Pep Guardiola sure 75 per cent of Premier League clubs want Man City relegatedFranklin Resources Inc. grew its position in First Busey Co. ( NASDAQ:BUSE – Free Report ) by 61.5% in the 3rd quarter, according to the company in its most recent Form 13F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The firm owned 41,550 shares of the bank’s stock after buying an additional 15,829 shares during the quarter. Franklin Resources Inc. owned approximately 0.07% of First Busey worth $1,035,000 at the end of the most recent quarter. Several other institutional investors have also made changes to their positions in BUSE. Huntington National Bank purchased a new stake in shares of First Busey in the 3rd quarter valued at approximately $38,000. CarsonAllaria Wealth Management Ltd. acquired a new stake in First Busey during the 3rd quarter valued at $43,000. Signaturefd LLC lifted its holdings in shares of First Busey by 257.4% in the second quarter. Signaturefd LLC now owns 1,998 shares of the bank’s stock valued at $48,000 after purchasing an additional 1,439 shares in the last quarter. Point72 DIFC Ltd acquired a new stake in shares of First Busey in the third quarter worth $171,000. Finally, Intech Investment Management LLC acquired a new position in First Busey during the third quarter valued at $224,000. 56.49% of the stock is owned by hedge funds and other institutional investors. First Busey Trading Down 2.2 % NASDAQ:BUSE opened at $23.72 on Friday. The company has a market capitalization of $1.35 billion, a P/E ratio of 12.23 and a beta of 0.86. The stock’s 50 day moving average price is $25.82 and its 200 day moving average price is $25.56. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.22, a quick ratio of 0.82 and a current ratio of 0.82. First Busey Co. has a 52 week low of $21.68 and a 52 week high of $28.97. First Busey Dividend Announcement The business also recently declared a quarterly dividend, which was paid on Friday, October 25th. Shareholders of record on Friday, October 18th were given a $0.24 dividend. The ex-dividend date of this dividend was Friday, October 18th. This represents a $0.96 dividend on an annualized basis and a dividend yield of 4.05%. First Busey’s dividend payout ratio is currently 49.48%. Analyst Ratings Changes Several equities analysts have weighed in on the company. Keefe, Bruyette & Woods lifted their target price on First Busey from $32.00 to $34.00 and gave the company an “outperform” rating in a research note on Wednesday, December 4th. StockNews.com upgraded shares of First Busey from a “sell” rating to a “hold” rating in a research note on Thursday, September 12th. Finally, Stephens lowered shares of First Busey from an “overweight” rating to an “equal weight” rating and decreased their target price for the company from $28.00 to $27.00 in a research note on Monday, October 14th. Check Out Our Latest Stock Analysis on First Busey First Busey Profile ( Free Report ) First Busey Corporation operates as the bank holding company for Busey Bank that engages in the provision of retail and commercial banking products and services to individual, corporate, institutional, and governmental customers in the United States. It operates through three segments: Banking, Wealth Management, and FirsTech. Featured Stories Five stocks we like better than First Busey 3 Fintech Stocks With Good 2021 Prospects Buffett Takes the Bait; Berkshire Buys More Oxy in December TSX Venture Exchange (Formerly Canadian Venture Exchange) Top 3 ETFs to Hedge Against Inflation in 2025 3 Monster Growth Stocks to Buy Now These 3 Chip Stock Kings Are Still Buys for 2025 Want to see what other hedge funds are holding BUSE? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for First Busey Co. ( NASDAQ:BUSE – Free Report ). Receive News & Ratings for First Busey Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for First Busey and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .
