Month: February 2021

Northwestern University senior Hayden Richardson loves being a cheerleader—the catchy chants, the competitions, and especially the gravity-defying stunts. But in a new lawsuit obtained by ELLE.com, Richardson reveals a darker side to her collegiate cheer career. The 22-year-old senior alleges she has been “treated like a sex object,” both at fundraising events and tailgates, and encouraged to act like a “temptress and courtesan” for rich donors. A Northwestern representative denies her allegations, telling ELLE.com the school “reviewed the complaint and denies that Northwestern violated any law, including Title IX.”

Below, Richardson talks about the sexual harassment detailed in her lawsuit and how she’s working to protect herself—and her teammates.

---

Before games, a group of us are selected to entertain powerful donors—the ones that fund the majority of Northwestern’s athletics programs. Our job, we are told, is to improve their experience, to be a “pop of color.”

We perform alongside the school marching band, shaking our pom poms and dancing near donor tables. We stay long after the band leaves to mingle and chat and smile for photos. It is not unusual to feel someone’s hand slip from the back of your uniform to below your waist.

The phrase “sex kitten” isn’t too far off to describe how cheerleaders can be treated. Too often, we are brought in to be ogled at, to sexually please and excite. But it’s hard to be peppy when your butt gets squeezed without your permission.

I had a choice to make: Quit my team and move on, or make sure my experiences were not invalidated—and potentially protect other cheerleaders. I knew what I needed to do.

I’m very competitive, always have been. I grew up doing gymnastics and switched to cheerleading in high school, joining both the pom-squad and an elite all-star club team. I love to flip, which is on-the-ground tumbling, and stunt, which is when you get thrown up in the air.

Picture this: A formation of cheerleaders on the ground holding people up. I’m usually the one on the ground, which is called a base. Here’s my unpopular opinion: I love being a base. It’s hard work that requires constant communication with the other person. You get really close, really fast.

My cheer teammates were some of my best friends growing up. We were weird and silly, never not giggling or sneaking snacks out of our backpacks. And don’t even ask me to count the number of sweaty selfies we took after practice.

Getting into Northwestern was a dream come true, and making the cheer team was like the cherry on top. When I arrived on campus for pre-season practices, we went through a rigorous athletic physical test, including an EKG test. My heart had always beat really fast, but the test revealed that I have an electrical heart condition called Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome.

I sat out our first five practices in preparation for heart surgery. It was terrifying, but God really aligned the stars in a way I never could have imagined. If I hadn’t taken that test, I could have literally passed out and died at any time.

Joining the cheer team saved my life—but it also made my life more complicated than I could have ever expected.

Our coach warned us that creepy fans might give us a hard time before games, but I didn’t understand what she meant until I experienced it first hand. We were told to walk around parking lot tailgates and stop at tents to say hello and take pictures. It wasn’t unusual for drunk men to put their hands on us or to pick us up without our permission, even when we told them no. We were offered cocaine and alcohol. It was not normal.

My coach’s advice? Shrug it off and say, “Go Cats!” But that didn’t sit right with me. When someone is creepy, aren’t you supposed to run away? Tell them to stop? Say something?

At one football open-bar party, we were instructed to mingle with fans. It was claustrophobic and men were grabbing at us. One guy spilled beer all over my pom poms. It wasn’t a safe setting. It was like these men thought: “Here are some small, vulnerable cheerleaders, and I’m going to be sexually inappropriate.”

My teammates were angry, but not angry enough to confront our coach about it. There was a lot of pissing and moaning, but why complain if you’re not going to do anything?

I went to my coach first, and suggested we rethink how we approach tailgating. That was dismissed. So I went to school administration and said, “We can’t allow this to continue.”

---

Two years passed and nothing happened. The bad behavior continued, and we were still at risk. I became anxious, stressed, and depressed. Not only was I dealing with my own trauma and invalidation because it felt like no one was listening, but teammates had started to entrust me with their own stories of harassment. All that, plus schoolwork.

When people ask, “Why didn’t you just quit the team?” I tell them that I could not have quit in good conscious quit, and been like, “I’m safe now!”

I will be replaced by a freshman when I graduate, and then what happens? Good luck to her? Hope she can deal with it?

