipstick Effect.” When larger luxuries such as fancy cars or homes are out of reach – as is the case for many millennials and zoomers – consumers find comfort in purchasing “small luxuries.” Increasingly often, that small luxury is a toy. Labubus are an expression of the dying purchasing power of the middle class.

    They’re also an expression of a wider nostalgia for childhood that is far from unique to Labubu. Adults are increasingly seeking emotional refuge in the aesthetics and comforts of their youth. We can see this broader cultural regression in the adult friendly toy market and in such phenomena as “Disney adults” – grown-ups who fashion much of their identity around loving the company. As of last year, adults are the biggest consumers of toys, surpassing preschoolers for the first time in history. In the first quarter of this year, they spent $1.8 billion in toy sales, making them the fastest-growing age demographic in the market. Like other aestheticized nostalgia objects, Labubu offers a fleeting high, a childish joy, and the feeling of success when you win something rare and desirable.

    It took me three attempts to win my Labubu. Another, ordered through the Pop Mart app the second new stock was dropped, is on its way. I already feel a sense of buyer’s remorse; eventually, the hype will wear off and there’ll be mountains of Labubus in landfills, fitting monuments to modern consumerism: grotesque, adorable and totally unnecessary.

    Still, I can’t help loving them. They are a flash of amusement, something absurd and bright in a world that often feels dull. There’s something refreshing about giving in to the enthusiasm around a useless object that doesn’t pretend to be more than it is. Maybe I will take my Labubus to church and sanctify their uselessness. Maybe I’ll buy a designer handbag worthy enough for them to bedazzle. Or maybe I’ll just keep them on the shelf, grinning back at me – monstrously cute, weirdly disconcerting, a little dose of dopamine to get me through the daily drudgery of life.

  • The Paper is really, really bad

    The Paper is really, really bad

    Making a spin-off of a spin-off is the trickiest task on television, not least because it assumes that the audience is sufficiently fond of the original and the reinvention alike to be happy to go steady with the third round, too. In all fairness, the new workplace-themed sitcom (although on the evidence of this first season, comedy-drama is probably a more accurate designation) The Paper is only a callback to the US The Office, in that its premise is that the same documentary crew that captured the bewildering banality of life at Dunder Mifflin has headed to Toledo, Ohio, there to follow the travails of a once-proud, now-flailing newspaper, the Toledo Truth-Teller.

    This couldn’t be more timely, as newsprint journalism is an increasingly endangered species, and at first glance The Paper should be every bit as compulsive a watch as the earlier show, not least because they both share a creator in Greg Daniels, this time joined by Michael Koman. It also boasts a great cast, led by the ever-excellent Domhnall Gleeson as Ned Sampson, an idealist who manages to fend off accusations of everything from having been #MeToo’d to masquerading as a “proper” editor in his quest to bring integrity and old-fashioned journalistic standards back to Toledo. Gags, superb acting, timeliness, and a holdover from The Office, in the form of Oscar Nunez, reprising his role as Oscar Martinez, Dunder Mifflin’s accountant: what more could you ask for?

    Unfortunately, The Paper proves not to be worth the material that it has been written on. On the evidence of the first few episodes, this is a hugely disappointing, profoundly unfunny and tonally wildly uncertain show that may yet bed in and find its feet, but few viewers are likely to invest the time and effort that such optimism would require. The usually excellent British actor Tim Key is miscast as Ken, a David Brent stand-in, all conspiratorial looks to camera and self-aggrandizing puffery, as the paper’s “business strategist,” i.e. the person who wants to shut down the loss-making organization as quickly as possible. But his performance is a masterclass in subtlety and nuance compared to Sabrina Impacciatore, so good in the second series of The White Lotus, who is diabolically over the top in the role of the paper’s managing editor Esmerelda Grand. (This is not a subtle show.)

    Whether or not you think that the American version of The Office was a comedic masterpiece (or, for that matter, the British original), it cannot be denied that it hit its targets with real vigor, and, in Steve Carell’s Michael Scott, created a larger-than-life character for the ages, a man-baby who was just about human enough to be pitiable but not quite sympathetic, either. Gleeson, always good value, seems stuck in the kind of role that requires him to Do Anguish a lot, to greater or lesser comic effect, but he comes across better than Chelsea Frei’s Mare, the paper’s compositor, who might as well be wearing a T-shirt saying “potential love interest” on it.

