newyorker--2020-11-13--Eleven Madison Park’s Foie-Gras-Stuffed Chicken To Go

For years , the restaurant Eleven Madison Park set the standard for fine dining in New York City and the world , at least for a certain crowd .
In 2017 , it was ranked No .
1 by an opaque committee that chooses “ the World ’ s 50 Best Restaurants.
” By late 2019 , the price of the tasting menu , which could take up to five hours to complete and once famously included a course of carrot tartare , fed tableside , and straight-facedly , into a meat grinder , had risen to three hundred and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ add-ons .
And then the ground beneath the restaurant industry fell out ; not even the most venerated blocks of Madison Avenue were exempt .
After the pandemic forced dining rooms to close , Daniel Humm , the chef who bought Eleven Madison Park from Danny Meyer in 2011 , seemed to undergo a sort of radicalization .
In an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek , in May , he described his “ biggest lightbulb moment ” : the decision to transform his kitchen into a commissary for a nonprofit called Rethink Food , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The infrastructure to end hunger needs to come out of the restaurants , ” he said .
“ I don ’ t need to only feed the 1 % anymore.
” For a while , it seemed like he might not feed the one per cent at all .
The restaurant has never offered outdoor dining , and Humm has so far elected not to operate indoors at twenty-five-per-cent capacity .
A hypothetical reopening is “ a blank canvas right now , ” he told Bloomberg Businessweek .
“ We would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But , before the wealthiest New Yorkers could go into champagne-and-caviar withdrawal , Humm launched EMP To Go , offering a roast-chicken dinner—plus a turkey iteration for Thanksgiving , Krug Grande Cuvée and white-sturgeon roe optional—for pickup in not only Manhattan and Brooklyn but also the notorious one-per-cent strongholds of East Hampton ; Greenwich , Connecticut ; and Montclair , New Jersey .
Is EMP To Go the world ’ s best takeout ?
On a recent rainy Sunday , I arrived at Grand Army Plaza , in Brooklyn , on the lookout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the roundabout ’ s inner ring , as per e-mailed instructions .
At the car , a man scanned a clipboard for my name and then handed me an expensive-looking blue-canvas insulated bag embossed with the restaurant ’ s abstractly floral logo , for which I had paid two hundred and seventy-five dollars .
My feeling of furtive anointment was replaced quickly by a flush of embarrassment ; putting aside questions of morality , fine dining is decidedly uncool .
Back home , I unpacked the free-range , certified humanely raised chicken , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pre-stuffed with brioche , foie gras , and truffle .
A box of bitter greens came with tiny jars : vinaigrette and sunflower-seed crumble .
There was half of a baked butternut squash , sheathed in waxy seaweed , with a miso-cured egg yolk to grate on top of it , plus a par-baked potato gratin , an apple tart , and a cannister of the restaurant ’ s status-symbol granola .
“ Truffle and eggs , ” a two-hundred-dollar add-on I ’ d assumed was coyly named , turned out to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pair of dark , mottled knobs that smelled vaguely astringent , along with directions for how to master a French omelette .
The chicken was the most decadent I ’ d ever cooked , not to mention the most beautifully bronzed .
( The secret , I think , was frosting the skin , like a cake , with softened butter . )
The squash yielded easily to a spoon after I warmed it through , brown butter pooling in its cavity , and the rich , velvety gratin was stretchy with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my prevailing emotion was discomfort , when the plates had been cleared—and not because I had to wash them myself .
If Humm ’ s pivot to philanthropy felt like a silver lining of the pandemic , a long-overdue reckoning with a system that favors few , EMP To Go seemed to undercut it , luxury adapted but far from redefined .
Shaved clumsily over my omelette , the truffles were only as remarkable as nuts , and , paradoxically , less valuable for their scarcity .
( Roast-chicken dinner $ 275 .
@ @

For years, the restaurant Eleven Madison Park set the standard for fine dining in New York City and the world, at least for a certain crowd. In 2017, it was ranked No. 1 by an opaque committee that chooses “the World’s 50 Best Restaurants.” By late 2019, the price of the tasting menu, which could take up to five hours to complete and once famously included a course of carrot tartare, fed tableside, and straight-facedly, into a meat grinder, had risen to three hundred and thirty-five dollars, before wine and other add-ons.
For two hundred and seventy-five dollars, the dinner includes a pre-stuffed raw chicken, half of a roasted squash, salad fixings, a potato gratin, an apple tart, and a cannister of granola. Wine is extra. Photograph by Naila Ruechel for The New Yorker
And then the ground beneath the restaurant industry fell out; not even the most venerated blocks of Madison Avenue were exempt. After the pandemic forced dining rooms to close, Daniel Humm, the chef who bought Eleven Madison Park from Danny Meyer in 2011, seemed to undergo a sort of radicalization. In an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek, in May, he described his “biggest lightbulb moment”: the decision to transform his kitchen into a commissary for a nonprofit called Rethink Food, which provides free meals for New Yorkers. “The infrastructure to end hunger needs to come out of the restaurants,” he said. “I don’t need to only feed the 1% anymore.”
For a while, it seemed like he might not feed the one per cent at all. The restaurant has never offered outdoor dining, and Humm has so far elected not to operate indoors at twenty-five-per-cent capacity. A hypothetical reopening is “a blank canvas right now,” he told Bloomberg Businessweek. “We would need to redefine what luxury means.” But, before the wealthiest New Yorkers could go into champagne-and-caviar withdrawal, Humm launched EMP To Go, offering a roast-chicken dinner—plus a turkey iteration for Thanksgiving, Krug Grande Cuvée and white-sturgeon roe optional—for pickup in not only Manhattan and Brooklyn but also the notorious one-per-cent strongholds of East Hampton; Greenwich, Connecticut; and Montclair, New Jersey.
The meal is designed to serve as many as four people, and can be picked up from Manhattan, Brooklyn, Long Island, New Jersey, or Connecticut. Photograph by Naila Ruechel for The New Yorker
Is EMP To Go the world’s best takeout? On a recent rainy Sunday, I arrived at Grand Army Plaza, in Brooklyn, on the lookout for a dark-gray BMW X7 parked in the roundabout’s inner ring, as per e-mailed instructions. At the car, a man scanned a clipboard for my name and then handed me an expensive-looking blue-canvas insulated bag embossed with the restaurant’s abstractly floral logo, for which I had paid two hundred and seventy-five dollars. My feeling of furtive anointment was replaced quickly by a flush of embarrassment; putting aside questions of morality, fine dining is decidedly uncool.
Back home, I unpacked the free-range, certified humanely raised chicken, raw but ready to be roasted, pre-stuffed with brioche, foie gras, and truffle. A box of bitter greens came with tiny jars: vinaigrette and sunflower-seed crumble. There was half of a baked butternut squash, sheathed in waxy seaweed, with a miso-cured egg yolk to grate on top of it, plus a par-baked potato gratin, an apple tart, and a cannister of the restaurant’s status-symbol granola. “Truffle and eggs,” a two-hundred-dollar add-on I’d assumed was coyly named, turned out to be plainly literal: six raw eggs and a pair of dark, mottled knobs that smelled vaguely astringent, along with directions for how to master a French omelette.
The butternut squash comes with a miso-cured egg yolk and a small zester for shaving it on top. Instructions for cooking the chicken include frosting the skin with butter before roasting it. Photograph by Naila Ruechel for The New Yorker
The chicken was the most decadent I’d ever cooked, not to mention the most beautifully bronzed. (The secret, I think, was frosting the skin, like a cake, with softened butter.) The squash yielded easily to a spoon after I warmed it through, brown butter pooling in its cavity, and the rich, velvety gratin was stretchy with Gruyère and sharp with Parmesan. But my prevailing emotion was discomfort, when the plates had been cleared—and not because I had to wash them myself. If Humm’s pivot to philanthropy felt like a silver lining of the pandemic, a long-overdue reckoning with a system that favors few, EMP To Go seemed to undercut it, luxury adapted but far from redefined. Shaved clumsily over my omelette, the truffles were only as remarkable as nuts, and, paradoxically, less valuable for their scarcity. (Roast-chicken dinner $275.) ♦


newyorker--2020-11-13--A Three-LP Set of Sonny Rollins, Liberated from the Studio

Though Sonny Rollins , at the age of ninety , is no longer playing the saxophone , his legacy is @ @ @ @ @ Store Day ( Nov. 27 ) , an annual celebration of independently owned music shops @ @ @ @ @ prime label for rediscovered jazz classics , issues the three-LP set “ Rollins in Holland.
@ @ @ @ @ and radio performances with the bassist Ruud Jacobs and the drummer Han Bennink from 1967 @ @ @ @ @ to twenty-two minutes—Rollins ’ s freely associative artistry liberated from studio norms .

