Connect with us


Soccer, photography and now cooking: Why Brooklyn Beckham can’t shake off criticism, whatever the venture | Culture

Brooklyn Beckham seems to consider himself a master of all trades. And the public in general (and some professionals particularly) like to remind him that he isn’t. The latest example is a cooking show, with an astronomical budget, in which the eldest son of David and Victoria Beckham displays, according to critics, a complete lack of talent for cooking and presenting.

In the microcosm of the rich and famous, the figure of the privileged kid seeking his own place in the world is eternal, and exacerbated by the relative wealth and fame of the parents. In the case of Brooklyn Beckham, that wealth and fame is considerable: born in London in 1999, son of David, the biggest soccer star in the world before the emergence of Cristiano Ronaldo and Leo Messi, and Victoria, a former member of the Spice Girls, arguably the biggest girl band in history, as well as being a successful designer and entrepreneur. At his christening, Elton John and David Furnish served as Brooklyn’s godfathers, while Liz Hurley welcomed guests to the private chapel in his parents’ mansion.

His first attempt at a professional career was in soccer, a logical choice given his surname. In November 2014 it was announced, not without pomp, that the 15-year-old Brooklyn had signed a contract to play for Arsenal’s under-16 team. “Arsenal realize he can be a huge talent. They have seen that potential and protected their asset,” a club insider told the UK media at the time. “Also, David Beckham has an excellent relationship with [former Arsenal coach] Arséne Wenger, who has been impressed with his talent, his attitude and his drive to succeed.” The association did not last long: in February 2015 Arsenal announced that they would not be extending Brooklyn’s stay in the academy.

Brooklyn and David Beckham at London Fashion Week in 2019.
Brooklyn and David Beckham at London Fashion Week in 2019.Darren Gerrish (Darren Gerrish/WireImage)

There are two ways to read this. One, a setback: the son of England’s most-famous soccer player fails to make the grade. Two, a triumph: the son of England’s most-famous soccer player has decided not to follow in his father’s footsteps, and to forge his own path. At precisely that moment, he started instead to follow his mother’s. After the Spice Girls broke up, Victoria released a solo album to lukewarm reception and decided to opt for the world of fashion. Brooklyn Beckham’s soccer debut was swiftly followed by his debut as a model for the Reserved label in March 2015, when he had just turned 16. At the time his brother Romeo was the face of Burberry.


From fashion, Brooklyn moved into photography in January 2016, for a range of Burberry perfumes. This time, the public responded. #ThisIsBrit trended on social media to complain about what many viewed as nepotism. Among them was the photographer Chris Floyd, who told The Guardian: “David and Victoria Beckham represent sheer willpower and graft. Especially her, she’s climbed that mountain all by herself. They represent hard work and then their 16-year-old year son comes along and it’s sheer nepotism. He hasn’t done it from hard work, which is counter-intuitive to what his parents represent.”

It made little difference. The weight of the campaign led to the publishing of a book of Brooklyn’s photos in June 2017, just after he had turned 18. The book was titled what i see (in lower-case in its original version) with Brooklyn on the cover. The book consists of around 300 photos, with captions written by Brooklyn, which explain very little but perhaps say it all. “So hard to photograph, but incredible to see,” reads one, accompanying a picture of an elephant where the elephant is barely visible. “I like this photo: it’s out of focus but you can guess there’s a lot going on,” reads another. The book was accompanied by an exhibition at Christie’s with an extensive guest list of celebrities. The criticism was swift to follow, leading publishing house Penguin to issue a defence: “It’s a book by a kid for other kids.”

Liv Tyler at Brooklyn Beckham’s photography exhibition in London, June 2017.
Liv Tyler at Brooklyn Beckham’s photography exhibition in London, June 2017.Ricky Vigil M (GC Images)

“Nigiri for the price of plutonium”

Cookin’ with Brooklyn can be viewed on Brooklyn’s official Facebook page. The videos are around 10 minutes long and consist of Brooklyn visiting a famous chef at their restaurant (among them Nobu Matsuhisa, the Japanese chef par excellence to the rich and famous) and then reproducing what he has learned for one of his friends, his fiancé, or a celebrity such as Sebastián Yatra. The show has generated controversy due to its cost – $100,000 per episode – and the fact that not everything that appears has been prepared by Brooklyn himself.

