Film

“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” slots into summer blockbuster season like a square peg in a round popcorn bucket. Prestige TV director Matt Shakman (“WandaVision”) isn’t inclined to pretzel himself like the flexible Reed Richards to please all four quadrants of the multiplex. His staid superhero movie plays like classic sci-fi in which adults wearing sweater vests solemnly brainstorm how to resolve a crisis. Watching it, I felt as snug as being nestled in the backseat of my grandparents’ car at the drive-in.

This reboot of the Fantastic Four franchise — the third in two decades — is lightyears closer to 1951’s “The Day the Earth Stood Still” than it is to the frantic, over-cluttered superhero epics that have come to define modern entertainment. Set on Earth 828, an alternate universe that borrows our own Atomic Age decor, it doesn’t just look old, it moves old. The tone and pace are as sure-footed as globe-gobbling Galactus, this film’s heavy, purposefully marching into alt-world Manhattan. Even its tidy running time is from another epoch. Under two hours? Now that’s vintage chic.

“First Steps” picks up several years after four astronauts — Reed (Pedro Pascal), his wife, Sue (Vanessa Kirby), his brother-in-law Johnny (Joseph Quinn) and his best friend Ben (Ebon Moss-Bachrach) — get themselves blasted by cosmic rays that endow them with special powers. You may know the leads better as, respectively, Mr. Fantastic, the Invisible Woman, the Human Torch and the Thing. For mild comic relief, they also pal around with a robot named H.E.R.B.I.E., voiced by Matthew Wood.

Skipping their origin story keeps things tight while underlining the idea that these are settled-down grown-ups secure in their abilities to lengthen, disappear, ignite and clobber. Fans might argue they should be a bit more neurotic; screenplay structuralists will grumble they have no narrative arc. The mere mortals of Earth 828 respect the squad for their brains and their brawn — they’re celebrities in a genteel pre-paparazzi time — but these citizens are also prone to despair when they aren’t sure Pascal’s workaholic daddy will save them.

Lore has it Stan Lee was a married, middle-aged father aging out of writing comic books when his beloved spouse, Joan, elbowed him to develop characters who felt personal. The graying, slightly boring Reed was a loose-limbed version of himself: the ultimate wife guy with the ultimate wife.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

But Hollywood has aged-down Lee’s “quaint quartet,” as he called them, at its own peril. Make the Fantastic Four cool (as the movies have repeatedly tried and failed to do) and they come across as desperately lame. This time, Shakman and the script’s four-person writing team of Josh Friedman, Eric Pearson, Jeff Kaplan and Ian Springer valorize their lameness and restore their dignity. Pascal’s Mr. Fantastic is so buttoned-down that he tucks his tie into his dress shirt.

The scenario is that Sue is readying to give birth to the Richards’ first child just as the herald Shalla-Bal (Julia Garner), a.k.a. the Silver Surfer, barrels into the atmosphere to politely inform humanity that her boss Galactus (voiced by Ralph Ineson) has RSVP-ed yes to her invitation that he devour their planet. In a biologically credible touch, the animators have added tarnish to her cleavage: “I doubt she was naked,” Reed says evenly. “It was probably a stellar polymer.”

Typically, this threat would trigger a madcap fetch-this-gizmo caper (as it did in the original comic). Shakman’s version doesn’t waste its energy or our time on that. Rather, this a lean showdown between self-control and gluttony, between our modest heroes and a greedy titan. It’s at the Venn diagram of a Saturday morning cartoon and a moralistic Greek myth.

The film is all sleek lines, from its themes to its architecture to its images. The visuals by the cinematographer Jess Hall are crisp and impactful: a translucent hand snatching at a womb, a character falling into the pull of a yawning black hole, a torso stretched like chewing gum, a rocket launch that can’t blast off until we get a close-up of everyone buckling their seatbelts. Even in space, the CG isn’t razzle-dazzle busy. Meanwhile, Michael Giacchino’s score soars between bleats of triumph and barbershop-chorus charm, a combination that can sound like an automobile show unveiling the first convertible with tail fins.

There is little brawling and less snark. No one comes off like an aspiring stand-up comic. These characters barely raise their voices and often use their abilities on the mundane: Kirby’s Sue vanishes to avoid awkward conversations, Moss-Bachrach’s Ben, in a nod to his breakout role as the maître d’ on “The Bear,” uses his mighty fists to mash garlic. Johnny, the youngest and most literally hotheaded of the group, is apt to light himself on fire when he can’t be bothered to find a flashlight. He delivers the meanest quip in a respectful movie when he tells Reed, “I take back every single bad thing I’ve been saying about you … to myself, in private.”

Yes, my audience giggled dutifully at the jiggling Jell-O salads and drooled over the groovy conversation pits in the Richards’ living room, the only super lair I’d ever live in. The color palette emphasizes retro shades of blue, green and gold; even the extras have coordinated their outfits to the trim on the Fantasticar. Delightfully, when Moss-Bachrach’s brawny rock monster strolls to the deli to buy black-and-white cookies, he’s wearing a gargantuan pair of penny loafers.

If you want to feel old, the generation of middle schoolers who saw 2008’s “Iron Man” on opening weekend are now beginning to raise their own children. Thirty-seven films later, the Marvel Cinematic Universe has gotten so insecure about its own mission that it’s pitching movies at every maturity level. The recent “Thunderbolts*” is for surly teenagers, “Deadpool & Wolverine” is the drunk, divorced uncle at a BBQ, and “First Steps” extends a sympathetic hand to young families who identify with Reed’s frustration that he can’t childproof the entire galaxy.

Here, for a mass audience, Kirby gets to reprise her underwatched Oscar-nominated turn in “Pieces of a Woman,” in which she extended out a 24-minute, single-take labor scene. This karaoke snippet is good (and even a little operatic when the pain makes her dematerialize). I was as impressed by the costumer Alexandra Byrne’s awareness that even super moms won’t immediately snap back into wearing tight spandex. (By contrast, when Jessica Alba played Sue in 2007’s “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer,” the director notoriously asked her to be “prettier” when she cried.)

This reboot’s boldest stride toward progress is that it values emotionally credible performances. Otherwise, Pascal aside, you wouldn’t assemble this cast for any audience besides critics and dweebs (myself included) who keep a running list of their favorite not-quite-brand-name talents who are ready to break through to the next level of their career while yelling, “It’s clobbering time!”

Still, this isn’t anyone’s best role, and it’s a great movie only when compared to similarly budgeted dreck. Yet it’s a worthy exercise in creating something that doesn’t feel nostalgic for an era — it feels of an era. Even if the MCU’s take on slow cinema doesn’t sell tickets in our era, I admire the confidence of a movie that sets its own course instead of chasing the common wisdom that audiences want 2½ hours of chaos. Studio executives continuing to insist on that nonsense deserve Marvel’s first family to give them a disappointed talking-to, and send them to back their boardrooms without supper.

Ari Aster’s “Eddington” is such a superb social satire about contemporary America that I want to bury it in the desert for 20 years. More distance will make it easier to laugh.

It’s a modern western set in New Mexico — Aster’s home state — where trash blows like tumbleweeds as Sheriff Joe Cross (Joaquin Phoenix) stalks across the street to confront Eddington’s mayor, Ted Garcia (Pedro Pascal), whom he is campaigning to unseat. It’s May of 2020, that hot and twitchy early stretch of the COVID pandemic when reality seemed to disintegrate, and Joe is ticked off about the new mask mandate. He has asthma, and he can’t understand anyone who has their mouth covered.

Joe and Ted have old bad blood between them that’s flowed down from Joe’s fragile wife Louise, a.k.a. Rabbit (Emma Stone), a stunted woman-child who stubbornly paints creepy dolls, and his mother-in-law Dawn (Deirdre O’Connell), a raving conspiracist who believes the Titanic sinking was no accident. Dawn is jazzed to decode the cause of this global shutdown; there’s comfort in believing everything happens for a reason. Her mania proves contagious.

Bad things are happening in Eddington and have been for decades, not just broken shop windows. Joe wears a white hat and clearly considers himself the story’s hero, although he’s not up to the job. If you squint real hard, you can see his perspective that he’s a champion for the underdog. Joe gets his guts in a twist when a maskless elder is kicked out of the local grocery store as the other shoppers applaud. “Public shaming,” Joe spits.

“There’s no COVID in Eddington,” Joe claims in his candidacy announcement video, urging his fellow citizens that “we need to free our hearts.” His earnestness is comic and sweet and dangerous. You can hear every fact he’s leaving out. His rival’s commercials promote a fantastical utopia where Ted is playing piano on the sidewalk and elbow-bumping more Black people in 15 seconds than we see in the rest of the movie. Ted also swears that permitting a tech behemoth named SolidGoldMagikarp to build a controversial giant data center on the outskirts of the county won’t suck precious resources — it’ll transform this nowheresville into a hub for jobs. Elections are a measure of public opinion: Which fibber would you trust?

Danger is coming and like in “High Noon,” this uneasy town will tear itself apart before it arrives. Aster is so good at scrupulously capturing the tiny, fearful COVID behaviors we’ve done our best to forget that it’s a shame (and a relief) that the script isn’t really about the epidemic. Another disease has infected Eddington: Social media has made everyone brain sick.

The film is teeming with viral headlines — serious, frivolous or false — jumbled together on computer screens screaming for attention in the same all-caps font. (Remember the collective decision that no one had the bandwidth to care about murder hornets?) Influencers and phonies and maybe even the occasional real journalist prattle on in the backgrounds of scenes telling people what to think and do, often making things worse. Joe loves his wife dearly. We see him privately watching a YouTuber explain how he can convince droopy Louise to have children. Alas, he spends his nights in their marital bed chastely doomscrolling.

Every character in “Eddington” is lonely and looking for connection. One person’s humiliating nadir comes during a painful tracking shot at an outdoor party where they’re shunned like they have the plague. Phones dominate their interactions: The camera is always there in somebody’s hand, live streaming or recording, flattening life into a reality show and every conversation into a performance.

The script expands to include Joe’s deputies, aggro Guy (Luke Grimes) and Bitcoin-obsessed Michael (Micheal Ward), plus a cop from the neighboring tribal reservation, Officer Butterfly Jimenez (William Belleau) and a handful of bored, identity-seeking teens. They’ll all wind up at odds even though they’re united by the shared need to be correct, to have purpose, to belong. When George Floyd is killed six states away, these young do-gooders rush into the streets, excited to have a reason to get together and yell. The protesters aren’t insincere about the cause. But it’s head-scrambling to watch blonde Sarah (Amélie Hoeferle) lecture her ex-boyfriend Michael, who is Black and a cop, about how he should feel. Meanwhile Brian (Cameron Mann), who is white and one of the most fascinating characters to track, is so desperate for Sarah’s attention that he delivers a hilarious slogan-addled meltdown: “My job is to sit down and listen! As soon as I finish this speech! Which I have no right to make!”

The words come fast and furious and flummoxing. Aster has crowded more pointed zingers and visual gags into each scene than our eyes can take in. His dialogue is laden with vile innuendos — “deep state,” “sexual predator,” “antifa” — and can feel like getting pummeled. When a smooth-talking guru named Vernon (Austin Butler) slithers into the plot, he regales Joe’s family with an incredulous tale of persecution that, as he admits, “sounds insane just to hear coming out of my mouth.” Well, yeah. Aster wants us to feel exhausted sorting fact from fiction.

The verbal barrage builds to a scene in which Joe and Dawn sputter nonsense at each other in a cross-talking non-conversation where both sound like they’re high on cocaine. They are, quite literally, internet junkies.

This is the bleakest of black humor. There’s even an actual dumpster fire. Aster’s breakout debut, “Hereditary,” gave him an overnight pedigree as the princeling of highbrow horror films about trauma. But really, he’s a cringe comedian who exaggerates his anxieties like a tragic clown. Even in “Midsommar,” Aster’s most coherent film, his star Florence Pugh doesn’t merely cry — she howls like she could swallow the earth. It wouldn’t be surprising to hear that when Aster catches himself getting maudlin, he forces himself to actively wallow in self-pity until it feels like a joke. Making the tragic ridiculous is a useful tool. (I once got through a breakup by watching “The Notebook” on repeat.)

With “Beau Is Afraid,” Aster’s previous film with Phoenix, focusing that approach on one man felt too punishing. “Eddington” is hysterical group therapy. I suspect that Aster knows that if we read a news article about a guy like Joe, we wouldn’t have any sympathy for him at all. Instead, Aster essentially handcuffs us to Joe’s point of view and sends us off on this tangled and bitterly funny adventure, in which rattling snakes spice up a humming, whining score by the Haxan Cloak and Daniel Pemberton.

Not every plot twist works. Joe’s sharpest pivot is so inward and incomprehensible that the film feels compelled to signpost it by having a passing driver yell, “You’re going the wrong way!” By the toxic finale, we’re certain only that Phoenix plays pathetic better than anyone these days. From “Her” to “Joker” to “Napoleon” to “Inherent Vice,” he’s constantly finding new wrinkles in his sad sacks. “Eddington’s” design teams have taken care to fill Joe’s home with dreary clutter and outfit him in sagging jeans. By contrast, Pascal’s wealthier Ted is the strutting embodiment of cowboy chic. He’s even selfishly hoarded toilet paper in his fancy adobe estate.

