Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Director/producer #SuneelDarshan talks about rivalry between #SunnyDeol & #AnilKapoor in late 80s & 90s which he witnessed first-hand. Sunny & Anil worked in 3 films - Joshilay, Inteqam & Ram Avatar - but they all flopped because their rivalry affected the work on sets. Video Credit - Hindi Rush... show more

Navneet Mundhra

20,900 subscribers

27,086 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

#SuneelDarshan #SunnyDeol #AnilKapoor

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

15 Comments

Abhishek1 month ago

I wish Harshvardhan Kapoor and Rajveer Deol act in a movie together.

Navneet Mundhra1 month ago

Joshilay would have been a superhit if it was not delayed. Harshvardhan & Rajveer in Joshilay 2?

Abhishek1 month ago

Let's see if that is possible. Also, this Shekhar Kapur delayed multiple movies of both Sunny as well as Anil and left in between.

Navneet Mundhra1 month ago

Dushmani, Barsaat, Roop Ki Rani Choron ka Raja

Salman Khan Fans1 month ago

Sir ji, DM chk karo.

Navneet Mundhra1 month ago

Replied bhai

LegendDeols1 month ago

Nope , Ram avtar has good bonding on screen & Joshiley flopped due to delay and direction issue

Chandu_churchur1 month ago

OMG

Ashutosh Maurya1 month ago

Both actors have had legendary careers. 👏

[email protected]1 month ago

Ram Avtar , Joshillay and Intequam . Not Lootere get ur facts right

Deva1 month ago

Back so many duo 🔥 Sunny Jackie Sunny Anil Anli Jackie Sunny Sanjay Jackie Sanjay Sanjay Govinda Govinda Chunky Sanjay Chunky Sunny Chunky Sunny Sunil Sunil Akshay Sanjay Aditya Sunil Saif Akshay Saif Jackie Aamir Akshay Ajay Ajay Sunil Salman Shahrukh Sanjay Salman

Navneet Mundhra1 month ago

80s & 90s were eras of multistar cast films

Battleground-K1 month ago

Joshilay was very good film, I enjoyed Ram Avtaar also

Navneet Mundhra1 month ago

Joshilay would have been a hit if made in time and budget. Took 5 years to complete

Battleground-K1 month ago

5 years 😭😭😭

Related Videos

A case study from 2025 on Fauci's chosen method of prevarication. Scene: A appearance by Anthony Fauci at the New Orleans book festival, where he explains why "masks worked". In this clip, he starts by declaring: "masks worked". Applause follows. We should ask how applause is appropriate. Whether masks work is a scientific problem. It is not a moral or political position. Should a scientist be applauded for giving his or her scientific opinion? If they are, then it's not being treated as a scientific opinion anymore. The applause shows just how ideological the whole discussion on masking became--and remains. But what follows is remarkable. The interviewer pushes back and questions whether masks really worked, whether scientific evidence really supports that position. Fauci yields and pivots: "there's the rub, Walter, a proper mask, an N95 or KN95." In other words, the implication is that the cloth and surgical masks that he recommended during the pandemic didn't work, but N95s do. Which somehow still allows Fauci to say, "masks worked". Isn't this remarkable? Fauci started with "masks worked", i.e. the masks that were widely recommended and worn. And for this he was applauded. But now, without conceding the mistake of surgical and cloth recommendations, he maintains that "masks worked" but only "N95s or KN95s". It gets richer. Then Fauci digs in deeper: N95s and KN95s work, yes. But, but, but! Only if the N95 and KN95 is "properly worn, all the time". That is, the mask has to be properly fitted (and that requires professional assistance) with a proper seal, and worn all the time. Ergo, "masks worked". We've gone from cloth and surgical mask recommendations to properly fitted N95 and KN95 masks worn all the time. This is why "masks worked". Then Fauci digs in even deeper: but you cannot take the mask off to eat! People complain that they took the mask off to eat and got COVID. You can't do normal things and say masks don't work! The only way masks work if you live entirely abnormal lives. Therefore, according to Fauci, "masks worked". Here's the thing: Fauci has just enumerated all of the arguments against masks working in the real world, all the while affirming that "masks worked". He gets his cake and eats it too: On the one hand, clinical studies show that not only do surgical and cloth masks not work for respiratory pathogens in a variety of environments, N95s haven't been shown to work to reduce the risk of infection by a respiratory pathogen when worn over the course of the day in normal working conditions either. (This is probably, as other studies show, because the seal breaks within just a few hours--something Fauci alludes to--and because people take the mask off.) On the other hand, if you mask harder, if you do it absolutely perfectly, then they DO work. Ergo, "masks worked". Does anyone else see how twisted this logic is? I mean, masks don't work under most or all real-world conditions. BUT, they do in theory. Therefore "masks worked", and therefore (by implication) surgical and cloth mask mandates were not pseudoscientific or a mistake. And for that performance Anthony Fauci is applauded and lionized, and he goes on and on. And nobody in the tribe pushes back on the ridiculousness of it. They just turn off their brains. And clap. It boggles the mind.