Mikel López Iturriaga, editor of this newspaper’s food supplement, summed up Cookin’ with Brooklyn: “If it is true that each episode cost $100,000, it doesn’t show. This huge amount is not visible in the production, the script, the sets, the guests, in the post-production, or in anything. Perhaps Brooklyn has shelled out for so much fresh fish at plutonium prices to make a half-decent nigiri that the budget skyrocketed.”

The show has also received criticism from viewers for some of the recipes employed on what is aspiring to be a sophisticated gastronomical turn: steak, sausage and mash, fried rice. One commentator wrote under a video of Brooklyn cooking a pizza for his fiancé, Nicola Peltz: “What’s it going to be this time? A boiled egg? A can of soup?”

Brooklyn Beckham promoting his cookery show on US television, October 2021.
Brooklyn Beckham promoting his cookery show on US television, October 2021.NBC (NBCU Photo Bank via Getty Images)

Cookin’ with Brooklyn has also suffered from going up against Cooking with Paris, which has a similar format but is carried off completely differently. The heiress to the Hilton empire, Paris Hilton, is ready to make jokes at her own expense and does not pretend to be an expert. The spectator feels as though they are in on the parody.

“A show where someone hasn’t got the faintest idea how to cook can be interesting,” says Iturriaga. “Viewers who also don’t have any idea how to cook can identify with a host of this kind, and get closer to a world that can be quite hostile. The idea [of Cookin’ with Brooklyn] isn’t bad: learn first with a chef, then try and cook the same thing himself with friends. The result is another matter. Brooklyn proves to have no sense of humor, no complicity, no spontaneity, no flow… nothing that will allow him to compete in an industry where thousands of people make more interesting cooking videos at a fraction of the price.”

The comments Brooklyn shares with viewers do little to lift the whole: “I love steak, I eat it all the time. Sometimes once a week, sometimes two or three times,” is one of the less revealing. If he is genuinely enthusiastic about what he is picking up, it fails to come through in the final product. It is also difficult to quantify the success of the show. With approximately one million viewers per episode on a platform that is unpopular with its target age group, it can’t be considered a failure, but it falls short of being a triumph. By comparison, the divisive videos posted by Chefclub often reach seven or eight million viewers and the most-watched almost 24 million. Less prominent people in the industry such as Ají Causa, who specializes in Peruvian cuisine and does not have famous rappers as guests, do not struggle to reach three million viewers.

Despite it all, Brooklyn Beckham cannot be criticized for taking advantage of the opportunities that come his way, any more than Paris Hilton. In a world where access to the public is easier than ever and where popularity is rated (and income gleaned) by the audience generated, Brooklyn is merely following the prevailing wind. The only things that jar are seeing someone else take a hit as a result, and the waste of resources. “In an ideal world, the $100,000 that Brooklyn’s videos apparently cost, or the money Netflix has poured into Cooking with Paris, would be used to make cookery shows with a bit more substance,” says Iturriaga. “But on the other hand, I don’t think a show as inconsequential as Brooklyn’s is taking space off anyone else, and even less so given the small audience it is drawing in relation to its budget.”

Source link


8 Reasons Why Highly Intelligent Individuals Tend To Embrace Messiness At Home

By Darren Wilson

In the realm of intellectual brilliance, the concept of order and tidiness often takes a backseat. Highly intelligent individuals, driven by a relentless pursuit of knowledge and innovation, forge their paths in a world of ideas and creativity.

This propensity for intellectual pursuits can give rise to living spaces that may seem cluttered and untamed to the untrained eye.

Here, we dive into eight compelling reasons why some of the brightest minds in history tend to gravitate towards messy households, shedding light on the unique relationship between intelligence and chaos.

1. Unkempt Homes Foster Creativity and Novelty

For highly intelligent individuals, a chaotic environment serves as a crucible for creativity.

Studies from the University of Minnesota have shown that disorderly settings encourage thinking outside the box. In experiments, participants in cluttered rooms generated ideas perceived as more enjoyable and innovative.

This environment fosters a unique brand of creativity, allowing brilliant minds to explore uncharted territories of thought.

2. Disinclination to Adhere to Social Norms

Conformity rarely finds a place in the lives of the highly intelligent. These individuals possess an independent streak that extends to their living spaces.

