by Kelly Forzaglia
"Famous Feuds and Film Festivals: A Multi-Rhetorical Analysis of the Intersectionality of Non-Traditional Artifacts Found in A Rapidly Evolving Social Sphere"
THE IDIOM “WHAT, do you live under a rock?” is probably something each one of us has either heard or said at some point in our lives. Oftentimes, this phrase is used in context of someone experiencing a level of social ignorance, either by design or by accident. But in the age of social media and with the explosive growth of the internet, this phrase seems to have taken on a more intimate meaning. Before the internet was as pervasive and invasive as it is now, it may actually have been easy to overlook the niche and nuanced corners of it, and therefore, asking someone if they ‘lived under a rock’ was only an indication that that person had not been a part of the social group that the asker was. Nowadays though, asking someone if they ‘live under a rock’ could be a genuine question –if not still a little facetious. With a variety of social media platforms and the expanded access to new information, this becomes a valid curiosity that perhaps ought to be considered with sincerity.
Perhaps one of the types of content that is most closely associated with popularity and growth of the internet is celebrity content. This most often includes feuds, relationships, and other various controversies and often correlates to the celebrities work or their own popularity at the time. Different platforms and media sources will drive narratives around celebrities and entertainment by using rhetorical strategies to appeal to consumers. This can be done for a variety of reasons; to drive site traffic, in order to generate revenue, to advertise or market something –but the consistent factor in all of these purposes is the fact that different individuals or organizations seek to appeal to other groups using rhetorical devices. In this essay I will dissect several examples of artifacts and use rhetorical lenses to analyze them, in order to explore the influence of social media and the internet on our beliefs and knowledge both as individuals and groups.
The content that I will be analyzing will all be centered around a recent social controversy that both fueled and defined the popularity of the film Don’t Worry Darling. There was a plethora of coverage of the events leading up to and following the premiere that came from a variety of sources and in a variety of forms and I will be analyzing the rhetorical devices in several of them using a combination of the lenses we have studied this semester. Specifically, I will employ digital, social epistemic, feminist, and cultural lenses. Many of these have some connection to incorporating the influence of other people around you and their beliefs into your own as well as looking at forms of communication that are not traditionally considered rhetorical and finding ways to see them as such. Rhetoric is all about the ways in which we communicate with one another but also about influence and persuasion. The four lenses I'm going to focus on in this essay deal with analyzing unconventional rhetorical content and the influence of social situations on our own beliefs and knowledge.
BEFORE GETTING TO some analyses I will offer an introduction to digital and feminist rhetorical analysis. First, the digital lens works by using classical rhetorical canons of invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. However, these canons have since evolved in meaning due to the recent developments of social media and technology (Bogost 762-63). Both the digital and feminist lenses that I will be using in this essay have manifested a new approach to looking at these canons. In the digital approach, invention has gone from finding “means” of persuasion to finding new “materials” of persuasion as well as new uses for them; arrangement is no longer just about textual organization but concerns the interconnectedness of other digital media; style simply gets expanded with the growth of graphic design technology; memory deals more with “recovery and preservation” than simply pre-existing stored knowledge; and lastly, delivery, perhaps the canon that has experienced the greatest shift in meaning, now benefits from entirely new “systems and networks of distribution, publication, circulation, and performance.” In other words, delivery is about the spread and growth of information (Li Chapter 2). Digital rhetoric is both expansive but also still very undefined due to how new it is to the rhetorical tradition.
The classical canons also take on new, nontraditional meanings when used in the long-developing feminist lens of rhetoric. Invention, in the feminist eye, becomes a discovery of “nonrational” or nontraditional ways of evaluating objects and texts; arrangement factors in circular or non-linear patterns of speech; style deals more with listening and getting audiences to agree to listen rather than audiences being forcefully immersed due to clever language; memory considers retrospection of personal intuition rather than just previously gathered knowledge, and delivery through a feminist lens proves once again to be one of the most valuable of the rhetorical canons, where it highlights nontraditional and unexpected ways of communicating, particularly through methods that have been typically ignored or perceived as insignificant by other groups (Glenn & Lunsford 587-89). The feminist rhetorical lens works by analyzing unconventional content or looking at a variety of different objects or artifacts as rhetorical appeals, not just text. Where the digital approach is more visual and user-based, the feminist lens deals more with evaluating nontraditional ideas and objects.