To paraphrase Cher Horowitz, searching for historical accuracy in a Ridley Scott film is as useless as searching for meaning in a Pauly Shore movie. That’s not a knock against the entertainment value or even the overall quality of Scott’s work — he just famously does not care. During the press tour for 2023’s Napoleon , the filmmaker made a number of pointed remarks against historians who were quibbling with perceived mistakes. “Get a life,” Scott said in a New Yorker profile . In a different interview with the Sunday Times , the director offered, “When I have issues with historians, I ask: ‘Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up then.’” With that in mind, it’s no surprise that Scott’s latest film, Gladiator II , has riled up professional historians and amateur Roman-history nerds alike. Since the first trailer was released, there has been pushback over some of the imagery on display — a gladiator rides a rhino! — and the full two-and-a-half-hour film is unlikely to assuage the historical-accuracy concerns. Audiences just looking for a good time at the movies may be as unbothered as Scott about this stuff. But it’s still interesting to talk about with a historian, even if, as Scott has pointed out, they weren’t there at the time. To try to separate fact from fiction, I spoke with Chris Epplett, who teaches ancient Greek and Roman history at the University of Lethbridge . One of his main areas of interest is the exotic animal spectacles ( venationes ) of the Roman arena, and he wrote the 2017 book Gladiators: Deadly Arena Sports of Ancient Rome . I figured that would make him uniquely qualified to answer some of my big questions, though he cautioned that he had not yet seen Gladiator II . He did very patiently listen to my descriptions of key scenes and plot points and never once commented on my butchered pronunciation of Roman names. Spoilers ahead for the film (and for ancient Roman history). I think the biggest question everyone I know who has seen Gladiator II comes away with is that, in one of the gladiatorial games, they re-create a naval battle and they have sharks in the water: Were there ever sharks in the Colosseum? Not that I am aware of, no. Early on in the Colosseum’s history, there was a period when they could have flooded the floor of the arena. There was basically a period of, I think, ten to 20 years before they put the full basement in, when they could have flooded the floor and had exhibitions with marine animals and that sort of thing. They would also sometimes use ponds or manmade pools outside the Colosseum for various nautical events. But yeah, to my recollection, the Romans never had sharks. Okay, yeah. I mean, the flooding was one thing; the sharks felt like a bridge too far. Yeah, that would be my opinion. Marine spectacles are well attested. They had seals periodically, we know that. But I’ve never come across sharks in my research. In the film, a lot of animals featured in combat. Would a gladiator ever have ridden a rhino? Again, not that I am aware of. I’ve seen that clip. I mean, that looks awesome. And there were rhinoceroses periodically in the Colosseum; actually, they predate the Colosseum. The first rhino to appear in Rome was in the Late Republic, just over a century before the Colosseum was built. But in my research, I’ve never come across mention of anyone riding a rhino. In fact, I don’t know historically if that’s ever been done. I have the impression they’re rather temperamental animals, so I can’t imagine that trying to ride one would go well for the prospective jockey. The other animal that makes a big impression is the mangy baboon that Paul Mescal’s character, Lucius, has to fight in his first battle. Have you heard of baboons being used? No. Now, there is a record, more broadly speaking, of the Romans keeping monkeys as pets. This may be a flaw in my memory, but I can’t think offhand of monkeys appearing in the arena. Certainly not in violent spectacles. Well, in Gladiator II , Emperor Caracalla does have a pet monkey, a capuchin, that he’s very fond of. So that sounds more like something that could have happened. That’s feasible, yeah. I mean, there were even some Roman emperors — and I believe Caracalla as well, if I remember correctly, but certainly the emperor Elagabalus, only a couple years after him — who had pet lions. Oh wow. Elagabulus used to play a joke on his guests who stayed over at the palace after a night of debauchery. He would let his tame lions into their rooms at night so the poor people would wake up in the morning and the first thing they would see would be a lion staring into their face and, you know, frightening them half to death. It’s sort of like the bit in The Hangover when they find the tiger in their hotel room. So yeah, a pet monkey, in and of itself, wouldn’t be implausible. Lucius ends up being trained as a gladiator by Denzel Washington’s character, Macrinus, who was inspired by an actual historical figure. It seems Ridley Scott took a lot of liberties here. In the movie, he’s a former prisoner of war who rose through the