Wisp has released a new song, ‘Get back to me’, following last month’s ‘Sword’. “‘Get back to me’ represents the greed for chaos, even at the cost of yourself,” the shoegaze artist said of the luminous single. “It’s about staying in a place you know isn’t good for you, yet you’re in a seemingly unbreakable cycle of going back – which portrays desperation, recklessness and limerence.” Check it out below.
Addison Rae Drops New Single ‘Headphones On’
Addison Rae has shared a new track called ‘Headphones On’. It’s the latest in a string of singles that includes ‘Diet Pepsi’, ‘Aquamarine’, and ‘High Fashion’, though it leans more toward trip-hop. (Pair it with that new Bruce Springsteen song.) Rae co-wrote the deliciously wispy track with producers Luka Closer and Elvira Anderfjärd. Check out director Mitch Ryan’s video for it below.
New Pornographers Drummer Joe Seiders Arrested for Possession of Child Pornography
Joe Seiders, the drummer for the New Pornographers, has been arrested for possession of child pornography. According to the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, Seiders was booked into the John Benoit Detention Center in Indio on April 9 and charged with possession of child pornography, annoying/molesting a child, invasion of privacy, and attempted invasion of privacy.
The New Pornographers have issued a statement on their Instagram account, which reads: “Everyone in the band is absolutely shocked, horrified and devastated by the news of the charges against Joe Seiders — and we have immediately severed all ties with him. Our hearts go out to everyone who has been impacted by his actions.”
The news release explains that police officers responded to “a suspicious circumstance” at a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Palm Desert, California, on Monday, April 7. When they arrived, an 11-year-old boy told deputies that “an unknown male adult recorded him on a cell phone while he was using the restroom at the location.” On April 9, police responded to an incident at the same location, where an employee told the officers that “a male was entering and exiting the restroom with juvenile males at the business.” The man was identified as 44-year-old Seiders and taken into custody.
Upon Seiders’ arrest, officials searched his home, vehicle, and cell phone and found evidence implicating him in the Chick-Fil-A bathroom incidents and further crimes, including possession of child pornography. Seiders is being held at the Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility in lieu of $1 million bail and is due to appear at the Indio Larson Justice Center on April 22.
Joe Seiders joined the New Pornographer in 2014, replacing longtime drummer Kurt Dahle. He played on three of the band’s albums: 2017’s Whiteout Conditions, 2019’s In the Morse Code of Brake Lights, 2023’s Continue as a Guest.
Reach Out for Help
If you or someone you know has been affected by sexual assault, we encourage you to reach out for support.
Crisis Text Line
UK: Rape Crisis
US: RAINN
Lana Del Rey Shares New Single ‘Bluebird’
After releasing ‘Henry, come on’, the lead single from her next album, last week, Lana Del Rey changed the record’s title and release date, which remains undetermined. Today, the singer has shared a new track from what was previously called Lasso and then The Right Person Will Stay. It’s a luscious fingerpicked ballad that quietly soars as Del Rey repeats, “Just shoot for the sun ’til I can finally run/ Find a way to fly.” Del Rey co-wrote it with Luke Laird, and she co-produced it with Laird and multi-instrumentalist Drew Erickson. Check it out below.
How Much Should You Really Spend on an Engagement Ring?
Selection of a perfect engagement ring is an exciting journey yet an important decision to take financially. Spending on an engagement ring is an important aspect of your love life symbolising expressing your love and commitment. Earlier people used to believe that one should spend at least two month’s salary to get the perfect engagement ring but now the trends have changed. By understanding essential factors and setting a practical budget they can make a smart investment for a lifetime. This guide by Loose Grown Diamonds covers the topics related to how much to spend on an engagement ring. Let’s get into details for better understanding.
Factors to Consider When Setting a Budget:
It is significant to set a realistic budget before investing in your ring. Below are some of the factors you need to consider while setting a budget.
Financial Situation-
The primary factor should be your financial condition while setting the budget. It highly impacts the choices of your ring without straining your pocket, by cutting down the unnecessary spending. This helps you to stick to a strict financial plan making your spending more precise and affordable.
Personal Preferences-
Considering the personal taste and preferences of your partner can help to get you the desired ring. Understand your partner’s choice whether they like classic designs or modern elegance, their taste will guide you to the best deal.
Partner’s Expectations and Preferences-
Communicating with your partner regarding their expectations and choices helps you better understand and make the right decision.
Ring Quality and Value-
The other important aspect is to look for the quality of the ring. Focusing on factors like 4Cs: Cut, Color, Carat, and Clarity can help you understand the quality grade of the ring. For example, a 2-carat engagement ring will differ in quality, size, price, and overall look from a 3-carat engagement ring.
How To Maximize Your Budget In a Smart Way?
It is fair to maximize your budget while purchasing an Engagement Ring without compromising the quality. Considering some strategies you can smartly set your budget without pinching your pockets.
Shopping Smartly-
Smart shopping is a talent that can help you get your deal at an affordable price. Comparing the price of various reliable stores can get you the clear idea of an average engagement ring cost. Loose Grown Diamonds provides seasonal discounts and promotions for customers to make their shopping exciting and pocket-friendly.
Financing Options-
Creating a financial plan before getting into the shopping mode can also maximize your budget giving a clear idea of the costs. Many jewelers like Loose Grown Diamond offer financial plans with zero to low interests and buy-now pay-later options to make your shopping manageable without stressing your pockets. This also cuts down on unnecessary spending and saves money.
Choosing Alternative Stones and Settings-
Considering alternative stones rather than traditional natural diamonds has helped you save a lot of money. A better substitute for mined diamonds is lab-grown diamonds that offer a similar look, brilliance, and sparkle at comparatively low prices. Loose Grown Diamond specializes in making lab diamonds with a variety of designs and settings at reduced cost.
Conclusion:
The most common question asked while getting an engagement ring is how much should an engagement ring cost? The answer to this question is more simple as it involves the consideration of some factors. Creating a proper balance between the preferences, considering significant factors like 4Cs, proper budget and quality can be a great step in making the purchase process easier. Opting for the lab diamonds can cut down the extra costs. Considering smart shopping and exploring various alternatives allows you to find the perfect engagement ring for your love without breaking the bank.
FAQ’s:
What Is The Acceptable Budget for an Engagement Ring?
The acceptable budget varies depending on an individual’s personal choice and type of diamonds. However, it is recommended to spend a considerable amount of money.
What Is The Rule for Spending on an Engagement Ring?
Traditionally people used to believe that a person should spend at least two months’ salary for their engagement ring. However, the trend is outdated, leading to one’s personal preference and budget.