AND SO, WITH greater access to a great variety of new information sources, social media, and technology, it’s no surprise that so much of our knowledge and beliefs are so highly influenced by our peers and social media. Like I mentioned earlier, this new and extensive exposure has taken shape in a plethora of ways, but the one I am going to discuss today will encompass several different texts and artifacts that concern a widely shared social event: the premiere of the film Don’t Worry Darling. First I will look at two articles. The first textual artifact was written by Richard Brody in The New Yorker and published on the weekend the film premiered. It is entitled ““Don’t Worry Darling” Is So Much More Than Hollywood Gossip Fodder” and this article starts out as a critical evaluation of the film but ends by making a statement about the influence of the celebrity controversies on the content and narrative of the film. The second textual artifact comes from tabloid magazine, Us Weekly, and was written about a month prior to the release of the film, by Cynthia Robinson, entitled, “Everything Olivia Wilde, Shia LaBeouf, Cast Have Said About ‘Don’t Worry Darling’ Drama.” This article stays mostly true to its title as it catalogs images, captions, and public comments that cast members and related persons have shared in relation to the film, however it does breach into some of the personal lives of the cast and related members as well. I will compare and contrast these two rhetorical lenses as I look at the artifacts in order to analyze the influence and effect they had on individual’s beliefs and the conversations that burgeoned due to the rhetorical influence of the artifacts.
STARTING WITH THE most traditional artifact of the four, in the article from The New Yorker, Brody spends the first two thirds of the piece touting the production design, performances, and clever plot, describing it at one point as a “sensory delight.” The article seems to act as a true critical and linear analysis of the film, until closer to the end where he then switches gear into discussing the controversy that, in his view, has plagued the film. “Reviews from the film’s première, at the Venice Film Festival, were sharply –unduly, I think– negative,” Brody writes near the end, wrapping up his article by talking about the controversy and how it affected the quality of the film. Brody’s claim comes almost at the end where he states that “Styles shines” in comparison to “the air of aggression, of menace, of unease” that would have no doubt been felt had another actor, Shia LeBeouf, filled the role like was originally intended, and he believes that the casting of Style’s over LaBeouf actually enhanced the message of the film (Brody).
However, while the content of the article is certainly something to pay attention to, I will be using the digital lens to analyze the influence of this article on the readers and as discussed earlier, digital analysis has a greater focus on the organizational and visual aspects of an artifact than on linguistic ones. Using the new definitions of the aforementioned rhetorical canons, we can analyze the invention of Brody’s argument structure, where instead of placing his claim at the beginning of the article, as is traditional, he begins by explaining his affinity for the quality of the film, placing his argument and claim instead very close to the end, in essence sort of misleading his readers into thinking this may be a traditional critical film review, free from the controversy that is so deeply ingrained in the film, however, even Brody, in his contempt for the dramatics, cannot escape it. The arrangement is very basic and bare bones, the only links in the article are to other New Yorker or Condè Nast publications (of which The New Yorker is under as well) or to an email sign-up for The New Yorker newsletter. The style is almost literally black and white, save for the heading image which displays Florence Pugh and Harry Styles, the leads, in a screengrab from the film looking joyful, even the ad blocs are in a complementary font to The New Yorker’s. The article is brief and concise and readers could easily read through it without too much superfluous scrolling or too many inconvenient ad blocs. The delivery of the article is clearly meant to be limited to subscribers to the magazine, which can feed into the canon of memory, as readers of the article may be expected to already be familiar with the author’s perspective or the magazine’s integrity due to the fact that there are not many external links or outside advertisements on the webpage. This digital analysis of this rhetorical artifact shows that this article’s intention is to try to take it’s loyal audience into a larger conversation but without leaving them entirely in it, in other words, it finds a way to both reinforce the unique identity of the group of individuals who already subscribe, literally and figuratively, to the ideologies that this magazine and article puts forth, but also expose them to the larger conversation going on without forcing them to take on the beliefs of exterior groups.
