Daily Archives: October 2, 2022

ESGenvironmental, social, and governancehas been the new hot topic for the last several years. Yet companies are still trying to come to grips with what it means and how they can address these varying and often competing interests of shareholders and other stakeholders.

Some have questioned how the idea of ESG can be reconciled with the traditional maximizing value for the shareholder or shareholder primacy theory. But many might be surprised to learn that, long before ESG became the acronym du jour, most states had enacted some flavor of a constituency statute that allows a board of directors to consider various other constituencies when making decisions on behalf of the corporation.

For instance, Minnesotas statute provides that directors may consider a broad array of interests, including:

the corporations employees, customers, suppliers, and creditors, the economy of the state and nation, community and societal considerations, and the long-term as well as short-term interests of the corporation and its shareholders including the possibility that these interests may be best served by the continued independence of the corporation.

Minn. Stat. 302A.251, Subd. 5.

Statutes like this appear to give directors wide latitude and cover for decisions that may not fit the primacy of the shareholder model. And indeed, these statutes were enacted at the behest of directors of boards during the 1980s heyday of hostile takeoverswhen the barbarians were at the gates, so to speak. Some directors believed that takeovers were not in a corporations long-term best interest but feared fiduciary-duty claims if they resisted a hostile takeover that would have provided short-term financial gain to the shareholders.

As a result, directors turned to state legislatures and sometimes threatened to incorporate elsewhere if a constituency statute was not passed in the current state of incorporation. Wanting to keep employers in the state, many state legislators passed these lawssometimes rather expeditiously. For example, Pennsylvania was the first state to enact such a statute, in 1983, after Scott Paper Company and Gulf Oil Corporation, both facing potential hostile takeovers, threatened to leave the state if the statute was not passed.

That constituency statutes were meant to benefit directors is perhaps best reflected by the fact that none provide an enforcement mechanism for any of the non-shareholder constituencies. Are you an employee or supplier that believes a companys board is not giving due consideration to how a given decision will affect you? Too bad. Not only are the statutes permissive (the board is not required to give thought to other constituencies), but the statutes have no private right of action and cannot help you. It will only help the director defend against a shareholder who believes its interests must prevail over all others. But some would argue that these laws have done little to benefit directors, either.

And that is because, notwithstanding a majority of states that codified constituency statutes, one state has not: Delaware, the state where the majority of corporations are incorporated. Indeed, Delaware law has established the Revlon standard, which requires that, when a company goes up for sale, the board must maximize the value for the shareholder.

Some have suggested that Delaware has a quasi-constituency statute in the post-Revlon case, Paramount Communications v. Time, Inc., where the Supreme Court of Delaware upheld Times rejection of a highly profitable tender offer from Paramount to instead merge with Warner Brothers in what the board believed would provide better long-term benefits to the corporation. But, even that case did not address the interests of stakeholders other than shareholders. In sum, Delaware is known for its primacy of the shareholder model.

Because of Delawares overwhelming influence in corporate jurisprudence, constituency statutes from other states often are overshadowedor overpoweredby the traditional focus on the interests of the shareholder. Indeed, directors remain reluctant to choose a path financially detrimental to shareholders, even if there may be countervailing benefits to non-shareholder stakeholders. For example, if a company were to put itself up for sale and the highest bidder was an entity with a history of polluting and the next highest bidder promised more environmentally favorable practices, directors in recent years have still been likely to go with the polluting entity, because shareholders can easily quantify their losses and bring a breach-of-fiduciary claim. And directors have been reluctant to rely on constituency statutes when defending fiduciary-duty claims for fear that doing so would result in a lower stock price by suggesting that the companys shareholders are not paramount. Therefore, despite their prolific presence in statute books throughout the country, constituency laws have rarely been litigated and have done little to bolster the interests of non-shareholder stakeholders.

Somewhat surprisingly, its the shareholders whove succeeded in getting companies to consider other constituencies. While the term ESG first appeared in 2004, it was BlackRock CEO Laurence Finks 2016 annual letter to corporate CEOs that catapulted ESG into the corporate zeitgeist, where it remains today. Fink argued that boards needed to be more strategic in creating long-term value for their shareholders and less focused on near-term profits. He stated: Generating sustainable returns over time requires a sharper focus not only on governance, but also on environmental and social factors facing companies today. And further: At companies where ESG issues are handled well, they are often a signal of operational excellence. BlackRock has been undertaking a multi-year effort to integrate ESG considerations into our investment processes, and we expect companies to have strategies to manage these issues.

Going forward, it will be interesting to see if constituency statutes see any revival in light of ESG efforts. Or, as is more likely, will directors instead argue that considering other stakeholders is just another way of providing long-term value to their shareholders?

See the original post:

Constituency Statutes: The Overlooked Predecessor to the ESG Movement - JD Supra

On the Shelf

10 October books for your reading list

If you buy books linked on our site, The Times may earn a commission from Bookshop.org, whose fees support independent bookstores.

Critic Bethanne Patrick recommends 10 promising titles, fiction and nonfiction, to consider for your October reading list.

Falls books come in hot through the end of September, not unlike an L.A. heat wave. But October is when the dust settles and the meatiest releases often hit late-career tomes from the likes of John Irving; bold departures from authors like Celeste Ng; thoughtful biographies of Bob Dylan and Samuel Adams and others. Open up the windows, steep some tea and dive in.