How Much Do People Actually Spend on Engagement Rings?
With the introduction of lab-grown diamonds, spending on engagement rings has become more affordable. The average cost of an engagement ring ranges from $2000 to $7000, varying widely based on the diamond shape, size, and personal choices.
How Can I Save Money on an Engagement Ring?
To opt for practical spending and saving money while getting an engagement ring, go for lab-grown diamonds.
Where Is The Best Place to Buy an Engagement Ring?
Loose Grown Diamonds is a reliable and reputable diamond retailer to get your engagement ring. With its exceptional collection, professional services, good quality, and customization availability, it is the best place to consider.
For the Love of Movies and Movie Criticism
As someone who’s always harbored an intense interest in film, I’ve spent many a moment wondering what it would’ve been like to have grown up five or six decades ago, when movies were—many would argue—better, and when film culture itself was quite different. I think about those (pre-internet) days when one opened the newspaper and scoured listings to see what was playing that particular week. I picture myself making plans to catch the latest Hitchcock thriller. I imagine the joy of discovering a Kurosawa retrospective at the local arthouse—realizing how essential it was to attend, as years might pass before Rashomon came within a hundred miles of me again. I think about being spellbound by Jaws and wondering what talent this young guy named Steven Spielberg possessed to make a creature feature so absurdly great. Of course, I would’ve been among the millions watching Star Wars, my curiosity piqued by the fact that even people who didn’t particularly care about movies were making time to see it. And since I’d be living in a time when mainstream talk shows were halfway sophisticated, I’d look forward to seeing personnel from these films engage in the intelligent roundtable conversations found on The Dick Cavett Show.
None of this is to say that a modern film isn’t capable of making waves. And to be sure, film enthusiasts today have an advantage in that cinema from around the world is so accessible. Nowadays, I can purchase Rashomon on Blu-ray and revisit it to my heart’s content. What’s more, other great directors—say, Kurosawa’s senior Mikio Naruse—have gained viewers never afforded in their lifetime thanks to streaming. But there must’ve been a special thrill in that era when film culture was so rich, when actors and directors appeared on programs defined by taste and culture, and when entertainment wasn’t as available at home. I also imagine one’s excitement after seeing a film was greater in those days because the following week’s programming wasn’t yet known. What would you watch after the next edition of the Sunday paper reached your doorstep?
And what would the critics published in those pages have to say? This points to the other aspect of past film culture of which I remain envious. Even though movie criticism still exists, it is—like the films—a shadow of its former self. Once upon a time, criticism was a passionately discussed medium, and some of its practitioners were celebrities in their own right. The New Yorker garnered extra attention because cineastes wanted to know Pauline Kael’s thoughts on what was playing. John Simon was regularly getting attention—and hate mail—for his frequently inflammatory reviews in National Review and New York magazine. TV shows occasionally booked writers alongside artists whose work they’d critiqued—and not always favorably. (I highly recommend an episode of Dick Cavett featuring entertainer Little Richard, actress Rita Moreno, screenwriters Erich Segal and Robert Kaufman, and John Simon. The conversation, once Simon joins, encompasses everything from the quality of Segal’s Love Story to the auteur theory—the educational sort of chatter antithetical to what one expects from American television today.)
In short, movie criticism once amounted to something greater than junket-born blurbs and a website with a say-nothing percentage score. It was rich, cherished, and culturally relevant, like the movies themselves. There are many likely factors behind its decline, and the decline itself has ushered in a need to remember why this art form (and it is indeed an art) was useful in the first place.
Why is Film Criticism Valuable?
During my lifetime, the most accessible American film criticism existed on the television show Siskel & Ebert. Once a week, competitive Chicago reviewers Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert spoke about the latest releases as well as trends in the motion picture industry. The younger me never caught the show during its initial run, but watching archived episodes became a favorite pastime in high school. Siskel & Ebert remains irresistible today—especially compared to its short-lived, rightly forgotten clones—as both men were sharp free-thinkers, and their professional rivalry generated more than a few memorable debates. Although limited by the time constraints imposed by television, these two nurtured my budding interest in film analysis. And their naming reviewers they admired led to me studying the books of people like Pauline Kael and Stanley Kauffmann. Through all this and my growing sensibilities, I came to cherish film criticism—and to lament the misconceptions surrounding it.
Perhaps the dominant stereotype applied to critics is that of the elitist snob putting down all whose tastes don’t mirror his. Some writers embody this, though they truthfully constitute a mere reflection of human reality: one finds, in all fields, in all walks of life, individuals convinced they know better than everyone else and who snidely make this known; such voices simply stand out more in criticism given the public-facing, opinion-centric nature of the trade. The stereotype has discredited reviewers who practice their craft respectfully and, worse yet, it has stolen attention from the reason one should read criticism. As John Simon so eloquently stated in his 1982 book Reverse Angle: “It is not for the critic to do the reader’s thinking for him; it is for the critic to do his own thinking for the reader’s benefit.”
How does the critic think for the reader’s benefit? To begin with, they don’t approach movies from the perspective of a consumer taking in what’s new. Rather, the critic comes to the writing desk with a sharp, analytical mind and an exceptional awareness of film history. (It’s not necessary to know every movie ever made, but no favors are paid, for instance, in reviewing the latest war epic as if war epics began with Saving Private Ryan.) Having a deeper knowledge of the medium allows the critic to frame genre offerings within a context and inform readers of works that might be unfamiliar to them. The often controversial Armond White is useful this way, as he employs his vast knowledge of genre histories when reviewing new releases. (See his analysis of Robin Campillo’s Red Island, wherein White backs up points by recalling other movies about colonialism, like Sydney Pollack’s Out of Africa and Jean Renoir’s The River. By remembering the past as he examines the present, White provides both an informed perspective and a path for serious moviegoers to enrich their own experience.)
At the same time, the ideal film critic knows—and thinks—about more than just movies. John Simon and Stanley Kauffmann were intimately knowledgeable about literature and theater, and this familiarity, even when not explicitly referenced, helped shape their perspective. Otis Ferguson, a gifted critic whose life and career ended prematurely in World War II, also wrote extensively about jazz. Given that cinema borrows from and utilizes the other arts—and given that movies, theater, and novels share the same core function: to tell stories—it’s beneficial for a critic to have experiences outside the moviehouse. The Russian playwright Anton Chekhov argued that a well-constructed narrative maintains its various plot threads. (“If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don’t put it there.”) A critic who’s observed this brings it to their analysis, noting whether ideas in a screenplay lead to payoff. (Why are the many third-act twists in The Shawshank Redemption so much fun? Because director Frank Darabont spent the previous two hours setting them up.)
