Arts & Entertainment
The predictable predictability of the Oscars
Favoring middle-of-the-road prestige over edgier fare
It’s hard to write a reaction piece about the Oscars when you recognize that the Oscars, by their very nature, are essentially a poll – or perhaps, more aptly, a popularity contest – which reflects an aggregate of personal opinions, and therefore have as much to do with internal Hollywood politics as with rewarding artistic excellence.
I’m not saying that the movies and people being celebrated on the stage at the Dolby Theater in Hollywood Sunday night – all of them, winners and nominees alike – didn’t deserve to be there; on the contrary, 2023 was an outstanding year for cinema, and every one of the contenders could be considered worthy of taking the prize. If that’s the case, however, how can any of these outcomes be determined without the influence of personal taste? Making movies is not like playing sports, where a win results from the highest number of points scored and goals blocked; there is no such handily objective criteria to rely on in picking an actor, a screenwriter, or an entire film to proclaim as the “best” in its respective category, and it’s inevitable that Academy voters will be influenced by personal bias when they make their choices on that final ballot.
While Sunday’s 96th annual Oscar ceremony, which offered the usual snubs and oversights and no real surprises, might have disappointed me or even occasionally sparked a glimmer of outrage, I cannot fairly say that any of the final results were “mistakes.” And though it may be oversimplifying things to say that being offended by the Academy’s final choices is akin to being angry that someone else’s favorite flavor of ice cream is chocolate when yours is salted caramel praline, it’s still enough to convince me that my “reaction” piece to the Academy Awards can really only ever be an “opinion” piece,
With that in mind, here we go.
The presentation itself was the usual blend of witty repartee (mostly provided with success by veteran Oscar host Jimmy Kimmel, though attempts at it from the various presenters ran the gamut from delightful to disastrous), musical performances (Billie Eilish and brother Finneas O’Connell’s rendition of “What Was I Made For?”, which went on to win the evening’s only award for “Barbie”, was a particular highlight, alongside the more lavish and deliciously amusing dance production number headed by Supporting Actor nominee Ryan Gosling for “I’m Just Ken” from the same film), uplifting moments (a regal Rita Moreno’s benedictory introduction of “Barbie” Supporting Actress nominee America Ferrera brought tears to my eyes, and I suspect I wasn’t alone), and show-stopping surprises (John Cena’s teasingly faux nudity presenting the Best Costume Design award was a memorable stunt, to put it mildly, as was the combination of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito to do the honors in the Visual Effects and Film Editing categories) – yet it also had more than its fair share of embarrassing gaffes, such as upstaging the “In Memoriam” segment with an overblown production number accompanied by father-and-son operatic crooners Andrea and Matteo Bocelli’s duet of “Con tu partirò”, a move that has fueled perhaps more post-Oscars outrage than anything else from this year’s ceremony.
As for the politics, there were the expected barbs making fun of easy conservative targets, but most of the speeches avoided invoking too much progressive fury. The one overtly political moment came with the win of UK director Jonathan Glazer’s “The Zone of Interest” for Best International Feature, when he read, in prayerlike monotone, a pre-prepared statement warning against the dehumanizing hate depicted in his slice-of-Nazi-life historical drama and calling for empathy for the targets of such hate on both sides of the current crisis in Gaza. It was met with backlash, of course, especially after a partial quote in Variety omitted key elements of the speech and led many to believe the Jewish filmmaker was refuting his own religion.
As for the winners of the awards themselves (you can find the full list on the Oscar website) the evening’s choices fell more or less in line with my predictions – though not necessarily my preferences.
The domination of “Oppenheimer” in most of the major categories in which it competed was, for anyone following the pre-ceremony buzz, a foregone conclusion. Few doubted that Cillian Murphy would handily claim the Best Actor prize – thwarting nominee Colman Domingo (“Rustin”) from becoming the first queer actor to win for playing a queer character in the process – or that Christopher Nolan would take the Best Director category, and from there the win for Best Picture felt as inevitable as anything can be at the Oscars.