A case study from 2025 on Fauci's chosen method of prevarication. Scene: A appearance by Anthony Fauci at the New Orleans book festival, where he explains why "masks worked". In this clip, he starts by declaring: "masks worked". Applause follows. We should ask how applause is appropriate. Whether masks work is a scientific problem. It is not a moral or political position. Should a scientist be applauded for giving his or her scientific opinion? If they are, then it's not being treated as a scientific opinion anymore. The applause shows just how ideological the whole discussion on masking became--and remains. But what follows is remarkable. The interviewer pushes back and questions whether masks really worked, whether scientific evidence really supports that position. Fauci yields and pivots: "there's the rub, Walter, a proper mask, an N95 or KN95." In other words, the implication is that the cloth and surgical masks that he recommended during the pandemic didn't work, but N95s do. Which somehow still allows Fauci to say, "masks worked". Isn't this remarkable? Fauci started with "masks worked", i.e. the masks that were widely recommended and worn. And for this he was applauded. But now, without conceding the mistake of surgical and cloth recommendations, he maintains that "masks worked" but only "N95s or KN95s". It gets richer. Then Fauci digs in deeper: N95s and KN95s work, yes. But, but, but! Only if the N95 and KN95 is "properly worn, all the time". That is, the mask has to be properly fitted (and that requires professional assistance) with a proper seal, and worn all the time. Ergo, "masks worked". We've gone from cloth and surgical mask recommendations to properly fitted N95 and KN95 masks worn all the time. This is why "masks worked". Then Fauci digs in even deeper: but you cannot take the mask off to eat! People complain that they took the mask off to eat and got COVID. You can't do normal things and say masks don't work! The only way masks work if you live entirely abnormal lives. Therefore, according to Fauci, "masks worked". Here's the thing: Fauci has just enumerated all of the arguments against masks working in the real world, all the while affirming that "masks worked". He gets his cake and eats it too: On the one hand, clinical studies show that not only do surgical and cloth masks not work for respiratory pathogens in a variety of environments, N95s haven't been shown to work to reduce the risk of infection by a respiratory pathogen when worn over the course of the day in normal working conditions either. (This is probably, as other studies show, because the seal breaks within just a few hours--something Fauci alludes to--and because people take the mask off.) On the other hand, if you mask harder, if you do it absolutely perfectly, then they DO work. Ergo, "masks worked". Does anyone else see how twisted this logic is? I mean, masks don't work under most or all real-world conditions. BUT, they do in theory. Therefore "masks worked", and therefore (by implication) surgical and cloth mask mandates were not pseudoscientific or a mistake. And for that performance Anthony Fauci is applauded and lionized, and he goes on and on. And nobody in the tribe pushes back on the ridiculousness of it. They just turn off their brains. And clap. It boggles the mind.

Kevin Bass

117,638 views • 1 month ago

Watch This Video to Know Why #AkshayKumar is the biggest flop actor of Bollywood right now.. Akshay Kumar could never become a super star, the reason behind this is releasing 4 films in a year and making all of them flop.. Even today he remakes 9 out of 10 films and does the same 1-2 films with worn out knowledge, when he saw that every one of his films started to flop, he clashed with #Gadar2 and made it overflow in Pankaj Tripathi's film in which he was doing a cameo, after that he named a big Bakwas film as Kesari 2 and kept giving Bogo offers every day, consider that the film is based on Bogo offer only..the biggest one It was surprising when they showed a film like Sky Force to everyone for free and the ticket offer was such that the public was watching it for Rs 20. The budget of a film like Welcome to the Jungle was 300 crores but its budget was reduced to 150 crores. A film like Selfie was taking an opening of 2 crores and a film like Bade Miya Chote Miya earned 50 crores instead of 350 crores. They wasted all the producer's money and now they are not even getting films. A film like Bhoot Bangla had full corporate booking. A film like Housefull 5 flopped even after taking corporate booking. Akshay Kumar could never give a 250 crore Hindi net in his life. An all time blockbuster in his life. He could not give it. He has given only solo blockbuster in his entire career, apart from this, the biggest record in his career is that 18-20 films flopped continuously after which he had to take Canadian citizenship. The film left by Sunny Deol saved his career and that film was also average. Today if we compare Akshay Kumar then it happens with actors like #ArjunKapoor , Tushar Kapoor, Vivek Oberoi...

Watch This Video to Know Why #AkshayKumar is the biggest flop actor of Bollywood right now.. Akshay Kumar could never become a super star, the reason behind this is releasing 4 films in a year and making all of them flop.. Even today he remakes 9 out of 10 films and does the same 1-2 films with worn out knowledge, when he saw that every one of his films started to flop, he clashed with #Gadar2 and made it overflow in Pankaj Tripathi's film in which he was doing a cameo, after that he named a big Bakwas film as Kesari 2 and kept giving Bogo offers every day, consider that the film is based on Bogo offer only..the biggest one It was surprising when they showed a film like Sky Force to everyone for free and the ticket offer was such that the public was watching it for Rs 20. The budget of a film like Welcome to the Jungle was 300 crores but its budget was reduced to 150 crores. A film like Selfie was taking an opening of 2 crores and a film like Bade Miya Chote Miya earned 50 crores instead of 350 crores. They wasted all the producer's money and now they are not even getting films. A film like Bhoot Bangla had full corporate booking. A film like Housefull 5 flopped even after taking corporate booking. Akshay Kumar could never give a 250 crore Hindi net in his life. An all time blockbuster in his life. He could not give it. He has given only solo blockbuster in his entire career, apart from this, the biggest record in his career is that 18-20 films flopped continuously after which he had to take Canadian citizenship. The film left by Sunny Deol saved his career and that film was also average. Today if we compare Akshay Kumar then it happens with actors like #ArjunKapoor , Tushar Kapoor, Vivek Oberoi...

