Trent Reznor was a big presence in Marilyn Manson‘s early career. The Nine Inch Nails vocalist signed Manson to his label Nothing Records, produced his first two albums, and brought him on as an opening act for one of the band’s early tours. Despite this, the relationship between Reznor and Manson would eventually turn sour. Fast-forward to the present and Manson is now facing accusations of sexual assault and mental abuse from his former finance, Evan Rachel Wood, who accused him of “grooming” and “horrifically abusing” her during their relationship.
In the wake of Wood’s accusations, a passage from Manson’s 1998 The Long Hard Road Out of Hell biography resurfaced on social media, detailing an alleged incident involving him and Reznor. Reznor addressed both his current relationship with Manson and the incident in question. “I have been vocal over the years about my dislike of Manson as a person and cut ties with him nearly 25 years ago,” Reznor said in a statement to Pitchfork. “As I said at the time, the passage from Manson’s memoir is a complete fabrication. I was infuriated and offended back when it came out and remain so today.”
According to Pitchfork, the passage came from an unpublished 1995 interview with Empyrean Magazine, which Manson decided to use for the book after the publication cited “unethical interview procedures” were used to gain information from him. In it, Manson says the two “poked our fingers into the birth cavity” of a heavily intoxicated woman.
One of the greatest things about the American experiment is the idea of self-rule, “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Instead of power being held by a ruling class or monarchical dynasty, we routinely elect our leaders from among the citizenry to represent us in the government.
It’s a system that works well when the representatives we choose are among the best of us. But the fact that virtually anyone can serve as an elected official also leaves us open to potentially disastrous leadership. We could end up with, say, a malignant narcissist autocrat wannabe or a kooky conspiracy theorist in positions of power—a reality that clearly puts the security of the entire country in danger.
The Constitution stipulates the requirements for holding office, and they are extremely simple by design. To serve in Congress, you have to be 25 years old, a citizen for at least seven years, and live in the area you represent. To serve as President, you have to be 35 years old, a natural-born citizen of the U.S. and have lived in the country for 14 years.
That’s it. Super basic. On paper, a guy who collects trash for a living (a noble job—no criticism) is as qualified to be president or a member of Congress as a professor of constitutional law. There are no educational qualifications and no previous job or relevant experience required. There are also no psychological screenings, meaning that, theoretically, a literal psychopath serial killer could be elected to the position that controls the nuclear codes.
A viral video shared by “Politics Girl” highlights how absurdly weird it is that people can get a job in the most powerful positions in our government without being the least bit qualified:
It’s true. There is no official vetting process. And while there are some constitutional disqualifications—such as participating in rebellion or insurrection (ahem), impeachment when included as part of a conviction (double ahem), and not taking the oath of office—most attempts to create additional qualifications have been deemed unconstitutional.
There’s wisdom in that. Adding official qualifications is a slippery slope, and most of what we could come up with would be arbitrary anyway.
Relevant job experience is a definite plus for a person seeking public service, no doubt. But one strength of our representative system is the diversity of experience and perspectives it inevitably brings to the table. Having lawmakers who come from a spectrum of careers and backgrounds is a good thing, and can help ensure that more Americans are seen and heard in our government.
What about education? Most of us would agree that an elected official should be smart and knowledgeable. But how do we measure that? Quality of education can vary greatly, rendering specific levels of education virtually meaningless. Earning a degree might indicate an ability and willingness to learn and work, but it is not a guarantee of intelligence or relevant knowledge. People who haven’t gone to college might have gained skills and insights through service to their community that would be more valuable to governance than book learning. And since there are barriers that make higher education inaccessible for some Americans, having an education requirement would be an unjust form of gatekeeping.
They have to at least know about government, though, right? A certain understanding of civics seems like a logical prerequisite, but how do we measure that? Do we create a test a person has to pass before they can get on a ballot? Might not be a bad idea, but would that actually solve the real problem we’re looking at? A constitutional law degree doesn’t make someone conscientious, and a genocidal maniac could study and pass a civics test.
So how about a psychological screening of some sort? Again, not a bad idea on the surface, but here we run into the issue of who conducts it and what they should look for. Would there actually be a set of dealbreaker diagnoses that would disqualify someone? Or would we just provide the results to the public and let them decide themselves whether a person is fit to serve?