It’s humanistic when “Eddington” notes that everyone in town is a bit of a sinner. The problem is that they’re all eager to throw stones and point out what the others are doing wrong to get a quick fix of moral superiority. So many yellow cards get stacked up against everyone that you come to accept that we’re all flawed, but most of us are doing our best.

Joe isn’t going to make Eddington great again. He never has a handle on any of the conspiracies, and when he grabs a machine gun, he’s got no aim. Aster’s feistiest move is that he refuses to reveal the truth. When you step back at the end to take in the full landscape, you can put most of the story together. (Watch “Eddington” once, talk it out over margaritas and then watch it again.) Aster makes the viewer say their theories out loud afterwards, and when you do, you sound just as unhinged as everyone else in the movie. I dig that kind of culpability: a film that doesn’t point sanctimonious fingers but insists we’re all to blame.

But there are winners and losers and winners who feel like losers and schemers who get away with their misdeeds scot-free. Five years after the events of this movie, we’re still standing in the ashes of the aggrieved. But at least if we’re cackling at ourselves together in the theater, we’re less alone.

New Delhi, India – In a career marked by chart-topping music and highly acclaimed performances, Punjabi actor Diljit Dosanjh is cruising towards yet another milestone on his list: Delivering the highest-grossing Punjabi film.

“Sardaar Ji 3”, the latest horror-comedy by Dosanjh, one of Asia’s most bankable artists, has been shattering records abroad. But, in his own home country, India, the film has not been released and remains out of bounds for more than one billion people.

Dosanjh and his latest film – released globally on June 27 – have been marred by a political and cultural controversy over the nationality of his film’s co-star, Hania Amir, a Pakistani actor.

Last year, Dosanjh sold out arenas in the US, Canada, and across Europe during his Dil-Luminati world tour. He became the first Indian artist to perform at the Coachella festival in California and, more recently, walked down the Met Gala carpet in an iconic turban. Dosanjh has also carved out a unique space for himself in Bollywood as both a crowd-puller and a critical favourite.

But at home, he is now facing calls for a boycott and the impounding of his passport. Film critics and political analysts, however, say this is part of a growing pattern of censorship and an attempt to restrict artistic freedom in India, to heed the nationalists’ demands.

So, why is India blocking the work of one of its most successful artists?

Why is Dosanjh’s latest film controversial?

Sardaar Ji 3, the third instalment of the popular horror-comedy franchise directed by Amar Hundal, stars a popular Punjabi pair – Dosanjh and Neeru Bajwa – in lead roles, alongside Pakistan’s Hania Aamir.

Shortly after the film’s production was wrapped in April this year, suspected rebels in Indian-administered Kashmir’s resort town of Pahalgam killed 26 people, all but one of them tourists.

New Delhi immediately blamed Pakistan, which it said had supported the deadly “terrorist attack”, but Islamabad denied involvement. In the coming days, the two countries engaged in a four-day conflict, the most expansive between the nuclear-armed neighbours in decades.

When Dosanjh released the trailer for his upcoming film last month, the casting of Aamir took many by surprise – and prompted outrage.

Why has the Indian government blocked Sadaar Ji 3?

The film has not received certification from India’s Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and has not been released in Indian cinemas.

The Indian government also “geoblocked” (restricted online access to) the film’s trailer in India; however, the teaser and film’s album, which do not include shots of Aamir, remain accessible.

Following the Kashmir attack in April, the Indian government swiftly brought in a series of digital crackdowns. This included blocking thousands of Pakistani social media handles on platforms like Instagram and X (formerly Twitter), including the accounts of celebrities such as Aamir, Fawad Khan and Mahira Khan.

The government, which is led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, also blocked access to the social media accounts of Pakistani journalists and news outlets in India.

The government then issued an advisory on May 8, directing all video platforms, streaming services and digital intermediaries to immediately remove Pakistani-origin entertainment content, including web series, films, songs, podcasts and other media.

In addition, the government banned 16 prominent Pakistani YouTube channels, including those of Geo News, ARY News, and Samaa TV, which collectively had more than 63 million subscribers, for allegedly spreading misinformation, provocative narratives, and content targeting India’s armed forces and sovereignty.

Rahul Desai, a Mumbai-based film and TV critic, said blocking access to films over casting choices has become “an excuse to antagonise Pakistan” under the current government.

“It’s a vicious cycle because a lot of the cinema is informed by pro-establishment choices in India,” he told Al Jazeera.

“This has become a very neat medium for people to vent against Pakistan, just like cricket sometimes does.”

Today, the reality-based creative boundaries in India are neat, Desai said: “Do not cast artists from the other side of the border, and a lot of filmmakers self-censor themselves.”

Are cross-border artistic collaborations common?

Yes, they are. Pakistani actors are not allowed to work in India, so shoots involving them have to be carried out abroad.

“Music departments of [Pakistan’s] films used to contribute a lot to Indian cinema at least a decade or two ago in the 2000s,” said Desai. The release of the curated music show franchise, Coke Studio Pakistan, which had 15 seasons from 2008 to 2024, was almost “like a cultural moment in India”, he added.

But over the past two decades, there have been multiple instances of cross-border collaborations of artists, but they have faced boycotts and anger on both sides of the border due to political tensions between the South Asian neighbours.

For the Punjabi film and music industries, the situation is even more complex.

The partition of British India, which resulted in the creation of Pakistan with borders drawn overnight, cuts through Punjab, and millions on each side share culture and linguistic ties.

Successful Punjabi franchises like Chal Mera Putt, known for its Pakistani cast, face uncertainty, especially the upcoming Chal Mera Putt 4, amid growing demands to avoid Pakistani involvement.

“There’s obviously a lot of bullying involved by the establishment over casting Pakistani actors,” said Desai. “There’s a lot of banning and trolling involved. There’s a lot of anxiety and tension associated with such choices.”

What do Indian film bodies say about Sadaar Ji 3?

Indian film associations, particularly the Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) and the All Indian Cine Workers Association (AICWA), have voiced strong objections to the casting of Aamir in Dosanjh’s Sardaar Ji 3.

FWICE, headed by President BN Tiwari, labelled the collaboration a “betrayal of the nation” and accused Dosanjh of “disrespecting national sentiments and the sacrifices of Indian soldiers”. It demanded a complete ban on the film in India.

The body also issued appeals to India’s CBFC to withhold certification for Sardaar Ji 3 and emphasised noncooperation with Pakistani artists.

AICWA echoed these sentiments, condemning the film’s producers for prioritising Pakistani talent over Indian artists and calling for a widespread boycott of Dosanjh across the industry, including by music companies and event organisers.

Ashoke Pandit, the president of the Indian Film and Television Directors’ Association, told a local newspaper: “We are going to take action and tell the producers not to work with [Dosanjh].

“He should be fully boycotted in the country by music labels and the Punjabi film industry. Diljit is a compulsive Pakistani lover.”

However, Ira Bhaskar, a former CBFC Board member and retired professor of film studies at New Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University, said this episode is a reflection of the establishments of India and Pakistan, rather than pointing to a deeper divide between the people of the two countries.

“The Indian government [since Modi came to power] has not only understood the power of mass media, especially cinema, but is invested in taking control of the narratives that circulate in the public domain,” Bhaskar said.

What has Dosanjh said about the furore over Sadaar Ji 3?

Dosanjh told BBC Asian Network earlier this month: “When this film was made, everything was fine.

“We shot it in February, and things were OK back then. After that, a lot of big things happened that were beyond our control,” the singer-actor said, referring to the Kashmir attack and the ensuing conflict.

“So the producers decided that the film obviously won’t be released in India now, so they’ll release it overseas. The producers have invested a lot of money, and when the film was being made, nothing like this was happening,” Dosanjh said.

How well has Sardaar Ji 3 done globally?

Dosanjh told the BBC that the film’s producers were aware of the potential financial loss from pulling out of a territory like India, the world’s most populous country. The previous film in the franchise – Sadaar Ji 2 – made nearly $3m at the box office in India.

Dosanjh has continued promoting his film on his social media handles, including sharing images from sold-out shows in Pakistan, where the movie has shattered records for Indian releases. Globally, the film has taken $7m at the box office, against a budget of $4m. In Pakistan, it is the highest-grossing Indian-made film in history, pulling in $1.4m so far.

In India, Desai, the critic, said “censorship goes way beyond casting … It extends to the themes of the stories that people are allowed to tell now in India.”

Are any other of Dosanjh’s works facing problems?

Yes. The release of Dosanjh’s film, Panjab ’95, directed by Honey Trehan in 2022, has stalled, primarily because of stringent demands from India’s Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), which has delayed its clearance since the project was submitted in December 2022.

The biographical drama about the life of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, who exposed 25,0000 extrajudicial killings and disappearances of Sikhs in Punjab during the 1980s and 1990s, was given 120 suggested cuts, including removing references to political figures, documented human rights abuses, and even the protagonist’s name.

Trehan told Al Jazeera: “The CBFC was established as an independent body, which could protect artists, so that the government should not influence the art … [but] the government is arm-twisting filmmakers and their films.”

Desai, the critic who watched Panjab ’95 in a private screening, told Al Jazeera: “It’s such a well-made film that it might incite a sense of revolution among people today, especially people who are not happy with the establishment. So, we can see where a lot of the insecurity is coming from.”

Dosanjh and Trehan have publicly refused to accept the suggested cuts. And the film remains in limbo. Its scheduled premiere was pulled from the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) in 2023, and subsequent invitations from other international festivals were declined.

The day before our interview, cinematographer Darius Khondji tells me he went to see a Pablo Picasso exhibit in uptown New York City. And though he would never compare himself to the Spanish painter, Khondji says he found a kinship in the way he described his artistic practice.

“About his style, he said that he was like a chameleon, changing completely from one moment to another, from one situation to another,” Khondji, 69, recalls via Zoom. “This is exactly how I feel. When I’m with a director, I embrace that director completely.”

Backlit, with natural light coming from the large windows behind him on a recent afternoon, Khondji appears shrouded in darkness, at times like an enigmatic silhouette with a halo of sunshine around his fuzzy hair. The Iranian-born cinematographer speaks animatedly, with hand movements accentuating every effusive sentence.

“Sometimes I talk in a very impressionistic way,” Khondji says, apologetically. “I might be confusing but I try to be just honest and say what I feel.”

Khondji’s eclectic resume flaunts an exceptional collection of collaborations, some of the best-looking movies of their moments: David Fincher’s gruesome but gorgeous “Seven,” Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Marc Caro’s darkly whimsical and richly textured “Delicatessen” and “The City of Lost Children,” Michael Haneke’s unflinching love story “Amour,” James Gray’s old-school luxurious “The Immigrant,” the Safdie Brothers’ nerve-racking and kinetic “Uncut Gems,” and now Ari Aster’s paranoid big-canvas pandemic saga “Eddington,” in theaters Friday.

Khondji stands simultaneously as a wise member of the old guard and a hopeful champion for the future of film. Sought in decades past by the likes of Woody Allen, Roman Polanski and Bernardo Bertolucci, he’s now lending his lensing genius to a new generation of storytellers with ideas just as biting.

“Darius understands the human soul and he masters the tools to express it,” says filmmaker Alejandro González Iñárritu via email. “All the technical choices — framing decisions, uses of color and lighting techniques — he is able to apply them, but always subordinated to the director’s vision and, most importantly, to the needs of the film itself.”

Khondji, left, with director Alejandro González Iñárritu on the shoot of 2022’s “Bardo, False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths.”

(SeoJu Park / Netflix)

Khondji earned his second Oscar nomination for his work on the Mexican director’s surrealist 2022 film “Bardo, False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths.” The motion picture academy first acknowledged his artistry with a nod for Alan Parker’s sumptuous 1996 musical “Evita.”

“Darius is kind of a poet — everything is feeling-based with him,” says Aster via video call from Los Angeles. “He is an intellectual but he is also decidedly not.”

If you were to dissect the pivotal memories that shaped Khondji’s creative mind, the array of touchstones would include a photograph of Christopher Lee as Dracula that his brother would bring him from London. Also in prime of place: an image of his older sister, Christine, whom he considers an artistic mentor.

You would also find the intense orange color of persimmons squashed in his family’s garden in Tehran during winter — the only sensory memory he has from his early childhood before his family moved to Paris when he was around 3 1/2 years old in the late 1950s.

“Sometimes I look at my granddaughter and grandson and say, ‘OK, they are 3, almost 3 1/2, so this is the amount of language I had, but it was probably mostly in Farsi,’” he says. Khondji returned to Iran only once, as a teenager in the early 1970s, with a Super 8 camera in hand.

He has been watching movies since infancy. His nanny, an avid moviegoer, would take him to the cinema with her. And later, his father, who owned movie theaters in Tehran and would source films through Europe, brought him along to Parisian screening rooms as a kid.

“These are all stories told to me and a mix of impressions and feelings of things that I remember,” Khondji explains. That visceral, heart-first way of perceiving the world around him might be the defining quality of his approach to image-making. It’s always about how something feels.

“Cinema is a strong force,” he says. “You cannot limit it only with aesthetic taste or things that you like or don’t like or rules. You just have to go with the flow and give yourself to it. You need a lot of humility.” At that last thought, Khondji laughs.

Cinematographer Darius Khondji, photographed in France in 2021.

(Ariane Damain Vergallo)

When he started making his own Dracula-inspired short films on Super 8 as a teenager, Khondji had little idea about the distinct roles of a film production. Slowly, he started noticing that the directors of photography for the movies he liked were often the same artists.

