CHICAGO — It looked like the Vikings had put the game away for good on Sunday afternoon at Solider Field when a chip-shot field goal attempt from kicker Parker Romo sailed through the uprights in the final minutes. ADVERTISEMENT That made it 27-16 in favor of the Vikings with the Chicago Bears needing a miracle. They got it. After a big kick return put the Bears in very good field position, rookie quarterback Caleb Williams led an impressive drive, throwing a touchdown pass to receiver Keenan Allen to cut the deficit to 27-24. A blunder by the Vikings on the onside kick allowed the Bears to recover, then kicker Cairo Santos nailed a 48-yard field goal as time expired to tie the game at 27-27 and send it into overtime. In the extra session, veteran quarterback Sam Darnold took over for the Vikings. He went 6 for 6 passing on the final drive, setting up Romo for a game-winning field goal that helped the Vikings escape with a 30-27 win. The game looked like it was going to be a hot start for the Vikings after running back Aaron Jones got loose for a 41-yard gain. He was stripped of the ball at the goal line a couple of plays later, however, marking another missed opportunity for the Vikings in the red zone. ADVERTISEMENT That cracked the door open for the Bears, and the mobility of their rookie quarterback took centerstage. On a particular play, Williams avoided pressure from Andrew Van Ginkel off the edge, rolled to his right, then dropped a dime to D’Andre Swift along the sideline. That put the Bears in position to score, and running back Roschon Johnson found the into the end zone shortly thereafter to make it 7-0. In need of a response, the Vikings got it almost immediately when Darnold dropped back and unleashed a deep pass to receiver Jordan Addison. It was an incredible catch from Addison as he hauled it in while being dragged down from behind. On the very next play, Addison finished the drive, catching a touchdown pass in traffic to help the Vikings to tie the game at 7-7. The vibes shifted in favor of the Vikings on the following possession. ADVERTISEMENT It looked like the Bears had picked up a big gain when receiver Keenan Allen caught a ball along the sideline. After a challenge flag thrown by head coach Kevin O’Connell, however, the officials ruled that Allen did not get both feet in bounds. On the very next play defensive tackle Jerry Tillery blocked a field goal, and the Vikings kept the Bears off the board. That paved the way for the Vikings to take control as star receiver Justin Jefferson drew a 35-yard defensive pass interference penalty that put the ball in the red zone. A couple of plays later, Darnold found receiver Jalen Nailor for a touchdown to make it 14-7 in favor of the Vikings. After a punt by the Vikings, the Bears got a field goal Santos to cut the deficit to 14-10 at halftime. ADVERTISEMENT With an opportunity to take control coming out of halftime, Darnold found Addison with a perfect ball near the sideline that went for 69-yard gain. Unfortunately for the Vikings, they stalled out in the red zone, setting for a field goal from kicker Parker Romo to stretch the lead to 17-10. The biggest swing of the game came when receiver DeAndre Carter muffed a punt for the Bears, and edge rusher Bo Richter recovered the fumble for the Vikings. Not long after that, Jones atoned for his fumble with a touchdown to make it 24-10. After the Bears got a touchdown to cut the deficit to 24-16, it seemed like the Vikings put the game away with a field goal to restore the lead to 27-16. Not so fast. ADVERTISEMENT After an impressive drive by Williams helped cut the deficit to 27-24, the Bears recovered the onside kick. That set the stage for Santos to nail a 48-yard field goal to tie the score at 27-27 and send the game into overtime. In the extra session, the Vikings stepped up on defense by forcing a punt, then stepped up on offense with Darnold leading an impressive drive of his own. That set the stage for Romo and he nailed a 29-yard field goal to give the Vikings the win. ______________________________________________________ This story was written by one of our partner news agencies. Forum Communications Company uses content from agencies such as Reuters, Kaiser Health News, Tribune News Service and others to provide a wider range of news to our readers. Learn more about the news services FCC uses here .
Orlando Pride's run to NWSL Championship game boosts business, ticket salesAfter Trump's win, Black women are rethinking their role as America's reliable political organizers
Bay Area vigil held to remember transgender people murdered around the world; marking alarming trend“How does it feel?” is one way by which to measure a movie. But if you’ve seen “ A Complete Unknown ,” the Bob Dylan biopic that opened on Christmas Day, you may have left the theater singing to yourself (to the tune of “Like a Rolling Stone”): How much is reeeaaallll? The short response is: A lot. But the long answer involves acknowledging director James Mangold ’s film taking liberties in terms of a condensation of timelines, the conjoining of separate incidents, fictional character names in a couple of cases, and moments of sheer imagination and fictionalization. It’s certainly possible to enjoy “A Complete Unknown” without stressing too much over which parts are fact and which are fanciful. But for those who want to take a deep dive into how much the movie aligns with the known historical record, we looked to several Dylan experts to help sort it out. Our primary guide is Elijah Wald, who literally wrote the book on this subject — as in, the 2015 book that was optioned and gets a “based on” credit at the beginning of the film: “Dylan Goes Electric! Newport, Seeger, Dylan, and the Night That Split the Sixties.” He’s very high on the film, even though he’s independent enough from it to point out areas where the screenplay deviated from his source material. We also talked with David Browne, author of the recently released “Talkin’ Greenwich Village: The Heady Rise and Slow Fall of America’s Bohemian Music Capitol,” who is similarly a fan of the film, even if it sketches the folk scene in shorthand. Finally, we discussed it with Ian Grant, a Dylan buff who is the co-host of two Dylan-centric podcasts, one of which, “Jokermen,” last week featured a heated discussion of the movie’s accuracy and one sticking point in particular that Grant couldn’t get past. Mangold recently told Variety that the film is “not a Wikipedia entry” and he didn’t feel a fealty to a documentary level of facts — but also pointed out that, besides relying on Wald’s book and other historical source material, he based his version of the script (co-written with Jay Cocks) on many hours he spent personally talking with Dylan. In any case, many of those who’ve been in Dylan’s orbit over the years have given it high marks. Kevin Odegard, who played guitar on “Blood on the Tracks,” wrote, “We loved every minute... Critics who pick apart the imaginative world of composite characters and compacted historical footnotes are the dogs who caught