    There are some nice-ish gags about AI’s insipid influence on the journalistic industry and Martinez’s reluctance to once again become the butt of the documentary makers, but this isn’t particularly funny. Instead, it falls into the trap of many contemporary comedies, mistaking the ability to stage minute-long situations that might conceivably work OK as stand-alone clips on TikTok for a genuinely inspired series of jokes. Had Daniels and Korman had the courage of their convictions and brought in Tim Robinson in full I Think You Should Leave mode in the lead, this could yet have been an absurdist classic. Unfortunately, on the present evidence, it’s another “what might have been.” A second series has already been commissioned, but it’s likely that its chances of being embraced by an audience are roughly akin to the Toledo Truth-Teller winning the Pulitzer. This paper, alas, probably should have been canned.

  • Is Austin Butler a movie star?

    Is Austin Butler a movie star?

    In the old days of Hollywood, stars and starlets alike were anointed as “It” girls and men. Nobody was ever quite sure what “It” denoted – star quality, sex appeal, charisma, a willingness to sleep with studio executives – but when they were told they had “It,” their careers appeared made, for the present time at least.

    Today, however, with Marvel and superhero films largely making the idea of the movie star irrelevant, the concept of “It” is ever decreasing. I am sure that David Corenswet, this year’s Superman, is a lovely man, but I would struggle to recognize him if I passed him on the street without his Super-costume on. Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt aside, it seems as if the era of the old-school male leading man is past us now. Which in turn, bluntly, means that nobody is going to see the pictures that younger, supposedly hot actors are appearing in.

    While we must wait and see whether Edgar Wright’s new version of The Running Man, with borderline movie star Glen Powell, will be a hit or flop, another leading man has recently appeared in a similarly kinetic picture. When Austin Butler emerged onto screens in Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis, it was one of those rare star-is-born moments that seemed the perfect synthesis of actor, role and vehicle. He was nominated for an Oscar (which he should have won) and since then has capitalized on his success with roles in everything from Dune Part Two and Eddington to the main part in the megabudget series Masters of the Air. Now, he has his first bona fide cinematic lead in Darren Aronofsky’s Caught Stealing, which should, by rights, catapult him into the Hollywood A-list.

    It says a lot for the perverse Aronofsky (the man, lest we forget, who gave us the horrors of Requiem for a Dream and Black Swan) that he should take his handsome leading man and subject him to untold horrors through the relatively brief course of the picture. These horrors include, in no particular order: Butler’s character being beaten so hard that he loses a kidney; following sundry threats, having his face rearranged so often that it begins to look like an abstract work by Picasso (late period); and, perhaps most egregiously of all, being required to sport a deeply unflattering Mohican hairstyle for reasons that become clear while watching the film.

    Butler’s character is a once-promising baseball player turned alcohol-loving bartender who finds himself involved in grim levels of violence after he reluctantly agrees to mind his British punk rocker neighbor’s cat. Various criminals are after something – money – and Butler’s good-natured Hank finds himself, in classic Hitchcockian fashion, becoming the wrong man in a series of vicious pursuits. By the time that a wonderfully deadpan Liev Schrieber and Vincent D’Onofrio turn up as a pair of deeply observant and deeply violent Hasidic Jews, all one can do is surrender to this wild, often horribly unpleasant ride.

    Will it do anything for its young star’s career? It’s hard to say. The character is not wholly sympathetic – the reason for his baseball career being abandoned is that he causes the death of his best friend in a drunken car accident – and Hollywood tends to like its heroes to be square-jawed and masculine. Look at Cruise in Top Gun, Pitt in FI: they are playing Men with a capital M, thoroughly heterosexual archetypes who can save the day and get the (age appropriate) girl with time to spare. Butler may be just as good looking as those two sexagenarians, but there’s an angst and a wryly observant wit to both character and actor that means he probably doesn’t want to be the next standard-issue heartthrob. Lest we forget, this is the man who carried on speaking like Elvis for months after he stopped filming, on the grounds that he could no longer remember what his natural accent sounds like.

    Caught Stealing may not be a masterpiece, or anything close to Aronofsky’s best film. But it is trashy, nasty B-movie fun that channels the spirit of After Hours and The Big Lebowski to entertaining effect, and it proves that Butler might be something even more interesting than the next leading man: he might be the next Jude Law. And that, as anyone who’s followed Law’s remarkably varied and entertaining career, is something worth aiming for.

