|
Shrecknet posted:I posted upthread a bit, but it comes down to "there's already too much media to consume in a single lifetime, so let's just skip all the stuff made by pederasts, eh?" Hasan has been accused of creating a toxic work environment and being a lovely person. You have this high standard for your media consumption and you can’t even be bothered to google. tsk tsk
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 15:07 |
|
|
I specifically noted "rear end in a top hat bosses" like James Cameron in my tiers, its on the lowest tier because literally everyone in every artistic field that involves other people is an rear end in a top hat boss
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:I specifically noted "rear end in a top hat bosses" like James Cameron in my tiers, its on the lowest tier because literally everyone in every artistic field that involves other people is an rear end in a top hat boss It's really, really hard to be an artist and not an rear end in a top hat; you need full confidence to get your art out there and be successful at it, while at the same time, you've often had to fight a bunch of short sighted and difficult people to get your vision out there. It's more rare to see an outwardly "nice" artist because of the combination that creates that thing. Half of the people on a set are going to actively mess up what you think your vision is and you're consistently managing hundreds of people and having to report to the suits with the money. There also might be a difference between someone known as "nicer" that went through the system kind of easy, comparatively, and didn't have to fight too much for their visions like a Spielberg or Snyder since their first movies went relatively smoothly (Spielberg's issue with Jaws was tech related and him not knowing how hard a boat shoot would be), and someone like Cameron that started off on the tech side having to work under other people and fight for that part of the vision, then work on poo poo low budget movies and have to sneak in after dark to try to edit his movie when he's effectively fired.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
There was also this piece that dug into Allen's archives to reveal that, whether he actually molested his daughter or not, dude has a deeply unhealthy obsession with teenage girls. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...e175_story.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:I specifically noted "rear end in a top hat bosses" like James Cameron in my tiers, its on the lowest tier because literally everyone in every artistic field that involves other people is an rear end in a top hat boss James Cameron also had the "nice guy" beat out of him over the production for Piranha 2. He talks about it in an interview. It was his big break as a filmmaker, but the EP hired him with the intention of firing him and taking over production and saving money. He was kicked from the job, told he was a talentless hack who would never make it in the industry, and wasn't even allowed to look at the footage he shot. He was dejected and fell into depression for failing. In a last ditch hope to save his self-esteem, he found a way to sneak into the screening room with footage he shot to see if he really was a failure. When he saw the footage and it was better than he anticipated, he regained some confidence, and realized that he was being gaslit and was made to be a stooge. After that he learned 1) he was actually a filmmaker and could make his ideas into something good, and 2) the film industry is full of lying snakes that will cut your throat. So he hardened his heart and earned his No Bullshit / rear end in a top hat reputation. I'll never say someone is justified in being an rear end in a top hat, but I also understand how assholes can be systematically made (by broken systems and/or other assholes). Cameron's done some lovely stuff, like almost drowning his actors with The Abyss, but I've also heard plenty of interviews with actors--both big and small--that love the guy and say that he's one of the greatest filmmakers they've worked with, and that he's a pretty cool guy when he's not filming. They all mention he's intimidating as hell, though. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:There was also this piece that dug into Allen's archives to reveal that, whether he actually molested his daughter or not, dude has a deeply unhealthy obsession with teenage girls. Oh the dude that made Manhattan, the film about a 42 year old man dating a teenager in high school, starring actual teenage actress Mariel Hemingway, inspired by his real-life experiences of being a man in his 40's dating 16 year old Babi Christina Engelhardt? That's crazy. To move on from Woody Allen, but to keep within the same discussion in a way, I would highly highly highly recommend everyone listen to Jamie Loftus's mini-series The Lolita Pod. It's 10 episodes, and explores Nabakov's novel Lolita and the character of Dolores Haze and how she is interpreted and misinterpreted throughout literature, film, music, and theater. quote:Who is Lolita? The Nabokov literary classic has sparked infinite discussion in the 65 years since its release, but the cultural memory the book has left behind lives more in romance and fashion aesthetics than a cautionary tale about a deceptive predator and his young prey. Jamie Loftus wants to know how we got here, and this series traces Lolita -- the person, Dolores Haze -- from her literary origin to current status as a doomed icon. There first two or three episodes are about the novel and the original character of Lolita, but the rest of the series explores all the different film adaptations (there's a whole episode dedicated to just the Kubrick film), theatrical adaptations, and how the character has been grossly misused and perverted by Hollywood and pop culture, as well as how so much of our culture trivializes sexual assault or makes heroes out of abusers like Humbert Humbert. As you can imagine, Woody Allen, and people like him, come up in discussion. You don't need to have read the book to listen and enjoy--the first episode covers it in depth--and now that the series has concluded, you can go through it all pretty quickly. There's a lot of ideas and opinions from experts in various fields, from literary professors to psychologists to actual actresses, and people interested in the topic of this thread would find it interesting. It's one of the most thoughtful and well-researched podcasts I've ever heard, and it still manages to have a sense of humor to keep from getting too heavy. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
