Culture & More

Entertainment

Movies, TV, music, and what's worth your time

Stories
200
stories
Sources
20
sources
Page
Page 1 of 10
Updated hourly

Why Owl Post covers Entertainment

Entertainment coverage skews toward whatever the algorithm wants to surface this week. The shows nobody is watching that turn out to be the year's best television, the album that quietly reset a genre with no press cycle behind it, the film that earned its reputation through word of mouth rather than marketing spend: these are harder to find in a media landscape optimized for volume.

Owl Post reads entertainment with an eye toward what is actually worth your attention rather than what is loudest. That means tracking the streaming landscape critically, including which platforms are producing work that justifies the subscription and which are coasting. It means following music across genres rather than just chart activity. It means covering film with attention to what is in theaters and what is being overlooked. And it means following the business layer of entertainment, including the studio decisions, streaming economics, and industry shifts that determine what gets made and what does not.

Read the full Entertainment briefing

The beat spans film (theatrical and streaming), television across all platforms, music across genres, and the cultural conversations that form around all of them. Owl Post reads serious film and television criticism, music journalism with genuine editorial standards, and the entertainment business press that covers the industry economics behind the content.

Your digest adapts to your relationship with entertainment criticism. If you want the opinionated, take-a-position voice that tells you what is good and makes a case for it, that framing is available. If you want the recommendation-first approach that answers what to watch and what to skip without extensive argumentation, that works too.

A daily entertainment digest. What is worth your time, what the industry is doing, and what the culture is talking about.

Featured

Devil in the detail: 100 years on, FW Murnau’s Faust scrapbook reveals the secrets of his silent masterpiece

A rediscovered collection of drawings and on-set photos finally reveals the intricate on-set mysteries of one of early cinema’s most gifted pioneers FW Murnau was one of the greatest of all silent film-makers, with a rare genius for making beautiful images on screen. His peers liked to say he “had a camera instead of a head”. The director of such stunning films as vampire tale Nosferatu (1922) and marital romance Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) died at the age of 42 in 1931, meaning that his career barely scraped into the talkie era. Still, Murnau’s tremendous run of silent pictures included some beautiful, often disturbing classics, in which he sent his camera roaming through changing vistas of shadows and light, and plumbed the depths of the human soul. Nowhere more so than in his tour-de-force Faust, released 100 years ago this month, based on Goethe’s play about a deal with the devil. And the making of Faust is depicted in a stunning new book, which is both a document of, and in a sense an artefact from, the production of this classic film. Murnau was also one of the most mysterious of directors: secretive about his methods, with an intense devotion to his work. Early collaborator Edgar G Ulmer called him “a great purist who worked under a sort of hypnosis”. Murnau banned producers from his sets, and executives from watching his rushes. Bar a few exceptions, he did not allow on-set photography to reveal the secrets of his camerawork and special effects. This mystique created room for speculation as to whether Murnau, or his talented crew, were responsible for the success of his films. The Faust Bible: The Making of FW Murnau’s Masterpiece publishes unseen images from the shoot of one of his best films, and gives a rare insight into the collaborative way it was made.

theguardian.comLeft

The Social Reckoning isn’t as angry or as potent as a Facebook drama should be

Aaron Sorkin’s attempt to return to the success of The Social Network is a strangely dated and incomplete look at a world that needs a sharper eye In retrospect, David Fincher’s 2010 film The Social Network was a landmark for a quiet, even counterintuitive reason. Before the film was released, some questioned whether Aaron Sorkin, a writer not exactly known for his mastery of, nevermind obsession with, the technical sphere, was the right man to tell the origin story of Facebook. And while Sorkin may well have converted Mark Zuckerberg into terms he could better understand – namely, a motormouthed wiseass who deep down wants to impress a smart, serious-minded girl – he and Fincher also made one of the first internet-centric movies to treat online life as a natural extension of IRL dynamics, rather than the otherworldly tech portal seen in so many 90s internet movies. Granted, that’s the whole deal with Facebook: its viral spread of social networking, something so simple and addictive that aunts, grandpas and coworkers everywhere could understand it. Yet understanding its simultaneous extension and distortion of the real world wasn’t a given; four years later, for example, 2014’s Men, Women and Children was widely derided for taking an alarmist approach to the internet as a haven for adults seeking an affair, teenagers nursing porn addictions and fame-hungry strivers of all ages. The Social Network, on the other hand, is remarkably nonjudgmental about the basic mechanics of Facebook, rooting its nascent flaws in the human weaknesses that birthed it. In retrospect, the movie only feels outdated to the extent that it underestimates Zuckerberg’s grasping for power and the potential for grim carelessness that his online kingdom was built on.

theguardian.comLeft

Get Entertainment delivered to your inbox

Owl Post delivers a personalized entertainment digest every morning, curated by AI, written in your voice.

Get your free digest
More in Culture & More
Explore other beats
From the Owl Post blog