What Climate Change Means for Summertime Bugs

With summer around the corner, so too are the bugs. Insects, much like their human counterparts, are more lively in the spring and summer when the weather is warmer. And climate change means that globally summers on average could get less buggy. But when it comes to some of the more pesky pests, like ticks and mosquitoes, it could feel like there are more of them as they broaden their range of habitat or timing when they emerge for the season.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Our changing climate, however, stands to impact different species of insects in different ways. Studies show that globally an increasing number of insects could be at risk for extinction. Many are also emerging either earlier or later in the year than they used to as weather patterns change. While you might be hoping to put away the bug spray, experts warn that the change could have harmful impacts on ecosystems, agriculture, and in some cases, health. 

Some insects are adapting to changing climates by moving to regions that might have previously been unsuitable.“They are not just expanding their ranges, but they’re becoming more abundant in places where maybe they weren’t as abundant before,” says Anahí Espíndola, associate professor of entomology at the University of Maryland, College Park.

For some species, this can be cause for concern. For example, climate change is lengthening mosquito season and expanding the areas where mosquito-borne diseases like malaria or West Nile virus may spread. “The likelihood of certain diseases being transmitted in places where those diseases weren’t really a problem before are increasing, and we are expecting those problems to actually become worse as temperatures continue to increase,” says Espíndola.

Read more: How Climate Change Affects the Spread of Lyme Disease

In the U.S., the number of “mosquito days” with warm, humid weather the insects thrive on, have increased around the country, according to an analysis by Climate Central. Climate change is also increasing the geographical range of ticks—which could increase the spread of Lyme disease.

Shifts in weather patterns meanwhile are causing some insect species to emerge at different times of the year than they once did. This change in timing can impact the insect’s chance of survival—and that of the other species that might rely on it. “Right now, we’re seeing increases in temperature and increases in drought, and that will have impacts on the ability of species to survive in certain places, and the ability of species to interact with the right organisms,” says Espíndola. “If you’re a pollinator, and you’re emerging and you are looking for a particular group of plants that you’re going to be collecting pollen or nectar from, if that plant has already flowered, you have this temporal mismatch with organisms that you should be interacting with to be able to survive.”

The misalignment stands to have big impacts on ecosystems—changing how a species interacts with plants and other organisms. “That’s a big concern, because those insects are pollinators for crops and they are part of food chains for terrestrial animals, and are critical to a lot of ecosystems, as well as pollinators to our own food production,” says Mario Gallio, professor in the department of neurobiology at Northwestern University, whose work focuses on how temperature impacts insect behavior. 

Pollination changes stand to impact our food systems. Over 80% of all flowering plant species are pollinated by animals, mostly insects, with pollinators playing a role in over 35% of the world’s crop production. Wasps, for example, are reportedly declining in population in England as the country sees more rainy days and flooding—impacting pollination and ecosystems. 

While sometimes annoying, insects are more important than many of us give them credit for, say experts. “The biodiversity ecosystem, animals, birds, everything depends on robust food chains that often have insects as an important component,” says Gallio. “We are looking at impoverishing all sorts of ecosystems that have this one step that involves insects. For people who care about nature, it’s scary, for people who care about their food, it’s scary. There is plenty to be concerned about.”

source https://time.com/7287025/climate-change-summer-bugs-insects/

Fear of Failure Can Sabotage Business Leaders

While there is tremendous uncertainty right now, even in stable times, executives tend to overweigh the potential for losses relative to gains. We have been working with companies on making strategic investment decisions for over 30 years each and we have found consistently executives weigh losses more heavily than gains and pass on opportunities that could be beneficial for shareholders and other stakeholders. With the increasing instability in the market, executives are likely to become even more wary to take risks of any size. 

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

In a 2012 McKinsey survey of 1,500 global executives across many industries, we presented the executives with the following scenario: You are considering making a $10 million investment that has some chance of returning, in present value, $40 million over three years, with some chance of losing the entire investment in the first year. What is the highest loss you would tolerate and still proceed with the investment?

A risk-neutral executive would be willing to accept a 75% chance of loss and a 25% chance of gain. One-quarter of $40 million is $10 million, which is the initial investment, so a 25% chance of gain creates an expected risk-neutral value of zero. But most survey respondents demonstrated extreme loss aversion; they were willing to accept only a 19% chance of loss to make this investment, nowhere near the risk-neutral answer of 75%. In fact, only 9 percent of respondents were willing to accept a 40% or greater chance of loss. Informally, we’ve asked groups of executives the same question at even lower levels of investment and found similar results.

This phenomenon has serious consequences for hierarchical organizations. Executives are just as loss-averse when the bets are small as they are when the gambles are large, even though small gambles do not raise the same issues of survival or ruin that provide a rationale for aversion to large risks. What’s more, small gambles offer opportunities for the risk-reducing effects of aggregation. Since many experts predict a recession in the near future, this only stokes the fear of loss further when the hesitance is high to begin with.

Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, puts it this way: “I always point out that there are two different kinds of failure. There’s experimental failure—that’s the kind of failure you should be happy with. And there’s operational failure. We’ve built hundreds of fulfillment centers at Amazon over the years. … If we build a new fulfillment center and it’s a disaster, that’s just bad execution. That’s not good failure. But when we are developing a new product or service or experimenting in some way, and it doesn’t work, that’s okay. That’s great failure.”

To overcome loss aversion and make better investment decisions, individuals and organizations must learn to frame choices in the context of the entire company’s success, not the individual project’s performance. In practice, this means looking at projects as a portfolio by aggregating them, rather than focusing on the risk of individual projects. It might also mean altering incentives for individual executives to overcome the wrong framing of the decision.       

That’s easy in theory, but executives are typically concerned about the risk of their own projects and the potential impact on their careers. That’s why those decisions should be elevated to executives with a broader portfolio of projects whose risks cancel each other out. Often, the decisions must be pushed up to the CEO. 

To be most effective, companies also must encourage middle-level managers and other employees to propose risky ideas. Companies can do this by eliminating risks to the employee. Many employees censor themselves because of concerns that their careers will suffer if their idea for a project fails. To overcome this concern, it’s important to agree on the various risks up front with the top leadership and conduct post-mortems on projects, particularly to identify causes of failure. If a project fails because the decision to go ahead with the project turns out to be incorrect (which should happen frequently), that failure should not bear on the manager responsible for the project. The responsible manager should only be accountable for the quality of execution of the project.                                 

One technology company successfully used a portfolio approach to assess its projects. First, executives estimated the expected return of each project proposal (measured as expected present value divided by investment) and the risks associated with each (measured as the standard deviation of projected returns). Executives then built portfolios of projects and identified combinations that would deliver the best balance between return and risk. When they viewed portfolios of projects in the aggregate, executives could see that portfolios of projects had higher returns than most of the individual projects and much lower risk compared with most of the individual projects.                           

It’s worth pointing out that even though a portfolio of projects has lower risk, the use of portfolios does not lower a company’s cost of capital. That’s because the portfolio, by definition, cannot reduce the non-diversifiable risk, which is the risk embedded in the cost of capital.

Executives squander good corporate strategy when they lack the courage needed to turn ideas into value-creating actions.

Excerpted with permission from the publisher, Wiley, from Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies by Tim Koller, Marc Goedhart, and David Wessels. Copyright © 2025 by McKinsey & Company. All rights reserved. This book is available wherever books and eBooks are sold.

source https://time.com/7286994/fear-failure-business-leaders/

Political Leaders Offer Messages of Support to Former President Biden After Cancer Diagnosis

Political leaders from across parties in the U.S. extended their sympathies to Democratic former President Joe Biden, 82, after his office announced Sunday that he was diagnosed with an “aggressive” form of prostate cancer.

Biden, who served as Vice President from 2009 to 2017 and President from 2021 to January, and his family are reviewing treatment options, according to the announcement. His Administrations had made addressing cancer a priority, launching the “Cancer Moonshot” initiative to try to make it such that “a diagnosis isn’t a death sentence.” Biden lost his son Beau in 2015 to brain cancer.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Here are some of the messages of support for Biden that have come in since his diagnosis was made public:

Donald Trump

President Donald Trump, who has constantly attacked Biden’s health and cognitive ability from the 2024 campaign trail to the present, sent well wishes to Biden in a post on his social media platform Truth Social. “Melania and I are saddened to hear about Joe Biden’s recent medical diagnosis,” Trump said, referencing the First Lady. “We extend our warmest and best wishes to Jill and the family, and we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery.”

Kamala Harris and Doug Emhoff

Biden’s Vice President Kamala Harris, who became the Democratic presidential nominee in the 2024 election after Biden pulled out of the race amid concerns about his fitness, posted on X: “Doug [Emhoff] and I are saddened to learn of President Biden’s prostate cancer diagnosis. We are keeping him, Dr. [Jill] Biden, and their entire family in our hearts and prayers during this time. Joe is a fighter—and I know he will face this challenge with the same strength, resilience, and optimism that have always defined his life and leadership. We are hopeful for a full and speedy recovery.”

Doug Emhoff, the former Second Gentleman, replied with a brief message of his own to Biden: “Sending love and strength to my friend @JoeBiden.”

Barack Obama

Former President Barack Obama, whom Biden served with as Vice President for two terms, also wished Biden well in a post on X: “Michelle and I are thinking of the entire Biden family. Nobody has done more to find breakthrough treatments for cancer in all its forms than Joe, and I am certain he will fight this challenge with his trademark resolve and grace. We pray for a fast and full recovery.”

Bill and Hillary Clinton 

The Clintons also wished Biden well.

Former President Bill Clinton, who was diagnosed with skin cancer at the end of his presidency in 2001, posted on X: “My friend Joe Biden’s always been a fighter. Hillary and I are rooting for him and are keeping him, Jill, and the entire family in our thoughts.”

Meanwhile, former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton also posted a message for Biden and his family. “I’m thinking of the Bidens as they take on cancer, a disease they’ve done so much to try to spare other families from,” Clinton posted. “Wishing you a speedy, full recovery.”

Marco Rubio

Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a brief statement on X on behalf of himself and his wife: “Jeanette and I are united in prayer for the Biden Family during this difficult time.”