Now, let’s compare this New Yorker Article with the article from Us Weekly. From the digital perspective, the invention of the article is unique as it is very image heavy and it uses photos to influence the audience rather than making a traditional claim statement anywhere in the article. As the title suggests, the goal of the article is simply to inform readers of the conversations happening. But, under the guise of simple explanation, this tabloid article seeks to enhance the narrative of a feud between the actress and the director of the film, using images and composition. As far as arrangement goes, there is a much grander degree of interconnectedness of content as the ads become more numerous, images in the article of the individuals it concerns come from a variety of different sources, dates, and locations that are not exclusive to the Don’t Worry Darling press tour and cast. Looking at style, the viewing experience is broken up into numerous blocks as each image acts as a heading to a separate story or comment concerning the different parts of the larger controversy. This allows readers, or perhaps viewers, to easily focus on only the controversies they please or to easily discern which ones they want to read about. Likewise, the article claims to be an all encompassing work as well, so the readers who may not be familiar with anything concerning it can use it as a sort of encyclopedia for the controversy and employ the article’s links to other resources of information. For instance, if a reader was curious about Shia LeBeouf’s comments, they could scroll until they see an image of him and find out what information is there. For memory, readers who may already be familiar with the information within the article, and may have even contributed to it prior to the article’s publishing in some fashion, can be reminded of knowledge they already previously stored. And once again, delivery becomes a much larger conversation as this will also lead us into the feminist appeal to the article.
From the feminist perspective, tabloids are certainly not considered classical forms of rhetorical artifacts. However, in the case of celebrity news, they certainly make statements.
As a matter of fact, this article is composed almost entirely of statements made by other people. As far as invention goes in the feminist lens, this article uses an almost entirely new way of making a claim, since, as I mentioned before, there is no explicit argument being made. The article uses images and controversial statements to influence its readers. For instance, Robinson puts a side-by-side image of Pugh and Wilde in similar makeup, outfits, and poses, ahead of a section heading that reads “What Was the Pay Disparity Drama With Florence Pugh About?” Putting an image of the two women in similar dark clothing and makeup mimics a traditional tabloid tactic of framing two celebrities together for audiences to compare based on fashion looks, a classic example of this being the ‘Who Wore It Better?’ activities in tabloids. This comparison reinforces the narrative of a feud between Wilde and Pugh without making the obvious statement about it.
This also leads to arrangement, as the author is not making any explicit claims or connecting any dots for readers, as a matter of fact, the article doesn’t even follow a traditional arrangement. As mentioned earlier, the article works more in snippets of information rather than a linear narrative leading to a point. For style, audiences are not necessarily being enticed to listen, as in the New Yorker article where the article starts off as a film critique and cleverly leads readers into a criticis
m of the drama around the film, Robinson’s article leans on the assumption that readers will come to it because they have already agreed to listen, because they are already part of a group that is aware of the information and are seeking to revisit it and likewise with memory, where readers have likely already gathered knowledge on the subject from other sources and are looking to reevaluate the information they have. Delivery here goes back to the beginning of this paragraph where since tabloids aren’t necessarily traditional rhetorical artifacts, the delivery of the article becomes one that is over-shared and all-encompassing like a sort of celebrity drama encyclopedia, shared via various social media platforms in a repeated fashion for easy access. This article incorporates not just the main culprits of controversy, but also actors who were linked to the project from it’s early origins, secondary characters, and even external players such as Wilde’s ex-fiancee, Jason Sudeikis, showing that it seeks to infiltrate many other groups and wrangle as many individuals into the controversy as possible.
There is no explicit claim made in the Us Weekly article unlike in the New Yorker article, where it’s very bare bones and focuses almost exclusively on language in order to make a clear claim about the film’s value and content. However, both seek to reinforce pre-existing divides between their audience groups and it’s clear that the Us Weekly periodical seeks to increase the controversy and it’s reach more for the sake of getting people involved in the discussion rather than to discuss a specific stance on the actual issue. The Us Weekly article is also very heavily image based and as I discussed earlier, the rhetorical influence of an image is growing in our technological age.