the car. They miss the emotional punch of James Mangold’s poignant Hollywood movie.” And Ronee Blakley, a veteran of the Rolling Thunder Revue tour, wrote, “I am happy for Bob to be so carefully portrayed that his legacy stirs excitement today just as it did then, his magic and greatness self-evident and timeless. And we get a glimpse of what it cost him. Timothée Chalamet deserves an award, as does the picture.” Here are some burning questions viewers might have after seeing the film, followed by some burning answers. At the Newport Folk Festival of 1965, did a dismayed fan yell out “Judas!” — to which Dylan replied, “I don’t believe you... you’re a liar”? No... not there. But as most hardcore Dylan fans will know, that exact exchange with the audience did happen a year later, at a 1966 U.K. gig in Manchester that was widely distributed as a bootleg and eventually officially released. So Mangold has combined two incidents in which at least some of the audience was rebelling against Dylan transforming himself into a rock ‘n’ roller. Podcaster Grant, who has a few other problems with the film, doesn’t think this conflation counts as one. “Ultimately, that’s just sort of nerdy fan trivia-type stuff, so I don’t really think that has a fundamental impact one way or another on the quality of the movie,” he says. How accurate, otherwise, is the climactic depiction of Dylan’s appearance at Newport in 1965 ... especially the crowd reaction, booing included? Says Browne, “If any moment in music history was born to be a scene in a biopic, it’s Dylan plugging in at that Newport — from (Pete) Seeger and the ax to the crowd reactions to Dylan returning to the stage with ‘It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue’ (as a comment to the crowd ... or not). Overall, I thought the film did a good job recreating that explosion at Newport, even if the crowd shots seem a bit over the top.” In his “Dylan Goes Electric” book, Wald devotes thousands of words to recounting that fateful day, based on first-hand accounts... many of which substantially differ from others. “There were 17,000 people there,” the author points out. “Depending on where you were standing, I’m sure there were people who were surrounded by people booing, people who were surrounded by people cheering, people who heard a bit of both, people who thought everyone was just confused. Those are all accurate memories of the people around you, in a crowd of 17,000, right?” The problem in coming up with any kind of accurate consensus reaction, he says, is that “during the electric set, the microphones were turned way down because the amps were so loud on stage, so there’s no record recorded of what was happening in the audience. But critic Robert Shelton was in the audience, covering it for the New York Times. He was keeping a notebook at the time, and after ‘Maggie’s Farm,’ he writes in his notebook: ‘Some booing.’ He was writing that as things were happening, so that’s not hindsight. But none of that’s on tape. Once the band got off stage and Peter Yarrow came up to try to quiet the crowd, the microphones were turned up and then you can hear the crowd. And there are people yelling for Dylan to come back. There are also people yelling, ‘Bring back Pete Seeger.’ There are people yelling for (Dylan) to get ‘a wooden box,’ which I take to mean an acoustic guitar. There are people yelling at the other people to shut up. I mean, it was a very confusing scene.” Wald adds, “The best example I have of that is a friend of mine who was there, who has absolutely clear memories of how much he loved Dylan’s electric set — and also absolutely clear memories of coming back from Newport with a picture of Dylan on the inside of his guitar case, which he’d crossed out because he was so angry about Dylan’s electric set. And I think that’s not atypical. There were a lot of people who were upset in the moment and very quickly fell in love with the electric stuff.” A complicating factor in telling this story: Prior to the contentious Sunday electric set, Dylan had done an acoustic performance at the festival, on Saturday ... during which some people attending Newport for the first time were unhappy he wasn’t doing his new electric material! “When he went on for his acoustic set on Saturday afternoon, you can hear the audience (on tape) — there are all these people yelling for him to play ‘Like a Rolling Stone,’ because that was the hit on the radio right then. There were a lot of people who had come to Newport just to hear Bob Dylan, the friend of the Beatles, play ‘Like a Rolling Stone’ and who were being really obnoxious about the other acts. Some of the people at his afternoon set were yelling at the people on the banjo stage to quiet down so they can hear Bob Dylan. So there was already a lot of irritation at the festival before he ever got on stage the next night.” Did Pete Seeger really think about taking an ax to cut the cables as Dylan was alienating some festivalgoeers with his electric set? In the film, this legend is given a nod just by Seeger (played by Edward Norton) glancing at an ax, but not actually picking it up. “I thought how they handled the ax thing in the film was pretty goddamn smart,” says Wald, even though his book goes to great lengths to discredit the idea that Seger was ever in danger of picking one up. Even Seeger eventually “said that ‘if I had an ax, I’d have cut the sound cable’ — which is just an invention. I mean, the whole ax thing was just because Peter Yarrow said (on the microphone to the crowd), ‘He’s gone to get his ax,’ when Dylan went to get a guitar” to perform the solo acoustic encore festival producers were begging for. Some heard the “ax” comment and believed Yarrow was referring to Seeger and a literal blade. One thing Wald says is completely accurate in that moment: “I love that they show that Toshi (Seeger’s wife) is the one who calms him down, which, according to their daughter, is exactly what happened — that Pete was really upset and was trying to shut things down and Toshi said, ‘Hey, cool it.’” Were Dylan and Johnny Cash devoted pen pals? Yes, this is completely accurate. “The scenes in the airplane with them writing letters back and forth, those are direct quotations, in fact, from their letters,” Wald says. He quoted some of them in his book, and as Variety noted in its coverage of the opening of the Bob Dylan Museum in Tulsa, some of those handwritten mutual fan letters are on display for fans to see up close. Did an intoxicated Cash urge Dylan on in the latter’s desire to do a rock ‘n’ roll set at Newport ’65? No, this particular meeting of rebellious minds is an invention of the screenplay. Cash wasn’t even at Newport in 1965, although he did famously play there the year before that. As for whether their scene together in a parking lot captures the spirit of the relationship... “Some of it feels real, some of it’s overdone,” says Wald. “With the Cash character, I think they overdo the goofiness a little bit. I don’t think he was destroying a lot of cars at Newport, and if he had, he’d have