Pete Buttigieg

Pete Buttigieg, who ran against Biden in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary and then worked under Biden as Transportation Secretary, posted on X: “President Biden is a man of deep faith and extraordinary resilience. Chasten and I are keeping him, and the entire Biden family, in our prayers for strength and healing.”

Xavier Becerra

Biden’s former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra extended his well wishes to Biden and his family on X: “Sending our strength and prayers to President Biden, Dr. Biden and family as they navigate his treatment together.”

Mike Johnson

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R, La.) also extended well wishes to Biden. “This is certainly sad news, and the Johnson family will be joining the countless others who are praying for the former President in the wake of his diagnosis,” Johnson posted on X.

Steve Scalise

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R, La.), who battled blood cancer after a 2023 diagnosis, also posted on X: “Praying for former President Joe Biden as he battles prostate cancer 🙏”

Hakeem Jeffries

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D, N.Y.) issued a statement shortly after Biden’s cancer diagnosis went public. “The House Democratic Caucus and our nation are praying for President Joe Biden and his family as he battles this challenging medical diagnosis,” Jeffries said. “Over the years, the Biden family has confronted unimaginable adversity with grace and steadfast perseverance. We stand with President Biden as he confronts this moment with the same courage and resilience he has shown throughout his life.”

Nancy Pelosi

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, Calif.) posted on X: “President Joe Biden is a great American patriot. Paul and I join the millions across the country and around the world praying for him to have strength and a swift recovery in the battle against cancer. Sending love to him and his family.”

Chuck Schumer

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, N.Y.) posted on X: “I am praying for President Biden and the entire Biden family.”

Vivek Ramaswamy

Vivek Ramaswamy, former 2024 Republican presidential primary candidate who is now running for Governor in Ohio, posted on X: “Politics aside, let’s pray for the health of our nation’s former President. His case of metastatic prostate cancer appears to be still in the hormone-sensitive disease stage, which leaves open the possibility of effective treatment.” Ramaswamy, a billionaire, made his fortune building a biotech company that went on to develop drugs including for prostate cancer treatment.

Governors

Mike Dunleavy

Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R, Alaska) posted on X: “Rose and I are praying for Joe Biden and his family, and we wish him a swift recovery.”

Katie Hobbs

“This is horrible news,” Gov. Katie Hobbs (D, Ariz.) posted on X. “My heart is with former President Biden and his entire family.”

Gavin Newsom

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D, Calif.) posted on X: “Our hearts are with President Biden and his entire family right now. A man of dignity, strength, and compassion like his deserves to live a long and beautiful life. Sending strength, healing and prayers his way.”

Brian Kemp

Gov. Brian Kemp (R. Ga.) posted on X: “All Georgians send our sincere wishes to former President Biden for successful treatments and a full recovery. He and the Biden family will remain in our thoughts and prayers in the coming days and weeks.”

JB Pritzker

Gov. JB Pritzker (D, Ill.) also posted a message of support for Biden on X: “President Biden knows that when you get knocked down, you get back up and fight. I join the nation in sending strength to President Biden and his family and hope for a full recovery. We’re with you in this fight, Joe.”

Wes Moore

Gov. Wes Moore (D, Md.) posted on X: “Dawn and I carry @JoeBiden and his family in our hearts today. He stood with me during some of the toughest times in our state, and we stand with him today. We pray for his strength and a swift recovery.”

Tim Walz

Gov. Tim Walz (D, Minn.), who was Harris’ running mate in 2024, called Biden “a truly decent man and a friend” in a post on X. “Gwen and I are praying for President Biden and his family,” Walz wrote. “We’re wishing him all the best.”

Phil Murphy

Gov. Phil Murphy (D, N.J.) posted on X: “Tammy and I are keeping former President @JoeBiden in our prayers and wishing Jill and the entire Biden family strength during this difficult time.”

Kathy Hochul

Gov. Kathy Hochul (D, N.Y.) posted on X: “President Biden has served our nation with distinction. During this difficult time, Bill and I are praying for his health and a speedy recovery.”

Josh Shapiro

Gov. Josh Shapiro (D, Pa.) posted on X that he and his wife Lori were praying for Biden’s family. “May they find strength and hope in one another, and be lifted up by the thoughts and prayers of Americans across the country who are thinking of them right now,” Shapiro wrote.

Other Democratic lawmakers

Chris Coons

Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, where Biden formerly served as Senator from 1973 to 2009, posted on X: “Annie and I are praying for Joe and Jill as they confront his prostate cancer diagnosis. Over his decades of public service, Joe comforted so many of us in tough times and contributed so much to fighting cancer. Now we need to support and encourage him.”

Eric Swalwell

California Rep. Eric Swalwell posted on X: “My thoughts and prayers are with Joe Biden and his family as they navigate this challenging time. I am wishing him strength and a swift recovery.”

Jasmine Crockett

Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett posted on X: “My heart is with President Biden and his family. Lifting him up in prayer and wishing him a peaceful, successful healing journey.”

John Fetterman

Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who has battled with his own health issues, posted on X: “Joe has been a fighter his whole life. He will prevail. Sending Dr. Jill Biden and their family my absolute support.”