  • RIP Giorgio Armani

    RIP Giorgio Armani

    When I was younger, I once saw an Armani overcoat in the window of the company’s store in London and vowed that I would do everything I could to buy it. It seemed to me the quintessence of sophistication and style, being a beautifully cut, long, dark coat that flattered its wearer’s body shape and gave them the look of being classy and well-heeled. A year or two later, I was able to buy it in the New Year sales. I remember feeling like a million dollars every time I wore it. Perhaps as a precaution, I even bought another, inferior overcoat for everyday wear, so as to preserve my favorite.

    In any case, I still have that coat, decades later, and I wear it, proudly, on special occasions. So the news of the death of the fashion designer and style guru Giorgio Armani at the age of 91 made me feel more than usually sad, as if I had a personal connection of sorts to the man. I know, of course, that this is just projection on my part, but there are few men who came of age in the Eighties and Nineties who don’t hear the name Armani and immediately associate him with the very epitome of male tailoring. Less flashy and over the top than his rival Versace, classier and more understated than Dolce and Gabbana, Armani has a fair claim to be the most influential designer of the modern day.

    A large part of this, of course, was his work with celebrities and on film. He designed Richard Gere’s ineffably elegant costumes for the cult hit American Gigolo, which launched Gere’s career but also established Armani as the go-to figure for stylish men’s fashion. His work on the 1987 film The Untouchables did him no harm whatsoever in this regard either – gangsters have rarely looked so chic as they died – and he continued to work on pictures as diverse as The Dark Knight and, perhaps inevitably, The Wolf of Wall Street. The latter continued a long association with Martin Scorsese, who even directed the 1990 short Made in Milan about the designer; far from being a puff piece, it stands up as well as any of Scorsese’s longer features.

    Armani was, of course, a hugely wealthy man – a billionaire, probably several times over – who operated his empire with intelligence, discretion and extreme good taste. His company’s existence was not without occasional touches of controversy, such as its continued decision to sell products in Russia after the invasion of Ukraine, and it was an amusing piece of ego massage in 1999 to learn that the Guggenheim Museum’s lavish retrospective of Armani and his work came shortly after a substantial (and undoubtedly welcome) donation from the designer. Still, compared to, say, John Galliano, Armani’s was an existence largely devoid of scandal and excessive intrigue. Even when he revealed in a rare Vanity Fair interview that he was bisexual and that his long-term partner, architect Sergio Galeotti, had died of AIDS in 1985, this did not raise eyebrows. With Armani, unlike many of his peers, the personal life paled in comparison to the work.

    Celebrities, of course, will be mourning him. Russell Crowe, a committed fan of his clothes, posted on X, “Mr Armani has made a deep contribution, to fashion, to design, to popular culture. His energy, vision and finesse has made a mark acknowledged around the globe. I adored him. He was so kind.” There will be countless others who express similar sentiments, some more vividly and articulately than others. But what is vital to remember is that Armani’s clothes bestowed style and elegance upon everyone who bought them, whether they were the multimillionaire A-listers wearing them to premieres and awards ceremonies or those, like me, who saved up to buy one statement item by him. His name and company will, of course, live on, probably as long as clothes are bought and worn, but it seems unlikely – even impossible – that anyone will ever equal his influence and chutzpah in our increasingly unstylish, bland age.

  • In praise of Tony McNamara

    In praise of Tony McNamara

    American audiences did not exactly flock to the Benedict Cumberbatch-Olivia Colman comedy The Roses last weekend, but those who did may have been pleasantly surprised, as well as appalled. Although the publicity and trailers took care to stress that it was the new film from the director of Meet The Parents – and certainly some of the more elaborate set-piece slapstick scenes bear the hallmark of the filmmaker Jay Roach – the true auteur of the picture should be regarded as the screenwriter Tony McNamara, who was previously responsible for the Yorgos Lanthimos collaborations Poor Things and The Favourite, both of which saw his screenplays Oscar-nominated.

