TIME movies

Russia Bans Hollywood Thriller For Depicting It as a Nation of ‘Defective Sub-Humans’

In this image released by Lionsgate, Tom Hardy appears in a scene from the film, "Child 44."
Larry Horricks—AP In this image released by Lionsgate, Tom Hardy appears in a scene from the film, "Child 44."

Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman fail to impress officials in Moscow

The Russian Ministry of Culture canceled the local premiere of the Child 44 on Wednesday, saying the movie portrayed Russia as “a sort of Mordor, populated by physically and morally defective sub-humans.”

Produced by Lionsgate, Child 44 stars Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman and depicts a Soviet officer (Hardy) as he investigates a series of gruesome child murders in 1953, according to the Associated Press.

The distribution company, Central Partnership, supported the decision and in a statement accused the film of misrepresenting facts that “took place before, during and after the Second World War” and of making a false “portrayal of Soviet people living at that time.”

The decision raised concerns that film distributors will begin to self-censor to avoid having a movie premiere cancelled.

“It’s clear that now, if [a film] is about history, it has to correspond to some system of coordinates,” film distributor Alexander Rodnyansky told Russian media translated by the Wall Street Journal. “Now the self-censorship will begin: Many people will start being afraid to buy and distribute films here.”

Child 44 will be released in the United States on April 17.

TIME Alcohol

Teens Who Watch Boozy Movies Are More Likely to Drink, Study Finds

healthiest foods, health food, diet, nutrition, time.com stock, red wine, alcohol
Photograph by Danny Kim for TIME; Gif by Mia Tramz for TIME

There may be a dark side to Bridget Jones' cute coping sequences

Watching James Bond elegantly guzzle that martini may be having adverse effects on adolescents. A new study from the journal Pediatrics found that 15-year-olds who have watched more alcohol being consumed in films than their peers are more likely to have tried alcohol, more likely to binge drink and more likely to have alcohol-related problems.

“Alcohol is a drug and it has potentially adverse effects, not only for individuals but also for family and friends,” says lead author Andrea Waylen, a lecturer in social sciences at the University of Bristol. “It’s not very often that we see the adverse effects of alcohol portrayed—like vomiting, rotten hangovers,” she adds. “In my view, we don’t really get an accurate representation of what alcohol is like.”

The new paper used data from a longitudinal study in the United Kingdom that surveyed 5,163 15-year-olds on a wide variety of topics. They were asked about their drinking habits and whether they had seen a random selection of 50 popular films, from Bridget Jones’ Diary to Aviator. Waylen and her colleagues used those answers to quantify their exposure to drinking by adding up the minutes in each film that showed alcohol use. (The original study was done in the mid-2000s, when those movies were hot off the reel.)

After controlling for factors ranging from parents’ alcohol use to gender and social class, the researchers found that the kids who had been exposed to the most cinematic swilling were 20% more likely to have tried alcohol and 70% more likely to binge drink. They were more than twice as likely to have a drink more than once per week and to suffer from alcohol-related problems, such as encounters with the police or letting their drinking interfere with school and work.

The recommendation of Waylen and her colleagues is that film ratings take into account heavy drinking; such films, Waylen suggests, would then be more likely to be rated for adults only. In the study, she notes that between 1989 and 2008, 72% of the most popular box office films in the United Kingdom depicted drinking but only 6% were classified as adult only.

A review of top-grossing American films conducted in 2009 found that 49% of PG-13 rated films and 25% of PG-rated films showed more than two minutes of alcohol use. The study concluded that the current rating system was not adequate for parents trying to limit their kids’ exposure to drinking (or smoking, for that matter).

Similar studies conducted in the U.S. and Germany have found connections between kids watching boozing in film and then drinking in real life. Other studies have found similar associations for risky behavior like tobacco use, dangerous driving and early sex.

“My guess is that there needs to be a level of identification with the drinker in the film,” Waylen says. And she believes kids are more likely to identify with consuming characters “in films where alcohol use is made to look cool, get you friends, win the girl or boy.”