Sexual harassment is a pervasive issue in any space women occupy. It’s especially predominant in cheerleading, because the institutions that want to have these programs, that benefit off of them, don’t do anything to protect their cheerleaders. The programs are not designed to protect athletes, they’re there to make money.

Some of my teammates have been very supportive in my journey to hold people accountable, but there’s still a lot of fear. I don’t blame them. This is a systemic problem. I’m scared, too, but ultimately I know what I’m doing has the potential to protect so many other women.

This interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

Content warning: Police brutality; suicide. Well into their sixth straight month of striking and protesting, farmers in India continue to demand the repeal of three recently passed agricultural bills that they believe prioritize corporate interests over their own. The protests began in August when the three bills were first unveiled and have continued to grow exponentially as the bills were passed in September. The government has repeatedly refused to grant the demands of farmers and agricultural unions in subsequent meetings.

The protest, at its core, reflects global issues of workers’ rights and labor regulations and the Indian government’s treatment of the protestors has begun to veer dangerously into human rights violation territory, but it still has not been covered widely outside of India (even as people around the world have hosted their own protests in solidarity). That changed, however, when the peaceful protests turned violent at the end of January. On Jan. 26, India’s Republic Day, farmers hosting a planned rally drove their tractors into Delhi’s city center and stormed the capital’s historic Red Fort, where they clashed with police armed with tear gas, batons, and assault rifles. According to the BBC, one protestor died and more than 300 police officers were injured in the clash; more than 200 protestors were subsequently detained, as were eight working journalists, per Human Rights Watch.

In early February, after the Indian government was reported to be restricting internet access in the areas around the ongoing protests, global activists like Rihanna began using their platforms to signal-boost the farmers’ cause.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is imported from Instagram. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

As the protest nears the six-month mark, the government shows no sign of accepting the protestors’ demands and therefore has all but ensured their continued civil disobedience. Here’s a primer on the ongoing conflict.

What sparked the farmers’ protest?

The farmers’ protest is centered around conflict over three pieces of agricultural legislation passed in September by India’s Parliament with support from Prime Minister Narendra Modi. According to PRS, a nonprofit Indian legislative research institute, the three bills decrease trade regulations on farmers’ goods, allow for online and interstate trading, enable farmers and buyers to enact exclusive contracts, and limit the government’s ability to regulate the supply of essential commodities.

The bills were presented by Modi and other legislative supporters as giving farmers more freedom to control their own trade and expand their own markets. The farmers, however, argue that the increased competition enabled by this deregulation will give corporate buyers, rather than agricultural workers—who make up nearly 60 percent of India’s population—all the power. Since the buyers will have access to a wider pool of suppliers, they’ll therefore be able to drive down prices, a phenomenon further compounded by the bills’ removal of government-imposed minimum prices for certain goods, which farmers say were already only barely helping them scrape by.

Since the protests started in August, ahead of the bills’ passage, dozens of protestors have died from severe weather conditions, health conditions such as heart attacks, car accidents while approaching the protests, and suicide, according to Al Jazeera.

What do the protestors want?

In short, a complete repeal of the three acts. Representatives from more than 30 agricultural unions that oppose the bills have met with government officials in 11 rounds of talks, to no avail. Officials have invited the farmers to participate in mediation, negotiation, and amendment of the laws, but the farmers have refused, citing their demand that the bills be repealed outright.

“The government has the sharpest of brains working for it. The fact that they’ve not been able to come up with a proposal which meets our demands means that our case is strong,” Kiran Vissa, a union member and a leader of the protests, told The Wire in December, noting that merely amending any of the bills would nullify the others. “So the only way the demands can be met is by a complete repeal of the laws. The government has refused to look into the nature of our demands in a substantive manner.”

The nation’s Supreme Court issued an order in mid-January suspending the bills and appointing a committee to oversee future negotiations, The Guardian reported. The protestors continued to stand by their request for a total cancellation of the legislation, rather than an unsatisfactory compromise, with leaders reportedly saying, “Now is not the time for a committee.”

In response to the suspension order, Bhog Singh Mansa, President of the Indian Farmers Union, echoed Vissa’s sentiments. “A stay is not a solution. We are here to get these laws scrapped completely,” he told the Business Standard. “The government has in a way already agreed to scrap the laws when it said it is willing to incorporate as many amendments as farmers want.”