    The 58-year-old McNamara is an unlikely late bloomer in Hollywood circles. Although he was reasonably well known in his native Australia, where he wrote and created numerous television series, it was not until he was brought in to rewrite 2018’s The Favourite that he moved into the industry A-list. That screenplay was co-credited to McNamara and the British screenwriter Deborah Davis, but since then he has moved from success to success, honing an inimitable, profanity-heavy form of dialogue that is equal parts Paddy Chayefsky, Aaron Sorkin and Joe Orton. There is no screenwriter today who uses the word “cunt” more eloquently or more amusingly, and indeed its well-deployed use in The Roses by its British stars leads to much of the film’s hilarity, and shock value.

    McNamara currently occupies an interesting place in Hollywood. His work on the surprisingly good Emma Stone/Disney picture Cruella showed that he could come up with biting one-liners that didn’t rely on obscenity for comic effect, but his Lanthimos screenplays and The Roses specialize in the kind of barbed, horribly quotable dialogue that leads audiences to howl with laughter even as they have to double-check with one another that, yes, they did just hear that particular misanthropic utterance flying past, with the speed and deadliness of an arrow.

    His films are exceptionally fine works indeed – even The Roses and Cruella clearly show that he is the maestro at creating dialogue that actors love to spit out at one another – but, for my money, his greatest achievement to date was the truly remarkable Hulu series The Great, which somehow ran to three seasons and featured the likes of Nicholas Hoult, Elle Fanning and Gillian Anderson giving some of the greatest performances of their careers. The series was filmed in Britain (the country, you feel, that is closest to McNamara’s heart, given that all his recent projects have been shot there) and deals with an absurdist view of the lives of Catherine the Great and Peter the Great in eighteenth-century Russia. It was hilarious and horrifying in equal parts, never shying away from bleakness or nastiness, and the sheer quality of the writing was recognized by the Writers Guild of America, who bestowed two consecutive awards on McNamara.

    There are potentially more tedious things in the future – a Star Wars picture, apparently, to be co-written with Taiki Waititi and a comic book film – but these are bill-paying jobs that, hopefully, the writer can work his unique alchemy on, a la Cruella. He began his career directing his own material and hopefully an enlightened (and brave) studio will allow him similar control over something of his own creation in the future: McNamara unchained is a fascinating, giddying prospect indeed. Still, even when he’s working in mainstream cinema, he’s head and shoulders above the competition – The Roses has a Great Expectations joke all the better for not being spelt out – and this latest, hilarious instalment in a very distinguished career is a cherishable joy. The characters might be going through their own hell, but the screenwriter has created a very specific, very sweary comedic heaven. We are fortunate to be in his orbit.

  • Boomer hate has gone too far

    Boomer hate has gone too far

    Charles Murray, whose work on race and IQ has made him something of a darling of the online right, found himself out of favor with his fan base when he posted on X that a young married couple – each making $15 an hour and working 48-hour weeks – can afford a baby and a place to live.

    The reaction was furious. “Charles Murray is a good man,” wrote Zarathustra, a popular dissident right-wing poster. “Sadly, however, he’s also a Boomer. Which by necessity, means his bumper sticker talking points on political economy are comically out of touch garbage, and read like a moldy Reagan Youth pamphlet from 1982.” Murray’s post broke X containment and made it to the subreddit r/BoomersBeingFools. Indeed, most of the anger directed toward Murray followed the same theme: he was wrong because he is a baby boomer. 

    Boomer hate is nothing new, and it’s more or less a bipartisan phenomenon. The “OK boomer” meme appeared on 4chan as early as 2015 and took off as a mass cultural phenomenon in November 2019, when it went viral on TikTok with the influencer Neekolul wearing a Bernie Sanders crop-top lip-syncing to “Oki Doki Boomer.” Just months later, Covid lockdowns took over the world, and the global public-health apparatus shut down the schools and colleges and parties and workplaces of the young in an attempt to preserve the final years of the old. During that time, the left’s distaste toward boomers remained relatively surface-level – they’re old and out of touch, for example – but the right’s resentment toward the generation grew far deeper. In its opposition to mandates, conservatives began to react against a politics and a society that privileged the aging at the expense of everyone else.

    The Silent Generation (with certain big exceptions, such as Anthony Fauci and Joe Biden) has drawn little contempt online, perhaps because it was never memed, perhaps because its members are generally too old and out of the spotlight – but boomers? They embody, for the right, the worst sort of self-preservation, weaponizing their outsize power and numbers in public health and government to fight for policies that were utterly destructive for younger people, to whom they seemingly felt no responsibility. And it wasn’t just about Covid: it was about the fact that they had let insane ideologies – so-called racial reckonings and pediatric sex changes – take over mainstream American life and institutions, crushing the young on top of material concerns such as runaway inflation and housing prices and crime. In other words, they climbed the ladder and then pulled it out from under them, as Helen Andrews argued in her 2021 book, Boomers: The Men and Women Who Promised Freedom and Delivered Disaster.

