Golden Globes 2018: The Complete List Of Nominees

Daniel Kaluuya as Chris Washington in Universal Pictures'

Top left: Get Out: Universal Pictures; Top right: Big Little Lies: Hilary Bronwyn Gayle/Courtesy of HBO; Bottom left: Dunkirk: Melinda Sue Gordon/Warner Bros; Bottom right: Insecure: Justina Mintz/Courtesy of HBO

The 2018 Golden Globe Awards will air Sunday night on NBC starting at 8 p.m. ET. Below is the list of the nominees. We’ll be updating this list with winners throughout the show.

Best motion picture — drama

Dunkirk
The Post
The Shape of Water
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Call Me By Your Name

Best motion picture — musical or comedy

The Disaster Artist
Get Out
The Greatest Showman
I, Tonya
Lady Bird

Best performance by an actress in a motion picture — drama

Jessica Chastain (Molly’s Game)
Sally Hawkins (The Shape of Water)
Frances McDormand (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri)
Meryl Streep (The Post)
Michelle Williams (All The Money In The World)

Best performance by an actor in a motion picture — drama

Timothée Chalamet (Call Me By Your Name)
Daniel Day-Lewis (Phantom Thread)
Tom Hanks (The Post)
Gary Oldman (Darkest Hour)
Denzel Washington (Roman J. Israel, Esq.)

Best performance by an actress in a motion picture — musical or comedy

Judi Dench (Victoria & Abdul)
Helen Mirren (The Leisure Seeker)
Margot Robbie (I, Tonya)
Saoirse Ronan (Lady Bird)
Emma Stone (Battle of the Sexes)

Best performance by an actor in a motion picture — musical or comedy

Steve Carell (Battle of the Sexes)
Ansel Elgort (Baby Driver)
James Franco (The Disaster Artist)
Hugh Jackman (The Greatest Showman)
Daniel Kaluuya (Get Out)

Best performance by an actress in a supporting role in any motion picture

Hong Chau (Downsizing)
Allison Janney (I, Tonya)
Laurie Metcalf (Lady Bird)
Octavia Spencer (The Shape of Water)
Mary J. Blige (Mudbound)

Best performance by an actor in a supporting role in any motion picture

Willem Dafoe (The Florida Project)
Armie Hammer (Call Me By Your Name)
Richard Jenkins (The Shape of Water)
Christopher Plummer (All The Money In The World)
Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri)

Best director — motion picture

Guillermo del Toro (The Shape of Water)
Martin McDonagh (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri)
Christopher Nolan (Dunkirk)
Ridley Scott (All The Money In The World)
Steven Spielberg (The Post)

Best screenplay — motion picture

Guillermo del Toro, Vanessa Taylor (The Shape of Water)
Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird)
Liz Hannah, Josh Singer (The Post)
Martin McDonagh (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri)
Aaron Sorkin (Molly’s Game)

Best motion picture — animated

The Breadwinner
Coco
Ferdinand
Loving Vincent
The Boss Baby

Best motion picture — foreign language

A Fantastic Woman (Chile)
First They Killed My Father (Cambodia)
In The Fade (Germany, France)
Loveless (Russia)
The Square (Sweden, Germany, France)

Best original score — motion picture

Carter Burwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri)
Alexandre Desplat (The Shape of Water)
Jonny Greenwood (Phantom Thread)
John Williams (The Post)
Hans Zimmer (Dunkirk)

Best original song — motion picture

“Home” (Ferdinand)
“Mighty River” (Mudbound)
“Remember Me” (Coco)
“The Star” (The Star)
“This Is Me” (The Greatest Showman)

Best television series — drama

Game of Thrones
The Handmaid’s Tale
Stranger Things
This Is Us
The Crown

Best television series — musical or comedy

Black-ish
The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel
Master of None
SMILF
Will & Grace

Best television limited series or motion picture made for television

Big Little Lies
Fargo
Feud: Bette And Joan
The Sinner
Top of The Lake: China Girl

Best performance by an actress in a limited series or a motion picture made for television

Nicole Kidman (Big Little Lies)
Jessica Lange (Feud: Bette And Joan)
Susan Sarandon (Feud: Bette And Joan)
Reese Witherspoon (Big Little Lies)
Jessica Biel (The Sinner)

Best performance by an actor in a limited series or a motion picture made for television