been more apologetic about it. I mean, Cash was very high on pills, as I believe probably Dylan was too. But although Johnny Cash was rowdy, he was not destructive in that particular way, and particularly at Newport, which was very important to Cash. He was very concerned with making a good impression at Newport because he was trying to break into the national, that is to say northern, college market. Everybody at Newport only got $50, so Johnny Cash was losing a lot of money by playing Newport, and he was there because he had the vision, which very few people in country music did, to see this potential audience for him, and he was recording Peter La Farge’s ‘Ballad of Ira Hayes’ out of (folk publication) Broadside Magazine. That’s one of the funny parts about all of this is, people positioning him as outside the folk scene. He was very much appreciating and trying to be recognized within that. That said, it isn’t a movie about Johnny Cash — Mangold already did that (with ‘Walk the Line’).” Which completely fictional scene in the movie did Dylan make up and ask James Mangold to add to the screenplay? The answer to that is completely unknown; Mangold is keeping that as a secret he holds close to his vest. But Wald is willing to hazard a hunch. “There’s this story that we’ve all heard that Dylan suggested that they add a completely fictitious scene, and nobody’s saying what it was. If I had to guess, I would guess it was the ‘Now, Voyager’ (recurring motif), just because it’s the only thing in that movie that I can easily imagine Dylan coming up with and can’t imagine someone else inventing as a part of his story.” The Dylan character and the one based on real-life girlfriend Suze Rotolo go see a revival movie early in their courtship, then reenact a moment from it in a bittersweet farewell at the climax of this film. “Because Dylan is an old movie fan, I can imagine him imagining acting out the Bette Davis/Paul Henreid scene from ‘Now, Voyager’,” Wald supposes. “It seems so unlikely to me that someone else would come up with that. When I see that, I go, ‘That’s cute.’ Did it happen? I have no idea.” Going back to the beginning: Is the film’s portrayal of Dylan’s arrival in New York and quick integration into the folk scene accurate? And how about the quick sketches of the players on that scene circa 1961? Browne, whose new “Talkin’ Greenwich Village” book lays out that folk scene in great detail, is perhaps naturally disappointed the movie skips glancingly through that period and its key figures. “As someone who spent a lot of time researching Dylan’s fellow Villagers of the time, and also meeting with and interviewing those still with us. I was struck by how few were depicted in the film,” Browne says. “Where are Phil Ochs, Tom Paxton, Len Chandler, Carolyn Hester and Terri Thal, Dylan’s first manager? From what I can tell, Dave Van Ronk — a towering figure even then, and someone Dylan respected, someone on whose couch he often crashed — is only in two fleeting scenes, and barely identified even then. Obviously one can’t make room for all of them in a movie like this, but without more of those characters, we don’t get as strong a sense of how disruptive Dylan was in the Village, and not just nationally. His rapport with Ochs could have made for a few meaty scenes; their rivalry embodied the topical-vs.-personal, acoustic-vs.-electric debates of the time.” Besides his “Dylan Goes Electric!” book, Wald also published a biography of Dave Van Ronk, but he isn’t bothered that that influential singer is only identified in the end credits and not even referred to by name in the film. “Van Ronk is basically non-existent in the movie, and that’s fine. I’m not cranky about that,” Wald says. “Neuwirth has a slightly larger role that I think is handled rather nicely.” Grant was thrown off by the congregation of boldface names right at the beginning. “Literally the first building he walks into in the entire city, Dave Van Ronk just comes up to him and starts talking to him, and then two hours later he’s out in New Jersey and he’s met both Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger, all within about six hours of his arrival to New York. That had me rolling my eyes a little bit, even understanding that they’re gonna have to make exceptions to reality and abbreviate things for the dramatic arts’ sake.” Did Dylan’s first performances galvanize audiences from the get-go? Not as much as depicted in the film. Browne’s “Talkin’ Greenwich Village” book says that early Dylan gigs found him “awkward and out of place one moment, assured and in command the next,” with a co-manager of the Gaslight saying he was initially “disastrous” and a Daily News reporter saying he “left the stage to the sound of perhaps one hand clapping.” Certainly Shelton, Albert Grossman, Joan Baez, et al. were never in the same room on the same night, as portrayed. Says Browne, “In talking with people from the scene and reading first-hand accounts from those who have since passed, I was struck by how jarring Dylan’s voice, guitar playing and early repertoire were to so many in the Village at the time. His approach wasn’t as formal as some of the area folk singers who’d come before him in the ‘40s and ‘50s; with his phrasing, humor and energy, he injected a far more rock ‘n’ roll sensibility onto those tiny stages. That roughness captivated some and caused others to bristle, and we don’t get much of that sense in the film. It wasn’t love at first sight or sound for everyone.” Robert Shelton of the New York Times wrote that he was “bursting at the seams with talent” only upon seeing him a second time at Folk City — a notice that made a big difference in Dylan’s career. So Browne was happy to see him portrayed in the movie. “In terms of the local press, Shelton practically had the folk club to himself, and in the New York Times to boot. He also championed everyone from Buffy Sainte-Marie to Eric Andersen, helping with their careers. Speaking as a journalist myself, one of my takeaways from my research was the power of the press in those days. Even in the ‘70s, newer Village acts like Steve Forbert, the Roches and Willie Nile landed record deals right after they were praised by Times critics John Rockwell and Robert Palmer. How often does that happen now?” Did his first encounter with Joan Baez involve insulting her from the stage after following her at a NYC folk club? That’s invented. In fact, Baez wasn’t hanging around New York at all. “Joan did not like New York. She was from Cambridge, which as a group considered themselves the purists and the New York people to be running after the money. Joan was the prime example of that, turning down Columbia Records and Albert Grossman and staying in Cambridge and then going off to Carmel, California. Bobby Neuwirth was also Cambridge, not New York. But you have to simplify stuff like that, and I think it was a good choice for the movie.” Says Browne, “As Baez told me in an interview for the book, she and Dylan first met outside Gerde’s Folk City in 1961. She’d driven from Boston to