Our Missing HeartsBy Celeste NgPenguin Press: 352 pages, $29(Oct. 6)

The movement called Preserving American Culture and Traditions (PACT) in Ngs startling and beautiful new novel sounds so plausible readers might suspect for a moment that it actually exists. While a boy known as Bird seeks to find out what happened to his mother, a Chinese American poet and activist who disappeared years ago, he discovers sobering truths about racism and collaboration in a near-future dystopia different from ours only by degrees.

When We Were SistersBy Fatimah AsgharOne World: 336 pages, $27(Oct. 18)

Already longlisted for the National Book Award, Asghars debut shimmers with love in the midst of neglect. Three young Pakistani sisters, Noreen, Aisha and Kausar, wind up with a terrible uncle after they are orphaned in the United States. Over years spent in one cramped bedroom keeping to the uncles strict schedule, their bonds become almost too strong; each must leave to make her way to adulthood.

The Last ChairliftBy John IrvingSimon & Schuster: 912 pages, $38(Oct. 18)

Love Irvings work or not, you have to give him props for his sharp perspective on our countrys modern history in works ranging from Cider House Rules to The World According to Garp. His latest starts in 1941, when a young Aspen ski wiz named Ray falls pregnant with our protagonist, Adam. The plot loosely drapes around Adams quest to find his biological father, but as with most Irving plots, its really about how we form our own sorts of families in the late capitalist age.

Liberation Day: StoriesBy George SaundersRandom House: 256 pages, $28(Oct. 18)

While Saunders has written a novel (Lincoln in the Bardo) and literary essays about favorite short stories (A Swim in the Pond in the Rain) since publishing his 2013 collection, Tenth of December, die-hard fans have spent this near-decade waiting for more of the form in which he is an absolute genius. His new short stories will not disappoint; when it comes to finding the uncanny in the mundane or vice versa Saunders has no peers.

Signal FiresBy Dani ShapiroKnopf: 240 pages, $28(Oct. 18)

Shapiros first novel in 15 years tracks three generations on one suburban street through the prism of a drunk-driving accident that unearths several terrible secrets. The authors attention to craft is so detailed, so invisible, that 250 pages feel simultaneously taut and timeless, especially as a friendship between an elderly man and an adolescent boy allows many of the characters to attain something approaching closure.

Token Black Girl: A MemoirBy Danielle PrescodLittle A: 256 pages, $25(Oct. 1)

As fashion industry insider Prescod knows, toxic beauty standards arent just anti-feminist; theyre also racist. This candid and energetic memoir from the former director of style at BET follows a journey through chemical hair treatments and stringent diet-and-exercise routines and more, all of which was aimed at making herself into the opposite of who she is. But Prescod has come through the other side with wisdom to share about how to come into your true gorgeous self.

Life Is Hard: How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our WayBy Kieran SetiyaRandom House: 240 pages, $27(Oct. 4)

Setiya teaches philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, so you might think he has the answers to all the existential questions. When it comes to weathering hardship and adversity, however, he readily admits there is no easy fix. Instead, philosophy contains equipment that can help you survive and find renewed hope, if you know how to use it.

Making a Scene: A MemoirBy Constance WuScribner: 336 pages, $29(Oct. 4)

The acclaimed comic actor (Crazy Rich Asians) debunks stereotypes of Asian Americans (and rumors of on-set chilliness) in a memoir about going from a well-behaved Virginia girlhood to Hollywood stardom and its own outsize expectations. It was when Wu channeled her own background into the role of the Taiwanese American mom in Fresh Off the Boat that she found her creative voice and began to understand its importance for others too.

Folk Music: A Bob Dylan Biography in Seven SongsBy Greil MarcusYale: 288 pages, $28(Oct. 11)

No man, not even the famously enigmatic Bob Dylan, can be an enigma to his biographer. From Blowing in the Wind to Murder Most Foul, Marcus mines the music of the artist from Minnesotas Iron Range for its deeply American soul. As in all his books, the heralded rock critic combines interviews, liner notes, research and criticism to provide a cultural biography that shows how closely Dylan has followed the news and the zeitgeist over his seven-decade career.

The Revolutionary: Samuel AdamsBy Stacy SchiffLittle, Brown: 432 pages, $33(Oct. 25)

Step aside, Thomas Jefferson; lets talk about the man whose devotion to resistance behavior makes him, for some, the most essential figure in the American Revolution. Samuel Adams comes to electrifying life through this Pulitzer Prize-winning historians meticulous research and dynamic storytelling as a man of principle and persuasion. There was also Adams devotion to stealth and secrecy, which may be why its taken so long to tease out his unusual story.

Read the original:

10 books to add to your reading list in October 2022 - Los Angeles Times

St. Paul wrote that the Church is one body and one Spirit[with] one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Ephesians 4:4-5); however, someone could be forgiven for believing that we currently have multiple faithsi.e., multiple religionsexisting within the one Catholic Church. Consider our present situation.

The German Synodal Way is on a straight path to schism, while American traditionalists are accused of having a schismatic mentality. A growing number of Catholics are questioning whether Pope Francis is really the pope, while others are cheerleading his every confusing move. Meanwhile, millions of Catholics are just trying to survive this confusing mess with their faithand sanityintact.