Robert De Niro (The Wizard of Lies)
Jude Law (The Young Pope)
Kyle MacLachlan (Twin Peaks)
Ewan McGregor (Fargo)
Geoffrey Rush (Genius)

Best performance by an actress in a television series — drama

Caitriona Balfe (Outlander)
Claire Foy (The Crown)
Maggie Gyllenhaal (The Deuce)
Katherine Langford (13 Reasons Why)
Elisabeth Moss (The Handmaid’s Tale)

Best performance by an actor in a television series — drama

Jason Bateman (Ozark)
Sterling K. Brown (This Is Us)
Freddie Highmore (The Good Doctor)
Bob Odenkirk (Better Call Saul)
Liev Schreiber (Ray Donovan)

Best performance by an actress in a television series — musical or comedy

Pamela Adlon (Better Things)
Alison Brie (GLOW)
Rachel Brosnahan (The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel)
Issa Rae (Insecure)
Frankie Shaw (SMILF)

Best performance by an actor in a television series — musical or comedy

Aziz Ansari (Master of None)
Kevin Bacon (I Love Dick)
William H. Macy (Shameless)
Eric McCormack (Will & Grace)
Anthony Anderson (Black-ish)

Best performance by an actress in a supporting role in a series, limited series or motion picture made for television

Laura Dern (Big Little Lies)
Ann Dowd (The Handmaid’s Tale)
Chrissy Metz (This Is Us)
Michelle Pfeiffer (The Wizard of Lies)
Shailene Woodley (Big Little Lies)

Best performance by an actor in a supporting role in a series, limited series or motion picture made for television

David Harbour (Stranger Things)
Alfred Molina (Feud: Bette And Joan)
Christian Slater (Mr. Robot)
Alexander Skarsgård (Big Little Lies)
David Thewlis (Fargo)

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

At Camp David, Trump Outlines Vision On North Korea, Welfare, Immigration for 2018

President Donald Trump speaks to the press after holding meetings at Camp David Saturday. Trump met with staff, members of his Cabinet and Republican members of Congress to discuss the Republican legislative agenda for 2018.

Pool/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Pool/Getty Images

Flanked by congressional Republican leadership and some members of his Cabinet at Camp David Saturday, President Trump vowed to be “very involved” in midterm elections later this year and said he had some “incredible meetings” with Republicans as the party charts its legislative course for 2018.

In a wide-ranging press conference, Trump touched on his hopes for passing bipartisan legislation to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws and national welfare programs, repeated claims his campaign did not collude with the Russians who attacked the 2016 presidential election and signaled a willingness to start a dialogue with North Korea, just a week after its leader announced there’s a button to launch a nuclear attack sitting on his desk.

On immigration, Trump said Republicans are going to have to work out an arrangement with Democrats on the Obama-area program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

“I think it is something they’d like to see happen. It’s certainly something I’d like so see happen,” the president said.

When pressed for specifics about what he wanted to see in an immigration bill, he suggested that items he wanted would have to be tied to a legislative fix for DACA, which protects roughly 700,000 people brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

Trump ticked off a list of what he called “the basics”: “We want the wall, the wall’s going to happen or were not going to have DACA. We want to get rid of chain migration, very important and we want to get rid of the lottery system.”

The “lottery system” refers to the Diversity Visa Lottery program, that NPR reported in November lets around 50,000 immigrants into the U.S. each year. A man from Uzbekistan used that program to enter the country and he is accused using a truck to plow into a pedestrian and bicycle path in New York City killing eight people in October. “Chain migration” refers to an existing part of the national immigration system based on family connections that allows immigrants already settled in the United States to seek to have relatives move to the U.S. to join them.

President Trump also called for more border security and more funding related to border security. And he reiterated a campaign promise that Mexico will pay for the border wall “in some form,” a day after reports from the Washington Post and the New York Times that his administration is seeking $18 billion in funding from Congress for the first phase of a wall and other improvements on the U.S.-Mexico border.

On the topic of a welfare overhaul — something Trump said for Republicans was “very dear to our heart,” — he said again he’d seek help from Democrats.

“We’ll try and do something in a bipartisan way, otherwise we’ll be holding it for a bit later. But we’ll be looking to do that very much in a bipartisan way,” he explained.

