Entertainment
'Love is Blind' finally gets political. Is supporting Trump a relationship dealbreaker?
Over seven seasons, contestants on “Love Is Blind” have shared difficult, sometimes deal-breaking conversations about issues like race, religion, money, birth control and abortion.
But one subject has been largely absent from conversation in the “pods,” despite being virtually unavoidable in the real world: politics. We never saw any would-be couples asking each other explicitly how they voted. And even though “Love Is Blind” premiered in 2020, at the tail end of President Trump’s divisive term in office, his name was never uttered onscreen.
Then came Season 7, set in Washington, D.C.
The latest installment of the dating experiment, as the show markets itself, follows singles from the Capitol region and arrives in the final stretch of yet another contentious presidential race. It also happens to be the first season in which contestants discuss their personal political beliefs in partisan terms.
“OK, let’s start with this,” Monica Davis, a 36-year-old sales executive, asks Stephen, a 33-year-old electrician, during an early pod date. “Did you vote in the last presidential election? And the election before that?” Stephen Richardson explains that in 2016, he voted for Trump “because I didn’t like Hillary [Clinton].” But he came to “despise” the way Trump handled himself in office, and voted for now President Biden in 2020.
“I will happily admit that my first vote wasn’t the most educated vote,” he tells Monica, who (briefly) becomes his fiancée, until she catches him sending racy text messages to another woman.
It’s not the only mention the former president receives in the pods. Bohdan Olinares, 36, and Marissa George, 32, both military veterans, bond over their shared liberal views. Marissa confesses that she dated a Trump supporter for three years but found that “there’s just a difference in thinking about how our society works.”
”When it comes down to it, are you gonna vote for a guy who tried to overthrow the government?” Bohdan says. “I’m never gonna agree with that.”
“I’m not gonna vote for a rapist, right?” she replies.
Marissa ultimately gets engaged to Ramses Prashad, 34, who works at a justice nonprofit and may be the most performatively woke person who has ever appeared on the show. With hair that Marissa’s brother compared to that of ’80s R&B singer El DeBarge and a wardrobe of leather pants and Coogi sweaters, Ramses also is the first person on “Love Is Blind” to quote James Baldwin or use the phrase “hammer of American imperialism” between sips from a golden goblet. When Marissa tells him that the movie “Barbie” made her realize she couldn’t be with someone who supported the patriarchy, he scoffs, “It took ‘Barbie’ to make you realize that?” He also is openly disdainful of Marissa’s military service, and tells her he’d break up with her if she reenlisted. (Meanwhile, the only thing he should be judging Marissa for is her belief that Adam Sandler is funnier than Will Ferrell, but I digress.)
On one hand, this season’s political bent should not be surprising. Washington, D.C., is one of the most overwhelmingly Democratic places in the country: Biden won 93% of the vote there in 2020. The entire region is full of people who work in government, advocacy, lobbying and the military. And while there are no congressional staffers in the cast this season, there are numerous veterans and at least one “clean energy policy consultant,” Taylor Krause, who recently published a white paper about hydrogen.
Ramses Prashad and Marrisa George eventually get engaged.
(Netflix)
Yet previously, it often felt like the producers of “Love Is Blind” were going out of their way to elide overtly partisan conversations, or the discussions were so vague that they were almost incomprehensible. (In Season 1, Giannina Gibeli and Damian Powers got in what seemed to be an argument about Trump but no one knew for sure.) The singles in “Love Is Blind” seem to exist in a parallel universe, curiously devoid of the intense polarization that consumes the rest of the country and compels many Americans to size up their neighbors, prospective romantic partners, athletes and favorite pop stars based on how they vote.
There have been a few coded dog whistles (e.g., Season 6’s Sarah Ann Bick, who described herself as a “patriot,” meaning “Republican”). But for the most part, viewers have been left to draw conclusions about contestants’ political leanings based on circumstantial evidence such as their social media history or predilection for star-spangled clothing.
All of which makes Season 7, with its frank, uncomfortable discussions about the role of politics in people’s intimate lives, feel like a watershed moment for “Love Is Blind” as it finally bursts its escapist bubble. It also feels like an overdue acknowledgment of our hyperpartisan reality, particularly as we approach an election in which issues like abortion, IVF and childcare will be central to how people cast their vote, especially women, who have been most affected by the fall of Roe vs. Wade and bear the brunt of child rearing. Many pundits expect that this election will feature a bigger-than-ever gender gap between women, mobilized to support Vice President Kamala Harris because of her stance on abortion, and men, drawn to Trump’s blustering machismo.