They question the societal expectation of a meticulously clean home, choosing instead to embrace the chaos that mirrors their unconventional thinking.

Their rejection of conformity extends to their environment, where their independent spirit takes precedence over tidiness.

3. Energy Allocated to Intellectual Pursuits

The pursuit of intellectual endeavors consumes the majority of their energy. Immersed in research, contemplation, and problem-solving, these individuals leave minimal room for routine tasks like cleaning.

This single-minded dedication to intellectual pursuits manifests in a living space that reflects their prioritization of knowledge over cleanliness.

4. Immersed in Thoughts, Oblivious to Surroundings

The minds of highly intelligent individuals are a whirlwind of intellectual activity. Lost in contemplation about the nature of existence and the complexities of the universe, they often become oblivious to their immediate surroundings.

This profound mental engagement takes precedence over the physical environment, resulting in spaces that may appear untamed to others.

“In the world of a true entrepreneur, chaos and creativity dance in perfect harmony.”

– Raza H. Qadri

5. Cleaning Appears Boring and Monotonous

Geniuses often find routine tasks like cleaning to be uninspiring and monotonous.

Their minds are wired to seek intellectual stimulation and challenge, rendering cleaning a lower priority.

They possess a higher threshold for messiness, requiring mental engagement that everyday tasks cannot provide.

6. Independence Trumps Social Approval

Independence is a hallmark of highly intelligent individuals. They chart their paths, setting their own standards and disregarding external validation.


This autonomy extends to their living spaces, where their personal preferences dictate the level of tidiness. They clean not to conform but to accommodate their own thresholds of disorder.

7. Priority on World-Changing Pursuits

For these exceptional minds, the pursuit of groundbreaking ideas takes precedence over mundane tasks.

Cleaning, considered peripheral in the grand scheme of their intellectual pursuits, is deferred to allow room for the development of technologies and solutions that shape the course of progress.

8. Aversion to Mundane Tasks

The brilliance of these minds lies in their ability to envision a transformative future. The act of cleaning pales in comparison to the exhilaration of ideation and innovation.

Cleaning becomes a secondary concern, reserved for moments when disorder reaches an insurmountable level. The brilliance of their minds manifests not in pristine living spaces, but in the ideas and innovations that have the power to change the world.

8 Reasons Why Highly Intelligent Individuals Tend To Embrace Messiness At Home

“Glimpse” by PS Art

In the tapestry of intelligence, the threads of brilliance are often interwoven with chaos. Highly intelligent individuals find their stride amidst clutter, using their mental prowess to craft worlds of innovation and creativity. While their living spaces may appear untamed, they stand as a testament to the extraordinary minds that inhabit them.

In the pursuit of groundbreaking ideas and transformative technologies, the genius of messiness finds its place. It is a reminder that the true measure of brilliance lies not in the pristine order, but in the world-altering ideas that emerge from the minds of these exceptional individuals.

Thank You For Your Love And Support!

— By Darren Wilson | Team ‘THE VOICE OF EU

— For more information & news submissions:

— Anonymous news submissions:

Continue Reading


Copyright Dispute: DC Comics And ‘Fables’ Author Clash over Ownership, Author Aims for Public Domain

A detail from a 'Fables' cartoon by Bill Willingham. Image courtesy of the publisher ECC.
A detail from a ‘Fables’ cartoon by Bill Willingham. Image courtesy of the publisher ECC.

This is a story full of fairy tales. In some ways, it even resembles one. And yet it also proves that, in the real world, things rarely end happily ever after. A few days ago, Bill Willingham, the father of the celebrated Fables comic book series, announced that he was sending his most cherished work to the public domain, that is, to everyone. That’s only fair, since that is also where he got the main characters of his stories, from Snow White to the Wolf, from Pinocchio to Prince Charming, who were then relocated to modern New York. In this tale, the hero has long-faced mistreatment at the hands of the villains, DC Comics, the owner of Vertigo, which publishes the work in the United States, and its executives.

“If I couldn’t prevent Fables from falling into bad hands, at least this is a way I can arrange that it also falls into many good hands,” Willingham wrote in an online post in which he decried the label’s repeated attempts to take over his creations and opposed them with this final extreme remedy. But the company responded that it considers itself to be the true owner of the series.