    And yet, these days, most of the ire directed toward boomers seems to be toward the idea that they, like Charles Murray, promote “pulling yourself up by the bootstraps,” with many on the right having joined their counterparts on the left in assuming there can be essentially no self-improvement in the face of material problems. They’re not wrong in that Murray does sound a bit out of touch when he insists on a model that doesn’t entirely account for inflation, the increased prices of insurance and education and assumes more hours than most entry-level jobs are willing to provide employees. But beyond raging against the system – which is precisely what many boomers did during their 1960s youths – and encouraging constant, mostly online outrage, it’s not clear what alternative the anti-boomer right is offering. Meanwhile, a young person might actually be able to make a change in his or her life by taking Murray’s advice seriously, if not literally. At some point, following conventional boomer wisdom becomes a Pascal’s Wager of sorts: if pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps doesn’t work, the worst that can happen is we try something new – but if it does, our work will reward us in ways that wallowing in self-pity never will.

    That’s not the end of unjustified boomer hate. The young right’s antipathy toward boomers is ostensibly about the generation’s entitlement and overeagerness to toss aside tradition, but is, ironically, grounded in entitlement toward boomers’ money and a desire to snub whatever tradition and wisdom it is that boomers themselves have passed on, even if we don’t recognize it as such.

    Indeed, while many on the right look forward to boomers stepping aside – some even gloating over the “Boomer Die Off” in the coming decades – what they don’t realize is that, for better or for worse, boomers are the last link to the old world, being the last generation to truly remember it. Many of the opera houses, symphonies and mainline churches will likely shutter with the boomers, as will any last memory of decorum, of a world in which left hands are for forks, in which suits are for the office, and in which men remove their hats when entering a building.

    The idea that Western civilization will be better off without the boomers is laughably naïve. What’s far more likely is that the small number of people in younger generations who care enough about art and culture and manners will become de facto hobbyists, while those in the greater majority won’t even know what they’ll be missing. 

    Boomers may be flawed, but aren’t we all? To blame them for all our ills, especially as younger generations gain prominence and replace them in positions of power, is to abdicate responsibility. And if we do indeed fall into that trap, those of us in younger generations will have no one to blame but ourselves.

  • What is Prince Andrew hiding?

    What is Prince Andrew hiding?

    This month marks exactly forty years since I became a literary agent. In that time I have been involved with many bestsellers but the publication last week of Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York about Prince Andrew has been my most successful book. What makes it especially different is that I am not just its agent but also its author.

    It has been a strange but exciting experience watching a project which has gestated for four years to finally see the light of day. The reaction has been overwhelming with the Daily Mail, which serialized the book over five days, calling it “The most devastating royal biography ever written” and interviews with media organizations all over the world.

    The media has now moved from reporting the disclosures in the book to discussions on connected but wider issues raised such as the need for greater royal transparency – a subject I have campaigned on for many years – and to the future of the monarchy itself. The Australian Daily Telegraph has even written “Lownie’s book is the touchpaper for more revelations to come, and if the palace is implicated, even by oversight, it could be far more damaging than even the abdication of King Edward VIII 90 years ago next year.” Let us see.

    As an historian, I am used to working with documents. This book, my first biography of a living person, is a departure as it relies almost entirely on interviews. Royal books are notoriously difficult to research. There is an omertà of silence around the British royal family with friendship circles that go back generations, tight non-disclosure agreements and a strong sense of loyalty and deference. Writing about the intelligence services was easier.

    For the book, I approached some 3,000 former school friends, work colleagues, staff and business associates, of whom roughly a tenth agreed to be interviewed. What surprised me was how many agreed to go on the record – often the most senior officials – and can only surmise that they felt the story needed to be told.

    My aim in writing the book has been to ask questions of the late Queen’s second son and to investigate evidence of financial corruption at the heart of the royal family.

    This is not a message monarchists – and I count myself one of them – want to hear so there has been a lot of criticism of me as messenger. Another criticism has been the fact that I have included details of the couple’s private life. This is always a dilemma for a biographer where the inner life of the subjects must be addressed.