“I was discovering that some films looked incredible — they had a very strong atmosphere,” Khondji recalls. “Then I found that the same name of one person was on one movie and then another movie, and I thought, ‘OK, this person really is very important.’” He mentions Gregg Toland, the legendary shooter of Orson Welles’ “Citizen Kane.”

But it wasn’t until Khondji attended NYU for film school that he dropped his aspirations for directing and decided on becoming a cinematographer. His film exercises leaned more toward the experiential than the narrative. He refers to them as “emotional wavelengths.”

“It’s really the director and the actors that trigger my desire to shoot a movie,” says Khondji. “The script is, of course, a great thing, but once I want to work with the director, I really trust them.”

Hearing Khondji speak about directors, it’s clear that he puts them in a privileged light — so much so that he makes a point of creating what he calls a “family” around them to ensure their success. This means he ensures the director feels comfortable with the gaffer, the dolly grip, the key grip, so that there’s no one on set that feels like a stranger.

With Aster, for example, their bond emerged from a shared voraciousness for film. The pair had several hangouts together before a job even entered the equation. Khondji is a defender of the polarizing “Beau Is Afraid,” his favorite of Aster’s movies. “Eddington” finally brought them together as collaborators for the first time.

“Ari and I have a common language,” he says. “We discovered quite early on working together that we have a very similar taste for dark films, not dark in lighting but in storytelling.”

Joaquin Phoenix, left, and Pedro Pascal in the movie “Eddington.”

(A24)

While scouting locations in Aster’s native New Mexico, he and Khondji came across the small town where the Coen brothers’ “No Country for Old Men” was filmed. And though they both revere that arid 2007 thriller, they wanted to get away from anything tied to it, so they pivoted again to the community of Truth or Consequences.

Khondji recalls Aster describing his film, about a self-righteous sheriff (Joaquin Phoenix) in a grudge match against the mayor (Pedro Pascal), as “a European psychological thriller on American land.” For the cinematographer, the movie is “a modern western.”

“We wanted the exterior to be very bright, like garishly bright, like the light has almost started to take off the color and the contrast a little bit because it’s so bright, never bright enough,” explains Khondji about shooting in the desert.

For Khondji, working Aster reminded him of his two outings with Austria’s esteemed, ultra-severe Michael Haneke, with which the cinematographer made the American remake of “Funny Games” and “Amour,” the latter on which he discovered a “radically different kind filmmaking” where “everything in the set had to have a grace of realness.”

“‘The color is vivid in a way that it isn’t in any of his other films,” says Aster about the quality that Khondji brought to “Amour,” Haneke’s Oscar-winning film.

Still, after working with some of the world’s most acclaimed filmmakers on features, music videos, commercials and a TV show (he shot Nicolas Winding Refn’s 2019 “Too Old to Die Young” and became infatuated with the San Fernando Valley), Khondji prefers to be reinvigorated by younger artists challenging the rules.

“‘Uncut Gems’ was like turning a page for me in filmmaking,” he says, calling out to Josh and Benny Safdie. “These two young filmmakers were making films in a different way. And the fact that I could keep up with them — they are in their 30s — psychologically, it gave me a lot of strength.” Khondji also shot Josh Safdie’s upcoming “Marty Supreme,” out in December.

Is there a visual signature that defines Khondji’s work? Perhaps, even if he doesn’t consciously think of it. A lushness, a preference for olive greens and blacker-than-black shadows. An intense fixation on color in general. There are also aesthetic preferences that Aster noticed from their work on “Eddington.”

“Darius and I hate unmotivated camera movement,” Aster says. “But there are certain things that never would’ve bothered me compositionally that really bothered Darius, and now they’re stuck in my head. For instance, Darius hates it when you cut off somebody’s leg, even if it’s at the ankle. A lot of Darius’s prejudices have gone into my system.”

Khondji concedes to these particularities, yet he doesn’t think in rigid absolutes.

“You have a rule, and then you decide this is the moment to break the rule,” he says, citing the rawness of the films of French director Maurice Pialat or how actor Harriet Andersson looks directly into the camera in Ingmar Bergman’s 1953 “Summer with Monika.”

He recently watched Ryan Coogler’s box-office hit “Sinners” without knowing anything about its premise beforehand. “People who know me know that I don’t like spoilers,” he says. “I’m very cautious with film reviews. They are very important, but at the same time, I don’t want to know the story.”

Khondji had never seen one of Coogler’s films, but was impressed. “I really enjoyed it,” he says. “After I watched it I wanted to know who shot the film, but I enjoyed the actors so much and I love just being a real member of the audience.”

It might surprise some to learn that Khondji’s initial interest in seeing a film is unrelated to how it looks or who shot it.

“When I watch a film people say, ‘Oh, did you notice how it was shot?’ And I don’t really go for that,” he says. “I mostly go to watch a film for the director.”

These days, his wish list includes the opportunity to shoot a proper supernatural horror film (Aster might be handy to stay in touch with) and for a company to make a modern film-stock camera. Khondji is not precious about format but believes shooting on film should stay an option as it is the “natural medium” of cinema.

He tells me how much he loves going to the Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood. “It’s really like a shrine for me,” he says, recalling seeing Alfred Hitchcock’s “Vertigo” there on true VistaVision.

“It was an incredible emotion,” he adds. “Like the emotion I had when I grew up with my dad, when they would take me to see big films in the cinemas where the ceiling had stars to make you dream even before the film started.”

That dream is what Khondji is still chasing, in the cinema and on set.

A travel blogger has admitted his latest trip to Spain has ‘completely changed’ how he sees the country after he visited one little-known town he claims is the ‘Cuba of Europe’

A seasoned traveller has admitted his latest European adventure has “completely changed” how he sees Spain, prompting him to ask why nobody had ever told him about a little-known town before. Rob Adcock, who documents his worldwide trips on TikTok, shared his experience after visiting an Atlantic coast city he believes should be talked about more.

Heading through the destination‘s sun-kissed streets, Rob gushed that he felt “like an extra on a movie set”. He revealed: “Someone described it to me as being like the ‘Cuba of Europe’ and they are not wrong – because my camera roll has never taken such a beating.”

Teasing his followers by refraining from giving away its location at first, Rob offered shots of the city’s historic buildings, al fresco dining options and coastal backdrop.

“It’s by the sea so it’s that little bit cooler than the other cities around it,” he said. “And it’s not an expensive place – it’s the perfect mix of a city and a beach break.”

Rob added that accessibility is great, noting that “you can walk everywhere” as “nothing is too far”, which enabled him to get around on foot rather than shelling out for expensive taxi journeys.

“The nearest airport is a £4 train ride and you can fly here through Skyscanner for just £34 in the middle of summer,” he said, sharing a screenshot of an online flight booking as proof.

Rob confessed: “I couldn’t have told you anything about this place before I got here, but now I will not stop whanging on about it to anyone who will listen.”

But where is this haven? “Get it in the chat,” he urged. “[Tell them] you’re going to Cadiz for the weekend.”

Writing in response, one TikTok user revealed they were equally as impressed: “I was there for a day’s stop on a cruise. Went nuts taking pics of old doors. Fell in love with the place.”

A second person noted: “The fish market is amazing too, great bars and restaurants nearby to eat all the delicious seafood and the chicharron de Cadiz is so yummy with a glass or two of Manzanilla or Fino.”

A third praised the content: “Thanks this looks amazing and right up my street.” Whilst a fourth shared: “Great surfing there!”

Cadiz is the southernmost point of mainland Spain and mainland Europe.

The city’s dedicated tourism website states: “Its location has determined its clear maritime vocation and its exclusive dedication to the sea since the earliest days of its founding. Considered the oldest city in the West, the Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, and Arabs all passed through here, and Spain’s first democratic Constitution was drafted here.”

It adds: “The city, popularly known as the “Silver Cup”, has an unmistakable seafaring flavour, and highlights the grace and hospitality of its inhabitants, as demonstrated by its famous carnivals; very interesting monuments such as the Cathedral , the Walls, the Parish of Santa Cruz, the Genovés Park, the Puerta de la Caleta, etc.

“All of them places of undoubted charm, to which we must add its gastronomy and its famous and beautiful beaches, such as La Caleta, Santa María del Mar, or La Victoria.”

A controversial thriller that left fans feeling uneasy is leaving Netflix soon

Netflix subscribers have just a limited time to stream a controversial thriller that left fans unable to sleep.

American Psycho was released in 2000, and is the film adaptation of the 1991 bestselling novel of the same name, written by Bret Easton Ellis.

Directed by Mary Harron, the horror thriller stars Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman, a narcissistic banker living in New York during the 80s, who is leading a double life as a serial killer.

Seeming normal to the outside world, behind closed doors Patrick is hiding an extreme violent streak as he commits unhinged and brutal acts of murder and torture.

Packed within its 102 minute run-time, American Psycho has plenty of kills, drug-taking and sex. In one notable scene, an axe-wielding Patrick goes on a killer rampage, murdering Jared Leto’s character Paul Allen.

The cast of the film – which developed a cult following in the decades since its release -also includes stars like Willem Dafoe, Justin Theroux and Reese Witherspoon.

What’s more, the critical response to American Psycho was fairly good. On Rotten Tomatoes, it was given a 68% “fresh” rating based on over 100 reviews from 2000 to 2023.

The movie – which leaves Netflix on August 10 – fared pretty well at the box office too, grossing $34 million from a $7 million budget.

As for fan reaction, American Psycho certainly left people divided. Online, one person said: “It was so twisted I loved it.” Someone else fumed: “Not a fan, gross and too violent for me.”

A third chimed in: “I couldn’t sleep after watching it! One of those that sticks with you for sure.” Another also wrote: “It’s my favorite movie and it’s the movie I’ve seen the most times. I never get bored of it since there are so many great details.”

Meanwhile, last year it was reported that Austin Butler is set to take on the role of Patrick in a modern remake of American Psycho.

Best known for his Academy Award-nominated performance as Elvis Presley in Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis, Austin is said to be collaborating with acclaimed director Luca Guadagnino for a fresh cinematic interpretation of the film.

Variety confirmed the casting and announced that the project is being developed by Lionsgate and will bring a bold new vision to the 2000s thriller.

The live-action “Legend of Zelda” movie has found its stars.

Legendary game designer Shigeru Miyamoto, who’s an executive producer on the film, announced Wednesday on X that Bo Bragason will portray Princess Zelda and Benjamin Evan Ainsworth will play Link in Nintendo and Sony’s film. Miyamoto created the hit video game series with Takashi Tezuka.

British actor Bo Bragason is known for her roles in BBC One’s “Three Girls” and “The Jetty,” as well as Disney+’s “Renegade Nell” and the 2024 vampire comedy “The Radleys.”

Ainsworth, also from the U.K., voiced Pinocchio in Disney+’s live-action “Pinocchio” in 2022 and played Miles in Netflix’s “The Haunting of Bly Manor.” He also stars in the Canadian series “Son of a Critch” and the comedy “Everything’s Going to Be Great.”

The actors’ young ages — 21 and 16 — have sparked fan speculation that the film may draw from “The Wind Waker” or “Ocarina of Time” games, which feature Zelda and Link as teens.

While initially slated for a March 2027 release, production delays have shifted the film’s launch to May 7, 2027.

The project is helmed by director Wes Ball, known for the “Maze Runner” trilogy and “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.” A huge fan of the franchise, Ball told Entertainment Weekly in late 2023 that he wanted to create something more akin to “a live-action Miyazaki” than “The Lord of the Rings.”

“That wonder and whimsy that he brings to things, I would love to see something like that,” he told EW about the renowned Japanese animator.

Avi Arad is also producing the film.

The adaptation marks Nintendo’s second big-screen foray after 2023’s mega-successful “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” The animated film grossed about $1.4 billion worldwide.

The action-adventure video game franchise, released in 1986, follows young hero Link on his quests to rescue Princess Zelda and overcome the villain Ganon. Missions include navigating dungeons, solving puzzles and taking on an array of enemies.

Celebrated for its innovative gameplay, installments of the popular game include “The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time” and “The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.” In the years since, the franchise has expanded beyond video games and into other media like animated series and comic books, and now film.

“You can steer yourself in any direction you choose,” Dr. Seuss wrote in his beloved 1990 picture book “Oh, the Places You’ll Go!”

It seems pop star Ariana Grande has taken the advice to heart, landing yet another movie role and her second collaboration with “Wicked” director Jon M. Chu.

Grande is set to star alongside Josh Gad in the animated adaptation of “Oh, the Places You’ll Go!,” Warner Bros. announced Tuesday. Expected in March 2028, the movie will be directed by Chu and include original music from EGOT-winning duo Benj Pasek and Justin Paul, known for “Dear Evan Hansen,” “La La Land” and “The Greatest Showman.”

Grande and Gad confirmed the news on their Instagram pages this morning with a picture of them in a recording studio holding up their scripts, which feature the same design as the book cover.

“I love this book, I love this script, I love the beautiful world of @drseuss, I love this incredible group of creative human beings (@joshgad what a brilliant joy you are),” Grande wrote on her story. “I am so thrilled to be a part of this one.”

“Never been more excited to go places,” Gad said. “We are dreaming up something very very special for you.”

Grande, who released the deluxe edition of her album “Eternal Sunshine” earlier this year, will appear in the second installment of “Wicked,” in theaters Nov. 21. Additionally, the Grammy winner will join Robert De Niro and Ben Stiller for the fourth “Meet the Parents” movie, expected November 2026.

