The First Week of Trump’s Trial Gave Him Plenty of Reasons to Worry

Catholics now support former President Donald Trump over President Biden by a wide margin, according to new demographic polling from the Pew Research Center.

Adrian Newey's talks with another F1 team hints at an insane partnership reunion.

Creating invisible jobs that benefit employers financially is forced labor by way of fraud, and, yes ... it is already illegal.

Representative Lauren Boebert had an important point to make. But it could be difficult to hear the rabble-rousing Republican from Colorado over a packed-in crowd of counter-agitators.“So this is what the students here at GW University are facing each and every day,” Boebert was trying to say into a bank of microphones in the middle of the downtown Washington, D.C., campus of George Washington University on Wednesday afternoon. She and five of her GOP colleagues from the House Oversight Committee had just toured an encampment of tents, or a “liberation camp,” that protesters had put up last week in opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza.“Their learning activities are being disrupted,” Boebert said of the students. “Their finals are being disrupted.”But protesters kept disrupting Boebert. Or were she and her friends from Congress the disrupters in this particular Washington-bubble showdown? Who were the rabble in this equation, and who were the rousers?“What about you in that theater?” one woman called out at Boebert from the back of the crowd, referring to a September incident in which the congresswoman was kicked out of a musical comedy after canoodling with a date, vaping, and talking in the midst of the production.This was not the same protester as the one who had been trailing behind Boebert holding up a cardboard sign that said, simply, Beetlejuice, referring to the play that she’d been evicted from. (Google it, and you’ll find security footage of the episode—or don’t.)[David A. Graham: Biden’s patience with campus protests runs out]If only theaters could always incubate such frivolity. But these are bloody days in the embattled theater of the Middle East, which have in turn triggered a spate of protests on American campuses, marked by episodes of bigotry, sporadic violence, and arrests. Combine this with a group of elected performance artists who couldn’t help but try to grab a cheap morsel of attention from this bitterly serious conflict, and you have the political theater that played out on Wednesday.“Dude, are you gonna talk, or am I gonna talk?” Representative Byron Donalds, Republican of Florida, admonished a protester who interrupted his turn at the mic, after Boebert had spoken. Donalds wore dark glasses and a tight-fighting navy suit.Like his colleagues, Donalds called for the immediate removal of the protesters from campus—something that, to this point, the D.C. police department has declined to do. “The mayor is weak in the face of foolishness,” Donalds said, referring to Washington’s chief executive, Muriel Bowser.“You wouldn’t allow someone to stay in your house or stay in your dorm room. You would have them removed,” Donalds said. “Everybody believes in peaceful protest, but this is trespassing.”“What about January 6?” a man standing next to me called out. Yes, what about that, sir?“Calm down. I’m talking now,” Donalds said, addressing another heckler.[Tyler Austin Harper: America’s colleges are reaping what they sowed]About 20 minutes earlier, Representative James Comer, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, had also urged calm as he paraded through the tent city. People shouted after Comer, mocking his committee’s fizzling effort to impeach President Joe Biden, while another said something about Hunter Biden. The voices and signs all blurred together into a muggy cacophony.“Lauren Boebert, seen any good movies lately?”Lesbians for Palestine.I Stand With Israel.Comer led his delegation past a row of tables covered with donated food for the protesters—pizza, granola bars, peanuts, bags of tangerines. Everything is FREE, like Palestine will be free, advertised a poster on the food spread, which covered several yards at the edge of the quad.“Mr. Chairman, do you think your appearance today is going to lead to police violence on campus?” a man with a British accent asked Comer.“Probably,” the congressman said, projecting zero concern.“You want some pizza?” another onlooker asked Comer, who kept walking.The congressman seemed eager to get on with the quick and chaotic press conference that would punctuate the lawmakers’ visit. “Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you,” an outnumbered supporter yelled out. The congressman waited for his colleagues to make their brief statements and seized the closing message for himself.“Help is on the way for George Washington University,” promised Comer, who then joined his colleagues as they struggled through a thick crowd—and a “Beetlejuice” chant—before departing this enclave of academia and heading back to their own pillared sanctum on Capitol Hill.