What has the government said and done?

In the most recent round of talks on Jan. 22, the government said its best offer was a suspension of the bills for up to 18 months, which the farmers once again rejected, as it doesn’t meet their explicit demands. After hitting this roadblock, per The Print, the groups have yet to schedule their next round of talks.

In earlier talks, government officials said they had reached a consensus with the protestors on the issues of decriminalizing necessary controlled fires and dropping a provision that increased power tariffs—though, once again, they stopped far short of agreeing to completely repeal the laws. Officials have labeled this refusal to accept anything less than repeal a sign “that these leaders are not going for a solution—they are continuously wanting to create a movement against the government,” Gopal Krishna Agarwal, a spokesperson for Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, told The New York Times.

Throughout the months of protests, supporters of the laws have also claimed that the farmers simply do not understand their provisions, with Modi reportedly blaming the protests on a misinformation campaign by the opposition party. However, the lack of tangible results from the 11 rounds of talks, plus growing evidence of misinformation being spread by the bills’ supporters, prove that the protests are based not on a misunderstanding, but on a fundamental disagreement over the rights and treatment of agricultural workers.

Additionally, on Jan. 26, after the Republic Day violence, the interior ministry announced that it was suspending mobile internet services in several districts surrounding Delhi, where hundreds of thousands of farmers have been camped out for months, the BBC reported. The shutdown was supposed to last only for a few hours, but has been repeatedly extended each day, according to CNN, with officials claiming that the internet shutdowns—essentially cutting off the farmers’ ability to share and receive information—was “in the interest of maintaining public safety and averting public emergency.”

What’s next?

With the bills’ supporters continued refusal to accept the farmers’ demands of total repeal, and no further talks on the schedule, it seems likely that the protests will stretch on for weeks, if not months, though many of the farmers may choose to return to their farms when planting season begins in March.

“We are not going back—that is not in our genetic code,” Ringhu Yaspal, a protestor camped outside of Delhi, told The New York Times in the days after the Republic Day clash. “Agriculture has turned into a slow poison. It’s better to die fighting here.”

Also in the camps, Jagtar Singh Bajwa, a farm leader, told an assembled crowd, “We should not give a message that we are tired, that we are going home,” according to the Times, adding, “We will start over today, with full unity.”

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

Kendall Jenner, the only Kardashian-Jenner who is truly secretive about her love life, is still off the market, according to Entertainment Tonight. A source told the outlet that Jenner is still seeing NBA player Devin Booker. Booker and Jenner were first romantically linked in August 2020, although Jenner has never confirmed their relationship on her own social media.

A source explained to Entertainment Tonight today that Jenner and Booker, six months in, are “still dating and it works because they keep it simple.” The source said the two don’t really put pressure on their relationship at all, and it’s not very serious at this point.

“There aren’t any huge expectations or crazy commitments on either side,” the source said. “They have gotten a lot closer, but Kendall’s schedule is particularly super busy and Devin is very understanding of that.”

That source added that Jenner, 25, really embraces her independence: “[She] is also very much her own individual and likes her off time with family and friends and having her space.”

Jenner spoke way back in April 2017 about why she doesn’t broadcast who she’s dating. “I’m not marrying anyone,” she told Harper’s Bazaar then. “I’m not engaged. There’s nothing long-term or serious like that in my life. If I’m not fully, fully in it with someone, why would I make it public to everyone else? If I don’t even know what it is, why would I let the world know?”

“I think it’s something sacred,” she added of relationships. “It’s something between two people, and nobody else’s opinion needs to be involved in it. People want to start drama. If I had a boyfriend, people are going to say all this stuff that’s probably going to cause us to break up.”

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

Isn’t the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result? It’s 2021, and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association has once again filled me with equal parts joy, confusion, and rage for the umpteenth year in a row.

At face value, the 2021 Golden Globe nominations might seem divergent from past patterns: Many first-timers were nominated, including Kaley Cuoco for her performance in The Flight Attendant, and new best drama contenders include Lovecraft Country and The Undoing. That’s great, but expected—excellent new shows should be nominated. That’s the point of an awards show!