The best film critics also think about the world around them, as current trends and events often creep into, blatantly manifest in, or are responded to in the arts. Stanley Kauffmann defended Dr. Strangelove’s mockery of the American Cold War government from accusations of implausibility by reminding that “[i]n the same week in which the US takes economic action against nations who trade with Cuba because Castro is spreading Soviet Communism, we also sell a huge lot of wheat to Soviet Russia.” Roger Ebert described Bonnie and Clyde as a film set in the past but made for the year of its making, 1967. Recalling then-recent normalizations of violence (“newscasts refer casually to ‘waves’ of mass murders, Richard Speck’s photograph is sold on posters in Old Town and snipers in Newark pose for Life magazine”), Ebert championed how director Arthur Penn depicted killing as bloody and painful. “Perhaps that seems shocking. But perhaps at this time, it is useful to be reminded that bullets really do tear skin and bone, and that they don’t make nice round little holes like the Swiss cheese effect in Fearless Fosdick.”
In essence, the critic brings with them their entire personal history with art and with the world, all the while knowing how and when to reference it. They must also be willing to make distinctions. One can take pleasure in a badly made movie without pretending it’s anything of quality. A critic can likewise salute excellence while objecting to a work’s moral compass. Pauline Kael acknowledged the exquisite filmmaking in Don Siegel’s Dirty Harry (“It would be stupid to deny that [it] is a stunningly well-made genre piece”) but held the movie accountable for what she deemed the ennoblement of a vigilante cop. (“[T]his action genre has always had a fascist potential, and it has finally surfaced.”)
The best thing about Kael’s review is that her words push the reader to contemplate the movie. In doing so, she epitomizes John Simon’s statement about the critic thinking for the reader’s benefit. Many have disputed Kael’s judgment of Dirty Harry, but the fact that her review produces conversation—that others invest energy into constructively responding—makes her valuable. Such insight doesn’t come from a blurb-spewing automaton that regards film as product for immediate consumption. Criticism helps us notice things in this art form we love so fervently. It encourages us to think about movies, to mull over what we’ve seen, and to be extra attentive when absorbing what we see next.
It can even help explain our feelings about particular movies. I admired many things in Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo from my first viewing and found greater appreciation in subsequent years, but it was Ebert’s 1996 analysis that put into words what makes the picture so emotional for me. Two-thirds of the story focuses on Scottie, a retired detective who falls in love with a mysterious woman named Madeleine. He seemingly loses her to death and becomes obsessed with another woman named Judy, who reminds him of her. In Act Three, Hitchcock boldly informs the viewer—but not Scottie—that Madeleine never existed: she was a doppelgänger impersonated by Judy to cover up the murder of a real person. In the process, Judy came to love Scottie for who he is but must now confront the fact that he still loves the persona she enacted. At this point—as Ebert correctly demonstrates in his review—Vertigo ceases being solely about Scottie and is now “equally about Judy: her pain, her loss, the trap she’s in.”
With this in mind, notice Hitchcock’s filmmaking choices: how the camera lingers on Judy and even presents scenes predominantly from her perspective. She wants to be loved for herself, but the past won’t allow it. And Scottie’s still haunted by the memory of the nonexistent person he lost. In Act Three, we see two guilty souls tormented by love they can’t fully have. I’d noticed this after repeat viewings of Vertigo, but Ebert phrased it in a way I couldn’t at the time. And then he made me consider how the film relates to the larger body of Hitchcock’s career. “Over and over in his films, Hitchcock took delight in literally and figuratively dragging his women through the mud—humiliating them, spoiling their hair and clothes as if lashing at his own fetishes. Judy, in Vertigo, is the closest he came to sympathizing with the female victims of his plots.” A terrific observation that’s just as fun to think about as it is to read.
This leads us to another pleasure offered by film criticism. A good critic is a good writer, as deft in their use of language as a good novelist, playwright, or—for that matter—screenwriter. As such, they manage to entertain while they inform. Sometimes one anticipates the verbiage through which a critic expresses their findings. I get a kick out of reading Vincent Canby for his wonderfully dry humor. (In discussing The Godfather Part II, he quipped that “the interiors are so dark you wonder if these Mafia chiefs can’t afford to buy bigger light bulbs.”) Otis Ferguson’s famous dismissal of The Wizard of Oz (“It has dwarfs, music, technicolor, freak characters and Judy Garland. It can’t be expected to have a sense of humor as well—and as for the light touch of fantasy, it weighs like a pound of fruitcake soaking wet.”) amusingly captures his response to what he perceived as overblown pageantry. And Stanley Kauffmann’s essays were so amazingly written—so cleanly phrased and enjoyable as they pushed you to meditate on topics large and small. (“Possibly the man with the greatest potential genius for symphonic composition lived in New Guinea five hundred years ago, but there was nothing in his world to make him know it.”)
Criticism, as mentioned before, is an art. Any worthy reviewer doesn’t merely possess thoughts and a knack for wordsmithing; he uses said thoughts and talents in the creation of something, just as a painter uses watercolors and a canvas, a filmmaker his cameras and lights. Like any essay, a review needs a thesis, evidence, and structure; both talent and skill are required to construct and integrate these effectively. And just as a novelist aims to elicit a response, so too does the critic with his review. The reader should finish an essay entertained and with thoughts stimulated by what’s been written for their benefit. When this happens, they become engaged in a discourse of sorts. For that reason especially, it’s unfortunate when the reader tosses aside the opportunity for discourse in favor of ego-based vitriol.
Responding (Civilly) to Disagreement
Disagreement is to be expected with any exchange of ideas, and one finds it among practitioners of criticism. Although Siskel and Ebert generally liked/disliked the same movies, they were quick to challenge one another whenever a difference of opinion arose. They even found room to disagree over movies both men recommended—say, Not Without My Daughter, a picture Ebert saluted as an exercise in tension but argued (against Siskel) was denigrating to Arabs. Andrew Sarris championed the auteur theory; Pauline Kael dismissed it as deification of directors. John Simon took glee in reviewing not only films but his colleagues’ reactions to them. All that to say there’s nothing wrong with audiences disputing what they read. There is something terribly wrong, however, with throwing childish fits because a review doesn’t match one’s viewpoint.