Though Sonny Rollins, at the age of ninety, is no longer playing the saxophone, his legacy is still growing. On Record Store Day (Nov. 27), an annual celebration of independently owned music shops, Resonance Records, a prime label for rediscovered jazz classics, issues the three-LP set “Rollins in Holland.” It features expansive concert and radio performances with the bassist Ruud Jacobs and the drummer Han Bennink from 1967, and showcases—in cuts up to twenty-two minutes—Rollins’s freely associative artistry liberated from studio norms.


newyorker--2020-11-13--“Mank” and the Making of “Citizen Kane”

“Mank” and the Making of “Citizen Kane”

Mankiewicz , who worked for this magazine in its infancy , before eloping west , was one of those people who are so deeply rooted in their era that you can ’ t imagine them living at any other time .
He looked like a highly amused potato .
Trying to think of something that he didn ’ t laugh at is a thankless task .
( There is a photograph of him dressed up as Groucho , Chico , and Harpo Marx simultaneously . )
His mug was round and knobbly ; his mouth was wide and fully occupied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gurgle of words flowing out .
He was a gambler , too .
On one occasion , according to “ Mank , ” he bet five thousand bucks on the fall of a leaf .
So , who should play him onscreen ?
W. C. Fields could have done it , long ago , on condition that the props department supplied real alcohol , not some filthy aqueous substitute .
Charles Durning would have been ideal .
Oliver Platt , perhaps , might fit the bill .
In the event , Fincher plumps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ triumphing as Winston Churchill , in “ Darkest Hour ” ( 2017 ) , is no stranger to men of whopping appetites and liquor-boosted wit .
“ Mank ” pays tribute to “ Citizen Kane ” in aspects great and small .
The snow globe , slipping from the hand of the dying Kane at the outset of Welles ’ s film , is nicely echoed by Fincher with a closeup of an empty bottle , tumbling from his hero ’ s grasp .
Both films are in black and white , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and fro from year to year .
We start in 1940 , with Mankiewicz en route to Victorville , an hour or two from Los Angeles .
He has a leg in plaster and a mission to fulfill .
At a lonely ranch , with a secretary , Rita Alexander ( Lily Collins ) , to take dictation and to keep him off the sauce , he must generate a script for Welles ’ s début film .
John Houseman ( Sam Troughton ) , Welles ’ s theatrical comrade , will oversee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Troughton plays him as a fusspot , with diction to match : “ We ’ re expecting grrreat things , ” “ We ’ re at a Rrrubicon moment.
” Was Houseman quite as prim as that ? )
Now the flashbacks kick in .
One presents us with the car crash that injured Mankiewicz ; another spirits us to 1930 , with the writer Charles Lederer arriving at Paramount Studios .
He bears an alluring telegram from Mankiewicz , informing him , “ There are millions to be made and your only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a telegram , although , in truth , it was sent to Ben Hecht .
“ Mank ” does a lot of this—polishing old show-biz myths and rearranging them on the mantelpiece .
Thus , the well-worn line about using Western Union , rather than a movie , if you need to send a message is randomly assigned to Louis B. Mayer ( Arliss Howard ) , the lord of M-G-M .
Similarly , every Mankiewicz fan has heard about his vomiting at dinner , apologizing to his host , and explaining that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white wine came up with the fish ; but where did the gag occur ?
Fincher places it at San Simeon , the plush stronghold of William Randolph Hearst ( Charles Dance , in excellent fettle ) , where Mankiewicz was often invited , in the nineteen-thirties .
There , once more in flashback , we watch him , in his capacity as court jester , diverting and offending the other guests .
He becomes a particular pal of Hearst ’ s long-suffering companion , the actress Marion Davies ( Amanda Seyfried ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stands atop a pyramid of wood , with the cameras about to roll , ready for her immolation .
“ What ’ s at stake here ?
” Mankiewicz inquires .
Later , he and Davies take a moonlit stroll , among the statues and the private menageries .
“ Now , that ’ s sticking the old neck out , ” Mankiewicz says , as they approach the giraffes .
The lines are funny , but not that funny , and it ’ s never easy to make us believe in someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposedly all-conquering wag is the protagonist of “ The Man Who Came to Dinner , ” which appeared a year after “ Citizen Kane.
” He hurts a hip at the start of the movie and spends the rest of it firing off zingers from a supine position , and yet , as played by Monty Woolley , he can ’ t live up to the hype .
Some folks thought that the part should have gone to Welles . )
Is Oldman , though technically dazzling , the right man for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he radiates onscreen is not warm humor so much as a nipping comic ferocity ; rarely are we not afraid of him , and that ’ s a problem for the new film , because Mankiewicz is meant to be tolerated , if not loved , by those who know and employ him .
No one is more patient than his wife , Sara ( Tuppence Middleton ) —habitually referred to as “ poor Sara , ” though she finally snaps and demands that the habit cease .
Good for her .
Hearst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s bons mots with a lenient smile and says , “ That ’ s why I always want Mank around.
” And guess how Mankiewicz repays the favor .
He turns San Simeon into Xanadu and Hearst into Kane , the hollowest of hollow men .
Or so the legend goes .
A more provoking question : Who cares who wrote “ Citizen Kane ” ?
Historians of cinema will shriek at the very notion , but we need to remind ourselves that millions of movie watchers couldn ’ t give a damn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they will make of “ Mank.
” On the one hand , it ’ s a Kaelite enterprise , dwelling on Mankiewicz and shunting Welles , played with palpable relish by Tom Burke , firmly into the sidings .
On the other hand , the pop and the zest that Kael admired , in “ Citizen Kane ” and elsewhere , are in curiously short supply .
Fincher ’ s film is gorgeous to behold , with its bright and feathery texture , plus a delicate spectrum of grays ; thanks to digital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as white as snow , as they used to do on infrared film .
But to what purpose ?
The richer shadows and yawning angles of “ Citizen Kane ” answer to Kane ’ s vision of the world , tilted off balance by solitude and wealth , whereas the dreaminess of “ Mank ” seems to sap it of dramatic momentum .
As for the action , much of it consists of a man lying in bed and spinning a yarn .
Fincher , clearly alive to the threat of stagnation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are regularly interrupted by visitors to the ranch , including Davies , Lederer , Welles , and Mankiewicz ’ s brother Joe ( Tom Pelphrey ) , who would later direct “ All About Eve ” ( 1950 ) and “ Cleopatra ” ( 1963 ) .
Meanwhile , inside the flashbacks , other famous figures come and go , or so the credits allege ; apparently , we get a Clark Gable , a Bette Davis , and even a Garbo , though I swear I didn ’ t see them flit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has an air of this-then-that , in lieu of a plot , and we are left to work out how , or if , the pieces lock together .
There ’ s a detailed excursus into the California gubernatorial race of 1934 , which Upton Sinclair lost , running on a poverty-fighting platform .
Mankiewicz backed him , to Louis B. Mayer ’ s disgust : gripping stuff , no doubt , but what ’ s it doing here ?
Then , there ’ s the scene in which the housekeeper at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , reveals that an entire village of German Jews was able to emigrate to safety with Mankiewicz ’ s aid .
What ?
When ?
Accurate or not , it has the smack of a tall tale , of the kind that Mank would be the first to make sport of .
( He became , in his own words , an “ ultra-Lindbergh , ” protesting America ’ s entry into the Second World War—a caprice on which “ Mank ” chooses not to touch . )
What we have here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the artist as a contrarian , bent upon self-sabotage , and what it sorely lacks is a Rosebud .
Many viewers of “ Citizen Kane ” are disappointed by that narrative dingus , with its link to a lost childhood , and Welles himself disparaged it as “ dollar-book Freud.
” But it ’ s meant to be disappointing ; the Grail is worth less than the quest , and the quest provides that film with its immortal swagger .
“ Mank , ” by comparison , is a story of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great beauty , it winds up chasing its own tale .
♦