JUST IN: Human Rights Campaign calls for Marjorie Taylor Greene’s removal from committees https://t.co/sfdovX8Dco https://t.co/X6iQXV49tp
The problem there, of course, is that mental health issues that shouldn’t preclude someone from serving—an anxiety disorder, for example—could unfairly lead people away from a candidate due to the stigma attached to mental health. There’s a huge difference between a run-of-the-mill mental health issue and a full-blown dangerous personality disorder, but any diagnosis could be weaponized. Where and how do we draw the line?
Since party politics is a feature of our system (one that George Washington warned us against, for good reason), some make the argument that the parties themselves need to vet candidates before they get on the primary ballots. A Brookings Institute report from 2018 pointed out that activist groups have begun producing more candidates, which is leading to more underqualified, ideologically extremist candidates. If we’re going to have a two-party system, those two parties need to ensure that the candidates in their parties aren’t total whack jobs. The suggestion made by the report authors is “to strengthen the position of the institutional parties so that they maintain voice and influence in the process of developing candidacies—not instead of voters and activists, but alongside them.”
But what happens if a party itself moves farther to the extremes, either because of the candidates that are getting attention or because the social reality has pushed the voters in that direction? (Ahem, QAnon.)
And isn’t partisan politics itself a big reason we’re in this spot? A system that places people in two distinct boxes is inevitably going to lead to extremism, as parties resort to increasing demonization of the other side as they vie for power and influence.
“Under the two-party system, U.S. politics are stuck in a deep partisan divide, with no clear winner and only zero-sum escalation ahead. Both sides see themselves as the true majority. Republicans hold up maps of the country showing a sea of red and declare America a conservative country. Democrats win the popular vote (because most Americans live in and around a handful of densely populated cities) and declare America a progressive country.
The only way to break this destructive stalemate is to break the electoral and party system that sustains and reinforces it. The United States is divided into red and blue not because Americans want only two choices. In poll after poll, majorities want more than two political parties.”
Expanding our options beyond Republican and Democrat sounds like a fabulous idea in my book.
In the meantime, we the people are still left to vet the people who get put on the ballot. So maybe the answer in the short term is to 1) Encourage and enable better candidates to run for office, and 2) Educate and encourage the voting populace to do a better job of vetting. Relying on a candidate’s own messaging isn’t enough. What have they actually done in their communities? What have they said in public or on social media? Look at various media sources to see what kinds of red flags may have been spotted.
Of course, this process only works if people actually care about not having kooky conspiracy theorists and malignant narcissist authoritarians in our government. Ultimately, when we start electing highly problematic people to lead us, that’s a reflection of where we are as a society. And unfortunately, there’s no quick fix for a voting populace that doesn’t recognize when an elected official is an actual danger to the country and when they’re just being subject to partisan attacks. (A good hint to the former is when members of the official’s own party, especially one that tends to stick together, speak out and say, “Yeah, this is a bridge too far.”)
Answers here aren’t obvious or simple, but it’s clear we need to do something different. The way we’re going now, we very well could end up with a psychopathic serial killer in Congress. And my biggest fear is that a good portion of the nation wouldn’t even blink an eye if we did.
Chrissy Teigen is good at Twitter. She’s also fabulously, unimaginably wealthy. So while she hobnobs with the masses on social media, she also lives a very different life than almost everyone. That was made abundantly clear on Wednesday, when what began as what seemed like a simple prompt — the kinds that yield thousands and thousands of quote-tweets, with hyper-personal responses — turned her into one of the “main characters” of Twitter for a day. That’s to say, she went viral for the wrong reasons.
It began innocently. Teigen thought she had a solid prompt tweet, writing, “what’s the most expensive thing you’ve eaten that you thought sucked?” On a second glance, it’s not the greatest prompt tweet, which tend to be relatable to almost everyone, whereas this one implies that you could at some point afford something deemed “expensive.” But she would have maybe gotten away with it had she not offered her own response.
one time john and I were at a restaurant and the waiter recommended a nice Cabernet. We got the bill and it was 13,000 dollars. HOW DO U CASUALLY RECOMMEND THAT WINE. we didn’t even finish it and it had been cleared!!!