Consider a moment from recent history. In 2012, the critic Marshall Fine published a negative review of Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises. At this point, the film had been shown to critics but wasn’t commercially available; admirers of Nolan hadn’t seen the picture. And yet, Fine received death threats from an online mob that’d already declared The Dark Knight Rises the greatest thing ever made. These “fans” did themselves a disservice on multiple fronts. First, they allowed enthusiasm for Nolan’s work to mutate into blind defensiveness for anything the man touched; in doing so, they ceased being admirers and became reactionary cultists. Second, by lashing out, they disclosed their own petty insecurities. What was the “cause” of this behavior, again? A critic hadn’t validated their (preconceived) notions about a particular movie from a particular director.
What would’ve been an appropriate response to Fine’s review? For starters, the above-mentioned Nolan adherents should’ve waited until The Dark Knight Rises entered general release and then seen the movie before deciding whether or not they liked it. The next step: return to Fine’s review and constructively engage with his arguments. Ask some questions. What did you agree with, and why? What did you disagree with, and why? Did he bring up anything about the film you hadn’t noticed? And even if The Dark Knight Rises ended up being the greatest thing ever made for you, don’t be perturbed that someone else reached a different conclusion.
Just as the critic isn’t tasked with thinking for the reader, the reader isn’t tasked with seeking validation. We needn’t talk to anyone but ourselves if agreement’s all we want and (unwisely) think we need. Instead, we should value informed perspectives, treasure well-stated observations, and contrast all that to our experience of going to the movies. In denying this opportunity, we deny ourselves something beneficial.
The Present and Future of Film Criticism
Writing this essay has continued nurturing within me the question of what it would’ve been like to have lived when interesting critics tackled what’s generally regarded as a better age for movies. Alas, many of the writers I’ve cited have passed away, and some retired—they say—because the films came to resemble one another too often. (Kael and Dwight Macdonald were among those disenchanted with repeating themselves.) To be fair, there are worthy full-time critics today. I enthusiastically read Armond White not because I agree with him (I seldom do), but because he gives me ideas to consider and films from the past to check out. But he’s among a select few that stand out, and I often find myself longing for modern John Simons, Stanley Kauffmanns, and Pauline Kaels.
So where are they? Part of the problem may be the trade’s shaky condition. When newspapers and magazines downsize—as they often do in the internet age—the entertainment sections are usually among the first to receive cuts. This pushes out critical voices and no doubt discourages others from joining the profession. There might also be intimidation from within. Pauline Kael commented to an interviewer in the early ‘80s that editors occasionally instructed their critics to like certain movies. She gave the example of Sidney Lumet’s The Verdict: in exchange for a glowing review of the film, a magazine could slap Paul Newman’s face on the cover and increase sales. Kael further remarked that some reviewers had been warned that if they didn’t cooperate, their editors would find someone who would. And that was before the web started stealing readers. I can only imagine how many critics in recent years have compromised their thoughts to keep their salaries. Or how many quit because they valued their integrity.
Let’s not forget, also, those who had no integrity to begin with. In a 1998 interview on Chicago Tonight, Roger Ebert railed against what he described as “trained junket prostitutes”: nominal journalists who play ball with studio publicists to gain free Hollywood trips and three minutes in a hotel room with a star. As Ebert pointed out, many of these “critics,” rather than write a review, spit out blurbs that can be plugged directly into ads. Meantime, the publicists lead them to understand that they probably won’t be invited back if they don’t praise the films shown to them. It’s certainly fair and possible for critics to befriend filmmakers—Ebert was friends with Martin Scorsese, after all—but as a journalist, the critic must remember his job is to cover the industry, not be part of it.
There’s another—in a way, more devastating—problem: audiences reluctant or unmotivated to engage with criticism. On this front again the internet and social media deserve much blame. With attention spans shrinking and more people conditioned to recoil from anything of substantial length, reviews become digested/responded to according to excerpts and pass/fail metrics. (In other words, something that obliges the short-burst format we’re now accustomed to.) Even websites that offer some value represent this. Take Rotten Tomatoes, which has been a mixed blessing since its inception. On the one hand, the archiving of reviews is useful to researchers and those who enjoy criticism; it has no doubt also boosted awareness for certain writers. That said, the famous “Tomato-meter,” which represents the percentage of favorable reviews attained by a particular movie, is an uninformative shortcut, reducing thousands of words of analysis to a nuance-free “consensus.” It grabs one’s attention and certainly helps distinguish Rotten Tomatoes from other movie sites, but ultimately, the meter is a promotable alternative to actively engaging with what critics have to say.
And then there’s the ever-worsening issue of juvenile feedback. In those wonderful days before the internet, effort was required to inform a critic they’d stepped on someone’s toes. The reader had to write and physically mail an angry letter: a solo act of “retaliation” that’d remain blessedly unknown to the public (unless the reviewer chose to discuss it in interviews or essays about their trade). Today, however, there exist instantly accessible platforms via cyberspace: Facebook groups, forums, comments sections, and the social media outlet I’ll forever call Twitter. Here, “fans” not only express displeasure in the most unconstructive of manners, they rally support from those similarly prone to outrage. Worse yet, they set bad examples, especially for young and impressionable users: that it’s okay to act emotionally on preconceived notions, that it’s okay to take enthusiasm to an unhealthy degree, that it’s okay to make death threats when someone’s viewpoint doesn’t match yours, etc. (It doesn’t help that certain websites publish clickbait on dissenting reviews—à la Mashable’s pointless story on Armond White “ruining” the Tomato-meter score for Get Out.)
What, then, is the future of criticism? Is there a stimulating chapter ahead for this trade that’s lost its mainstream potency? As tends to be my response to troubling things I observe today, I hope for the best but expect little. The more people scroll on their mobile devices, the less time they spend absorbing thoughtful content when it appears, and the more likely professional writers will find themselves laid off. If there is a future for serious criticism, it may rest on the shoulders of freelancers: those who aren’t dependent on writing to earn a living, who write for love of the topic and think of money, when it comes, as a bonus. Maybe the future exists on YouTube and podcasts—things people can listen to around the house or during daily commutes. (Heaven help us if criticism ever becomes part of the bizarre “influencer” culture I know little about and hope never to become well-versed in!) If it’s in the hands of indie content creators, the number one challenge the good ones face will be steering audiences from those who pander to the lowest common denominator. To the noble former, I say, “Good luck!”
One thing is certain: the days of Pauline Kael, John Simon, Stanley Kauffmann, Gene Siskel, and Roger Ebert (and others I could name: James Agee, Charles Thomas Samuels, etc.) are behind us. But the value of well-practiced film criticism will never cease being relevant. Some recognize this, and to my fellow enthusiasts I issue the following reminder: It’s upon us to continue reading and saluting the good critics, to make sure the great names of the past do not become forgotten, and to remind other film-lovers why this art form is beneficial. I may not have experienced the golden age of moviegoing described at the beginning of this essay, but perhaps I’ll live to see a time when movies, movie criticism, and the public’s engagement with both improve. Perhaps I’m also asking for the sun, but maintaining hope for what one cares about is never a bad thing.