Equally inevitable was the evening’s most easily predicted “Oppenheimer” win, as veteran Hollywood player Robert Downey, Jr. ebulliently swaggered onstage amid the enthusiastic familial cheers of his peers to claim the Best Supporting Actor prize; his acceptance speech, in which he self-deprecatingly recalled the legal and professional obstacles arising from the substance abuse that nearly derailed his early career, became a testament to overcoming personal setbacks to achieve an even higher success, something that resonated in the words of several other of the evening’s winners.
In the categories where “Oppenheimer” didn’t win, the odds were already in favor of the eventual victors, such as first-time filmmaker Cord Jefferson, whose “American Fiction” earned him the Best Adapted Screenplay Award over fellow front runners like “Barbie” and “Poor Things,” and Da’Vine Joy Randolph, whose winning Supporting Actress turn in “The Holdovers” had been a juggernaut throughout the award season.
Many Oscar fans, though most accepted the predestination of “Oppenheimer” as the year’s big winner, might rather have seen a different candidate come out on top (my own choice, for what it’s worth, would have been “Barbie,” with “Poor Things” and “Zone of Interest” coming up close behind); but even if Nolan’s weighty and technically dazzling biopic was unquestionably a fine film, exploring a deeply disturbing slice of not-too-distant history that still casts a long existential shadow over our world today, it’s impossible for me not to see in its multiple wins an all-too-familiar pattern of “safe” choices.
While “Oppenheimer” might pique ethical discussions over its title character’s choice to build the atomic bomb, few would find controversy in the idea that the destruction unleashed on the world by that choice is a reason for concern. Its most viable competitors, “Barbie” and “Poor Things” – both of which touched on many of the same existential themes, albeit from a markedly different direction and in a more absurdist style – each stirred divisive opinions around (among other things) a perceived feminist agenda; other highly-acclaimed titles in the running, like the non-English language entries “Zone”, “Past Lives”, and “Anatomy of a Fall”, fell outside the comfortable domestic audience mainstream where Oscar’s favorite picks are usually a little too deeply-rooted to allow much opportunity for a dark horse upset. While not many expected Bradley Cooper’s ambitious Bernstein biopic “Maestro” to take home any awards, it was considerably more noteworthy that Martin Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon,” nominated for 10 Awards and widely lauded as one of the year’s most essential films, failed to score a single one of them – though I can’t help also noting that it deals with one of most shameful threads in our American past, inevitably making it a controversial movie for an era marked by deeply divided ideologies around that subject.
It’s perhaps for that reason that “Flower Moon” was not considered a front runner in most of its categories, but there was one in which it was seen as a heavy favorite. With Lily Gladstone poised to become the first Indigenous performer to win the Best Actress trophy, the odds leading up to Sunday’s presentation seemed to position them as the front runner; in the end, however, it was Emma Stone’s tour-de-force in “Poor Things” – in which she appeared in virtually every scene, in contrast to Gladstone’s relatively limited screen – that took it instead. Though it wasn’t quite a surprise, given the number of wins Stone has garnered already for the film, which also took home the prizes for Best Makeup and Hairstyling and Best Production Design, it nevertheless felt – to me, at least – like another example of Oscar’s predictable reluctance to court controversy with its choices.
Ironically, but not surprisingly, this conservative approach often just ends up causing a controversy of its own, and this case is no exception. Though I had championed Stone’s brilliant performance as the obvious winner, when her name was announced I found myself feeling disappointment over Goldstone’s loss, even as I was thrilled for Stone’s well-earned victory. After all, in a contest where the outcome is entirely subjective, Academy voters could have chosen to amplify the excellence of someone from within a marginalized community. Stone, who seemed as surprised at her win as anyone else, did remarkable work, but so did Gladstone; though it truly is “an honor just to be nominated,” it was an opportunity for Oscar to take a step toward correcting a long-ignored injustice at a time when doing so could make a demonstrably constructive impact on our culture and our society at a time when doing so would have a tremendous cultural impact, and it didn’t happen. It was a moment that struck me with an odd sense of disappointment even as I cheered for Stone; a bit of the sour within the sweet.
