GoneTrending

When President Biden authorized a sweeping 400 billion dollar Student Loan Forgiveness Program, mayhem erupted around the nation. Not only did millions of eligible recipients quickly apply for relief but swaths of (mostly Republican) lawmakers raced to halt the action. Those efforts proved successful. Since October, the program has been blocked by The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, pending its day in the Court.

That day has arrived. On February 28th, a Courtroom Drama kicks off in which two cases will be jointly presented to the (mostly Conservative) Supreme Court Justices: Biden V. Nebraska & Dep. Of Education V. Brown (Not to be confused with Brown V. Board of Education). The fate of Biden’s (and perhaps all) student loan forgiveness initiatives, now rests on the Court’s interpretation of this program. If the stakes didn’t seem high enough, understand that the student loan repayment pauses, which have been in effect since the pandemic, have been pushed to one final deadline — 6o days after the Court’s verdict. Millions now wait in suspense to find out if they should celebrate or sell their computers to pay the coming bills. (Here, you can listen to the case live.)

PART I — BIDEN’S PROGRAM

Let’s recap what this is about. Biden’s Student Loan Relief Program aims to cancel $10,000 of Student Loan payments for those making less than $125,000 and double that for joint-filing households. Pell Grant Recipients of lower income brackets would be eligible for an additional $10,000 of relief.

After years of talk, how is this now happening? Simply put, The Biden administration deemed the economic devastation brought by the pandemic as justification to tie the program with the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act (HEROES Act). The 2003 law states that the government can provide relief to recipients of student loans when there is a “national emergency.”

But despite the Program’s many projected benefits, including relieving 20 million borrowers’ debts entirely, the program is seen by challengers as not just too expensive but unconstitutional and financially devastating.

PART II — WHO IS MAD ABOUT THIS?

The Biden Administration will face two cases, where the challengers will attempt to prove “Standing.” Article III Standing is the idea that a party has proven to a judge that they have been injured by another party and a court ruling would fix that injury. In Biden v. Nebraska, six republican states will argue that Biden’s program will destroy tax revenue and damage the state’s interests. The secret weapon on this front is Missouri. More specifically, MOHELA, The Higher Education Loan Authority of The State Of Missouri — which has grown into one of the largest owners of Student Debt in the country.

In Dep. of Education v. Brown, two student loan buyers, Myra Brown and Alexandra Taylor, will argue that they have been harmed by the program because their privately held student loans are not eligible for forgiveness. They will try to prove the Secretary of Education failed to follow proper procedures enacting this program, which made them lose an opportunity to obtain debt forgiveness and thus have standing to remedy these injuries.

PART III — WHAT IS THE STATE’S ARGUMENT?

While all six states argue their revenue streams will be affected, Missouri makes the strongest case. Missouri’s Lawyers argue that MOHELA is an arm of the state and thus, impending financial losses from discontinuing federal loan servicing would burden the state. They claim in their briefing, “The States have standing to challenge the Program. First, the Program will inflict substantial financial losses on MOHELA, and those losses injure Missouri. MOHELA is a state-created and state-controlled public entity that performs essential public functions for the State.”

Additionally, because many private loans (which States like Nebraska and Arkansas invest in) have started to become consolidated — “refinanced” by public loans — the states would lose revenue. Why? For some, Biden’s program would pay off student loan debt entirely. No more debt means no more interest payments, which ultimately means loss of profit and what the State’s lawyers classify as “an actual financial injury.”

PART IV — THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT

On the other end of the argument, defendants of the Relief plan advocate that none of the states can argue there is a clear causal link between loss of tax revenue and student loan forgiveness, stating “[the states] lack standing because their supposed threatened economic injuries are speculative and unsubstantiated.” Basically, they’re saying there are a lot of false assumptions being made about impending damages from this program.

Defendants also argue that MOHELA and Missouri are not as connected as led to believe, stating, “an injury to MOHELA does not confer an injury on the State of Missouri because MOHELA is independent from Missouri. The two entities are separate.” In a letter between MOHELA and Missouri Rep. Cori Bush, MOHELA admits “MOHELA has not had, and does not have, a contractual relationship or agreement with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office on any topic including as to student debt relief.”

It turns out the two have been acting quite separately in the wake of this program. In that same letter, it’s revealed that it was the state of Missouri, not MOHELA executives that pushed for the lawsuit, and according to the defendant’s briefing “Publicly available evidence shows that MOHELA has been cooperating with the U.S. Department of Education on its debt discharge plan, a position inconsistent with that of the State of Missouri.”

