|
Egbert Souse posted:John Landis is the only one I champion over the quality of his films. It’s inexcusable how his recklessness and disregard for safety resulted in the deaths of three people, but it’s not the same as Polanski or Salva. It’s a difficult thing for sure as Landis is one of my favorite filmmakers. The Errol Flynn episode of the Dollop is insane
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
The Voice of Labor posted:they also serve different functions in language, and and but don't. "The weather channel said today would be nice, now it's very warm." This is not a sentence. "The weather channel said today would be nice but now it's very warm." This implies that what the weather channel said turned out to be wrong, meaning it is probably too warm. I have no idea where you're coming from with this argument but it is dumb. I'm not looking to continue a dumb derail like this, but my point is that your attempt to tell people how to do a language made no sense and was bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 03:22
|
|
|
I don't want to derail over this either, but it's real basic formal logic. conjunction's true if both the conjuncts are true. code:
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 03:37
|
|
|
The gently caress is this guy on about?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 04:03
|
|
|
The Voice of Labor posted:I don't want to derail over this either, but it's real basic formal logic. That's interesting and all, but/and there's a lot more to how people communicate than just formal logic. Most people are going to interpret "nice but warm" (or "good director but child rapist") and "nice and warm" differently, even though they have the same logical structure. I'm not really sure what point you're even trying to make here other than just being pedantic. Anyway, I agree with TrixRabbi's original point. I've never been much of a Polanski fan, but it isn't weird at all to me that someone could make an interesting or thoughtful film about abuse and also be an abuser themselves. People are weirder and more hosed up than anyone can imagine, they're not on opposing sides. Likewise, I find the "X made this before they did that terrible thing, so it's still okay to enjoy" to be a pretty foreign mindset for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 04:29
|
|
|
The Voice of Labor posted:I don't want to derail over this either, but it's real basic formal logic. Back on track with the thread: I don't like supporting shitheads with money when they are publicly known to be prominent shitheads, because once their shitheadery is publicly known, this is when financial pressure via boycott can actually achieve something. But none of this has any impact on my enjoyment of a work; I can compartmentalize pretty easily for various reasons. One reason is that I think I have pretty high standards for what a "good" person is, and so if I wanted to, I could let almost every movie be ruined because one person or another fails to live up to my high standards. So it's basically "enjoy everything" or "enjoy nothing." Another reason is that I already ignore personal features of people when thinking about a movie, so I can ignore the bad features as well as the good. Perhaps if I spent more time dwelling on someone's misdeeds it would be hard for me to ignore. Kevin Spacey is getting sort of close to that, maybe, as is Louis CK. But I don't spend a ton of time dwelling on this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 07:20
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Hello, actual philosophy expert stopping in to say you don't know what you're talking about. In formal logic we formalize "and" and "but" the same way, but this does not mean they are the same with respect to (say) conversational implicature, and in fact they aren't, for reasons so obvious that it's hard for people in this thread to even understand what you're saying because it's missing this point so badly. Examples have already been provided, but in case one more straw breaks the camel's back: if I say "I like to work out in the mornings, and today is Wednesday" then I've simply communicated in an odd fashion by conjoining two seemingly unrelated points. But, if I say "I like to work out in the mornings, but today is Wednesday," then via Grice's maxim of relevance, this implies that Wednesday mornings are somehow not conducive to working out.  TychoCelchuuu posted:Back on track with the thread: I don't like supporting shitheads with money when they are publicly known to be prominent shitheads, because once their shitheadery is publicly known, this is when financial pressure via boycott can actually achieve something. But none of this has any impact on my enjoyment of a work; I can compartmentalize pretty easily for various reasons. One reason is that I think I have pretty high standards for what a "good" person is, and so if I wanted to, I could let almost every movie be ruined because one person or another fails to live up to my high standards. So it's basically "enjoy everything" or "enjoy nothing." Another reason is that I already ignore personal features of people when thinking about a movie, so I can ignore the bad features as well as the good. Perhaps if I spent more time dwelling on someone's misdeeds it would be hard for me to ignore. Kevin Spacey is getting sort of close to that, maybe, as is Louis CK. But I don't spend a ton of time dwelling on this stuff. This is exactly how I feel too. You articulated it perfectly. I hate knowing anything about the people behind the movies I like because I assume they're probably lovely people to some degree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