As the film critic Donald Trump once pointed out, “There was a great rise in ‘Citizen Kane,’ and there was a modest fall. The fall wasn’t a financial fall. The fall was a personal fall. But it was a fall nevertheless.” Wise words, equally applicable to Humpty Dumpty. Risings and fallings abound in David Fincher’s new movie, “Mank,” which was written by his late father, Jack Fincher, and is largely about the creation of “Citizen Kane” (1941). The title refers to Herman J. Mankiewicz, who is credited, at the end of “Citizen Kane,” as the co-author of the screenplay, together with a guy named Orson Welles. Their work was honored with an Academy Award—the only Oscar that the film received. Neither man showed up for the ceremony, in 1942, at the Biltmore Hotel, where, it is said, every mention of “Citizen Kane” was jeered.
Mankiewicz, who worked for this magazine in its infancy, before eloping west, was one of those people who are so deeply rooted in their era that you can’t imagine them living at any other time. He looked like a highly amused potato. Trying to think of something that he didn’t laugh at is a thankless task. (There is a photograph of him dressed up as Groucho, Chico, and Harpo Marx simultaneously.) His mug was round and knobbly; his mouth was wide and fully occupied, with booze going in and a gurgle of words flowing out. He was a gambler, too. On one occasion, according to “Mank,” he bet five thousand bucks on the fall of a leaf. So, who should play him onscreen? W. C. Fields could have done it, long ago, on condition that the props department supplied real alcohol, not some filthy aqueous substitute. Charles Durning would have been ideal. Oliver Platt, perhaps, might fit the bill. In the event, Fincher plumps for Gary Oldman, who, after triumphing as Winston Churchill, in “Darkest Hour” (2017), is no stranger to men of whopping appetites and liquor-boosted wit.
“Mank” pays tribute to “Citizen Kane” in aspects great and small. The snow globe, slipping from the hand of the dying Kane at the outset of Welles’s film, is nicely echoed by Fincher with a closeup of an empty bottle, tumbling from his hero’s grasp. Both films are in black and white, and both are chronologically restless, dancing to and fro from year to year. We start in 1940, with Mankiewicz en route to Victorville, an hour or two from Los Angeles. He has a leg in plaster and a mission to fulfill. At a lonely ranch, with a secretary, Rita Alexander (Lily Collins), to take dictation and to keep him off the sauce, he must generate a script for Welles’s début film. John Houseman (Sam Troughton), Welles’s theatrical comrade, will oversee the progress of the plan. (Troughton plays him as a fusspot, with diction to match: “We’re expecting grrreat things,” “We’re at a Rrrubicon moment.” Was Houseman quite as prim as that?) Now the flashbacks kick in. One presents us with the car crash that injured Mankiewicz; another spirits us to 1930, with the writer Charles Lederer arriving at Paramount Studios. He bears an alluring telegram from Mankiewicz, informing him, “There are millions to be made and your only competition is idiots.”
There was such a telegram, although, in truth, it was sent to Ben Hecht. “Mank” does a lot of this—polishing old show-biz myths and rearranging them on the mantelpiece. Thus, the well-worn line about using Western Union, rather than a movie, if you need to send a message is randomly assigned to Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard), the lord of M-G-M. Similarly, every Mankiewicz fan has heard about his vomiting at dinner, apologizing to his host, and explaining that it’s O.K., because the white wine came up with the fish; but where did the gag occur? Fincher places it at San Simeon, the plush stronghold of William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance, in excellent fettle), where Mankiewicz was often invited, in the nineteen-thirties. There, once more in flashback, we watch him, in his capacity as court jester, diverting and offending the other guests.
He becomes a particular pal of Hearst’s long-suffering companion, the actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried), whom we first encounter as she stands atop a pyramid of wood, with the cameras about to roll, ready for her immolation. “What’s at stake here?” Mankiewicz inquires. Later, he and Davies take a moonlit stroll, among the statues and the private menageries. “Now, that’s sticking the old neck out,” Mankiewicz says, as they approach the giraffes.
The lines are funny, but not that funny, and it’s never easy to make us believe in someone of lofty comic repute. (Another supposedly all-conquering wag is the protagonist of “The Man Who Came to Dinner,” which appeared a year after “Citizen Kane.” He hurts a hip at the start of the movie and spends the rest of it firing off zingers from a supine position, and yet, as played by Monty Woolley, he can’t live up to the hype. Some folks thought that the part should have gone to Welles.) Is Oldman, though technically dazzling, the right man for the job? As a rule, what he radiates onscreen is not warm humor so much as a nipping comic ferocity; rarely are we not afraid of him, and that’s a problem for the new film, because Mankiewicz is meant to be tolerated, if not loved, by those who know and employ him. No one is more patient than his wife, Sara (Tuppence Middleton)—habitually referred to as “poor Sara,” though she finally snaps and demands that the habit cease. Good for her. Hearst, likewise, listens to Mankiewicz’s bons mots with a lenient smile and says, “That’s why I always want Mank around.” And guess how Mankiewicz repays the favor. He turns San Simeon into Xanadu and Hearst into Kane, the hollowest of hollow men. Or so the legend goes.
Who wrote “Citizen Kane”? How long have you got? In 1971, The New Yorker published “Raising Kane,” a two-part investigation of the puzzle by Pauline Kael. She argued that Mankiewicz was a prime mover of the film, essential to its ambience of fun, and that his thunder was stolen by the perfidious Welles. Her case was made with typical trenchancy and dash, and answered (dismantled, some would say) by Robert Carringer, in his 1985 book “The Making of ‘Citizen Kane,’ ” which traced Welles’s reshaping of the screenplay, over many drafts, after Mankiewicz was done.
A more provoking question: Who cares who wrote “Citizen Kane”? Historians of cinema will shriek at the very notion, but we need to remind ourselves that millions of movie watchers couldn’t give a damn either way, and I wonder what they will make of “Mank.” On the one hand, it’s a Kaelite enterprise, dwelling on Mankiewicz and shunting Welles, played with palpable relish by Tom Burke, firmly into the sidings. On the other hand, the pop and the zest that Kael admired, in “Citizen Kane” and elsewhere, are in curiously short supply. Fincher’s film is gorgeous to behold, with its bright and feathery texture, plus a delicate spectrum of grays; thanks to digital sorcery, the leaves of trees look as white as snow, as they used to do on infrared film. But to what purpose? The richer shadows and yawning angles of “Citizen Kane” answer to Kane’s vision of the world, tilted off balance by solitude and wealth, whereas the dreaminess of “Mank” seems to sap it of dramatic momentum.
As for the action, much of it consists of a man lying in bed and spinning a yarn. Fincher, clearly alive to the threat of stagnation, insures that his hero’s labors are regularly interrupted by visitors to the ranch, including Davies, Lederer, Welles, and Mankiewicz’s brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey), who would later direct “All About Eve” (1950) and “Cleopatra” (1963). Meanwhile, inside the flashbacks, other famous figures come and go, or so the credits allege; apparently, we get a Clark Gable, a Bette Davis, and even a Garbo, though I swear I didn’t see them flit by. The whole movie, indeed, has an air of this-then-that, in lieu of a plot, and we are left to work out how, or if, the pieces lock together. There’s a detailed excursus into the California gubernatorial race of 1934, which Upton Sinclair lost, running on a poverty-fighting platform. Mankiewicz backed him, to Louis B. Mayer’s disgust: gripping stuff, no doubt, but what’s it doing here?
Then, there’s the scene in which the housekeeper at the ranch, Frieda (Monika Grossmann), reveals that an entire village of German Jews was able to emigrate to safety with Mankiewicz’s aid. What? When? Accurate or not, it has the smack of a tall tale, of the kind that Mank would be the first to make sport of. (He became, in his own words, an “ultra-Lindbergh,” protesting America’s entry into the Second World War—a caprice on which “Mank” chooses not to touch.) What we have here, in short, is a portrait of the artist as a contrarian, bent upon self-sabotage, and what it sorely lacks is a Rosebud. Many viewers of “Citizen Kane” are disappointed by that narrative dingus, with its link to a lost childhood, and Welles himself disparaged it as “dollar-book Freud.” But it’s meant to be disappointing; the Grail is worth less than the quest, and the quest provides that film with its immortal swagger. “Mank,” by comparison, is a story of a story, and, for all its great beauty, it winds up chasing its own tale. ♦