Rahul Gupta

50,390 views • 1 month ago

About 5 years ago, Breitbart COO and the singer-songwriter behind the Trump anthem “Fighter,” Jon Kahn Music, was heading to Nashville for a writing trip to chase down some songs, as they say. The night before his first writing session, the publisher emailed him and said the other writer’s truck broke down in Texas and he wouldn’t be able to make the session. But then the publisher added, “Why don’t you write with Michael Farren?” Done. The next day, the two songwriters met for the first time, and they didn’t even pick up their guitars for a couple hours. They just talked -- about life, faith, the human condition -- and they wrote their first song together. Their musical relationship and friendship, in a lot of ways, parallels the song they contributed to Breitbart’s B 250 American Soundtrack. Farren comes from Texas. Kahn from L.A. Farren, the son of a preacher. Kahn, the son of a doctor. Farren’s musical roots are grounded in worship, and he’s won multiple Dove awards, and has been nominated for a Grammy for Lauren Daigle’s now-platinum single "Trust in You." He also wrote "Let it Rain," which appeared on Michael W. Smith’s RIAA certified double platinum album “Worship.” Kahn’s musical journey began in film. As a writer-director in Hollywood, his songs found their way in to many films, TV shows, and commercials. Coming from the '90s rock world, he has worked with members of The Wallflowers, Creed, and the Foo Fighters. Different backgrounds. Different musical roots. Different styles but when they get in a room to write, as the lyric states in The United Saints of America…. “somehow it works.” That’s what their song is about. It’s about the beauty and diversity of the people who make up this country — the ones who make it great, not despite our differences, but because of them. Farren and Kahn created something beautiful and something hopeful. In fact, they were so excited about the song, they went into the studio and recorded it together, featuring both their voices. That version of The United Saints of America will be out next week. Stay tuned...

About 5 years ago, Breitbart COO and the singer-songwriter behind the Trump anthem “Fighter,” Jon Kahn Music, was heading to Nashville for a writing trip to chase down some songs, as they say. The night before his first writing session, the publisher emailed him and said the other writer’s truck broke down in Texas and he wouldn’t be able to make the session. But then the publisher added, “Why don’t you write with Michael Farren?” Done. The next day, the two songwriters met for the first time, and they didn’t even pick up their guitars for a couple hours. They just talked -- about life, faith, the human condition -- and they wrote their first song together. Their musical relationship and friendship, in a lot of ways, parallels the song they contributed to Breitbart’s B 250 American Soundtrack. Farren comes from Texas. Kahn from L.A. Farren, the son of a preacher. Kahn, the son of a doctor. Farren’s musical roots are grounded in worship, and he’s won multiple Dove awards, and has been nominated for a Grammy for Lauren Daigle’s now-platinum single "Trust in You." He also wrote "Let it Rain," which appeared on Michael W. Smith’s RIAA certified double platinum album “Worship.” Kahn’s musical journey began in film. As a writer-director in Hollywood, his songs found their way in to many films, TV shows, and commercials. Coming from the '90s rock world, he has worked with members of The Wallflowers, Creed, and the Foo Fighters. Different backgrounds. Different musical roots. Different styles but when they get in a room to write, as the lyric states in The United Saints of America…. “somehow it works.” That’s what their song is about. It’s about the beauty and diversity of the people who make up this country — the ones who make it great, not despite our differences, but because of them. Farren and Kahn created something beautiful and something hopeful. In fact, they were so excited about the song, they went into the studio and recorded it together, featuring both their voices. That version of The United Saints of America will be out next week. Stay tuned...

Breitbart News

36,177 views • 2 months ago

Since my last speaker magnet free energy post I've become obsessed with this old technology "They" don't want us to have. Tesla had it right all along and "They" crushed him for corporate profits. Note: In the video you'll see he uses his hand to complete the connection of the light bulb to show there is no hidden battery in the bulb. I turned comments off because I'm tired of the Bots, shills and dickhead naysayers that can't think past the nose on their own face. Remember, this channel has a blue check mark but it is not monetized, so I don't give a s*** about clicks.

Since my last speaker magnet free energy post I've become obsessed with this old technology "They" don't want us to have. Tesla had it right all along and "They" crushed him for corporate profits. Note: In the video you'll see he uses his hand to complete the connection of the light bulb to show there is no hidden battery in the bulb. I turned comments off because I'm tired of the Bots, shills and dickhead naysayers that can't think past the nose on their own face. Remember, this channel has a blue check mark but it is not monetized, so I don't give a s*** about clicks.