Joyce Beatty

Ohio Rep. Joyce Beatty expressed support for Biden in a post on X. “President @JoeBiden your resilience and strength have always inspired us. As you face this health challenge, my prayers are with you—for continued courage, grace in this moment of trial, and a full recovery.”

Lisa Blunt Rochester

Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware posted on X: “To President Biden, know that I am sending you prayers for peace and healing. And to Jill and the entire family, you have a legion of friends and supporters who stand with you on this journey.”

Peter Welch

Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont posted on X: “Margaret and I are praying for President Biden, Jill, and the Biden family during this difficult time. We join Vermonters in wishing him a full recovery.

Ro Khanna

California Rep. Ro Khanna posted on X: “Praying for @JoeBiden and his family to defeat the cancer he’s recently been diagnosed with. He and Jill have always been fighters and I am confident they will meet this challenge with grit and grace.”

Ruben Gallego

Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona posted on X: “My heart goes out to President Biden and his family in light of this terrible news. Sydney and I are praying for his strength and recovery.”

Tim Kaine

Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who was Hillary Clinton’s running mate in the 2016 presidential election, said in a post on X that he was praying for Biden and his family “as they take on this challenge.” Kaine added: “Americans will be with them every step of the way.”

Other Republican lawmakers

Anna Paulina Luna

Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna said in a post on X that she was praying for Biden’s recovery. “This is very sad news,” Luna added.

Marjorie Taylor Greene

Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, an outspoken critic of Biden and Democrats, expressed sympathy for the former President and his family after the diagnosis was revealed. “I’m sorry to see this news,” she posted on X. “Cancer is truly awful. My Dad passed away in 2021 with cancer. Prays for Joe Biden and his family.”

Mike Lawler

New York Rep. Mike Lawler, who also lost his father to cancer, posted on X: “Keeping former President ⁦@JoeBiden⁩ and his family in my prayers. Cancer is a vicious disease that spares no one. We all hope for a speedy recovery.”

Roger Marshall

Sen. Roger Marshall from Kansas posted on X: “Laina and I are sending heartfelt prayers for President Biden and his family as he fights cancer. Please join us in praying for strength, comfort, and hope during this difficult time.”

Susan Collins

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine posted on X that she was “saddened to hear of President Biden’s cancer diagnosis” and is “wishing him and his family well as he begins treatment.”

Thom Tillis

Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina posted on X: “Susan and I are saddened to hear about President Biden’s prostate cancer diagnosis and are praying for his full recovery.”

source https://time.com/7286363/biden-prostate-cancer-diagnosis-reactions-statements-support-political-leaders-trump/

How a Departure From the Video Game Reframes Joel and Ellie’s Relationship in The Last of Us Season 2

Warning: This post contains spoilers for Episode 6 of The Last of Us Season 2.

For those who were wondering what exactly went down between Joel (Pedro Pascal) and Ellie (Bella Ramsey) in the time between Seasons 1 and 2 of The Last of Us to create such a rift between them, Sunday night’s episode finally provided some answers.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Episode 6, the penultimate installment of Season 2, was made up almost entirely of flashbacks to those five intervening years, with the show revisiting Joel and Ellie nearly every year on Ellie’s birthday. While some of these flashbacks—like their poignant visit to the museum—were pulled from The Last of Us Part II video game, the show also took some liberties with the source material that resulted in a bit of a different spin on how their relationship ultimately fractured.

One pivotal scene, which took place on Ellie’s 19th birthday (her final one before Joel’s murder), revolved around the death of a character you hear of in the game but never actually meet: Eugene (Joe Pantoliano). We learned earlier this season from therapist Gail (Catherine O’Hara) that she and Eugene were married for 41 years prior to his passing and that she was still pretty upset with Joel for the way he died, even if it was unavoidable.

“You shot and killed my husband. You killed Eugene. And I resent you for it,” she told Joel in the Season 2 premiere. “No, maybe a little more than that. I hate you for it. I hate you for it. And yes, I know you had no choice. I know that. I know I should forgive you. Well, I’ve tried, and I can’t. Because of how you did it.”

This sets up a pretty big departure from the game, in which a conversation between Ellie and Dina (played in the show by Isabela Merced) reveals that Eugene simply died from a stroke. The gist of what players learn about him beyond that is that he was once a member of the Fireflies who left the militia group because he grew “tired of killing people” and that he had become Jackson’s resident marijuana farmer. Some of these details were kept the same in the show, but his end was much less peaceful.

“I get excited when I see these opportunities,” series co-creator Neil Druckmann told Variety of the changes. “I’m like, ‘Oh, I don’t know Eugene that well!’ The story we told [in the game] was somewhat superficial. The way this character comes in really gets to the heart of Joel and Ellie and their relationship.”

As we see play out in Episode 6, by the time Ellie was turning 19, she had already been pulling away from Joel for some time, as she had begun to suspect he had lied about everything that went down at the Fireflies’ Salt Lake City compound. On the morning of her birthday, we saw her practicing asking him to finally tell her the truth about what had happened. However, she was interrupted by Joel showing up to take her on her first patrol around Jackson.