Some might say that these types of divisions have always existed in the Church, and theyd be right (see 1 Corinthians). Yet todays divisions are different. They represent not conflicting views on how best to practice Catholicism, but conflicting views on what makes our rule of faith, the kernel of core beliefs and the means by which we receive those beliefs. This, then, makes the various camps within Catholicism in practice different religions, even though they all outwardly belong to the same visible Church.

What are some of these various religious camps uneasily coexisting within the Church today? Lets look at the four most prominent in an attempt to understand todays confusing Catholic Church.

First, there are the hyperpapalists, whose rule of faith in essence has become the pronouncements of The Current Pope, even if those pronouncements clearly contradict previous popes pronouncements or even official teachings of the Church. We know what to believe by simply looking to see what The Current Pope says we should believe.

The hyperpapalistswith or without saying sohave made Lumen Gentium 25 their overriding principle of faith. That Vatican II text states we must give our religious submission of mind and will to the pope, and the hyperpapalists have (mis)interpreted this to mean that, in practice, we must agree with all The Current Popes statements and decisions, even if they are not directly related to faith and morals and even if they are not in any way official magisterial declarations. The pope has become like a modern political party leader, who cannot be questioned. To do so could jeopardize his Catholicism Party.

So if this pope says civilly divorced and remarried Catholics can receive Communion, even though the perennial teaching of the Churchand the explicit teaching of a recent popesays otherwise, we need to shift gears and follow The Current Pope. Only by doing so can we keep to the (ever-changing) rule of faith.

The cousins of the hyperpapalists form another camp, the sedevacantists. Like the hyperpapalists, they also believe we must slavishly follow the popes teachings and opinions on all matters. However, since its clear that our current popes opinions diverge from those of previous pontiffs, they conclude that this pope cannot actually be a pope and therefore the see of Peter is vacant.

For sedevacantists, then, the rule of faith is The Last Legitimate Pope. Everything in the Church after The Last Legitimate Pope is to be condemned and rejected. Typically the sedevacantists look to a certain moment in timeperhaps, the 1950sas the pinnacle of Catholicism that must be regained.

Next are the liberals, who simply want to remake the Church into the image of mainstream Protestantism and make their rule of faith an acceptance of The Current Thing (contraception, abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, etc.). They want the Church to conform to the world, rather than the other way around. They may at times be confused with hyperpapalists, since Pope Francis often appears to agree with them, but if we get a more conservative pope in the future they will quickly transform into critics of The Current Pope (and maybe even become sedevacantists!).

A final religious camp are the restorationists. The rule of faith for restorationists is that integrated core of teachings and practices that have been handed on from generation to generation in the Church. They accept Francis as the legitimate pope but believe that he often strays in his teachings and opinions from that rule of faith thats been passed on to us, and they are willing to criticize him when that happens.

Unlike the sedevacantists, restorationists do not reject the legitimate application of the development of doctrine. They understand that the liturgy and our understanding of the faith can develop over time, slowly and organically. This development isnt equivalent to the latest papal pronouncements; it reflects the developing sensus fideliumthe sense of the faithful (which never rejects the sensus fidelium of previous generations).

In summary: the hyperpapalists want a Catholicism that is only the current pope; the sedevacantists want a Catholicism that only has a perfect pope; the liberals want a Catholicism where the zeitgeist is the pope; and the restorationists want a Catholicism that includes all the popes, past and present.

How can these four camps be reconciled? To be blunt, they cant. They are, in practice, four different religions, currently contained within one visible Church. When the very rule of faith is different, then so is the religion. This is a situation that cannot hold; eventually, the veneer of unity will wear thin and disappear. And, if we are being honest, none of the above camps can exist for the long-term.

Hyperpapalism cannot last because that religion is founded on menthe popes. While all Catholics should acknowledge that the pope is the visible head of the Church, we should place our faith in the office of the papacy, not on individual popes, even The Current Pope. History has made clear that individual popes can make mistakes, have terrible opinions, and even lead people astray by their public teachings. If you just blindly accept the latest opinions of The Current Pope, you must set aside your reason, rejecting the principle of non-contradiction. Its fideism, not Catholicism. The Catholic religion has always seen faith as building on reason, not rejecting it.

Nor can Sedevacantism last. What happens after 100 years, or 150 years, or 200 years, with no acceptable pope? Who decides who is an acceptable pope? Such a situation devolves into a permanent pope-less Church, which is Protestantism dressed up as Catholicism. Its not sustainable in the long run.

Further, the liberals who want to remake the Church into the image of mainline Protestantism are on a road to nowhere. If they get their wish, they have destroyed the Church: it will no longer be a rock on which we can place our trust, but just another ever-changing human institution chasing the latest Current Thing. We already know how that story ends: just look at todays dying Anglican Church.

And while Id personally argue that restorationism is the most appropriate response in todays Church, it too as a movement also cannot survive long-term. A movement that resists the current direction of the highest officials in the Church must by its very nature be a temporary movement, else it too becomes dressed-up Protestantism.