What remains starkly the same is the lack of true grit from the HFPA. They’ll undoubtedly expect a pat on the back for nominating three women in the best director category, after shutting them out entirely for the past six years. It’s fantastic that One Night in Miami‘s Regina King, Promising Young Woman‘s Emerald Fennell, and Nomadland‘s Chloe Zhao all earned nods. It’s something akin to progress; it should be celebrated. But this is what happens when some of the most visionary minds in Hollywood are repeatedly disrespected: The wins become so incremental, the awards so vacuous, that they seem to lose their power entirely. It’s difficult to celebrate these moments when they’re too little, too late.

What’s equally frustrating is the signal these nominations send. The Golden Globes are, ostensibly, meant to represent the best in film and television. But Michaela Coel’s I May Destroy You, one of the most universally praised shows in recent memory, received not a single nod. Neither did Spike Lee’s acclaimed Da 5 Bloods. Lovecraft Country‘s stupendous performers earned no acting nominations. The Arkansas-set, American-directed Minari was excluded from the Best Picture category due to an HFPA rule that states a film can’t be nominated if more than 50 percent of its spoken dialogue is not in English.

If the Golden Globes aren’t representing what’s truly the best in film and television, that makes them boring at best, obsolete at worst. But don’t take my word for it. Twitter’s plenty unhappy, too.

Let’s start with those snubs, shall we?

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Ah, and then there’s the particularly egregious nomination of Emily in Paris for Best Television Series, Musical or Comedy. Folks, we can all appreciate the escapist absurdism of a young American pretending she knows how to fix a French company’s social media with cute pictures of croissants, but really—this is the best we can offer?

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

The biggest question from today’s announcement: When will we decide it’s time to stop paying attention to these awards, as they continually prove their disconnect from reality?

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

In these strange and unprecedented times, it’s comforting to have familiar rituals to fall back on. Though many of our favorite traditions have been curtailed by COVID, from Super Bowl parties to holiday travel, there’s one winter habit that’s completely unchanged this year: getting good and mad at the Golden Globe nominations.

Though awards season is operating on a weird and delayed schedule this year, the ceremonies will still take place, and this morning’s Globe noms marked the official beginning of the circuit. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association came through with a selection of nominees that include plenty of worthy contenders—alongside picks so random (and undeserved!) you can only scratch your head. Here are the biggest surprises and most outrageous snubs from the 2021 nominations.

Snub: I May Destroy You & Michaela Coel

This omission is so egregious that “snub” doesn’t even cover it. Michaela Coel’s I May Destroy You was arguably the best show of 2020, a wholly original and dizzyingly bold chronicle of a young woman trying to rebuild her life after a sexual assault. In the era of Peak TV, it’s rare to feel as though you’re watching something genuinely new, and that feeling permeated every frame of this searing, surprising show. Leaving the show out of the Best Drama category is bad enough, but for Coel to miss out on a nomination for either acting or writing is outrageous.

Snub: Jurnee Smollett (Lovecraft Country)

HBO’s Lovecraft Country did earn a nomination for Best Drama Series, but none of its actors were recognized for their work. Jurnee Smollett, whose breakout lead performance as Letitia Lewis anchored the series, is the strangest absence of all, particularly since she was widely tipped for some much-deserved recognition.

Surprise: Emily in Paris

Look, we all hate-binged Emily in Paris, we all enjoyed the memes, we all understand the show’s frothy appeal. But to name it one of the five best dramas of the year is straight batshit.

Snub: The supporting cast of Mrs. America

This shouldn’t really come as a surprise, since nominating the movie star while ignoring everybody else is an extremely Golden Globes move. But FX’s miniseries about conservative firebrand Phyllis Schlafly was stacked from top to bottom with extraordinary, nuanced performances from a largely female cast, including Uzo Aduba as Shirley Chisholm, Rose Byrne as Gloria Steinem, and Margot Martindale as Bella Abzug—all of whom deserved a nod.

Surprise: A welcome spotlight moment for female directors

In the 77-year history of the Golden Globes, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association has nominated a grand total of five female directors. In 2018, Natalie Portman memorably called out the ceremony onstage for its lack of female directing nominees. And this year, the HFPA took notice, nominating three women in its Best Director, Motion Picture category. One Night in Miami’s Regina King earned a well-deserved nod, as did Promising Young Woman‘s Emerald Fennell and Nomadland’s Chloé Zhao.

