Top Gun is making a 30-year anniversary comeback, but we will not see codename “Charlie” (Kelly McGillis) the second time round. The problem is that in real life the actress has, believe it or not, aged, and she does not look like someone who’s in her 30s anymore, which probably can be explained by the fact that three decades have passed since the filming of the original Top Gun.
McGillis (62 years)was not called to appear in the sequel. She told Entertainment Tonight that “I’m old and I’m fat and I look age-appropriate for what my age is, and that is not what that whole scene is about.” I am happy to report that Tom Cruise meanwhile has not aged one bit (he will be back playing “Maverick” at sprightly 57 years), and his love-interest will be Jennifer Connelly (a very respectable 48 years).
I watched the trailer and we see two middle-aged men chatting, some phallic flying simulations, a bit of topless beach volley (it was the glue that kept the flying scenes together the first time round so hey, worth the shot for the sequel, eh?) and a flash of the new love interest (because these pilot-studs are very much heterosexual, and this fact cannot be underlined enough). It will not have the young Val Kilmer doing what he did best, ie. being the pissy “Iceman”, so I already know it’s not gonna take my breath away. Out next summer.
Meanwhile at the Frogmore Estates, Duchess Meghan has done a spot of collab with the British Vogue. She guest-edited the September issue, and of course this did not go down very well. Her problem is basically that she is wrong, as in cannot do anything right, but this we knew already from her Marie Antoinettesque baby shower, paid for by her fabulously rich, famous friends. So yeah now she’s all over the town editing a fashion magazine.
This is of course wrong. The other Duchess, Kate, knew better to just pose on the cover of the said publication a couple of years back and explain in the accompanying interview how her heart beats to the National Portrait Gallery because whose heart doesn’t. It’s very naughty of Meghan to appear active, as in taking initiative and doing something else than clutching a posy of flowers and stare at a wall at various envelope openings. What Meghan (and most women) clearly does not understand is that while we all vigorously nod at her platform and voice and influence we absolutely do not want her to use any of it.
Did not put the Queen on the cover. Worked during her maternity leave. Did not meet Trump, but found time to gallivanter with the glamorous fashion crowd. Promotes mainly herself and her multi-millionaire celebrity friends (Salma Hayek features on the cover) instead of the House of Windsor. Can she not just, I don’t know, not work but maybe do something to justify her upkeep, like be a patron for some stuff like homeless dogs, and have teas like the rest of them?
Exactly half of the UK’s press is enraged by the fact that Meghan put politicians on the cover of Vogue (notably New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern). Royals stay out of politics, we are reminded. This rule, however, does not seem to apply to Prince Andrew, for example, who used to be notoriously close to Gaddafi, the Bahraini dictatorshipand frequently chillaxed on various Kazakh oligarchs’ yachts. Oh, and who’s currently back making headlines as part of Jeffrey Epstein’s ring of trafficking underaged girls for sex. The UK press is strangely silent.
But guest-editing a fashion magazine? What an international disgrace, that one.
Photo credit to Everett Collection/REX, although it could be from my diary circa 1989.