ranks. Historically, Macrinus was from North Africa, though he was more of Berber descent than a Black African. He was Caracalla’s Praetorian prefect. Technically, his main job was commanding the Praetorian Guard, which was responsible for protecting the emperor, sort of like the Secret Service and the president in the States, though the Praetorian Guard undoubtedly assassinated more emperors than they ever protected. But the Praetorian Guard by Macrinus’s day also handled a lot of legal affairs. They could sort of act as the emperor’s deputy, and that’s the sort of position Macrinus held when he engineered Caracalla’s assassination in 217 C.E. And then he was emperor for a matter of months before he was overthrown by Caracalla’s younger relative Elagabalus. But yeah, the historical Macrinus, was not a — what did you say? In the movie, he’s a prisoner of war who works his way up, gaining power until he ends up in charge. No, no, the historical Macrinus was a Roman citizen. Now, one thing about him, he was the first Roman emperor who wasn’t of senatorial status. When he became emperor, he was still of equestrian status, which was sort of the lower tier. So he did have a relatively lowly background, and he was a provincial. He wasn’t a blue-blooded member of the Roman elite, so to speak, from which emperors had normally been drawn previously. But he wasn’t a prisoner of war. I was wondering about that kind of upward mobility and whether anything like that would have been possible in Imperial Rome. The closest parallel I can think of is that, a little later in the third century, after the Severan dynasty collapses — the reign of Caracalla was part of it — you have the emergence of the so-called soldier emperors. There’s a period of about 50 years, from 235 to 284, when by and large it’s military generals who seize the throne. So in that instance, you have men of relatively lowly background who didn’t owe their rise to any political position they held in Rome, and most, if not all of them, were of provincial origin. These were men who basically rose through the ranks of the military and were able to seize power because they got their troops to follow them. That would be the closest thing to how the movie depicts Macrinus. But even so, there’s nothing so dramatic as this idea that you have a guy who was a prisoner of war, who came from the absolute lowest level of society and worked his way up to become emperor. I think that’s a bit of an overdramatization. There’s also an aspect of Macrinus that allegedly got cut from the movie, which was a kiss between him and another man . But even without that, everyone in Gladiator II seems pretty fluid. There’s an undercurrent of what we’d now call bisexuality or pansexuality. Obviously, the Romans had a very different understanding of sexuality, but did that fluidity really exist at the time? I think to a certain extent it existed. One problem is that the vast majority of our evidence comes from writers of the upper classes, so we have a much better idea of what was going on within the aristocratic elite than, say, among everyday Romans. But offhand, I would say a man kissing another man might not be considered as “scandalous” in ancient Rome as it might in some circles nowadays. I mean, one thing often cited in studies of ancient sexuality is that the Romans had no word for “homosexuality.” And one of the main distinguishers in Roman society as to whether a person was “effeminate” was simply, well, to put it crudely, whether the person in question was a top or a bottom, so to speak. If they were the “driving force” in the relationship, then they would not be considered effeminate necessarily, regardless of the gender of their sexual partner. You’re talking about the aristocratic elite, and there is a scene in which Caracalla is being pretty affectionate with what seems to be a male lover. Was that something the emperor would do in public, or was that just on an emperor-by-emperor basis? I mean, there are certain emperors, like Nero and Elagabalus, whom I mentioned earlier, who were infamous for that type of extravagant behavior that offended the sensibilities of more traditionally minded Romans, or however you want to put it. But yeah, it was basically on an emperor-by-emperor basis. Like Marcus Aurelius [ played by Richard Harris in the first Gladiator], for example, who’s often held up as a paragon of virtue, he would never be caught dead openly fondling or otherwise favoring his lover in public. I do want to talk a bit about Geta and Caracalla, who are twins in the movie, played by Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger. I know they weren’t twins in real life. They were not twins, but they were close in age. They’re co-emperors in the film, as they were at one point in history. How often was that kind of co-ruling arrangement happening? It did happen from time to time. You know, it sort of depended upon the specifics of a given situation. Like, even Augustus, Rome’s first emperor, made his stepson Tiberius co-emperor I think the year before he died, basically to clearly designate him as