Her conclusion is that the officials rating movies need to take demure sips of wine and rowdy spring break chugging contests more seriously. “Adverse outcomes from alcohol use are a large societal public health problem,” the study concludes, “and rating films according to alcohol content may reduce problem-related alcohol use and associated harm in young people.”

TIME Icons

Hollywood’s Most Famous Sibling Rivalry

On National Siblings Day, a look at sisters Joan Fontaine and Olivia de Havilland — the only pair of siblings to win lead acting Oscars

For three quarters of a century, the supposed feud between sisters Olivia de Havilland and Joan Fontaine was the stuff of tabloid dreams. Only 15 months apart, the sisters pursued the same career, competed for the same Oscars and even cozied up to some of the same men. As LIFE put it in a 1942 profile titled “Sister Act”: “There is no danger that sisterly affection, breaking suddenly upon them, will dampen their rivalry and the girls’ careers.”

It’s no surprise, then, that when Bob Landry photographed them for that LIFE story, they appeared in only seven photographs together out of the more than hundred he shot of them. In a story that was about their relationship. They might as well have been posing for two separate articles.

At that time, de Havilland was 25 and Fontaine, 24. At that year’s Academy Awards, they had gone head to head in the race for Best Actress, the first pair of siblings to compete for an Oscar. (Only one pair of siblings, Lynn and Vanessa Redgrave, has joined them in that category in the intervening years.) De Havilland was nominated for Hold Back the Dawn and Fontaine for Suspicion. The older sister, who famously played Melanie Hamilton in Gone With the Wind, was known for playing “pretty and charming, naïve,” and the younger for roles that were “moody, intuitive and emotional.” LIFE’s Oliver O. Jensen described the tense moment before the envelope was opened:

It was the climactic moment in their own private battle of ambitions and, knowing their bitter rivalry, the Hollywood banqueters waited hopefully for the losing sister to burst into tears or stamp her little foot in rage when the announcement was made. But when the Oscar went to Joan, Olivia only seized her sister’s hand and crowed, ‘We’ve got it!’

Long before the sisters went head to head in Hollywood, they competed for attention as children. Fontaine — who took her stepfather’s name when she decided, as she told the Hollywood Reporter’s Scott Feinberg, “Two de Havillands on the marquee would be too many” — had been a sickly child. Her “bouncy and pretty” older sister was favored, scored leading roles in local plays and enjoyed picking on her, taunting, “I can but Joan can’t!”

Though she was younger, Fontaine won an Oscar first and married first, famously quipping, “If I die first, she’ll undoubtedly be livid because I beat her to it!” Her first husband, Brian Aherne, had been romantically involved with de Havilland before Fontaine, Jensen wrote, “met and seized” him for herself.

De Havilland, now 98, rarely spoke about the alleged feud, save for a 1957 interview in which she attributed her distance with her sister to a cutting remark Fontaine once made about her first husband. Fontaine wrote in her 1978 autobiography that her older sister rebuffed her when she tried to congratulate de Havilland for her first Oscar, which came in 1947. In an interview after the book’s release, she also spoke about differences of opinion in how to care for their ailing mother and how to memorialize their mother after her death. Fontaine said she heard about their mother’s death not from her sister but through the grapevine.

When Feinberg interviewed both sisters in 2013, before Fontaine’s death in December of that year, Fontaine brushed off the rivalry that by then was so ingrained in Hollywood legend it might as well have been engraved on the Walk of Fame. “Let me just say, Olivia and I have never had a quarrel,” she told Feinberg. “We have never had any dissatisfaction. We have never had hard words.”

Whether the feud was fact or fiction or, more likely, something in between, the sisters were talented, ambitious people who achieved success without relying on nepotism, and really in spite of it. Perhaps the same drive that propelled them up the Hollywood ladder wedged a small but enduring gulf between them. As Fontaine once put it, “We are not passive people in any way.”