We know from history that the Church hierarchy can lead the Church down a mistaken path for decades (see: the Arian crisis and the Great Western Schism), but eventually the course is corrected. If restorationists in the 22nd century are still battling with the hierarchy over the same issues as today, then it would be hard not to conclude that the restorationists are wrong, or the Holy Spirit really has stopped guiding the Church.

Of course, millions of confused and struggling Catholics dont always fit neatly into one of the above camps (nor do they want to); they are just trying to make sense of it all. Depending on the issue at hand, they may sympathize with one group over another.

Conservative-leaning Catholics might be receptive to restorationism sometimes and hyperpapalism at other times. Traditionalist Catholics might be restorationists or sedevacantists (which sometimes changes based on how scandalized they are by Pope Francis that day). Liberal Catholics are, well, liberals all the time, but as already noted, they will put on a hyperpapalist mask under a friendly pope like Pope Francis.

Most Catholics, however, likely want to say they are just Catholicsno camps for me, thank you very much. Ultimately, however, they have to deal with todays situation like everyone else. Because of the confusion coming out of Rome, we must pick a camp, temporarily, even while acknowledging that all these camps must one day fade away so that everyone in the Church can again be truly united as one faith.

[Image Credit: Unsplash]

Here is the original post:

The Multiple Religions Coexisting Within the Catholic Church - Crisis Magazine

The Oscars are still months away. This is the moment where the pundits each offer up a picture of how they think they should go. To know their predictions is to know them. How do they go about forming their projections?

Heres the dirty little secret that no one wants to say out loud: a lot of it is wishful thinking disguised as punditry. Some of it is advocacy disguised as punditry and some of it is advocacy to satisfy advertisers.

In the end, it doesnt matter that much what motivates punditry. The end result is the same. If you are worried about whether the game is rigged or not you have to go back to the movie Quiz Show. Was it rigged? Yes. Did that matter? Not really. It was considered small potatoes.

The idea here is that Hollywood has always been a dream factory. They give people what they dont know that they want. Paddy Chayefsky distorts this somewhat in Network. Our worst instincts can be captured and harnessed for profit. Television news no longer serves either purpose for the country at large. Whatever purpose it once served has now been transferred to the internet with user-generated content.

That means if our prurient interests are going to be exploited, some content creator will service that need. We need our dreams to play out so we can live vicariously by watching Herb Stempel win lots of money that is played out when something goes viral on YouTube or TikTok. We also have our little dream factories on our social media platforms. Influencers sell much of what television used to sell.

So what are we all doing here with our very early Oscar predictions? Are we trying to predict the race to come, or are we trying to shape the race to come? I guess it depends on whom you ask, where you look, and what those motives might be. For many of us, at least in the beginning, we just wanted to get it right. We wanted bragging rights. To me, thats still the most fun the Oscar game has to offer.

But a lot of the game now is the SHOULDS. Im as guilty of that as anyone, whether its kicking it old school and thinking Martin Scorsese should win in 2006, or now, wanting Viola Davis to win Best Actress finally. The SHOULDS are either because people have an idea that something is genuinely the best, or the narrative has produced an underdog people are rooting for, OR its some kind of desire to see fairness in a system that is based on the subjective impressions of human beings.

The only hard and fast rule I follow is first, do no harm. Dont wreck a contenders shot at a win. Ive broken this rule a few times, though I regret those times. I was way too angry when Ben Affleck and Argo were about to win because I wanted Steven Spielberg and Lincoln to win. I was not exactly thrilled with Meryl Streep beating Viola Davis in 2011. For much of the time Ive been doing this I have been, on occasion, too emotionally invested in something that isnt, at the end of the day, that important.

Even though we had a Best Picture surprise last year, that was only because most of us dug our heels in both ways. In one direction, many were saying The Power of the Dog SHOULD win. In the other direction, people were saying CODA shouldnt win. I didnt think a movie with only three Oscar nominations could or should win Best Picture. With a ranked-choice ballot, however, the winner isnt a representation of the passionate choice. It still might have won if there were only five Best Picture contenders. But most likely, in that case, its director would have also been nominated and possibly won.

But does it matter that much that CODA won as a streaming film that made no box-office money and had just three Oscar nominations? I mean, not really. Were in the midst of growing pains that are difficult for people who remember the past. Many of us want the Oscars to return to their former glory. The Oscars dont seem to care about that as much as their own pursuit of deeper meaning and purpose with their votes, their history and their legacy.

That makes the Oscars kind of easier to predict than they used to be. We dont really have a wide open race, at least not this year. We have a race that starts to narrow now and only becomes more narrow as we head for the end of the year.

For a fresher take than mine, check out the YouTube predictions by the Oscar experts on Twitter who are really finding an audience and driving up probably more excitement for the Oscars in the YouTube generation than any of the rest of us.

There seems to be a niche audience for the incredibly shrinking Oscars. I dont personally agree with their takes at the moment, at least per this video. And heres why.

They arent factoring in the ranked-choice ballot. Oscar newbies, they remember the most recent wins of Parasite, most specifically, but also CODA last year. Theyre going where the juice is, where the energy is. But Parasite is, as experimental and inventive as it was, still a fairly linear story. Everything Everywhere All at Once is a film that should do better with nominations, where passion is a factor, but might prove too divisive for the top prize. The jury is still out on whether voters will be able to sit through it.