But as we see with Ramses and Marissa, there is more to being compatible than mutual disdain for Trump or a shared support for liberal ideas. The couple’s initially blissful relationship begins to fray as they return to D.C. and realize their personal values don’t necessarily align, even if their politics kinda-sorta do.
The first signs of trouble appear when Ramses expresses reservations about Marissa’s military service — which he was aware of when they got engaged. “I don’t view politics and those types of things as something that exists in a vacuum,” he says. “These ideas, they affect real people.”
In other words, the personal is political. It’s true, especially when it comes to marriage and family, but for Ramses, it increasingly appears to be an empty, self-serving slogan. In last week’s batch of episodes, he and Marissa shared a tense and infuriating conversation about birth control. (The Infuriating Conversation About Family Planning has become something of a “Love Is Blind” trope.) She says she doesn’t want to go on the pill, but he balks at the idea of using a condom during sex “because it’s not enjoyable” even though he is also adamant about not starting a family for several years. (Here’s where I ask, not for the first time: Has anyone on this show heard of an IUD?) Ramses — or at least the edited version of him we see on the show — is a hypocrite, someone who boasts that he “doesn’t try to follow traditional expectations of what masculinity should look like” and yet gives his fiancée a hard time for making choices about her body that create minor inconveniences for him.
This week, we witness yet another painful fight: After Marissa apparently turns Ramses down for sex because she’s sick, exhausted and has a nasty case of PMS, he gives her a guilt trip over the lack of physical affection. He even implies he’s having second thoughts about getting married because of this single rejection. Usually bubbly and upbeat, Marissa is visibly deflated and worn down by her partner’s demands. She listens to his concerns, then counters that in the future, she may not want or be able to have sex for any number of reasons — like, for instance, if she just gave birth. “This is probably going to come up multiple times in our relationship. Is this going to be an issue for you?” she asks.
“That’s a fair question,” he replies.
It’s also one he isn’t ready to answer, because for all his liberal posturing, he still can’t quite accept his fiancée’s bodily autonomy. The “Love Is Blind” fandom has already started to turn on Ramses, slamming him as a toxic “gaslighter.” We still have a finale and a reunion to go, so Ramses has a chance to redeem himself — or at least provide some context for his cringe-inducing conversations with Marissa. But this season has already made it clear that while love may be blind, relationships are always political.
Movie Reviews
Bandar Movie Review: Bobby Deol roars in Anurag Kashyap’s unsettling legal thriller that refuses to spoon-feed
Name: Bandar
Director: Anurag Kashyap
Cast: Bobby Deol, Sanya Malhotra, Sapna Pabbi, Saba Azad, Jitendra Joshi, Raj B Shetty
Writer: Sudip Sharma, Abhishek Banerjee
Rating: 3.5/5
Plot:
Bandar follows Sameer Mehra’s character, essayed by Bobby Deol, a fading star who is desperately clinging to his past glory. Just as he attempts to rebuild his life and finds solace in a new relationship, his world comes crashing down. A former girlfriend files a heinous allegation against him, dragging him into a vicious, high-profile legal battle. Written by Sudip Sharma and Abhishek Banerjee, the film moves away from standard Bollywood courtroom setups. Instead, it dives straight into the murky waters of social media trials, public perception, and a sluggish judicial system where the truth gets buried under layers of gray.
What works:
Known for his chaotic energy, Anurag Kashyap takes a remarkably mature and controlled approach here. He avoids sensationalizing a highly sensitive topic, choosing instead to focus on the psychological claustrophobia of the protagonist. The prison sequences are exceptionally well-shot. They create a suffocating, raw atmosphere that makes you feel the weight of the character’s confinement. The script successfully avoids preachy, black-and-white monologues. It bravely forces the audience to confront their own biases regarding modern-day public trials and the digital judge-and-jury culture.
What doesn’t:
Clocking in at nearly two hours and twenty minutes, Bandar feels heavily weighed down in the second half. The narrative stretches thin, and a few subplots demand too much patience, making you wish for a tighter edit. The film stubbornly refuses to take a definitive moral stance or offer a neat resolution. While film enthusiasts might appreciate the complexity, mainstream viewers looking for a clear-cut ending or emotional payoff might walk away feeling detached and frustrated.
Performances:
- Bobby Deol is the beating heart of this film. Stripping away the massive macho swagger and menacing villainy of his recent hits, he delivers a deeply vulnerable, understated performance. He plays Samar with a mix of arrogance, confusion, and raw helplessness, proving his immense range.