That, aside from a sense of missed opportunity over the evening’s consistent pattern of favoring the middle-of-the-road prestige represented by “Oppenheimer” over the edgier, more confrontational material presented by some of the other titles on the slate, was my biggest takeaway from the Academy Awards. Though I can’t say that any of the winners were unworthy, I can’t help thinking that their victories were somewhat tainted by the virtual shutout of “Barbie”, (which still feels to me like a message for female filmmakers to “stay in their lane”) and relatively low showing for “Poor Things” (which took only 3 of the 11 awards for which it was nominated), and that their underappreciation for such films was for me proof that many of the professionals working within the industry are afraid of material that pushes the medium too far outside its traditional boundaries, that dares to imagine stories and ideas which give voice to “outsider” concerns beyond the level of lip service, or that stretches the accepted limits of narrative entertainment.
More concerning, perhaps, is the minimal change that has come in the wake of the Academy’s much-publicized retooling to promote greater diversity and inclusion among the nominees. While it’s heartening to see people of color and queer people being brought into the mix more consistently than ever before, it’s also all the more painful when we see them passed over or relegated to the status of “also ran” most of the time. As a queer writer working for a queer publication, it’s impossible for me not to be impatient when films with strong LGBTQ content are lauded alongside mainstream titles only to consistently be passed over when it comes to the final victory. While queer subject matter, in varying degrees, was part of movies like “Rustin”, “Nyad”, and even “Barbie,” only two wins in the “major” categories went to films that included significant queer themes – “American Fiction” and “Anatomy of a Fall”, both of which won for their screenplays.
And while it’s now old news, the Academy’s complete omission of Andrew Haigh’s melancholy gay ghost story “All of Us Strangers,” a queer UK film overwhelmingly embraced by other major awards bodies across the world and in America itself and considered a major contender before failing to earn a single Oscar nomination, and female filmmaker Emerald Fennell’s “Saltburn,” which hinged – at least ostensibly – on a queer attraction between stars Barry Keoghan and Jacob Elordi, speaks volumes about the comfort level surrounding queer content within mainstream Hollywood. Even “May December,” a high-profile film directed by queer indie pioneer Todd Haynes but featuring only presumably heterosexual characters, received only a single nod (for Best Original Screenplay) for “May December,” despite being widely considered a front-runner for several acting awards. While inclusivity doesn’t mean considering every queer-relevant movie a shoo-in for the competition, it’s telling when the Academy all but ignores queer titles that have been contenders and even winners at all the other major film award ceremonies, and frankly, it’s extremely annoying. While I can’t speak for women, those in the Black community, or other groups with a history of being dismissed by Oscar, I can only assume that their sentiments must resemble my own.
Yet as I reach the end of my observations about the latest installment of the Academy Awards, I find myself falling short of blaming the Academy itself, at least as an organization. While it has had a problematic history of dragging its feet when it comes to evolving toward a more all-embracing approach to bestowing honors, undeniable progress has been made. That this progress is infuriatingly slow is less a reflection on the awards than it is on Hollywood as a whole; after all, despite Academy efforts to ensure greater diversity among its nominees, it’s the individual choices of its voters that determines the final results – and if those results fail to accomplish more than the occasional token victory for the non-white-heterosexual contenders, it’s a symptom of the fact that those voices are underrepresented within the industry at large.
If we want to see an Academy Awards ceremony that truly accomplishes the kind of all-inclusive spirit for which it has so palpable a potential, we must continue to pressure the Hollywood industry at large to build a more diverse and inclusive creative environment. Otherwise, no matter how much they promise to do better, they will always fall short.