That old rule of Oscar watching applies with the ranked-choice ballot and without it: the Best Picture winner has to be a movie you can sit anyone down in front of and they will get it if not love it. Parasite only really had a barrier of subtitles. But if you followed the story you would get it. Its not that complicated. Its certainly not as visually experimental as Everything Everywhere All at Once which is a mind-bending movie about the multiverse.

If the Academy was comprised of the demographic of the Oscar Experts it would probably be the frontrunner. But the Academy are still mostly boomers. Someone described them once as your typical Eagles fan.

That means 60ish, white, liberal, wealthy, a do-gooder. They are nearly the end of their long lives where they reinvented so much of culture all through the 60s and 70s, got rich in the 80s, wandered looking for deeper meaning in the 90s, found their sense of purpose with Obamas rise and how he reshaped culture, and now are really still riding that wave of enlightenment. Im just not sure that person is an Everything, Everywhere All at Once voter. Maybe. First do no harm. I mean, you never know.

But that is just a way to eliminate one movie from the top prize. Maybe theyd vote for it to seem hip and cool and smart and theyd vote for it without actually watching it. Its a unique and interesting film. Is it an enjoyable film? Well, I guess that depends on whom you ask.

The Best Picture race is in major flux since the Trump election in 2016 and the Green Book implosion of 2018, the Me Too movement, the racial reckoning of 2020, cancel culture, the Black List, etc. That makes it harder to place a frontrunner RIGHT NOW. The frontrunner will be the movie everyone can unite around and for the right reasons. Its different from the old days which really were about King for a Day. Which director, and they were always men, will be anointed King in Hollywood, or as Jim Cameron once said, King of the World.

Its not quite the world anymore and there is no more anointing kings. Thats over. It was partly 2016 but readers of this site know that sentiment was cooking a bit longer. I got into trouble recently on Twitter for suggesting men are uniquely adapted to be better directors because they tend to be more visual.

That is the kind of thing I could have, and did say, years ago. Only now, with the thought police out in force I got slammed for it. Look, I dont care about that. Its small potatoes compared to other tribunals Ive experienced BUT the point still stands: in the attempt to course correct, theyve managed to almost completely eliminate the King for a Day ritual the Oscars used to be.

Good, people will say. Its time to step aside. These dynamics are going to be at play this year, as they were last year and the year before. That is why the Oscar Experts predicting Everything Everywhere is less crazy than it might have been once. That movie addressed the moment probably better than any other. It is very much a zeitgeist time capsule of Hollywood culture in 2022.

One thing to note that I will cover more in depth in a later piece, but several pundits are flirting with the idea that international features non-English language films are going to be a regular feature in the Oscar race, which is what theyre now going to use to fill out the expanded list of ten. I personally think they, like the Left overall, are going to want to move in a more global direction.

Theyve announced as much and seem to be leaning that way. SO it is not out of the realm of possibility, even though they still have a separate category for that very purpose; the Academy Awards used to be about fluffing up the American film industry. I guess they think that industry is dying so why not go more global.

Thats why you see movies like All Quiet on the Western Front and Decision to Leave popping up in predictions here and there. Definitely possible.

The bottom line for Best Picture is this whatever wins is likely either going to also win a Screenplay award or a Directing award. It is also going to be a movie that people are proud to have represent them and everything they stand for in 2022.

Most likely, the film will at least have a screenplay nomination. Once you narrow down Screenplay, you can have a better idea of what movie CAN win. So lets look at Erik Andersons updated Screenplay predictions:

1. Women Talking (UAR/Orion)2. Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (Netflix)3. The Whale (A24)4. She Said (Universal Pictures)5. White Noise (Netflix)6. Living (Sony Pictures Classics)7. The Son (Sony Pictures Classics)8. The Wonder (Netflix)9. The Good Nurse (Netflix)10. Top Gun: Maverick (Paramount Pictures)

1. The Fabelmans (Universal Pictures)2. Everything Everywhere All At Once (A24)3. The Banshees of Inisherin (Searchlight Pictures))4. Triangle of Sadness (NEON)5. Bardo, Or False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths (Netflix)6. TR (Focus Features)7. Babylon (Paramount Pictures)8. Nope (Universal Pictures)9. Empire of Light (Searchlight Pictures)10. The Woman King (Sony/Tri-Star)

Here is what we know from the past when it comes to Screenplay. Since we have so many writers/directors who are the same person, those awards must split. Four films since the era of the ranked choice ballot have won all of the top prizes:

The Hurt LockerThe Kings SpeechBirdmanParasite

None of them had a sole writer and director who were the same person winning. How many have won just Picture and Director without Screenplay?

The Shape of WaterNomadland

How many have won just Screenplay without Director?

Argo12 Years a SlaveSpotlightMoonlightGreen BookCODA

Winning Pic and Screenplay seems to be the more common way for a film to win.