Gad, known for “Frozen” and “The Book of Mormon,” just joined the cast of “Jesus Christ Superstar” at the Hollywood Bowl, where he’ll appear alongside Grande’s “Wicked” co-star Cynthia Erivo Aug. 1 to 3. The Broadway star has several other films lined up as well, including the “Spaceballs” sequel, “Adulthood” and “Frozen 3.”

When a country like Armenia sends a film out into the world, it’s not just art. It’s a way to preserve memory, to reach a scattered diaspora. Each film offers the world stories that might otherwise be forgotten. So when President Trump proposes a 100% tariff on all films “produced in foreign lands,” the damage isn’t limited to foreign competitors or outsourcing studios. It threatens to shut out small nations like Armenia, for whom cinema is a lifeline.

The proposal hasn’t taken effect — yet. But July 9 marked a turning point in Trump’s broader tariff agenda, with a deadline for reimposing sweeping trade penalties on countries deemed “unfair.” While the situation for films remains unclear, the proposal alone has done damage and continues to haunt the industry. The tariff idea arises from the worldview that treats international exchange as a threat — and cultural expression as just another import to tax.

Take “Amerikatsi” (2022), the extraordinary recent movie by Emmy-winning actor and director Michael A. Goorjian. Inspired by his grandfather’s escape from the Armenian genocide — smuggled across the ocean in a crate — the project is not just a movie; it’s a universal story rooted in the Armenian experience, made possible by international collaboration and driven by a deep personal mission. Goorjian filmed it in Armenia with local crews, including people who, months later, would find themselves on the front lines of war. One was killed. Others were injured. Still, they sent him videos from the trenches saying all they wanted was to return to the set. That is the spirit a tariff like this would crush.

Armenia is a democracy in a dangerous neighborhood. Its history is riddled with trauma — genocide, war, occupation — and its present is haunted by threats from neighboring authoritarian regimes. But even as bombs fall and borders close, its people create. Films like “Aurora’s Sunrise” (2022) and “Should the Wind Drop” (2020) carry voices across oceans, turning pain into poetry, history into cinema. These films don’t rely on wide releases. They depend on arthouses, festivals, streamers and distributors with the courage and curiosity to take a chance. A 100% tariff would devastate that.

Indeed, the ripple effects of such a tariff would upend the entire global film ecosystem. Modern cinema is inherently international: A Georgian director might work with a French editor, an American actor and a German financier.

So sure, many American films use crew and facilities in Canada. But international co-productions are a growing cornerstone of the global film industry, particularly in Europe. Belgium produces up to 72% of its films in partnership with foreign nations, often France. Other notable co-production leaders include Luxembourg (45% with France), Slovakia (38% with Czechia) and Switzerland (31% with France). These partnerships are often driven by shared language, which is why the U.S. is also frequently involved in co-productions with Britain as well as Canada. Israel too has leaned into this model, using agreements with countries such as France, Germany and Canada to gain access to international audiences and funding mechanisms.

The U.S. government cannot unmake this system and should not try to do so. To penalize “foreign-made” films is to punish Americans too — artists, producers and distributors who thrive on collaboration. You can’t build a wall around storytelling.

Supporters of the tariff argue it protects American workers. But Hollywood is already one of the most globalized industries on Earth, and the idea that it suffers from too many foreign films is absurd. If anything, it suffers from too few. The result of this policy won’t be a thriving domestic market — but a quieter, flatter, more parochial one. A landscape where the next “Amerikatsi” never gets seen, where a generation of Armenian American youth never discovers their history through a movie screen.

If America still wants to lead in the 21st century — not just militarily and economically but morally — it should lead through culture and avoid isolation.

Stories like “Amerikatsi” remind us why that matters. A film that begins with a boy smuggled in a crate across the ocean ends with a message of joy and resilience. That’s not just Armenian history — it’s American history too. It cannot be separated. Unless we want that kind of storytelling priced out of our cinemas (and off our streaming platforms), we must keep the doors open.

For America to turn its back on stories like these would be a betrayal of everything film can be. And it would impoverish American society too. That way lies not greatness but provinciality.

Alexis Alexanian is a New York City-based film producer, consultant and educator whose credits include “A League of Their Own” and “Pieces of April.” She is a past president of New York Women in Film & Television and sits on the board of BAFTA North America.

Last week, Warner Bros Pictures released a new reboot of the Superman film series. The movie soared to the top of the box office and grossed an estimated $122m in the United States in its opening weekend. Though the industry is celebrating the film’s early box office totals, they are well below the earnings of comparable blockbusters from a decade ago. For example, in its opening weekend in 2016, Warner Bros’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice reaped a healthy $166m ($224m when adjusted for inflation).

Indeed, over the past few years, revenues from such films have steadily fallen, and the new Superman film is not an exception. In the 2010s, superhero movies regularly reaped more than $500m worldwide in box office totals. In recent years, far fewer have reached that high watermark – a fact that is causing unease in the industry. Last year, Hollywood trade magazine Variety warned that the genre was experiencing an “unprecedented box office drought”.

What made superhero movies fall off? According to Hollywood bigwigs, the reason is “superhero fatigue”, as Superman director James Gunn put it. Disney CEO Bob Iger opined that the prolific output of superhero movies “diluted [the audience’s] focus and attention”.

But their narrative — that consumers are simply getting “fatigued” with the genre — is reductive. As with all artistic genres, there are reasons why some rise or fall in popularity. Those reasons are intimately tied to politics.

Superhero boom and decline

Superhero fiction is a uniquely US genre, arguably invented in 1938 with the publication of the first Superman comic book. The first superhero comic adaptation was released in 1941 under the title Adventures of Captain Marvel. The genre was popular among Americans for decades, but it really took off following the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

Those attacks punctured the relative tranquillity (in the US, at least) of the post-Cold War era and put the US propaganda machine into overdrive. Americans were fed a cartoonish portrait of what a “supervillain” looked like, which fit easily into superhero movie narratives. These supervillains were — like America’s purported enemies — bent on global domination and opposed to liberalism and US hegemony.

The Pentagon played a prominent role in shaping propagandistic narratives in popular culture. As a longtime partner of Hollywood, the Department of Defense has long had the practice of loaning out military equipment to filmmakers in exchange for script approval rights. In the post-9/11 era, it had a say in the scripts of a number of superhero blockbusters, including Iron Man and Captain America. Captain Marvel was even used as a recruitment tool for pilots by the US air force.

As a result, many superhero movies depict the US military and superheroes working hand-in-hand to defeat supervillainy, jointly pushing a vision of Pax Americana: a world where the dominant global power is the US.

The protagonists are often portrayed as defenders of “American ideals” like democracy, inclusivity, and justice. Take someone like Captain America, who originated as a literal embodiment of the US cultural victory over fascism. Other popular superheroes of the past 20 years, like Black Panther, embodied liberal America’s multicultural, pluralistic ideals.

But in recent years, the political reality those heroes are meant to uphold has begun to fracture. A September 2024 poll asked Americans whether they agreed with the statement “my country’s leader should have total, unchecked authority”. An astonishing 57.4 percent of US respondents agreed.

Another poll conducted a year earlier found that 45 percent of Americans “point to people seeing racial discrimination where it really doesn’t exist as the larger issue”.

It increasingly seems that America as a liberal, pluralistic society — the way it is depicted in superhero films — is no longer a universal aspiration for many Americans.

There is also growing scepticism towards America’s moral authority and superpower standing in the world.

A 2024 poll from Fox News found that 62 percent of American voters described the US as “on the decline”. Only 26 percent thought it was rising. A 2023 poll from Pew Research — a year before Donald Trump was re-elected — reported that 58 percent of those polled said that “life in America is worse today than it was 50 years ago”.

Social cohesion collapsing

While public perceptions gradually changed in the post-9/11 period, there were events that accelerated this shift.

The precipitous drop in superhero movie box office totals began in 2020. Why that year? This was when the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated already growing societal divisions.

The sense of a cohesive national identity fully shattered with the onset of this unprecedented public health emergency. Widespread mistrust of the government’s ability to manage the crisis — coupled with a deeply individualistic streak in Americans that precluded any understanding of social obligations that would prevent mass death, such as social distancing or lockdown measures — fostered a furious and splintered American body politic.

The singular vision of liberal American righteousness suggested by superhero films could not resonate amid this factional political landscape.

A year later came the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. The decision to pull out upset the notion of the US as a “heroic” intervener — a sort of global superman – heavily projected after 9/11. In contrast to Iraq, Afghanistan was long presented as a potential “success story”, or as The New York Times put it in 2005: the “American-led intervention that could wind up actually making people’s lives better”.

Of course, we all know how that turned out: the US entered Afghanistan in 2001 and exited in 2021, having killed more than 100,000 people and spent $2.3 trillion to pause Taliban rule for 20 years.

With its military power failing abroad and tensions rising at home, the US did not seem like a place that anyone — superhero or mortal — believed in any more. Inevitably, the domestic ills ignored by the political elites came to the fore. Real wages had been in decline for 30 years, while income inequality had been increasing, and infrastructure – decaying.

Americans on both left and right began to question the fitness of the US political system, long portrayed as the best in the world.

Many on the left now believe that corporate interests have so thoroughly captured the Democratic Party that they have ceased fighting for real wealth redistribution or social programmes, and conspire against progressive candidates who do believe in these things. Meanwhile, the American right has grown more venal, racist and authoritarian — the result of failing to understand the true reasons behind the country’s socioeconomic crises.

In depicting America as, ultimately, a force for good, the superhero movie genre does not speak to either of these political lines. Hollywood elites do not seem to understand this, however.

Gunn, who directed the new Superman movie, described the feature as a metaphor for American values. “Superman is the story of America,” Gunn said in an interview with The Times of London. “An immigrant that came from other places and populated the country, but for me it is mostly a story that says basic human kindness is a value and is something we have lost.”

His words spurred a furious reaction from the American right. “We don’t go to the movie theatre to be lectured to and to have somebody throw their ideology onto us,” Kellyanne Conway, former senior counsellor to President Trump, said on Fox News.

The recent American tendency to hyper-politicise film and slot all movies into either “woke” or “anti-woke” categories does not bode well for these kinds of tentpole blockbusters that, in days of yore, would attract audiences of all political stripes.

Superhero movies are an optimistic as well as a nationalistic genre — their primary message is that America, and the liberal order in general, are worth defending. But Americans no longer seem optimistic about the future, nor particularly attached to these ideological values. Fewer Americans seem to even believe in liberal pillars like democracy and multiculturalism — the kinds of things that superheroes typically fight for.

If we cannot seem to agree on what American values even are, it is understandable that we cannot agree on what kind of hero would embody the national spirit. Given these dispiriting political conditions, perhaps it is not super-surprising that Americans are not flocking to the superhero genre like they once did.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

This story contains some spoilers for “Superman.”

In James Gunn’s “Superman,” the titular superhero is devastated when he learns that his birth parents sent him to Earth to subjugate humanity.

In theaters now, the film is set a few years into Superman’s caped career. The Kryptonian — who grew up as Clark Kent on a farm in Smallville, Kan. — always believed a message left to him by these birth parents was an encouragement to use his powers to be a protector and hero. He is more than shaken to learn that was never the case.

It’s Clark’s human father, Jonathan, who points out that the message’s intent doesn’t really matter.

“Your choices [and] your actions, that’s what makes you who you are,” he says to his son.

Being an alien refugee might be why Superman has his superpowers, but it’s who he is as a person that makes him a superhero. And although it is mostly left unsaid, Clark’s kindness and values come from how he was raised — by loving parents in America’s heartland.

Despite “Superman” being as all-American as ever, the movie has become the most recent front in America’s never-ending culture war because of comments made by Gunn acknowledging the character is an immigrant.

But Superman is more a story about the triumph of assimilation and opportunity. As the new movie also shows, Superman would not be Superman if he was not raised by Martha and Jonathan Kent on a farm in Kansas. And as much as Superman is undeniably an immigrant, it’s hard to deny in the current political climate that he also resembles the type of immigrants who have traditionally been more embraced in this country.

Since early last month, the Trump administration has aggressively targeted Latino communities across California. Immigration raids have seemingly indiscriminately taken people from their workplace, on their way to court and even in parking lots. Federal officials have pushed back on claims that these operations have targeted people “because of their skin color.” According to federal authorities, more than 2,700 undocumented immigrants have been arrested in L.A. since early June.

This is not the first time the U.S. government has targeted specific communities of color because of their ancestry. During World War II, 120,000 people of Japanese descent were incarcerated in wartime camps regardless of their citizenship.

Gunn, however, has long maintained that his “Superman” is “a movie about kindness [and] being good.”

The filmmaker, who has been outspoken in his criticism of President Trump, told the London Times that “Superman is the story of America. … An immigrant that came from other places and populated the country.” He reiterated that the movie is about “human kindness.”

The backlash was swift, with familiar right-wing commentators and personalities criticizing the film for allegedly being “superwoke” before it was released. Even former Superman actor Dean Cain has spoken out against Gunn’s comments and the perceived politicization of the character’s story.

In response, comic book fans, including Democratic politicians, have pointed out that Superman — an alien born on the planet Krypton, sent to Earth to escape his planet’s destruction — has always been an immigrant.