Skeptics point out that MOHELA has transformed into something far larger than anticipated in its original mandate. There are some who claim its become a “financial behemoth” owning one of every ten dollars of outstanding student loan debt.

PART V — BROWN & TAYLOR

Backed by the financing of Job’s Network, a conservative advocacy group, Brown and Taylor’s lawsuit seeks to prove that improper procedures were taken by the Secretary of Education in enacting this program and then caused financial harm. In the case of Taylor, challengers mention, ” [Taylor’s] level of debt forgiveness could easily increase if the Secretary based eligibility on a more relevant metric, such as current income. In fact, Taylor makes less than $25,000 a year, but individuals making exponentially more than that ($250,000 for joint filers or $125,000 for individuals) will receive $20,000 in debt forgiveness if they received a Pell Grant.” Brown is apparently also being unfairly denied $17,000 of debt forgiveness, however, she came under scrutiny when it was found out her sign-making company received a $48,000 loan from the Paycheck Protection Program, of which $47,996 was forgiven.

Regardless, the two are arguing debt forgiveness is being handed out by an unfair, unclear system, brought forth unjustly — the one final point of attack the challengers are using.

PART V — A MAJOR QUESTION

Another topic that will be debated is whether or not the implementation of the HEROES Act is appropriate in justifying Biden’s program. The HEROES Act was birthed in the wake of 9/11 to protect individuals from being put in a “worse position” financially by providing relief to recipients of student loans in response to a national emergency.

Challengers argue that this is inappropriate because:

1. “Keeping borrowers from a “worse position” does not permit the mass discharge of loans, because that puts those borrowers in a better position.” In addition, “the Secretary’s unpublished, self-reported data show that most borrowers do not “expect to experience difficulty repaying loans.”
2. While Biden’s program outlines the negative economic conditions brought by the Pandemic as justification for a National Emergency, there are many other factors that have caused current economic hardships such as the war in Ukraine.
3. Biden’s debt forgiveness program was more of a pre-textual “campaign promise” than a connection to a National Emergency.
4. The program overstretched its authority because it circumvented congressional approval and disregarded the Major Question Doctrine.

The Major Question Doctrine is the idea that federal agencies (in this case, The Secretary of Education) cannot initiate sweeping new policies that have a significant economic impact without authorization from Congress. Because half a trillion dollars is indeed significant, challengers believe Biden and The Secretary of Education are far out of their expertise to go forward with this without the okay from Congress.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

Despite the points laid out in reference to the Major Question Doctrine, The Biden Administration’s most important point of defense for the program will be in the case of “standing.” In an NBC article published on Feb. 27th, Ilya Somin, a law professor, mentioned “it seems as if the government has put most of its eggs in the standing basket.”

Regardless of the strong technical cases being made against standing, the concept of Student Loan Forgiveness has for years been a very ideologically divisive topic. For this reason, one can expect the Conservative Court to make an effort to disprove the constitutionality of Biden’s program and attempt to derail it. Who knows what will happen, but one thing’s for certain: The ramifications of this case will affect millions of Americans for years to come.

Before his new Calvin Klein underwear ad broke the internet, Michael B. Jordan knew he needed to give one important person a heads up: His mom. While walking the red carpet for Creed III, the actor/director revealed that he apologized to his mother once he knew the sexy pics were about to drop.

“I was like, my mama gon’ have to see this. Let me call her and be like, ‘I’m sorry. It’s out here,’” Jordan told ET Canada. “My business all out in the streets — literally.”

Embarrassing chats with mom aside, Jordan is actually proud of his first time modeling for Calvin Klein and loves how it made his directorial debut for Creed III feel even bigger:

“This was like, a moment, you know? Just to have everything come together at one time, it feels great,” he gushed. “And to be able to share that moment with my other actors, who are having a moment of their own as well, it just feels special. It feels like everything is happening at the right time.”

You can see Jordan’s Calvin Klein ad below:

Speaking of moments, the actor also got to have a little comeuppance during the Creed III premiere. Jordan was interviewed by The Morning Hustle‘s Lore’l, who used to be one of the kids that teased him in high school because of his name and his penchant for carrying around headshots.

“I was the corny kid, right?” Jordan said to a surprised Lore’l, who didn’t expect the actor to know about her confession on a recent podcast. Fortunately, Jordan was all class. “I heard it. I heard it. It’s all good.”