the city to attend a protest in Washington Square Park (the infamous “Beatnik Riot”) and just missed it – but, since she was there, decided to check out this kid she’d already started hearing about. She was struck by his stage presence right away, and he introduced himself to her outside the club and sang her a song, but there’s no record of any initial cutting remarks. She also didn’t realize he was more, um, intrigued by her sister Mimi than her at the time.” How about the portrayal of Joan Baez in general? “I was utterly blown away by (Monica) Barbaro’s singing,” says Wald. “Going in, I had thought a good actor can act Bob Dylan singing, because Bob Dylan singing is all about the phrasing, but acting Joan Baez’s voice, which is all about the instrument — I thought Barbaro did an astonishing job. She doesn’t sound exactly like Joan, but boy, she sure as hell sounds good.” Says Grant, “I think that she’s given a relative fair shake in the movie. The film paints her in a more fair and attractive light than someone like Joan Didion did. I don’t know if you’ve ever read Joan Didion’s writings about Joan Baez, but it’s a brutal dressing-down, unfairly. in many cases. But I think she’s fairly drawn, and is more interesting and comes across as more of a real human being than the Suze Rotolo character, or Sylvie Russo as she’s called in the movie.” Grant also liked the way a Halloween 1964 interchange between Dylan and Baez on stage at a New York Philharmonic show was portrayed. “They end up almost getting into this fight up there on stage — that’s a fun and, I think, a well-drawn scene. That’s one of the great early solo acoustic performances by Bob, right before he’s about to go into electric mode the following year — and the relationship dynamic, I think, between him and Joan is one of the best parts of that performance.” How about the Sylvie character, who everyone agrees to assume is meant to be Suze Rotolo? Says Wald, “They changed Suze’s name and fictionalized her a good deal. But honestly, I had been afraid that they would just make her the nice girl next door, who he left for the mysterious Joan, rather than being the political conscience who got him into political music. So I was really pleased that they have her working for CORE and getting Dylan out to political things. And I was pleased that they have her leaving him rather than vice versa.” Grant says that the movie accurately indicates that “she is the one that introduced Bob to political songwriting in the first place, by kind of bringing him into a lot of the student actions and rallies and meetings and stuff that she had already been attending by the time Bob showed up. They do gesture at that in the movie, but I think she’s really just turned into wallpaper by the end of the picture.” Was there a love triangle that was still unfolding by the time of the 1965 Newport Folk Festival between Dylan, Baez and Suze Rotolo? No. The movie is ambiguous about why Dylan offers to drive Rotolo to the festival on his motorcycle and then leaves her to tearfully witness his chemistry with Baez — whether there is lingering romantic interest there. In any case, Rotolo did not attend the festival and was long out of his life romantically by then. So was Baez, for that matter, though they still shared some stages. The “triangle” there is played more for symbolism about two different ways of beings Dylan is simultaneously casting aside, even as the focus moves toward his artistic changes. Is there any potential major character that’s left out completely? It’s funny you should ask that. Grant’s big beef with the movie (one that was also expressed by New Yorker critic Richard Brody, whom Grant amplified on social media and in a Jokermen podcast): the lack of any mention of Sara Lownds, who was soon to become Sara Dylan. Lownds and Dylan first got together romantically in 1964, and by the time Newport ’65 transpired, they’d already taken a lengthy vacation together. He married her just a few months after Newport. But she’s not mentioned in the movie. “She doesn’t exist in this reality, basically,” says Grant. “Meanwhile, Joan Baez and Suze, or Sylvie, are two characters meant to stand for two different ways of being in the world, positioned against one another. Bob obviously is drawn to elements of each, but ultimately decides that neither of them is as important to him as his ability to continue to follow the muse. But in reality, he does find the perfect person for him, a romantic partner that works with his creative life, and with whom he actually strikes up a very rich and rewarding family life just after this movie ends — and was already involved with at the time — in Sara. It tells a false sort of a half-truth at best, if not an outright fabrication, about Bob’s relationship to romantic partners in his life. The movie does nail aspects of that, certainly, with these characters and kind of the dirtbag way he treated some people early on. But to present this as sort of the defining holistic picture of this man, when obviously he is fundamentally a different human being at this moment in time, to say nothing of the ways that he’s going to change in the months and years to come, just sort of strikes a downward note to me.” Grant adds, “The Suze character in the picture is representative of kind of the civilian way of life, or the non-arts way of being in the world. The character paints and she’s active in the left student movement, but she’s fundamentally just kind of like a ‘normal person’ as opposed to someone like Bob Dylan or Joan Baez, who are these generationally talented celebrity artists. The Suze Rotolo character is unsatisfactory for him, because he’s too big, too brilliant, too brash to settle down with someone like that. In reality, he does settle down with someone like that. Obviously Sara is a very different person than Suze herself. But I think on that basic understanding level of someone who isn’t running in the scene, someone who isn’t obsessed with celebrity, someone who isn’t out to make a name for themselves, that’s exactly the kind of person that he ends up spending the next 10 years being married to.” Because so much of Dylan’s music over the next 13 years was inspired by Sara, both in romance and ultimately in divorce, Grant says “that to me is such a ‘Rosebud’ type of thing, to borrow ‘Citizen Kane’ terminology, in Bob’s life. That is the single source which so many decisions are made out of and so many songs written from. So, I think that kind of why I’m so hyperfocused on that element of things here.” As for why Dylan’s then-romantic partner and future wife isn’t portrayed in the final stretch of the film, it may be because a romantic quadrangle was a bridge too far for the scriptwriters. Or, in Grant’s view, because Dylan is committed to keeping his former wife out of things, since she has chosen to live a private life and not comment publicly on their relationship, as Suze Rotolo finally did before the end of her life, with a memoir. (Even then, Dylan was protective in insisting she be fictionalized for the film.) Grant