newyorker--2020-11-13--The National-Security Case for Fixing Social Media

On Wednesday , July 15th , shortly after 3 P.M. , the Twitter accounts of Barack Obama , Joe Biden , Jeff Bezos , Bill Gates , Elon Musk , Warren Buffett , Michael Bloomberg , Kanye West , and other politicians and celebrities began behaving strangely .
More or less simultaneously , they advised their followers—around two hundred and fifty million people , in total—to send Bitcoin contributions to mysterious addresses .
Twitter ’ s engineers were surprised and baffled ; there was no indication that the company ’ s network had been breached , and yet the tweets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice but to switch off around a hundred and fifty thousand verified accounts , held by notable people and institutions , until the problem could be identified and fixed .
Many government agencies have come to rely on Twitter for public-service messages ; among the disabled accounts was the National Weather Service , which found that it couldn ’ t send tweets to warn of a tornado in central Illinois .
A few days later , a seventeen-year-old hacker from Florida , who enjoyed breaking into social-media accounts for fun and occasional profit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hack .
The F.B.I .
is currently investigating his sixteen-year-old sidekick .
In its narrowest sense , this immense security breach , orchestrated by teen-agers , underscores the vulnerability of Twitter and other social-media platforms .
More broadly , it ’ s a telling sign of the times .
We ’ ve entered a world in which our national well-being depends not just on the government but also on the private companies through which we lead our digital lives .
It ’ s easy to imagine what big-time criminals , foreign adversaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the access the teen-agers secured .
In 2013 , the stock market briefly plunged after a tweet sent from the hacked account of the Associated Press reported that President Barack Obama had been injured in an explosion at the White House ; earlier this year , hundreds of armed , self-proclaimed militiamen converged on Gettysburg , Virginia , after a single Facebook page promoted the fake story that Antifa protesters planned to burn American flags there .
A group called the Syrian Electronic Army claimed responsibility for the A.P .
hack ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left-wing prankster .
A more determined and capable adversary could think bigger .
In the run-up to this year ’ s Presidential election , e-mails and videos that most analysts attributed to the Iranian government were sent to voters in Arizona , Florida , and Alaska , purporting to be from the Proud Boys , a neo-Fascist , pro-Trump organization : “ Vote for Trump , ” they warned , “ or we will come after you.
” Calls to voters in swing states warned them against voting and text messages pushed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes for second graders .
But a truly ambitious disinformation attack would be cleverly timed and coördinated across multiple platforms .
If what appeared to be a governor ’ s Twitter account reported that thousands of ballots had gone missing on Election Day , and the same message were echoed by multiple Facebook posts—some written by fake users or media outlets , others by real users who had been deceived—many people might assume the story to be true and forward it on .
The goal of false information need not be an actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the goal , and sowing doubt about election results is a perfect way to achieve it .
When we think of national security , we imagine concrete threats—Iranian gunboats , say , or North Korean missiles .
We spend a lot of money preparing to meet those kinds of dangers .
And yet it ’ s online disinformation that , right now , poses an ongoing threat to our country ; it ’ s already damaging our political system and undermining our public health .
For the most part , we stand defenseless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of online information might violate the principle of free speech .
Because foreign disinformation played a role in the election of our current President , it has become a partisan issue , and so our politicians are paralyzed .
We enjoy the products made by the tech companies , and so are reluctant to regulate their industry ; we ’ re also uncertain whether there ’ s anything we can do about the problem—maybe the price of being online is fake news .
The result is a peculiar mixture of apprehension and inaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of disinformation and foreign meddling .
In the uneasy days after a divisive Presidential election , we feel electricity in the air and wait for lightning to strike .
For the most part , this disinformation has been scattershot .
What would a more organized effort look like ?
The cyber-disinformation campaign conducted by Russia in 2016 , largely on Facebook , gave us a glimpse of what ’ s possible .
The five-volume bipartisan Senate report on Russia ’ s efforts , produced by the Select Committee on Intelligence , reveals an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disinformation operations at home , in bordering countries , and across the world .
It works through several arms at once : the sophisticated , Kremlin-directed S.V.R .
( the equivalent of the C.I.A . )
; the clumsier , military-run G.R.U .
; and the savvier Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg .
In general , Russia seeks to push disinformation in a comprehensive , integrated way , so as to give its content an aura of authenticity .
Using so-called sockpuppets—inauthentic personas on Facebook and elsewhere—its campaigns inflame existing political tensions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , forged evidence , and false news .
This specious material is then cited by seemingly legitimate news sites established by Russia for the purpose of spreading and corroborating disinformation .
Facebook and Twitter have built automated systems that look for inauthentic accounts with manufactured followings .
But Russian cyber actors have become increasingly sophisticated , using an integrated array of what spy agencies call T.T.P.s—tactics , techniques , and procedures—to avoid detection .
Like a musical toured in smaller markets before it hits Broadway , Russian T.T.P.s are tested first in border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being deployed against America .
In the past year , Russian trolls working in those countries have adopted a new strategy : impersonating actual organizations or people , or claiming to be affiliated with them—a muddying of the waters that makes detection harder .
According to experts , they ’ ve also begun corrupting legitimate Eastern European news sites : hackers manipulate real content , sometimes laying the groundwork for future disinformation , at others , inserting fake articles for immediate dissemination .
China , meanwhile , already adept at intellectual-property cyber theft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Russian sort .
Most of its efforts are focussed on propaganda portraying China as a peace-loving nation with a superior form of government .
But earlier this year , a pro-China operation , nicknamed Spamouflage Dragon by cybersecurity firms , deployed an array of Facebook , YouTube , and Twitter accounts with profile pictures generated by artificial intelligence to attack President Trump and spread falsehoods about the George Floyd killing , the Black Lives Matter movement , and Hong Kong ’ s pro-democracy protests .
Compared to Russia , China ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because its government is more concerned about how it ’ s perceived around the world .
But it seems possible that , in the longer term , the country will pose a more significant threat .
If China harnessed the vast intelligence resources of its Ministry of State Security and its People ’ s Liberation Army to mount a coördinated disinformation campaign against the United States , its reach could be significant .
Foreign powers could get better at pushing our buttons ; domestic disinformers could get better-organized .
In either case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version of the disinformation crisis we ’ re struggling with now .
As cyber wrongdoing has piled up , however , it has shifted the balance of responsibility between government and the private sector .
The federal government used to be solely responsible for what the Constitution calls our “ common defense.
” Yet as private companies amass more data about us , and serve increasingly as the main forum for civic and business life , their weaknesses become more consequential .
Even in the heyday of General Motors , a mishap at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national well-being .
Today , a hack at Google , Facebook , Microsoft , Visa , or any of a number of tech companies could derail everyday life , or even compromise public safety , in fundamental ways .
Because of the very structure of the Internet , no Western nation has yet found a way to stop , or even deter , malicious foreign cyber activity .
It ’ s almost always impossible to know quickly and with certainty if a foreign government is behind a disinformation campaign , ransomware implant , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the government ’ s hands are tied .
China and other authoritarian governments have solved this problem by monitoring every online user and blocking content they dislike ; that approach is unthinkable here .
In fact , any regulation meant to thwart online disinformation risks seeming like a step down the road to authoritarianism or a threat to freedom of speech .
For good reason , we don ’ t like the idea of anyone in the private sector controlling what we read , see , and hear .
But allowing companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online , without regard for its truthfulness or the consequences of its viral dissemination , is also problematic .
It seems as though we are hemmed in on all sides , by our enemies , our technologies , our principles , and the law—that we have no choice but to learn to live with disinformation , and with the slow erosion of our public life .
On the legal side , there are common-sense steps we could take without impinging on our freedom of speech .
Congress could pass laws to curtail disinformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlawing false statements—which would run afoul of the First Amendment—but by requiring more disclosure , and by making certain knowing falsehoods illegal , including wrongful information about polling places .
Today , political ads that appear online aren ’ t subject to the same disclosure and approval rules that apply to ads on radio and television ; that anachronism could be corrected .
Lawmakers could explore prohibiting online political ads that micro-target voters based on race , age , political affiliation , or other demographic categories ; that sort of targeting allows divisive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at amenable audiences , and to skirt broader public scrutiny .
Criminal laws could also be tightened to outlaw , at least to some extent , the intentional and knowing spread of misinformation about elections and political candidates .
Online , the regulation of speech is governed by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—a law , enacted in 1996 , that was designed to allow the nascent Internet to flourish without legal entanglements .
The statute gives every Internet provider or user a shield against liability for the posting or transmission of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote earlier this year , Section 230 was well-intentioned at the time of its adoption , when all Internet companies were underdogs .
But today that is no longer true , and analysts and politicians on both the right and the left are beginning to think , for different reasons , that the law could be usefully amended .
Republicans tend to believe that the statute allows liberal social media companies to squelch conservative voices with impunity ; Democrats argue that freewheeling social media platforms , which make money off virality , are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech .
Amending Section 230 to impose some liability on social-media platforms , in a manner that neither cripples them nor allows them to remain unaccountable , is a necessary step in curbing disinformation .
It seems plausible that the next Congress will amend the statute .