DeepWebSlinger

31,996 views • 3 months ago

Here's an example of the cheap grace that Trent Horn talked about in his exchange with Ryan in the video below. Ryan excludes even repentance from any part of the equation as to whether somebody is saved. He's very keen on asking this person on whether or not he thinks repentance means "ask for forgiveness," to which he seems to think that the mere act of speaking somehow becomes a work. But more importantly, there's no distinction between what happens interiorly and the words I give it exteriorly. Either repentance is part of the equation or not, regardless of whether it's verbally stated. So in this situation, Ryan is essentially saying that because someone believes, they could go on sinning, and in fact commit grave sins, like murdering people, and without repentance, simply because of their belief, they are still saved. That's "cheap grace"

Here's an example of the cheap grace that Trent Horn talked about in his exchange with Ryan in the video below. Ryan excludes even repentance from any part of the equation as to whether somebody is saved. He's very keen on asking this person on whether or not he thinks repentance means "ask for forgiveness," to which he seems to think that the mere act of speaking somehow becomes a work. But more importantly, there's no distinction between what happens interiorly and the words I give it exteriorly. Either repentance is part of the equation or not, regardless of whether it's verbally stated. So in this situation, Ryan is essentially saying that because someone believes, they could go on sinning, and in fact commit grave sins, like murdering people, and without repentance, simply because of their belief, they are still saved. That's "cheap grace"

meta thomist 🇻🇦

13,807 views • 2 months ago

This was one of my favorite interviews of 2025... Founders often underestimate how much freedom they actually have. Anil Varanasi and Meter is a reminder of what happens when you use all of it. They ignored the usual advice and built the company their way. It’s no surprise their story doesn’t resemble anyone else’s. Here are just a few examples: 1. They spent four and a half years pre–revenue, just two people. It was essentially Anil and Sunil, alone, for four and a half years before they had a sales ready product and their first customers. They even scrapped an entire year of operating system work once they realized a different technical approach (inspired by an open source project) was better. 2. They literally moved to Shenzhen to learn how the physical world is made. They were blocked by slow hardware iteration in San Francisco, so they just relocated to Shenzhen for over a year. 3. Full vertical integration as a day one decision, not an afterthought. Meter decided from the start to own the entire stack: hardware, software, installation, and ongoing service. This is in a market where most entrants pick one slice (just switches, just access points, etc.) and get trapped as point solutions that end up acquired. 4. Business model treated as part of the product, not a pricing afterthought. They moved networking from “buy hardware” to: Meter provides the hardware, the software, the installation and ongoing support. The customer pays recurring, per square foot, and effectively “don’t pay us if the network doesn’t work.” Anil thinks about business model innovation on the same level as product and technology innovation. 5. Choosing a massive, incumbent dominated market on purpose. Networking is controlled by a few giants like Cisco. They were pulled toward that exact dynamic: a huge, durable market where the initial ramp is brutal, but if you get through it, there are very few new players alongside you. 6. Deliberately avoided the channel in a channel dominated industry. Roughly 90 percent of networking is sold through the channel.Meter refused to use the channel until they were convinced the product was dramatically better in every way, because incumbents could weaponize the channel with discounts to block them. Only after they had hundreds of happy customers and strong tools did they fully embrace channel sales. 7. The team has an extreme time horizon, paired with extreme urgency. Anil thinks in decades: “I care about where Meter ends up in 25 years, not five.” At the same time, he is obsessively focused on what happens in the next few hours and where every report spends time. That “barbell” between multi decade vision and hour by hour intensity is very explicit for him. 8. An allergy to “meta work” and most conventional management. No OKRs or goals at all. They have a strong skepticism of spending time on docs, processes, and coordination that feel like work but do not move the product forward.

This was one of my favorite interviews of 2025... Founders often underestimate how much freedom they actually have. Anil Varanasi and Meter is a reminder of what happens when you use all of it. They ignored the usual advice and built the company their way. It’s no surprise their story doesn’t resemble anyone else’s. Here are just a few examples: 1. They spent four and a half years pre–revenue, just two people. It was essentially Anil and Sunil, alone, for four and a half years before they had a sales ready product and their first customers. They even scrapped an entire year of operating system work once they realized a different technical approach (inspired by an open source project) was better. 2. They literally moved to Shenzhen to learn how the physical world is made. They were blocked by slow hardware iteration in San Francisco, so they just relocated to Shenzhen for over a year. 3. Full vertical integration as a day one decision, not an afterthought. Meter decided from the start to own the entire stack: hardware, software, installation, and ongoing service. This is in a market where most entrants pick one slice (just switches, just access points, etc.) and get trapped as point solutions that end up acquired. 4. Business model treated as part of the product, not a pricing afterthought. They moved networking from “buy hardware” to: Meter provides the hardware, the software, the installation and ongoing support. The customer pays recurring, per square foot, and effectively “don’t pay us if the network doesn’t work.” Anil thinks about business model innovation on the same level as product and technology innovation. 5. Choosing a massive, incumbent dominated market on purpose. Networking is controlled by a few giants like Cisco. They were pulled toward that exact dynamic: a huge, durable market where the initial ramp is brutal, but if you get through it, there are very few new players alongside you. 6. Deliberately avoided the channel in a channel dominated industry. Roughly 90 percent of networking is sold through the channel.Meter refused to use the channel until they were convinced the product was dramatically better in every way, because incumbents could weaponize the channel with discounts to block them. Only after they had hundreds of happy customers and strong tools did they fully embrace channel sales. 7. The team has an extreme time horizon, paired with extreme urgency. Anil thinks in decades: “I care about where Meter ends up in 25 years, not five.” At the same time, he is obsessively focused on what happens in the next few hours and where every report spends time. That “barbell” between multi decade vision and hour by hour intensity is very explicit for him. 8. An allergy to “meta work” and most conventional management. No OKRs or goals at all. They have a strong skepticism of spending time on docs, processes, and coordination that feel like work but do not move the product forward.