“The Superman story is an immigration story of an outsider who tries to always do the most good,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) posted Wednesday on X. “His arch nemesis is a billionaire. You don’t get to change who he is because you don’t like his story. Comics are political.”

“Superman was an undocumented immigrant,” Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office wrote Thursday on X in response to an image of Trump as Superman posted by the White House.

Others on social media have circulated clips from past Superman media, including from Cain’s show “Lois & Clark,” where the character’s immigration status is addressed.

Despite the accusation and backlash, Superman has never been as “woke” as the current debate makes him seem.

Created by Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel, both children of Jewish immigrants, Superman’s first official appearance was in the first issue of “Action Comics” in the 1930s. With his iconic red and blue caped costume, the character is known as much for his godlike superpowers as he is for being the ultimate good guy with all-American looks and charm.

His adventures have spanned comics, radio, television and film. Besides evil billionaires, Superman has taken on superpowered supervillains, alien invaders and even his clones, as well as human threats like Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. Yes, some Superman stories are more political than others.

But Superman has never been radical in his politics. As a Kryptonian raised on Earth by human parents, the character has been shown in stories where he struggles with his own sense of otherness and belonging because he straddles two worlds. But other than rare outliers, his story has never delved deeply into how immigrants or those perceived as other are treated in the U.S. (For that, consider checking out some “X-Men.”)

That’s because Clark Kent’s immigration status or Americanness will never be questioned because of his appearance. That itself could be subversive, but that’s a debate for a different “Superman” movie.

Dean Cain, the former star of “Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman,” laments the newest take on the Man of Steel — one that likens his story to the immigrant experience in America.

In a recent conversation with TMZ, Cain — who starred as Clark Kent/Superman in the hit 1990s TV series — wondered: “How woke is Hollywood going to make this character?”

The 58-year-old actor railed against filmmaker James Gunn and his iteration of the Kryptonian icon after the director declared in an interview with the London Times that “Superman is the story of America.” In the interview, Gunn described his hero as “an immigrant that came from other places and populated the country,” adding that his film, starring David Corenswet in the title role, is “mostly a story that says basic human kindness is a value and is something we have lost.”

Gunn, who has been an outspoken critic of President Trump, made his comments as the Trump administration carries out its aggressive crackdown on immigrant communities across California. Since raids in Los Angeles began June 6, federal immigration agents have arrested nearly 2,700 undocumented individuals, according to data released Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Cain was clearly not a fan of Gunn’s remarks. Cain, who has not seen the film yet, criticized the idea of “changing beloved characters” and suggested creating new original characters instead. When he starred in “Lois & Clark,” Cain was the fourth actor to portray Superman onscreen, filling in the red boots of Kirk Alyn, George Reeves and Christopher Reeve. He claimed that the superhero “has always stood for truth, justice and the American way.

“The American way is immigrant-friendly, tremendously immigrant-friendly, but there are rules,” he added, before his aside about people coming to the U.S. to seek opportunity. Speaking more broadly about immigration, Cain said he believes in enforcing limits on immigration, otherwise “our society will fail.”

Teri Hatcher and Dean Cain starred in the TV series “Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman” from 1993 to 1997.

(ABC Television Network)

In another clip from his conversation with TMZ, Cain asks why immigration agents and federal agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, “are being villainized for enforcing the laws that our lawmakers, our elected representatives created.” Videos shared on social media have documented numerous incidents of masked immigration agents forcefully detaining civilians and confronting other people attempting to interfere in the arrests.

Cain said he thinks it “was a mistake by James Gunn to say, you know, it’s an immigrant thing,” adding that he thinks the movie will suffer at the box office as a result. Cain said he is looking forward to Gunn’s take on the comic-book hero and is rooting for its success, but ultimately contends, “I don’t like that last political comment,” referring to the Marvel alum’s description of Superman.

Gunn’s “Superman” is now in theaters and also stars Rachel Brosnahan, Nicholas Hoult, Edi Gathegi, Anthony Carrigan, Nathan Fillion and Isabela Merced. In her review, Times film critic Amy Nicholson writes, “This isn’t quite the heart-soaring ‘Superman’ I wanted. But these adventures wise him up enough that I’m curious to explore where the saga takes him next.”

Amid the latest “Superman” discourse, the White House on Thursday shared a photo on social media of Trump’s face superimposed onto Superman’s body on the film’s poster. In response to the odd digital alteration, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office fired back with a familiar point.

“Superman was an undocumented immigrant,” the tweet read.

Can you say… Feliz Cumpleaños?

Over the past 25 years, the world has grown to love one of Nickelodeon’s most recognizable characters, Dora Márquez. Whether for her conspicuous bowl cut and pink tee, or her singing anthropomorphic backpack, Dora the Explorer has sparked joy in children for generations.

But what happens when that adventurous girl loses the items that have guided and defined her for so long?

Self-discovery is the end goal of Dora’s latest quest in the new live-action film, “Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado,” which debuted July 2 on Paramount+. The film marks the start of a new journey for a girl who has long existed in the minds of viewers as the adventurous 7-year-old protagonist of the original 2000 animated series “Dora the Explorer” — and later in the short-lived 2014 sequel, “Dora and Friends: Into the City!”

Along with her animal-loving cousin Diego (Jacob Rodriguez) and friends, Dora (Samantha Lorraine) must rediscover who she is while trekking through the treacherous Amazonian jungle in search of Sol Dorado: an ancient treasure that grants one magical wish to whoever locates it. Yet her plans go awry when she finds herself losing one of her most valuable tools.

Although most adults would not rank Dora in the same company as the gritty lead adventurers of “Indiana Jones” or “Tomb Raider,” the film features death-defying scenes that deserve a second look — thanks to the use of real fire and critter-riddled caves in the middle of the Colombian jungle.

Authenticity was key for director Alberto Belli (“The Naughty Nine”), who proposed to studio executives that Dora explore her Andean heritage, including the use of the indigenous language of Quechua, which is spoken by approximately 10 million people in South America.

“This is the first time that we hear Dora speaking Quechua, and we went through great lengths to make sure that the pronunciation was right,” says Belli, who also consulted with Incan culture experts on the Andean kinship principle of “ayllu,” along with the use of “quipu,” a recordkeeping device of knotted cords — both elements which are included in the storyline.

“We’ve seen figures like ‘Indiana Jones’ exploring other cultures, but Dora is the only mainstream [adventurer] exploring her own culture,” says Belli. “And she’s celebrating and interested in the history more than the treasure.”

(PABLO ARELLANO SPATARO/NICKELODEON/PARAMOUNT+)

Dora’s innate curiosity is part of what cultivated her popularity among young children since Nickelodeon launched the series. Who can forget the pip-squeak who broke the fourth wall to reel in preschool audiences with problem-solving questions? Even if its repetitive verbiage drove parents a little mad? (You try saying “Swiper, no swiping!” three times fast!)

But for creators Chris Gifford and Valerie Walsh Valdes, the idea of Dora, as the world has come to love, was not so straightforward. Their early brainstorm sessions, along with Eric Weiner, first sprung up concepts of a little boy bunny who would follow a map toward a final destination — tagging along with him was a red-haired girl named Nina and a pocket-sized mouse named Boots.

Nickelodeon’s executive producer Brown Johnson— creator of the network’s preschool block, Nick Jr. — pitched the idea of the main character being Latina after attending an industry conference that underscored the dearth representation of Latinos in the media. According to the 2000 U.S. census, Latino communities were the nation’s fastest growing ethnic group at the time — and 20% of the kindergarten population across eight states, including California, identified as Latino.

The call for Latino characters was so resounding at the time that it caused some advocacy organizations to launch a weeklong boycott in 1999 to protest the dearth of Latino representation — Latinos made up fewer than 2% of TV characters at that time, despite making up 11% of the population in 1999. “ So we said, okay, how do we do it?” says Gifford.

“One thing that we picked up on very early was using the language in a way to solve problems, almost as a superpower,” says Gifford. “I think that was a huge part of the success of Dora.”

Gifford calls Dora’s use of Spanish a “game changer,” and that certainly seems to be the case — in the show, magical passageways remain locked unless the viewer utters the occasional Spanish phrase or word. At the end of every successful mission, Dora belts out her victorious tune: “We did it, lo hicimos!”

Released on August 14, 2000, the first episode of “Dora the Explorer” moved forward in spite of an English-only movement bubbling up in California politics a few years prior; Proposition 227 passed in 1998 by a large margin, effectively curtailing bilingual education in the state.

(PABLO ARELLANO SPATARO/NICKELODEON/PARAMOUNT+)

“It was not the time that [someone] would think to [make Dora a bilingual character], but of course it was exactly the right time for it to happen,” says Gifford.

The release of “Dora the Explorer” could not be more timely. While political angst pushed against the use of Spanish in the classroom, the country was simultaneously experiencing a “Latin Boom,” a pop culture movement propelled by Hispanic musical acts like Ricky Martin and Enrique Iglesias, who broke ground in the U.S. mainstream with bilingual hit singles like the famed “Livin’ la Vida Loca” and “Bailamos,” respectively. At the same time, actors like Rosie Perez, Salma Hayek and Jennifer Lopez were also making great strides for Latinas in film.

“There was this awareness [that] the Latino talent we have in this country [was] all coming to the forefront,” said Walsh Valdes. “The zeitgeist was there for us.”

But Dora’s appeal did not entirely hinge on her being a Latina character. In fact, she was designed to be ethnically ambiguous for that reason, suggested Carlos Cortés, professor emeritus in history at UC Riverside, who consulted the creative team. “Let’s let everybody be a part of this,” says Walsh Valdes on the choice to write Dora as pan-Latina.

Instead, the focus of the show remained on the missions; whether it was returning a lost baby penguin to the South Pole, or leading aliens back to their purple planet. In its first year, “Dora the Explorer” averaged 1.1 million viewers ages 2 to 5 and 2 million total viewers, according to Nielsen Co. The original show stretched on for almost two decades before closing out on Aug. 9, 2019.

“We saw such excitement from [little kids feeling] empowered by this girl who can go to a place like the city of lost toys… and little kids who can’t tie their own shoes can feel like they’re helping her,” says Gifford.

The Dora world has also expanded into a tween-coded sequel, “Dora and Friends: Into the City!” and the spin-off “Go, Diego, Go!” — the environmental protection and animal rescue show starring Dora’s cousin Diego. Last year, Dora got a reboot on Nickelodeon’s parent company Paramount+, which was a full circle move for Kathleen Herles, who voiced Dora in the original series.

Now, Herles takes on the motherly role of “Mami” in the 2024 animated series, now available to stream on Paramount+. “Talk about going on another adventure,” says Herles in a video call.

Herles still remembers panicking after her audition back in 1998. Gifford, who was in the room, asked to speak to Herles’ mother, a Peruvian immigrant with slim knowledge of the entertainment biz at the time. “Being Latina, at first I [was] like, ‘Oh my God. She’s going to think I got in trouble,’” says Herles.

The opportunity not only changed the course of Herles’ life financially, but it also opened the door for her to travel the world and reenter the realm of entertainment after a brief career in interior design. Coincidentally, at the time of our call, the 34-year-old voice actor was house hunting in Los Angeles, preparing to move from her native New York City so that she can pursue more career opportunities.

“To me that’s really a testament to [the power of] Dora… because Dora’s an explorer, and she gave me the opportunity to explore,” says Herles.

For 18-year old actress Lorraine, who stars as Dora in “Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado,” this marks her first lead role in any film. She fills big shoes; Isabela Merced, who now stars in HBO’s “The Last of Us,” was cast in the first live-action, standalone 2019 film for the franchise, “Dora and the Lost City of Gold.”

“When it comes to Latino representation, [Dora] was a trailblazer for that,” says Lorraine. “Being able to see a Latina woman in charge and taking the lead? We need more of that to this day.”

The Miami-born actor of Cuban descent, who previously starred in the 2023 Netflix movie “You Are So Not Invited to My Bat Mitzvah,” answers the audio call after having just arrived in New York City, where she entertains the possibility of a Broadway career.

Like many young adults her age, Lorraine grew up enchanted by Dora’s adventures — so much that she admittedly got the same bob haircut. “She’s my role model,” says Lorraine. “Every time we would shoot a scene, I would think to myself, ‘What would little Samantha want to watch?’”

Throughout every Dora series and film, courage is the connective tissue in her story. “Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado” reminds audiences that the true navigational force behind the pint-size girl was always within her.

And with a full rollout of fresh Dora content — including the new third season of the rebooted 2024 series “Dora,” and an hour-long special called “Dora & Diego: Rainforest Rescues” — even 25 years after the Latina explorer first appeared on screen, it’s clear that her legacy is enduring.

“She will always be that girl,” says Lorraine. “[She’s] that girl who yearns for adventure and has that curiosity spark in her, and that thirst for knowledge.”

He can outrun a train, hold up a collapsing tower on a fiery oil rig and fly around the world to turn back time. But Superman’s greatest challenge might just be saving the DC film franchise.

The Warner Bros.-owned superhero brand — one of Hollywood’s most important — has hit a rough patch in recent years.

Films such as 2023’s “Shazam! Fury of the Gods,” “The Flash” and last year’s “Joker: Folie à Deux” struggled at the box office. Despite owning a lucrative stable of well-known superheroes like Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman, the studio has failed to become a consistent competitor to Walt Disney Co.‘s Marvel Studios.

Now under the new leadership of filmmaker-producer pair James Gunn and Peter Safran, DC Studios is counting on its new “Superman” film, hitting theaters Thursday, to revive not only the Man of Steel series but the entire DC universe.