a successor. Marcus Aurelius, in the earlier part of his reign, shared power with another individual, Lucius Verus, so yeah, power sharing wasn’t unheard of, and it was adopted from time to time, usually to ease the challenges of governing. In the case of Geta and Caracalla — who, all the sources make clear, absolutely hated each other — I think that was something their father wanted to do to try and keep the peace between them. But ultimately, it did not work out. We do see in Gladiator II that Caracalla has Geta killed, though it’s much more direct than in history. And we see that Caracalla is then killed by Macrinus, again more directly in the movie than arranging for someone else to do it. These films make it seem as if being an emperor was a very dangerous job! Or were these just really unstable years? No, it could often be dangerous. I mean, as I alluded to before with the Praetorian Guard, I would say they killed more emperors than they actually protected. And of course, this was the body of elite troops Augustus created to protect him and subsequent emperors. They were the only body of troops stationed right in Rome itself at that time. But basically, early on in the empire, the rule became that in order to secure your throne, you had to keep the Praetorian Guard happy, and if you failed to do so, either through policy or through not paying them the wages or donatives they felt they deserved, then they would commonly turn on you. Now, when you get into the period of these so-called soldier-emperors in the third century, you not only have the potential problems of the Praetorian Guard; you also have all the armies on the frontiers that are proclaiming their own commander as emperor. So the third century, or much of the third century, is particularly dangerous. The period of Caracalla and Geta, that’s before the Severan dynasty collapses, so they didn’t have to really deal with army usurpations or whatever. They had to deal with internal hazards, one of which was that each brother had to watch his back when it came to their sibling. In the movie, Caracalla in particular is depicted as being very unstable, with the implication that it’s because of a sexually transmitted disease that spread to his brain. What evidence do we have of Caracalla’s tyranny? Okay, in my readings on Caracalla, I had never come across this idea that gonorrhea made him insane or whatever. He is said to have had a very cruel disposition, however, and he loved to see himself depicted with as cruel an expression as possible. I mean, you can see this today if you look at coinage of Caracalla or surviving statuary; he has a mean face, basically. So, unlike most emperors — who liked to be depicted as, if not happy, at least, you know, stoic with a placid expression — with Caracalla, there’s a real meanness. His portraits are instantly recognizable. So he did have a mean streak, as we can certainly see with what happened to his brother, which I’m sure you’ve read about — basically shivved in the presence of their mother. [Gladiator II presents a different version of Geta’s assassination, but the real story is also Ridley Scott–level brutal. ] One of the portrayals of Caracalla I remember from the sources was that, when he was a kid, he was actually quite tenderhearted. But then he came to realize, as he grew up, just how much he could get away with as emperor. You know, his word was law. So as a result, according to the source in question, he basically became a monster. That’s the sort of thing we see in Roman history with earlier emperors like, say, Caligula and Nero. I have one more emperor question that’s a little broader. Going back to the gladiatorial games, these movies love to show us the thumbs-up, thumbs-down from the emperors. Thumbs up to save the losing gladiator, thumbs down to kill him. Was that really happening back then, or is it a more modern interpretation? I know something like that did happen; we do have reference to it in the ancient sources. Now, the one thing I’ll mention in that regard is there was a Roman writer, Juvenal, who talks about, well, if you translate it literally, the turned thumb being the signal to kill the gladiator. But some people have looked at this short phrase turned thumb : What does that mean? Some have argued in the past that we have our interpretations of the thumbs-up and thumbs-down gestures wrong. In their eyes, the natural position of the hand is with the thumb hanging down. So if you turn the thumb, then that would seem to suggest the thumbs-up was actually the kill gesture. Maybe something like when people run their fingers or thumb across their neck or whatever, you know, they make the throat-slitting gesture. And in that instance, thumbs down might actually have meant spare the fellow, put your sword down. I’ve asked a lot of questions about historical accuracy in Gladiator II . I do want to know how you feel about these kinds of movies and the questions of what they get right. Is it frustrating when there’s so much wrong, or is it exciting that people get interested in Roman history? They can be a little frustrating. I guess my answer would be that if they change a well-known historical fact for the sake of entertainment, then I don’t like that. But with the smaller things, I don’t mind if there’s some artistic license and so forth — like the whole thing with the guy riding a rhinoceros. That’s something personally I can sort of laugh at. I’m not gonna lose my temper over it. I try not to be too dogmatic about such things because I realize the main aim of Hollywood producers is entertainment and they’ll leave historical accuracy to, you know, documentary filmmakers. This interview has been edited and condensed.Arrest made after tense protest stand-off at synagogue