Fox News' "Antisemitism Exposed" newsletter brings you stories on the rising anti-Jewish prejudice across the U.S. and the world.

Some commentators and lawmakers condemned the new Antisemitism Awareness Act that just overwhelmingly passed in the U.S. House, claiming it violates free speech rights.

The resurgence of hip-hop in China has marked a significant journey from suppression to prominence. In 2018, Chinese censors imposed restrictions on hip-hop.

AL lawmakers signed a bill to ensure President Joe Biden will appear on the November ballot since he won't be formally nominated until after Alabama's early certification deadline.

The "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" star's estranged husband, Mauricio Umansky, has reportedly moved out of their shared home and into a condo.

A married dad was killed when his small plane crashed in a ritzy Georgia neighborhood – with shocking images showing it in flames just feet from a mansion.

Two polls have suggested the former president will lose November's presidential election to Joe Biden.

A Georgia Senate committee will reconvene on Friday to hear testimony about Willis' hiring of Nathan Wade in Donald Trump's election interference case.

Kristi Noem's defense of the killing of her dog Cricket allegedly morphs from "danger to livestock" to "threat to her kids."

One of the best first-round playoff series in NBA history ended with an historic performance.

Inflation is higher than the Federal Reserve wants. What should it do?

“This is an unfortunate and stark reminder of the extreme dangers of illegal ATV and dirt bike riding on city streets, both for pedestrians and the operators of the vehicles themselves," New Haven Police Chief Karl Jacobson said.

Live updates from the 2024 campaign trail with the latest news on presidential candidates, polls, primaries and more.

Ukraine struck the 19-kilometer (nearly 12-mile) road and rail bridge on October 8, 2022 and again in July 2023.

A new church is bringing spiritual comfort to war-weary residents of the Ukrainian village of Lypivka this Orthodox Easter season. Two years ago, it provided refuge.

PEN America and the authoritarian spirit

If you punch at everything, sometimes you hit the wrong target.

James Harden produced one of his trademark playoff performances in Game 5, scoring only seven points.

You must have been doing for the last eight years what Trump has been doing in court the last three weeks: Napping.

Bernhard Langer is about to one-up Aaron Rodgers.

Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor, reacted to claims that Stormy Daniels wanted to extort Trump ahead of the 2016 election.

"Imagine him alone in a cell, cut off from the world, without his phone," the former president's niece wrote.

Australian brothers Jake and Callum Robinson and their American friend have not been seen since April 27.

The South Dakota governor has faced days of criticism from her fellow Republicans and Democrats, alike, after admitting to killing one of her own puppies.

A lawsuit says if emergency responders had known about widespread cellphone outages during the deadly Maui wildfires, they would've used other methods to warn about the disaster.

Heavy rains and flooding have killed 13 people so far in Brazil's southernmost state of Rio Grande do Sul so far. Thousands have been displaced and 21 are still missing.

French officials have inaugurated a storage basin meant to keep the River Seine cleaner. The Seine is set to be the venue for marathon swimming at the Paris Games.