(Via ET Canada)

The RX is Uproxx Music’s stamp of approval for the best albums, songs, and music stories throughout the year. Inclusion in this category is the highest distinction we can bestow and signals the most important music being released throughout the year. The RX is the music you need, right now.

Glockoma 2 is Key Glock’s first full-length album since the passing of Young Dolph. As such, it would seem that there’d be a lot of fanfare around its release, some pomp and circumstance worthy of Dolph’s standing in the Memphis rap scene and Glock’s proximity to him as his protege and frequent collaborator.

But that’d run counter to both rappers’ modus operandi, the way they eschewed big-name guests and moved in modes consistent with the gritty street narratives they unraveled in their music. Key Glock is not a flashy guy, although he does sport the usual array of chunky, diamond-encrusted necklaces common to his profession.

Instead, what we get on Glockoma 2 is a microcosm of the Paper Route Empire ethos of consistency and authenticity, with little window dressing or build-up. The album was released quietly over the weekend after only a pair of straightforward singles (“Dirt” and “Work” both of which are frontloaded here) and a tour announcement. The music included is similarly unfussy, with no featured artists and a familiar lineup of producers including BandPlay, Hitkidd, and Sledgren.

What makes it stand out among a slew of similarly-themed projects is Glock’s intense focus on improvement. He’s always been cleverer rhyme-smith than he’s perhaps been given credit for, but here, he elevates his craft impressively, stunning with subtly witty one-liners and plainspoken but deft boasts (“I just pulled up with my chopper like the Undertaker,” he barks on “2 For 1”).

Of course, the spirit of Dolph hovers over the proceedings. While Glock dodges obvious references to the tragedy that knocked his world off its axis, his mentor’s influence is clear in both his improved delivery and in overt lyrical references. On “Ratchet,” he nods to the Dolph-shaped void, “I took a couple losses, that shit there made me a winner / Boss shit, baby, yeah, I do this for Flippa.”

There isn’t much variation on these themes in Glock’s lyrics, but he keeps the content sounding fresh with a versatile selection of beats. They demand enough course correction to keep him in a variety of pockets, which helps distinguish each song and prevent his voice – the only one on the album thanks to his “F**k A Feature” mentality – from becoming monotonous. From the sauntering horns on “Randy Orton” to the Gothic trap bounce of “Money Over Hoes,” there’s enough variation in sounds to prove Glock’s adaptability.

If there’s anything missing here, it’s a more in-depth excavation of the principal’s emotional state of mind. He took a full year off after consistently releasing at least an album a year since 2016 as a result of the emotional hit he took with Dolph’s death. While maintaining his unfazed persona is likely good business – it’s what’s worked for him so far – it’d be nice to see him drop kayfabe at least here to address a traumatic experience without framing it as a temporary setback.

He similarly put off this reckoning on his late 2022 EP PRE5L, which seemed less pressing because of that project’s positioning as a warm-up of sorts for his grander return. Now that he’s made that return, it’s comforting to see him getting back on track, but a little disheartening to know that he still feels like he can’t address how he’s really been feeling. Perhaps on his next project, he’ll be more comfortable emoting a little.

However, for now, a return to form is enough – or, at least, it’ll have to be. Glock is back to big stepping, and for the first time, doing so without the support of his respected mentor. It’s nice to see him finding his footing. Dolph’s shoes likely can’t and won’t be filled – maybe they shouldn’t be. But Key Glock is walking his own path now, as assuredly as he’s able… and perhaps it’ll lead him to even greater success down the road.

Glockoma 2 is out now via Paper Route Empire.

Mushroom Kingdom, here we come… two days earlier than expected.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie was originally scheduled to come out on April 7th, but Nintendo, Universal, and Illumination revealed today that the world will now fall in love with Keegan-Michael Key’s Toad on April 5th. “Wahoo! The #SuperMarioMovie is moving from April 7 to April 5 in the US and in more than 60 markets around the world. The movie hits theaters in additional markets in April and May, with Japan opening April 28,” the film’s Twitter account wrote.