I’m a Realtor: 5 Cities Retirees Are Moving To in 2025
Job market jitters real for some mid-career Minnesotans and recent grads
PNC Financial Services Group Inc. Acquires 504 Shares of Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (NYSE:BR)Pep Guardiola sure 75 per cent of Premier League clubs want Man City relegated
Why Apple Discontinued The iPhone 14, iPhone 14 Plus And iPhone SE 3 In Europe
Ohtani wins third MVP, while Judge takes his secondHypocrite Alert: Stanford Prof Accused of Using AI to Write Legal Document Attacking AI-Generated DeepfakesVeeva Systems (NYSE:VEEV) Stock Price Expected to Rise, Barclays Analyst Says
Regime’s accountability and responsibilities
FoodTray2Go satisfies all your food cravingsCornelious Brown IV throws 5 TD passes to lead Alabama A&M past Mississippi Valley State 49-35
Even before special counsel Jack Smith formally asked that his criminal cases against Donald Trump be dismissed, it was already guaranteed the president-elect would never see a jury. Smith on Monday dropped both the 2020 election subversion prosecution against Trump and the charges accusing Trump of mishandling classified documents. The special counsel stressed his decision was not about the strength of his case against Trump, but his reasoning hung on the Justice Department’s long-held belief that the Constitution prohibits prosecutions against sitting presidents. Even if prosecutors had believed that they could have kept the cases on life support into the second Trump presidency, the president-elect had already indicated that he planned to fire Smith and his team, a vow that breached the usual norms surrounding a special counsel investigation. Trump’s reelection this month was the straw that broke the back of a camel that had been buckling under slow-walking courts and novel legal arguments. Smith’s filings suggested he could bring the charges again, though Trump may seek to foreclose that possibility by pardoning himself – an unprecedented move. Also looming over Trump’s second term is the Republican’s promises to go after those who prosecuted him, a vow echoed by his pick for attorney general. Here are takeaways from Smith’s move to seek the cases’ dismissal and how his prosecutions got to this point: Trump’s reelection earlier this month ensured that his federal criminal cases would face an early end. The former president vowed during his campaign to fire Smith if voters sent him back to the White House – a move at odds with how other presidents have handled special counsels. “Oh, it’s so easy. It’s so easy,” Trump said in October when asked by conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt whether he would “pardon yourself” or “fire Jack Smith” if reelected. “I would fire him within two seconds.” In the end, though, Trump didn’t need to sack the special counsel to kill the two cases. He was already benefiting from a legal strategy of delay that made sure no trials got underway before Election Day – which ultimately forced Smith’s hand. A few days after Trump’s reelection, the special counsel asked the judge overseeing the DC case to pause deadlines in that matter so his team could assess how to move forward with the unprecedented prosecution. Nearly three weeks after Election Day, he submitted his filings to the courts in DC and Florida. The president-elect, meanwhile, has repeatedly promised to seek political retribution against Smith and others whom he believes have unfairly pursued him during his four years out of office. His pick for attorney general, Pam Bondi , appears ready to be a loyal foot soldier in those efforts. “The Department of Justice, the prosecutors will be prosecuted — the bad ones,” Bondi, who served for a time as Florida’s attorney general, said in a TV appearance in August 2023. “The investigators will be investigated. Because the deep state, last term for President Trump, they were hiding in the shadows. But now they have a spotlight on them, and they can all be investigated,” she added. Before Trump takes his oath of office next year, Smith plans to release a final report as required by law on his investigations into Trump, a source familiar with the matter tells CNN. Attorney General Merrick Garland is expected to publicly release it, as he has with past special counsel reports. But it’s unclear how much new information would be included, especially in the election subversion case, where Smith recently filed hundreds