Six Supreme Court justices attend President Joe Biden’s 2024 State of the Union address. | Shawn Thew/Pool/AFP via Getty Images The justices are quietly quitting their day jobs as judges, even as they become more and more political. Young John Roberts was a funny guy. “The generally accepted notion that the court can only hear roughly 150 cases each term,” the future chief justice wrote while he was an early-career lawyer working in the Reagan White House, “gives the same sense of reassurance as the adjournment of the court in July, when we know that the Constitution is safe for the summer.” Roberts, of course, wrote this at a time when Republicans could not rely on the federal judiciary to advance its policy goals — something that Roberts has done much to change in his current job. The justices are in the middle of an unusually political term, fraught with cases that tweak many of America’s most bitter divides on issues like guns or abortion, and that seek to fundamentally restructure who wields power in the United States. That includes two cases — one already decided, the other still pending — which seem engineered to shield Donald Trump from any meaningful consequences from his attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The coming weeks will see decisions in two cases that are likely to shift an extraordinary amount of policymaking authority away from an elected president and toward an unelected judiciary. Yet, while the justices seem eager to be the final word on America’s most intractable political divides, they’ve increasingly stopped doing the traditional work of judges — resolving often technical, boring legal disputes that arise between litigants whose names will never be mentioned on cable news. The Supreme Court used to do this work. But it avoids it more and more now. Indeed, one striking thing about Roberts’s Reagan-era quip about the Court’s docket is that he describes a Court that “can only hear roughly 150 cases each term.” Now, the Court is hearing barely more than 60. Consider this chart, which was produced by Adam Feldman, a lawyer and political scientist who publishes empirical work on the Supreme Court. Although slightly dated (it ends with the Court’s 2016–17 term), the chart shows the total number of cases that the Court handed down in each of its annual terms on its merits docket — the cases that typically receive full briefing and oral argument before the justices: Adam Feldman/Empirical SCOTUS Feldman’s data shows a steady decline in the Supreme Court’s workload since the 1960s. By the mid-2010s, the Court was deciding fewer cases than it had since the Civil War and Reconstruction. And this trend is continuing. In the Court’s 2013 term, it decided 79 cases on its merits docket. This term, assuming that none of the Court’s pending cases are dismissed, it will only hand down 61 decisions. Because the size of the Court’s docket has been in steady decline for many decades, there’s been a great deal of scholarship examining why this decline is happening. The striking thing, however, is that the size of the Court’s docket continues to shrink, even after many of the most likely explanations fade into the past. Many scholars, for example, point to the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988, a federal law that gave the justices more ability to turn away cases they don’t want to hear, as a significant driver of the Court’s reduced caseload. Yet, while a 1988 law can certainly explain why the Court is hearing fewer cases today than it did in the early 1980s, it does little to explain why the Court heard about 23 percent fewer cases in its 2023 term than it did in its 2013 term. It is unlikely that there’s a single explanation for the Court’s shrinking docket. Scholars and other legal experts have all proposed numerous overlapping explanations for the reduced caseload. One thing is clear, however. The overall decline in the Court’s docket does not appear to be matched by a decline in the number of political cases heard by the justices. That is, while the justices are hearing fewer total cases than they used to, they are avoiding the kind of technical legal disputes that rarely garner headlines — all while vacuuming up more power to decide the kind of political disputes that divide Democrats from Republicans. The many explanations for the Court’s diminished docket Until the late 19th century, the justices had very little control over their docket. Litigants who lost in a lower court typically could bring their case to the Supreme Court whether the justices wanted to hear that case or not. This changed in 1891, when Congress enacted legislation creating mid-level courts that would hear most federal appeals and gave the Court discretion to turn away at least some cases. Two subsequent laws, enacted in 1925 and 1988, further reduced the Court’s mandatory jurisdiction. The justices now have the freedom to turn away nearly all of the cases that are brought to their attention. Today, in the overwhelming majority of cases, four justices must agree to hear the case or the lower court’s decision stands. Beyond this 1988 law, an internal change in the Court’s process for deciding which cases