On Wednesday, July 15th, shortly after 3 P.M., the Twitter accounts of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Kanye West, and other politicians and celebrities began behaving strangely. More or less simultaneously, they advised their followers—around two hundred and fifty million people, in total—to send Bitcoin contributions to mysterious addresses. Twitter’s engineers were surprised and baffled; there was no indication that the company’s network had been breached, and yet the tweets were clearly unauthorized. They had no choice but to switch off around a hundred and fifty thousand verified accounts, held by notable people and institutions, until the problem could be identified and fixed. Many government agencies have come to rely on Twitter for public-service messages; among the disabled accounts was the National Weather Service, which found that it couldn’t send tweets to warn of a tornado in central Illinois. A few days later, a seventeen-year-old hacker from Florida, who enjoyed breaking into social-media accounts for fun and occasional profit, was arrested as the mastermind of the hack. The F.B.I. is currently investigating his sixteen-year-old sidekick.
In its narrowest sense, this immense security breach, orchestrated by teen-agers, underscores the vulnerability of Twitter and other social-media platforms. More broadly, it’s a telling sign of the times. We’ve entered a world in which our national well-being depends not just on the government but also on the private companies through which we lead our digital lives. It’s easy to imagine what big-time criminals, foreign adversaries, or power-grabbing politicians could have done with the access the teen-agers secured. In 2013, the stock market briefly plunged after a tweet sent from the hacked account of the Associated Press reported that President Barack Obama had been injured in an explosion at the White House; earlier this year, hundreds of armed, self-proclaimed militiamen converged on Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, after a single Facebook page promoted the fake story that Antifa protesters planned to burn American flags there.
A group called the Syrian Electronic Army claimed responsibility for the A.P. hack; the Gettysburg hoax was perpetrated by a left-wing prankster. A more determined and capable adversary could think bigger. In the run-up to this year’s Presidential election, e-mails and videos that most analysts attributed to the Iranian government were sent to voters in Arizona, Florida, and Alaska, purporting to be from the Proud Boys, a neo-Fascist, pro-Trump organization: “Vote for Trump,” they warned, “or we will come after you.” Calls to voters in swing states warned them against voting and text messages pushed a fake video about Joe Biden supporting sex changes for second graders. But a truly ambitious disinformation attack would be cleverly timed and coördinated across multiple platforms. If what appeared to be a governor’s Twitter account reported that thousands of ballots had gone missing on Election Day, and the same message were echoed by multiple Facebook posts—some written by fake users or media outlets, others by real users who had been deceived—many people might assume the story to be true and forward it on. The goal of false information need not be an actual change in events; chaos is often the goal, and sowing doubt about election results is a perfect way to achieve it.
When we think of national security, we imagine concrete threats—Iranian gunboats, say, or North Korean missiles. We spend a lot of money preparing to meet those kinds of dangers. And yet it’s online disinformation that, right now, poses an ongoing threat to our country; it’s already damaging our political system and undermining our public health. For the most part, we stand defenseless. We worry that regulating the flow of online information might violate the principle of free speech. Because foreign disinformation played a role in the election of our current President, it has become a partisan issue, and so our politicians are paralyzed. We enjoy the products made by the tech companies, and so are reluctant to regulate their industry; we’re also uncertain whether there’s anything we can do about the problem—maybe the price of being online is fake news. The result is a peculiar mixture of apprehension and inaction. We live with the constant threat of disinformation and foreign meddling. In the uneasy days after a divisive Presidential election, we feel electricity in the air and wait for lightning to strike.
In recent years, we’ve learned a lot about what makes a disinformation campaign effective. Disinformation works best when it’s consistent with an audience’s preconceptions; a fake story that’s dismissed as incredible by one person can appear quite plausible to another who’s predisposed to believe in it. It’s for this reason that, while foreign governments may be capable of more concerted campaigns, American disinformers are especially dangerous: they have their fingers on the pulse of our social and political divisions. At the moment, disinformation seems to be finding a more receptive audience on the political right. Perhaps, as some researchers have suggested, an outlook rooted in aggrievement and a distrust of institutions makes it easier to believe in wrongdoing by élites. Breitbart columnists and some Fox News commentators are also happy to corroborate and amplify fringe ideas. In any event, during this year’s Presidential election, our social-media platforms have been awash in corrosive disinformation, much of it generated by Americans, ranging from lurid conspiracy-mongering—Antifa protesters starting wildfires in Oregon; Democrats arranging child-sex rings—to the faux-legalistic questioning of voting procedures.
For the most part, this disinformation has been scattershot. What would a more organized effort look like? The cyber-disinformation campaign conducted by Russia in 2016, largely on Facebook, gave us a glimpse of what’s possible. The five-volume bipartisan Senate report on Russia’s efforts, produced by the Select Committee on Intelligence, reveals an effort of startling scale. Russia conducts disinformation operations at home, in bordering countries, and across the world. It works through several arms at once: the sophisticated, Kremlin-directed S.V.R. (the equivalent of the C.I.A.); the clumsier, military-run G.R.U.; and the savvier Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg. In general, Russia seeks to push disinformation in a comprehensive, integrated way, so as to give its content an aura of authenticity. Using so-called sockpuppets—inauthentic personas on Facebook and elsewhere—its campaigns inflame existing political tensions with calls to action, online petitions, forged evidence, and false news. This specious material is then cited by seemingly legitimate news sites established by Russia for the purpose of spreading and corroborating disinformation. Facebook and Twitter have built automated systems that look for inauthentic accounts with manufactured followings. But Russian cyber actors have become increasingly sophisticated, using an integrated array of what spy agencies call T.T.P.s—tactics, techniques, and procedures—to avoid detection.
Like a musical toured in smaller markets before it hits Broadway, Russian T.T.P.s are tested first in border states—Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, Poland—before being deployed against America. In the past year, Russian trolls working in those countries have adopted a new strategy: impersonating actual organizations or people, or claiming to be affiliated with them—a muddying of the waters that makes detection harder. According to experts, they’ve also begun corrupting legitimate Eastern European news sites: hackers manipulate real content, sometimes laying the groundwork for future disinformation, at others, inserting fake articles for immediate dissemination.
China, meanwhile, already adept at intellectual-property cyber theft, has begun shifting toward active disinformation of the Russian sort. Most of its efforts are focussed on propaganda portraying China as a peace-loving nation with a superior form of government. But earlier this year, a pro-China operation, nicknamed Spamouflage Dragon by cybersecurity firms, deployed an array of Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter accounts with profile pictures generated by artificial intelligence to attack President Trump and spread falsehoods about the George Floyd killing, the Black Lives Matter movement, and Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protests. Compared to Russia, China’s disinformation efforts are less immediately alarming, because its government is more concerned about how it’s perceived around the world. But it seems possible that, in the longer term, the country will pose a more significant threat. If China harnessed the vast intelligence resources of its Ministry of State Security and its People’s Liberation Army to mount a coördinated disinformation campaign against the United States, its reach could be significant. Foreign powers could get better at pushing our buttons; domestic disinformers could get better-organized. In either case, we could face a more acute version of the disinformation crisis we’re struggling with now.
There’s a sense in which it doesn’t matter who our disinformers are, since they all use the same social-media technology, which has transformed our societies quickly and pervasively, outpacing our ability to anticipate its risks. We’ve taken a relatively minimal and reactive approach to regulating our new digital world. The result is that we lag behind in security: the malicious use of new platforms begins before security experts, in industry or government, can weigh in. Because new vulnerabilities are revealed individually, we tend to perceive them as one-offs—a hack here, a hack there.
As cyber wrongdoing has piled up, however, it has shifted the balance of responsibility between government and the private sector. The federal government used to be solely responsible for what the Constitution calls our “common defense.” Yet as private companies amass more data about us, and serve increasingly as the main forum for civic and business life, their weaknesses become more consequential. Even in the heyday of General Motors, a mishap at that company was unlikely to affect our national well-being. Today, a hack at Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Visa, or any of a number of tech companies could derail everyday life, or even compromise public safety, in fundamental ways.
Because of the very structure of the Internet, no Western nation has yet found a way to stop, or even deter, malicious foreign cyber activity. It’s almost always impossible to know quickly and with certainty if a foreign government is behind a disinformation campaign, ransomware implant, or data theft; with attribution uncertain, the government’s hands are tied. China and other authoritarian governments have solved this problem by monitoring every online user and blocking content they dislike; that approach is unthinkable here. In fact, any regulation meant to thwart online disinformation risks seeming like a step down the road to authoritarianism or a threat to freedom of speech. For good reason, we don’t like the idea of anyone in the private sector controlling what we read, see, and hear. But allowing companies to profit from manipulating what we view online, without regard for its truthfulness or the consequences of its viral dissemination, is also problematic. It seems as though we are hemmed in on all sides, by our enemies, our technologies, our principles, and the law—that we have no choice but to learn to live with disinformation, and with the slow erosion of our public life.
We might have more maneuvering room than we think. The very fact that the disinformation crisis has so many elements—legal, technological, and social—means that we have multiple tools with which to address it. We can tackle the problem in parts, and make progress. An improvement here, an improvement there. We can’t cure this chronic disease, but we can manage it.
On the legal side, there are common-sense steps we could take without impinging on our freedom of speech. Congress could pass laws to curtail disinformation in political campaigns, not necessarily by outlawing false statements—which would run afoul of the First Amendment—but by requiring more disclosure, and by making certain knowing falsehoods illegal, including wrongful information about polling places. Today, political ads that appear online aren’t subject to the same disclosure and approval rules that apply to ads on radio and television; that anachronism could be corrected. Lawmakers could explore prohibiting online political ads that micro-target voters based on race, age, political affiliation, or other demographic categories; that sort of targeting allows divisive ads and disinformation to be aimed straight at amenable audiences, and to skirt broader public scrutiny. Criminal laws could also be tightened to outlaw, at least to some extent, the intentional and knowing spread of misinformation about elections and political candidates.
Online, the regulation of speech is governed by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—a law, enacted in 1996, that was designed to allow the nascent Internet to flourish without legal entanglements. The statute gives every Internet provider or user a shield against liability for the posting or transmission of user-generated wrongful content. As Anna Wiener wrote earlier this year, Section 230 was well-intentioned at the time of its adoption, when all Internet companies were underdogs. But today that is no longer true, and analysts and politicians on both the right and the left are beginning to think, for different reasons, that the law could be usefully amended. Republicans tend to believe that the statute allows liberal social media companies to squelch conservative voices with impunity; Democrats argue that freewheeling social media platforms, which make money off virality, are doing too little to curtail online hate speech. Amending Section 230 to impose some liability on social-media platforms, in a manner that neither cripples them nor allows them to remain unaccountable, is a necessary step in curbing disinformation. It seems plausible that the next Congress will amend the statute.
Other legal steps might flow from the recognition that the very ubiquity of social-media companies has created vulnerabilities for the millions of Americans who rely on them. Antitrust arguments to break up platforms and companies are one way to address this aspect of the problem. The Senate has asked the C.E.O.s of Facebook and Twitter to appear at a hearing on November 17th, intended to examine the platforms’ “handling of the 2020 election.” Last month, a House hearing on the same topic degenerated into an argument between Republicans, who claimed that social media was censoring the President, and Democrats, who argued that the hearing was a campaign gimmick. It remains to be seen whether Congress can separate politics from substance and seriously consider reform proposals, like the one put forth recently by the New York State Department of Financial Services, which would designate social-media platforms as “systemically important” and subject to oversight. It will be difficult to regulate such complicated and dynamic technology. Still, the broader trend is inescapable: the private sector must bear an ever-increasing legal responsibility for our digital lives.
Technological progress is possible, too, and there are signs that, after years of resistance, social-media platforms are finally taking meaningful action. In recent months, Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms have become more aggressive about removing accounts that appear inauthentic, or that promote violence or lawbreaking; they have also moved faster to block accounts that spread disinformation about the coronavirus or voting, or that advance abhorrent political views, such as Holocaust denial. The next logical step is to decrease the power of virality. In 2019, after a series of lynchings in India was organized through the chat program WhatsApp, Facebook limited the mass forwarding of texts on that platform; a couple of months ago, it implemented similar changes in the Messenger app embedded in Facebook itself. As false reports of ballot fraud became increasingly elaborate in the days before and after Election Day, the major social media platforms did what would have been unthinkable a year ago, labelling as misleading messages from the President of the United States. Twitter made it slightly more difficult to forward tweets containing disinformation; an alert now warns the user about retweeting content that’s been flagged as untruthful. Additional changes of this kind, combined with more transparency about the algorithms they use to curate content, could make a meaningful difference in how disinformation spreads online. Congress is considering requiring such transparency.