Although Joel clearly thought the patrol would be uneventful, they ended up being called on to provide backup for an infected attack. But when they arrived on the scene, all they found was Eugene, who had been bitten in the fray. Eugene knew he was done for but wanted to be brought back to Jackson’s gate so he and Gail could say their goodbyes. Joel initially refused, but Ellie eventually convinced him—or so she thought—that Eugene had enough time left before turning to fulfill his last wish.

After telling Ellie to go on ahead and promising her he would follow with Eugene, Joel instead led Eugene to the lakefront and shot him in the head. When they returned to Jackson with Eugene’s body, Joel tried to lie to Gail about what happened, telling her Eugene had bravely ended his own life after being bitten so as not to put anyone in danger. However, an angry Ellie then chimed to tell Gail that was all a lie and revealed what Joel had really done.

Nine months later, on the night before Joel’s death, this led to a confrontation between Joel and Ellie during which she finally learned the truth about what he did to save her from the Fireflies. Although Ellie initially lashed out at him for taking away her life’s purpose, the conversation ended with Ellie tearfully saying that she wanted to try to forgive him. It was a moment that recontextualized Ellie’s anguish over seeing Abby (Kaitlyn Dever) kill Joel the following day and helped explain why she’s now on such a revenge warpath.

source https://time.com/7285666/the-last-of-us-season-2-episode-6-eugene/

Former President Joe Biden Diagnosed With ‘Aggressive’ Form of Prostate Cancer

WASHINGTON — Former President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with prostate cancer, his office said Sunday.

Biden was seen by doctors last week after urinary symptoms and a prostate nodule were found. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer on Friday, with the cancer cells having spread to the bone.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management,” his office said. “The President and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians.”

Prostate cancers are given a score called a Gleason score that measures, on a scale of 1 to 10, how the cancerous cells look compared with normal cells. Biden’s office said his score was 9, suggesting his cancer is among the most aggressive.

When prostate cancer spreads to other parts of the body, it often spreads to the bones. Metastasized cancer is much harder to treat than localized cancer because it can be hard for drugs to reach all the tumors and completely root out the disease.

However, when prostate cancers need hormones to grow, as in Biden’s case, they can be susceptible to treatment that deprives the tumors of hormones.

Many political leaders sent Biden their wishes for his recovery.

President Donald Trump, a longtime political opponent, posted on social media that he was saddened by the news and “we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery.”

Pete Buttigieg, who was Biden’s transportation secretary, called the former president “a man of deep faith and extraordinary resilience.”

The health of Biden, 82, was a dominant concern among voters during his time as president. After a calamitous debate performance in June while seeking reelection, Biden abandoned his bid for a second term. Then-Vice President Kamala Harris became the nominee and lost to Trump, a Republican who returned to the White House after a four-year hiatus.

But in recent days, Biden rejected concerns about his age despite reporting in the new book “Original Sin” by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson that aides had shielded the public from the extent of his decline while serving as president.

In February 2023, Biden had a skin lesion removed from his chest that was a basal cell carcinoma, a common form of skin cancer. And in November 2021, he had a polyp removed from his colon that was a benign, but potentially pre-cancerous lesion.

In 2022, Biden made a “cancer moonshot” one of his administration’s priorities with the goal of halving the cancer death rate over the next 25 years. The initiative was a continuation of his work as vice president to address a disease that had killed his older son, Beau, who died from brain cancer in 2015.

His father, when announcing the goal to halve the cancer death rate, said this could be an “American moment to prove to ourselves and, quite frankly, the world that we can do really big things.”

—Associated Press writer Jon Fahey in New York contributed to this report.

source https://time.com/7286346/joe-biden-prostate-cancer-diagnosis/

Richard Linklater’s Breathless Tribute Nouvelle Vague Is an Inside Baseball Movie for Everyone

Some days it seems we live in a horrid world where the majority of humans couldn’t give a fig about art. How many people in that world are going to care about a 66-year-old black-and-white movie—one that, for anyone who doesn’t speak French, requires the reading of subtitles?

Yet here comes a comet: Richard Linklater’s sensational Nouvelle Vague, an agile, witty, elegant picture about the making of a movie that possibly only film lovers and bona fide old people care about—Jean-Luc Godard’s cannon-shot of a debut, 1959’s Breathless—may end up being appreciated by only about 2.6 percent of the general population. Who would make a picture like that? Only someone who cares. Nouvelle Vague, which premiered at the Cannes Film Festival on May 17, is the ultimate inside-baseball making-of movie. But even more than that, it’s a picture that stands strong on the side of art, of history, of working to solve the puzzle of things that maybe at first you don’t fully understand. It’s both a shout of joy and a call to arms. It’s all about the bold, muscular act of caring.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Jean-Luc Godard was just 29 when he made À bout de souffle—the movie that would come to be known among English-speakers as Breathless—and yet he felt he was lagging behind his peers at Cahiers du Cinéma, the movie journal whose critics became, almost magically, some of the era’s greatest filmmakers. Critics as filmmakers? Beware: it’s a lousy idea. Yet Godard’s Cahiers colleague François Truffaut had already made The 400 Blows, a picture Godard loved, and envied. Ambitious, bratty, and brilliant in a playing-behind-the-beat way, Godard wanted to make his own movie. But who would give him the money?