of pages of legal arguments and evidence gathered for that prosecution. If part of what happened was that Smith simply ran out of time to pursue the case against Trump, then the six-justice conservative majority on the Supreme Court had a key role to play in slowing things down. The high court granted Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions in a highly anticipated 6-3 decision that was handed down in July, limiting the special counsel’s ability to move forward. Some of Trump’s critics slammed the decision itself , but others faulted the court for the time it took to deliver it. It was clear that several conservative justices saw the ruling not as a gift to Trump but as a way to head off spiraling and potentially politically motivated prosecutions. While the court’s decision may ultimately meet that goal, the ruling is also widely viewed as removing a check on presidents. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, wrote that Congress couldn’t criminalize a president’s conduct when he is “carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, warned in dissent that the decision would set up future presidents to be “a king above the law.” The Supreme Court initially denied Smith’s effort to resolve the immunity questions in December – allowing the normal process to play out with a federal appeals court wading in first. Two months later, in mid-February, after the appeals court ruled in Smith’s favor, it was Trump who asked the justices to review the question of presidential immunity. The court granted the case in February but did not hear arguments until the end of April. It handed down its decision on the final day of its term, on July 1. And the case was finally returned to the trial-level court in DC in August. The election subversion case was always expected to face years of litigation over the questions it raised about criminalizing acts taken by a sitting president. But the case in which Trump was accused of mishandling national defense information – was viewed as a much more straightforward prosecution, for how it focused on Trump’s post-presidency conduct and dealt with a well-established area of law. Trump, however, hit the jackpot with the assignment of that case to Judge Aileen Cannon, an appointee of his with little trial experience who had already treated the investigation with remarkable hostility when she oversaw pre-indictment lawsuit Trump brought challenging the FBI’s search of his Florida Mar-a-Lago resort. Cannon threw a number of wrenches into the prosecutors’ case before dismissing it entirely this summer on the grounds that Smith was unlawfully appointed. Her handling of the charges was widely panned by legal experts, and her dismissal ruling as set for review by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals until those deadlines were postponed with Trump’s win. Notably, Smith is not ending the Justice Department’s pursuit of the two Trump employees, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, who were charged with allegedly assisting their boss in efforts to hinder the federal probe. What to do next in the case will be a question for the incoming Trump Justice Department. While Trump might want to have the charges against his allies dropped, the DOJ will have to balance that against an institutional desire to wipe off the books a dismissal ruling that could undermine special counsel investigations in the future. In both of his cases against Trump, Smith said he was dropping the charges against the president-elect “without prejudice,” which in theory would keep open the door for charges to be brought again in the future. While pointing to the immunity Trump was about to receive by reentering the White House, Smith repeatedly said characterized that immunity as “temporary.” Smith’s filing in the election subversion case in Washington, D.C., included a longer discussion of how he had come to the decision to drop that case, where he had to weigh the longstanding DOJ position barring prosecutions of sitting president against the principle that no man is “above the law.” Smith said he consulted with DOJ lawyers on the question, and they also weighed the possibility of pausing the case until Trump no longer had the immunity of the presidency protecting him. Ultimately, however, the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the prohibitions on prosecuting sitting presidents is “categorial,” including for indictments handed up before a defendant enters office, Smith said. Monday’s move by Smith will likely bring attention – and perhaps criticism – to the Justice Department’s views, which have not yet been tested directly by courts. Smith’s dismissal filings bring to a close a chapter for the criminal attorneys who were mostly successful in staving off the criminal prosecutions against Trump. But a new chapter has already opened for several members of the Trump legal team who have already been rewarded with plum positions in his incoming administration. Todd Blanche, who played a central role in the DC prosecution and in other Trump cases, has been tapped by