THE EMPHASIS ON the social sphere and its influence on communicating, knowledge, or the acquiring of beliefs is apparent in all these rhetorical lenses, but it is perhaps most evident in the lens of culture and rhetoric. The cultural approach to rhetorical analysis deals with the intersections of groups and their beliefs by looking at history and preconceived knowledge used to communicate ideas about groups. Like in feminism, there is a focus on nontraditional and “nonlinguistic” communication and like in social epistemology, there is a focus on the influence of social spheres on our thinking and knowledge. Cultural rhetoric works off of the concept of ‘gnosis,’ or internal instinctual beliefs which can also incorporate, like with digital rhetoric, the use of visual or design influences, not just cultural experiences. Culture in rhetoric discusses the use of narratives and ways of knowing information either through personal experience or historical proof and similar to other lenses we will discuss, it also encourages respect for others’ ways of being. It depends upon the use of design elements, history, and gnosis to analyze intersectionality of cultures, highlight the differences between people’s beliefs as well as their similarities, and expand the field of rhetorical analysis to previously ignored activities (Lecture Nov. 17). Like the analyses I discussed previously, cultural rhetorical analysis deals with expanding the definition of rhetorical artifacts as well as incorporating nontraditional and diverse voices.
And in keeping with the theme of using newer rhetorical lenses to evaluate objects, social epistemology is a growing field of rhetorical analysis as well. Epistemology itself has been around for a while and is a field primarily concerned with the acquisition and origins of knowledge. However, the more recently-evolved field of social epistemology takes a more focused look at this. Social epistemology is based on the theory of knowledge; where it comes from and how the social sphere influences it (Goldman). Social epistemology theorizes that personal beliefs can be influenced not just through social interactions, but also through physical space and it incorporates the ways that peers influence those physical spaces as well (Ackerman 89-91). A Cambridge article notes that, “the normative approach [of Social Epistemology] is about how groups should be organized (and are organized) in order for them to produce knowledge reliably and effectively.” Social epistemology will be useful in the context of this essay as we will be looking at multiple social arenas and different groups and the ways in which they influence our thoughts.
The following artifacts that will be discussed with these lenses are an Instagram post from actress Kiki Layne, a cast member of the film, where she acknowledges another controversy from the film’s production concerning the underrepresentation of minorities in film and television. Then lastly, I will use an image itself from Getty Images that pictures the cast seated at the Venice Film Festival during the first premiere of the film, taken at the height of the controversy. I will then apply the cultural and social epistemic lenses as I discuss the final two artifacts in the following paragraphs of the essay.
While images alone are not typically considered rhetorical in and of themselves, the way they are shared repeatedly, searched, and posted online becomes a sort of rhetorical influence based on the content of the photo. For instance, while articles are common sources for fostering controversy, much of the discourse on celebrity news and other things happens online on social media platforms. During the entire development of the Don’t Worry Darling drama leading up to the premiere, images became incredibly pertinent and rich sources of information for fans and individuals alike. Particularly since there initially wasn’t a great amount of press coverage happening until fans began to read into the images. While there are many images that could be dissected, certain images became symbolic of the film and its controversy, to the degree that simply showing the image could communicate either excitement for the film or operate as a symbol that one is part of a group.
Starting by looking at a cultural approach to rhetorical analysis, I have chosen to analyze a social media post from Don’t Worry Darling actress Kiki Layne, who played a secondary role in the film, despite having been cast in a larger role at first. In the post, Layne threads the needle of controversy with one more thread as she posted a video and two images of her and her co-star, Ari’El Stachel, who played her husband in the film, having fun on set. But in perhaps the most interesting part however, Layne’s caption for the post reads:
“The best thing about #DontWorryDarling is that I was lucky enough to meet @arielstachel. They cut us from most of the movie, but we thriving in real life. 🙂🙂
Love you Ari 💗💗💗💗
#GotMyCheck #GotMyMan #EverythingHappensforaReason” (@kikilayne)
In cultural rhetoric, listening and storytelling is a big part of analysis and artifacts often depend on these pre-existing narratives and conversations to help dissect the claim and intention of the piece. A cultural analysis can also enlighten readers to experiences and knowledge that they were previously unaware of. Layne’s post is no exception to this. Behind the message is one major assumption that none of the language in the caption or images make explicitly clear. Layne is a Black actress and Stachel is Middle Eastern and Jewish. Both of the cultures of Layne and Stachel are minority cultures in America and it’s been no secret that in the entertainment industry, these cultures and their respective voices have been silenced and sidelined throughout. In this post, similar to the tabloid article, Layne makes no explicit claims but seeks to reinforce the narrative of controversy by using pre-existing narratives. Since we as American viewers are aware of the constant inequality and discrimination against minority groups in the entertainment industry, Layne’s post actually seems to be making a statement about her experience and the larger context of it all. First, she uses her experience on the film as a way to corroborate the controversy, then she also includes her co-star in the statement, and in reading through the comments there is a wealth of support for her, primarily from minority users as well, showing that she is part of a community of people who feel equally affected by the action.