counters that by noting that the Dylan/Lownds relationship was dramatized in the Heath Ledger segment of Todd Haynes’ 2007 “I’m Not There” movie, albeit with everyone in that portion — the Dylan character included — being identified by pseudonyms. On a more mundane note... how accurate are some of the studio moments portrayed in the film? Like Al Kooper playing the organ part on “Like a Rolling Stone” spontaneously, as a non-organ player? There are a lot of what might be considered Easter-egg moments for Dylan fans to latch onto. For example, when “Like a Rolling Stone” is being recorded, the musician Al Kooper comes to the studio, announces himself as the guitar player, and is informed that they already have one of those, so he places himself at the organ instead, playing what becomes a world-famous part, despite his discomfort with the instrument. As a whole, that’s true, although it didn’t happen in the matter of virtual seconds it does on film, and the band wa a few takes in before those famous licks started up. On the other hand, Kooper gets short shrift as the actual purchaser of the police whistle heard on the “Highway 61 Revisited” album; the movie shows Dylan being inspired to pick that up from a street vendor on his own. Moving back to Newport ’65... did manager Albert Grossman and folk music legend and festival mainstay Alan Lomax really get in a physical struggle? Yes, although not during or about Dylan’s performance. Wald doesn’t mind that the fight got transferred from one moment to another, since he’s pleased about the portrayal of Lomax generally. “I think they got some things right about Lomax that everybody gets wrong and that nobody will notice that they got right except me,” Wald says. “Everybody has Lomax as being anti-electricity, and that’s absolutely wrong. Lomax was, in fact, I think the first folklorist ever to record a band with an electric guitar back in the ‘40s. Lomax thought rock ‘n’ roll was great! What set him off at Newport was the Paul Butterfield Band, and it was not that they were playing loud electric music. It was that he was the guy who had discovered Muddy Waters, and he was upset that the first electric band invited to Newport was a bunch of white college kids. They have exactly that scene in the movie with him complaining about them being a white band who is fake and being brought in because Grossman is managing them. Which wasn’t quite true; he was still courting them. I do think everybody will see the film and walk out still thinking that Lomax hated electricity, even though they don’t say that, because that has become the myth. His fight with Grossman was real, but had nothing to do with Dylan.” Adds Wald, ”The funny thing about Lomax is, Lomax had no more time for Dylan as an acoustic singer-songwriter than as an electric singer-songwriter. He liked folk music as the music of the peasantry and the proletariat, and he thought people like Dylan and the New Lost City Ramblers and Dave Van Ronk were fake — and it had nothing to do with electric and acoustic... which, as I say, the movie actually got right, but not in a way that anybody but me will notice. I also don’t think that scene ever happened in the board meeting, where he blows up and Peter Yarrow walks out. I don’t think that’s ‘real,’ but it’s true — it’s completely accurate to the people.” Did Dylan really sit in on an episode of Pete Seeger’s TV show with the host and a blues player? No — that scene is fictional, and so is the character name of the bluesman, although he’s based on Big Bill Morganfield. And yet Wald is delighted by the scene because it illuminates a versatility and curiosity that the author thinks Seeger doesn’t get enough credit for. “I’ve never been in rooms with Dylan, so I can’t speak to that, but I knew Seeger, and Ed Norton as Seeger... both I and people who knew Pete much better than I did are blown away. Even more than that, they got the music right from beginning to end, and there’s so much music, and not just Dylan’s music. That scene where Dylan and Big Bill Morganfield are playing blues together and Seeger starts playing banjo along with them — now, that didn’t happen, but that’s exactly the way Seeger played banjo when he was jamming with blues people. And most people aren’t even aware that Pete Seeger could jam on a blues, including a lot of people who were pretty deep in the scene. That’s absolutely accurate, except that particular meeting didn’t happen in that particular place.” What about the portrayal of Seeger generally — does he get a fair and accurate shake? And is the film really about folk versus rock? Says Wald, “I’m so used to people who are doing the Dylan story being interested in Dylan and casting Seeger as one of the boring old folkies. What I was trying to do in my book was suggest that he was as complicated and in some ways as difficult a person as Dylan, and that they just were on different paths — sometimes the same, but at that moment, at Newport, very much not. But then again, after that, (they remained friends), which is another thing I liked about the movie.” And even if it was concocted, Wald loves having the movie end with a scene of Dylan back in Woody Guthrie’s hospital room playing harmonica along with “So Long, It’s Been Good to Know You” — an indication that the newly minted rocker really isn’t leaving folk behind at all, at least hardly for good. “The way that story was told in the ‘70s always was from a rock point of view,” Wald says, “written by people who had never liked folk music and never liked Pete Seeger, and felt like the story was Dylan liberating himself from the boring old folkies and proving the rock ‘n’ rollers were right. By now, though, we all think of Dylan as deep Americana, someone who has remained very true to that tradition. And so I just think that that whole incident looks very different, not just in the film, but pretty much to anyone younger — it makes perfect sense to think of that moment as Dylan trying to break away from the folk scene , but not from folk music . Which is true. “I mean, ‘Maggie’s Farm’ is sort of exhibit A. When Dylan is singing ‘Ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more’ at the beginning of the Newport ’65 performance, it’s absolutely a declaration of independence from that scene. But it’s based a song about sharecroppers, ‘Penny’s Farm,’ from the 1920s, which Pete Seeger had recorded in 1950! “At the time, Seeger was really upset by what he heard as the aggression. What you see in the film, with Dylan and the guys with him being sick of being stuck in this box, and ‘we’re gonna show the goddamn folkies,’ I think that’s accurate. And there’s a thing I quote in my book that he wrote that very week where he said he felt it was angry and destructive. But he was a man given to a great deal of soul-searching. And he rather quickly decided that he had misunderstood, and that ‘Maggie’s Farm’ was in fact a brilliant song, and that Dylan had indeed been sort of crushed into a box and had to escape. And they made up and they continued to get together over the years.”