“one time john” — she wrote, referring to her husband, John Legend — “and I were at a restaurant and the waiter recommended a nice Cabernet. We got the bill and it was 13,000 dollars. HOW DO U CASUALLY RECOMMEND THAT WINE. we didn’t even finish it and it had been cleared!!!”
Teigen tried to make it relatable, with its all-caps bewilderment and suggestion that $13,000 seemed like a lot to a famous model, TV personality, and entrepreneur married to one of the most successful musicians alive. But people did not find it relatable. And so Teigen got aggressively quote-tweeted, but not for the reasons she had hoped.
Did you recover? Meanwhile people are out here drowning in debt, losing their homes, and can’t afford to see a doctor.
— @ me if you simp for chrissy teigan (@plainmouse) February 3, 2021
This is how you know money isn’t real & capitalism is straight garbage. Y’all can accidentally buy a $13,000 bottle of wine but most Americans can’t afford a $300 emergency
chrissy teigen: one time in geneva, my husband john legend’s driver was parking our limo. he knocked over an ancient statue and we had to pay 90,000 euros to fix it! luckily we had it on us, in gold krugerrand.
Lol not unlike Chrissy Teigen, one time I was at a Family Dollar store which I had mistaken for having a policy of only having items for a dollar like the store Dollar Tree, and boy was my face red when I realized there were things there that were multiple dollars, and I left pic.twitter.com/tlMVVVPMGY
Eventually Teigen — who, again, is usually good at Twitter — checked back in, attempting damage control, of sorts.
hey, not everything I say on my twitter is going to be relatable to you because it is my life and my twitter and my stories. I see your tweets, I get your jokes, you are so funny, yes, you really nailed me
honestly, I will be that person for you. it is fun to gang up on me. I *see* the convos that bring you together in your owning of me. I make it easy. have fun.
Chrissy Teigan is a celebrity is a clearly has financial resources beyond our wildest dreams. That’s not a secret. I would be more perturbed if she acted like she was poor when she’s clearly not. She just shared an experience she had, not trying to hurt anyone’s feelings
The popular voice-based app Clubhouse has become one of the hottest trends among social media platforms, with celebrities signing on. Names like 21 Savage, Ne-Yo, and Lakeith Stanfield have hopped on the app, but fans of Cardi B are wondering why it’s taking so long for her to get on Clubhouse.
The rapper took to Twitter on Wednesday to respond to why she hasn’t signed up, saying, “People keep asking me to join clubhouse knowing damn well my mouth gets me in trouble.” To anyone who’s spent any time on Clubhouse, Cardi is right to be wary. In recent months, a number of artists, including Mulatto, Meek Mill, and Kevin Hart, have been brewed controversy with things they’ve said on the app.
While a Clubhouse appearance is unlikely from the Bronx rapper, one thing fans can definitely expect from her is new music. She recently announced that her first song of the year, and follow-up to her recent No. 1 single “WAP,” would arrive at the end of the week. The track is titled “Up” and will most likely appear on her highly-anticipated sophomore album, set to drop later this year.
Cardi B is a Warner Music artist. Uproxx is an independent subsidiary of Warner Music Group.
Apple has expanded into everything from phones to streamers to watches, but one market they haven’t tried to seize is cars. It’s not been for lack of trying. There’s been speculation that they’d try to crash the automotive industry for years. But now, according to CNBC, they’re close to making that threat a reality.
The news network reports that the tech giant is close to a deal with Hyundai-Kia to manufacture their own line of autonomous electric vehicles — called, for now, of course, the “Apple Car” — at a Kia warehouse in Georgia. By “autonomous electric vehicle,” they of course mean a driverless car — an ever-dodgy technological prospect that is nonetheless a priority at Tesla, who, it looks like, may become their main competitors.
As per CNBC:
“’The first Apple Cars will not be designed to have a driver,’” said one source with knowledge of the current plan. ‘These will be autonomous, electric vehicles designed to operate without a driver and focused on the last mile.’ That could mean Apple cars, at least initially, could focus on package food delivery operations and firms incorporating robotaxis.”