No reason was given for the new release date; the only other films coming out that weekend are indies, like A24’s Showing Up, Owen Wilson as not-Bob Ross in Paint, and the much-acclaimed Joyland. But it must mean Nintendo has faith in the movie. Certainly more than the first Mario movie, which resulted in star Bob Hoskins mournfully recalling that he used to play King Lear.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie features the voices of Chris Pratt as Mario, Charlie Day as Luigi, Anya Taylor-Joy as Peach, Jack Black as Bowser, Seth Rogen as Donkey Kong, Keegan-Michael Key as Toad, Fred Armisen as Cranky Kong, Kevin Michael Richardson as Kamek, and Charles Martinet in a mystery role.

With Fox News under fire after a damaging series of text messages were revealed in Dominion’s lawsuit against the network, Paul Ryan is opening up about his responsibilities on the board and whether or not he’s personally responsible for Fox turning on Donald Trump. Most notably, Ryan made it a point to make it clear that he does not subscribe to the wild conspiracy theories and rhetoric pushed by Tucker Carlson.

While talking to conservative writer Charlie Sykes, Ryan defended Fox News for having a variety of voices and hearing from other conservatives, but expressed that Carlson doesn’t exactly fall under that umbrella. Via The Bulwark:

I think it’s really important for the sake of pluralism that you have alternative voices that are readily accessible and are strong enough to stand up for for pluralism then get sort of pushed down. So, if only for that reason alone, I think it’s very important to have an institution like that. Do I disagree with Tucker on this stuff? Of course, I absolutely disagree with him.

Sykes took things further by calling out Carlson for pushing “toxic sludge, racism, disinformation, and attacks on democracy” and asked Ryan if feels responsible for that output. Instead, Ryan did his best to defend Fox News while also acknowledging that the conservative moment needs some work.

“This screed you just made on Fox — I think that was probably just Tucker,” Ryan said. “I can go four times as long about other stuff that I think are really good that are on there that are being advanced, and voices that are being heard on Fox News that are giving voice to what I would call proper conservatism properly understood. So it’s a long process, a big institution, but I do want to make sure that we get the conservative movement in a good place in America again.”

(Via The Bulwark)

Courtney Cox is set to return to battle against Ghostface, the man who haunted your dreams as a child who is coming back to do it again, this time using the beautiful backdrop of the notoriously safe and clean New York City. What could possibly go wrong in a city where thousands of people pack themselves into an underground metal box for several hours a day with no exit? Nothing!

Cox will reprise her role as Gale Weathers in the sixth installment of the long-running slasher series where they will once again attempt to kill this dude and his Spirit Halloween discount mask. But, really, it doesn’t seem like they are getting out of this one. Again.

Still, the movie promises to deliver some spooks and stabs, and for the first time, Cox is also in the dark with the rest of the viewers. “I have a really good scene with Ghostface and it was amazing,” the actress told Variety. While Cox has starred in the past five sequels, she added that this time, the experience was a bit different. “I’ve obviously been stabbed many times and all that, but this time, to work with Ghostface and not know who’s under the mask, it was really fun. Usually, by the time I’m getting stabbed, I know who it is,” she said.

Scream 6 will bring the gang, including Jenna Ortega, to New York, where Gale’s character now lives. “[Gale] still lives in New York, which is great because now the killer’s in New York, just as Sam and Tara have moved there. It kind of fell right into her lap. She wrote a book. She told Sam that she wouldn’t and then of course she did because I mean, someone was going to do it. So, she had to!”

Will Weathers live to see another movie? It’s too soon to say, but Cox is on board to keep going. “I’m just so excited to be a part of something this long,” she added. Hopefully, this isn’t an indication that Gale will get axed by Mr. Face. Maybe the duo has a nice tourist day in Time Square before settling on a beautiful Central Park picnic. Maybe all Ghostface needs is a fresh start!

Scream 6 premieres in theaters on March 10th.

(Via Variety)

Nike is commemorating 50 years of hip-hop in a very special way: Sneaker News has revealed that Nike is dropping a special set of Air Force 1 Lows, in honor of the beloved genre’s 50th anniversary.

These special Air Force 1s will come with white shoes bedecked with a silver logo. On the bottom will be a gray heel and sole, with a small, off-white layer between the bottom and the shoe. On the tongue is a small label reading “Nike: 50 Years Of Hip-Hop,” and inside the shoe will be gray, with the Nike Classics Air Force 1 logo.

Additionally, Nike will also release a special black and gray hip-hop edition of their Dunk Highs.

This year is gearing up to be a special one in the realm of hip-hop.