    Much has been removed on advice mostly on grounds of privacy and taste. We debated at length questions such as whether Prince Andrew had a reputation to lose and where the boundaries lay with such a public figure. My feeling is his early sexual experiences shaped his later sexual behavior and that reporting credible evidence that he went through 40 women on a four-day official visit to Thailand paid for by the taxpayer was legitimate.

    It is perhaps episodes such as these which may explain why none of the files relating to his time as special representative for trade and investment between 2001 and 2011 have been released in spite of numerous Freedom of Information requests from me over the last four years.

    The Information Rights Departments of the Foreign Office and the Department of Business and Trade have skillfully deployed every possible exemption from health and safety and national security to commercial confidentiality and personal data, to ensure the files – some of which by law should have been deposited in the National Archives after 20 years – remain closed.

    Frame the request too widely and it will be rejected on the grounds it will be too expensive to search. Narrow the request and one is told the department holds nothing. If one does manage to secure the odd piece of paper it will be almost entirely redacted in black.

    Why are these files so important? They would reveal who Prince Andrew took on his trips, who they saw and what business might have been done. I already know from talking to diplomats that he brought along his daughters, with all the attendant security costs, giving them a Filofax of contacts to expand their networks.

    Others on the trips included Jeffrey Epstein as well as Andrew’s business partners David and Jonathan Rowland who were able to shoehorn into the schedule meetings pertinent to them rather than for the promotion of British trade.

    What it might also confirm is the long list of demands that were sent ahead ranging from an insistence that drinking water be served at room temperature to Weetabix being provided at breakfast. One girlfriend was impressed to see among his luggage what appeared to be a surfboard. He sheepishly had to admit it was an ironing board to ensure, even though he stayed at five-star hotels, that his trousers were always neatly pressed.

    In many ways, Entitled is a tragi-comedy – the story of how a popular royal couple fell from grace. I am interested to see how it may play out.

  • Robin Westman and the unstoppable tide of ‘slop violence’

    Robin Westman and the unstoppable tide of ‘slop violence’

    On Wednesday, doing my laundry, I decided to turn on the TV for the first time in decades. Breaking news: a school shooting in Minnesota. It’s been years since a story like this made me cry. How could you cry at every mention of gun violence when you live in a place like the Midwest? I have been aware of gun violence in schools since I was a child myself.

    I remember first hearing about a school shooting when I was six years old. A little boy had shot his sister. I cried and cried and cried – I cried for the child that died, and I cried for the child who’d killed her. It remains one of my most traumatizing memories. The last shooting that made me cry was Sandy Hook. I was at dinner when a friend showed me Adam Lanza’s photo on his phone. Twenty first-graders dead. 

    I can still feel the way my stomach dropped to this day. I couldn’t imagine something so depraved, so impossibly evil. I have written many times before that I was certain Sandy Hook would be an inflection point. The whole country was. And yet, it wasn’t. The violence escalated, became more frequent, more perverse.

    Inevitably, I grew numb to it.

    But on Wednesday – on the first crisp fall day in Chicago – something in me broke. I cried until I threw up, the washing machine shaking.

    Robin Westman, a 23-year-old, opened fire through the windows of Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Children as young as six and parishioners in their eighties were injured. It was a Mass celebrating the first day of the school year. An eight-year-old and a ten-year-old died where they sat in the pews. I would later learn that in long, rambling journals – written in English but transliterated into Cyrillic alphabet – Westman had quoted Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook killer. 

    “I’m scared and I don’t want to be here,” a child is heard saying on one of the Sandy Hook recordings.

    “Well, you’re here,” Lanza answers, before the sound of gunfire.

    On one of Westman’s guns, the same quotes appears: Well, you’re here. 

    This will be the last piece about school shootings I write. I don’t want to be part of this news cycle anymore. There is nothing left to learn. In 2022, I wrote that our violence problem is a nihilism problem – not only do I still believe this, I believe it’s accelerated, it’s warping under its own weight.

    Shooters such as Eric Harris and Adam Lanza straightforwardly opposed civilization, life, the very concept of values itself. Yet murderers like Robert Crimo III, Natalie Rupnow, Solomon Henderson and now Robin Westman commit acts of what I can only call “slop violence.” It remains directed against life – against meaning – but it’s unfocused, chaotic, incoherent. They leave behind a pastiche of contradictory symbols and ideologies. They are radicalized, but in no particular direction. Their identities fragment across cyberspace. They worship school shooters and harbor deep existential fears about being forgotten. Westman’s manifesto was littered with this existential worry. There are teachers whose names I can’t remember, he wrote, but everyone remembers Adam Lanza.