Should the deal pan out, the Apple Car could go into production in 2024, though that may be pushed back. There’s also the possibility they could wind up inking with another automotive manufacturer. In other words, you have a bit longer to become comfortable with a world with cars rolling around amongst us, without people driving them.
Forget the typical lede, we want to say, right away: you definitely shouldn’t use whiskey to warm up if you find yourself stuck in a garage, un-insulated attic, or icy backyard during a freezing cold day. Period. Sure, the premise is perfect for a buddy comedy or classic sitcom and it might make you feel warm briefly, but it definitely won’t prevent you from getting frostbite.
When we talk about whiskey’s warming effect, we mean in normal, everyday cold situations — when a little buzz isn’t going to lead to catastrophe. Seriously, we can’t state that clearly enough.
With that disclaimer out of the way, we have to admit: the “Kentucky hug” that comes with a high proof bourbon and the overall flush that a smoky dram of Scotch whisky delivers feels quite pleasant this time of year. Gets the blood flowing and helps you appreciate a nice crackling fire. So we reached out to twenty bartenders and asked them which whiskeys they’ll be drinking to warm up this month, as the snow piles up and the windchill makes our heads ache.
Teeling Single Malt Irish Whiskey
Teeling
Una Green, USBG bartender in Los Angeles
Teeling Single Malt is really cool because it’s an expression that took the Master Distiller 27 attempts and nine months’ worth of blending to get dialed in. He blended a mixture of barrels including sherry, port, Madeira, white burgundy, and cabernet sauvignon.
The flavors are warming — with baking spice, cherry pie, cooked blackberries, cloves, honey, and black pepper, all wrapped up with notes of aromatic plums.
Aaron Melendrez, bartender and marketing specialist for Flying Embers in Los Angeles
Redemption Rye Rum Cask Finish has a warm finish with the perfect amount of fruit, cinnamon, molasses, and vanilla. It’s sure you warm you up on the coldest winter evening.
n February, I really enjoy the subtle heat and spice that a rye whiskey tends to carry with it. That being said, Whistle Pig 10-year rye is of the top tier to enjoy this winter. It’s best sipped neat or on the rocks where the caramel notes can be appreciated, it also holds well in a black walnut Manhattan.
Rabbit Hole Dareringer straight bourbon whiskey, finished in PX sherry casks. I had the ability to visit the distillery when I was in Colorado Springs and their products are fantastic, but this sherry cask truly became a sanctified marriage.
I can’t help but smile when I think of the flavors and how they fit the month of February.
Andy Printy, beverage director at Chao Baan in St. Louis
If you’re feeling a bit chilly, Four Roses Small Batch Select is the space heater for your soul. Rocking out at 104 proof, it drinks much more comfortably than it suggests. The nose is dark fruit and oak, the palate is leather, rich lumber, and riddled with flashes of vanilla and cherry. It’s full-bodied and finishes with just a touch of heat and barrel tannin.
Cristina Suarez, beverage manager at KUSH Hospitality Group in Miami
Hibiki Japanese Harmony Whisky has that cozy up in sweats feeling for me. I’d throw a little pour of this in a hot tea to relax by the fire. But it works just as well as a sipper with a single ice cube. Either way, you’ll be warm once that glass is empty.
Jennifer Jackson-Keating mixologist at Sneaky Tiki in Pensacola, Florida
Jack Daniels. Jack Daniels is America. It’s what we all snuck a sip of as a kid or smelled on our grandfather’s breath at family gatherings. It’s the most mixable whiskey on the market, you can find it in every liquor store guaranteed, and it is at an affordable price point for most people.
What flavors make it great? The wood and the charcoal. It goes down smooth with the hint of campfire from the charcoal finish. Nothing makes me warmer and want to slide my chair a little closer to the fire than the one and only Old Number 7- Jack Daniels.
The newest release from the new rye kids on the block in Baltimore, Sagamore has a calvados finished juice at a tickle over 100 proof that is redolent of the essence of winter.
Baked apple, toasted oak, and honeyed spice with a punchy finish made for dragging an old-fashioned sip on and on, or an aromatic toddy, or just sipping neat by a fireside.