Earlier this month, the Grammys commemorated 50 years of hip-hop with an all-encompassing performance featuring artists from various eras, including Queen Latifah, Too Short, and GloRilla. Black Thought also released a “Love Letter To Hip-Hop” in the form of a song and mini-documentary. Last year, DJ Premier spoke with us about how he views the past, present and future of hip-hop.

As of now, there is no drop date for the shoes.

You can see the designs above.

A few weeks ago, Vladimir Putin’s alleged long-term girlfriend, Alina Kabaeva, made headlines for breaking her silence on his Ukraine war. Granted, where there’s one alleged girlfriend, there’s often more in the mix (and this is reportedly the case), but Alina appears to be the longest-standing of the reported bunch. The decorated Olympic rhythmic gymnast appears to share at least three children with Putin even though he’s been wed (to Lyudmila Aleksandrovna Ocheretnaya) since the early 1980s.

Yet Putin began to crack rare smiles in public (as seen in the above photo) when he appeared alongside Alina in conjunction with her athletic endeavors, way back in 2001. More support for these reports can be found in the U.S. seeing fit to sanction Alina in Fall 2022, and it’s been rumored that she spends lots of time in Switzerland. However, The Daily Beast now points towards evidence that Alina has been secretly still living in Russia and at quite a cost.

Via the Organized Crime And Corruption Reporting Project, Putin has been funding Alina’s lavish lifestyle, which includes four apartments purchased with a “secret fund.” Here’s more from The Daily Beast:

The fund, tied to a Cypriot company Ermira and related entities, purchased four apartments in the fall of 2011 in Sochi at the direction of Kabaeva. Kabaeva allegedly instructed the fund to register the apartments in other people’s names. One $15 million penthouse is a whopping 2,600 square meter apartment with a swimming pool, a movie theater, and even its own helipad. The Project also obtained images inside of Putin’s Valdai residence, which show sweeping ceilings and ruby-encrusted chandeliers.

According to the OCCRP, Putin nabbed some of this money by funneling profits from the Putinka vodka brand, but it’s happened through “trademark transfers,” so who knows how shady that part of the funding could be.

The OCCRP also previously reported upon Putin’s secret railway that he reportedly constructed before invading Ukraine. As if that wasn’t enough, the $15 million penthouse appears to be the biggest apartment (according to the U.K.’s The Times) in all of Russia. There’s little reason to believe that Alina (who is 39 while Putin is 69) funds these purchases on her own, especially since advocating for journalism seems to be her main gig, but perhaps we’ll see more from the OCCRP on this (alleged) matter.

(Via The Daily Beast, OCCRP.org & The Times)

Much has been written about Mark Mylod’s The Menu (our review), starring Ralph Fiennes, Anya Taylor-Joy, Hong Chau, and Nicholas Hoult. Its cultural impact has truly been deep, as food lovers (like me) recreate the iconic cheeseburger and fries from the film while others note the possible influence it has had on the industry, with globally renowned chef René Redzepi deciding to close NOMA (again). Plus, it’s one of those films that seems to have made most critics’ “best of 2022” lists. Meaning that the discourse is just ramping up as we head into awards season. But one thing that feels like it’s been missed by most critics is the deeper meaning and theme of the film that lie beyond the obvious fine dining themes.

PLEASE NOTE: This post will 100% spoil the film. Head over to HBO Max and watch it first if you don’t want it spoiled.

While there are a lot of folks calling The Menu a remake of Ratatouille, that comparison is a bit flimsy. Yes, Ratatouille’s Remy has to let go of all his “training” and cult-like adherence to the dictates of a master chef and cook what he loves to be a truly great chef — the theme being “be yourself to succeed” which is true Disney fare. But The Menu’s Chef Julian Slowik played by Ralph Fiennes — the exec chef at the private island exclusive restaurant Hawthorne — is already miles beyond that when we meet him. He feels victimized by the world of fine dining to such a degree that he’s going to burn it all down and take all the people around with him. Not even Anton Ego in Ratatouille is that far off the deep end.

At the climax of The Menu, Margot — the sex worker who’s brought along at the last minute by one of Chef Slowik’s fanboys named Tyler (whom he actually loathes) and played by an always wide-eyed Anya Taylor-Joy — gets Chef Slowik to cook him something he loves before he finishes his “masterpiece” of destruction. But cooking a beloved dish doesn’t change Slowik the way it changes Remy or even Ego in Ratatouille. Instead, the theme that drives The Menu is actually about re-finding pleasure through an act of service. In the “Ratatouille” scene — if you want to call it that, in the way the sense memory evoked when Chef Slowik cooks the cheeseburger and fries echoes the sense memory evoked when critic Anton Ego tastes Remy’s ratatouille — The Menu screenwriters Seth Reiss and Will Tracy did not craft a return to a childhood love of food for Chef Julian Slowik. Instead, it’s a return to the joys of pleasuring a customer.