Read more: The 100 Best Movies of the Past 10 Decades

Nouvelle Vague tells the story of how the enigmatically charming yet sort-of-a-jerk Godard—played, marvelously, by Guillame Marbeck—wheedled his way into making Breathless, shot in just 20 days, guerrilla-style, largely on the streets of Paris. He already had ideas for several films, and in an early scene, he pitches them excitedly to producer Georges de Beauregard (Bruno Dreyfürsft). But Beauregard will hire him only if he shoots a script that Truffaut (played here by Adrien Rouyard) has already written. That script, inspired by a real-life story Truffaut had seen in the newspaper, followed a raffishly alluring French layabout, Jean Paul Belmondo’s Michel Poiccard, who steals a car, shoots a cop, and is ultimately betrayed by his American journalist girlfriend, Jean Seberg’s gamine femme fatale Patricia Franchini.

Godard gets to work finding his cast. He wants his friend Belmondo (Aubry Dullin) to play Michel: he goes to the boxing gym where the amiable, loose-limbed actor is working out, joining him in a jump-rope session as he makes his pitch. Can he get Jean Seberg (Zoey Deutsch), already a star, to play Patricia? Boldly, he makes his move, first approaching her husband, François Moreuil (Paolo Luka-Noe), who’s managing her career. She doesn’t like the idea: she doesn’t want to work with this newcomer; she thinks the whole thing will come crashing down; and even after shooting begins, she threatens to quit. Somehow, she sticks with it, at times following Godard’s capricious lead but just as often challenging him. He finds a DP he likes, the gentle giant Raoul Coutard (Matthieu Penchinat). There’s a persnickety script girl, Suzon Faye (Pauline Belle), who tries to tell her boss Godard that for continuity’s sake, he can’t remove a cup from a table in one of the small flats the crew has commandeered as a set. “Reality is not continuity!” he says, just one of the many bossy, spontaneous, maddeningly delightful pronouncements he will make as he and his friends—all of them under 30, most of them with virtually no idea what they’re doing—launch into the adventure of making a moving picture.

Don’t know who any of these real-life characters are, or what they look like? Linklater’s got you. He has filled his cast largely with unknowns, seeking actors who closely resemble their real-life counterparts; most of these aren’t faces you’ll recognize, playing people from the past you may never have heard of. But Linklater introduces each player with his or her name neatly emblazoned at the bottom of the screen, similar to the way characters (and often the actors playing them) used to be identified in silent movies, so audiences could get their bearings quickly. It’s easy to follow along, and before you know it, you’re surfing this nascent New Wave with the people who helped create it, held aloft by the buoyancy of Godard and his ramshackle—yet perfectly chosen—team of accomplices.

Godard would start each day of shooting with fresh ideas. When he ran out of them, sometimes after shooting only one or two scenes, he’d quit for the day. Some days, on a whim, he’d call off shooting altogether, causing Beauregard to materialize seemingly out of nowhere in an understandable huff. To shoot on the street without attracting attention, they obtain a postal cart and put the camera—as well as Coutard—inside. Every five minutes or so, Godard blurts out a favorite aphorism. You may already know some of them, like “All you need for a movie is a girl and a gun.” But so many of them flow from his lips that they become a running gag. He quotes Gaugin (“Art is either plagiarism or revolution”), Duke Ellington (“I don’t need time, I need a deadline”), Leonardo Da Vinci (“Art is never finished, only abandoned”). Marbeck, peering out at the world through dark glasses, shaking his pipe at his cast and crew as he spins out his sometimes puzzling directives, captures the impish magnetism of the young Godard. You want to slug him; you also adore him.

And to watch him, his cast, and his friends make this thing—a movie we freely call a masterpiece, though that’s too snoozy a word for the blast of cool energy that is Breathless—is a particular kind of bliss. Nouvelle Vague is filled with lore: Godard has hired a stuntman to film a somewhat complex scene in which a pedestrian is hit by a car. In the end, he decides to shoot just the aftermath of the accident, getting his friend and fellow filmmaker Jacques Rivette (Jonas Marmy) to lie down in the street and play dead. Deutsch, with her ragamuffin-chic blond pixie cut, is a perfect Seberg. To hear her speak in French, perfectly capturing the way Seberg’s dang-flat midwestern vowels insinuated themselves even in that most beautiful of languages, is a delight unto itself. (Seberg was born in Iowa, though she’s buried where she belongs, in Montparnasse Cemetery in Paris.) And as Belmondo, Dulling gives a performance of spectacular physicality, whether he’s scrambling in his pocket for chicken feed to buy a small café meal, or, after being shot, staggering and stumbling down a Paris street in a half-tragic, half-funny promenade, with Godard and his camera crew trailing behind. Watching Breathless, we see Belmondo’s jagged ballet from behind. In Nouvelle Vague, we see Dullin-as-Belmondo’s face as he swerves and zigzags toward his demise. Passers-by look alarmed; he tells them not to worry. “It’s for a movie!” he says cheerfully, channeling the essence of Belmondo’s rubbery charm.