Trump for the DOJ’s No. 2 role, deputy attorney general. John Sauer, who argued the immunity dispute on Trump’s behalf before the Supreme Court, has been selected by Trump to be U.S. solicitor general, the federal government’s top lawyer before the high court. Both positions are subject to Senate confirmation. Additionally, Trump announced that another member of his personal legal team, Emile Bove would serve as acting deputy attorney general while Blanche was waiting for confirmation and then move to principal associate deputy attorney general, a position that does not go before the Senate.It’s often claimed, I’m not sure on what authority, that the Beatles’ arrival in America, three months after the assassination of President Kennedy, in some unquantifiable way lifted the spirits of a depressed nation, allowing it to move forward into the light. Perhaps reliving it in 2024 will bring similar relief, though of course, some will just long for the past. It’s a thought repeated by Paul McCartney himself in a delightful new-old documentary “Beatles ’64,” premiering Friday on Disney+, in what, after “The Beatles Anthology” in 1995 and “Get Back” in 2019, might be seen as an infrequent Thanksgiving tradition. The film, produced by Martin Scorsese and directed by David Tedeschi, is the latest repurposing of footage shot by Albert and David Maysles , when the band crossed the pond to appear on “The Ed Sullivan Show” in February 1964. The Maysles’ footage was originally used for the BBC documentary “What’s Happening! The Beatles in the U.S.A.,” and formed the substance of the 1991 “The Beatles: The First U.S. Visit.” (Bits and pieces have appeared in various Beatles docs over the years; it is foundational stuff.) But there is more of it here, interspersed with new interviews with McCartney, Ringo Starr and fans and friends who participated in the moment, along with archival interviews with George Harrison and John Lennon and some needless social context from Marshall McLuhan and Betty Friedan. Happily absent are later-generation pop stars testifying to the band’s genius, or worse, singing their own versions of Beatles songs. Not even the Beatles testify to their own genius. “You must be kidding with that question,” says McCartney, when a reporter asks about their place in “Western culture.” “It’s not culture, it’s a good laugh.” The action unrolls mostly in and around New York’s Plaza Hotel; in Washington, D.C., where they performed their first American concert; and on trains traveling back and forth. Other stops and dates on the trip — a second Sullivan broadcast from Miami Beach, a concert at Carnegie Hall — are filled in with photos and interviews. The Maysles, who five years later would direct what is largely considered the greatest of all rock ’n’ roll documentaries, “Gimme Shelter,” were founding members of the fly-on-the-wall “direct cinema” movement, the domestic cousin of ciinéma vérité. Shot in 16mm black and white, the footage has a paradoxical immediacy lost to a world in which, by one count, 14 billion color images are posted to social media every day. Coincidentally or not, the style and even scenes in the Maysles film are echoed in “A Hard Day’s Night,” which began filming a month later. (“This is what our movie will be like,” says John, looking out at the passing scenery. “The train days.”) Nowadays rock groups are the producers of their own massaged, glossy documentaries — Bruce Springsteen has a “written by” credit on this year’s “ Road Diary” — where even the revelations are carefully chosen and measured out. Yet once it was the custom to let cameras in to catch what they might. Out at the Peppermint Lounge, presaging a similar scene in “A Hard Day’s Night,” McCartney and Lennon and a dancing Starr are clearly, happily inebriated; they don’t have their guard up yet, or handlers to get between them and the camera. (The Beatles organization was surprisingly small; you could fit the whole operation in a van.) In their Plaza suite, they smoke cigarettes, read newspapers, watch themselves on TV and mess with the film crew, forcing them through the fourth wall: “There’s a woman there, you see,” says McCartney, “with a little microphone, see, and she daren’t talk.” They listen to Pepsi-branded transistor radios, fence with disc jockey Murray the K , who insinuates himself into their inner sanctum. (“I’ve never quite understood how he did that,” says George, looking back.) In a train car packed with press, they clown — Harrison in a porter’s uniform, carrying a tray of cans of 7-Up (“It’s me!” he tells the camera, coming in close and doffing his cap), Starr with a dozen cameras and camera bags slung around his neck, Harrison lying in an overhead luggage rack, slating the film. (McCartney sits it out: “I’m not in a laughing mood, even.”) Meanwhile, fans, mostly teenage girls (some carrying their schoolbooks), crowd the barriers at the Plaza Hotel, penetrate its halls, press their faces to the windows of the limousine carrying the band to the Sullivan show, and chase it down the street. In their strong New Yawk accents, of a kind