Beyond the theme of hating particular customers to the point of wanting to murder them vs. a return to actually giving joy to diners, Chef Slowik doesn’t have an arc in The Menu. Margot does, however — it’s her movie after all, since she’s who we see first, last, and follow through the whole narrative. And it’s in Margot’s arc that the true crux of the movie lies. It’s about finally choosing to truly be part of the service industry (in this case, as a sex worker) and using her skills to help a broken-down old chef find one moment of true pleasure before he dies (ironically via him returning to his lowly line cook days while delivering a doggy bag filled with an excellent cheeseburger and fries).

Like the old creep who wanted to be told by Margot that he was “good” while he masturbated (more on him later), Chef Slowik just wants to be told he’s “good” too — not at cooking but at pleasing the customer.

PART I — What Is Chef Julian Slowik Up To?

The film sets this up via the two exchanges that Margot and Chef Slowik have on their own in the film (before the finale). The first one comes at about the 37-minute mark when Margot is in the restroom and Slowik accosts her. He bluntly asks her “I’d like to know specifically what you don’t like about the food. You’ve barely eaten any. Why? I need to know. Why don’t you eat?”

Margot replies, “Why do you care?”

Slowik comes back with, “I take my work very seriously and you’re not eating. That wounds me.”

This is setting up the finale in that it is teaching Margot (and us) that Slowik does actually want to bring people the joy of a good bite of food for real, not just show off his elite kitchen skills. It also draws Margot closer to Slowik with her literally opening a door that was between them and addressing him face to face (though still in a stand-off-ish manner — shouts to her for not being afraid of him for a second).

Slowik continues to interrogate Margot by asking “who” she really is and where she’s from for which Margot offers her sex worker cover story. Slowik senses this is a cover and straight up tells her “No, not who you want me to think you are. Who are you?” Margot holds to her story and there’s a moment of true concern on his face when Slowik says, “You shouldn’t be here tonight.”

Margot says, “Please, get the fuck out of my way” and the scene ends.

This whole ordeal sets up a ticking clock wherein Margot has to decide if she’s with the staff or the diners, i.e. a giver or a taker. More violence ensues. And finally, the ticking clock ends and Margot and Slowik take refuge from the chaos in his office so she can make her decision.

This scene, which is around the 55-minute mark (basically the mid-point of the film), is where Margot and Slowik connect in a way that demonstrates — or “foreshadows” if you want to get all screenwriter-y about it — the finale. Glass Onion does the same thing around the 33-minute mark when Ed Norton’s Miles literally lays out beat-by-beat how Janelle Monae’s Helen “disrupts” everything in the finale. (It’s a common trope, is the point.)

Margot starts off by telling Slowik what she thinks he wants to hear about her not belonging there and him being “brilliant.” Slowik asks her to cut the shit immediately with, “You’re not sure I’m brilliant so don’t say it. It’s false.”

Margot rolls her eyes and says, “Fine, you’re not brilliant.” To which Slowik almost hisses, “Oh, I expected more of you…” before softening with, “You belong here, with your own breed.” Margot asks what he means and he plainly says, “With the shit shovelers. Oh, you think I couldn’t tell? I know a fellow service industry worker when I see one.”

This starts to melt Margot’s facade and she sits down next to Chef Slowik when he asks about another patron at the exclusive restaurant, “Mr. Leebrand.” Then Margot tells Slowik about her time as a sex worker for the billionaire (which sets up the “pleasure” of it all). Margo first tells him he liked to “jerk off” in front of her while holding eye contact. Then she goes into more detail about what he wanted her to say while “servicing” him as a sex worker. This is where Margot and Slowik connect in a “we’ve all been there” sort of way.

Slowik asks Margot, “Do you enjoy providing your services?” She takes a beat and replies, very honestly, “Yes. Or… I used to.” Then asks, “Do you enjoy providing yours?”