newyorker--2020-11-14--Why Trump Carried Out His Pentagon Purge

An Administration official who sees the outgoing President regularly told me that Trump is determined to bring home all forty-five hundred U.S. troops that remain in Afghanistan—or at least as many as possible before he leaves office .
“ He wants to put us on an irreversible course to a total withdrawal , ” the official said .
Getting out of Afghanistan was , the official said , one of the primary motivations behind Trump ’ s decision to fire Mark Esper , his Secretary of Defense , earlier this week .
Since Trump ’ s election , in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s military involvement in Afghanistan , where American troops have been engaged since 2001 .
Trump has reduced the size of the force there—from about ten thousand troops when he took office—and he announced as recently as last month that all American forces would be coming home by Christmas .
But he has not achieved a total withdrawal , which he has blamed on his Defense Secretaries—principally Esper and his predecessor , James Mattis .
Trump “ felt like he has been slow-walked ever since he came into office , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Esper gone , he can do it.
” A former U.S. official who meets with senior policymakers confirmed this description of Trump ’ s intentions .
“ It ’ s all up in the air now , ” he said , of America ’ s Afghan policy .
The situation in Afghanistan is tenuous .
In February , American and Taliban diplomats signed an agreement , by which the United States would withdraw all of its forces once security conditions in Afghanistan were stable .
But Trump has been reducing the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have not yet been met .
American officials say that the President has been undercutting his own negotiators and emboldening the Taliban .
“ The trouble with the Taliban is , they are getting everything for free now , ” an American official told me .
It ’ s not clear that there would be enough time to pull off a full withdrawal before Trump leaves office .
Afghanistan is landlocked , and surrounded by countries that are either hostile to the U.S. or difficult to traverse .
America ’ s NATO allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ troops in the country , and the U.S. would have to assist their withdrawal .
A complete pullout would have serious consequences .
Most diplomats and military commanders agree that , without continued American financial and military support , Afghanistan ’ s government and armed forces would eventually collapse .
The American official said , “ I hope the President realizes that if we leave , the debate will become ‘ Who lost Afghanistan ?
’ ” Many American and Afghan leaders fear that a total withdrawal would turn Afghanistan ’ s long-festering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An Afghan leader told me that groups across the political spectrum were preparing themselves .
“ Everyone can see what is happening , and they ’ re arming , ” he said .
The Administration official told me that the drama around the election was mostly political theatre , intended to salve Trump ’ s bruised ego .
“ Everyone around the President knows it ’ s over—except for him , ” the official said .
Attorney General William Barr recently sent a letter to U.S. attorneys , directing them to look into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintained that Barr was trying to placate Trump while alerting prosecutors to ignore anything short of substantial fraud .
“ He was telling prosecutors the rule of law is going to be followed , ” the official said .
The Administration official said that several people around Trump were trying to persuade him to concede his loss to President-elect Joe Biden—a manifestly unpleasant task .
Since November 3rd , Trump ’ s mood has shifted from denial to anger , he added .
“ We view that as progress , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over other tumultuous firings and hirings in America ’ s security institutions .
At the Pentagon , he removed several senior officials and installed four new ones , many of whom are associates or former employees of Representative Devin Nunes , a fervent supporter of Trump .
In early 2017 , when Nunes was the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , he called a press conference to announce that a whistle-blower in the intelligence community had shared with him classified documents that exonerated the President of any improper actions concerning Russia during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the documents ’ real source was a group of Trump aides , who showed them to Nunes during a late-night visit to the White House .
Nunes was forced to step aside from his committee ’ s investigation into Russian election interference while the House Ethics Committee investigated him for illegally disclosing classified information .
Nunes was ultimately exonerated .
Two of the White House aides who showed the documents to Nunes were given significant new jobs this week .
One of them , Ezra Cohen-Watnick , was fired after the Nunes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s national-security adviser at the time .
This week , Cohen-Watnik was appointed as the Pentagon ’ s acting Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence .
The other , Michael Ellis , was installed as a legal counsel to the National Security Agency , which oversees a worldwide surveillance and intelligence-gathering network .
As my colleague Jonathan Blitzer reported , Trump made similar moves in the Department of Homeland Security , ousting two high-ranking officials .
A former senior national-security official said , “ It ’ s a purging of the agencies of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and who isn ’ t willing to do whatever the President wants , no matter how corrupt.
” This week ’ s personnel changes have inspired concerns , inside and outside the government , that Trump will order a large-scale release of classified material that he believes will benefit him politically—but which could damage America ’ s relationships with its allies and hinder intelligence gathering .
The former senior national-security official said that Trump ’ s principal goal is to release a trove of intelligence that he believes could disprove suspicions he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election—or , despite the unanimous findings of America ’ s intelligence agencies , could disprove that Russia interfered at all .
Gina Haspel , the director of the C.I.A.
, has vigorously opposed declassifying the material , arguing that it could cause severe harm to U.S. allies , and to agents working on behalf of American intelligence .
Trump wanted to fire Haspel to clear the way for the declassifications , but so far has held off .
With some ten weeks remaining before Trump ’ s Administration comes to an end , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Haspel , along with Christopher Wray , the head of the F.B.I .
The senior congressional aide told me , “ I think we ’ re going to see more firings of professional people and more stooges put in their places.
” The Administration official said that many people around the President are hoping he will simply take a break .
But the official thought that Trump would step down on January 20th , even if he does not concede .
“ He ’ s not going to barricade himself in the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ He ’ ll go.
” Read More About the 2020 Election • William Barr is the one Administration official with the power to stop Donald Trump and his attempted coup .
• Trump has survived impeachment , twenty-six sexual-misconduct accusations , and thousands of lawsuits .
His luck may well end now that Joe Biden has been elected the next President .
• With litigation unlikely to change the outcome of the election , Republicans are looking to strategies that might remain even after rebuffs both at the polls and in court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what happened under the Trump Presidency and how we can prevent it from happening again .
• If 2020 has demonstrated anything , it is the need to rebalance the economy to benefit the working class—and there are many ways a Biden Administration can start .
• Sign up for our daily newsletter for insight and analysis from our reporters and columnists .

In 2018, as American officials in Kabul were sitting down to negotiate with the Taliban, a bleak joke circulated in the U.S. Embassy that at any moment the talks could be derailed by “the Tweet of Damocles”—a unilateral decision by President Trump to withdraw all American soldiers from the country without any deal at all. Now, in the waning days of his term, Trump may attempt to impose such a withdrawal, if not by tweet then by a last-minute act of will.
An Administration official who sees the outgoing President regularly told me that Trump is determined to bring home all forty-five hundred U.S. troops that remain in Afghanistan—or at least as many as possible before he leaves office. “He wants to put us on an irreversible course to a total withdrawal,” the official said.
Getting out of Afghanistan was, the official said, one of the primary motivations behind Trump’s decision to fire Mark Esper, his Secretary of Defense, earlier this week. Since Trump’s election, in 2016, he has promised to end the country’s military involvement in Afghanistan, where American troops have been engaged since 2001. Trump has reduced the size of the force there—from about ten thousand troops when he took office—and he announced as recently as last month that all American forces would be coming home by Christmas. But he has not achieved a total withdrawal, which he has blamed on his Defense Secretaries—principally Esper and his predecessor, James Mattis. Trump “felt like he has been slow-walked ever since he came into office,” the Administration official said. “Now with Esper gone, he can do it.”
A former U.S. official who meets with senior policymakers confirmed this description of Trump’s intentions. “It’s all up in the air now,” he said, of America’s Afghan policy.
The situation in Afghanistan is tenuous. In February, American and Taliban diplomats signed an agreement, by which the United States would withdraw all of its forces once security conditions in Afghanistan were stable. But Trump has been reducing the number of U.S. troops even though the conditions have not yet been met. American officials say that the President has been undercutting his own negotiators and emboldening the Taliban. “The trouble with the Taliban is, they are getting everything for free now,” an American official told me.
It’s not clear that there would be enough time to pull off a full withdrawal before Trump leaves office. Afghanistan is landlocked, and surrounded by countries that are either hostile to the U.S. or difficult to traverse. America’s NATO allies also have a total of ten thousand troops in the country, and the U.S. would have to assist their withdrawal.
A complete pullout would have serious consequences. Most diplomats and military commanders agree that, without continued American financial and military support, Afghanistan’s government and armed forces would eventually collapse. The American official said, “I hope the President realizes that if we leave, the debate will become ‘Who lost Afghanistan?’ ”
Many American and Afghan leaders fear that a total withdrawal would turn Afghanistan’s long-festering civil war into a full-on conflagration. An Afghan leader told me that groups across the political spectrum were preparing themselves. “Everyone can see what is happening, and they’re arming,” he said.
As Trump fired Esper, his campaign officials continued an aggressive campaign to overturn the results of the Presidential election, filing lawsuits that alleged voter fraud and pressing Republican-controlled state legislatures in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere to award electoral votes to President Trump. “The pressure to overturn the voters is very real,” a Democratic elected official in Michigan told me. “I will not celebrate Biden’s victory until he’s taken the oath.”
The Administration official told me that the drama around the election was mostly political theatre, intended to salve Trump’s bruised ego. “Everyone around the President knows it’s over—except for him,” the official said. Attorney General William Barr recently sent a letter to U.S. attorneys, directing them to look into allegations of voter fraud; the official maintained that Barr was trying to placate Trump while alerting prosecutors to ignore anything short of substantial fraud. “He was telling prosecutors the rule of law is going to be followed,” the official said.
The Administration official said that several people around Trump were trying to persuade him to concede his loss to President-elect Joe Biden—a manifestly unpleasant task. Since November 3rd, Trump’s mood has shifted from denial to anger, he added. “We view that as progress,” he said.
After displacing Esper, Trump presided over other tumultuous firings and hirings in America’s security institutions. At the Pentagon, he removed several senior officials and installed four new ones, many of whom are associates or former employees of Representative Devin Nunes, a fervent supporter of Trump. In early 2017, when Nunes was the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he called a press conference to announce that a whistle-blower in the intelligence community had shared with him classified documents that exonerated the President of any improper actions concerning Russia during the 2016 election. It turned out that the documents’ real source was a group of Trump aides, who showed them to Nunes during a late-night visit to the White House. Nunes was forced to step aside from his committee’s investigation into Russian election interference while the House Ethics Committee investigated him for illegally disclosing classified information. Nunes was ultimately exonerated.
Two of the White House aides who showed the documents to Nunes were given significant new jobs this week. One of them, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was fired after the Nunes scandal by H. R. McMaster, Trump’s national-security adviser at the time. This week, Cohen-Watnik was appointed as the Pentagon’s acting Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. The other, Michael Ellis, was installed as a legal counsel to the National Security Agency, which oversees a worldwide surveillance and intelligence-gathering network. As my colleague Jonathan Blitzer reported, Trump made similar moves in the Department of Homeland Security, ousting two high-ranking officials. A former senior national-security official said, “It’s a purging of the agencies of anyone who isn’t one-hundred-per-cent loyal, and who isn’t willing to do whatever the President wants, no matter how corrupt.”
This week’s personnel changes have inspired concerns, inside and outside the government, that Trump will order a large-scale release of classified material that he believes will benefit him politically—but which could damage America’s relationships with its allies and hinder intelligence gathering. The former senior national-security official said that Trump’s principal goal is to release a trove of intelligence that he believes could disprove suspicions he worked with Russian agents during the 2016 election—or, despite the unanimous findings of America’s intelligence agencies, could disprove that Russia interfered at all. Gina Haspel, the director of the C.I.A., has vigorously opposed declassifying the material, arguing that it could cause severe harm to U.S. allies, and to agents working on behalf of American intelligence. Trump wanted to fire Haspel to clear the way for the declassifications, but so far has held off.
With some ten weeks remaining before Trump’s Administration comes to an end, it remains possible that he will remove Haspel, along with Christopher Wray, the head of the F.B.I. The senior congressional aide told me, “I think we’re going to see more firings of professional people and more stooges put in their places.” The Administration official said that many people around the President are hoping he will simply take a break. But the official thought that Trump would step down on January 20th, even if he does not concede. “He’s not going to barricade himself in the White House,” the official said. “He’ll go.”
Read More About the 2020 Election


newyorker--2020-11-13--“The Queen’s Gambit” Is the Most Satisfying Show on Television