That comment echoes recent comments by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Just before Congress left for the holidays late last year, McConnell suggested in an interview with NPR, that in order for 2018 to be a productive year, the GOP may have to move on from changes to things like changes to the federal welfare programs and repealing the Affordable Care Act, unless Democrats in the Senate were willing to work with Republicans on those issues.

When it came to North Korea, the president spoke about the thawing of relations between North and South Korea. Next week, the two nations are set to revive talks for the first time in two years.

“I hope it works out. I very much want to see it work out between the two countries,” Trump said.

South Korea hosts the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang next month and Trump said he was “100 percent” behind North Korea sending athletes to the games.

Trump was also asked if he was open to having a phone conversation with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. Earlier this week, Trump got into a war of words on Twitter with the North Korean leader over who has the bigger nuclear button.

“Sure I always believe in talking,” Trump said Saturday, adding later, “absolutely I would do that, no problem with that at all.”

The president was pressed by a journalist about whether he would require any prerequisites from Kim before having a phone conversation.

Trump pushed back and said: “It’s not what I said, at all.”

The president also said of Kim:

“He knows I’m not messing around. I’m not messing around, not even a little bit, not even 1 percent. He understands that. At the same time if we can come up with a very peaceful and a very good solution…if something can happen and something can come out of those talks, that would be a great thing for all of humanity.”

On the FBI investigation looking into contacts between Russian operatives and the Trump campaign, the president was asked whether he had White House counsel Donald McGahn urge Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to recuse himself in the Russia investigation, as reported by the New York Times.

Trump scoffed at the question, saying, “The story by the way in the Times was way off. Or at least off. But everything I’ve done is 100 percent proper. That’s what I do is I do things proper.”

The president added: “There’s been no collusion between us and the Russians” but said there was collusion between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Russians, but didn’t provide any proof of these assertions. Trump’s claims about Clinton and the DNC come after recent reports that the FBI in Arkansas is investigating the Clinton Foundation after a steady drumbeat of claims by Trump and Republicans about the 2010 sale of a mining company to Russia.

The president was joined at Saturday’s press conference by Republican congressional leaders from both the House and the Senate, some members of his Cabinet and Vice President Pence.

After touting many items on conservatives’ wish list that have been checked off by the White House and the GOP-controlled Congress in Trump’s first year in office, McConnell said Saturday that 2017 “was an astonishing year. But it’s time to look forward” to 2018.

“We have big things to do for the American people,” House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Saturday. Ryan added: “And what we want to work on in 2018 is making sure that everyone enjoys the economic growth that’s to come.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Here's How The Score Of 'Apocalypse Now' Originally Sounded

David Shire’s Apocalypse Now (The Unused Score) is available now.

Jim Titus/Courtesy of the artist

hide caption

toggle caption

Jim Titus/Courtesy of the artist

David Shire was hired to compose the soundtrack for Apocalypse Now but had a falling out with the film’s director Francis Ford Coppola. Now, Shire’s original electronic, all-synthesizer score is being released for the first time.

Shire says he’d mostly forgotten about the music he wrote for Apocalypse Now. He heard it again for the first time a little over four years ago, playing back from a cassette that’d been gathering dust in a drawer.

“I listened to it and thought, ‘Where did all of that stuff come from?,'” Shire tells NPR reporter Rick Karr.

For Apocalypse Now, Coppola originally wanted a fully-orchestrated score played entirely on analog synthesizers.

“The reason Francis wanted an all-synthesized score instead of an orchestra was precisely because it had a little inherent coldness to it,” he says.

In 1976, while Coppola decamped to The Philippines to shoot the film, Shire began drafting ideas for the score in a Los Angeles studio. He didn’t want the synthesizers to simply emulate strings, brass and woodwinds. He wanted to hear imaginary instruments with novel tones. He wrote down rough descriptions of sounds he wanted like ‘celeste with gong ring-off,’ or an instrument he dubbed the ‘scumbone,’ — something of a dirty, huge trombone.

But although Shire had been writing for synths for years, he had never learned how to program one, much less a whole ensemble of them. For that he turned to Dan Wyman, a musician itching to change the way most people heard synthesizers. Wyman’s job was to figure out how to make the massive synthesizers generate the sounds Shire heard in his head.

Liner notes from David Shire’s Apocalypse Now (The Unused Score).