to hear may contribute to its reduced caseload. In a typical year, the Court receives thousands of petitions — known as petitions for a “writ of certiorari” — asking it to hear a particular case. Prior to the 1970s, at least one law clerk in each of the nine justices’ chambers would typically review each of these petitions and advise their justice on whether the petition should be granted. After Justice Lewis Powell joined the Court in 1972, he decided that this process was needlessly inefficient, and urged his colleagues to pool their chambers’ resources. The result was the “cert pool.” Under this process, petitions asking the Court to hear a case would be randomly assigned to just one clerk among all the justices who participate in the pool. These justices would all rely on a memo drafted by that one law clerk to advise them on whether to hear the case. Initially, five justices joined the pool, though that number has fluctuated, and it now includes every member of the Court except for Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Several court-watchers have blamed this process for the Court’s reduced docket. As Ken Starr, the former federal judge and US solicitor general best known for investigating President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, wrote in a 2006 essay, “this efficiency-driven device has been inadequately studied, but what is commonly understood is that the prevailing culture within the pool is to ‘just say no.’” That is, law clerks are reluctant to recommend that the Court hear a case because they don’t want to be embarrassed if the case turns out to be a dud. And with so many justices participating in the pool, many justices’ decisions will be influenced by a single timid clerk. Yet, while policy changes like the 1988 law and the implementation of the cert pool might explain why the Court hears fewer cases now than it did in the 1970s, they cannot explain why the size of the Court’s merits docket continues to decline to this day. These are, by now, well-entrenched, decades-old reforms. Whatever impact they might have had in the past is now baked into the Court’s year-to-year work. Other scholars point to changes in the Court’s personnel to explain the shrinking docket. In a 2010 essay, David Stras, a former law professor who Trump later put on the federal bench, argued that, in the early 1990s, three justices who voted to hear a relatively large volume of cases were replaced by justices who wanted the Court to hear fewer cases. The most dramatic shift was the replacement of Justice Byron White, who believed that the Supreme Court had an obligation to resolve disagreements among lower courts very quickly, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. According to Stras, White voted to hear a case an average of 215.6 times per Term between 1986 and 1992. When Ginsburg joined the Court, by contrast, she voted to hear only 63 cases during the 1993–94 term, “or 29.2% as often as her predecessor.” Yet, again, while these personnel changes might explain why the Court’s docket shrunk in the mid-to-late 1990s, they do not explain why the trend continues nearly four years after Ginsburg’s death. In a 2012 essay, scholars Ryan Owens and David Simon offer another explanation for the diminished docket. For much of the post-1960s period when the Court’s docket steadily declined, the justices were ideologically divided. As a result, any individual justice would “be less sure of outcomes and will anticipate more dissents and internal strife” if they agree to hear many cases. Owens and Simon argued that “such a Court will decide fewer cases” because justices will be reluctant to hear a particular dispute if they cannot predict how their colleagues will view the case. This thesis made a lot of sense in 2012, when the Court was divided 5-4 between conservatives and liberals, and when the balance of power had long been held by “swing” justices like Powell or Justices Sandra Day O’Connor or Anthony Kennedy, who were relatively moderate conservatives who frequently made common cause with the Court’s more liberal bloc. But the Court in 2024 is vastly different from the one that existed a dozen years ago. Now, Republicans enjoy a 6-3 supermajority on the Court, and moderate Republicans like O’Connor and Kennedy are an increasingly distant memory. The Court is far more ideologically cohesive than it was in 2012, and yet its docket continues to shrink. When I asked Owens and Simon if their views have evolved since they published their 2012 paper, Owens pointed to the Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), an LGBTQ rights victory authored by the Trump-appointed Gorsuch, as evidence that there are still “sufficient differences among the conservatives that nothing is guaranteed.” But even though real divides do exist among the Court’s Republican appointees, the Court certainly has not become less ideologically coherent than it was a dozen years ago. And yet the size of the merits docket continues to shrink. So a complete explanation for why Court’s caseload has almost relentlessly declined over the course of the last six decades remains elusive — although, as Owens said to me over