- Sanya Malhotra anchors her screen time with her trademark reliability, turning in a grounded and impactful performance.
- Saba Azad and Sapna Pabbi excel in their respective roles, bringing genuine nuance to characters that could have easily been sidelined.
- Jitendra Joshi is an absolute scene-stealer, commanding your attention every single time he steps into the frame.
- Indrajith Sukumaran and Raj B Shetty are absolute show stealers with their raw acting.
Final Verdict:
Bandar is an unsettling, morally complex thriller that refuses to spoon-feed its audience. It isn’t a comfortable watch, nor does it try to be. While the sluggish pacing in the second half prevents it from being an absolute masterpiece, it is worth a watch for Bobby Deol’s spectacular acting reinvention and Anurag Kashyap’s gritty, thought-provoking storytelling.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Pinkvilla. No statement in this article is intended to defame, harm, or malign any individual or entity.
ALSO READ: Maa Behen Movie Review: Madhuri Dixit, Triptii Dimri, and Dharna Durga save a slow-burning mystery
Entertainment
Kathy Hilton won’t be WeHo Pride’s grand marshal after backlash from community
Kathy Hilton will no longer be the grand marshal of West Hollywood’s pride parade.
The city and WeHo Pride on Wednesday released a joint statement, announcing that “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” star would no longer serve as the Grand Marshal Icon for the 2026 WeHo Pride Parade. The event is scheduled for Sunday.
“After thoughtful discussions, the City of West Hollywood, the WeHo Pride production team, and Kathy Hilton have determined that the 2026 WeHo Pride Parade will not designate a Grand Marshal Icon honoree,” read the statement.
The decision comes less than a week after Hilton was announced. That May 28 announcement was met with swift backlash from the LGBTQ+ community and allies, who called out Hilton’s ties to President Trump and alleged MAGA-leaning politics. Critics also cited accusations that the socialite had used a homophobic slur while on a trip with other cast members of “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills,” an action she has previously denied.
In their joint statement, West Hollywood and the WeHo Pride team expressed their appreciation for “the respectful and sincere dialogue” around both the event and the “role and significance” of Pride honorees.
“The City of West Hollywood has always believed that Pride belongs to the community,” the joint statement said. “Since its earliest days, Pride has served as both a celebration and a platform for activism, visibility, resilience, and the ongoing pursuit of equality, dignity, and justice for LGBTQ+ people. … These conversations reflect the passion people have for WeHo Pride and underscore the importance of ensuring that WeHo Pride continues to honor the history, values, and diverse voices of the LGBTQ+ community.”
In a statement, Hilton expressed gratitude for being considered for grand marshal and reaffirmed her commitment to the LGBTQ+ community and causes.
“My reason for wanting to be involved in this year’s WeHo Pride weekend was simple: to celebrate, support, and share in the joy of a community that means a great deal to so many people,” Hilton said. “Pride is, and always will be, about celebrating and uplifting LGBTQ+ voices, experiences, and achievements. … My support for the community and WeHo Pride is unwavering.”
She also mentioned several queer advocacy organizations and events she has supported over the years, including GLAAD, the Elton John AIDS Foundation, the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation, Dr. Mathilde Krim, God’s Love We Deliver and Project Angel Food.
The latest Pride-related dust-up follows the abrupt cancellation of the Long Beach Pride Festival in May. The city’s Pride Parade took place as planned.
Both snafus have occurred as conservative politicians and advocates continue to attack LGBTQ+ rights and visibility nationwide. Some Republican governors have even pushed for conservative alternatives to Pride month festivities. A recent Gallup poll has found that after years of steady gains, support for marriage equality and same-sex relationships has slipped, particularly among Republicans.
Movie Reviews
Movie Review: Travolta’s “Propeller: One-Way Night Coach” is One for the Ages — All Ages
Back in the good ol’days — the ’90s — John Travolta would love to get off the topic of “Michael,” “Pulp Fiction” or “Get Shorty” in interviews with film journalists like me and regale us with how utterly besotted he had been with his first flying experience, how that drove his passion for piloting and buying planes and airfield-adjacent luxury houses.
He didn’t even seem to mind having to move house when this or that development balked at him flying his Boeing 707 out of there on the way to locations.
Travolta would tell any journalist who asked that he was writing a kid-friendly book, “Propeller: One Way Night Coach,” based on his first flights as a child in old propeller driven airliners — cheap red-eye overnight treks with too many connections for your average jet age traveller to tolerate.