Movies
‘Heartstopper Forever’ delivers satisfying conclusion
Beloved queer phenomenon shows us hope can belong to everyone
When I wrote my review of the first season of “Heartstopper,” I said that if the series could only be summed up in one word, it would be “adorable.”
After an additional two seasons and a movie length series finale (which began streaming on Netflix July 17), I’m going to make up a new rule and say that I can choose a second word to close things out. By the time I reach the end of my review of “Heartstopper Forever,” in which our adorable Nick and Charlie must face the possibility that their tender young romance may not be able to survive their graduation to college, I hope I’ll have figured which word it would be.
Directed by Wash Westmoreland and written (as always) by Alice Oseman, artist and creator behind the YA webcomic/graphic novel that launched the whole “Heartstopper” phenomenon, this final installment finds a very different Nick and Charlie than we met in those early episodes – yet in many ways they’re still very much the same. Far from the timid and bullied queer lad of the first season, Charlie (Joe Locke) is now boldly out and confident enough to win the election for “head boy” in his final year at school, and Nick (Kit Connor) no longer struggles with being open about his bisexuality; yet as the stress of their impending separation – each to a different college in a different city – begins to become more urgent, both of them fall back on old patterns.
To those of us who have been around long enough to re-examine such a crisis with 20/20 hindsight, that’s bound to strike chords of recognition. To the younger “Heartstopper” fans, however, it’s likely to feel like high drama – exactly as it did for us when we were going through it ourselves. It’s not just Nick and Charlie, either; other characters, like transgender prodigy Elle (Yasmin Finney) and her cis-het boyfriend Tao (William Gao), must also come to terms with the changing dynamics of their relationships. The result is multiple mirrors through which queer teens can see their own experience reflected, which has always been the appeal of “Heartstopper” in the first place. And as it has from the beginning, Oseman’s intent to provide her teen audience with positive perspectives shines through, ensuring that the story’s final chapter lands in a place where hope can belong to everyone.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its share of dark moments – it wouldn’t be “Heartstopper” if it didn’t, would it? Part of the show’s value for its fans, young and old alike, has always come through its various characters’ growing pains; their missteps and misjudgments, their confused emotions, their fumbling efforts at “first times,” their struggles toward self-esteem. All these and more have provided the necessary “weight” to counter the show’s bubbly optimism and keep it from becoming as insubstantial as spun sugar. More importantly, these issues have always been the real core of the story: We love the sweetness of the romance, but the deeper satisfaction comes from watching these young people navigate all their challenges, sometimes alone but more often together, and build a community through the shared experience of working through them.
The final installment, having brought Charlie, Nick, and all the rest to the cusp of young adulthood, brings a suitably more mature level of problems into the mix. Sure, Charlie has grown into the hero he once needed himself, but the uncertainty that emerges between himself and Nick as they ponder their impending separation is enough to spark a relapse of his eating disorder; likewise, Nick may be confident and unguarded about his sexuality and openly proud of being Charlie’s boyfriend, but that doesn’t stop him from slipping back into self-doubt (and bad behavior) when he contemplates the possibility that their love story might be coming to an end. We know they have the “tools” to get back on track, but with everything so up in the air, will they be able to remember how to use them?
So, too, throughout the series, we have seen these kids come to terms with their individual queerness, navigating those personal journeys and learning how to embrace who they are in an environment where, for the most part, they get a lot of support. At the same time, there have been shadows around the edges, encounters and circumstances that remind them (and us) that, outside the protective circle provided by their school and each other, bigotry still exists. In “Heartstopper Forever,” those reminders are still there, and they feel all the more ominous – not just because of the worldwide rise in anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment, though that’s tied to it, but because these bright young things will soon be moving into a larger world where safety and shelter from the hate is not quite so certain.
Still, it’s Nick and Charlie’s story above all else, and naturally the main focus of this finale is on them. There has always been a too-good-to-be-true perfection to their romance, but Locke and Connor are so good at bringing it to life we believe it; here, fittingly for a final chapter, these boys finally face the crossroad that comes with adulthood – the recognition that, one way or another, there will be an ending to their relationship. How they handle that, we won’t spoil; once again, though, this is “Heartstopper,” one can feel sure that Oseman’s characters will work their way through it in the most imperfectly perfect – and emotionally satisfying – way possible.