Snub: Black directors and performers in the Best Drama category

It’s baffling how many superb films made by Black directors—and starring Black talent—were omitted from the Best Drama category, despite performances from those films recognized in the acting categories. Spike Lee’s Da 5 Bloods, Shaka King’s Judas and the Black Messiah, George C. Wolfe’s Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom and Regina King’s One Night in Miami (which earned her a Best Director nom) were all absent from Best Drama. All five of the nominated movies focus mostly on white characters.

Snub: Minari

Lee Isaac Chung’s acclaimed drama about a Korean family who move to Arkansas to start a farm in the 1980s has been widely tipped as an awards frontrunner this year. Unsurprisingly, the internet was furious when the Globes placed the film in the Foreign Language category rather than Best Drama. Thanks to a controversial HFPA rule, Minari is ineligible for Best Drama because a majority of its dialogue is in a language other than English—and according to Chung, the movie’s distributor chose to enter it in the Foreign Language category rather than Best Drama. So while this may not meet the technical definition of a snub, it’s still a disappointment.

Surprise: James Corden

Asked to guess which member of The Prom‘s star-studded cast would be nominated for a Globe, most smart pundits (and honestly most regular people) would probably have put their money on Meryl Streep. But instead, it was Corden’s widely panned performance that earned the sole acting nomination for Ryan Murphy’s splashy musical dramedy.

---

The Nominees

Best Motion Picture – Drama

• The Father
• Mank
• Nomadland
• Promising Young Woman
• The Trial of the Chicago 7

Best Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy

• Borat Subsequent Moviefilm
• Hamilton
• Music
• Palm Springs
• The Prom

Best Director, Motion Picture

• Emerald Fennell, Promising Young Woman
• David Fincher, Mank
• Regina King, One Night in Miami
• Aaron Sorkin, The Trial of the Chicago 7
• Chloé Zhao, Nomadland

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture, Drama

• Viola Davis, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom
• Andra Day, The United States vs. Billie Holiday
• Vanessa Kirby, Pieces of a Woman
• Frances McDormand, Nomadland
• Carey Mulligan, Promising Young Woman

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy

• Maria Bakalova, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm
• Kate Hudson, Music
• Michelle Pfeiffer, French Exit
• Rosamund Pike, I Care a Lot
• Anya Taylor-Joy, Emma

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in any Motion Picture

• Glenn Close, Hillbilly Elegy
• Olivia Colman, The Father
• Jodie Foster, The Mauritanian
• Amanda Seyfried, Mank
• Helena Zengel, News of the World

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture, Drama

• Riz Ahmed, Sound of Metal
• Chadwick Boseman, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom
• Anthony Hopkins, The Father
• Gary Oldman, Mank
• Tahar Rahim, The Mauritanian

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy

• Sacha Baron Cohen, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm
• James Corden, The Prom
• Lin-Manuel Miranda, Hamilton
• Dev Patel, The Personal History of David Copperfield
• Andy Samberg, Palm Springs

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in any Motion Picture

• Sacha Baron Cohen, The Trial of the Chicago 7
• Daniel Kaluuya, Judas and the Black Messiah
• Jared Leto, The Little Things
• Bill Murray, On the Rocks
• Leslie Odom Jr., One Night in Miami

Best Screenplay, Motion Picture

• Emerald Fennell, Promising Young Woman
• Jack Fincher, Mank
• Aaron Sorkin, The Trial of the Chicago 7
• Florian Zeller and Christopher Hampton, The Father
• Chloé Zhao, Nomadland

Best Original Score, Motion Picture

• Alexandre Desplat, The Midnight Sky
• Ludwig Göransson, Tenet
• James Newton Howard, News of the World
• Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, Mank
• Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross and Jon Batiste, Soul

Best Original Song, Motion Picture

• “Fight for You,” Judas and the Black Messiah
• “Hear My Voice,” The Trial of the Chicago 7
• “Io Sì (Seen),” The Life Ahead
• “Speak Now,” One Night in Miami
• “Tigress & Tweed,” The United States vs. Billie Holiday