In 1884 , the American star chess player Paul Morphy was found dead in his bathtub , at the age of forty-seven .
“ The pride and the sorrow of chess is gone forever , ” the Austrian chess master Wilhelm Steinitz wrote in an elegy , the following year .
Morphy had begun winning citywide tournaments in his native New Orleans at the age of nine .
By the time he was twenty , he was the United States champion , and by the time he was twenty-one , many considered him to be the best player on earth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notorious “ blindfold ” exhibition , in Paris , at the Café de la Régence : he sat in one room while eight opponents sat in another and called out his moves without looking at a single board .
He played for ten hours straight , without stopping to eat , and ended the night with six wins and two draws .
But Morphy grew bored ; he was so gifted at chess that he began to consider it a child ’ s game .
He walked away from competition and opened a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed .
He spent his final two decades living as a vagabond on family money , growing increasingly paranoid and haunted by his former fame .
The parable of Paul Morphy and his squandered genius pops up halfway through the fifth episode of “ The Queen ’ s Gambit , ” Scott Frank and Allan Scott ’ s handsome , dexterous new Netflix miniseries , based on Walter Tevis ’ s 1983 novel of the same name , about a female chess prodigy from Lexington , Kentucky , and her pursuit of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The prodigy in question , Beth Harmon ( Anya Taylor-Joy ) , is speaking to her friend and sometimes lover Harry Beltik ( Harry Melling ) , a local chess champion with capped teeth and a nebbishy demeanor .
Harry , who has been living with Beth to help her train for an upcoming match against the dominant Russian champion , Borgov , in Paris , announces that he will be moving out .
He realizes that he has taught Beth all he knows , and that , in turn , she has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the game will never compare to hers .
As he leaves , he hands her a tattered copy of the book “ Paul Morphy and the Golden Age of Chess , ” by William Ewart Napier .
“ You think that ’ s gon na be me ?
” Beth sneers , with a diffident jutting of her chin .
“ I think that is you , ” Harry replies .
In Beth ’ s case , the sorrow that threatens to undercut her pride is not boredom with the game .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as a young orphan , she began sneaking away from classes at the Methuen Home For Girls to play chess in the basement with the gruff janitor , Mr. Shaibel .
Chess , for her , is a refuge ; her trouble is everything else .
When Beth was nine years old , her birth mother killed herself by crashing a car , with Beth still in it .
As a teen-ager , Beth is adopted by an unhappy couple , the Wheatleys , who divorce soon after she moves in .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ quietly devastating performance , by the film director and sometimes actor Marielle Heller , with a period-accurate , stilted manner of speaking that includes phrases like “ my tranquility needs to be refurbished ” ) is a familiar type , the depressive midcentury housewife , chipper at the department store but a mess at home .
She and Beth have an addiction in common : inhaling fistfuls of green tranquilizer pills in order to maintain a façade of equilibrium .
Beth was first given the medication at Methuen , where she would take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ceiling , the pieces dancing above her head like tipsy débutantes .
This premise might suggest that “ The Queen ’ s Gambit ” will be a predictable variation on the trope of the damaged genius , the poor brilliant maverick who is held back only by buried trauma .
Yet the show , which begins with Beth as a child ( played with a placid scowl by Isla Johnston ) and then jumps forward to follow her through her teen years and early adulthood , proceeds less like a dark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tale and more like the origin story of a wizard , or a superheroine .
Beth is assiduous , serious , well-read , almost nunlike in her studies of strategies such as the Ruy Lopez and the Sicilian Defense ( as a teen-ager , she ’ s so desperate to read chess magazines that she shoplifts them from the local pharmacy ) .
We see her decimate her opponents , easily winning tournaments against men twice her age .
She learns to speak Russian in anticipation of facing the Soviets one day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours—in her head , on the edge of the bathtub , on the kitchen counter .
She rarely wavers in her confidence , and can often come across as arrogant , or at least disarmingly unflappable .
When Alma discovers that Beth ’ s talent could be a ticket to a better life for them both—prize money , international travel , fame—Beth doesn ’ t resent the fact that she is soon supporting her adoptive mother ( and her fondness for Gibson cocktails ) but , instead , embraces their arrangement as business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand chess , but she has other skills to teach—through her , Beth is introduced to cosmetics , classical music , and her first beer , and gains a companion who is kind , if not quite maternal .
What makes “ The Queen ’ s Gambit ” so satisfying comes in large measure from the character Taylor-Joy brings to screen : a charming , elegant weirdo who delivers her lines with a cool , wintergreen snap , and never really reacts the way one might expect .
Taylor-Joy , whose breakout role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Witch , ” starred in Autumn de Wilde ’ s eminently lovable new adaptation of “ Emma , ” and she will step into the role of Furiosa in the anticipated “ Mad Max ” prequel that starts filming next year .
But “ The Queen ’ s Gambit ” is her star-making performance , a showcase for her particular oddball brand of elegance .
Nearly every review of the series has mentioned Taylor-Joy ’ s eyes , which are the size of silver dollars and set far apart , giving her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But what she brings to “ The Queen ’ s Gambit ” is a peculiar poise , a capricious hauteur that is willowy but never weak .
Taylor-Joy ’ s background is in ballet , and as Beth she brings a subtle physicality to the game of chess .
The chess masters Garry Kasparov and Bruce Pandolfini , who consulted on the show , taught Taylor-Joy how professionals move the pieces along the board , but , as she told the magazine Chess Life , she developed her own way of gliding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she captures a piece , she floats her long fingers above it and then gently flicks it into her palm , like she is fishing a shiny stone out of a river .
When she begins a game , she rests her chin on her delicate folded hands , like a female mantis preparing to feast , staring at her opponent with such unblinking intensity that at least once I had to glance away from the screen .
There has been some grumbling that Taylor-Joy ’ s twiggy beauty—as svelte , white , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The Queen ’ s Gambit ” tells ; is it not enough for a woman to beat the boys without her having to look like a Richard Avedon editorial ?
But for me the glamour of the series is another of its quiet subversions .
In life and on screen , chess is considered the domain of hoary men in moth-eaten cardigans , playing in smoky gymnasia that reek of stale coffee .
“ The Queen ’ s Gambit , ” instead , finds an unlikely synergy between the heady interiority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Beth develops a prim , gamine flair for fashion with the same studied meticulousness that she brings to the chessboard , and in the course of the show her look evolves apace with her game .
She spends her first chess winnings on a new plaid dress ; she grows out her blunt baby bangs and adopts a more feminine , Rita Hayworth-esque waved bob .
Her covetable wardrobe , of mod minidresses and boxy crepe blouses in creamy shades of mint green and eggshell , makes her a press darling , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chess junkets .
Her clothing , along with the show ’ s dazzling interiors ( not only the Wheatleys ’ home , a sumptuous parade of sherbet-colored floral wallpaper , but the many swanky hotel suites that Alma and Beth stay in on the road ) , calls to mind the aesthetic enchantments of “ Mad Men , ” the nineteen-sixties period piece against which every other nineteen-sixties period piece will forever be measured ( and the fervor around “ The Queen ’ s Gambit ” ’ s costume design has similarly hijacked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vogue and a zazzy virtual exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum ) .
In turn , the game of chess , in “ The Queen ’ s Gambit , ” sheds its schlubbiness and reveals a bewitching ( and , it must be said , sometimes erotic ) elegance .
When a reporter from LIFE presses Beth for a juicy quote on what it ’ s like to be a girl competing among men , Beth demurs .
“ Chess isn ’ t always competitive , ” she says .
“ Chess can also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by name , “ The Queen ’ s Gambit ” cleverly inverts the myth of Bobby Fischer , the famously angsty male American chess champion who was playing around the same time as Beth .
Fischer was seen as the great hope of American chess during the Cold War , but he was also often erratic , antisocial , and prone to long disappearances and angry rants about the game .
“ The Queen ’ s Gambit ” begins with the conventional notion of chess as a lonely sport , and with Beth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be drawn to it .
But as the story unfolds , and Beth comes of age during the sixties , experimenting with marijuana , casual sex , and unrequited crushes on fellow-players , “ Queen ’ s Gambit ” gradually discards the idea that chess dominance requires monastic isolation or a resentment of the wider world .
( The Soviets are the best chess players , Beth ’ s on-again , off-again lover , the swaggering Benny , played by Thomas Brodie-Sangster , tells her at one point , “ because they play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Us Americans , we work alone because we ’ re all such individualists.
” ) For viewers who are less sentimental than I am , the ending of the show—in which several of Beth ’ s male chess buddies , including Harry , Benny , and a pair of plucky twins from the Kentucky chess circuit , place a long-distance group call to Russia to offer advice on how she can finally beat her rival—might seem too predictable , or sweet .
And it is true that there is a tinge of Mary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boys show up for her like a bevy of tuxedoed dancers escorting Liza Minnelli from the stage .
But I found it moving to see Beth , who has spent so many hours and evenings studying the chess moves of dead men in books , discover that she has support among the living .