Author Spotlight: Kate Folk, ‘Sky Daddy’
Linda is a totally normal tech worker living in San Francisco, except that she’s sexually attracted to planes. A large part of her salary (and her life) goes to planespotting, flying, and hoping that she’ll be the lucky woman a plane chooses to be her mate for life, consummated in an explosive plane crash. For Linda, that’s true love. When a coworker invites her to a Vision Board Brunch (VBB), where successful women manifest their upcoming goals, she’s initially hesitant about sharing her true desires. But as her visions come true, she decides to get risky, even if it means ostracization and radical honesty.
Kate Folk chatted with OurCulture Mag about sexual appetites, manifestation, and Moby-Dick.
Congratulations on
your debut novel! Does the publishing process feel different from your short story collection, Out There?
Yeah, it does. It feels a lot bigger, which makes sense, because it’s a novel versus a collection. But it’s been good to have already done it one time, too, with what felt like a little lower stakes, and to know how it works and to be doing it again. It feels fast, too. It’s been three years, but it feels like only yesterday.
Your point of view here was so similar to that book, which was so off-kilter and warm. This might not be accurate, but it feels like Sky Daddy started off as a short story, but kept unfolding.
Yeah, it was always going to be a novel. In the past I’ve tried to take a short story and expand it, and it never really goes well. Usually I’ll have an idea pretty early on of what a story feels like. This one did feel like a novel to me because it’s such a character study, and once I had the idea for a character like this, I could see how it could go on and on and meander within that. Whereas a story has to be so contained and focused.
You mention that Sky Daddy is in “casual conversation” with Moby-Dick. Tell me a little bit about that connection.
When I first started writing in early 2019, it was just that idea of a woman who’s sexually obsessed with airplanes. It was hard for me to find my way into the story, because when I started writing, she was a flight attendant married to a pilot, and she’s more conventionally integrated in society, a more respectable person or whatever. She was a lot more upfront about what her thing was in the narration, and I didn’t really have anywhere to go. It wasn’t until I was re-reading Moby-Dick about six months into the process, and I was so struck by the voice of Ishmael, and how jubilant and playful it was, this sense of embarking on an adventure. I was thinking about an older novel in that mode, setting out to the seas on this whaling journey, thinking there could be an element of that in Sky Daddy. And thinking of Moby-Dick being an obsessive cataloging of whales the same way, I thought, my book could be about planes. The more I thought about it that way, it seemed like there were all these parallels popping up in a way that was almost a little eerie.
Did you have to do a lot of research about aviation, or was it already an interest?
It was just a passing interest. I’ve always been drawn to planes, thought they were really cool, and also, found them kind of endearing. They look like animals, and they have a face. It was already in there on some level. A friend had sent me a link to this YouTube video, similar to what Linda watches, from this channel that recreates famous plane incidents, whether they’re crashes or more minor things. It uses this simulation software and it’s very strange. It filled me with this uncanny feeling and made me think about planes as sentient beings, almost. And as I was writing it, I started seeing the world more and more through Linda’s eyes, and I downloaded a flight tracker, so every time I went outside and saw a plane, I could look up what it was, where it was going.
The book is a comedy, but I liked how you considered Linda’s sexual appetites so carefully. Were fetishes and sexual experimentation something you wanted to write about going into the book?
I think that’s where I started, the idea of sexual obsession. And in line with J. G. Ballard’s Crash, but about planes instead of cars, and thinking about it, not something I feel myself necessarily, but I can understand how someone would find planes attractive and handsome and all of that. So that was the way into it, but also for Linda, it’s almost this spiritual connection she feels with planes, from birth, basically.
Yeah, why is death in a plane crash the end goal for Linda? Is that her only path to ultimate satisfaction?
I mean, it is the most extreme version of what she imagines as communion with a plane, since she thinks of turbulence as a sign the plane’s really into her, and losing control in his passion. It’s also tied in with the death drive and the idea of fate. Linda’s sense is that her life might be pretty mundane now, but it doesn’t matter because she’s just hurtling toward this glorious blaze. She feels like that would be the ultimate indication that her life is meaningful, almost like she’s been chosen by God to be one of these very few people to be in a plane crash. I feel like flying brings out all kinds of religious and spiritual sentiments for people. For me, too, when I board a plane, I know I’m giving up control. Whatever happens, I can’t change the outcome, and there’s few experiences that evoke that so strongly.
I love her interactions with the women at the Vision Board Brunches. She finds them awkward but desires to be taken seriously, even if she’s hiding the truth. They’re like feminist corporate retreats where nothing gets done except for some affirmations.
I feel like that’s a good way to put tension on Linda’s character, to put her in this situation. For her, it’s high stakes — she’s not real friends with Karina yet, they’re just coworker friends, but she thinks very highly of Karina. Now she’s invited her to the VBB, which is a huge step. Linda feels like she has to do a social performance that the other women will find acceptable, but at the same time, she wants to be honest with her vision board, because she believes in the power of such a thing.
I also thought it was interesting, the dynamics between Karina and the rest of the women, because to Linda, Karina is such a successful person: she’s so beautiful and put-together. But then when they get into that wider social context, she sees Karina is kind of an outcast within that larger group of women, who are more successful. So there are different layers within that. And I didn’t want the women to be too extreme — they’re definitely girlbosses, but I didn’t want them to be caricatures or girlbosses. I wanted them to be fairly recognizable people, not necessarily taking the vision boards too seriously, the way Linda and Karina are. But it’s just a fun thing to do to drink mimosas and think about the upcoming quarter.
Initially, Linda is very conservative about what she reveals about her true desires because she feels the need to fit in, but eventually, she’s truthfully honest about what her heart calls for. What was it like writing her arc?
I liked the vision boards as a way of structuring the book, because that’s so hard writing a novel — it’s such a big thing. The first part came easily, but then it’s like, ‘What happens from here?’ It felt like there were so many different ways to go, but the quarterly Vision Board Brunch was a way to put these anchor points in the story, show how it’s moving along. And to literally move the plot along, because within the book, the vision boards do seem to be having an effect on the events of the real world. On a meta level, I thought that was funny. And each time, Linda’s more explicit, until she’s all out with it. It’s also mirroring her own self-acceptance and willingness to be open about who she is.