In a statement published by the specialized media IGN, the company threatened to take “necessary action” to defend its rights. Thus, the end of the dispute is uncertain. But it is unlikely that everyone will end up happily ever after.

In the meantime, in a new post, Willingham celebrated the massive support he received. In fact, for the moment, he has declined all interview requests — he did not respond to this newspaper’s request, nor did the publisher — arguing that he preferred to spend the next few days working on new artistic projects. Meanwhile, the dispute continues.

Fables is one of the most celebrated graphic novels of the last 20 years, and it has spawned spin-offs and a video game adaptation (The Wolf Among Us).

This situation also touches on a key issue, namely, the intellectual property rights of characters and works, especially in a sector where, for decades, dozens of cartoonists and screenwriters have accused comic book giants Marvel and DC of pressuring them to cede their ideas and accept commissioned contracts.

Willingham sums it up as a policy aimed to make creators sign “work for hire” agreements and crush them. All of this makes a gesture that was already intended to make a splash even more resonant.

A detail from a ‘Fables’ cartoon by Bill Willingham. Image provided by ECC
A detail from a ‘Fables’ cartoon by Bill Willingham. Image provided by ECC.

Indeed, the battle over intellectual property is as old as contemporary comics: the copyrights for Superman, Batman and The Fantastic Four all have unresolved disputes and complaints from Jerry Siegel, Bill Finger and Jack Kirby over the contemptuous treatment they suffered. And heavyweight Alan Moore has been lamenting for years that DC took away his ownership of famous works like Watchmen.

Along with prestige and principles, tens of millions of dollars are at stake, especially now that the film industry has become interested in comics.

“When you sign a contract with DC, your responsibilities to them are carved in stone, where their responsibilities to you are treated as “helpful suggestions that we’ll try to accommodate when we can, but we’re serious adults, doing serious business and we can’t always take the time to indulge the needs of these children who work for us” the Fables author wrote on his blog. Following the impact of his original message, Willingham posted two other texts. He maintains that he had thought about sending his work into the public domain when he passed away, but that “certain events” have changed his plans: among them, he lists the changes in management and attitude at the top of the publishing company; the multiple breaches of obligations such as consultations about covers, artists for new plots and adaptations; DC’s forgetfulness when it came to pay, which forced him to demand invoices of up to $30,000; the suspicious frequency with which the publisher attributed it to “slipping through the cracks” (to such an extent that the author insisted that they stop using that expression); and the time and chances he gave them to respect the pact, renegotiate it or even break it and consensually separate.

A detail from the cover of the first volume of Bill Willingham's comprehensive collection of 'Fables.'
A detail from the cover of the first volume of Bill Willingham’s comprehensive collection of ‘Fables’.

“Shortly after creating Fables, I entered into a publishing agreement with DC Comics. In that agreement, while I continued to own the property, DC would have exclusive rights to publish Fables comics, and then later that agreement was expanded to give DC exclusive rights to exploit the property in other ways, including movies and TV.

DC paid me a fair price for these rights (fair at the time), and as long as they behaved ethically and above-board, and conducted themselves as if this were a partnership, all was more or less well. But DC doesn’t seem to be capable of acting fairly and above-board.

In fact, they treated this agreement (as I suppose I should have known they would) as if they were the boss and I, their servant. In time that got worse, as they later reinterpreted our contracts to assume they owned Fables outright,” Willingham laments. Hence, he concluded that “you can’t reason with the unreasonable.”

Having ruled out a lawsuit as too expensive and time-consuming at 67 years of age, he found a more creative solution: if they prevented him from owning his works and benefiting from them as he was entitled to do, he would not let the publisher do so either. Or, at least, everyone could use the comics as they wished. But the label was quick to clarify in its statement to IGN: “The Fables comic books and graphic novels [are] published by DC, and are not in the public domain”.

For his part, Willingham promises to continue fighting for all the conditions of his still-in-force contract that he considers DC to have violated, as well as for the last installments of the series, the final script of which he delivered two years ago.

There will be additional chapters in this dispute, as well as in many other ones like it: in 2024, the historic first image of Mickey Mouse, the one that starred in the 1928 short Steamboat Willie, enters the public domain in the U.S. and other countries. Copyright in the U.S. lasts for 95 years, and math is an exact science.