Brett Berson

27,534 views • 9 months ago

#WATCH | Auckland, New Zealand: At the business and sports engagement, New Zealand PM Christopher Luxon says, "For many of you, you would know that I have been a great fan of India for a long period of time. I first went to India in my mid 20s. That was because I worked for a country called Unilever, which owned Hindustan Lever which was a top 10 company in India. I remember going to India in mid to late '90s and people got paid daily wages in coins in their hand. It's interesting to me that under PM Modi's leadership, he has lifted 250 million people out of poverty. There is now 440 million people in the middle class, about to be 750 million by the end of the decade. It is an incredible transformation...As someone who has been to India many times, to see the move from low income to middle income to high income - it is so inspiring and so exciting to see the transformation that has taken place." (Video: ANI/DD)

#WATCH | Auckland, New Zealand: At the business and sports engagement, New Zealand PM Christopher Luxon says, "For many of you, you would know that I have been a great fan of India for a long period of time. I first went to India in my mid 20s. That was because I worked for a country called Unilever, which owned Hindustan Lever which was a top 10 company in India. I remember going to India in mid to late '90s and people got paid daily wages in coins in their hand. It's interesting to me that under PM Modi's leadership, he has lifted 250 million people out of poverty. There is now 440 million people in the middle class, about to be 750 million by the end of the decade. It is an incredible transformation...As someone who has been to India many times, to see the move from low income to middle income to high income - it is so inspiring and so exciting to see the transformation that has taken place." (Video: ANI/DD)

ANI

147,895 views • 2 months ago

Another Day, Another lie from this toilet cleaner of kejriwal Ashutosh Ranka He is fooling people that It's because of CJP impact, Rajasthan Govt is now spending408 Crore to fix Schools. Reality is: This decision was already taken by Raj govt on 12 Jul 26 2 Days back, Credit Chor Dipke showed that benches are bought in school after his visit, but his own 3 days old video when he was showing the windows of class, the benches were already there 😭 They are just following the learnings they got from their master Kejriwal. It was never about education for CJP and its founders Dipke, ranka and Das. They are workers of Kejriwal and following all his tactics in the politics.

Another Day, Another lie from this toilet cleaner of kejriwal Ashutosh Ranka He is fooling people that It's because of CJP impact, Rajasthan Govt is now spending408 Crore to fix Schools. Reality is: This decision was already taken by Raj govt on 12 Jul 26 2 Days back, Credit Chor Dipke showed that benches are bought in school after his visit, but his own 3 days old video when he was showing the windows of class, the benches were already there 😭 They are just following the learnings they got from their master Kejriwal. It was never about education for CJP and its founders Dipke, ranka and Das. They are workers of Kejriwal and following all his tactics in the politics.

Chota Don

19,114 views • 1 month ago

“I’m never late. I’m never frenzied. If you’re frenzied, it’s YOU.” In my 30 years in business I've worked directly with hundreds of entrepreneurs & C-level execs, several self-made billionaires, and even a few icons. What I observed—which may seem counterintuitive to some—is: 👉The most effective people aren't "busy". They have plenty of time for all the important things. They don't rush from one thing to the next. It's not because they have less complicated lives than the rest of us. It's exactly the opposite—*because* they have massive demands on their time, they’re RUTHLESS about these 5 things (they're all simple, but not easy): 1) Focus on a few important things 2) Say no to unimportant things 3) Set boundaries (and don’t compromise them) 4) Measure output, not input (results, not effort) 5) Recognize the importance of free time Just listen to Jeff Bezos in his prime (pun intended): "I get up early, I go to bed early, and I like to putter in the morning. My puttering time is very important to me—that's why I set my first meeting for 10am." If you feel busy and frantic, the problem and the solution are found in the same place—the mirror. 🫵 (h/t Amanda Orson for the inspo — she’s a good follow!)

“I’m never late. I’m never frenzied. If you’re frenzied, it’s YOU.” In my 30 years in business I've worked directly with hundreds of entrepreneurs & C-level execs, several self-made billionaires, and even a few icons. What I observed—which may seem counterintuitive to some—is: 👉The most effective people aren't "busy". They have plenty of time for all the important things. They don't rush from one thing to the next. It's not because they have less complicated lives than the rest of us. It's exactly the opposite—because they have massive demands on their time, they’re RUTHLESS about these 5 things (they're all simple, but not easy): 1) Focus on a few important things 2) Say no to unimportant things 3) Set boundaries (and don’t compromise them) 4) Measure output, not input (results, not effort) 5) Recognize the importance of free time Just listen to Jeff Bezos in his prime (pun intended): "I get up early, I go to bed early, and I like to putter in the morning. My puttering time is very important to me—that's why I set my first meeting for 10am." If you feel busy and frantic, the problem and the solution are found in the same place—the mirror. 🫵 (h/t Amanda Orson for the inspo — she’s a good follow!)