She’s so confident that, when she flies with Karina, she convinces her that this plane will crash, which clearly upsets her. It seems to confirm her fears that she can never truly fit in, and for a while remains celibate, which she defines as not flying.
Karina’s so afraid of flying, and for Linda, that’s potentially the ultimate stew of manifestation. If they fly together, their powers could combine and cause a crash. In a way that’s created this fantasy, but when it comes down to it, she can’t actually put Karina’s life at risk, so she has to tell her. And then she has the period of swearing off, which I felt like in a novel about obsession, that felt like where the story was leading me to. It did seem like that needed to happen, a dark night of the soul moment. But that’s the time where she tries to renounce flying and live like everyone else does, and even tries to have a relationship with Dave [her manager]. And I didn’t want the book to normalize Linda, or for that to be the arc, for her to get over planes and embrace life as everyone else does. I thought it was important that she was able to do it, but it was a miserable way to live.
She tries, and fails, to have meaningful sex with humans. Do you think it’s her testing the waters and seeing if she’s changed, or putting on a facade so that people like Dave and Karina don’t ostracize her?
I think it’s kind of both; when she’s going through this dark night, I think she does hope that maybe she could change or condition herself to be more like other people. But it’s just not possible, and it’s not possible for Dave, either, so it never takes off. At that point, she’s so ashamed, she just wants to run away from that aspect of herself.
She meets Dave, a manager at work who indulges in her fantasies by flying with her — the two even leave a club to do so. But she starts to feel strange, since he’s a manager, and is under the impression he’s doing this to hook up. What did you want to explore with this tension?
I realized after the fact that the novel’s about objectification. Linda is literally desiring an object, but the other people in the book objectify each other; she’s objectifying Dave and he’s objectifying her, and thinking of her just as this manic pixie dream girl type, this young coworker who’s so quirky and gets really horny on planes. For him, that’s so exciting and fun, he’s going through a divorce and needs something to spice up his life. He’s never really seeing the real Linda, since he’s only seeing the version of her that he needs. Similarly, she doesn’t see the real him either. She’s not even interested in the real him; she finds him tedious. But she indulges him to the extent that she needs to, so he’ll pay for her flights. I felt like there’s something poignant in that relationship because even though they are completely missing each other, they are getting closer. And I think they do have a genuine friendship by the end, even though they completely misunderstand each other.
Finally, what are you working on next?
I’m working on another novel that’s very different, and in the realist mode, and it’s set in Iowa in the early 90s. I’m thinking of it as a suburban noir. Very stripped down and not like this at all.
If Sky Daddy is in conversation with Moby-Dick, what’s this one with?
Maybe movies like Fargo, and Patricia Highsmith novels, Strangers on a Train.
Sky Daddy is out now.
Using AI in Creating Text Content: Main Reasons to Consider and Best Practices to Follow
Artificial intelligence has become our new reality. It has influenced and changed most industries, forcing large companies, businesses, and simple authors to adapt to new conditions and trends. The possibilities of AI in writing and creating text content are almost unlimited. It can generate ideas and ready-made reports, articles, posts, or essays.
Using it, you can easily and quickly create text that previously would have taken you a day or maybe two. With its help, you get access to numerous tools. You can easily structure a document, pick a topic for writing, or rephrase any part of the content using a text rewriter.
On the one hand, AI has devalued the work of copywriters and writers, but on the other hand, it has greatly facilitated it. You may feel differently about its widespread use, but this will not change the essence.
AI has firmly established itself in modern trends, and you just have to tame it and learn to use it to your advantage. How you can achieve this, and why you might need AI in your writing, we’ll cover below.
When Should You Use AI?
Human-written texts are always valued higher than those created by artificial intelligence. Therefore, you should not rely solely on modern digital tools. To provide in-depth and comprehensive content that will be interesting and instructive for the reader, you need to add a little critical thinking, emotions, and maybe humor. However, this does not mean that when creating original content, you cannot resort to using AI.
You just need to find a list of situations when it is appropriate and the basic tricks of its application. Let’s start with the first.
You can apply AI to your writing to:
- Rephrase the necessary piece of text. You may create good content, but it lacks conciseness or clarity. Add them with the paraphrasing tool. You just need to insert the text to update, click a button, and get the result.
- Brainstorm new and fresh ideas. Your experience, imagination, and skills may not be enough to come up with a captivating topic or a logical and unusual structure. You can solve the problem by generating a list of subheadings or topics for creating content.
- Increase uniqueness. Checking for uniqueness has become commonplace for most copywriters. Sometimes, even completely independently written texts can fail. However, AI facilitates the paraphrasing process and allows you to get an absolutely unique text as the output.
- Get objective feedback. Modern AI tools can independently evaluate your content and provide honest feedback. This will help you improve it and identify weak points that need analysis and changes.
- Change your writing style. You can change the tone of the text without affecting its essence. You can make it more businesslike or, conversely, everyday. You no longer need to do it yourself and spend hours, AI will handle it in a few minutes.
- Proofread the text. Every author knows how important it is to reread the text after it is finished. However, when you are tired, it is easy to miss mistakes or repetition of words. Artificial intelligence can analyze the content and offer suggestions for its improvement.
- Save time. Do you need to post new content on your blog, but you do not have time to check the text or update it? Machine learning solves this problem as well. Saving time is the main advantage that most authors use.
- Improve readability. Your texts can be comprehensive and informative, but they can be difficult to perceive or contain long, confusing sentences. Using any AI tool, you can replace complex phrases with simple ones and make the information easier to understand and remember.
- Minimize errors. Many platforms offer to check the document for errors. Now you do not need to follow every comma. You can upload the file for checking and get a detailed report on the mistakes made.
- Improve your professionalism and writing skills. By analyzing AI reports, you can take suggestions into account and implement them in your next work. You will gain experience that will help you succeed.
Using AI often makes sense. Don’t see it as an enemy, but rather as a helpful assistant to improve the quality of your content.
Best Practices to Consider
Using AI for content creation doesn’t require any significant knowledge, skills, or experience. However, simple tricks can help you get the desired result. Here are 5 common tips that you can keep in mind when working with artificial intelligence:
- Try several tools and choose the one that suits you best. The wide range of digital products can be confusing. The best solution is to try a few of them to understand their features and purpose.
- Learn to create better prompts. They should be precise, concise, and understandable. Since they directly affect the platform’s results, make an effort to ensure that they convey your query as best as possible.
- Maintain a balance between human and artificial writing. You should find a golden mean in generating or paraphrasing texts with the help of AI. Make sure to take advantage of all the tool’s benefits without affecting your unique writing style or tone.
