Labor Day's come and gone, summer's officially over, and Hollywood goes back to school right along with everyone else. The frothy, silly season stories that fill the summer months are done, and this week the real stuff started breaking instead, actual projects, actual substance, the kind of news that tells you something rather than just filling a slow news day. Below, the A24 documentary that ambushed Telluride, why the Creative Arts Emmys were quietly one of the more interesting award shows of the year, the Palace going back to work after a summer break with a memo on Harry, a betting ad that says more about the creator economy than any think piece could, and the video our audience couldn't stop watching this week.
In this edition we also cover:
And if someone in your life still thinks celebrity news is beneath them, forward this on and let them eat their words. We have a great referral scheme where you get free paid content as a reward.
Refer 2 readers → one free month.
Refer 5 readers → two free months.
Refer 10 readers → three free months.
Why this trailer drop is the story of the week
Elizabeth Holmes, Credit: A24
Nope, nothing royal, or celebrity scandal based, a documentary movie trailer. A24 just revealed its secret Telluride screening: a Nathan Fielder documentary about Elizabeth Holmes. Co-directed with Lance Oppenheim, You Can See Everything premiered Sunday night after years of quiet filming nobody managed to leak. It follows Holmes starting 34 days before she reported to federal prison in 2023, continuing for three years after. When you watch the trailer you think, it's so unlikely you start to question whether you are watching AI. Is this her real face? She would never have done this, it can't be real. Who is watching that baby? Here are the reasons why this movie is so mesmerizing.
The secrecy was the marketing. Telluride's Sunday slot is always a mystery screening, but this year attendees had to check their phones at the door. A three-year shoot on one of the most tabloid-friendly subjects in America stayed sealed until Sunday night, which is close to a miracle in an industry that leaks everything.
It skips the part everyone already knows. The Dropout and The Inventor covered the rise and fall. This one picks up after conviction and follows her into territory nobody's filmed.
Fielder's method is a real threat to her. He works by getting uncomfortably close and letting people talk themselves into a corner. Holmes built her whole persona on control, the unblinking stare, the manufactured baritone. The teaser already shows the friction: she tells him she has no reason to deceive him, he asks if she's being real right now, she says she's always being real.
Even the director doesn't know what he's got. Fielder's said he's still struggling to understand exactly what he experienced over those three years, and that he's genuinely counting on audiences to help him make sense of it. That's rare for a filmmaker to admit, and it makes the film feel like an open question rather than a verdict.
The baby in her arms is doing narrative work. That "always being real" line lands while she's rocking an infant, one of her two children with partner Billy Evans. Framing a disgraced founder as a mother mid-redemption is the oldest trick in the book, and Fielder built his career on catching exactly that kind of stagecraft on camera. Whether he's exposing it or being used by it is the tension the trailer won't resolve.
It's built for cinemas, not a streaming afterthought. At 174 minutes, going out theatrically via A24 in October, this is positioned as a real event, fitting A24's pattern of turning true crime into arthouse.
The Emmys Nobody Watched (But Should Have)
Every year the Creative Arts Emmys hand out roughly two thirds of the actual trophies, and every year almost nobody notices, because they arrive a week or two before the main ceremony with no network slot, no live broadcast, just a stream and a press release. This year they landed over Labor Day weekend, which is about as close as awards season gets to scheduling itself into oblivion on purpose. And yet this year had some interesting stories, so here's what actually happened while everyone was at the beach, lake, and pool:
Rob Reiner won a posthumous Emmy, taking home the award for his supporting role in The Bear, nine months after he and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner, were found dead in what the Los Angeles County medical examiner ruled a homicide.
Mariska Hargitay won her first Emmy in 20 years, and her first ever as a director, for My Mom Jayne, her documentary about her mother and the father she didn't know she had, eight days before she hosts the Emmys herself as the first woman to do it in 15 years.
Bad Bunny turned the most divisive Super Bowl in years into the most decorated one. His halftime show collected seven Emmys on night one, the most of any performance in the category's history, months after his choice to perform largely in Spanish split viewers right down the middle.
Sabrina Carpenter is now halfway to an EGOT, thanks to the Muppets. Her guest turn on The Muppet Show earned her a first Emmy, which she called "incredibly proud" territory in her acceptance.
And Heated Rivalry's Connor Storrie made his mother his date. The young star of the queer hockey romance walked the carpet with a new buzzcut and his mom, Linda, on his arm.
Not bad for a ceremony most of the industry treats as a formality before the real show.
The Palace Finally Spoke on Harry and Meghan. Everyone Heard Something Different
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, Credit: Buckingham Palace
Buckingham Palace waited eleven days to say a single official word about Harry and Meghan moving back to Britain. When it finally did, on the same afternoon Harry was photographed in London for the first time since landing, at Tower Bridge Studios, signing a wall for the crew of Diary of a CEO, the statement arrived not from the King directly but through a letter from his most senior official, the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Benyon, sent to government ministers, top military brass, and the lord-lieutenants who represent the King in every UK region.
The letter itself is short and, on its face, unremarkable. Harry and Meghan remain not working royals. Their HRH titles stay in what's called abeyance, which is a fancy way of saying they are suspended and not used. The Sandringham agreement struck back in 2020 still stands. Their charitable work is described as a personal matter, undertaken privately. And the most telling line was: their position is "akin to private citizens with commercial and charitable interests." Questions about courtesies owed to them, including where public funds might be required, should go to Buckingham Palace, and the actual security arrangements remain a matter for Ravec, the body that decides royal protection. That's the document. What happened next is the more interesting story, because almost nobody agreed on what it meant.