Therefore, in a few years, King Kong, Superman and Popeye will meet the same fate. But The New York Times has wondered how the “notoriously litigious” Disney will react and how far it will go to fight in court. And who would dare to freely use all these works for fear of a million-dollar lawsuit? The same question surrounds DC and similar companies. Because in the real world, fairy tales are rare. Or they end up in court.

Continue Reading


Hollywood Actors & Studios Meet For First Time In 80 Days To Seek End To Strike

A lot has happened during the 80 says since the actors union SAG-AFTRA called a strike on July 13, but not when it comes to negotiations. It was not until Monday that the union finally met with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) to start talks on their new collective contract, which is renewed every three years. The union and Hollywood studios have maintained such distant positions that it took two and a half months for them to finally sit down and talk.

On Monday, October 2, representatives of both parties met to discuss the actors’ concerns: an increase in the minimum wage, guarantees regarding the role of artificial intelligence, regulations for the increasingly demanding self-taped auditions and fairer residuals — the long-term payments to those who worked on films and television shows for reruns and other airings after the initial release — in line with the rise of streaming. The meeting does not mean that the two sides have reached an agreement, but it does show greater willingness to strike a deal.

The SAG-AFTRA did not release a statement on the meeting until 8 p.m. LA time. “We have concluded our first day back in the bargaining with the AMPTP and will resume talks on Wednesday, October 4,” it stated, while encouraging actors to join the picket line on Tuesday. “One day longer. One day stronger. As long as it takes,” it ended. No details of the negotiation have been leaked, and both parties decided months ago not to give specific information to the media about the talks until a deal had been struck.

The SAG-AFTRA, which represents more than 160,000 actors, announced last week that they were finally going to sit down with the AMPTP, which represents Paramount, Disney, Universal, Netflix, Amazon, Sony, Warner and Apple. The strike has already led to $6 billion in losses, according to calculations by the state of California.

The talks with the actors union come after Hollywood studios and the Writers Guild of America (WGA) reached an agreement to end the screenwriters strike, which began on May 2 and lasted almost 150 days. The two parties negotiated for days before coming to a tentative deal on September 24. Writers in the union still need to vote on the deal, but it is widely expected to be ratified. If approved, the new collective agreement will be in effect until May 2026.

Just days after the end of the screenwriters strike, the actors union announced that they were set to begin negotiations with the Hollywood studios. But actor Fran Drescher, the president of the SAG-AFTRA, warned they had differing demands. “We’re happy WGA came to an agreement but one size doesn’t fit all,” she told CNN.

The hat, full of pins and badges, of an actor protesting at a strike picket in Manhattan, New York, on September 28, 2023.
The hat, full of pins and badges, of an actor protesting at a strike picket in Manhattan, New York. MIKE SEGAR (REUTERS)

Since the actors’ strike was called in mid-July, tensions have been running high between the union and the Hollywood studios — so much so that it took more than 80 days for them to initiate talks.

The key issues are salaries and artificial intelligence. Now that the WGA has struck a deal, the SAG-AFTRA is alone on the picket line. It is seeking to negotiate a deal that is as good as the “exceptional” agreement achieved by writers.

But analysts warn the union shouldn’t rush to reach a deal, given 160,000 families will be affected by the terms of the new collective contract. “It is not the actors’ responsibility to bring Hollywood back to life,” the Los Angeles Times wrote Monday in an editorial. “It was not the actors who created the problems that forced two incredibly disruptive strikes, any more than it was the writers. The studios created a system in which working actors can no longer earn a living wage in their chosen profession, and it’s up to the studios to change that.”

The strike has put hundreds of workers in grave financial strain. Some of Hollywood’s highest-paid actors have donated millions of dollars to a common fund to help actors navigate these months of uncertainty.

This is the first time actors have been on strike since 1980. So far, it has been an upward battle. Chief negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland told EL PAÍS that the actors have been willing to negotiate from day one, but that the studios have been reluctant to engage in talks. “We think that there is only one way to reach an agreement, and that is to talk and negotiate. And if they don’t want to talk to us, and they don’t want to negotiate with us, we’re going to be ready to do that any time they’re ready,” she said.

That moment has taken almost three months to arrive. And this time, there will be new talks within 48 hours.

Continue Reading


Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates 
directly on your inbox.

You have Successfully Subscribed!