that may have vanished from the Earth, they attempt to explain their love for the Beatles, and particular Beatles. They were exotic — not merely English, but thanks to the influence of their arty German friends Astrid Kirchherr and Klaus Voormann, they were continental. With their combed down “long” hair and Cuban heels, they look like the future. (And had more than a little to do with what the future would look like.) At the same time, they were working-class kids from a city still recovering from World War II, with a deep love for Black American pop music, which they reintroduced to white America. (They were curators as well as creators.) Smokey Robinson, who had met them in England and whose “You’ve Really Got a Hold On Me” they covered, calls them the “first white group that I had ever heard in my life ... say, ‘Yeah, we grew up listening to Black music.’” The late Ronnie Spector, another friend, recalls taking the band for barbecue in Harlem, where they basked in the luxury of being ignored. That would only become harder. I daresay we know more about the Beatles than any other pop band in history — their music, their less than private private lives, their fab gear, where they were and what they were doing nearly every day of their eventful career. (Mark Lewisohn‘s excellent, engaging “Tune In,” the first of a projected three-volume group biography, which doesn’t even get to 1963, runs nearly a thousand pages; it’s also available as a 1,728-page extended version.) Imagine if we had that much on, say, William Shakespeare, not just a couple of probable, probably posthumous portraits, but photos, video, interviews and documents numbering in the hundreds of thousands — not to mention books by everyone who knew him even slightly. It would kill the Who Really Wrote Shakespeare business, but there’d be so much more to parse. (Incidentally, the Beatles played Shakespeare, the “Pyramus and Thisbe” section of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” in their 1964 TV special “Around the Beatles.”) They spring eternal: “Now and Then,” the “last” Beatles song, which digitally combines all four members, is currently nominated for two Grammys, 54 years after the band disbanded and 44 after Lennon, who wrote and sings it, was shot. They will be listened to and discussed and studied for years to come, long after I’m around to know whether my prediction is right. Beatlemania may be done, but somewhere a child is singing the chorus to “Yellow Submarine.”
Las Vegas quarterback Gardner Minshew is out for the season due to a broken collarbone, head coach Antonio Pierce confirmed on Monday, leaving the Raiders with a short week to determine their starter. Minshew suffered the injury when he was sacked and landed on his left shoulder late in the fourth quarter of Las Vegas' 29-19 home loss to the Denver Broncos. Former starter Aidan O'Connell, who was sidelined by a thumb injury in Week 7, could return off injured reserve in time for the Raiders (2-9) to face the two-time reigning Super Bowl champion Chiefs (10-1) on Friday in Kansas City. "We'll see if Aidan is good to go," Pierce said. "He's been ramping up." O'Connell entered the 21-day practice window on Monday as the Raiders determine when to activate him. "Seeing him able to grip the ball comfortable, hopefully, no pain there, and just being able to be efficient," Pierce said. "To put a player out there that's hurting or injured still, that's not to the benefit of the player or our team." O'Connell, 26, has played in four games this season, starting two (both losses). He is 52 of 82 (63.4 percent) for 455 yards, two touchdowns and two interceptions. As a rookie last season, O'Connell started 10 of 11 games, going 5-5, and completed 213 of 343 passes (62.1 percent) for 2,218 yards, 12 TDs and seven interceptions. The Raiders selected O'Connell in the fourth round of the 2023 NFL Draft. "Obviously at the quarterback position, you've got to be smart," Pierce said. "I think with Aidan, his future's much brighter looking ahead. ... I'll have to really rely on our doctors and medical staff." Desmond Ridder replaced Minshew and went 5 of 10 for 64 yards. Ridder, 25, has appeared in three games this season for Las Vegas and is 16 of 26 (61.5 percent) for 138 yards and one TD. Ridder played the previous two seasons for the Atlanta Falcons, who selected him in the third round of the 2022 draft. For his career, he is 338 of 529 (63.9 percent) for 3,682 yards, 15 TDs and 12 interceptions in 22 games (17 starts, 8-9 record). Minshew, 28, completed 25 of 42 passes for 230 yards with one touchdown and one interception against the Broncos. He finished his first season with the Raiders with 2,013 yards, nine TDs and 10 picks on 66.3 percent passing. He joined the Raiders in free agency after stints in Jacksonville (2019-20), Philadelphia (2021-22) and Indianapolis (2023) and won the starting job in camp. But he was benched multiple times for O'Connell as the Raiders struggled as a team. --Field Level MediaIndia News | ISRO to Demonstrate Docking of Satellites in Space in January, Launch on Monday