email, there is probably a good explanation for why the Court is unlikely to reverse course. “A small docket has become the new norm.” he told me. “It’s been so small for so many years now that going back to > 100 would be really odd.” Inertia is a powerful force, and increasing the size of the docket today would require a critical mass of new justices to break with a well-established status quo. The increasingly partisan Supreme Court appointments process may explain the Court’s behavior One area where Owens and I seem to agree is that, while the overall size of the Court’s docket is in decline, the Court continues to hear at least as many politically contentious cases as it did in previous decades. As Owens put it in his email to me, “the Court has decided to hear fewer cases—but a greater percent of cases with national importance.” Even if the current term, which has been mired in the giant sucking vortex that is Donald Trump, is an outlier, the last several terms have featured an array of highly partisan cases that have fundamentally reworked some of the most contentious areas of US law. Roe v. Wade is gone. So is affirmative action at nearly all universities. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), gun regulations of all kinds are now in jeopardy. The Court keeps inching us closer to a world where religious conservatives can simply ignore anti-discrimination laws. The Court’s current majority has flooded the zone with decisions remaking the law in areas that the Republican Party cares deeply about. Just one month after Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation gave Republican appointees a supermajority on the Court, for example, the Court handed down one of its most significant religion cases in three decades — giving religious conservatives a broad new right to ignore state laws they object to on religious grounds. And this decision was only the first in a wave of cases revolutionizing the Court’s approach to religion. As I wrote in a 2022 article, the Supreme Court heard only seven religious liberty cases during the Obama presidency. By contrast, it decided just as many religious liberty cases before Barrett celebrated the second anniversary of her confirmation to the Court.it’ One possible explanation for why political disputes dominate so much of the Court’s docket, even as the volume of ordinary legal cases diminish more and more with each passing year, is that the process for selecting justices has become far more political — and far more partisan — than it used to be. When you consider just how much power is wielded by the Supreme Court, it’s astonishing how little thought many US presidents put into their judicial appointments. President Woodrow Wilson, for example, appointed Justice James Clark McReynolds — a lazy, tyrannical jurist that Time magazine once described as a “savagely sarcastic, incredibly reactionary Puritan anti-Semite” — in large part because the president found the future justice, who previously served as attorney general, to be so obnoxious that Wilson promoted McReynolds to get him out of the Cabinet. Similarly, President Dwight Eisenhower complained in 1958 that appointing Justice William Brennan, a titan of American liberalism who was extraordinarily effective in moving the law to the left, was one of the two biggest mistakes he made as president (the other was appointing Chief Justice Earl Warren, another highly consequential liberal appointee). But the Eisenhower White House did very little to vet Brennan ideologically, and Eisenhower selected him in large part because Brennan was Catholic and Ike wanted to appeal to Catholic voters. To this day, many Republican judicial operatives still use the battle cry “No More Souters” to describe their approach to Supreme Court nominees, a reference to Justice David Souter, a George H. W. Bush appointee who turned out to be a moderate liberal after he was appointed to the Court. Since Souter’s appointment, both political parties have grown far more sophisticated at vetting potential nominees to ensure that they won’t stray from their party’s ideological views after their elevation to the bench. On the Republican side, organizations like the Federalist Society begin to vet potential nominees almost as soon as they enter law school. And it's notable that every Republican justice except for Barrett served as a political appointee in a GOP administration, where high-level Republicans could observe their work and probe their ideological views. The Democratic vetting operation, meanwhile, is more informal but no less successful. None of President Clinton’s, Obama’s, or Biden’s Supreme Court appointments have broken with the Democratic Party’s general approach to judging in the same way that Souter broke with Republicans. So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that justices chosen largely because of their political ideology, rather than because of their records as neutral and impartial jurists, appear to be more interested in deciding political questions than they are in resolving legal disputes. A version of the story appeared in Today, Explained, Vox’s flagship daily newsletter. Sign up here for future editions.