A lot of folks have mentioned not wanting the artist to get any money from them if they view their content. So, if we’re talking a movie ticket, broadcast television, or movie rental, that is presumably giving the artist some money (depending on their contracts). I think most movies in streaming services are just contracted for a flat fee rather than individual watches, so that’s a more indirect (telling Netflix you like content with this artist who wants to buy more from movie studios who may fund more content from the artist). There’s also piracy, which generally guarantees that no one gets money from a movie, or watching a movie that someone else has already paid to play. It’s also generally hard to know what the contracts for different artists are for different forms of media. Back in the 70s, you’d have been giving more money to George Lucas by purchasing a greedo toy than you would a movie ticket. Another thing to consider is whether the estates of some of these artists whom have died have people in them who enabled their abuse. Should that factor in to the equation? It seems like a lot of research would be required to really know where your money is going.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
It's the same with companies you purchase from. You could do a ton of research on which causes they donate money to, what other companies they partner with, their environmental stances, how they treat their employees, etc. etc. Or you could just say gently caress it I need some shampoo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:
I agree totally. My wife really likes the marvel movies, and she's completely charmed by all the actors in them. She likes the cute videos they make and, like, the Ryan Reynolds/Hugh Jackman combo, you know stuff like that. But i can't do the celebrity worship thing, because I don't want to have to hate an actor that i like, you know? Especially since, like, Louis CK and Chris Delia, and to a lesser extent Tim Allen (poo poo, fucken comedians, right?)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
I approach these from two perspectives: 1. Similar to "ethical consumption under capitalism", consumption is not politics, nor is it morality. You are not defined by what you consume, good or bad. A common conversation in The Book Barn is whether it is acceptable to read books by the Japanese fascist/volkisch author Mishima, because despite his politics (and hilarious death), he was a gifted writer. I don't subscribe to the theory that reading him is endorsing his politics, and the common slandering of people who read his works as fascist adjacent is abhorrent to me. 2. That said, if you have a hard time watching the face of a rapist, or being reminded of the artists politics, that is perfectly understandable. I don't blame anyone for avoiding Kevin Spacey movies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
The Voice of Labor posted:if you're trying to parse a sentence into it's logical structure, "but" and "and" mean the same thing. both are just conjunction, true iff both conjuncts are true. I get the distinction you're trying to drive home, it requires more than substituting that pair of words to make. "But" and "And" do not mean the same thing. In this particular case "But" implies there's a contradiction between Polanski's works being arguably feminist, exploring the trauma of women and dealing with themes of rape and abuse, while also being a rapist and a chauvinist himself. The films identify with the women, but Polanski as a person is more like the villains of these pieces. The "But" serves to separate the two warring ideas and suggest that you can consider the feminist themes while presenting Polanski's personal transgressions as some weird outlier. The "And," however, says that these two things are both true and therefore we need to reconsider what these films are intending to communicate, how Polanski's personal life recontextualizes their content, and whether anything made by a child rapist can even be considered feminist at all. So, does being an abuser preclude Polanski from making interesting films about abuse? No. But we need to consider that point when we analyze Repulsion or Rosemary's Baby. In this essence the art and the artist are in fact intractable and the Death of the Author only applies in so much as we can say these films are feminist despite their creator. It's all messy, I don't pretend to have an easy answer to any of these questions. Even moreso, it's not like there isn't thousands of pages of writing out there on this exact subject. But again, I just don't like the idea that you can separate the art from the artist here, particularly when the themes of the artwork are so relevant to the actual real life crime he committed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
I would also just like to say that it's comforting to know that I'm not the only one who struggles with this, despite what social media may indicate to me
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
Narzack posted:I would also just like to say that it's comforting to know that I'm not the only one who struggles with this, despite what social media may indicate to me It's a complex question, and may not be one with a distinct answer - I like lots of the type of paintings done by the Futurists, but it's undeniable that many, even most of them, were fascists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2021 10:20
|
|
|
Not to doxx and has anyone figured out Polanski's forums name?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:
I feel like Mishima and Victor Salva are closer to Outsider artists. Their major malfunction(s) are intimately woven through their works. Kevin Spacey raping kids isn't integral to his art. Jeepers Creepers about an ugly monster stalking and torturing nubile young boys, well, that's basically autobiographical. Likewise, Mishima wouldn't be interesting if it weren't for the romantic fascism, cowardice before and exultation of violence, the glory of defeat and repressed homosexuality celebrated through classic culture. Like, that's his whole thing. Even Temple of the Golden Pavilion, the work where his major malfunctions shine through the least is still defined and bound by them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2021 17:52
|
|
|
Victor Salva literally raped a kid that was in his movie that he filmed wandering around in tightey whities for waaaaaaay too long, so his stuff is even more included in his work than normal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
Darko posted:Victor Salva literally raped a kid that was in his movie that he filmed wandering around in tightey whities for waaaaaaay too long, so his stuff is even more included in his work than normal. Yeah that's the hosed up thing about Clownhouse. It starts with the typical male gaze unnecessary scene of the protagonist in their underwear that is so common in slasher films but this time it's the 12 year old boy that the director was raping. People often ask if it's possible to separate the art from the artist, but in so many cases the art was how the artist was finding people to victimize. Allen, Silva, and Polanski all specifically went after people they worked with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
An short article on this topic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 06:41
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:"But" and "And" do not mean the same thing. what constitutes feminist themes in film? I swear, I'm not trying to be dense, but beyond "this movie is clearly made by people who are into this thing" I'm kind of at a loss for what it means for a movie to be of any kind of ideology let alone representative of it. the end user is what really spoils it, starship troopers is about fascists and it's made by someone who isn't into fascism and it's not endorsing fascism and I think enough people don't notice or care about the second two things that it's not real clear what at all you can pin on author intent as far as conveyed message. like, how overt does a film's moral have to be, what is to be taken as evidence for how overt it is, is it comic code stuff where the good guy has to win in the end and evil needs to be punished? specifically for feminist ideology, does it have to be about power relations along sex or gender lines? Again as far as morality or message, is it enough to tell a story or is there something most people can reasonably be expected to get as a result of watching it? on the other end of overt morality, is there an applicable standard of, like, artistic merit or is propaganda allowed or does it matter? most importantly, if polanski was getting off on rosemary's baby and repulsion, what does that say about the tenant?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 08:44
|
|
|
"never meet your heroes" doesn't have to literally mean "don't shake hands with them". If you can't divorce art from the artist, I guess you can't listen to Led Zeppelin ever. Or basically half of all music or painted art or movies. Just judge each piece of art on its own merits. I've never heard of Victor Salva but if I watched a movie where the camera was lusciously gazing on a 12 year old for way too long I would find it unpleasant & obvious about the director's feelings and shut if off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2021 05:56
|
|
|
stratdax posted:If you can't divorce art from the artist, I guess you can't listen to Led Zeppelin ever. No great loss tbh
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
Blues exists, why in the hell do you need to listen to Led Zepplin?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Blues exists, why in the hell do you need to listen to Led Zepplin? Because it's blues with references to LotR
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
Ain't that always the way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
Sorry for contributing to the derail. To help right the train: I tend to take it on a case by case basis but I tend to avoid poo poo people's newer works vs older movies with poo poo people involved. Like I won't watch new Craig Zahler or Roman Polanski movies but I own Rosemary's Baby on bluray. It's not a perfectly consistent system and I do think about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:I approach these from two perspectives: Agreeing with this, but it's a really strong belief with some people. The guy who freaked out about people recommending the books was so shook that months afterwards he was still complaining in other subforums, about how TBB loved fascists and were trying to convert him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
Crespolini posted:Agreeing with this, but it's a really strong belief with some people. The guy who freaked out about people recommending the books was so shook that months afterwards he was still complaining in other subforums, about how TBB loved fascists and were trying to convert him. Which user was that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2021 23:31
|
|
|
There are degrees and levels to me, both in crimes and in punishments