Michele Gargiulo. Front of house manager and sommelier at Hampton’s Restaurant in Sumter, South Carolina
Angel’s Envy Rye. This is the winter drink of all winter drinks. It is finished in rum casks, which leave the rye not spicy as most, but warm and smooth. It smells like sugar cookies, maple syrup, and Christmas time on the nose. The flavor is outstanding, and I always need to remind myself that it is 100 proof while drinking it — to make sure I don’t overdo it.
The best way to warm up this winter is to grab yourself a nice Scotch and drink it up neat. Bruichladdich The Classic Laddie is perfect. This beautiful Scotch hits the spot in every way. The amazing sea salt like flavors with a hint of vanilla smoothness makes for a perfect drink by the campfire on a cold February’s eve.
Mark Phelan, director of beverage operations at 16” on Center in Chicago
Starward Nova Single Malt Australian Whisky is a terrific winter sipper. It is a younger whisky but aged entirely in Australian red wine barrels. The result is a unique, lively sip with a rich, funky, tannic finish that warms and delights.
Rabbit Hole’s Founder’s Collection Boxergrail is a great option with its high proof, enticing nuances, and rich texture. It is the perfect indulgence for all whiskey lovers this winter. The experience begins with citrus and spice, is heightened by bright floral notes, and develops to a creamy, vanilla finish with a hint of nuttiness.
I recommend serving neat or over ice, as this whiskey really sings on its own.
Sarah Rexwinkle, key bartender at The Grand Marlin in Pensacola, Florida
When it comes to finding a superior whiskey to warm you up on a cold winter’s night, I personally go with Stagg Jr. The high proof of this Kentucky straight bourbon will send warmth straight to your bones.
The rich, sweet, chocolate and brown sugar flavors create a nice balance with the bold spices and smokiness.
Todd Johnston, beverage director and sommelier at Marsh House in Nashville
Old Soul Bourbon from the Cathead Distillery had a limited release of a 15-year expression that I think is delicious. It has some of the same fruity brightness that you get from the entry-level Old Soul Bourbon but with a bit more oxidative spice and roundness to make it an easy slow-sipper.
For a simple winter warmer, I’d go with the classic Old Soul.
Nathaniel Meyers, mixologist at Sear + Sea in Orlando
The best whiskey to warm you up this winter would be Bulleit 10-year bourbon. As one of my favorite bourbons, this whiskey has deep rich tones with just the right amount of burn when going down that is sure to give you that all-around warmth during even the coldest of winter nights.
Easy selection right here — Elijah Craig Rye. Some of us don’t have an endless budget, so a modestly priced rye works wonderfully for the everyday sipper. What flavors make it great? Honey and baking spices combined with touches of complimentary white pepper, creating a round, soft mouthfeel.
James E Pepper 1776 Rye Whiskey. It’s like a liquid dessert with tasting notes such as creme brulee and butter. The pepper isn’t just part of the name either. The high rye presence rounds out the sweetness with a nice spice that opens up really well with ice or water.
Don’t try to warm up with whiskey unless you’re already inside. But if the outside time is done, the Redbreast Lustau is like a great big whiskey hug. Absolutely lovely, rich, and warm on the palate.
The sherry finish on this one is exquisitely well integrated into the malt.
Jerry Skakun, bartender at Cucina Enoteca in Newport Beach, California
I personally love a good single malt and to this day, hands down, one of my absolute go-to’s would have to be Oban 14-year. To me, it is very well balanced and offers all five flavor elements. — salty, sweet, sour, bitter, umami. The salty and umami profile can be seen in notes of seaweed. The sweet element can be noticed with the choice of malts used and also dark dried fruit components. Bitter flavor profiles can be common in most whiskies towards the finish or on the nose. It also has a great story about two brothers who curated this beverage.
Anything with a story feels nice during this “gather ’round the fire” time of year.
Last season, the conversation in the Western Conference was almost wholly focused, at least when it came to “who will win the West,” on the two Los Angeles squads, the Lakers and Clippers, once they assembled superteams in the offseason.