Liz Ronk, who edited this gallery, is the Photo Editor for LIFE.com. Follow her on Twitter at @LizabethRonk.

TIME celebrities

These ‘No Kardashian Parking’ Signs Are Taking Over Hollywood

"No Kardashian Parking" sign by artist Plastic Jesus in Los Angeles, Calif.
Plastic Jesus "No Kardashian Parking" sign by artist Plastic Jesus in Los Angeles, Calif.

Hope your last name is not Kardashian

If your last name is Kardashian, finding a parking spot in Hollywood just became that much more difficult.

A number of “No Kardashian Parking” signs have popped up around the city – including in front of Dash, the clothing boutique owned by Kim and her sisters – and artist Plastic Jesus is responsible.

Known to many as the Banksy of L.A., the artist told The Hollywood Reporter that the signs are a statement on America’s obsession with celebrity.

“‘Stop Making Stupid People Famous’ often gets blogged as a criticism of the Kardashians,” Plastic Jesus told THR. “But that piece is also meant to criticize us as consumers. Without us, there would be no market for the Kardashians. We are equally, if not more so, to blame.”

A spokesperson for the LAPD told the magazine that “no complaints have yet been filed about the signs, but insisted it’s a pretty clear case of vandalism, regardless of the artistic intent.”

This article originally appeared on People.com.


TIME movies

A She’s All That Remake May Be on The Way

Fans of 90s rom-coms rejoice

Hollywood news outlet The Wrap is reporting that the Weinstein Company and Miramax are currently in talks to remake the late-90s romantic comedy She’s All That.

According to the site, Tony award winner Kenny Leon is set to direct the film, while Spike Lee’s wife Tonya Lewis Lee is on board as a producer.

In a statement to TIME, a representative for Miramax denied the news: “There is no deal between Miramax and The Weinstein Company on this title,” she said.

Forgot what the movie was about? Don’t worry, this original trailer will remind you:

[The Wrap]

TIME movies

Why the DreamWorks Launch Would Never Happen Today

Mar. 27, 1995, cover of TIME
Cover Credit: MATTHEW ROLSTON The Mar. 27, 1995, cover of TIME

Revisiting TIME's 1995 cover story about the then-upstart studio

Starting a major Hollywood studio isn’t easy—but for a moment 20 years ago, Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen made it look that way.

On the March 27, 1995, cover of TIME, the three men, collectively known as SKG, posed together under the headline “The Players”; the Oscar-winning director, the record-industry legend and the executive had joined forces (and pooled cash) the year prior to create a company, DreamWorks, that had not yet actually produced anything. No matter! The trio all had sterling track records (Spielberg was coming off the double success of Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List in 1993) and the sheer brio of it made their coming-together newsworthy.

“I guarantee that, when their first film premieres, everyone will say, ‘This is it? This is what these three geniuses have come up with?’,” Tom Hanks, friend to all three men, said in Richard Corliss’ TIME cover story. But at the time, that was all in the future. What underpins TIME’s 1995 coverage of DreamWorks is a sense of just how rare it is for a new force to rise in a Hollywood governed by a set of old, ossified studios. DreamWorks obtained investments, Corliss wrote, based on the hope that it would be “the prototype plugged-in multimedia company of the new millennium.” That it ultimately spent about ten years as an independent entity, largely producing traditional, mid-budget films rather than creating synergistic, plugged-in entertainments is unsurprising in retrospect—but TIME’s in-the-moment exuberance is completely understandable. After all, a new studio is something rare, and something that’s only grown rarer.

SKG didn’t spur imitators among independent producers, which is hardly surprising. Few people with the assets to start a studio, and the trustworthiness to obtain an even bigger line of credit to bankroll it going forward, need the trouble that Corliss’ piece hinted was ahead for SKG. “At DreamWorks, Katzenberg is a man with a mission; the other two are in it for the fun, which could wear thin quickly,” he wrote. But it seems, from the outside, that the studio’s difficulties had less to do with any clash in motivations than with facts on the ground about how Hollywood was changing.