It’s neither neutral, nor accurate, to call them “antiwar” or “pro-Palestinian.”

After moving closer to the unidentified person, they realized the headband he was wearing was the same type worn by members of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas. 

Former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson was initially stopped from voting at a polling station on Thursday after forgetting to provide proper identification.

William attended an soccer game on Thursday night for his favorite team while social media users noted it was his daughter's birthday.

Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox.

Anti-Israel protests and tent encampments similar to ones set up at colleges and universities across America are now appearing in Australia.

The latest snapshot on US employment is expected to show that the US economy added 232,500 jobs last month and the jobless rate stayed at 3.8%.

“I took the wheel and straightened out the bus, then I moved her foot off the gas pedal,” said Wisconsin eighth-grader Acie Holland III.

UCLA protesters who blocked a Black student's passage on campus through an anti-Israel encampment were accused of "cosplaying as the oppressed."

A judge declared a mistrial Thursday after a jury said it was deadlocked and could not reach a verdict.

The Princess of Pop denied getting hurt in an alleged fight at Chateau Marmont, claiming she tried "to do a leap in the living room" and "fell."

Sidechat, an anonymous messaging app, has been used by students to share opinions and updates, but university administrators say it has also fueled hateful rhetoric.

Common Sense Media reviews of “The Fall Guy,” “Challengers,” “The Idea of You” and “Turtles All the Way Down.”

Put aside the sour, glowering Biden and Trump, and let’s talk about how the voters might break down.

There is an opportunity like never before, both ahead of the November election and beyond, to reach voters and build a message they want to hear.