HuffPost read it as a sign of nerves inside the Palace, arguing that the decision to send the guidance at all, and then let it become public, "demonstrates the concern among some palace observers" about how the Sussexes' return is being handled. In that framing, the letter isn't reassurance, it's a tell.
People took the opposite position entirely. Its reporting quoted palace insiders saying the letter "does not represent a new policy," just a restatement of an arrangement that has been held since January 2020. The Royal Observer landed in similar territory but sharper, with royal commentator Afua Hagan telling the outlet, "They're not telling us anything new. We already knew that they weren't going to be working royals." Hagan's read was that the timing mattered more than the content, that the Palace was drawing a "them and us" line ahead of expected higher-profile Sussex activity in Britain, a preemptive move rather than a reactive one.
Then there was The Nerd Stash, which framed the letter as the King "bolting the door" on his son, a rebuke rather than a clarification. Its comments split just as hard, some readers wanting the titles stripped and the security funding cut off entirely, others calling the letter an overreaction to a couple who, as one commenter put it, "haven't said a word or anything to the contrary."
Tom Sykes, of The Royalist read the same letter as the opposite of a rebuke. He pointed to that "private citizens" line contradicting the very next clause promising public funds and courtesies, calling it the King trying to have his cake and eat it, and noted that Charles never took the harder, cleaner steps available to him, stripping the titles outright, using the Mountbatten-Windsor surname, pulling the couple from the royal website. He read that inaction as the real signal: a quiet reintegration dressed up as distance.
Five outlets, one document, five different verdicts, and two of them are direct opposites. None of them misquoted the letter. They're all working from the same lines. What differs is what each was carrying into the reading, whether the starting assumption was that the Palace has been too soft on Harry and Meghan, too performatively cold toward them, secretly rolling out the welcome mat, or that nothing in this family ever really changes.
That gap is, to me, the actual story here, more than the letter itself. A single official document getting read as proof of institutional panic by one outlet and confirmation of institutional indifference by another isn't really a story about Charles's intentions. It's a measurement of how polarized the public conversation around Harry and Meghan has become, to the point where the same seven hundred words can be poured into whatever container a reader, or an outlet, already brought to it.
My own read, for what it's worth, is duller than any of the four above, which is usually a sign it's closer to true. The Palace spent two weeks fielding calls from officials who had a real, practical problem, whether to bow, who pays for security, what to call them, and no answer to give. The letter reads less like a message aimed at Harry and Meghan and more like an internal memo dressed up as a public statement, an attempt to hand overwhelmed officials a default answer so the ambiguity stops being their problem. That's a far less dramatic explanation than either a quiet rebuke or a secret welcome home. It's also the one that best fits an institution trying to impose order on a return it didn't fully control and never got ahead of.
Is Prince Harry Making a New Documentary About His Mother Diana?
Click the photo to watch my analysis of the news reported from the UK by the Daily Mail's Editor at Large Richard Kay this week.
She Turned a Murder Trial Into a Betting Ad, & It Says Everything About the Influencer Economy
On September 4, a jury deadlocked on whether Lindsay Clancy, the Duxbury, MA mother accused of killing her three children during what her family testified was a severe postpartum breakdown, was guilty of murder. The judge declared a mistrial. No verdict, no resolution. Within hours, podcaster Amanda Hirsch, host of Not Skinny But Not Fat, posted sponsored content for Polymarket, the platform where people bet on real-world outcomes: "On Polymarket it was predicted the verdict would be Not Guilty. Are you surprised? #Polymarketpartner." A case with no verdict, turned into a bet with a brand hashtag, over the deaths of three children.
The backlash was swift, with commenters describing it as "depraved and indecent," and "literally atrocious behavior, shockingly poor judgment." Hirsch deleted the post and apologized on Instagram two days later: "Posting about the Lindsay Clancy trial in the same breath as a brand partnership was completely insensitive, wrong, and out of character for me. I completely lost perspective." She called herself "horrified."
Celebrity Intelligence Takeaway: That apology reads like someone who didn't see it coming until it was already out, which is the point. A generation ago, this ad never runs, not because Hirsch would have been more careful, but because she'd never have been the only person in the room. Legacy outlets, the ones I spent thirty years inside, built layers for exactly this moment: an editor, a standards desk, a lawyer asking whether the trial had actually ended. Those layers were slow and often maddening, and for decades they also decided whose voice got heard at all, which is why so many working-class and outsider voices never got near a byline.
The creator economy blew that gate open, and that's a genuine good. But the gate didn't only keep people out, it also caught mistakes before they reached anyone. Remove it and you get more voices, and one person making calls that used to pass through five. Most days that trade favors the audience. Every so often it produces a betting ad over a mother's collapse and three dead children, with nobody to catch it before it's live. At least she was transparent and owned the mistake. That doesn't undo the post. But it's the right response to not having an editor.
The Most Viewed Video on Our YouTube Channel This Week: Ryan Reynolds vs. Spencer Pratt
Click here to watch our breakdown of the line Ryan Reynolds dropped at his movie premiere this week, and why a former reality star with a recent Oval Office meeting decided it was worth going to war over. When politics and celebrity collide, things turn nasty fast, but tracing exactly where this one actually came from is the fascinating part.
Reynolds vs. Pratt: Who won this one?
That's the week so far. A fugitive-turned-documentary-subject, an award show nobody watches, many takes on a royal letter, an ad that never should have run, and a fight between a movie star and a man who's had a meeting in the Oval Office. See you soon for the same amount of nonsense to make sense of.
Thanks,