Keeping that in mind, let do our crude predictions just for fun:

Best PictureThe FablemansBabylonThe Banshees of InisherinEverything Everywhere All at OnceTRWomen TalkingShe SaidGlass OnionAvatarElvis

Alts: Till, Top Gun: Maverick, Elvis, Empire of Light, The Woman King, White Noise, Wakanda Forever

Best DirectorSarah Polley, Women TalkingSteven Spielberg, The FabelmansThe Daniels, Everything EverywhereTodd Field, TARJim Cameron, Avatar: The Way of Water

Original ScreenplayThe FabelmansBanshees of InershirinBabylonEverything EverywhereTR

Adapted ScreenplayShe SaidWomen TalkingWhite NoiseGlass OnionTill

Best ActressMichelle Yeoh, Everything EverywhereCate Blanchett, TRMargot Robbie, BabylonOlivia Colman, Empire of LightViola Davis, The Woman King

Best ActorAustin Butler, ElvisBrendan Fraser, The WhaleColin Farrell, BansheesHugh Jackman, The SonDiego Calva, Babylon

Supporting ActressJessie Buckley, Women TalkingJanelle Monae, Glass OnionClaire Foy, Women TalkingJamie Lee Curtis, Everything EverywhereJean Smart, Babylon

Supporting ActorJudd Hirsch, The FabelmansMichael Ward, Empire of LightBrad Pitt, BabylonBrendan Gleeson, Banshees of InisherinJeremy Strong, Armageddon Time

Thats it for now. Too long already. Have a great weekend.

The rest is here:

2023 Oscar Predictions The Rules of the Game - Awards Daily

The Italian election is about to usher in what is commonly being described as the most right-wing government since Mussolini. However, things may be a little more cheerful than they seem.

A new entry called Italexit polled 1.9 per cent. The alarming swerve to the far-right came about mainly via the cannibalisation of two right-wing parties by a third harder-right version of themselves.

Following the lowest turnout in the republics history, Giorgia Meloni and the Brothers of Italy won by halving the vote of the old waxwork Silvio Berlusconis Forza Italia party and also of the rosary-kissing Matteo Salvinis Lega party. Pulling in twice the vote of the pairs combined total, Meloni has reduced this once swaggering pair of alpha males a former prime minister in four governments and a former deputy prime minister to junior coalition partners.

She also took a big bite out of the Five Star Movement over on the left. This is the one that entered politics only four years ago when its comedian founder landed a stunning 33 per cent of the vote (compared to Melonis 26 per cent on Sunday) with its torch-the-elites rhetoric. It went on to fulfil all the predictions of chaotic incompetence and infighting before bringing down a capable government of national unity led by former ECB president Mario Draghi; then almost imploding. It recovered just enough to prevent a total takeover by the hard right.

So its not all bad news. Still the right-wing alliance has a comfortable majority of seats. The question is where Meloni and Italy end up and how.

The political lessons are stark. Even with the dismal failure of Five Star, the Democratic Party and the Greens to form any alliance they still pulled in 38 per cent of the vote between them, just five points behind the righ- wing alliance which had campaigned masterfully. No doubt this will always be a great what if of Italian politics; what if the left had cut out the feuding and banded together against the opposition?

Second is the fact that Meloni is preceded by a long line of would-be political saviours. Being against the incumbent government has been Italys sure-fire election winner for decades a hypothesis borne out by the failure of any party or coalition to get re-elected in 30 years. Melonis genius was to remain the being against party during Draghis government of national unity, enabling her to emerge as the new face or the last resort after everything else was tried.

Just four years ago her party was at 4 per cent and the Five Star Movement was that years saviour; riding the zeitgeist when populism was at its zenith.

Now Italy has a government focused on tax cuts, a small state, freedom from foreigners, a miraculous resurgence in national pride and much else that seems familiar from Liz Trusss wishlist (before the meltdown). The virulent if confused Euroscepticism is similar. Trusss swivel-eyed suggestion that France might be a foe while an actual war is raging in Europe is matched by Meloni jumping to Viktor Orbans defence when the European Parliament deems Hungary no longer a fully-fledged democracy. He won elections, said Meloni; the familiar refrain that absolves all.

But unlike Truss, Meloni had to dial down the campaign rhetoric. She had to demonstrate some capacity to handle the vital 200 billion EU-funded recovery fund and the European Central Banks bond-buying scheme which underpins the Italian national debt.

What lies beneath is another matter. Brothers of Italy still boasts the notorious flame logo and undoubtedly contains some fascists. Both she and Orban have recycled the great replacement conspiracy theory which holds that white European populations are being replaced by non-white populations at the behest of unidentified elites. Her rabble-rousing speeches insist that the nation, family and Christianity are under attack from the left, migrants and gays.

She will share a government with Salvini who rejoices in his bare-chested, strongman image, posing with submachine guns, endorsing Trump, Bolsonaro and The Movement, Steve Bannons Brussels-based right-wing populist organisation. He pronounced Putin the best statesman currently on earth before executing a U-turn when the best statesman on earth irritated even Xi Jinping.

He lashes out at sanctions against Russia, as does his coalition partner Berlusconi, who has managed to crash this glittering constellation a decade after being kicked out of parliament and banned from public office for tax fraud.

Berlusconi told a recent Italian chat show that Putin was pushed by the Russian population, by his party and by his ministers to invent this special operation. The troops were supposed to enter, reach Kyiv within a week, replace Zelenskyys government with decent people and then leave. Instead they found resistance, which was then fed by arms of all kinds from the west.