Jim Titus/Courtesy of the artist

hide caption

toggle caption

Jim Titus/Courtesy of the artist

“Synthesizers were capable of so much more,” Wyman says. “David knew that, Francis Coppola certainly knew that. We needed, in our own minds, to prove that the instrument could be as human as human players, but more wonderful.”

Recording a couple minutes of music could take days. But they had the time. Coppola’s film shoot in The Philippines dragged on thanks to a hurricane and casting issues.

Apocalypse Now seemed to be stalled, so Shire took an offer to work on the score of another film. This did not sit well with Coppola.

“‘I had to take another job,’ I said. He said, ‘Well, I can’t deal with that,’ and I was fired with a very short phone call,” Shire says.

Shire also happened to be going through a divorce with Coppola’s sister at the time. The director hired his father, Carmine, instead, who started from scratch on the score. Shire remembers he was devastated, but says he understands what Coppola was going through to make the film.

“We were working in a very sanitized, quiet, safe environment,” Shire says.

Like David Shire, Francis Ford Coppola had forgotten about the abandoned score. Now, nearly 40 years later, the ex brothers-in-law have reconciled. A picture in the CD liner notes shows the two grinning, side by side, at the wedding of Shire’s son, Coppola’s nephew.

David Shire’s Apocalypse Now (The Unused Score) is available now.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Star 'Treknology': Imagining The Future Into Being

Sonequa Martin-Green, center, a cast member in “Star Trek: Discovery,” poses with original “Star Trek” cast members Nichelle Nichols, left, and William Shatner at the premiere of the new television series on Sept. 19 in Los Angeles.

Chris Pizzello/Invision/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Chris Pizzello/Invision/AP

We live in a unique moment of human history where the tools our parents used are not the ones we take in hand.

The pace of technological (and hence societal) change is so fast now, compared with a few centuries ago, that we’ve developed an entire branch of storytelling dedicated to imagining where those changes are headed. It’s called science fiction and — whether you like its forms or not — it has already changed your life.

If you don’t believe me, reflect for a minute on those once ubiquitous flip-phones. These early-generation cell-phones were directly inspired by that paragon of science-fiction Star Trek. From “communicators” to “warp drives” to “transporters”, Star Trek laid out a future that continues to inspire scientists and engineers. But given just a 30-year distance between Captain Kirk and his “communicator” and you and your flip-phone, how realistic is the rest of Star Trek’s vision of future technology?

That’s the question astrophysicist Ethan Siegel takes on with his delightful new book Star Trek Treknology. Siegel is an accomplished writer and explainer of complex science. But what makes Treknology different from other “The Science of…” books is his own delight in the subject.

There is a lot of Star Trek history in this book. That means Siegel has the show’s entire fictional timeline at his disposal (strung across many different TV series and movies). It’s knowledge he puts to good use by giving us the story of the internal advance of Star Trek‘s tech.

When was the warp drive first invented? How fast could Kirk’s Enterprise go compared with Picard’s almost a century years later? By filling out the fictional universe so completely — and with such enthusiasm — Siegel provides the perfect set-up for diving into the very real science we’d need to built Star Trek tech.

Siegel’s discussion of warp drive is a good example of the strengths of his approach. After giving the Trekian timeline, Siegel provides a short and excellent account of why the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit and how “bending” space a’la Einstein’s general relativity might provide a work-around. I particularly enjoyed the discussion of how physicist Miguel Alcubierre reverse-engineered a solution to Einstein’s equations for making a space-time “bubble” warp drive (the book comes complete with a nifty diagram). Of course, making something like this would require acquiring some “negative mass,” which no one knows how to make.

And how about that most Star Trek of Star Trek transport modalities — the transporter? Siegel manages to be both concise and complete in his discussion of the various ways a transporter might work. Do you actually move all the atoms of your body from one place to another? Or do you just transport the information about those atoms and then rebuild the body? These questions allow Siegel to unpack some basics of quantum physics, like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. From there, he opens discussions of information and quantum computing with questions like: How can you map the atoms in your body for transport when you can’t know exactly where they are leading? All of these ideas are laid out at just the right level for a light-hearted science book about science fiction.

Treknology is pretty complete. It has a section on weapons and defense (deflector shields, phasers), a section on computing (the holodeck, androids) and a section on medicine and biology (recorders, cybernetics). There is a lot more, too, and each chapter in each section is richly illustrated with images from the shows and well-composed scientific diagrams. That means a lot of eye-candy here for both Trek and science fans.