Layne uses three important words in her caption that are highly telling of how she feels about the production’s treatment of minorities and the industry’s treatment of them at large. She starts by accusing a group she calls “they” of taking action, creating a separation between her and the industry. Then, she uses the word “cut” which is both a common phrase in the movie-making world, but also a harsh term that mimics real-life discrimination towards minority groups who are often not just cut out from movies, but from lots of different aspects of society by other people. Lastly, she uses the term “us” rather than “me” to both highlight the fact that her and her co-star had been removed from the film, but the word “us” also generates a sense of a larger representation as when a viewer reads the comments it is clear that Layne and Stachel are not the only ones who see this as discrimination. One commenter mimics the sentiments of many, writing, “It’s so unfortunate that it seems now a days [sic] it’s always the African Americans that always seem to get cut and/or be the villains or the “crazy” characters in movies.” (@mickeyzmouse). This commenter puts words to the injustice Layne insinuated in her post.
Layne also chose to post this some weeks after the other controversies had fermented, as if While she makes note that good came of the experience, without making an explicit claim, Layne is clear that she feels underrepresented in the film despite having done valuable and extensive work for the film. As a matter of fact, the video she posted shows her on set with Stachel in a scene that appeared in the movie but didn’t feature them at any point. The character is actually all but removed from the film by the time this scene features in the released version. This situation mimics the real life experience that many minority groups find themselves enduring in other industries or parts of society. By making this post, Layne is making it clear that she both identifies with the community of people who are severely underrepresented and she uses this post as a way of communicating with others who feel the same or have been treated similarly.
Of course, an image-based culture doesn’t always need words to explain or reinforce their beliefs, sometimes the image itself is rich enough to do that without any help. In the case of the prevalent Don’t Worry Darling publicity, several images projected such strong narratives on their own that merely sharing or posting them could insinuate belonging to a social community. This leads to the final artifact and analysis of this essay where I will be using the social epistemic appeal to analyze the rhetoric of an image. I find it important to note here that both cultural and feminist lenses also support the inclusion of images as rhetoric as well in their expansion of rhetorical analyses to unconventional artifacts and non-traditional modes of communication. The image I will be discussing here is of the cast at the Venice Film Festival where the film premiered for the first time.
Director and star Olivia Wilde, lead actors Florence Pugh and Harry Styles and co-stars Chris Pine and Gemma Chan are all seated in a unique order to watch the film (Zunino Celotto). In keeping with the trend of discussing artifacts with no explicit claims, the image is no exception, however, upon closer examination and using pre-existing knowledge, viewers can discern that there is clearly some reinforcement of controversy within it. In the image, the two women that are perceived to be in feud, are seated as far opposite each other as they can be within the frame –some images from the same moment even crop Pugh out of the original. Neither seem to acknowledge the other, where seated in the center is Styles, as if to insinuate that he is the fulcrum on which this balance unsteadily sits. Styles plays Pugh’s husband in the film, but is Wilde’s boyfriend in real life. Flanking Styles on his right is a focused and cool Pine, wearing sunglasses indoors and sitting relaxedly between Styles and Wilde. Then on Styles’ left is Chan, who sits upright and attentive, facing away from Pugh, isolating her even further from the image despite the premiere being for the film she leads. In this image, Pugh’s left shoulder is cropped off, while Wilde’s full ensemble is entirely in frame. What’s more interesting about the photo is that Wilde and Pugh even seem
to be mirroring each other, each with their legs crossed inward toward the center of the photo, hands clasped, and staring forward. Similarly, Chan and Pine are angled toward each other as well, while Styles sits, legs uncrossed, perfectly in the center, giving no indication of affinity to his supposed girlfriend or his lead co-star. This image both leans on pre-existing knowledge to inform perceptions of the image but the image also informs the beliefs of the narrative just through its composition. In addition, the constant reproduction, sharing, and viewing of this image show that it in and of itself can have rhetorical powers. The repeated use of it and the way it appears online and has driven much of the discourse around the film proves that the image is a rhetorical device and is capable of being analyzed as such.