Choosing the flying Kryptonian refugee to kick-start DC’s new era was a risky bet for Gunn, who wrote and directed the new film.

Although Superman is recognizable all over the world, his aw-shucks demeanor and nearly limitless superpowers have made him a tough character to make relevant to today’s audiences. His global reputation, as an overgrown godlike Boy Scout spouting American ideals, for years made him less hip for modern viewers than his brooding billionaire vigilante counterpoint, Batman.

“DC has been playing catch-up with Marvel,” said Arlen Schumer, a comic book and pop culture historian. “They’ve given James Gunn the keys to the DC kingdom and said, ‘You’ve got to restore Superman. He’s our greatest icon, but nobody knows what to do with him. We think you know what to do with him.’”

“Superman” is expected to gross $130 million to $140 million in the U.S. and Canada in its opening weekend on a reported budget of about $225 million, according to analyst estimates. The movie received an 85% approval rating on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. (Times critic Amy Nicholson said it wasn’t “quite the heart-soaring ‘Superman’ I wanted,” but enough to be “curious to explore where the saga takes him next.”)

Gunn’s efforts on “Superman” faced intense scrutiny online almost from the moment he started working on it. Fans and critics have picked apart the trailers, grousing about the heavy screen time for Krypto the Superdog (inspired by Gunn’s own dog, who is also a foot biter), or how actor David Corenswet, who plays the iconic superhero, is a relative unknown.

Warner Bros. itself is counting on “Superman” to continue a box office rebound stemming from a string of hits including “A Minecraft Movie,” “Sinners,” “Final Destination Bloodlines” and “F1.”

Shortly before its release, “Superman” came under fire from right-wing commentators, who criticized comments Gunn made to the Times of London about how Superman (created by a Jewish writer-artist team in the late 1930s) is an immigrant and that he is “the story of America.” He’s an alien from the planet Krypton, after all.

“I think this is a movie about kindness,” Gunn told Variety on Monday at the film’s Hollywood premiere in response to the backlash. “And I think that’s something everyone can relate to.”

That appeal is what Warner Bros. and DC Studios are counting on.

“You need a track record of success to build a brand,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Comscore. “This is a monumental moment for DC with one of their biggest characters of all time and that’s very important to the box office, to the future of DC and to the perception of DC as a brand.”

DC Studios did not respond to requests for comment.

Superman returns

This summer’s Gunn-directed “Superman” is the first stand-alone film about the famous hero in more than a decade, following a history of dramatic ups and downs.

The 2013 blockbuster “Man of Steel,” directed by Zack Snyder and starring Henry Cavill, introduced a grittier, darker tone to the superhero’s story, including Superman’s controversial neck-snapping kill of a villain. “Man of Steel” received mixed reviews from critics, though it hauled in about $670 million in global box office revenue.

That was followed by 2016’s “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice” with Cavill returning and Ben Affleck as Batman, which was panned by critics but made more than $874 million worldwide. Then came the even more reviled “Justice League” the following year, both a critical and commercial disaster for the studio. Ironically, Cavill’s portrayal of Superman was reclaimed by an unruly online fan base demanding that Warner Bros. #ReleaseTheSnyderCut, which it eventually did.

For many, the gold standard of Superman films was 1978’s “Superman,” starring Christopher Reeve and directed by Richard Donner.

Schumer remembers watching the sweeping wheatfield scene when Clark Kent says goodbye to his adoptive mother after his father’s death and embarks on his journey to learn who he truly is. Schumer marveled at the camera sweeping from the golden fields to the blue sky, symbolizing the fledgling Superman’s look toward the future. He ended up seeing the movie 10 times in theaters.

While 1980’s “Superman II” was still well-received, the third and fourth installments of the franchise “went off the rails” and became “campy,” Schumer said.

Unlike Marvel, which centralized control under president Kevin Feige, DC and Warner Bros. for years allowed Snyder’s vision to determine the direction of the film universe. Batman, on the other hand, has been successfully molded by multiple filmmakers (e.g. Christopher Nolan, Snyder and Matt Reeves), allowing new aspects of the character to shine through, Schumer said.

“DC Comics, [Superman] is your flagship property, but they’ve often never really treated it like their flagship property,” he said. “This affected the way DC made movies, versus Marvel.”

The studio has also been criticized for its lack of a cohesive vision and framework for its superhero universe, analysts said. The studio allowed its intellectual property to be splintered into parallel storylines, which became chaotic.

It’s why Gunn and Safran were installed as co-chairmen and co-chief executives of DC Studios in 2022.

Gunn seemed a surprising choice to co-run DC Studios. He started as a screenwriter at indie production house Troma Entertainment — known for B horror pictures — and eventually achieved global success in the superhero genre by directing Marvel’s “Guardians of the Galaxy,” beloved for its irreverent humor. He also had experience with DC, directing 2021’s “The Suicide Squad.”

With the pair at the helm, the goal was to standardize the superhero universe and kick-start a new epoch for the studio. “Superman” is intended to lead off for several upcoming DC movies, including “Supergirl,” starring Milly Alcock, “Clayface,” and “Dynamic Duo” about the Robins — Batman sidekicks Dick Grayson and Jason Todd.

“It’s a table setter,” said Shawn Robbins, director of movie analytics at Fandango and founder of site Box Office Theory. “It’s really intended to be the launching of an entirely new era for DC movies and where that might lead.”

Selling an American hero

But while Superman has generated toy sales, animated series and multiple movies, the character is hard to get right.

Schumer remembers how audiences laughed when Reeve’s Superman tells a scoffing Lois Lane that he was fighting for truth, justice and the American way in the 1978 film, at a time when America was reeling from the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War.

“This idea of truth, justice and the American way was deemed, even back then, hokey,” Schumer said. “And in a sense, it kind of still is.”

From the beginning, Superman has been a quintessential American immigrant story.

Two sons of Jewish immigrants, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, introduced the superhero in 1938 in “Action Comics #1,” which told the tale of the alien, eventually known as Kal-El, who was sent to Earth to escape his dying planet. The comic was “an overnight smash success” that helped launch the comic book medium and the idea of the superhero, Schumer said.

In later stories, Superman’s Midwestern upbringing in Smallville, Kansas and his eventual move to the big city of Metropolis also mirrored the journeys many Americans were making during that time.

But today, there’s questions about whether Superman’s strong American symbolism will be a turnoff for global audiences, who have recently bristled at tariffs and trade policies enacted by President Trump.

“That assumption of Superman being a challenging character in some territories is a legitimate factor,” Robbins said. “What it’s going to come down to is the movie itself and how well it connects with international audiences.”

One advantage: The film snagged a coveted Imax slot — which can boost box office revenue and make a film more of an “event.”

The movie also comes as the once white-hot market for superhero films has cooled, both domestically and abroad. Even Marvel has recently seen lower box office results for its films — despite critical praise, “Thunderbolts*” grossed about $382 million worldwide on a budget of $180 million, paling in comparison to past films.

The potential for “Superman” overseas earnings could be big. Forecasts from entertainment industry analytics firm Cinelytic based on publicly available data found that “Superman” could make about $531 million in global box office revenue, with the top four most likely international markets in Britain, Germany, France and Australia.

Gunn brushed off questions about Superman’s archetypal American symbolism, telling the Times of London in an interview that his own market research found that international audiences viewed the Man of Steel as a global figure.

“He is a hero for the world,” he said in the interview.

But Superman has long-suffered from his lack of flaws and inability to really examine the American ideals he represents, said Annika Hagley, associate dean of the school of social and natural sciences at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island, who teaches a course on superheroes and politics.

Over time, Superman’s advocacy of America has remained constant, despite the evolving perception of the U.S. both at home and abroad, she said. That’s in contrast to his Marvel counterpart, the seemingly U.S.-centric Captain America, who evolved from fighting Nazis during World War II to questioning the morality of government surveillance, Hagley said.

While Superman’s immigrant backstory could lend itself to complex narratives about the treatment of newcomers in the U.S., DC has so far failed to evolve his story to address those questions, she said. He did, however, change his motto to the more borderless “truth, justice and a better tomorrow” in recent years.

As an immigrant in a post-9/11 era, “Superman is a security threat, but he’s also boring,” she said. “They’ve tried to make him less American, they tried to make him more alienated and it just hasn’t hit home for an audience in the way that the Marvel characters have.”

Gunn’s “Superman” does touch on America’s role in geopolitics. In a recent trailer for the film, Rachel Brosnahan’s Lois Lane interviews Corenswet’s Superman, questioning whether his involvement in a foreign country’s conflict and “seemingly acting as a representative of the United States will cause more problems around the world.”

“I wasn’t representing anybody except for me,” he interjects. “And doing good.”

Embeth Davidtz’s home is so quiet. Nestled in Brentwood Park, the 59-year-old actor’s spacious yet cozy place feels like a sanctuary, the skylight in her kitchen offering plentiful afternoon sun. Once owned by Julie Andrews, the house is where Davidtz feels most comfortable. It’s taken most of her life to find somewhere that made her feel that way.

“I seldom leave,” she says, smiling. “I’m not someone who likes to run around. I like being here.”

She’s lived in this house for about 20 years — it’s where she and her husband raised their children, now 22 and 19. She moved to Los Angeles in 1991 and before then, hers was a completely different world. Lately, that world has rarely been far from her thoughts.

In the early 1970s, when Davidtz was eight years old, she moved from America with her South African parents to Pretoria, in the midst of that country’s apartheid system. Long wanting to come to terms with the institutional racism she witnessed during her childhood, she has done something that previously had never held much interest: write and direct a movie. Pivoting from an on-screen career of stellar, precise performances in movies like “Schindler’s List,” “Junebug” and “Bridget Jones’s Diary,” Davidtz has at last made a directorial debut with “Don’t Let’s Go to the Dogs Tonight” (in theaters Friday), a gripping and somber drama based on Alexandra Fuller’s acclaimed 2001 memoir about growing up in colonial Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). The film is about Fuller’s family, but it’s also very much about the lessons Davidtz never wants to stop learning herself.

“It’s a constant processing,” she says of how she is always reckoning with her past. “I think I’ll probably have to grapple with it till the day that I die — what I remember seeing.”

Davidtz, Lexi Venter and Rob Van Vuuren in the movie “Don’t Let’s Go to the Dogs Tonight.”

(Coco Van Oppens / Sony Pictures Classics)

Set in 1980, the year that the African region known as Rhodesia, ruled by a white minority, would become the independent nation of Zimbabwe, “Don’t Let’s Go to the Dogs Tonight” features Davidtz as Nicola, an angry, alcoholic policewoman whose privileged life crumbles as the Zimbabwean War upends the country’s racial power imbalance. However, the movie is not told from Nicola’s perspective but instead, from that of Bobo, her 8-year-old daughter (played with beguiling immediacy by newcomer Lexi Venter), who reflects Fuller’s own blinkered worldview at the time. As Bobo provides voice-over narration, we witness a disturbingly naturalized culture of colonialism in which our main character, a seemingly innocent child, bikes through town with a rifle slung on her back and parrots the racist attitudes espoused by white landowners around her.

Zimbabwe isn’t South Africa, but when Davidtz read Fuller’s stark memoir, the similarities of racial injustice were striking.

“She cuts you off at the knees,” says Davidtz. “You recognize it, then you feel shame.”

Davidtz was born in Indiana, but after some time in New Jersey, her family moved to Pretoria when she was eight. Her 17 years in South Africa left their mark. Even though she’d never written a screenplay before “Don’t Let’s Go to the Dogs Tonight,” she had been working on something about her upbringing. But after reading Fuller’s memoir, Davidtz says, “I remember thinking, ‘Well, that’s the definitive book on it. I’m never going to be able to write a book like that.’”

“I wouldn’t say mine was a happy childhood,” she continues. “I think it was very unhappy in ways. Did I love Africa? Yes. But was it an idyllic childhood? No.”

Bobo’s bigoted views — the girl has come to believe Black people don’t have last names and are secretly terrorists — weren’t what Davidtz experienced growing up. “My family didn’t act that same way, they didn’t speak that same way, but you were part of the system by being there,” she says.

Like Bobo’s family, Davidtz did not enjoy many luxuries, except in comparison to the help around her. “If you had servants in your home, you were part of the system,” she says. “[My parents] certainly were not out marching for civil rights. They fell in that gray area.”

Not that Davidtz excludes herself from the racist mindset that’s evident in Bobo, who enjoys spending time with her family’s housekeeper, Sarah (Zikhona Bali), despite treating her as beneath her. That relationship picked an emotional scab for Davidtz. “There’s uncomfortable memories that I have,” she admits. “I remember playing with [Black] children and being bossy and being just an a—hole.”

Her personal connection to “Don’t Let’s Go to the Dogs Tonight” goes deeper. Fuller’s mother was a drinker; in Davidtz’s family, it was her father, who studied applied mathematics and physics in the States. She sees his alcoholism as the byproduct of an idealism that got crushed.

“He was a physical chemist; he was a scientist,” she says, “and his whole thought was this altruistic thing of, ‘I’m going to take everything that I’ve learned and bring it back [to South Africa].’ That’s where the alcoholism emerged. That government that was running South Africa really tightly controlled everything that my father did. I think they were highly suspicious of somebody coming from America. He very much felt his wings were clipped. And so the bottle got raised.” (These days are happier ones for her dad: “He’s medicated; he’s calmer,” she says. “He doesn’t drink anymore.”)