What matters most, though, is that through all of the great explanations and Trek future-history, Siegel never loses track of why any of this matters. From its first appearance, Star Trek has always been hopeful about the relationship between society and technology.

“Our desire to push the boundaries of what we’re capable of knowing, inventing and accomplishing is placed front and center in Star Trek,” Siegel writes, “right alongside the importance of remaining true to the very things that make us human.”

It’s that spirit that always made Star Trek worth paying attention to in terms of how the show imagined the future. It’s also what makes this book so much fun to spend time with.


Adam Frank is a co-founder of the 13.7 blog, an astrophysics professor at the University of Rochester and author of the upcoming book Light of the Stars: Alien Worlds and the Fate of the Earth. His scientific studies are funded by the National Science Foundation, NASA and the Department of Education. You can keep up with more of what Adam is thinking on Facebookand Twitter: @adamfrank4

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Palestinian Christians Attack Greek Orthodox Patriarch To Protest Land Deals

Palestinian security forces push away demonstrators from the convoy of Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophilos III, during a protest against his visit to the Church of the Nativity in the West Bank city of Bethlehem on Saturday.

Majdi Mohammed/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Majdi Mohammed/AP

Palestinian Christians attacked the convoy of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem during a visit to Israeli-occupied West Bank on Saturday to protest the church’s controversial property sales to Jewish and Israeli buyers.

The Greek Orthodox Church claims it is the second-largest landowner in Israel, but in recent years, the sale of prime real estate has stirred controversy among both Israelis and Palestinians. The church says it owns nearly 30 percent of Jerusalem’s Old City and a large portion of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which holds the traditional tomb of Jesus.

Hundreds of demonstrators blocked Patriarch Theophilos III’s convoy, throwing stones and eggs, and shouting “traitor, traitor,” as he drove to a church in Bethlehem to mark the Orthodox Christmas Eve, NPR’s Daniel Estrin reports for our Newscast unit. Most of the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Christmas on Jan. 7.

“What happened today is a message to the Palestinian Authority and to Jordan that we will not allow this traitor to stay in the Church,” one protester, Elyeef Sayegh, told Reuters.

The mayor of Bethlehem boycotted the arrival ceremony and an official says Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would not attend the church leader’s traditional Christmas dinner.

The real estate deals were only recently made public after it was revealed that church leaders, who are mostly Greek nationals, quietly sold properties in the Holy Land to mysterious Jewish buyers fronted by companies overseas. Many members of the church’s largely Palestinian following say selling property to Israelis amounts to treason.

As Daniel previously reported, “the question of landownership strikes at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian tug of war over Jerusalem. Israel captured East Jerusalem, whose holy sites include the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Al-Aqsa Mosque and Western Wall, in 1967. But the Palestinians demand that part of the city as the capital of a future independent state.”

Church officials claim they need to sell the land in order to consolidate debt, according to Reuters, and they also say the profits are being invested in the local Palestinian community. Reuters reports that some Israeli lawmakers are working to block the sales amid concerns they could cause real estate prices to spike.

“None of these deals are endangering the future dream of the Palestinian people. None are siphoning off endowments,” said a Greek Orthodox Patriarchate official who spoke to NPR in December on the condition of anonymity.

The land-ownership controversy began over a decade ago with the sale of two hotels near the entrance to the Old City. Then-Greek Orthodox Patriarch Irenaios was forced out and replaced by Theophilos who is fighting in Israeli court to annul the sales. But Theophilos faced backlash this summer after reports he personally approved other property sales.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Trump Exposé Has Plenty Of 'Fire And Fury,' Maybe A Little Less Substance

This review contains language that some may find offensive.

I’ll get all the good stuff out of the way first: President Trump likes to eat cheeseburgers in bed; his hair is the result of scalp reduction surgery and deft, even architectural, styling; he has three TVs in his bedroom; his advisers speculate about whether or not he can read; Steve Bannon called Ivanka “dumb as a brick”; Trump called Sally Yates a “c***”; Hope Hicks and Corey Lewandowski had an affair that ended in a street fight; and Trump’s inner circle walks around in a state of “queasy sheepishness, if not constant incredulity” at the president’s behavior. You’re welcome.