Though portrayed as a moderating influence after four spells as prime minister, his strongman tendencies have long been noted. What legacy will the octogenarian want to leave? How will the notoriously combative Salvini and the Lega adapt to a Rome-centric woman-led government?

Meloni will have scant time for the nation, family and Christianity shtick. The era of populism as a big TV performance played for drama and fantasy as opposed to the dull, hard grind of everyday politics and compromise is ebbing. She is being pitched into a cauldron like no cauldron that has ever been, as Trump might put it.

There is a view that she will make a competent administrator, prepared to seek out respected advisers, and work with other parties and civil servants to effect her far-right-wing policies. But that means losing the being against card.

Brace yourselves.

Read the original here:

Kathy Sheridan: Brace yourselves for where Giorgia Meloni and Italy end up - The Irish Times

You f**cking onion, dont you f***ing get it?

It could only be Sir Philip Green on the phone. The negative piece the Evening Standard had written on his Arcadia retail empire had ticked him off royally and, as was his wont, he was straight on the phone to bark what he thought of it. And me.

You always knew such barrackings were coming and, when they did, you also knew his initial burst of fury usually with the funniest concoctions of abuse and faux threats of violence would eventually give way to a joke, a gossip, and the invitation to a cup of tea.

It was precisely that mixture of brawn and charm that got him to the riches he achieved as the undoubted king of the British high street.

But, two years after the dramatic closure of Topshop stores, Greens reputation lies in tatters, and his characteristically brash modus operandi might provide some clues as to why. Trouble At Topshop, a two-part BBC documentary, has shed new light on the behind-the-scenes story of the iconic brands rise and fall, and Greens controversial management.

He might be a household name but, before Green joined the brand, it was propelled by a revolutionary team, notably led by women. The documentary describes the Topshop of the Eighties and Nineties as a prelapsarian wonderland of female-led creativity, transforming the high-street landscape by offering fashion by women, for women. Fronted by brand director Jane Shepherdson, the woman-heavy team was once an outlier in the fashion sphere.

So when Green acquired the brand in 2002, his brash machismo and prioritisation of profit over quality was an unwelcome shakeup. Former Topshop employees interviewed described toxic workplace encounters with Green Shepherdson even claimed that he took a phone call in the middle of her resignation.

So, just how did Green come to rule the high street, and where did it all go wrong?

Early days

Green was left school with no O-Levels, but learned to be a crafty negotiator

Green was born in 1952, the north London son of a father who owned property, garages, and electrical businesses. His parents sent him to a Jewish boarding school, Carmel College in Berkshire, and gave him a fairly unaffectionate childhood.

He left Carmel with no O-Levels, but learned to be a crafty negotiator at the knee of Rodney Geminder, a successful shoe wholesaler based in Old Street.

As told in Oliver Shahs biography Damaged Goods, he learned to buy low and sell high, particularly bankrupt stock, which was traded from the pubs north of Oxford Street a district that remained his stomping ground for the rest of his career.

With his mother Alma, he went into clothes manufacturing and importing, often not successfully and usually underwritten by her money.

But he learned from his mistakes.

Jean Genius

Green made his first major success in his 20s, buying a distressed retail chain called Bonanza Jeans

With his knowledge of buying stock for Geminder from companies in trouble, he made his first major success in his 20s, buying a distressed retail chain called Bonanza Jeans using borrowed money from Bank Leumi.

Green knew it had 400,000 pairs of jeans in stock which had been totally undervalued by the receivers and bought the whole chain for a little over 1 million.

Within a month, hed repaid the bank its 1 million and, after roasting its buyers into driving better bargains, he was living high on the hog, working hard during the day and spending fast in the Ritz casino by night.

He learned that menacing style reportedly from an unsavoury loan shark he used to use called Anthony Schneider.

Then, he bought Jean Jeanie, another chain in distress, for around 500,000, adding it to Bonanza, turning it into profit, and selling the combined group to Lee Cooper for 7 million.

The press, who he assiduously courted even then, called him the Jean Genius.

It was 1986. Green was 34, loaded, and sporting a Spandau Ballet hairstyle.

Posh boys and scandal

Green restructured its Woodhouse and Review chains then bought What Everyone Wants

His barrow-boy trading style initially went down well in his next venture, a stock-market quoted menswear business called Amber Day. By force of his personality, and trading prowess, he turned the business around, moving manufacturing to Hong Kong for cheaper supplies.

He restructured its Woodhouse and Review chains then bought What Everyone Wants, sending his share price soaring as staid City institutions were drawn to this epitomy of the Eighties , winner-takes-all zeitgeist.

But, when recession came, sales crashed brutally. The same City which once loved his maverick style fled, citing fears of lack of transparency and good practice. They muttered darkly about an apparent share-support operation (which he denied) and his connections to characters such as the convicted fraudster Roger Levitt, and Schneider.

Green was out, with news leaking about a Department of Trade and Industry investigation hovering over him. The probe came to nothing and Green was left resenting the Citys posh boys, a chip on his shoulder he carried throughout his life.

Serious money

Philip Green in 1980

He soon bounced back, teaming up with Scottish tycoon Tom Hunter, fashion importer and now restaurateur Richard Caring, and the Telegraph-owning Barclay brothers, to buy Sears for 548 million. He asset-stripped the empire within months, and he and his fellow investors made a 280 million profit.