Nouvelle Vague was filmed in Paris, but required extensive digital-effects work to make it look accurate for the period. This is filmmaking as leap of faith: Nouvelle Vague may seem glowingly modest, but unlike Breathless, it couldn’t be made on the cheap. At the same time, its layers of details are gorgeous and priceless. Pascaline Chavanne’s costumes, especially Seberg’s wardrobe of minute cardigans and jaunty silk scarves, strike every note perfectly. (And I’m dying to know what Derek Guy, the eminently knowledgeable wag behind the social-media account Die Workwear!, will think of Marbeck-as-Godard’s gently rumpled jackets and scuffed-just-right loafers.) Cinematographer David Chambille gives the images a lustrous, pearly depth. The soundtrack is a buffet of rapturous period jazz, some of it silky, some of it vibrating with skittery energy, much like Martial Solal’s score for Breathless itself. You’ll hear songs you maybe don’t know, like Zoot Sims’ version of “My Old Flame,” and if this is the first time it reaches your ears, I envy you the discovery.

Cannes is obviously the place to premiere a movie like Nouvelle Vague. That 2.6 percent of the population that cares about Breathless? Ninety-eight percent of them are here. But from things he’s said about the film, it seems Linklater doesn’t think of it as niche. And really, isn’t that the only way to go? According to the movie’s press notes, when an apprehensive financing executive asked him who he thought this film was for, he said, “Like all my films, this one is for young people.” It is, after all, about young people making their first movie. He said that if he did his job right, young people would walk out of the theater thinking, “I can do this too! In fact, I’m going to do it!”

But even if you will never in your life pick up a movie camera, Nouvelle Vague is film as invitation—the best kind of film. If you don’t know Breathless—what are you waiting for? And if you do know it—even if you’ve seen it a dozen or a hundred times—Nouvelle Vague will make you see it anew. Is there a difference between loving a movie and being in love with one? Maybe the distinction is subtle. But when a movie that makes you want to weep with joy, you know something is happening. There’s no resisting the gangster of love.

source https://time.com/7286313/nouvelle-vague-review-richard-linklater/

Medical and Scientific Research Makes America Great

While the Trump Administration’s sharp increases in tariffs have received much of the political and economic attention in our public discourse, there is another subject that could have a far more profound and longer-term negative effect on America which deserves equal, if not greater, attention. This is the serious threat to America’s basic, early stage medical and scientific research.

During World War II, Dr. Vannevar Bush took a leadership role in ensuring U.S. preeminence in science and research by creating the Office of Scientific Research and Development, which led to the creation of the National Science Foundation (NSF). Other similar scientific research institutions followed. And our academic, government, and business innovation collaboration has over time attracted some of the best talent—among both our own citizens and top scientists worldwide.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

But now, support for basic science and medical research is in danger of flatlining. We have witnessed a decline in trust for basic research in recent years. This has been accompanied by significant cuts in government financial support leading to sharp cuts in vital personnel in critical scientific and medical research programs at universities, laboratories, and highly regarded medical and scientific centers throughout the country.

These cuts do not discriminate. They are occurring in red and blue states alike—in Middle America as well as along the East and West Coasts. And this is not just occuring in highly prestigious and heavily funded institutions, but also on a broader scale. As a second order effect, innovation and advanced research in this country is not, and should not be, a monopoly of a few schools and institutions; and we run the risk that these cuts could also be imposed on smaller universities and research institutions in a wide range of cities and regions.

Over a decade ago, as Undersecretary of State responsible for overseeing the Department’s international economic policy, I wrote about the role of innovative, basic science in sustaining America’s global economic power, enhancing domestic prosperity, producing lifesaving new medicines, modernizing the technology used by our military, and creating breakthroughs in many transformational technologies.

Advancements in these areas have been critical to the prosperity and wellbeing of our society, as they are now with accelerating advances in AI and quantum computing. The ultimate benefits of these advances—if sustained—could last for generations to come, potentially providing the basis for many successful new businesses in our country, attracting the world’s top research talent to our nation, and generating millions of high quality jobs for those creating and applying new technologies.

Sustaining this progress will be especially vital to future domestic medical advances and the prosperity of millions of Americans in future generations. It could also enable this country to maintain a strong and technologically preeminent military—an ever more critical need today given the formidable technological competition from China—and shape the future of international scientific cooperation.

Preeminence in science, advanced technology, and medicine is also a key element of America’s soft power, strengthening friendships and alliances with countries that want to develop closer collaboration with U.S. universities, companies, and research centers. It benefits not only Americans but also provides better health and faster economic progress for others around the world. 

Preeminence is also needed for continued U.S. leadership in setting rules, norms, and common international practices to ensure that the results of this research are used for the good of our citizens—as opposed to doing harm to our national or global interests.

This dynamic created institutions, and an environment, in the U.S. which supports the best and brightest scientists and researchers from within this country and attracts many thousands who come here from around the world. Today, approximately 16% of all scientists and other STEM workers in the U.S. are foreign born. This is why leaders on both sides of the aisle have strategically prioritized research, as well as the cultivation and attraction of scientific and technological talent, during much of the post-war period.