Seconds into talking about their new movie, Jane Schoenbrun cannot help but bring up Freddy Got Fingered. Back in 2001, the comedian Tom Green’s sole directorial effort—a work of avant-garde grossness meant to capitalize on his unlikely fame as an MTV talk-show host—was so universally despised that it essentially killed his career. “As a child of irony-poisoned internet culture, it’s a personal favorite,” Schoenbrun, who uses they/them pronouns, told me. They joked that Green’s mindset while making the film must have been “My stock is really good right now, so I’m going to spend it all.”Right now Schoenbrun’s stock is also really good. I Saw the TV Glow, their second feature, is being released by A24—a big step up from their micro-budgeted debut, We’re All Going to the World’s Fair. “It’s like I’m aware of what the sellout options are, and then I’m also aware of what the Tom Green–suicide-mission options are—and I feel like I’m constantly trying to do both at the same time,” they said.I predict there will be no Golden Raspberry trophies (Green won five for Freddy Got Fingered) in Schoenbrun’s future. I Saw the TV Glow is a major work—a frightening and complex exploration of childhood nostalgia, adult regret, and the ways our identity is shaped by pop culture. But it retains all of the creepy specificity that made Schoenbrun’s debut so electrifying, with uncommon human tenderness bumping right up against mutated, half-formed monstrousness. Scale has not smoothed out Schoenbrun’s idiosyncratic wrinkles—and whatever the future holds for them, “selling out” does not seem to be part of it. “Mattel asked me for a meeting at Sundance, and I was like, ‘I value my life and dignity,’” Schoenbrun said with a laugh, remarking on the toy giant’s post-Barbie expansion into cinema, which includes planned movies based on toys such as Polly Pocket and Hot Wheels. (“I don’t think they’d make my Candy Land,” they added, referring to the popular board game, which is actually owned by Hasbro. “My Candy Land has a lot of milky, creamy fluids.”)In an era when every buzzy indie director could be a meeting or two away from making a superhero movie, this disdain for modern Hollywood blockbusters is refreshing. Though Schoenbrun’s style can be challenging, their films feel alive and contemporary; We’re All Going to the World’s Fair, for instance, taps into the disquieting world of online “creepypasta” communities and manages to viscerally capture the experience of late-night YouTube browsing. It’s no wonder a company such as Mattel might be intrigued; for all the distancing strangeness of Schoenbrun’s films, they’re current in the exact way that would perk up an executive’s ears.I Saw the TV Glow is perhaps a little more accessible and straightforward—a tale about Owen (played by Justice Smith) and Maddy (Brigette Lundy-Paine), disaffected teens who bond over their obsession with a ’90s genre TV show called The Pink Opaque. Slowly, their reality begins to blur as villains and metaphysical concepts from the program seep into the real world. The dreamy narrative was directly influenced by Schoenbrun’s own experiences. World’s Fair, which is about a character seeking to transform her body through a strange online game, was written before Schoenbrun came out as trans. I Saw the TV Glow was written during their early months on hormones, and is powered by those specific, unsettled feelings. Spencer Pazer / Courtesy of A24 “By the time I made [I Saw the TV Glow] … I was in love for the first time in my real body,” Schoenbrun said. “That’s the thing about transition … and I mean this quite literally: I wrote [the movie] as a child, I made it as a teenager, and I’m releasing it as not-quite-a-grown-up.” Schoenbrun is in their late 30s, but transition often means going through a second coming-of-age, and they joked that their current mental age is around 24: “I’m trying to figure out how to be an adult.”In the film, Owen has a tenuous grasp of his own identity—a sense that’s further stirred up by The Pink Opaque. But I Saw the TV Glow is not the kind of perfunctory narrative of self-actualization that Schoenbrun might get pitched in a studio meeting. “Owen’s arc in the movie is one of deterioration, [to] a point where maybe he can start to become a thing that he briefly noticed in childhood but then lost for half of his life,” Schoenbrun said. Owen’s narrative isn’t digestible or triumphant, and his investment in The Pink Opaque is more disturbing than empowering. Though Schoenbrun knows they’re considered part of what they called “the LGBTQ umbrella,” they still don’t want to forget that trans people often face an unwelcoming reality in America. “I’m very cautious of assimilation,” they said, acknowledging the tensions that artists must navigate in the industry.[Read: Weirdly, Taylor Swift is extremely close to creating a true metaverse]Schoenbrun is working outside the kinds of traditional structures that define so much of Hollywood storytelling; at the same time, it’s hard to avoid the external influences that come knocking with any bigger production. So how does someone like Schoenbrun make something particularly radical on the scale demanded by mainstream moviemaking? “The narrative of the sellout looms,” Schoenbrun said. “Having to be in some way a shill for a system is expected of any level of artist.”That balancing act feeds into the story within the film, where a show airing on network TV (like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and many other cult shows from the ’90s) is parsed for secret, perhaps unintended messages by its most devoted fans. I Saw the TV Glow adds further layers of wink-wink self-awareness. It features a Buffy actor (Amber Benson) in a small role, as well as the Limp Bizkit singer Fred Durst—an early-aughts musical star and an avatar of that era’s gendered toxicity—as Owen’s disdainful father, Frank. “I’m always thinking about the era of popular culture that … I was first exposed to—that post-Tarantino Scream era,” Schoenbrun said. “Even Buffy is incredibly self-referential; it’s genre that’s aware of itself as genre.”“I don’t want to say that TV Glow is watered down or speaking in a commercial vernacular that I’m uncomfortable with,” Schoenbrun continued. “But I definitely was like, I’m making this teen-angst thing; I’m looking at the Donnie Darkos of the world for reference.” At the turn of the millennium, Donnie Darko managed to be an instant cult hit, arriving as a small studio release in an era of Hollywood bombast. Still, for a moment, as they calibrated the tone of their movie, they wondered if they were pushing too far into the territory of a show such as Stranger Things, which is almost excessively reverential of the 1980s. To Schoenbrun, I Saw the TV Glow embodies a sort of “identity crisis”; it uses the narrative language of more commercial film and TV shows while striving to avoid formulaic conclusions.Though I Saw the TV Glow was inspired by Schoenbrun’s life, they believe it’ll speak to viewers in unpredictable ways. And for all their suspicion of Hollywood’s more corporate side, Schoenbrun can’t help but fantasize about new ways to mess with audiences’ expectations. “I said no to the Mattel meeting, but then I was like, ‘Wait, actually, if you give me Barbie 2, I'll consider it,’” they said. They brought up the end of Greta Gerwig’s film, where the title character, having transformed from doll to human, makes her first appointment at the gynecologist’s: “That is a deeply trans place to be; let’s talk about what that looks like. Mattel, I’m open to it.”