Kevin Dahlstrom

921,594 views • 2 years ago

Brian De Palma on Violence in movies & why he feels the ratings board has affected movies: "Interviewer: In the past, thought, one might have felt you sported this "Mr. Violence" label as if it were a badge to be worn proudly. De Palma: It's not a question of proudly or not proudly. Violence is justified in certain movies. The level of violence in something like "Saving Private Ryan" (1998) makes sense because Spielberg is trying to show something about the brutality of what happened. I think in "Scarface" (1983) the violence was warranted; what I showed on the screen was nothing compared to what's happening on the news every night, where they find people cut up in garbage dumpsters. That's what they did to them: they sawed them up! I felt certain uses of intensity in a movie came out of... truth. I threw a tremendous amount of it out of "Scarface". But what's there I think is important to keep in the movie. All in all, I think the Ratings Board has affected movies. Deeply. Violence is not even a question anymore. There's a lot of violence in the films you see, but today, "Godfather" (1972) would have an X, or an NC-17. The first movie I ever made, "Greetings" (1968) had an X - - If you take a look at "Greetings," you'll LAUGH at the idea that this movie has an X. So, please! As you probably know, this is a smoke screen. The real battle is on television. They want the ratings to focus on the movies because it keeps us - - as everything in our culture - - from addressing the real problem, which is your son or your daughter can walk in and turn on hard-core p0rn0gr@phy. But nobody really wants to talk about that." (Brian De Palma's interview with Henri Béhar, Film Scouts, 1998) Clip From: Saving Private Ryan (1998) Director: Steven Spielberg

Brian De Palma on Violence in movies & why he feels the ratings board has affected movies: "Interviewer: In the past, thought, one might have felt you sported this "Mr. Violence" label as if it were a badge to be worn proudly. De Palma: It's not a question of proudly or not proudly. Violence is justified in certain movies. The level of violence in something like "Saving Private Ryan" (1998) makes sense because Spielberg is trying to show something about the brutality of what happened. I think in "Scarface" (1983) the violence was warranted; what I showed on the screen was nothing compared to what's happening on the news every night, where they find people cut up in garbage dumpsters. That's what they did to them: they sawed them up! I felt certain uses of intensity in a movie came out of... truth. I threw a tremendous amount of it out of "Scarface". But what's there I think is important to keep in the movie. All in all, I think the Ratings Board has affected movies. Deeply. Violence is not even a question anymore. There's a lot of violence in the films you see, but today, "Godfather" (1972) would have an X, or an NC-17. The first movie I ever made, "Greetings" (1968) had an X - - If you take a look at "Greetings," you'll LAUGH at the idea that this movie has an X. So, please! As you probably know, this is a smoke screen. The real battle is on television. They want the ratings to focus on the movies because it keeps us - - as everything in our culture - - from addressing the real problem, which is your son or your daughter can walk in and turn on hard-core p0rn0gr@phy. But nobody really wants to talk about that." (Brian De Palma's interview with Henri Béhar, Film Scouts, 1998) Clip From: Saving Private Ryan (1998) Director: Steven Spielberg

DepressedBergman

149,199 views • 5 months ago

Today, January 22, marks the birthday of Michael Hutchence—born in 1960, the same year as Bono. They met in the late 1980s when U2 and INXS crossed paths on the global stage. The friendship grew in the mid-90s: they were neighbors in the South of France, with villas near Èze on the Riviera. Vacations there involved late nights, drinks, laughter, long talks, and a natural balance between two frontmen. Bono later said: “He was a nice guy to be around. He was very light, whereas I don’t think I’m the easiest person to be around, so we balanced each other out.” They’d hang out till dawn, sometimes ending up sleeping on the beach after wild nights. Michael brought lightness to Bono’s intensity—it was an escape. But as the 90s went on, things changed. The drug scene around Michael and Paula Yates got heavier, straining relationships. Bono and Ali stepped back for their family’s sake (they declined to be godparents to Tiger Lily in 1996). The friendship turned distant and sour. Michael died in 1997. Bono channeled some of the grief into “Stuck in a Moment You Can’t Get Out Of” on U2’s All That You Can’t Leave Behind—written as an imagined talk with his friend, urging him not to give up. In his memoir Surrender, Bono writes honestly about the loss, the guilt, and the what-ifs. 📽️ A look at the early days—rare 1989 backstage footage of Bono and Michael together, relaxed and smiling as the friendship began

Today, January 22, marks the birthday of Michael Hutchence—born in 1960, the same year as Bono. They met in the late 1980s when U2 and INXS crossed paths on the global stage. The friendship grew in the mid-90s: they were neighbors in the South of France, with villas near Èze on the Riviera. Vacations there involved late nights, drinks, laughter, long talks, and a natural balance between two frontmen. Bono later said: “He was a nice guy to be around. He was very light, whereas I don’t think I’m the easiest person to be around, so we balanced each other out.” They’d hang out till dawn, sometimes ending up sleeping on the beach after wild nights. Michael brought lightness to Bono’s intensity—it was an escape. But as the 90s went on, things changed. The drug scene around Michael and Paula Yates got heavier, straining relationships. Bono and Ali stepped back for their family’s sake (they declined to be godparents to Tiger Lily in 1996). The friendship turned distant and sour. Michael died in 1997. Bono channeled some of the grief into “Stuck in a Moment You Can’t Get Out Of” on U2’s All That You Can’t Leave Behind—written as an imagined talk with his friend, urging him not to give up. In his memoir Surrender, Bono writes honestly about the loss, the guilt, and the what-ifs. 📽️ A look at the early days—rare 1989 backstage footage of Bono and Michael together, relaxed and smiling as the friendship began

Bono’s Bible

27,117 views • 8 months ago

Big thanks to the Opposition for their latest housing video, we genuinely appreciate the free voiceover. They tried to discredit the government’s efforts, but ended up narrating our housing achievements perfectly. So we helped them out, we added the visuals of what’s actually happening. Social housing being delivered. New communities being built. Jamaicans receiving keys to their own homes, some for the very first time. So yes, thank you. Because exactly this is why we are investing in housing for all Jamaicans, not just talk, but action. For years, too many Jamaicans were left behind, stuck in board houses and informal settlements with no real support. We’re changing that. We’re restoring dignity, creating stability, and giving people something solid to call their own. So while they focus on the next gimmick, we’ll keep doing the real work. And if they keep providing the commentary, we’ll keep providing the receipts. They talk, we act. By the way, does anyone know which housing development the opposition leader was standing in front of when he made that video?