Deserving of mention: characters like Isaac (Tobie Donovan), Imogen (Rhea Norwood), and Charlie’s sister Tori (Jenny Walser) return to get their fair share of the spotlight, and gay teachers Mr. Ajayi (Fisayo Akinade) and Mr. Farouk (Nima Taleghani) get the chance for a new beginning of their own; and out UK acting legend Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”) appears alongside real-life partner Richard Clifford as an elderly couple in a quiet but important scene at the cafe where Charlie works.
With any “franchise” as popular as “Heartstopper,” the task of bringing closure to a story that has emotionally involved so many fans is almost always a thankless one (just ask George Lucas), so there are sure to be some who have objections to the way Oseman brings her beloved story to an end; but it’s her story to end, and in choosing to uphold its sensational (yet sentimental) imagining of the world as it could be, “Heartstopper Forever” doubles down on the idea that we can make it the way that it should be.
That’s why my choice for the second word we can use to sum up “Heartstopper” is “aspirational.” In the relative innocence and un-ironic preciousness of Nick and Charlie’s enduring love story, we can find no excuses; not all of us can keep our first love alive for an entire lifetime (nor, often, should we), but maybe we can learn to follow our hearts as surely and openly as they do.
That’s about as aspirational as any of us can hope to be – but don’t worry: it’s still adorable, too.
a&e features
Rainbows in Revolt on a mission to make LGBTQ artists’ voices heard
Rainbows in Revolt on a mission to make LGBTQ artists’ voices heard
Last month’s Pride celebration in D.C. was so fun. Walking around my first Capital Pride with a $15 lemonade I was loving the madness and the color. Artists and small businesses battling banks you’ve never heard of collecting your personal information so you can spin a wheel to snag free merch. Great music blaring, people actually smiling and enjoying themselves, the “Great” American State Fair could never!
The Monument Stage was on Pennsylvania Avenue, directly in front of the National Gallery of Art and I can’t think of a better venue to see live music. How does someone get on the lineup for Pride? How do we accelerate the visibility of the most talented voices in our community to perform in places like this?
There is certainly not a talent gap, but there is a visibility gap. Chappell Roan went from playing for two people in a parking lot to owning the main stage at Coachella in one year. Whether it is shadowbanning or bias in AI, algorithms have been shown to suppress queer artists. In a digital age, how can queer people break through and show the world how talented they are?
Allison and Matt of Rainbows in Revolt are on a mission to make openly LGBTQ+ artists’ voices heard. Their goal is to find “musicians whose queerness is central to their identity as an artist,” and accelerate them to a place where they can actually reach fans.
The only time queer events seem to be in the spotlight is June, but this should be year round, according to Allison and Matt. Rainbows in Revolt wants to act as a “nucleus” for different sub-communities, finding common ground in the universal language of music.
Matt and Allison founded Rainbows as a way to make cheaper, higher quality merchandise for queer artists. While Rainbows has already pledged 20% of their profits to the LGBTQ+ community, with 10% to Whitman-Walker Health and 10% to LGBTQ+ organizations in need, this is just the beginning of the work that they do.
Rainbows “does the dirty work” that artists normally struggle to do on their own with limited resources. Interviews, artist profiles, social promotion, playlist discovery, radio outreach, and merch-funded support. This work is normally expensive, time consuming, and requires lots of different skills. Musicians don’t want to be editing clips to post online. Standup comedians don’t want to make graphics for their tour dates. They want to write more. They want to focus on their craft.