I remember picking up the book when it came out later in the ’90s — at an airport gift shop — and thinking “Well, that’s as cute as I figured.”
And now, decades later and trapped in the B-movie hell of his post “Gotti” career, Travolta’s turned that cute book into the most delightful, fanciful and colorful bon bon of a movie.
“One Way Night Coach” is a child’s fantasy of flight and flying the way it used to be — with pristine, uncrowded, futuristic airports, an early ’60s era of jets and prop planes with over-uniformed stewardesses in white gloves, the days “Back before every Joe Sweatsock could wedge himself behind a lunch tray and jet off to Raleigh-Durham,” as Sideshow Bob memorably sneered on “The Simpsons’.”
It’s a fictionalized account of Travolta’s childhood about an only child (at least two Travolta siblings have bit parts in this movie) of a never-made-it/never-will actress/single-mom (Kelly Eviston-Quinnett) who indulges her aviation-obsessed eight-year-old with a cheap cross-country overnight flight.
Little Jeff (Clark Shotwell) will revel in almost every Idlewild to Pittsburgh to Dayton to Chicago to Kansas City to Denver and Los Angeles minute. He strolls into the cockpit to meet pilots, charms the stewardesses and checks out the sleeping bunks on the TWA Lockheed Super Constellation, loving even the delays if not the Chicken Cordon Bleu he’s offered on legs of the journey that offer a meal.
And as he’s an observant child, he comments (Travolta narrates) on his 50ish mother’s vamping and posing, her choice of cigarettes (Newports) and drinks, the solo traveling men whose attention she pursues and earns.
“I was her best audience,” adult Jeff remembers of the mother who’d read him plays as bedtime stories and delusionally hopes that this trip to Los Angeles might be her “big break” even though she’s pushing 50.
“Hollywood called,” she’d explain about their overnight cheap flight arrangements to ticket agents and crew. “They told me to take the next flight!”
At every turn, Jeff meets or sees kindness — stewardesses who indulge his many questions and bump them up to first class on the mostly-empty planes, a captain who fixes his toy model of a Constellation, a mentally ill flyer who flips out but is calmed by a flight attendant who isn’t overworked and frazzled in jet-powered tin-can jammed with Joe and Jane Sweatsocks who think nothing of traveling in their pajamas.
Normally, I cringe at pictures this reliant on voice-over narration. I recoil from stars who populate their picture with Sandler etc. offspring. But “Propeller” is unfailingly sweet and never cloying.
Sure, it’s fictionalized. But if you’ve followed Travolta’s life and career, a lot of him is in this — his raptoruous engagement with flying, an indulged child who developed a taste for fine food and creature comforts, a mother who was his guiding star as an actor.
I get why there are less adoring reviews than mine floating around “Propeller.” It’s unfailingly sweet. Mom’s man-hunting is seriously dated. This TWA tale is decorated with Gershwin’s majestic “Rhapsody in Blue” — United Airlines’ signature tune. And Travolta’s been around long enough for recent generations to come up and not feel a connection to the “Saturday Night Fever/Get Shorty” star whose career has fallen off and life has been visited by too much tragedy.
But I’d hate to be seated next to anybody who doesn’t appreciate this adorable, pristine and nearly perfect aviation fantasy on any flight, much less an overnight one.
Rating: TV-PG
Cast: Clark Shotwell, Kelly Eviston-Quinnett, Ellen Travolta, Ella Beau Travolta, Olga Hoffmann and John Travolta.
Credits: Scripted and directed by John Travolta, based on his book. An Apple TV+ release.
Running time: 1:01
-
Los Angeles, Ca16 minutes ago'Top Gun: Maverick' actor identified as victim stabbed to death in Tarzana
-
Detroit, MI38 minutes agoStorm chances return, which could impact Motor City Pride, graduations this weekend across Metro Detroit
-
San Francisco, CA46 minutes agoHilton campaigns in San Francisco as California primary votes still being counted
-
Dallas, TX53 minutes agoCrews cover up AT&T branding as stadium becomes
-
Miami, FL56 minutes agoMiami leaders gather for FIFA World Cup Host Committee Gala
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoPackage fire outside Boston’s Museum of African American History under investigation
-
Denver, CO1 hour agoRockies beat reporter Patrick Saunders to leave Denver Post
-
Seattle, WA1 hour agoSeattle granted NFL Franchise on this day 52 years ago