The openness between the two in this half of the scene is palpable as Slowik says, “Oh, I used to but…I haven’t desired to cook for someone in ages. And one does miss that feeling.” Again, the brilliant acting — little flourishes of half grins and even the tearing up of Ralph Fiennes’ eyes — helps this scene land as something real between two providers of a service.

This is also clearly setting up the finale, in that both Margot and Slowik are true-born service industry folks — providing their own brand of pleasure — who’ve lost their love for their game. It’s clear she’s barely putting up with Tyler’s shit during the first half of the movie (playing into her loss of enjoyment in her life). This is their connection and this is what Margot will give Slowik to allow her to escape later in the film. It’s the door she’s tasked with opening but she doesn’t have the key to open it just yet.

PART II — What Do The Cheeseburger And Fries Mean At The End?

The next sequence between Chef Slowik and Margot isn’t private but lays the groundwork for the finale. Slowik tasks Margot with fetching a barrel from the smokehouse. The stern host, Elsa, disagrees with Slowik’s seeming trust in Margot and follows her as she breaks into Slowik’s cottage. After a struggle, Margot ends up killing her with a boning knife before returning bloodied and rolling the barrel into the kitchen.

In between all of that, Margot spies an old photo of Slowik when he was very young. In the photo, he’s truly happy and flipping hamburgers at Hamburger Howie’s back in the late 1980s. This lovely little plant is paid off later and is the key that Margot needs to open up that lock and set herself free in the finale — though Margot doesn’t realize this just yet. In fact, she finds a radio and calls for help. Which is, of course, thwarted by Slowik’s well-constructed plan.

Still, that photo plays into the key theme of pleasure derived from serving people. A thing we know Slowik feels has been stolen from him. Even though each set of characters at the dinner seems unique as individuals (good writing!), to the chef they represent archetypes who have stolen his joy and love of the kitchen in one way or another:

• Chef Slowik’s mother introduced him to cooking, which led him to his demise, essentially showing him joy/pleasure but leading to this all-encompassing pain.
• Lillian (the food critic) and Ted (the publisher) suck the pleasure of cooking by making it for their own gain and bringing pain to so many who just want to nourish people.
• The finance bros funnel money into their own pockets instead of helping to create a system where the staff is paid a fair wage in the industry, creating the illusion of constant famine that rules the service industry.
• The “angel investor” uses money as a carrot and stick to commodify any pleasure of the people who love(d) cooking in the first place. And also trojan horse’s his “angel investing” into a more intrusive sort of partnership.
• The billionaire patrons only dine at Hawthorne to boast about their status.
• The food blogger/influencer who knows nothing about food but thinks he does because he’s watched Chef’s Table and performs pleasure when eating. Freaking Tyler.

Chef hates them all. Which comes out, either via tortillas (seriously) or Slowik flat-out saying it.

Then there’s John Leguizamo’s “Movie Star” who made a bad movie that wasted one of Chef Slowik’s only days off with a terrible comedy called “Calling Dr. Sunshine” (hilarious). Slowik wanted a moment of pleasure away from work but was instead assaulted with a terrible film that wasted his time and chance at having a moment of pleasure. So John’s gotta die — he represents an artist who doesn’t care, which chef can’t abide either.

The point of all of these characters/villains (in Slowik’s eyes) is that they’ve taken pleasure from him, and he’s had enough. This is all supported by a staff who’ve seen the same ringer destroy their dreams and pleasure and are ready to burn it all down too. Even the stabbing between Katherine (the female chef who stabs Slowik) and Slowik plays into all pleasure being drained from life via an awkward flirtation and rebuke. Every single turn in the script is about pleasure being destroyed or denied in one way or another. All of these side characters are simple window-dressing for that running theme.

At this point in the story, Margot has realized that calling for help is futile. So she starts to think of how to get out of the final course of this dinner from hell. You see her thinking, her wheel’s turning in her head as the camera inches toward her, and, finally, it hits her. The “I know a fellow service industry worker when I see one”; the “I haven’t desired to cook for someone in ages”; and the image of Slowik truly happy flipping burgers all lock into place.

She’s a sex worker or aka a service worker, a shit shoveler, so she jumps to work. Serving Chef Slowik.

Margot stands up, claps like Slowik to get everyone’s attention, and tells Slowik the “truth” about his food and that he’s an obsessive. Slowik insists they/he always cooks with “love” and Margot calls his bullshit out. Both Slowik and we, the audience, know this to be untrue because he told Margot (and us) that he lost his love for cooking a long time ago.