LOOKING BACK OVER what has been discussed in this essay, the central theme is a discussion about intersectionality. All of these artifacts are connected, but so are the rhetorical analyses used. Each works together in unique ways both in their overlaps and differences. Due to the changing world we live in, rhetorical analysis of these rhetorical devices is important to social spheres and discourse as it builds commonality and understanding but also drives culture in certain directions in very unique ways. It’s important to think critically about the ways in which we are affected by rhetoric as individuals, but it’s also important to consider the ways in which we can affect other people simply just by fostering a belief or joining a group without understanding the consequences of that belief.
To look at the convoluted drama and controversial drama, which was enhanced by the rhetorical devices at play throughout the entire unfolding of the release of the film, all without anyone having any knowledge of the film or having seen it is very powerful and shows the importance of having multiple ways of thinking critically about the beliefs we hold and knowledge we trust and how we get to those beliefs and acquire that knowledge. However, while these rhetorical criticisms are varied, they are also unified in their treatment of social and peer influence. It is my hope that analyses like these help audiences see how important it is to critically evaluate our social spheres and a variety of artifacts as the world we live in is rapidly expanding the pathways and vehicles that allow these ideas and experiences to intersect.
Works Cited
Bogost, Ian, and Elizabeth Losh. “Rhetoric and Digital Media.” The Oxford Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, 6 Jan. 2015, pp. 758–772., https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199731596.013.060.
Brody, Richard. “‘Don't Worry Darling’ Is so Much More than Hollywood Gossip Fodder.” The New Yorker, Conde Nast, 22 Sept. 2022, https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/dont-worry-darling-is-so-much-more-than-hollywood-gossip-fodder. Accessed 2 Dec. 2022.
Glenn, Cheryl, and Andrea A. Lunsford. “Rhetoric and Feminism.” The Oxford Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, 3 Mar. 2014, pp. 582–598., https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199731596.013.055.
Goldman, Alvin and Cailin O’Connor, "Social Epistemology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/epistemology-social/
Kusch, Martin. “Social Epistemology.” Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, 1 Aug. 2017, https://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/students/research-guide/social-epistemology#:~:text=Social%20epistemology%20is%20the%20philosophical,Robinson%20Crusoe)%20could%20have%20knowledge.
Layne, Kiki [@kikilayne]. Photo of Layne and Stachel on the set of Don’t Worry Darling. Instagram, photographed by Kiki Layne, 25 Sep. 2022, https://www.instagram.com/p/Ci8AgFHJLxC/.
Li, Ruth. “Review of Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice.” Kairos 23.2: Li, Review of Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice - Chapter Two Overview, Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 15 Jan. 2019, https://kairos.technorhetoric.net/23.2/reviews/li/ch2overview.html#:~:text=Invention%2C%20which%20in%20its%20classical,becomes%20an%20intertextual%2C%20social%20endeavor.
Nystrand, Martin, et al. “4: The Space for Rhetoric in Everyday Life.” Towards a Rhetoric of Everyday Life: New Directions in Research on Writing, Text, and Discourse, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, 2003, pp. 84–117.
Robinson, Cynthia. “Everything Olivia Wilde, Shia LaBeouf, Cast Have Said About ‘Don’t Worry Darling’ Drama.” Us Weekly, 22 Oct. 2022, https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/pictures/dont-worry-darling-drama-what-olivia-wilde-more-have-said/. Accessed 2 Dec. 2022.
Anthony Harvey/Shutterstock
David Fisher/Shutterstock for BAFTA
Zunino Celotto, Vittoro. “Olivia Wilde, Chris Pine, Harry Styles, Gemma Chan and Florence Pugh in Venice.” Deadline, Venice, 5 Sept. 2022, https://deadline.com/2022/09/harry-styles-olivia-wild-florence-pugh-dont-worry-darling-premiere-reactions-venice-film-festival-1235108360/. Accessed 2 Dec. 2022.
Comments