In 1884, the American star chess player Paul Morphy was found dead in his bathtub, at the age of forty-seven. “The pride and the sorrow of chess is gone forever,” the Austrian chess master Wilhelm Steinitz wrote in an elegy, the following year. Morphy had begun winning citywide tournaments in his native New Orleans at the age of nine. By the time he was twenty, he was the United States champion, and by the time he was twenty-one, many considered him to be the best player on earth. In 1858, Morphy held a notorious “blindfold” exhibition, in Paris, at the Café de la Régence: he sat in one room while eight opponents sat in another and called out his moves without looking at a single board. He played for ten hours straight, without stopping to eat, and ended the night with six wins and two draws. But Morphy grew bored; he was so gifted at chess that he began to consider it a child’s game. He walked away from competition and opened a law office, but the business quickly failed. He spent his final two decades living as a vagabond on family money, growing increasingly paranoid and haunted by his former fame.
The parable of Paul Morphy and his squandered genius pops up halfway through the fifth episode of “The Queen’s Gambit,” Scott Frank and Allan Scott’s handsome, dexterous new Netflix miniseries, based on Walter Tevis’s 1983 novel of the same name, about a female chess prodigy from Lexington, Kentucky, and her pursuit of a world title in the late nineteen-sixties. The prodigy in question, Beth Harmon (Anya Taylor-Joy), is speaking to her friend and sometimes lover Harry Beltik (Harry Melling), a local chess champion with capped teeth and a nebbishy demeanor. Harry, who has been living with Beth to help her train for an upcoming match against the dominant Russian champion, Borgov, in Paris, announces that he will be moving out. He realizes that he has taught Beth all he knows, and that, in turn, she has taught him that his own passion for the game will never compare to hers. As he leaves, he hands her a tattered copy of the book “Paul Morphy and the Golden Age of Chess,” by William Ewart Napier. “You think that’s gonna be me?” Beth sneers, with a diffident jutting of her chin. “I think that is you,” Harry replies.
In Beth’s case, the sorrow that threatens to undercut her pride is not boredom with the game. She loves the game, and has since, as a young orphan, she began sneaking away from classes at the Methuen Home For Girls to play chess in the basement with the gruff janitor, Mr. Shaibel. Chess, for her, is a refuge; her trouble is everything else. When Beth was nine years old, her birth mother killed herself by crashing a car, with Beth still in it. As a teen-ager, Beth is adopted by an unhappy couple, the Wheatleys, who divorce soon after she moves in. Alma Wheatley (played, in a quietly devastating performance, by the film director and sometimes actor Marielle Heller, with a period-accurate, stilted manner of speaking that includes phrases like “my tranquility needs to be refurbished”) is a familiar type, the depressive midcentury housewife, chipper at the department store but a mess at home. She and Beth have an addiction in common: inhaling fistfuls of green tranquilizer pills in order to maintain a façade of equilibrium. Beth was first given the medication at Methuen, where she would take it at night and hallucinate chess games on the ceiling, the pieces dancing above her head like tipsy débutantes.
This premise might suggest that “The Queen’s Gambit” will be a predictable variation on the trope of the damaged genius, the poor brilliant maverick who is held back only by buried trauma. Yet the show, which begins with Beth as a child (played with a placid scowl by Isla Johnston) and then jumps forward to follow her through her teen years and early adulthood, proceeds less like a dark psychological drama or a gritty underdog sporting tale and more like the origin story of a wizard, or a superheroine. Beth is assiduous, serious, well-read, almost nunlike in her studies of strategies such as the Ruy Lopez and the Sicilian Defense (as a teen-ager, she’s so desperate to read chess magazines that she shoplifts them from the local pharmacy). We see her decimate her opponents, easily winning tournaments against men twice her age. She learns to speak Russian in anticipation of facing the Soviets one day. She plays through games by herself for hours—in her head, on the edge of the bathtub, on the kitchen counter. She rarely wavers in her confidence, and can often come across as arrogant, or at least disarmingly unflappable. When Alma discovers that Beth’s talent could be a ticket to a better life for them both—prize money, international travel, fame—Beth doesn’t resent the fact that she is soon supporting her adoptive mother (and her fondness for Gibson cocktails) but, instead, embraces their arrangement as business partners. Alma doesn’t really understand chess, but she has other skills to teach—through her, Beth is introduced to cosmetics, classical music, and her first beer, and gains a companion who is kind, if not quite maternal.
What makes “The Queen’s Gambit” so satisfying comes in large measure from the character Taylor-Joy brings to screen: a charming, elegant weirdo who delivers her lines with a cool, wintergreen snap, and never really reacts the way one might expect. Taylor-Joy, whose breakout role was in the 2015 horror film “The Witch,” starred in Autumn de Wilde’s eminently lovable new adaptation of “Emma,” and she will step into the role of Furiosa in the anticipated “Mad Max” prequel that starts filming next year. But “The Queen’s Gambit” is her star-making performance, a showcase for her particular oddball brand of elegance. Nearly every review of the series has mentioned Taylor-Joy’s eyes, which are the size of silver dollars and set far apart, giving her the appearance of a beautiful hammerhead shark. But what she brings to “The Queen’s Gambit” is a peculiar poise, a capricious hauteur that is willowy but never weak. Taylor-Joy’s background is in ballet, and as Beth she brings a subtle physicality to the game of chess. The chess masters Garry Kasparov and Bruce Pandolfini, who consulted on the show, taught Taylor-Joy how professionals move the pieces along the board, but, as she told the magazine Chess Life, she developed her own way of gliding her hands across the board. When she captures a piece, she floats her long fingers above it and then gently flicks it into her palm, like she is fishing a shiny stone out of a river. When she begins a game, she rests her chin on her delicate folded hands, like a female mantis preparing to feast, staring at her opponent with such unblinking intensity that at least once I had to glance away from the screen.
There has been some grumbling that Taylor-Joy’s twiggy beauty—as svelte, white, and doll-like as it is—undercuts the story “The Queen’s Gambit” tells; is it not enough for a woman to beat the boys without her having to look like a Richard Avedon editorial? But for me the glamour of the series is another of its quiet subversions. In life and on screen, chess is considered the domain of hoary men in moth-eaten cardigans, playing in smoky gymnasia that reek of stale coffee. “The Queen’s Gambit,” instead, finds an unlikely synergy between the heady interiority of chess and the sensual realm of style. Beth develops a prim, gamine flair for fashion with the same studied meticulousness that she brings to the chessboard, and in the course of the show her look evolves apace with her game. She spends her first chess winnings on a new plaid dress; she grows out her blunt baby bangs and adopts a more feminine, Rita Hayworth-esque waved bob. Her covetable wardrobe, of mod minidresses and boxy crepe blouses in creamy shades of mint green and eggshell, makes her a press darling, who gets asked about her look at chess junkets. Her clothing, along with the show’s dazzling interiors (not only the Wheatleys’ home, a sumptuous parade of sherbet-colored floral wallpaper, but the many swanky hotel suites that Alma and Beth stay in on the road), calls to mind the aesthetic enchantments of “Mad Men,” the nineteen-sixties period piece against which every other nineteen-sixties period piece will forever be measured (and the fervor around “The Queen’s Gambit” ’s costume design has similarly hijacked the zeitgeist, inspiring close readings in Vogue and a zazzy virtual exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum). In turn, the game of chess, in “The Queen’s Gambit,” sheds its schlubbiness and reveals a bewitching (and, it must be said, sometimes erotic) elegance. When a reporter from Life presses Beth for a juicy quote on what it’s like to be a girl competing among men, Beth demurs. “Chess isn’t always competitive,” she says. “Chess can also be beautiful.”


newyorker--2020-11-13--Two Comedians Walk into a Zoom Meeting

Two Comedians Walk into a Zoom Meeting

Between the two of them , Steve Martin and Jerry Seinfeld have a combined century of experience in the delicate @ @ @ @ @ During a conversation with The New Yorker ’ s Susan Morrison , they talk about @ @ @ @ @ “ funny friend , ” and the importance of irritability .
Yo-Yo Ma and Emanuel @ @ @ @ @ politics of the cello and perform from his sonatas ; and Jane Mayer looks at @ @ @ @ @ game .
David Remnick talks with the writer about the chaotic post-election period , and @ @ @ @ @ recognize Joe Biden as President-elect .
The two comedians talk with the editor Susan Morrison @ @ @ @ @ New Yorker Festival .
Yo-Yo Ma and Emanuel Ax on Beethoven ’ s Politics of @ @ @ @ @ and Emanuel Ax explain how familiar music has taken on a new tone during the @ @

Illustration by Golden Cosmos
Between the two of them, Steve Martin and Jerry Seinfeld have a combined century of experience in the delicate art of the joke. During a conversation with The New Yorker’s Susan Morrison, they talk about their beginnings, their first “funny friend,” and the importance of irritability. Yo-Yo Ma and Emanuel Ax discuss Beethoven’s politics of the cello and perform from his sonatas; and Jane Mayer looks at the G.O.P.’s post-Trump game.
Jane Mayer on the G.O.P.’s Post-Trump Game
David Remnick talks with the writer about the chaotic post-election period, and why some Republicans decline to recognize Joe Biden as President-elect.
Steve Martin and Jerry Seinfeld Walk into a Zoom Meeting
The two comedians talk with the editor Susan Morrison at this year’s New Yorker Festival.
Yo-Yo Ma and Emanuel Ax on Beethoven’s Politics of the Cello
Musicians Yo-Yo Ma and Emanuel Ax explain how familiar music has taken on a new tone during the pandemic.