The past decade has been as fallow for the upstarts that have by-and-large failed to materialize as it’s been stressful for the specialty divisions of major studios: Paramount Vantage and Warner Bros.’ New Line have been absorbed into their parent companies. In a marketplace that’s more and more defined by tentpole franchise pictures, the degree of difficulty in building a studio based on mid-range films (like DreamWorks’s inaugural films, The Peacemaker and Amistad) has grown steeper. Independent operators in Hollywood have found the industry, of late, particularly inhospitable. A trio like SKG would be yet more novel today than they were in 1995—but they simply don’t exist.

In late 2005, a bit more than a decade after their TIME cover, DreamWorks was sold by its founders to the media conglomerate Viacom, which also owned Paramount Pictures. The onetime new kid on the block was now effectively shackled to the epitome of the Hollywood establishment. They’d had several hits, including the animated Shrek franchise, but plenty of bad press as well; it turns out running a company in the present tense was more difficult than attracting positive press for future prospects.

“No one doubted the artistic talent at DreamWorks SKG when it was launched in 1994 amid hype befitting its superstar founders,” TIME noted some months before the sale, after an attempt to take the company’s animation division public failed miserably and DVD sales of Shrek 2 were wildly miscalculated. “Overlooked in the face of such Tinseltown royalty, though, was that none were proven CEOs.” It turned out that the trio’s $1 billion initial assets for the company were “perhaps a fifth of what was needed.” DreamWorks still had high hopes for the animated films that lay ahead, but TIME accurately predicted that Fox, Sony and Disney, all legacy media companies with long histories, would come roaring into that space as competitors; this year, DreamWorks Animation laid off 500 employees.

These days, the model for an independent producer is Megan Ellison, the 29-year-old heir to billionaire tech executive Larry Ellison. Her Annapurna Pictures finances movies that are risky (Zero Dark Thirty, Her, Spring Breakers) rather than Spielberg’s straight-over-the-plate commercial pictures. She can afford not to be a good CEO. Spielberg and company could not. Their 1995 spotlight on TIME’s cover represents a fleeting moment of possibility before the ground shifted.

Read the full 1995 cover story, here in the TIME Vault: Hey, Let’s Put On a Show!

TIME movies

Watch the New Trailer for the Upcoming Entourage Movie

"Dream large, live larger"

Warner Bros. just released the second trailer for its upcoming movie Entourage and it has more Hollywood celebrity appearances than a Perez Hilton lucid dream.

It has been almost five years since movie star Vince (Adrian Grenier) and his bro-team finished their HBO TV series but now they’ve made it to the big screen and Vince is determined to direct a film.

Of course, he’s joined every step of the way by E (Kevin Connolly), Turtle (Jerry Ferrara), Drama (Kevin Dillon) and super-agent-turned-studio-boss Ari Gold (Jeremy Piven).

Also starring is UFC champion Ronda Rousey, Calvin Harris, Jessica Alba, Russell Wilson, Liam Neeson, Pharrell, George Takei, Andrew Dice Clay, David Spade, Tom Brady, Ed O’Neil, Armie Hammer, Mark Wahlberg (who the series was based on) and business magnate Warren “I’m one quarter Coca-Cola” Buffett.

Entourage hits theaters June 5.

TIME celebrities

American Sniper Star Bradley Cooper And Suki Waterhouse Have Split Up

Bradley Cooper and Suki Waterhouse summer party on July 1, 2014 in London, England.
Fred Duval—FilmMagic Bradley Cooper and Suki Waterhouse summer party on July 1, 2014 in London, England.

24 months of romance is at an end

It’s over for American Sniper actor Bradley Cooper and model Suki Waterhouse, who first got together in March 2013. The Hollywood couple broke up ahead of January’s Oscars but now, People says, the news is official.