Big thanks to the Opposition for their latest housing video, we genuinely appreciate the free voiceover. They tried to discredit the government’s efforts, but ended up narrating our housing achievements perfectly. So we helped them out, we added the visuals of what’s actually happening. Social housing being delivered. New communities being built. Jamaicans receiving keys to their own homes, some for the very first time. So yes, thank you. Because exactly this is why we are investing in housing for all Jamaicans, not just talk, but action. For years, too many Jamaicans were left behind, stuck in board houses and informal settlements with no real support. We’re changing that. We’re restoring dignity, creating stability, and giving people something solid to call their own. So while they focus on the next gimmick, we’ll keep doing the real work. And if they keep providing the commentary, we’ll keep providing the receipts. They talk, we act. By the way, does anyone know which housing development the opposition leader was standing in front of when he made that video?

Andrew Holness

34,140 views • 1 year ago

OpenAI President Greg Brockman explains why Anthropic pulled ahead of OpenAI on ARR. (Anthropic at ~$65B and OpenAI is at $40B ARR ) "We focused late on coding in particular. There’s one simple narrative, which is that we focused less on real-world coding, and we came to that game late because we always had looked at things like the coding competition benchmarks and always had the lead there, but less the, “Okay, but how is a developer really going to use it?” Like, the messy real-world codebase, the developer interrupting in the middle, what’s the personality of the model—these sort of little last-mile paper cuts that actually make a huge difference in adoption. And similar on the GTM side, of really thinking about: How do you show? How do you build relationships with customers? How do you build the kind of observability controls that they need? How do you help them understand what’s possible within their context? And all of these were less our singular focus until much later than competition. So, I think that we started late, but our trajectory has been very steep." ---- From "TIME" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)

OpenAI President Greg Brockman explains why Anthropic pulled ahead of OpenAI on ARR. (Anthropic at ~$65B and OpenAI is at $40B ARR ) "We focused late on coding in particular. There’s one simple narrative, which is that we focused less on real-world coding, and we came to that game late because we always had looked at things like the coding competition benchmarks and always had the lead there, but less the, “Okay, but how is a developer really going to use it?” Like, the messy real-world codebase, the developer interrupting in the middle, what’s the personality of the model—these sort of little last-mile paper cuts that actually make a huge difference in adoption. And similar on the GTM side, of really thinking about: How do you show? How do you build relationships with customers? How do you build the kind of observability controls that they need? How do you help them understand what’s possible within their context? And all of these were less our singular focus until much later than competition. So, I think that we started late, but our trajectory has been very steep." ---- From "TIME" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)

Rohan Paul

31,589 views • 17 days ago

Taylor Sheridan is leaving Paramount for NBCUniversal in a 5-year $1B deal (he can make films for them next year and TV in 2029). Latest chapter in a wild ride. He didn’t even start writing until 40. He quit acting after the “Sons of Anarchy” producers low-balled him. After 15 years in Hollywood, he realized he’d never be more than a B actor. Writing seemed liked the best option because he needed money and his wife had a kid on the way. Sheridan maxxed out his wife’s credit card to buy the Final Draft screenwriting software and the first script was…”Sicario” (2015). Unreal. He says he had “absolutely no idea” how to write but “knew exactly what not to do” because he had worked with “so many bad scripts” as an actor. “Tell the story I want to tell,” he said of his approach in a 2016 interview. “Be honest and it should probably work out. I write movies I want to see about things that interest me. I assume I’m not that unique and other people will like them too.” “Sicario” became a hit, which gave him runway to make “Hell or High High Water” (2016) and “Wind River” (2017). After those three films, Paramount tapped him for “Yellowstone” and kicked off his massively successful TV run.

Taylor Sheridan is leaving Paramount for NBCUniversal in a 5-year $1B deal (he can make films for them next year and TV in 2029). Latest chapter in a wild ride. He didn’t even start writing until 40. He quit acting after the “Sons of Anarchy” producers low-balled him. After 15 years in Hollywood, he realized he’d never be more than a B actor. Writing seemed liked the best option because he needed money and his wife had a kid on the way. Sheridan maxxed out his wife’s credit card to buy the Final Draft screenwriting software and the first script was…”Sicario” (2015). Unreal. He says he had “absolutely no idea” how to write but “knew exactly what not to do” because he had worked with “so many bad scripts” as an actor. “Tell the story I want to tell,” he said of his approach in a 2016 interview. “Be honest and it should probably work out. I write movies I want to see about things that interest me. I assume I’m not that unique and other people will like them too.” “Sicario” became a hit, which gave him runway to make “Hell or High High Water” (2016) and “Wind River” (2017). After those three films, Paramount tapped him for “Yellowstone” and kicked off his massively successful TV run.

