Sean Penn’s strong comments about the Academy came back into the news when its chief, Bill Kramar, finally spoke about them at the Marrakech Film Festival. 

Penn said the Academy showed “cowardice,” which created a lot of noise in Hollywood.

Bill did not get emotional or defensive when the question came up, as he said that he would not share exactly how he felt at that moment because he did not want his reaction to become a headline. 

Instead, the 59-year-old CEO talked about how he tried to handle any kind of feedback.

He explained that the Academy had eleven thousand members who all got different views about films, awards and the organisation itself. 

However, Bill further said that he always tried to listen with an open heart, even when the comments were harsh or public. 

He believed that serving the film world meant taking every opinion seriously.

The current CEO of the Academy also highlighted the fact that not every issue could be fixed quickly, but every voice still mattered. 

According to him, even comments that felt upsetting could guide the Academy to improve or think in a new way, saying these tough moments could turn into lessons.

Earlier, Penn claimed the Academy limited imagination and cultural expression, as his answer showed that he respected the criticism and wanted to learn from it rather than argue back. 

The exchange added to the ongoing discussion about how the Academy should grow and respond to the changing film world.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s Royal Lodge agreement has been made public for the first time amid his and Sarah Ferguson’s preparation to leave the Windsor property.

Andrew submitted the minimum required 12 months’ notice to vacate the property on October 30.

The 25-page document on the Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee goes into depth on the details of Andrew’s lease. The file, dated August 8, 2003, includes who the agreement is with, how long it lasts, and to whom the lease would have been passed.

The document was signed “between The Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty (1), The Crown Estate Commission’s (2) [and] HRH the Duke of York (Andrew’s former title before he was officially stripped of it in October)”.

The 75-year agreement began on June 16, 2003 and was due to expire on June 15, 2078, until King Charles’s interjection.

If the lease had been passed over, an “acceptable assignee” would have been passed onto: “the widow of HRH the Duke of York, or Princess Beatrice, or Princess Eugenie, or the trustees of a trust which has no beneficiaries other than Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie or either of them.”

The lease notes details about the “tenant’s right to surrender”, stating: “If at any time during the term the tenant shall wish to surrender this lease, the tenant shall serve the tenant’s notice upon the landlord.”

The lengthy document comes as Ferguson is on the hunt for a new house while Andrew is preparing to depart Royal Lodge without receiving any financial settlement.

The Crown Estate informed MPs that necessary repairs to the 30-room property will almost certainly cancel out any money owed to the former tenant.

Without the need for end-of-tenancy work, Andrew would have been due £488,342.21 upon vacating the residence on October 30, 2026.

However, the estate body’s preliminary view indicates that the cost of rectifying dilapidations will effectively cancel out this potential payout when he surrenders the lease early.

“Our initial assessment is that while the extent of end of tenancy dilapidations and repairs required are not out of keeping with a tenancy of this duration, they will mean in all likelihood that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor will not be owed any compensation for early surrender of the lease once dilapidations are taken into account,” the Crown Estate stated in its briefing to parliamentarians.

Andrew submitted the minimum required 12 months’ notice to vacate the property on October 30. It follows the confirmation that King Charles had ordered the removal of two prestigious honours previously bestowed on his brother.

Details about the former prince’s living arrangements have been scrutinised as controversy continues over his connections to late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The scandal which has been reignited by new sexual abuse allegations contained in Virginia Giuffre’s posthumously published memoir. While Andrew has always denied allegations.

Jada Pinkett Smith is right now at the center of a new legal battle that caught the attention of fans and Hollywood watchers.

The actress has been sued by Bilaal Salaam, a longtime friend of her husband Will Smith, who claimed that she has threatened him during a private event back in 2021.

The lawsuit claimed that Pinkett spoke to Bilaal at Will’s birthday party with several people from her team.

He explained that she told him he could “catch a stray bullet” or “go missing” if he kept talking about her personal life.

However, The Matrix Resurrections actress also asked him to sign a non-disclosure agreement and when he refused, her team reportedly followed him and kept on making dangerous threats.

The lawsuit also talked about the events after the viral Oscars slap incident, where Bilaal claimed that he was asked to assist with crisis management but refused.

The art historiographer further said that his high morals would never allow him to be part a of anything illegal or misleading. 

Following that, he alleged that he also became the main target of a campaign by Pinkett and her associates.

Now beyond the courtroom drama, the case raises many questions about the pressures of celebrity life, loyalty and private conflicts that has been spilling into the fans eye.

Moreover, Bilaal went on saying that he further suffered reputational and financial damage after that horrific incident of his life along with emotional stress and anxitey.

This shocking recent story of Hollywood icon’s life offered a peek behind the curtain of the industry friendships and the challenges of keeping private disputes out of the spotlight.

As the case unfolds, fans are left wondering what really happened and how it might affect the Smith family image in the public’s eye.