Best Motion Picture, Animated

• The Croods: A New Age
• Onward
• Over the Moon
• Soul
• Wolfwalkers

Best Motion Picture, Foreign Language

• Another Round
• La Llorona
• The Life Ahead
• Minari
• Two of Us

Best Television Series, Drama

• The Crown
• Lovecraft Country
• The Mandalorian
• Ozark
• Ratched

Best Television Series, Musical or Comedy

• Emily in Paris
• The Flight Attendant
• The Great
• Schitt’s Creek
• Ted Lasso

Best Limited Series, Anthology Series or a Motion Picture made for Television

• Normal People
• The Queen’s Gambit
• Small Axe
• The Undoing
• Unorthodox

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series, Drama

• Olivia Colman, The Crown
• Jodie Comer, Killing Eve
• Emma Corrin, The Crown
• Laura Linney, Ozark
• Sarah Paulson, Ratched

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series, Musical or Comedy

• Lily Collins, Emily in Paris
• Kaley Cuoco, The Flight Attendant
• Elle Fanning, The Great
• Jane Levy, Zoey’s Extraordinary Playlist
• Catherine O’Hara, Schitt’s Creek

Best Performance by an Actress in a Limited Series, Anthology Series or a Motion Picture Made for Television

• Cate Blanchett, Mrs. America
• Daisy Edgar-Jones, Normal People
• Shira Haas, Unorthodox
• Nicole Kidman, The Undoing
• Anya Taylor-Joy, The Queen’s Gambit

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Supporting Role

• Gillian Anderson, The Crown
• Helena Bonham Carter, The Crown
• Julia Garner, Ozark
• Annie Murphy, Schitt’s Creek
• Cynthia Nixon, Ratched

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series, Drama

• Jason Bateman, Ozark
• Josh O’Connor, The Crown
• Bob Odenkirk, Better Call Saul
• Al Pacino, Hunters
• Matthew Rhys, Perry Mason

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series, Musical or Comedy

• Don Cheadle, Black Monday
• Nicholas Hoult, The Great
• Eugene Levy, Schitt’s Creek
• Jason Sudeikis, Ted Lasso
• Ramy Youssef, Ramy

Best Performance by an Actor in a Limited Series or a Motion Picture Made for Television

• Bryan Cranston, Your Honor
• Jeff Daniels, The Comey Rule
• Hugh Grant, The Undoing
• Ethan Hawke, The Good Lord Bird
• Mark Ruffalo, I Know This Much is True

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Supporting Role

• John Boyega, Small Axe
• Brendan Gleeson, The Comey Rule
• Daniel Levy, Schitt’s Creek
• Jim Parsons, Hollywood
• Donald Sutherland, The Undoing

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

During the final hours of New York City’s big snowstorm this week, which blanketed the city in over 17.2 inches of snow, Selena Gomez made a bold move: Navigating the city and its scantily plowed sidewalks in heels. The singer was photographed out on Tuesday, carefully walking to lunch with a friend at The Odeon restaurant in TriBeCa. Gomez wore a pair of ripped jeans, a giant pink scarf, cream teddy coat, white gloves, and an orange mask. She carried a black purse, which complemented her black heels.

Gomez has been in Manhattan for the past couple weeks, filming her upcoming Hulu comedy Only Murders in the Building. Earlier this week, hair stylist Evanie Frausto posted photos of Gomez in the pastel rainbow wig he created for her on his Instagram Story. In one shot, she appears in a mask (in adherence to New York’s COVID-19 guidelines) and her Louis Vuitton monogram trench. It’s unclear whether the look was for a project or just for fun. (Some celebrities will wear wigs when they go out to help disguise them, so they can have some privacy.)

In addition to Only Murders in the Building, Gomez is on the cusp of releasing her first Spanish EP, REVELACIÓN, on March 12. Gomez spoke to Apple Music’s Zane Lowe last month about how singing in Spanish has been a longtime dream of hers. “This has been something I’ve wanted to do for 10 years, working on a Spanish project, because I’m so, so proud of my heritage, and just genuinely felt like I wanted this to happen,” she said. “And it happened, and I feel like it’s the perfect timing. Just with all the division in the world, there’s something about Latin music that globally just makes people feel things, you know?”

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io