- Analyze and verify the information received. Unfortunately, artificial intelligence does not guarantee the provision of reliable data. If you are working on scientific writing, take the time to check the facts that have been generated. Otherwise, you can mislead readers and get unpleasant feedback.
- Add context, references, and additional settings to get the expected generation outcome. AI takes your requests literally, and they may significantly differ from those you expect to receive. Therefore, give it more guidelines to get the right content or idea.
Getting prepared to use AI is not that difficult. It will take you a little time and effort, but they will pay off. Focus on human writing and use artificial intelligence when necessary. Improve your content and achieve goals more easily and faster.
The iGaming Revolution Unveiled: How Online Gaming Evolved Over Time
The iGaming revolution has turned a simple pastime into a global phenomenon, reshaping how we play, connect, and even think about entertainment. What began as clunky digital experiments has morphed into a multi-billion-dollar industry that thrives on innovation and accessibility. For instance, trying out a Hacksaw Gaming demo today shows just how far slots have come—offering a taste of cutting-edge design right from your browser. This transformation didn’t happen overnight—it’s a story of creativity, technology, and cultural shifts working hand in hand. From pixelated screens in smoky arcades to immersive virtual casinos you can enter from your living room, online gaming has evolved in ways that continue to captivate millions worldwide.
Early Days of iGaming: From Arcades to Digital Screens
Picture the 1970s: rows of arcade machines buzzing with players dropping coins to battle pixelated aliens or race blocky cars. That’s where iGaming’s journey kicked off, long before the internet was a household name. These early games laid the groundwork, sparking a curiosity about digital play. Fast forward to the 1990s, and the scene changed dramatically. The first online casinos emerged around 1994, with companies like Microgaming launching platforms that let people gamble from home. It was a bold leap—suddenly, poker tables and slot machines weren’t confined to physical spaces. This shift marked a turning point, blending gaming with the digital age and setting the stage for what we now call the online casinos history.
Pioneering Technology That Shaped the Start
None of this would’ve happened without some serious tech breakthroughs. The rise of personal computers in the 1980s brought gaming into homes, but it was the internet’s arrival that truly ignited iGaming technology. Dial-up connections, slow as they were, opened a door to multiplayer games and basic betting sites. Software developers raced to create platforms that could handle real-time transactions securely—a massive challenge back then. Early encryption methods kept players’ money safe, while HTML and Java made websites interactive. These tools were rough around the edges, but they built the foundation for the online gaming start we still build on today.
The Mobile Gaming Boom: A Game-Changer for iGaming
By the early 2000s, iGaming took a giant leap forward with the mobile gaming boom. Smartphones turned pockets into portable casinos, and app stores became treasure troves of games. No longer tethered to bulky desktops, players could spin slots or join a blackjack table on the go. This wasn’t just a tech upgrade—it was a lifestyle shift. Mobile devices brought iGaming accessibility to new heights, with downloads soaring as brands optimized their platforms. By 2010, mobile gaming wasn’t just a trend; it was dominating the industry.
Here’s how it shook things up:
– Revenue skyrocketed, with mobile gaming accounting for over half of iGaming income by 2020.
– Slots became king, their simple mechanics perfect for quick touchscreen play.
– Developers poured resources into apps, making them faster and flashier than ever.
This wave didn’t just grow the market—it redefined who played and how often.
Rise of Casual and Social Gaming
Mobile platforms didn’t stop at hardcore gamblers. They welcomed a flood of casual players through easy-to-pick-up games like Candy Crush or FarmVille. This casual gaming rise broadened iGaming’s appeal, pulling in people who’d never step into a casino. Then came social iGaming, with platforms like Facebook blending games with friend lists. Suddenly, you could challenge your cousin to poker or brag about a jackpot on your wall. These features turned solitary play into a shared experience, making iGaming a cultural connector as much as a pastime.
Advanced Tech Driving the Evolution of Online Gaming
The 2010s ushered in a new era for the evolution of online gaming, powered by advanced iGaming tech. Virtual reality (VR) headsets plunged players into lifelike casinos, while artificial intelligence (AI) fine-tuned every spin and bet. Augmented reality (AR) started creeping in too, overlaying digital thrills onto the real world. These innovations didn’t just polish the surface—they rewrote the rules of engagement, offering experiences that feel personal and cutting-edge.
Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality in Action
Imagine slipping on a VR headset and stepping into a bustling casino, cards flipping and chips clacking around you. That’s VR iGaming in action, and it’s no sci-fi dream—it’s here. Games like VR poker let you read opponents’ virtual tells, mimicking the real thing. AR online gaming takes a different tack, blending digital elements into your surroundings. Picture pointing your phone at a table and seeing a slot machine pop up. These tools make playtime immersive, pulling players deeper into the action than ever before.
AI’s Role in Personalization and Fair Play
AI in iGaming is the quiet genius behind the scenes. It watches how you play, then suggests games you’ll love—think of it as your personal gaming concierge. Beyond personalized gaming, AI keeps things honest. It sniffs out cheating patterns and ensures random outcomes stay truly random. For operators, it’s a goldmine too, spotting problem gambling early and stepping in. This blend of care and fairness shows how tech can elevate both fun and trust.
Economic and Cultural Impact of iGaming’s Growth
The iGaming growth story isn’t just about tech—it’s about money and meaning. Today, this industry pumps billions into economies, dwarfing what anyone imagined back in the arcade days. It’s also reshaped online gaming culture, birthing phenomena like esports and tight-knit gaming communities. Streamers now draw crowds bigger than some TV shows, and players bond over shared victories across continents.
A few standout figures tell the tale:
– Global iGaming revenue hit $66 billion in 2023, with forecasts eyeing $100 billion by 2026.
– Jobs exploded, from coders to marketers, fueling tech hubs worldwide.
– Esports prize pools rival traditional sports, with millions watching online.
This isn’t just a business—it’s a cultural force.
Global Expansion and Emerging Markets
Global iGaming has found fertile ground in emerging gaming markets like India and Africa. Cheap smartphones and better internet flipped the switch, letting millions join the fun. In India, real-money games like rummy surged, while Africa’s betting scene boomed alongside mobile payment systems. Regulations are catching up too, with governments tweaking laws to balance growth and control. This worldwide spread proves iGaming’s knack for adapting to any corner of the globe.
Challenges and Regulations Shaping the Future
Every rise comes with hurdles, and iGaming challenges are real. Addiction worries loom large, prompting calls for tighter online gaming regulations. Places like India slapped a GST on gaming profits, while others grapple with underage access. Innovation keeps pushing forward, but it’s a tightrope walk—too much restriction could stifle the magic that drives this industry. Finding that sweet spot is the next big test.