Once Slowik is put in his place, Margot pivots to the service part of it all with a cutting, “And the worst part is that I’m still fucking hungry.”

This “wounds” him, truly. Then Margot really starts “servicing” Slowik to bring him pleasure. Not by looking into his eyes while he jerks off and saying she’s his daughter and that she loves him as with the billionaire Leebrand but by looking into his eyes and asking him to feed her and to be a customer that he can nourish with his “love.”

The scene plays out like a mini-play of a john and a sex worker negotiating their terms before the act.

Slowik: “You’re still hungry?”

Margot: “Starved.”

Slowik: “Well, what are you hungry for?”

Margot: “What do you have?”

Slowik: “Everything…”

Margot: “Do you know what I’d really like?”

Slowik: “Tell me…”

Margot: “A cheeseburger.”

The camera moves into a close-up, Ralph Feinnes cracks a crooked smile of desire and says with a raspy, anticipatory voice, “We can do a cheeseburger.” She’s getting him off. Slowik cooks the cheeseburger with ease, because of course. But more importantly, Chef Slowik cooks — something he’s told us/Margot he’s lost the desire for and something we’ve yet to see him actually do — and not as a fine dining chef but as a lowly yet happy line cook.

Now, the desire is back and he’s loving it. He’s experiencing pleasure. His sense memory is firing (just like Anton Ego!).

Margot acts the scene perfectly by really laying on the fake joy of eating. She even giggles and moans as she eats like she’s watching someone finish in front of her. Look at his face when she says his burger is good.

He’s happy. He found that moment of pleasure that has eluded him for so long thanks to Margot literally servicing him. This is the face of a happy customer.

PART III — Margot’s Last Bite?

Thanks to the “service” that Margot provided, Chef Slowik lets her go with her doggy bag. She is truly a shit shoveler. She’s not a taker. She’s a giver to her core. This earns her her freedom.

From the sex worker’s perspective, the fact that Slowik’s pleasure is via a cheeseburger and fries is nothing more than Margot figuring out Slowik’s kink and letting him get off on it. He flat-out says as much with a sly smirk after she challenges him to make a real, no-bullshit cheeseburger and he says, “I’ll make you feel you’re eating the first cheeseburger you ever ate. The one your parents could barely afford.”

He may as well be a john telling a sex worker he’s actually going to make her climax while she services him. It’s that on the nose.

In the end, though Chef Slowik still kills the patrons (his cooks all commit suicide, as does Tyler — thereby allowing him to be “one of them” in death), this film isn’t a tragedy, really. Margot gets a happy ending by giving Slowik one last moment of pleasure. She plays the role she needed to free her and save her life — a role she was not as willing to play with Tyler earlier in the film because Tyler sucked and we all know it.

She truly became a shit shoveler and she has a damn good burger to enjoy for all her hard work. Also, she’s not dead — which is a perk. And while many have speculated that maybe Margot’s last bite is poisoned, those people are 100% certainly reading the movie, its themes, and its biggest ideas wrong. Margot’s fine, we promise.

Drake recently opened up about exactly how one of his first interactions with Lil Wayne went. Specifically, the Canadian rapper noted that Wayne didn’t know what his name was when they meant, during an episode of A Moody Conversation alongside Lil Yachty.

“And I think his name was kinda like ‘Drake Drizzy Rogers’ / Or ‘Drizzy Drake Rogers,’ I’m too busy to play father,” Lil Wayne rapped in their 2008 collaboration, “Ransom.”

Yachty then asked Drake if Wayne still calls him that, fifteen years later. That was when Drake asked if he was aware of the backstory before sharing how exactly that line came to be.

“My email was [email protected]; Rogers was the service provider in Canada and [he] didn’t realize the ‘at’ in the email was like a middle interference,” Drake said. “He just thought my name was Drizzy Drake Rogers. I mean he rapped it once, I just didn’t have the heart to correct him.”

Rogers Communications, of course, is a major Canadian media and communications company that also owns the MLB’s Toronto Blue Jays and the Rogers Centre, where Drake’s beloved Toronto Raptors used to play their home games years ago.

Later in the interview, Drake and Lil Yachty discussed accents — with Canada coming up once again.

“I literally want to meet the first Toronto man of all time,” Drake added. “I don’t know who he is. I don’t know where he got the accent from or any of that but I know that he’s influenced all of us. I’m a full father talking like internet memes because that’s just my upbringing.”

Check out the full episode here.