In addition to helping artists find their audience, Rainbows has built other digital tools to help queer people connect, including an interactive Safe Space Map for most major cities. It is hard to know which places are truly safe and supportive just from a simple Google search. Attitudes and actions change, and there should be a simple way for queer people to find other places that align with them. The Safe Spaces Maps are all up to date, and are tagged and filterable. Instead of relying on forums and word of mouth, Rainbows has created a centralized way to find authentic community quickly.
I had a chance to talk with Allison and Matt at Pride where Lily Erin, one of their signature artists, was performing on the Monument stage. Lily Erin is a folk singer who is familiar and forging her own path. Her bittersweet sound echoes through Acadia, and her garb mirrors the New England athletes I grew up with. Gorp Core meets streetwear. A graphic tee, hiking shorts, and creamsicle Jordans.
Her debut single, “Bus Stop,” tells a sad story about unconditional love, and the conditions that still seem to come with it. Graduating into lockdown, Erin needed a new way to connect with herself and others. Lily made “Bus Stop” without an intention to share it, but doing so was a liberation. People have been responding to her honesty around queer-ness, family, and the “ghosts which haunt us” even in the daytime.
Rainbows in Revolt has helped Lily Erin go from bars and backyards to The Monument Stage at Pride. This is a meteoric rise, and a testament to both Erin’s talent and the work of Rainbows to promote her. “A little encouragement goes a long way with early artists,” and by “planting a seed” Rainbows is already seeing their artist garden grow. Community is power, and Erin is a perfect example of how effective simple modern techniques of promotion can be.
A next step for Rainbows is putting on shows themselves. On Oct. 3, Rainbows in Revolt will host an Evening with Ray Boltz at the National City Christian Church. Boltz grew up in the Catholic Church and for many years was the soundtrack to many services, youth camps, and church groups. He was celebrated by millions until he came out in 2008. Allison remembers her community “never playing his music again.”
Rainbows in Revolt is helping him to return to the church, and proving that identity does not need to be exclusive. We live in a complicated world with complicated lines being drawn. Boltz proves that these lines don’t exist, and will be breaking down barriers to bring together communities. To Allison, “a trans woman standing next to a straight white man in church is a powerful teacher.”
The Safe Space maps bridge all types of spaces, and one of the unlikely ones is, perhaps, churches. Matt said that “BYU has only nine safe spaces around their campus and seven of them are churches.” Not all churches are anti-gay, and many times they are the only place for people to find community.
Rainbows in Revolt is just getting started bridging gaps and building community.
Arts & Entertainment
‘Heated Rivalry’ star takes it off in new ads for Under Armour
François Arnaud becomes global brand ambassador
Actor François Arnaud made a splash as gay hockey player Scott Hunter in “Heated Rivalry.” Now the Under Armour athletic apparel company is counting on the actor to make a splash promoting its HeatGear sportswear line.
The Baltimore-based company announced on July 23 that it has made Arnaud its newest global brand ambassador and that he will headline “For When It’s Hot,” a promotional campaign celebrating its HeatGear franchise.
A 45-second video released by the company features Arnaud exercising in Under Armour gear – lifting weights, doing crunches and battling ropes while the neighbors gawk — and then taking his shirt off, wiping his face with it and throwing it at the camera. A jogger passing by is apparently so flustered that he runs into a couple of trash cans.
“It’s hot out there,” an announcer says. “Temperatures are expected to keep rising.”
Arnaud, 41, never made it to The Cottage, but he had a prominent role in the steamy gay hockey romance show, which debuted last fall on HBO Max and the Canadian streaming service Crave. His character wore tight-fitting Under Armour products throughout the series, including a memorable scene where he meets his love interest Kip, played by Robbie G. K. (Robbie Graham-Kuntz), at the fictional Straw + Berry smoothie shop. Hunter’s Under Armour logo is hard to miss as he waits for his extra-banana blueberry smoothie.
“Arnaud has earned international recognition for his dynamic work across film and television, most recently captivating audiences with his breakout role in ‘Heated Rivalry,’” Under Armour said in announcing its partnership with the actor. “His performance sparked widespread fan engagement and conversation online, including enthusiasm around the character’s connection to sport, training and Under Armour products featured throughout the series.”