Incredible PS5 Pro Black Friday sale cuts £300 from the priceNone
ATLANTA (AP) — As she checked into a recent flight to Mexico for vacation, Teja Smith chuckled at the idea of joining another Women’s March on Washington . As a Black woman, she just couldn’t see herself helping to replicate the largest act of resistance against then-President Donald Trump’s first term in January 2017. Even in an election this year where Trump questioned his opponent’s race , held rallies featuring racist insults and falsely claimed Black migrants in Ohio were eating residents’ pets , he didn't just win a second term. He became the first Republican in two decades to clinch the popular vote, although by a small margin. “It’s like the people have spoken and this is what America looks like,” said Smith, the Los Angeles-based founder of the advocacy social media agency, Get Social. “And there’s not too much more fighting that you’re going to be able to do without losing your own sanity.” After Trump was declared the winner over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris , many politically engaged Black women said they were so dismayed by the outcome that they were reassessing — but not completely abandoning — their enthusiasm for electoral politics and movement organizing. Black women often carry much of the work of getting out the vote in their communities. They had vigorously supported the historic candidacy of Harris, who would have been the first woman of Black and South Asian descent to win the presidency. Harris' loss spurred a wave of Black women across social media resolving to prioritize themselves, before giving so much to a country that over and over has shown its indifference to their concerns. AP VoteCast , a survey of more than 120,000 voters, found that 6 in 10 Black women said the future of democracy in the United States was the single most important factor for their vote this year, a higher share than for other demographic groups. But now, with Trump set to return to office in two months, some Black women are renewing calls to emphasize rest, focus on mental health and become more selective about what fight they lend their organizing power to. “America is going to have to save herself,” said LaTosha Brown, the co-founder of the national voting rights group Black Voters Matter. She compared Black women’s presence in social justice movements as “core strategists and core organizers” to the North Star, known as the most consistent and dependable star in the galaxy because of its seemingly fixed position in the sky. People can rely on Black women to lead change, Brown said, but the next four years will look different. “That’s not a herculean task that’s for us. We don’t want that title. ... I have no goals to be a martyr for a nation that cares nothing about me,” she said. AP VoteCast paints a clear picture of Black women's concerns. Black female voters were most likely to say that democracy was the single most important factor for their vote, compared to other motivators such as high prices or abortion. More than 7 in 10 Black female voters said they were “very concerned” that electing Trump would lead the nation toward authoritarianism, while only about 2 in 10 said this about Harris. About 9 in 10 Black female voters supported Harris in 2024, according to AP VoteCast, similar to the share that backed Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. Trump received support from more than half of white voters, who made up the vast majority of his coalition in both years. Like voters overall, Black women were most likely to say the economy and jobs were the most important issues facing the country, with about one-third saying that. But they were more likely than many other groups to say that abortion and racism were the top issues, and much less likely than other groups to say immigration was the top issue. Despite those concerns, which were well-voiced by Black women throughout the campaign, increased support from young men of color and white women helped expand Trump’s lead and secured his victory. Politically engaged Black women said they don’t plan to continue positioning themselves in the vertebrae of the “backbone” of America’s democracy. The growing movement prompting Black women to withdraw is a shift from history, where they are often present and at the forefront of political and social change. One of the earliest examples is the women’s suffrage movement that led to ratification in 1920 of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution , which gave women the right to vote. Black women, however, were prevented from voting for decades afterward because of Jim Crow-era literacy tests, poll taxes and laws that blocked the grandchildren of slaves from voting. Most Black women couldn’t vote until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Black women were among the organizers and counted among the marchers brutalized on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Alabama, during the historic march in 1965 from Selma to Montgomery that preceded federal legislation. Decades later, Black women were prominent organizers of the Black Lives Matter movement in response to the deaths of Black Americans at the hands of police and vigilantes. In his 2024 campaign, Trump called for leveraging federal money to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs in government programs and discussions of race, gender or sexual orientation in schools. His rhetoric on immigration, including false claims that Black Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating cats and dogs, drove support for his plan to deport millions of people . Tenita Taylor, a Black resident of Atlanta who supported Trump this year, said she was initially excited about Harris’ candidacy. But after thinking about how high her grocery bills have been, she feels that voting for Trump in hopes of finally getting lower prices was a form of self-prioritization. “People say, ‘Well, that’s selfish, it was gonna be better for the greater good,''' she said. “I’m a mother of five kids. ... The things that (Democrats) do either affect the rich or the poor.” Some of Trump’s plans affect people in Olivia Gordon’s immediate community, which is why she struggled to get behind the “Black women rest” wave. Gordon, a New York-based lawyer who supported the Party for Socialism and Liberation’s presidential nominee, Claudia de la Cruz, worries about who may be left behind if the 92% of Black women voters who backed Harris simply stopped advocating. “We’re talking millions of Black women here. If millions of Black women take a step back, it absolutely leaves holes, but for other Black women,” she said. “I think we sometimes are in the bubble of if it’s not in your immediate circle, maybe it doesn’t apply to you. And I truly implore people to understand that it does.” Nicole Lewis, an Alabama-based therapist who specializes in treating Black women’s stress, said she’s aware that Black women withdrawing from social impact movements could have a fallout. But she also hopes that it forces a reckoning for the nation to understand the consequences of not standing in solidarity with Black women. “It could impact things negatively because there isn’t that voice from the most empathetic group,” she said. “I also think it’s going to give other groups an opportunity to step up. ... My hope is that they do show up for themselves and everyone else.” Brown said a reckoning might be exactly what the country needs, but it’s a reckoning for everyone else. Black women, she said, did their job when they supported Harris in droves in hopes they could thwart the massive changes expected under Trump. “This ain’t our reckoning,” she said. “I don’t feel no guilt.” AP polling editor Amelia Thomson DeVeaux and Associated Press writer Linley Sanders