Navigating Legal Landscapes Worldwide
The legal online gaming map is a patchwork. In the US, states like New Jersey greenlight online casinos, while others hold back. The EU sets broad rules, but countries tweak them—think strict UK licensing versus looser setups elsewhere. These iGaming laws shape where companies set up shop and how players get in on the action. It’s a messy, evolving puzzle, but one that keeps the industry nimble.
Final Thoughts: Where iGaming Heads Next
The journey of iGaming—from arcade blips to VR showdowns—shows a knack for reinvention. What’s next? The future of iGaming glimmers with promise. The metaverse could turn gaming into shared virtual worlds, while blockchain might lock in trust with transparent bets. Sustainability’s on the radar too, with greener tech cutting energy use. Here’s what to watch:
– Blockchain for secure, fair play.
– Metaverse casinos you can “walk” through.
– Eco-friendly platforms that lighten the planet’s load.
The road ahead is wide open, and iGaming’s ready to keep surprising us, one bold step at a time.
Understanding The Role of EOR Services: A Comprehensive Guide
When businesses expand globally, they face several challenges in managing their workforce. One of the solutions to these challenges is utilizing EOR services USA. These services allow companies to hire employees in the United States without setting up a legal entity. In this article, we will explore the concept of EOR services USA, how they work, and why businesses may choose to use them.
What is EOR (Employer of Record) Service?
An Employer of Record (EOR) is a third-party organization that takes on the legal responsibilities of an employer. This means the EOR handles tasks like payroll, taxes, and compliance with labor laws. Companies partner with an EOR when they want to hire employees in a new country or region without establishing their own legal presence there.
In the USA, EOR services USA help businesses manage these responsibilities, especially when entering the market for the first time. This service is especially beneficial for small businesses, startups, and companies looking to test new markets without the cost of setting up a full-fledged operation.
How Do EOR Services Work?
When a company decides to use EOR services USA, the EOR becomes the official employer of the workforce. The EOR takes on various roles, including the following:
- Payroll management: The EOR handles the salaries, deductions, and payments to employees.
- Tax compliance: The EOR ensures that taxes are withheld and submitted in line with local regulations.
- Benefits administration: The EOR manages employee benefits, such as health insurance, retirement plans, and other perks.
- Employment contracts: The EOR ensures that the employment contracts comply with local labor laws and standards.
Through EOR services USA, the company can focus on managing its employees and operations without worrying about legal complexities in the region.
Why Should Companies Use EOR Services in the USA?
There are several reasons why companies might choose to use EOR services USA. Here are some of the most common benefits:
1. Cost-Effective Solution
Setting up a legal entity in a new country can be expensive. It requires legal documentation, hiring staff, and understanding local labor laws. By using EOR services USA, companies avoid the upfront costs of setting up a branch or subsidiary. Instead, they can hire employees through the EOR, which already has the necessary infrastructure in place.
2. Quick Market Entry
Expanding into the USA can take time, especially when trying to understand and comply with local labor regulations. EOR services USA allow businesses to quickly hire and onboard employees, which can be crucial when time is of the essence. This helps companies tap into new markets more swiftly.
3. Compliance with Local Labor Laws
One of the biggest challenges in expanding into a new country is staying compliant with local laws. Each country has its own labor regulations, which can vary by state in the USA. By using EOR services USA, companies ensure that their employment practices follow all relevant labor laws. This reduces the risk of legal issues and fines.
4. Focus on Core Business Activities
Managing human resources, payroll, taxes, and compliance can be time-consuming. By outsourcing these tasks to an EOR, businesses can focus on their core operations, like product development or sales. This allows companies to improve productivity and performance in their primary business areas.
5. Flexibility in Hiring
EOR services also provide flexibility when it comes to hiring employees. Companies can hire full-time employees, part-time workers, or contractors without worrying about setting up complicated structures. This flexibility is ideal for businesses looking to test the waters in the USA market before committing to a permanent operation.
What Are the Different Types of EOR Services?
While the core services of an EOR remain the same, some companies may offer additional features to meet specific business needs. Some of the common types of EOR services USA include:
1. International EOR
International EOR services USA allow businesses to hire employees not just in the USA but also in other countries. This is ideal for companies that are expanding their operations globally. They can use an EOR to hire staff in multiple regions without the need to set up separate legal entities in each country.
2. PEO Services
A Professional Employer Organization (PEO) is a type of EOR service that goes a step further. In addition to handling payroll and compliance, PEOs also provide HR services, such as employee training and development programs. EOR services USA offered by PEOs are ideal for companies looking for a more hands-on approach to employee management.
3. Local EOR
Some businesses only need EOR services USA in one state or a specific region. Local EOR services specialize in helping businesses set up operations in particular areas within the USA. This is ideal for companies targeting a specific location rather than the entire country.
Who Should Use EOR Services in the USA?
EOR services USA are most beneficial for businesses looking to expand into the USA but do not have the resources to set up a full legal entity. Here are some examples of businesses that can benefit from using EOR services:
- Startups: New businesses looking to hire employees in the USA can use an EOR to simplify the process.
- Small businesses: Small businesses that do not have the resources to set up operations in the USA can use an EOR to save time and money.
- Companies with global teams: Businesses with teams spread across the world can use EOR services to manage employees in the USA seamlessly.
- Companies testing the market: Businesses that want to test the market before committing to a permanent presence can benefit from the flexibility provided by EOR services.
What to Look for in EOR Services USA?
When choosing an EOR service USA, it is important to consider several factors:
- Experience: Look for an EOR with a proven track record in the USA and other regions. Experience ensures that they understand the complexities of local labor laws and regulations.
- Flexibility: Ensure that the EOR offers flexibility in hiring, whether it’s full-time employees, contractors, or part-time workers.
- Compliance: Choose an EOR that prioritizes compliance with local labor laws, tax regulations, and employment practices.
- Cost: While EOR services USA can be cost-effective, the pricing structure should fit within your business’s budget.
Conclusion
EOR services USA are an excellent solution for businesses looking to hire employees in the USA without establishing a legal entity. These services save time, reduce costs, and ensure compliance with local laws. By outsourcing HR responsibilities to an EOR, businesses can focus on their core operations while expanding their workforce in the USA.
Whether you are a startup, a small business, or an international company, EOR services USA offer the flexibility and efficiency you need to succeed. Consider using these services to streamline your HR processes and enter the USA market quickly and easily. Multiplier is trusted for its EOR solutions.