Despite the breakup, there will be enough to distract both: Cooper, 40, was out attending an Elton John concert Wednesday and dancing at Las Vegas clubs with Jonah Hill and Miles Teller.

Neither has work taken a back seat for either of them. Cooper is currently filming Joy and the Netflix remake Wet Hot American Summer, while Waterhouse’s Insurgent comes out Friday.


TIME animals

This Is What It Looks Like When 152 Black Cats Audition for a Movie

“As far as anyone could remember,” LIFE wrote, “it was the biggest invitation to bad luck ever seen in one place.”

When it comes to four-legged thespians, canines have generally achieved a greater level of fame than their feline rivals. We fondly remember Lassie, Benji and Toto, but cats seem to face a steeper path to Hollywood stardom. Blame it on the lack of good roles.

One role, however—the title character in Edgar Allen Poe’s 1843 short story The Black Cat—offered theatrically inclined kitties a chance to break through. In the story, the cat’s owner plasters him into a wall, along with his murdered wife. Eventually, the animal’s mewing from beyond the grave leads investigators to the woman’s body. The film adaptation, which would appear in the 1962 horror compilation Tales of Terror, adjusted the storyline by weaving in elements of another Poe tale.

Exactly 152 cats showed up for the audition, all of them “considerably less nervous than their owners.” Several were disqualified thanks to white paws or noses, but even for those left in the running, the day left dreams largely dashed. The lead role, it turned out, had already been filled by “a well-known professional cat.” Seven lucky extras, selected on account of having the meanest looking faces, were chosen as understudies.

Their owners, whose ambitions for their pets might just have exceeded those of the pets themselves, couldn’t help but let superstition get the best of them. Although they acted naturally around their own cats, “many took pains not to let any strange black cats cross their paths.”

Liz Ronk, who edited this gallery, is the Photo Editor for LIFE.com. Follow her on Twitter at @LizabethRonk.

TIME Hollywood

See the Cinderella Whose Performance Reached 100 Million Viewers in 1957

Rodgers and Hammerstein's televised Cinderella musical, starring Julie Andrews, was the TV event of the year

Kenneth Branagh’s adaptation of Cinderella, which hits theaters on Friday, has a big glass slipper—or several, really—to fill. The movie is the umpteenth in more than a century’s worth of film renditions of the classic fairy tale, some of them forgettable but others, like Disney’s 1950 animation, simply timeless.

Those who were tuned in to CBS on the evening of March 31, 1957, might find it difficult to refrain from comparing Branagh’s star, Lily James, to her most famous predecessor (at least in three dimensions): Julie Andrews. Andrews played the title role in Rodgers and Hammerstein’s TV adaptation, the only musical the pair ever wrote for television.

Seen by more than 100 million people that night—mostly in black and white but in color for the small percentage of viewers with color receivers—Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Cinderella served as a vehicle for Andrews, who was just coming off a stint on Broadway in My Fair Lady. Though TV musicals were common during the 1950s, they were mostly adapted from stage musicals. Cinderella, on the contrary, skipped the stage and went straight to TV.

The 90-minute program, LIFE wrote, told “the story of a slightly sophisticated, uncindery Cinderella whose evil stepfolk are clowns and whose magical life is filled with music.” A review in TIME praised Andrews’ performance (she “fitted the heroine’s role as if it were a glass slipper”) and Rodgers’ music (“the hero of the evening”) but panned Hammerstein’s script (“which kept shifting uneasily between the sentimental and the sophisticated, and making each seem lamer than the other”).

Andrews received an Emmy nomination for her performance and continued to star onstage and on the small screen until 1964’s Mary Poppins launched her film career. Though her turn in Cinderella earned her an Emmy nomination, she seemed to hold a softer spot in her memory for Eliza Dolittle. For all Cinderella’s continued appeal, My Fair Lady, she said in an interview, is “the best Cinderella story, really.”

Liz Ronk, who edited this gallery, is the Photo Editor for LIFE.com. Follow her on Twitter at @LizabethRonk.

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com