Trung Phan

3,269,756 views • 10 months ago

Erland Josephson on his working relationship with Ingmar Bergman: "Cineaste: Your working relationship with Bergman is the longest between an actor and a director that I know of. You made your debut in Bergman's 'It Rains on Our Love' (1946), as the clerk in the vicar's office. Josephson: Yes, but it was a very small part. The first important part I had was in 'The Magician' (1958). That was really a role. I was more interested in theater at the time, and didn't think I had a talent for filmmaking, but I do. I changed my mind. [Laughs} Cineaste: How did you and Bergman discuss your character in 'Saraband' (2003), which is the same character you portrayed in 'Scenes from a Marriage' (1973), now thirty years later. Josephson: I was surprised that he showed me as being so mean. In the film I seem really mean, but I didn't feel that so much when I read the script. I felt I was compassionate with him. Cineaste: Bergman's neuroses fuel his art. Do you think he'd prefer to be more like you and Liv ? Josephson: No! I've worked with both of them in theater, tele vision, and film. When I was acting in Bergman's films, I usually took the role of a sexually troubled intellectual. I then worked for years outside of Sweden. When I returned home, Bergman had a somewhat different image of me because of other films I had acted in. [Especially The Sacrifice (1985), directed by Andrei Tarkovsky K.L.] I then conformed more to the 'magic' side of Bergman's character in films such as In the 'Presence of a Clown' (1997). So I can't complain about the parts anymore. Cineaste: Which of the films you did with Bergman did you most enjoy ? Josephson: I loved doing 'After the Rehearsal' (1984). But I also loved doing 'Fanny and Alexander' (1982). It was a very nice period in my life when I made those films." ["A Staged Happening: An Interview with Erland Josephson & Liv Ullmann", Kevin Lewis, Cineaste, 2005] P.S: Remembering the great Erland Josephson on his 103rd birthday! Clip from: Saraband (2003) Director: Ingmar Bergman

Erland Josephson on his working relationship with Ingmar Bergman: "Cineaste: Your working relationship with Bergman is the longest between an actor and a director that I know of. You made your debut in Bergman's 'It Rains on Our Love' (1946), as the clerk in the vicar's office. Josephson: Yes, but it was a very small part. The first important part I had was in 'The Magician' (1958). That was really a role. I was more interested in theater at the time, and didn't think I had a talent for filmmaking, but I do. I changed my mind. [Laughs} Cineaste: How did you and Bergman discuss your character in 'Saraband' (2003), which is the same character you portrayed in 'Scenes from a Marriage' (1973), now thirty years later. Josephson: I was surprised that he showed me as being so mean. In the film I seem really mean, but I didn't feel that so much when I read the script. I felt I was compassionate with him. Cineaste: Bergman's neuroses fuel his art. Do you think he'd prefer to be more like you and Liv ? Josephson: No! I've worked with both of them in theater, tele vision, and film. When I was acting in Bergman's films, I usually took the role of a sexually troubled intellectual. I then worked for years outside of Sweden. When I returned home, Bergman had a somewhat different image of me because of other films I had acted in. [Especially The Sacrifice (1985), directed by Andrei Tarkovsky K.L.] I then conformed more to the 'magic' side of Bergman's character in films such as In the 'Presence of a Clown' (1997). So I can't complain about the parts anymore. Cineaste: Which of the films you did with Bergman did you most enjoy ? Josephson: I loved doing 'After the Rehearsal' (1984). But I also loved doing 'Fanny and Alexander' (1982). It was a very nice period in my life when I made those films." ["A Staged Happening: An Interview with Erland Josephson & Liv Ullmann", Kevin Lewis, Cineaste, 2005] P.S: Remembering the great Erland Josephson on his 103rd birthday! Clip from: Saraband (2003) Director: Ingmar Bergman

DepressedBergman

16,881 views • 3 months ago

From an ex- director who worked on Weibo night with Jackson Wang #JacksonWang “He really is the best. When we do large events especially with red carpet, time management is so hard especially when a lot of the celebs are late. Sometimes we will say to the celeb who is about to step on the red carpet to stall a bit, but the response is usually negative or ignored. The host also doesn’t help much as they are worried being too long and get criticised. But that night Jackson agreed, and he deliberately went on stage to stall, trying to find odd places to sign his name, and deliberately jumping between the 3 places to give us more time. Our director was so moved by his action. This resulted in comments from social media was that he’s drunk, or seeking attention. We felt so bad for him.” With all criticism he never said anything to defend himself. He just endures. We hope his popularity will be endless.

From an ex- director who worked on Weibo night with Jackson Wang #JacksonWang “He really is the best. When we do large events especially with red carpet, time management is so hard especially when a lot of the celebs are late. Sometimes we will say to the celeb who is about to step on the red carpet to stall a bit, but the response is usually negative or ignored. The host also doesn’t help much as they are worried being too long and get criticised. But that night Jackson agreed, and he deliberately went on stage to stall, trying to find odd places to sign his name, and deliberately jumping between the 3 places to give us more time. Our director was so moved by his action. This resulted in comments from social media was that he’s drunk, or seeking attention. We felt so bad for him.” With all criticism he never said anything to defend himself. He just endures. We hope his popularity will be endless.

JackyHKGurl 🇮🇪🇭🇰

28,927 views • 3 months ago