If someone recommends something like Louie in a social gathering, I'll explain that Louis CK is a loving sex pest and recommend something else to the group that's in the same vein if I can. It's always better to have alternatives than just be a Debbie Downer. I also think there's an element of redemption available. Like, Charles S Dutton straight-up killed a dude. Like, no poo poo, killed a man and went to prison for it. While in prison, he got clean, started acting and has made a career of it. But Alien³ is still a movie I'll watch, because he's shown contrition and penance and has done the hard work of restorative justice. Shrecknet fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Feb 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 00:22
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:. I did not know this about it, but it is nice to see that sort of thing. I don't know anything about Max Landis, apart from wasn't there some weird slapping video a while ago?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 01:10
|
|
|
Narzack posted:I don't know anything about Max Landis, apart from wasn't there some weird slapping video a while ago?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 01:25
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:Max Landis is what you get when you have the ultimate helicopter parent Hahahahahaha, gently caress
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 01:50
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:I also think there's an element of redemption available. Like, Charles S Dutton straight-up killed a dude. Like, no poo poo, killed a man and went to prison for it. While in prison, he got clean, started acting and has made a career of it. But Alien³ is still a movie I'll watch, because he's shown contrition and penance and has done the hard work of restorative justice. I apply this to Mike Tyson. Did awful things, went to prison and served his time, then made a pleasant cartoon where he solves mysteries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
Cacator posted:I apply this to Mike Tyson. Did awful things, went to prison and served his time, then made a pleasant cartoon where he solves mysteries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
I once saw an interview with Mike Tyson where he talked about his past. He was absolutely open about it, and explained that basically he would get amped up for a fight, knock a dude out in under a minute, and still have all that energy pumping through him and didn't know how to release it properly so it came out outside the ring. He talked about it in a candid fashion of explaining what had happened while also not even attempting to excuse himself from the wrongs he committed. It really helped me better understand and spot people who are actually have remorse for what they did. I think that's my big problem with 90% of the controversial people is that at the end of the day, they're only sorry they got caught. Hell, it's easy as poo poo to see in two different apologies just this past week from Marilyn Manson and Morgan Wallen. They only thing either understood is they needed to put out some kind of statement to hopefully stem some bleeding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
I watch whatever I want made by whoever because I am a morally bankrupt miscreant only concerned with consumption and being entertained.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 18:40
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:Tyson is kind of in that "victim AND abuser" category, like yes he's a broken person but you learn about him and it's like, there really wasn't any other way that story ends for them. Michael Jackson is similar in my mind, absolutely a terrible abuser but 100% didn't have a chance to be anything else. Jackson still has an amount of question mark there too, unlike someone like R. Kelly. The legal defense of him was a mix of "he had never been accused of anything like that in his entire life (or after, which kind of strengthens that posthumously), which is not normal for that kind of abuser," combined with, "since Jackson was obviously weird as hell and doing other things he shouldn't be doing with kids because he thinks he's Peter Pan, some parents coached their kids to take monetary advantage of his weirdness" (which would also affect memories after the fact). After he died and decades later, everyone just knows the victim-side documentary and not the details of the actual case that called a lot into question unless you were watching at the time. There's like a 5-20 percent chance that he didn't do much or all of what was said that can be balanced in a case like that, unlike R Kelly who a) was plastered all over the internet recording himself doing what he did, and b) had an entire pattern and decades of doing the exact same thing he got away with before. So there's other reasons why some people would be judged differently based on amount of evidence of what they did, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
HBO will be releasing a new four-part documentary about the Woody Allen allegations later this month: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okFP4iQrfu8
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
I choose to ignore whatever bad things i know the actors/producers/directors did. The harm has already happened and i don`t feel personally complicit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
Baudolino posted:I choose to ignore whatever bad things i know the actors/producers/directors did. What about things like Last Tango In Paris where the bad thing done is literally part of the final product?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 02:31
|
|