“This [performance] was hard and it was scary, but it was necessary,” Davidtz says of her turn in “Don’t Let’s Go to the Dogs Tonight” as a racist farm owner in Rhodesia.

(Matt Seidel / For The Times)

Davidtz can’t quite pinpoint where her passion for performing originated. “No one else has it,” she says of her family. “I really think that 7-year-old me sat in my living room in New Jersey watching the ‘Sonny & Cher’ show. Cher with that hair was just the most glamorous, amazing thing I’d ever seen. And then, suddenly, we land in this dirty, dusty farmhouse with my dad in decline and no television.”

Davidtz escaped Pretoria — at least in her mind — by going to the movies, including an early, formative screening of “Doctor Zhivago,” David Lean’s 1965 historical romance. “My mind was blown by the sweep, the story, the epicness,” she recalls. “Maybe I wanted, somehow, to remove myself from that dirt and squalor and aspire to something.”

“Don’t Let’s Go to the Dogs Tonight” doesn’t contain the gratuitous violence you often see in films about racism. In its place is a codified class structure ruled by its white characters, who strongly encourage the locals to vote for approved candidates in the upcoming election in order to maintain the status quo. But once revolutionary Robert Mugabe comes to power, that old system gives way, leading to an unsettling scene in which Nicola wields a whip to keep Black Africans off what she considers to be her farm.

The questionable optics of a white woman telling a story about Zimbabwe entered Davidtz’s mind. She did her homework about the region, even though she ultimately had to shoot in South Africa because of Zimbabwe’s current political unrest. She spoke with her cinematographer, Willie Nel, about how the film had to look.

“I need the light shining through her eyes like that,” Davidtz remembers. “I want the closeup on the filthy fingernails. This is the way Peter Weir gets in super-close, how Malick [shows] skies and nature.” And she made sure to center her pessimistic coming-of-age narrative on the white characters, condemning them — including young Bobo.

“I don’t think a Black filmmaker could tell the experience of a white child,” she says. “I think only a white filmmaker could tell that. [Bobo] misunderstands a lot of what [the Black characters are] doing. That was deliberate — I tried to handle that really carefully. I’m certainly not trying to make the white child sympathetic in any way.”

She was just as adamant that Nicola be an utterly unlikable, virulent bigot. “You needed her to be diabolical in order to show what really was happening there,” says Davidtz. “I saw people behave like that.”

This isn’t the first time she’s played the villain, but she wanted to ensure there was nothing sympathetic or devilishly appealing about Nicola. Recalling her portrayal of the superficial, materialistic Mary Crawford in the 1999 adaptation of “Mansfield Park,” Davidtz observes, “She was just cheerfully going about her life — being diabolical, but with a smile. She was charming. That was more acceptable, more palatable.” She allowed none of that here, tapping into the desperation of a woman whose self-worth is wrapped up in the subjugation of those around her.

The veteran actress has often done terrific work by going small, her breakthrough coming as a Jewish maid prized by Ralph Fiennes’ sadistic Nazi in 1993’s “Schindler’s List.” More recently Davidtz has earned rave reviews in series like “Ray Donovan” and “The Morning Show.” She doesn’t do showy and she’s the same in person, appealingly modest and soft-spoken. But in “Don’t Let’s Go to the Dogs Tonight,” she gives a boldly brazen performance as Nicola, a portrait of ugly, entitled hatred. Although Davidtz felt anxious playing such a demonstratively racist character — especially around her Black cast — she also found it a refreshing change from how she usually approaches a role.

“This [performance] was hard and it was scary, but it was necessary,” she says, Getting herself to such a dark place for “Don’t Let’s Go to the Dogs Tonight” was easy, though. The trick? “I didn’t have time,” she says. “Everything was focused on only the three hours [a day] that I had with the kid. It was like, ‘I got to get this quick,’ and I was on my last nerve, which was great for the character — I was pretty worn down by the time we shot a lot of my stuff.”

“When you’ve been in a place where things have been so wrong, you spot it really quickly in other places,” Davidtz says of injustices occurring both in America and abroad. The actor and director is photographed at home with her two rescue dogs, Parfait (front) and Zoomie.

(Matt Seidel / For The Times)

Similarly to “The Zone of Interest,” which Davidtz reveres (“I love that film,” she declares, awed), “Don’t Let’s Go to the Dogs Tonight” illustrates the insidiousness of bigotry by stripping away the simplistic moralizing. Bobo, her parents and the other white settlers benefit from an unjust system, always presented matter-of-factly, as the adults relish their domestic bliss at the expense of the indentured locals. I ask Davidtz if she’s showing us what everyday evil looks like.

“Evil’s a strong word,” she replies. “I’d say ‘oblivious’ or ‘unconscious’ or ‘culpable.’ It’s all of the above. I really wanted to reveal something the way ‘The Zone of Interest’ revealed something. It’s the casual racism. An ordinary person watching [the film] goes, ‘Oh, my God, that was normal to them. That was their normal.’ Then you see the full picture. Then, the evil of it shows up.”

In her memoir, author Fuller writes about her later political awakening, a process Davidtz underwent as well. “I saw moments around me — horrible, violent police arresting men on the streets, the people chucked into the back of police vans,” she says. “Just that terrified feeling inside and knowing, ‘If you’re white, you’re safe. If you’re Black, you’re not.’ Then as I got older, [there was] the disconnect between what I’m seeing and what is right.”

According to Davidtz, “the scales fell off” once she attended South Africa’s liberal Rhodes University in the early 1980s and started taking part in protest marches. “I felt like that was the big awakening,” she says, “but it’s an awakening that continues.”

There is one frequent sound in the calm oasis of Davidtz’s home: the chatter of news broadcasts. “It’s often on in the background,” she says, “but I think it’s a habit that’s eroding my peace of mind.” She admits to the same conflicted feelings many in Los Angeles have, a desire to stay informed of everything that’s happening — the ongoing war in Gaza, the stories out of Ukraine, the violent ICE raids in Southern California — but not succumb to despair and anger. No amount of quiet can tune out the world, and Davidtz doesn’t want to.

“When you’ve been in a place where things have been so wrong, you spot it really quickly in other places,” she says of the injustices occurring both here and abroad. “One thing that we can do is say what we think.” Remembering her own childhood, and pondering what prompted her to make this movie, she suggests, “I think it comes from watching something silently for a long time. I think that part of me will never want to not say, ‘I don’t think this is right.’”

With “Don’t Let’s Go to the Dogs Tonight,” Davidtz is speaking up, but she knows those bad old days aren’t over. In fact, they’ve never been so present. As the film ends, Bobo takes one last look at the town and the locals that shaped her. There’s a glimmer of hope that, one day, this girl will outgrow the racism she’s ingested. But the land — and the pain — remains. Davidtz has not allowed herself to look away.

Dinosaurs ruled the box office once again this weekend as “Jurassic World Rebirth” hauled in a strong $147.3 domestically over the five-day Fourth of July period to kick off what industry insiders hope will be an impressive month at movie theaters.

The holiday total for “Jurassic World” in the U.S. and Canada exceeded industry expectations. Universal Pictures’ “Jurassic World” reboot was expected to gross $120 million to $130 million during its long opening weekend, according to analyst and studio projections.

The movie unseated Apple’s Brad Pitt racing film “F1 The Movie,” which landed in second place with $26.1 million domestically, bringing its total to $109.5 million in North America, according to distributor Warner Bros.

“Rebirth’s” 2022 predecessor, “Jurassic World: Dominion,” debuted with $145 million from its first three days of release and went on to collect $1 billion globally. The new movie carries an estimated production budget of $180 million, not counting marketing costs.

Big-budget creature features have global appeal, as the numbers showed. Opening in 82 countries outside the U.S. and Canada, “Rebirth” grossed $171 million internationally. That included $41.5 million from China, proving that Hollywood movies can still do well in the Middle Kingdom despite the dominance of local production in the populous country.

The global total for “Rebirth’s” opening was $318.3 million.

Directed by Gareth Edwards (“The Creator,” “Rogue One”) and starring Scarlett Johansson and Mahershala Ali, “Rebirth” earned unenthusiastic reviews from critics, notching a 52% approval rating on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

The “Jurassic” franchise has seen multiple iterations since Steven Spielberg’s 1993 blockbuster “Jurassic Park,” based on the popular Michael Crichton science fiction novel, wowed audiences with its combination of practical and computer-generated effects that gave the T. rex and other killer dinos their stunning realism. That film spawned not only sequels but toys, theme park attractions, animated series and video games.

Although the sequels, starting with Spielberg’s own “The Lost World,” never achieved the acclaim of the original, they continued to mint money for Universal and Spielberg’s production company, Amblin.

Prior to “Rebirth,” the “Jurassic” movies had grossed a total of roughly $6 billion worldwide, not adjusting for inflation, according to box office website The Numbers. The first “Jurassic Park” grossed $978 million worldwide, according to Box Office Mojo, which is equal to $1.86 billion in today’s dollars.

The latest “Jurassic” movie did not get a slot at Imax theaters, since those were taken up by “F1.” Next week, the valuable Imax real estate will be taken up by Warner Bros. and DC Studios’ “Superman.” Films shown on Imax often reap bigger box office numbers, aided in part by the higher ticket prices at those theaters, and because they’re viewed as more of a must-see event.

“Jurassic World” is the first of three big tentpole films arriving this month in theaters. In addition to “Superman,” Walt Disney Co. and Marvel Studios’ “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” opens in a few weeks.

July has historically been one of the strongest summer months at the box office, putting more pressure on these three films to deliver.

Despite big box office gains in April and May, June saw a string of underperforming films such as Lionsgate’s “John Wick” spinoff “Ballerina,” Sony Pictures’ “Karate Kid: Legends” and Disney and Pixar’s original animated effort “Elio.”

Theatrical business in June was 25% lower compared to the pre-pandemic average of June 2017, 2018 and 2019, according to David A. Gross’s FranchiseRe movie industry newsletter. It was also down 5.3% compared to last June, which saw big hits like Disney and Pixar’s “Inside Out 2” and Sony’s “Bad Boys: Ride or Die.”

“We see this ebb and flow,” said Shawn Robbins, founder of the website Box Office Theory. “These next four to five weeks will certainly give us a sense of how to grade the summer overall.”

BEVERLY HILLS — Julian McMahon, an Australia-born actor who performed in two “Fantastic Four” films and appeared in TV shows such as “Charmed,” “Nip/Tuck” and “Profiler,” has died, his wife said in a statement.

McMahon died peacefully this week after a battle with cancer, Kelly McMahon said in a statement provided to the Associated Press by his Beverly Hills-based publicist. He was 56, according to the New York Times.

“Julian loved life,” the statement said. “He loved his family. He loved his friends. He loved his work, and he loved his fans. His deepest wish was to bring joy into as many lives as possible.”

McMahon played Dr. Doom in the films “Fantastic Four” in 2005 and “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer,” which came out two years later.

Additionally, he had roles in the TV shows “Home and Away,” “FBI: Most Wanted” and “Another World,” according to IMDB.

Actor Alyssa Milano, who appeared with McMahon on “Charmed,” mourned his death on social media, saying “Julian was more than my TV husband.”

“Julian McMahon was magic,” Milano said. “That smile. That laugh. That talent. That presence. He walked into a room and lit it up — not just with charisma, but with kindness. With mischief. With soulful understanding.”

The version of “Elio” that hit theaters on June 20 is not the same movie that Adrian Molina, the film’s original director, intended to put out.

Pixar removed LGBTQ+ elements from the animated feature after receiving negative feedback from test screenings with audience members and executives, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

The film follows an 11-year-old boy named Elio who is mistaken for Earth’s ambassador by aliens and is beamed up to the Communiverse — an intergalactic organization — to represent the planet.

Trouble began in the summer of 2023 during a test screening in Arizona. After the film was over, audience members were asked to raise their hand if the movies was something they’d pay to see in theaters. No one did, causing Pixar executives to worry.

According to THR, Pixar Chief Creative Officer Pete Docter informed Molina after a separate screening for company executives that storyboard artist Madeline Sharafian would be promoted to co-director. Molina, who is gay, was given the option to co-direct the film with Sharafian but chose to exit the project instead after his original vision was changed. Shortly after, Docter announced internally that “Turning Red” director and co-writer Domee Shi would join “Elio” as co-director.

Changes to the film included getting rid of a scene in which Elio shows off a pink tank top made out of beach litter to a hermit crab, as well as removing picture frames from Elio’s bedroom wall that displayed a male crush. Executives also asked him to make the main character more “masculine.”

“I was deeply saddened and aggrieved by the changes that were made,” former Pixar assistant editor Sarah Ligatich, who was a member of the company’s internal LGBTQ+ group and provided feedback during the production of “Elio,” told THR.

Ligatich added that a number of creatives working behind the scenes left after the new directors went in a different direction.

“The exodus of talent after that cut was really indicative of how unhappy a lot of people were that they had changed and destroyed this beautiful work,” she said.

Actor America Ferrera was originally attached to the project as the voice of Elio’s mother, Olga. Following Molina’s departure, the “Barbie” actor left the production because the film lacked “Latinx representation in the leadership.” The character was later changed to be Elio’s aunt and was voiced by Zoe Saldaña.

In March 2025, Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger announced Molina would return as co-director for “Coco 2,” a follow-up to the 2017 film he co-wrote and co-directed.