in Washington contributed to this report. The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.BOSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov 21, 2024-- PepGen Inc. (Nasdaq: PEPG), a clinical-stage biotechnology company advancing the next generation of oligonucleotide therapies with the goal of transforming the treatment of severe neuromuscular and neurological diseases, today announced it awarded an inducement grant under PepGen’s 2024 Inducement Plan as a material inducement to employment to its newly appointed Senior Vice President, Clinical Development, Steve Han, MD, PhD, MMSc. On November 20, 2024, Dr. Han received a non-qualified stock option grant to purchase 95,000 shares of PepGen’s common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, with an exercise price of $4.40 per share, the closing price of PepGen’s common stock as reported by The Nasdaq Global Select Market on November 20, 2024. The inducement grant stock option has a ten-year term and is scheduled to vest over four years, with 25% of the shares vesting on the one-year anniversary of Dr. Han’s employment commencement date and the remainder vesting in equal monthly installments over the following three years, subject to Dr. Han’s continued service to PepGen through the applicable vesting dates. This inducement grant was granted outside of PepGen’s stockholder-approved equity incentive plans pursuant to PepGen’s 2024 Inducement Plan, which was adopted by PepGen’s Board of Directors in August 2024. This award was approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, which consists entirely of independent directors, as a material inducement to Dr. Han’s entering into employment with PepGen in accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5635(c)(4). About PepGen PepGen is a clinical-stage biotechnology company advancing the next-generation of oligonucleotide therapies with the goal of transforming the treatment of severe neuromuscular and neurological diseases. PepGen’s Enhanced Delivery Oligonucleotide (EDO) platform is founded on over a decade of research and development and leverages cell-penetrating peptides to improve the uptake and activity of conjugated oligonucleotide therapeutics. Using these EDO peptides, PepGen is generating a pipeline of oligonucleotide therapeutic candidates that are designed to target the root cause of serious diseases. For more information, please visit www.pepgen.com . Follow PepGen on LinkedIn and X . View source version on businesswire.com : https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241121499632/en/ CONTACT: Investor Dave Borah, CFA SVP, Investor Relations and Corporate Communications dborah@pepgen.comMedia Julia Deutsch Lyra Strategic Advisory Jdeutsch@lyraadvisory.com KEYWORD: MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: BIOTECHNOLOGY NEUROLOGY OTHER HEALTH HEALTH PHARMACEUTICAL SOURCE: PepGen Inc. Copyright Business Wire 2024. PUB: 11/21/2024 04:05 PM/DISC: 11/21/2024 04:06 PM http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241121499632/en
ROSEN, A TRUSTED AND LEADING LAW FIRM, Encourages Kyverna Therapeutics, Inc. Investors to Secure Counsel Before Important Deadline in Securities Class Action - KYTXFormer PM Manmohan Singh Passes Away: The Man Who Reshaped India’s Economy – A Look Back!Arne Slot 'keeping an eye on' three players as Liverpool face difficult decisionDefending national champion South Carolina women defeated by UCLA 77-62 for their first loss since the 2023 Final Four
Libyan Crown Prince Mohammed El Senussi Calls for Unity and Stability Amid Regional Upheaval
ROCK HILL, SC / ACCESSWIRE / December 26, 2024 / Recent regulatory changes have brought significant updates to the reporting obligations for companies filing beneficial ownership information with FinCEN. Following a federal Court of Appeals decision on December 23, 2024, reporting companies, except as indicated below, are once again required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN. The Department of the Treasury recognizes that reporting companies may need additional time to comply, given the period when the preliminary injunction had been in effect. As such, the BOI reporting deadlines have been extended as follows: Updated BOI Filing Deadlines: Reporting companies created or registered before January 1, 2024: The deadline has been extended to January 13, 2025 (originally January 1, 2025) for filing initial BOI reports with FinCEN. Reporting companies created or registered on or after September 4, 2024, that had a filing deadline between December 3, 2024, and December 23, 2024, now have an extended deadline of January 13, 2025. Reporting companies created or registered between December 3, 2024, and December 23, 2024: These companies are granted an additional 21 days from the original filing deadline to file BOI reports. Reporting companies created or registered on or After January 1, 2025: Must file BOI reports within 30 days of receiving actual or public notice of creation or registration. Reporting Companies Qualifying for Disaster Relief: Deadlines may extend beyond January 13, 2025. Follow the later deadline that applies. TaxBandits: The Solution for Timely and Stress-Free BOI Reporting With BOI Reporting reinstated, businesses must begin preparing the necessary information to ensure the timely submission of their BOI reports. TaxBandits offers a comprehensive suite of features designed to facilitate accurate and on-time BOI filing for reporting companies, tax professionals , law firms, and service providers. Key Features to Simplify BOI Reporting: BOIR Protect: In partnership with Protection Plus, BOIR Protect provides peace of mind with a $1 Million BOI Filing Defense, covering potential errors or issues with filings for a full year. Free Corrections or Updates: TaxBandits offers free corrections or updates for up to 7 days. Annual plan subscribers can file unlimited corrections or updates for one year. Retransmit Rejected Returns for Free: When FinCEN rejects a BOI report, it can be re-transmitted without additional charges, ensuring prompt corrections and resubmission. Easy Corrections: Update existing data and submit without needing to refile the entire report, saving time and ensuring accuracy. Invite Beneficial Owners: Securely invite beneficial owners to complete their details via a secure URL, ensuring only authorized individuals can access and complete the necessary information. AI-Based Data Extract: TaxBandit's AI-powered technology automatically extracts data from uploaded identification documents, eliminating the need for manual data entry and minimizing errors. Schedule Filing: Prepare reports, schedule submission dates, and ensure automatic submission as planned. Reports can be edited multiple times before the scheduled date, minimizing the need for subsequent corrections or updates. For CPAs and Service Providers: TaxBandits' BOI reporting solution empowers tax professionals with features that drive efficiency. Compliance reminders, customizable engagement letters, and BanditConnect streamline reporting. Secure Client Portal: BanditConnect provides a secure client portal for efficiently managing BOI filings. Businesses can customize the portal with their branding to enable seamless collaboration, secure data exchange, and an efficient review and approval process. Team Management: The BanditCollab tool enables the invitation of unlimited team members, assignment of predefined roles, and delegation of BOI report filings. This ensures efficient workload management and timely completion of tasks. Automated Reminders: Set up automated reminders for updates and upcoming deadlines from FinCEN, eliminating the need for manual follow-ups and ensuring timely action on all filings. Custom Engagement Letter: Customize engagement letters