The Lakers had brought in Anthony Davis to play with LeBron James and the Clippers had landed Kawhi Leonard in free agency and Paul George via trade. All season felt like a build to an inevitable conference finals showdown, one that never came after the Clippers blew a 3-1 series lead to the Nuggets in the semis, while the Lakers went on to win the championship in the Bubble. The in-town rivalry between the two teams never felt greater than last season, as during the Lakers dominance, the Clippers were never a threat and once they became one, it was as the Lakers fell to general irrelevance in terms of championship contention.
The animosity between the two teams was apparent, and it stemmed from a variety of things. There were the Clippers billboards touting Kawhi as the new King of L.A. and plenty of trash talk back and forth, but according to Jared Dudley’s new book about the Lakers’ Bubble experience titled “Inside the NBA Bubble: A Championship Season Under Quarantine,” it was Paul George’s boasting about being on that same level as LeBron, Davis, and Kawhi, that irked the Lakers as a team, via Silver Screen & Roll.
We hear some of those guys talking about how they’re the team to beat in LA. It’s fine if Kawhi says stuff like that. He’s defending a championship. We don’t trip if someone like Patrick Beverley is talking trash; that’s how he feeds his family. We get it. We respect the hustle. But we think it’s disrespectful for Paul George, who hasn’t won, to put himself on the level of Bron and AD. This motivates us. When we see those guys around the compound, we don’t really kick it with them. The one exception of course is Markieff, whose twin brother, Marcus, is on the Clippers. This probably keeps tensions from boiling over.
George rather famously struggled in the Bubble playoffs, and for whatever reason seems to elicit extremely strong opinions, particularly from those attached to the Lakers. The feeling that he hasn’t earned that position in the same way Kawhi has through winning is certainly understandable, but it’s rather fascinating that the Lakers would take his personal belief that he’s a superstar in the league as an affront and disrespectful.
In any case, this season is setting up to once again be a showdown between the two L.A. squads in the West, although Denver and Utah are certainly worthy contenders as well, and after the disappointment of not getting a series to settle things a year ago, maybe this year we can see it in action. There’s clearly plenty of motivation on both sides, as the Lakers want to assert and prove their dominance, while the Clippers and George want to show they belong in those conversations.
The Golden Globe nominations were announced Wednesday morning, and while there were some unfortunatesnubs, at least they got something right: Borat Subsequent Moviefilm received two nominations, one for Best Picture (Musical or Comedy) and one for Maria Bakalova, its epically game and brave co-star. When Baron Cohen took to Twitter to celebrate, he made sure to not only single out Bakalova but also another of the film’s big names: Rudy Giuliani.
Wawaweewah! I’m shocked and humbled to be nominated for 3 Golden Globes, and congratulations to the incredible @MariaBakalova96 too!
We’re so honoured–and just in case we don’t win any, I’ve already hired Rudy Giuliani to contest the results. pic.twitter.com/CSligPsmI8
“Wawaweewah! I’m shocked and humbled to be nominated for 3 Golden Globes, and congratulations to the incredible @MariaBakalova96 too!” Baron Cohen wrote. “We’re so honoured–and just in case we don’t win any, I’ve already hired Rudy Giuliani to contest the results.”
The newly former president’s personal attorney, of course, had a very momentous last few months. And the nightmare really began when journalists finally got to see the Borat sequel in October, where they discovered a shocking scene in which Giuliani gets a little fresh with Bakalova’s Tutar — who’s supposed to be 15-years-old — and even unzips his pants with a camera catching it all.
It was just the beginning of Giuliani’s problems. After the election, only two weeks after Borat 2 dropped, the former NYC mayor was involved in such instant classic flubs as the disastrous “Four Seasons Total Landscaping” press conference and another in which black goo melted down his head. And while he continues to spout baseless accusations of voter fraud, he can’t defend his Trump because he, too, is under investigation over early January’s failed MAGA coup.
Meanwhile, congrats to Bakalova, who’s been raking in end-of-year awards, and to Baron Cohen, who was also Golden Globe nominated for his turn as Abby Hoffman in The Trial of the Chicago 7. And good luck to Giuliani, who many never get back the reputation he once had before he got involved with Donald Trump.