“Elio” earned Pixar its worst domestic opening after it premiered on June 20. he film made $21 million at the box office and currently holds a “fresh” 83% critics rating on the website Rotten Tomatoes.

“The Elio that is in theaters right now is far worse than Adrian’s best version of the original,” a former Pixar staffer who worked on the film told THR.

“[The character] Elio was just so cute and so much fun and had so much personality, and now he feels much more generic to me,” added another Pixar staffer.

In a 2018 interview with the Huffington Post, Molina said he was “all for it” when asked what it would take for an animated studio to green light a story with a queer protagonist.

The Times reached out to Pixar for comment, but the studio did not respond.

Renowned Irish actress Fiona Shaw stars in Hot Milk, an adaptation of Deborah Levy’s 2016 novel, as a mother with a mysterious illness, who is taken to a seaside Spanish town in search of a cure

The distinguished Irish actress and TV Bafta laureate, Fiona Shaw, speaks about her immersion in her latest character, Rose, a mother beleaguered by an enigmatic illness, in the movie adaptation of Deborah Levy‘s critically acclaimed 2016 novel ‘Hot Milk’.

Against the vivid setting of a sun-drenched Spanish summer, the plot unfolds as Rose and her daughter Sofia, portrayed by ‘Sex Education’ star Emma Mackey, journey to Almeria’s picturesque seaside town seeking healing from a quirky local remedy man.

Rose’s life is dominated by an immobilising ailment, confining her to a wheelchair and riddled with unrelenting pain, rendering her utterly reliant on Sofia for even the simplest tasks such as venturing outside or fetching a drink. A growing sense of exasperation seeps into Sofia’s character who pins her hopes on the exotic clinic to rejuvenate her mum’s vigour, thus liberating her own aspirations for autonomy and independence.

READ MORE: Wendy Erskine’s debut novel sees largest cast for an audiobook in publisher’s history

Shaw, celebrated for her portrayal of Carolyn Martens in the hit series ‘Killing Eve’, lauded her youthful co-star Emma Mackey, age 29, for crafting their characters’ poignant relationship amidst strenuous circumstances. “I had the easier job – it’s much easier to play the selfish person,” Fiona Shaw candidly admits.

“Emma had to decide, in each scene, how she would cope with her mother’s behaviour – but the mother just continues on. She isn’t thinking about the effects, and that’s the problem,” Shaw adds.

She says: “They’re not two people at loggerheads. I don’t think the mother is at odds at all. She adores her daughter, wishes she wouldn’t visit her father, and wants her to focus on her studies.

“She can’t see that she’s the reason none of those things can happen properly. And that blindness is a nightmare for the other person – but Emma had to carry that. We would laugh about it, but she had to play the scenes. I just had to play Rose – she had to play the reception.”

As Sofia’s story unfolds, her fascination with the adventurous Ingrid, portrayed by Phantom Thread star Vicky Krieps, leads her to break free from her mother’s overbearing influence. Yet, as Sofia steps into her own, her mother’s inability to cope with this change brings to light unsettling truths about Rose’s condition.

In her preparation for the role, Shaw delved into the complexities of psychosomatic disorders, where mental stress manifests physically, and consulted individuals who deal with such conditions. “We spoke to people with the syndrome – this tendency to not have any physiological reason why you can’t walk, but you can’t walk,” Shaw shared.

“This syndrome comes with pain and with a twitch. I really concentrated on trying to get the stuckness of the person – and I was helped a lot by using a wheelchair.”

The film Hot Milk marks Rebecca Lenkiewicz’s first venture as a director at 57, and she fondly referred to Shaw and Mackey as “an inseparable couple” during filming. Renowned screenwriter Lenkiewicz, known for hits like Ida and Disobedience, described taking the reins as director for such a woman-centric narrative as “one of the most incredible experiences” of her life.

The eagerly anticipated ‘Hot Milk’ hits UK and Ireland cinemas on Friday, July 4.

This essay is adapted from Merrick Morton’s “La Bamba: A Visual History,” published by Hat & Beard Press.

“Dance!! Dance!! Dance!! to the music of the Silhouettes Band!!” read the handbill. The Silhouettes featured Ritchie Valens — “the fabulous Lil’ Richi and his Crying Guitar!!” — at a 1958 appearance at the San Fernando American Legion Hall in Southern California.

He was 16 years old. The Silhouettes was Ritchie’s first band, and they launched him into history. But a silhouette itself is an interesting thing: You can see the general shape of something while you hardly know the figure casting the shadow. Valens’ musical story begins with the Silhouettes, and we have been filling in his story, and projecting ourselves onto it, ever since he left.

A founding father of rock ’n’ roll, he would lose his life barely a year later, when the plane carrying members of the Winter Dance Party Tour — Buddy Holly, the Big Bopper and Valens — crashed on Feb. 3, 1959, in an Iowa snowstorm. A Chicano icon. A stranger.

Ritchie was a kid playing his guitar to make money for his family and one song he played was a version of “Malagueña.” The number was rooted in centuries-old Spanish flamenco music that had spread in all directions, becoming a classical music melody and a Hollywood soundtrack go-to by the 1950s. In his hands, it became a catapult for guitar hero god shots.

Candid shot of Ritchie Valens, Big Bopper (J.P. Richardson) and Buddy Holly during the Winter Dance Party Tour.

(C3 Entertainment)

“Malagueña” communicated experience and rico suave flair to his audience. Meanwhile, his mom was selling homemade tamales at his shows in the American Legion Hall. This guileless 17-year-old, Chicano kid from Pacoima found a way to introduce himself to America by taking something familiar and making it feel like nothing you had heard before.

From the beginning, Ritchie heard the possibilities in turning a familiar sound forward. He saw, even as the teenager he will forever be to us, how in reinventing a song, you could reinvent yourself. Listen to “Donna,” the heartfelt love ballad that felt familiar to Chicano ears, listeners who for years had tuned in to Black vocal groups. In the process, he cleared the way for so much great Chicano soul to come in the next two decades.

Valens performing to a packed house.

(C3 Entertainment)

Most of all, of course, listen to “La Bamba.” A centuries-old song from Veracruz, Mexico; the tune has African, Spanish, Indigenous and Caribbean DNA. In the movie, he encounters the song for the first time when his brother Bob takes him to a Tijuana brothel, but however he first heard it, Valens viewed it as a prism, a way of flooding all that was in front of him with his voice and guitar.

The music he made came from Mexico, and it came from Los Angeles, where 1940s Spanish-language swing tunes, Black doo-wop sounds and hillbilly guitar-plucking were mashed together in a molcajete y tejolote. Most of all, it came from the radio, which lined up sounds that were not like the ones that came right before and blasted them out on AM stations from corner to corner across the Southland. Radio devoured difference and transformed it, and if Ritchie is now regarded as a pioneer of Chicano music, he was in his own, brief time, a product of AM democracy, a silhouette with a spotlight shining on him.

Danny Valdez knew all the songs. In the early 1970s, the artist and activist had released “Mestizo,” billed as the first Chicano protest album put out by a major label. The singer-songwriter and his buddy Taylor Hackford would drink beer, belt out Ritchie Valens songs and make big plans. They talked about someday shooting a movie together, with Valdez playing Ritchie and Hackford directing. “Neither of us had a pot to piss in,” said Hackford, “so we never made that movie.” But years later, after Hackford had a hit with “An Officer and A Gentleman,” Valdez called him and raised the idea once more.

There were many steps to getting “La Bamba” on the screen, but it began with an understanding that it would be about the music. That meant they had to make the music feel alive — namely the handful of recordings produced by Bob Keane that Ritchie left behind. The owner of Del-Fi Records, Keane was a guiding figure in the singer’s life, recording his songs, urging him to mask his ethnicity by changing his name from Richard Steven Valenzuela and giving him career advice. Keane booked Gold Star Studios, cheap at $15 an hour, and brought in great session musicians as Ritchie’s backing band, including future Wrecking Crew members Earl Palmer and Carol Kaye. But the recordings he made were not state of the art, even in their own time.

“They weren’t high-quality,” said Hackford, comparing them to the early Ray Charles sessions for the Swing Time label. “I had a commercial idea in mind, of music selling the film, of people walking out of the theater singing ‘La Bamba’ who had never heard of it before,” he said. That meant he needed contemporary musicians who understood the records and could re-record Ritchie’s songs and reach an audience that was listening to Michael Jackson, Madonna and George Michael.

Valens signing autographs for his fans.

(C3 Entertainment)

Ritchie’s family, including his mother, Connie, and his siblings, had already heard that Los Lobos were playing “Come On, Let’s Go” live in East L.A. When the band played a concert in Santa Cruz, where the Valenzuela family was living by the 1980s, a friendship grew.

“Danny and I knew Los Lobos in the ‘70s when they were just starting out,” says writer and director Luis Valdez, “when they were literally just another band from East L.A. We were very fortunate that they were at that point in their career where they could take on this project. Without Los Lobos, we wouldn’t have Ritchie. David Hidalgo’s voice is incredible. I don’t think we could have found other musicians to cover him. They come from East L.A., they’re all Chicanos. They were paying an homage. We happened to be in the airport together when they got the news that ‘La Bamba’ had become number one in the national charts.”

“They called themselves the spiritual inheritors of Ritchie Valens,” says Hackford. “And they went in and re-recorded Ritchie’s songs plus several that he had played in concert but never recorded.” Now Hackford had his own album of old tunes that turned in a forward direction.

Next, Hackford made sure there were roles for modern performers to play the classic rockers from the Winter Dance Party Tour. He cast contemporary performers who could re-record their material too: Marshall Crenshaw as Buddy Holly, Brian Setzer as Eddie Cochran and Howard Huntsberry as Jackie Wilson.

Then there’s the surprise of the first song heard in the film — a rumbling version of Bo Diddley’s “Who Do You Love?” that had Carlos Santana, hired as a soundtrack composer, playing with Los Lobos, and Bo himself offering a fresh vocal over everything.

“We were so happy to have the touch of Carlos Santana as part of Ritchie’s story,” said Luis Valdez. “It’s his guitar that underscores a lot of the scenes and he had a theme for each of the players. We screened the whole movie for him first and he was very moved by it and ready to go right away once he saw it without his contribution. He was alone on the soundstage at Paramount, where we recorded his soundtrack, doing his magic with his guitar. He became a great friend as a result of that. It’s incredible what an artist can do.”

Actor Lou Diamond Phillips as Ritchie Valens in the 1987 film “La Bamba.”

(Merrick Morton)

The original soundtrack recording topped the Billboard pop charts and went double platinum.

Hackford loved pop music; his first feature film, “The Idolmaker” (1980), was a rock musical. Releasing hit music became a key promotional element of the package. In advance of 1982’s “An Officer and a Gentleman” came “Up Where We Belong” by Joe Cocker and Jennifer Warnes. It went to No. 1 a week after the opening. For 1984’s “Against All Odds,” he selected Phil Collins to sing the title cut, a song released three weeks before opening; the song soon went No. 1. 1985’s “White Nights” had two No. 1 songs, Lionel Ritchie’s “Say You Say Me” and Phil Collins and Marilyn Martin’s duet “Separate Lives.”

One looming problem for “La Bamba” was that the 1987 moviegoing public was not familiar with the name Ritchie Valens. Hackford had ideas for that as well. He set out to introduce him to contemporary audiences — convincing the studio to fund a unique teaser trailer to run weeks before the official movie trailer went into theaters.

The producer assembled a parade of familiar faces to reintroduce Valens. The short film included Canadian hitmaker Bryan Adams and Little Richard talking about the icon. There was also the vision of Bob Dylan in a top-down convertible riding along the Pacific Coast Highway. The 17-year-old Dylan was present at a Valens concert in Duluth, Minn., just days before the plane crashed; he popped up talking about what Valens’ music meant to him. “You bet it made a difference,” said Hackford.

After the “La Bamba” soundtrack became a hit (there was also a Volume Two), Los Lobos made the most of their elevated success. They had experienced head-turning celebrity with “La Bamba,” and they followed it up with “La Pistola y El Corazón,” a gritty selection of mariachi and Tejano songs played on acoustic traditional instruments. They had banked cultural capital and directed their large new audience to this music that many had never heard before. “La Pistola y El Corazón” won a Grammy in 1989 for Mexican-American performance.

The “La Bamba” soundtrack helped set a precedent for the crossover global success of Latin music, which has become a major force in mainstream pop culture. From Ricky Martin and Jennifer Lopez to Shakira, Bad Bunny, Peso Pluma, Becky G, Anitta, J Balvin, Karol G and Maluma, among others who are dominating the charts, racking up billions of streams, headlining massive tours and festivals.

Does Hackford think “La Bamba” helped set the table for subsequent Latino pop star success?

“I think the one who set the table was Ritchie Valens. He recorded a song in Spanish, a rock ’n’ roll version of a folk song, and he made it a huge hit.

“I challenge you, any party you go to — wedding reception, bar mitzvah, whatever it is — when ‘La Bamba’ comes on, the tables clear and everybody gets up to dance. That’s Ritchie Valens; he deserves that credit. We came afterwards.”

RJ Smith is a Los Angeles-based author. He has written for Blender, the Village Voice, Spin, GQ and the New York Times Magazine. His books include “The Great Black Way,” “The One: The Life and Music of James Brown” and “Chuck Berry: An American Life.”