with specific terms and conditions, auto-fill client details, request e-signatures, and update them at any time, ensuring a streamlined and efficient agreement process for BOI filing services. Bulk Upload: Streamline BOI filings with the Bulk Upload feature! Use the standard CSV template to import data all at once, saving time and reducing manual effort. Partnership Opportunities to Increase Revenue TaxBandits provides an array of services tailored for large enterprises, accounting firms, and other businesses looking to expand their BOI reporting services . Referral Program: Clients can participate in TaxBandits' referral program , obtain a referral link, incorporate it into their website or social media, and earn commissions for each completed filing. API Integration: TaxBandits offers seamless API integration , enabling easy connection with existing business systems. This integration optimizes the BOI filing process by streamlining workflows and minimizing manual data entry, thus improving operational efficiency. White-Label Solution: TaxBandits provides a white-label solution, allowing firms to brand the BOI filing platform fully as their own. This customization ensures businesses can offer a consistent and professional experience to their clients. TaxBandits' BOI reporting solution empowers tax professionals with features that drive efficiency. Compliance reminders, customizable engagement letters, and BanditConnect streamline reporting. Watch the video to learn more about TaxBandits' BOIR filing solution and the original FinCEN requirements that have been reinstated: About TaxBandits TaxBandits is a SOC 2 Certified, IRS-authorized e-file provider specializing in various tax forms such as Form 941, Form 940, Form 1099, Form W-2, Form 1095-C, Form 1095-B, and Form W-9, etc., and BOI reporting. Serving businesses, service providers, or tax professionals of every shape and size, TaxBandits offers a complete solution that fulfills all filing needs. About SPAN Enterprises Headquartered in Rock Hill, South Carolina, SPAN has been developing industry-leading software tools for e-filing and business management tools for over a decade. The SPAN Enterprises Portfolio of products includes TaxBandits, ACAwise, ExpressExtension, 123PayStubs, and TruckLogics. Please direct all media inquiries to Stephanie Glanville, Marketing Manager, at stephanie@spanenterprises.com . SOURCE: TaxBandits View the original on accesswire.comThe best thing about Australia’s fightback win over India in Adelaide is that it was in just the second Test of five. There is still so much cricket to come, so many ways this could play out. Credit where credit is rarely given to those who pushed for five Tests between these teams. It’s a latter-day rarity, but it’s put the serious back into series. One Test is by definition not a series. Two usually feels unfinished, 1-1, or a win and a draw, crying out for another match. Three is a minimum. But even three can leave fans feeling short-changed. India’s Shubman Gill is bowled by Mitchell Starc in Adelaide. Credit: AP If this was a three-Test series, Steve Smith and Virat Kohli , for instance, would have only two more innings each. They’re both giants of these times, but at uncertain stages in their histories. Two more innings would prove little. Yes, Kohli made a hundred in Perth, but it was nearly the softest of his 30. Ditto Marnus Labuschagne: he’s made some runs, but needs more, which means more innings. There must be an allowance for accidents, like leg-side strangles, for instance. At the other end of the scale, Yashasvi Jaiswal and Nittish Kumar Reddy have made eye-catching first impressions, but even with one more match they would constitute only glimpses. Don’t be misled by the Jaiswal’s ducks; they’re an opener’s occupational hazard. There may come a time when we’ve seen too much of him, but it’s not yet. A four-Test series presents the same problem as two. It’s an even number, so is liable to end up unresolved. Loading Five Tests, though, represent a gamut. A five-Test series in Australia means players have to negotiate a range of climates, circumstances and conditions, including a pink-ball game. A five-game series has – mostly – its own internal narrative of waxing and waning, thrust and parry, turns to follow twists. It poses questions and gives rise to intrigues. What will become of the Travis Head-Mohammed Siraj tete-a-tete ? They’ve patched it up for now, but there will be many more confrontations. Can Jasprit Bumrah keep it up for five Tests, and if not, what do India have in reserve? Will Nathan McSweeney survive the series, and if not, who comes next? It was fair enough to give him two Tests, but to date he’s done only enough to earn another. Will the ageing Australians hang together bodily? You might be able to bluff your way through two or three Tests, but not five. In a short series, there’s no tomorrow, and often that governs the tempo. The compression sometimes makes for good entertainment, of course. But in a five-Test series, there nearly always is a tomorrow, and that makes for a whole new set of delectable unknowns. And it creates leeway for interference from weather. Loading Now that the Australia-India scoreline is 1-1, the Boxing Day Test will be live, and with luck the New Year’s Test in Sydney, too. They’re oddities in that they are cornerstone fixtures that usually come at the end. Too often in recent decades, they’ve been turned into postscripts. They hold up as occasions, but without the frisson when a trophy is on the line. In this five-Test series, whoever wins the third in Brisbane will have the lead, but not the chocolates. It won’t necessarily even have momentum, a much overrated factor in modern cricket. Professional cricket teams are much better than their forebears at putting the past behind them. Some of that is down to the rattling pace of the game now, leaving no time for brooding or dwelling. Setting aside five days for a Test match now is not a schedule, but an ambit claim. This informs the bigger picture of which this series forms a part. For decades, Test teams struggled to win away from home. And in its first two editions, the World Test Championship became pretty much a two-horse race. Mohammed Siraj and Travis Head exchange pleasantries in Adelaide. Credit: AP Suddenly, both verities have been upturned. In the last couple of months, New Zealand have swept a series in India and England, India and Bangladesh have won Tests away from home. As the troupe that is modern cricket moves around the world, familiarity has bred ... familiarisation. One outcome is that the Test championship table is breathlessly tight. India’s win in Perth propelled it to the top, but Australia with its reversal in Adelaide have assumed first place and nudged India down to third. Two days later, South Africa usurped Australia on top. England and Sri Lanka remain in the running. The final between the two top teams will be at Lord’s in June next year. Loading The system is byzantine, but what it amounts to for Australia is that without a comprehensive win in this series, it will depend on beating a regathering Sri Lanka in two Tests in Galle next February. Sri Lanka will be dusting off their plans now. For Australia, that will make for a seat-of-the-pants ride. Philosophically, though, the moral is clear. Be it a match, a series or a championship, the drama is all the richer when it has time to grow. News, results and expert analysis from the weekend of sport are sent every Monday. Sign up for our Sport newsletter . Save Log in , register or subscribe to save articles for later. License this article Australian cricket For subscribers India Opinion Test cricket Greg Baum is chief sports columnist and associate editor with The Age. Connect via Twitter . Most Viewed in Sport Loading