In 1999, having proved to the City he didnt need it to make money, he bid for Marks & Spencer, with a view to making a killing selling the freeholds on its 300-strong store estate.

Again though, the double barrelled c***s, as Green called City types, were to be his undoing, as his banking advisers took fright at dark rumours that his wife Tina had been buying shares in M&S before the bid.

BHS and Arcadia

Green bought British Home Stores (BHS) in a move that would both propel him to billionaire status and destroy his reputation

He would not lick his wounds for long. Soon after, he bought British Home Stores (BHS) in a move that would both propel him to billionaire status and destroy his reputation.

He and his crack-management team, including ex-Debenhams chief Terry Green and Allan Leighton of Asda fame, set to work boosting BHSs profits through skilful buying and stock management, quickly turning a business he had bought for 100 million into a 1 billion one.

He went on to buy Arcadia, where retail veteran Stuart Rose was chief executive, sealing the deal with Rose in a final round of haggling outside the George Club. in Mayfair.

Arcadias Topshop brought him glamour as well as wealth. He turned it into the hottest retail property on the street, signing up celebrities like Kate Moss to design ranges and appear with him at parties and fashion shows.

Buoyed by success, he made another bid for M&S, which at that stage was being run by Rose. He failed, and famously had a handbags-at-dawn moment with the suave CEO on the street, jumping out of his limo and grabbing him by the lapels.

At the height of Arcadia-BHSs profitable heyday, Tina, in whose name his empire was owned, took out a record-breaking 1.2 billion tax-free thanks to her residency in Monaco.

It was 2005, and while some in the business world applauded his success, others found it distasteful. More still were baffled as to how the company could afford it. That question came back to haunt the Greens in future years.

Online explosion

Green neglected to invest in taking his brands digital

As the retail world moved increasingly online, and big, legacy store chains like Woolworths fell by the wayside, Green neglected to invest in taking his brands digital.

Even in bricks and mortar, competition was leaving his chains behind. Fast-fashion chains capable of switching ranges in a heartbeat were beating his brands at every turn. Primark, Zara, and H&M began to rule the roost.

BHS was the first of the Green empire to crumble, and the halcyon days of racy profit margins dramatically turned into a miserable tale of contraction.

Worse still, it left a massive hole in its pension scheme.

Green spent his days and nights trying to figure out an exit.

Sale to a spiv

Green sold his business for 1 to Dominic Chappell, a former bankrupt racing driver

That eventually came in 2015, when he sold the business for 1 to Dominic Chappell, a former bankrupt racing driver.

Green rejoiced at the sale, thinking it had lifted a huge weight from his shoulders. But it was not to prove so.

Chappell turned out to be a spiv (he was earlier this month jailed for six years for tax dodging).

He was totally incapable of turning the business around and the company collapsed into bankruptcy with 11,000 job losses and a 571 million pension deficit.

Pension shame

At the height of the BHS pensions fiasco, he took delivery of a 100 million yacht, Lionheart, on which he spends much of his time.

The row that ensued was to destroy Greens reputation and almost claim his knighthood. He was pilloried by MPs and the pension hole he had left the company with when he passed it on was described as the unacceptable face of capitalism. A bizarre, six-hour performance in front of the business select committee saw him berate one MP for staring at him.

Eventually, he paid 363 million into the pension fund after lengthy negotiations with regulators. Over the years, he and his family had collected some 580 million from BHS in dividends, rents, and interest on loans.

He had once been a regular on the party circuit. Newspapers and glossy magazines salivated over extravaganzas like his 60th birthday party, where he flew 150 of his closest friends to Mexico, including Naomi Campbell, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Kate Moss.

But, since the BHS scandal, he has often been exiled to his Monaco base.

Dont feel too sorry for him at the height of the BHS pensions fiasco, he took delivery of a 100 million yacht, Lionheart, on which he spends much of his time.

#MeToo

Philip Green became the bogeyman of the MeToo movement

But, even as he hid, the critical stories have followed him. In 2019, reports emerged alleging that he had made racist remarks, groped female staff, and been abusive to other employees claims he vigorously denies.

He became a bogeyman of the #MeToo movement. The friends who remained loyal despaired. Harold Tillman, veteran retailer and former owner of the Jaeger chain, said: Ive known him 40 years. I have seen him do so many kind, good things for people.

But, as even Topshoplosses soared to nearly 500 million, he was being seen as a dinosaur in a world of rising online giants, like Boohoo, Asos, and the Hut Group.

Like his retail empire, he had failed to keep up with the sensibilities of the modern world.

Coronavirus

Debenhams went under during the pandemic

As in so many industries, the coronavirus pandemic accelerated trends that had been running for years.

Covids lockdown of shops and malls has seen not only Greens stores suffer like never before, but his revenue via department stores like Debenhams, which went under.

However, few will feel too sorry for him. The Greens are still one of Britains richest couples.

They have long since diversified their wealth away from retail and into property and other ventures.

But, as far as his reputation on the High Street goes, with Arcadia following Debenhams into administration, the king has fallen far.

Link:

The rise and fall of Sir Philip Green, the retail king who fell from grace - Evening Standard