“What drew us to François was more than his obvious talent and looks, it was what he represents,” said Matt Dornic, chief communications officer for Under Armour, in a statement. “The character he portrays ultimately finds his greatest success when he stops trying to fit someone else’s mold and embraces who he truly is. That’s a lesson that resonates deeply with us. The best athletes perform with confidence, conviction and authenticity, and we believe the strongest brands do too. As Under Armour continues to evolve, we’re focused on being unmistakably ourselves, and François embodies that mindset in everything he does.”
Long known for its partnerships with professional athletes, Under Armour also names ambassadors from the fields of entertainment and culture. Others include country music star Parker McCollum and Grammy-nominated rapper Gunna. These partnerships, the company says, “reflect the brand’s expanding view of performance and its belief that athletic mindset extends far beyond the field of play.”
“The connection between sport and culture is stronger than ever, and that’s creating exciting opportunities to engage athletes and fans in new ways,” said Tyler Rutstein, Under Armour’s Senior Vice President of Global Brand and Americas Marketing, in a statement.
“François is at the center of a moment that fans are genuinely passionate about, and we’re excited to be part of it,” he continued.” As a brand, we’re focused on showing up in authentic sport moments and clever cultural crossovers. When we recognized François wearing Under Armour organically, we knew a partnership would feel authentic to both of our fan bases.”
“François’s character held a cultural mirror up to the brand and we liked what it reflected — hardworking, relentless and an athlete whose performance improved when he embraced his authentic self,” Dornic told ADWEEK. “That is especially meaningful at this moment for UA. With [founder] Kevin [Plank] returning as CEO, we’ve been really intentional about connecting with our roots and reigniting what makes UA great.”
Arnaud identifies as bisexual. His “For When It’s Hot” campaign for Under Armour has launched globally and will run across Under Armour’s social channels, including Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube.
To celebrate the occasion, Under Armour had a pop-up “HeatGear Smoothie Bar” at its headquarters over the weekend. One popular flavor was named “Blue Moon over Baltimore” – a nod to Scott Hunter’s favorite smoothie in the show, “Blue Moon over Brooklyn.”
“If you’d told the skinny awkward kid I used to be that one day I’d be an ambassador for a sportswear brand, I would’ve laughed,” Arnaud said in Under Armour’s announcement. “What makes this moment feel so special is that it’s [a] reminder that we don’t always end up where we expect, and growth can look very different from what we imagined. Grateful and honored to partner with Under Armour who were willing to meet me right where I want to be.”
Fan reaction to the collaboration was overwhelmingly positive, with one commenter on social media suggesting that Under Armour rename itself “Under Arnaud.”
“It’s a great day to be bisexual,” said a second.
“Such a big deal to have an out and proud bisexual man to be the new ambassador of a major sports brand campaign like this!” said a third. “Love our bi king François and shoutout to Under Armour!”
‘Heartstopper Forever’ delivers satisfying conclusion
Matthew Rosenstein in ‘Make Me French’ a hit at Clear Space Theatre
White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits
Rainbows in Revolt on a mission to make LGBTQ artists’ voices heard
Officials raise troubling concerns about Rehoboth mayoral candidate Suzanne Goode
1 dead, 29 injured in Berlin Pride attack
‘Into the Grey’ unites Cavill, Gyllenhaal for thrills and gay love
D.C. summer theater offers something for every taste
Summer in the City: Free exhibits, movies, more fill D.C.’s calendar
With gas prices soaring again, a staycation is a good plan
-
Germany4 days ago1 dead, 29 injured in Berlin Pride attack
-
Movies4 days ago
‘Into the Grey’ unites Cavill, Gyllenhaal for thrills and gay love
-
Theater3 days ago
D.C. summer theater offers something for every taste
-
a&e features3 days ago
Summer in the City: Free exhibits, movies, more fill D.C.’s calendar