That is all according to Michael Wolff’s seamy, gossipy, vindictive new book, Fire and Fury: Inside The Trump White House, an account of Trump’s first year in office. And if Wolff misidentifies some facts here and there — titles, years, peripheral people — that is the boring stuff. Cheeseburgers in bed!

Marrying the slimy and carnivalesque, Fire and Fury occasionally reads like a parody of New Journalism with its elaborate scene-setting; omniscient narrator (who at one point appears to refer to himself in the third person as “the journalist”); some grand, misquoted Shakespeare; and a colorful vocabulary that swings from SAT words (apogee, persiflage) to bro slang (man crush, douchebag).

Wolff, a longtime magazine journalist, is of the school of reporting that believes you can find out more through schmoozing than through FOIA requests. For this book, he stationed himself on a couch in the West Wing (“there was no one to say ‘Go Away’ “) for much of the president’s first year in office. He says he interviewed the president, the president’s senior staff and “many people who they in turn spoke to.”

“[M]any people who they in turn spoke to” is pretty vague. Most information in Fire and Fury is delivered through omniscient third-person narration, as if Wolff were an all-seeing eye. That means that any given fact could have been delivered directly from the president or trickled thirdhand through a rumor mill.

Information is like a river: It picks up all kinds of dirt and trash the further it is from the source. Attribution — even anonymous but detailed attribution — lets readers judge how good information is. Wolff prevents anyone from evaluating his reporting (as well as the motives of those giving him information), forcing us to trust him completely. But why should we be confident in Wolff’s unsourced assertions when he makes so many small factual errors with information that is publicly available (even in spite of the fact-checkers he thanks in the acknowledgments)?

When it comes to facts, Wolff is interested in the spirit, not the letter, and maybe not even the sentence. For instance, on the Russia dossier published last year by BuzzFeed News, he writes, “[Former British spy Christopher] Steele assembled a damaging report … suggesting that Donald Trump was being blackmailed by the Putin government.” The report actually suggested the Russians were gathering information that could potentially be used to blackmail Trump, not that the Russians were actively blackmailing Trump at that very minute. (Wolff’s mistakes often err on the side of the dramatic.)

One passage that seems to particularly sum up Wolff’s approach to reporting details Trump’s anger at a New York Times story describing him “stalking around in the late hours of the night in his bathrobe, unable to work the light switches” (actually, the article says his aides couldn’t work the light switches). The White House pushed back, claiming that the president didn’t own a bathrobe. Then, according to Wolff, “The New York Times Washington bureau, itself quite literal and worried about the possible lack of an actual bathrobe, reverse-leaked that Bannon was the source of the story.”

Two things are of interest in this passage: First, he notes with apparent amusement the Times‘ literalism — as if to be literal is a tiresome, plodding, and unimaginative trait, rather than a central tenet of reporting. Secondly, he makes the stunning claim that the Times outed its own source but without any suggestion of what that means exactly or how Wolff came to that information. An indifference to factual details and an unwillingness to attribute information are a bad combination.

It’s easy to understand the appeal of Fire and Fury, which has topped Amazon’s best-seller list and provoked the threat of a lawsuit from the president (as well as his claim that he is a “very stable genius”). For a year, liberals and conservatives alike have watched Trump’s inner circle present faces of practiced neutrality to his bluster, nodding along to speeches of garbled superlatives loosed of grammar and meaning as if they were subtle meditations on international politics. They’ve stared at Trump daughter Ivanka’s polished inanity, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ plodding optimism, the staid efficiency of chief of staff John Kelly — and wondered, how can they be acting like this is normal? Wolff shows the chaos we want to see backstage.

In response to Trump’s claim that Fire and Fury is a “phony” book, Wolff said, “My credibility is being questioned by a man who has less credibility than perhaps anyone who has ever walked on Earth at this point.” It’s a classic Trumpian move — not addressing the actual criticism, while maintaining that your enemy is way worse. “Media is personal. It is a series of blood scores,” Wolff notes at one point. Apparently.

So read it, sure — but as the commercials say, only “as part of a balanced diet.” Much of the narrative is not substantively different from information in found other reporting on the president. But many other reporters have been restrained and careful where Wolff is shameless. Facts, Wolff appears to think, have done nothing to hurt Trump — so he is fighting spectacle with spectacle.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)