My first experience of Jerrod Carmichael, probably at least a decade ago now, was watching him captivate a small, not particularly great audience I’d just bombed in while doing virtually none of the things you’d normally expect a comic working an audience to do. He didn’t shout, he wasn’t animated, he didn’t ask them tons of questions to create “energy” or “participation”; he was just an odd, sort of cerebral guy in a hoodie leaning against the back wall of the stage sharing a series of goofy, semi-surreal thoughts. He created a quiet kind of “anti-stage presence” that didn’t feel like shtick.
Carmichael’s directorial debut, On The Count Of Three, premiering at Sundance this week, is a lot like my memory of watching him perform: thoughtful, surprising, surreal, depressive in an oddly optimistic way, and above all a unique vibe that’s not easy to forget. Whereas every actor seems to make their directing debut with some unbearably bleak festival slog (“it’s about a family struggling to come to grips with personal tragedy”), On The Count Of Three takes ironic juxtapositions to their most absurd degree, in an 84-minute film about suicidal best friends that somehow seems breezy.
With a script by Ari Katcher and Ryan Welch (alums of Ramy and The Carmichael Show), Carmichael plays Val, opposite the underrated and suddenly ubiquitous Christopher Abbot as Kevin, two best friends who have made a suicide pact of sorts. If that sounds bleak, well, it sort of is, but it’s also liberating. Val and Kevin can live this day like it’s their last day on Earth, because it is. On The Count Of Three becomes a sort of dystopian road trip buddy movie, the whole thing living in that brief, unique window where tragedy becomes opportunity.
The gag is that Val, in coming to depression later in life, is being a suicide poseur. I don’t want to spoil much more of it than that, and I probably don’t need to. You’ve seen a road movie before; the main characters go on quests and meet people from their pasts and present (Tiffany Haddish, JB Smoove, Henry Winkler). Having seen one or two other movies recently with very similar structures (shooting in a pandemic may dictate this kind of episodic structure), what separates On The Count Of Three from the others is that the people they meet never seem like opportunities for “funny cameos.” In fact, it seems like the script took pains to imagine the least funny issues they could — depression, suicide, domestic violence — and tried to fit them all into a movie that’s funny without being expressly comedic. That it allows situations to play out naturally, in a more character-driven fashion, rather than as transparent excuses for jokes, is probably why it’s actually able to find the humor.
The ending may not land as hard as the film was building it up to, but it’s an enjoyable, singularly off-beat ride with some of the best use of Papa Roach since Silicon Valley. I’m trying and failing to remember a scene this year that has made me laugh as hard as Jerrod Carmichael trying to commit suicide in the bathroom of a mulch factory while Travis Tritt’s “It’s A Great Day To Be Alive” blares over the sound system. On The Count Of Three is the rare enjoyable suicide movie because at its heart, it understands that while depression and suicidal ideation are very sad, they’re also kind of corny.
‘On The Count Of Three’ debuted at Sundance this week.Vince Mancini is onTwitter. You can access his archive of reviewshere.
With the trial of R. Kelly set for September 2021, one of his associates has tapped out, according to law digest Courthouse News. Richard Arline Jr., a longtime friend of Kelly’s, pled guilty to charges of bribery today, admitting that he offered one of Kelly’s alleged victims money to drop a claim against him. Arline was was of three men indicted last August on charges of extorting or intimidating victims of Kelly’s alleged sex ring. Arline entered his plea via video conference.
One of the victims, a woman who was 17 at the time Arline tried to pay her off to prevent her from coming forward with her sexual relationship with Kelly, recorded phone calls last May and June between herself and Arline. On the tapes, Arline is heard proposing to send the woman $500,000 in exchange for her ceasing cooperation with the authorities, with the woman rejecting his proposal and demanding $1 million within 24 hours. In one call, Arline requests the woman destroy evidence including iPads and video that could be used against Kelly.
In a short statement, Arline admitted, “I knew what I did was wrong, and I’m sorry.” He’s set to be sentenced in June. While there’s no mandatory minimum for federal bribery, the maximum sentence is 15 years. The two other men charged alongside him, Kelly’s manager Donnell Russell and Michael Williams, were charged with posting nude photographs of one victim to Facebook and YouTube and setting a rental SUV on fire after sending threats to other victims.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
(@DollypartonXXL) 
Anarcho Habibti “The Intolercunt” 
(@Badgirlsbedhead) 
e
(@_sarahdorsey) 