    Early rumor mill grist said that Westman may have been part of a domestic terrorism network called 764, a decentralized group known for targeting minors online, encouraging self-harm, and creating child sexual abuse material while promoting violence. One person claimed to have found a forum profile page linked to Westman suggesting involvement a loose collective of online trolls that floods comment sections with shock content, often using children’s media characters to spread disturbing material, like gore and CSAM (child sexual abuse material). Within 24 hours, this claim was debunked. But Westman represents the same cultural rot these groups embody: online spaces that operate on escalating transgression, recruiting through irony and memes, slowly desensitizing participants to violence and sexual abuse while encouraging them to document and share increasingly extreme content.

    The response to these shootings has become as ritualized as the shootings themselves. Everyone descends like vultures to mine the tragedy for meaning or clout. On Wednesday at 11:41 a.m. CT, an editor sent me Westman’s YouTube page. By 11:42, it had been taken down. The first to archive the manifesto, to decode the symbols, to place the shooter within their taxonomies of violence – these become proud markers of insider knowledge. Within hours​ of the crime, self-proclaimed “researchers” – there was a time where I was one myself – compete to preserve what the platforms rush to erase. It’s a grotesque dance. The researchers treat each shooting like a new episode to analyze, transforming murder into content while bodies are still being counted.

    “It’s a conspiracy,” some say – it’s the CIA. It’s Mossad. It’s Russian interference. People flood my messages every time something like this has happened, desperate for categories: “What subculture produced this?”

    Did Westman kill because of gender identity issues? Because of exposure to gore? Pornography? Was it SSRIs? Religion or its absence? I don’t know. We are a sick country and I am disgusted. We confront something so fundamentally wrong that language fails. This isn’t random violence; it’s a darkness that stalks joy, that takes deliberate aim at the bonds between student and teacher, parent and child, neighbor and friend. There is a powerful impulse in our culture toward the desecration of innocence.

    It manifests across a disturbing spectrum. On one end, you have the casual cruelty endemic to online spaces – the deliberate spoiling of wholesome media with slurs, violence and pornographic content, the reflexive cynicism greeting any genuine emotion. Move along the spectrum and you encounter the transformation of every space meant for happiness and entertainment into an ideological battlefield, the mockery of sacred traditions, the compulsive sexualization of childhood. 

    These aren’t isolated phenomena but symptoms of a deeper pathology: the inability to let anything remain unexploited. We view innocence not as something to protect but as a provocation to corrupt. At furthest end of this spectrum, where the logic of desecration reaches its ultimate expression, you have the murder of children at prayer.

    I think about those children in the church on Wednesday morning. The first week of school – a time that should be filled with excitement about new teachers, new friends, new possibilities. Instead, they huddled under pews while bullets shattered the windows above them. They learned that there is no ground that violence won’t violate. 

    One student would go on to tell reporters, “We practice [what to do during a school shooting] every month, but not in church, only in the school.” Never at church. 

    The students at Annunciation Church learned what I learned at six, what every American child eventually learns: that they inhabit a world where darkness flourishes, again and again. The monster under your bed, the shadow person in your closet. Not because we lack the means to stop it, but because we lack the will. 

    Robin Westman will be studied, categorized and ultimately forgotten by most – just another entry in the database of American mass shooters. Maybe he’ll persist as a “saint” to online perverts and become anime fan art decorated with hearts and glitter, his crime abstracted into aesthetic objects divorced from the reality of children bleeding out on a church floor on the first day of school.

    Amateur investigators will continue to trace connections, map influences, produce reports about radicalization pathways. Politicians will sound somber. Activists will say it’s the guns, it’s transgenderism, it’s small government, it’s big government. The media will move on within days. Robin Westman wanted to be remembered. He won’t be. He’ll be forgotten, absorbed into the statistical noise of American violence. The children he killed, though – their absence will echo forever in the lives of those who loved them. That’s the only memory that matters, the only truth worth preserving: not the names of killers, but the magnitude of what our culture has stolen from us, again and again, while we stand by and watch, and document, and dissect and post.