Many German scientists who could, fled here before or during World War II. After the war, one of our most important innovative initiatives was the highly clandestine “Operation Paper Clip” which brought German scientists here. And during the Cold War era, many of these scientists were critical to our successes in space, nuclear, and broader military achievements. Albert Einstein, being a prime example, taught at America’s advanced universities, but large numbers also taught in small colleges and junior colleges.

And over the past several decades, talented scientists from places such as India, Israel, Japan, China, South Korea and Eastern Europe came to the U.S. as well. Many of them became students and researchers across the country. Some, such as Andy Grove and Sergei Brim, founded, built, and ultimately ran America’s most successful tech companies.

It was in part because of our pro-science, pro-innovation environment and openness to foreign talent, that so many brilliant scholars and researchers came to the United States. They did so for freedom and the opportunity to do innovative research. One did not see such foreign-born scientists falling over one another to go to the Soviet Union, a nation characterized by a heavy-handed and oppressive environment that was not conducive to this. In the end, many of these scientists—and the investment in American science in general—played instrumental roles in winning the Cold War and the Space Race.

But now, support for vital basic early-stage research is falling sharply. Recent, large, and sudden cuts seriously endanger American scientific preeminence and thus America’s prosperity, social wellbeing, and national security. For example, as the result of NSF and NIH funding being dramatically cut, or placed on hold, we are seeing the reversal of talent out of the United States. Companies and governments in many countries are actively advertising to attract researchers being let go by our government institutions, our companies, and our universities due to funding and personnel cuts. Many are highly unlikely to return.

This it is hardly encouraging, considering how vital AI is to our future, that, as Nvidia ‘s CEO recently reminded us, roughly one half of all AI researchers in the world now are Chinese. We used to be the magnet for talent from around the world. Now China, Singapore, other countries in Asia and several European countries as well aim to be—and to create a reverse brain drain.

Those who care about America’s global research and technology leadership, should be alarmed by the deep cuts we are witnessing in research funding, the firing of personnel with enormous scientific expertise, and a sharp shift away from the attraction of foreign scientists—many of whom are critical to our healthcare system, technological innovation, and entrepreneurial success.

For example, recent budget proposals call for a 40% cut in funds for NIH, which would lead to similarly large terminations in vital medical research projects, and an over 50% cut in NSF funding, which will mean terminations in critical STEM education programs. Fortunately, business has significantly increased research and development over the last two decades, but only a small fraction of that goes to critical early stage, basic research.

I am a great believer in reducing this nation’s debt and deficits, which endanger our economy and place an enormous burden on future generations. Cutting unproductive personnel from some parts of the government also makes sense and I commend those in both parties aiming to do this. These cuts, however, must be strategic, justified, and well placed to be effective.

Large and sudden across-the-board cuts, however, inevitably end up cutting or killing essential research funding and the firing of highly talented people. They frequently come at a cost to the health outcomes and economic wellbeing of large numbers of Americans now and for generations to come. Lastly, they threaten our country’s research and technological preeminence on which our strategic and defense capabilities depend—which is especially troubling given the rapid rise of Chinese technical and military prowess.

These are not isolated events that have occurred only in the recent months of this administration or even in recent years. This broad erosion has been taking place for several decades during periods of both Democratic and Republican leadership. Large numbers of Americans have become skeptical about, and some openly hostile to, advanced science and basic research. Some groups are especially skeptical, in most cases due to a plethora of inaccurate information over social media, about immunizations and therapies produced by modern medicine. 

This sadly stands in sharp contrast with the virtually unanimous social and bipartisan support and sense of national pride in America’s scientific achievements in decades past, which have led to remarkable breakthroughs: the dramatically successful Salk polio vaccine, various lifesaving HIV/AIDs therapies, mapping the human genome, remarkable U.S. feats in the space race, military technologies that helped win the Cold War, computer and wireless communications technologies that have dramatically boosted business, and countless new medicines being developed in labs throughout our country that have cured or helped prevent, as in Operation Warp Speed, so many diseases in the last several decades.

We need to ensure renewed American leadership and dynamism in these areas. To do so we must reverse this downward course and ensure sustained U.S. leadership in basic medical and scientific research and 21st Century technology development. 

President Donald Trump has an enormous opportunity to exercise world class leadership in this area, as American leaders did after World War II. The opportunity is now and the need is urgent, especially while the budget is being debated in Washington.

Making and keeping “America great” will depend heavily on a robust, well-funded, and multifaceted basic research effort by our institutions and scientists, sustaining America’s already remarkable technological and medical advances.

By shifting their emphasis from sharply cutting back support for basic research to enthusiastically funding supporting it now, our leaders in Washington can transcend any one period, party, or administration and instead benefit large numbers of Americans now and for generations to come, who could enjoy opportunities for a longer, healthier and higher quality of life, better jobs, and more defense security.

If America is to have a new “golden age,” investing in research is an indispensably important path to achieve it.

source https://time.com/7286127/medical-scientific-research-makes-america-great/