I do think Woody Allen is a good personal example of someone whose work I’m not interested in because it’s a direct reflection of what he’s famously a creep for. I have no interest in a romantic comedy about a dude in his 40s and a teenager/child. Maybe that was more accepted back in the 70s? But I kind of question what it was a bunch of critics saw in the movie that would make them recommend it and not really bring up “oh hey this is creepy.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 21:48
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:To move on from Woody Allen, but to keep within the same discussion in a way, I would highly highly highly recommend everyone listen to Jamie Loftus's mini-series The Lolita Pod. It's 10 episodes, and explores Nabakov's novel Lolita and the character of Dolores Haze and how she is interpreted and misinterpreted throughout literature, film, music, and theater. Oh, I should listen to this. Lolita is a fantastic book if you can stomach it, it's like a lesson in how to read between the lines. Weirdly enough, the musical adaptation from the 70s is actually really good, and probably the best translation of Humbert's direct addressing of the reader by giving him a kind of standup comedian emcee role (which slowly disintegrates as the audience turns against him). They even use Quilty to parody the idea of "edgy" things being chic and funny by making him a TV writer known for pushing the envelope. It made me think a lot of how comedians use laughter to both disarm and unite audiences, and how often you still hear people say something along the lines of "relax, it's just a joke". I think part of what made Manhattan so beloved for so long was that Allen was so good at being disarming, which made the content more palatable because a lot of the film's coup was bringing surprising depth to the whole concept. From Ebert's original review: ebert posted:And Mariel Hemingway deserves some kind of special award for what's in some ways the most difficult role in the film. It wouldn't do, you see, for the love scenes between Woody and Mariel to feel awkward or to hint at cradle-snatching or an unhealthy interest on Woody's part in innocent young girls. But they don't feel that way: Hemingway's character has a certain grave intelligence, a quietly fierce pride, that, strangely enough, suggest that even at seventeen she's the one Woody should be thinking of during Gershwin's "Someone to Watch Over Me." In a lot of ways it's like CK's TV show, Louie, which was widely praised for being able to switch between humor and pain, often making very astute observations about life and featuring characters who felt surprisingly grounded. And then we find out he entraps women and makes them watch him masturbate and suddenly all of the jokes about him jerking off under overpasses seem disgustingly prescient.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
Simiain posted:Its actually seems to be a sincere and understanding apology, and not the kind of non-apology that we often get. Which makes his apparent descent into resentful, cancel-culture baiting boomerism a kind of double-betrayal. That's not at all what happened. It's not that he took advantage of some starstruck fans. The two main ones who accused him were lower status comedians. He had the power to sabotage their careers if they said no. Nowhere did he mention getting off during phone calls with women who had business relationships with him. Nowhere did he mention offering Jen Kirkman an opening tour spot while also propositioning her (while he was married at the time), then rescinding when she didn't go for it. Nowhere did he mention insulating himself in the business by blacklisting people who had problems with his creeping. Nowhere did he talk about the people who covered for him. He heard the stories of the women he creeped on, but he never actually listened to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 01:02
|
|
|
I guess I'm dumb and I'll admit that. To me, Han Solo was also Indiana Jones and Harrison Ford didn't really enter into it. I am told people form weird, what they call "para" social relationships with people so that makes this a hard question. Why do you give a poo poo? Not giving a monster money, sure, that makes sense. It's like with Louie CK. I didn't think he was funny and he was always a creep. Why is him being a creep a reason to not find him funny now? Did you not pick up on him being a creep initially? That was like, his whole thing. That's part of why I never found him funny. I feel like a lot of this discussion is people realizing the badness in themselves and then trying to once again fob it off onto someone else. Take Louie CK. Sure we can separate "art" from "artist" or whatever. But how about we don't separate "you" from "the media you consume". Not retroactively. If you have to constantly grapple with this question, that says something about you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 09:17
|
|
|
What does it say?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
Saying Louis CK was "always a creep" because he joked about masturbating a lot or something is really stupid and downplays the reality of him actually turning out to have done bad things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
Am I the only one that can't stand seeing Tom Cruise in anything because of his involvement in scientology? I know there's a ton of celebrities in the church, but Tom Cruise is the only one high up enough that I feel is actually culpable in the poo poo the church gets up to. I haven't really been able to watch his movies since he went on that rant about psychiatry and that was back in 2005 long before the church had been accused of covering up rapes committed by members.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
Martman posted:Saying Louis CK was "always a creep" because he joked about masturbating a lot or something is really stupid and downplays the reality of him actually turning out to have done bad things. Yeah, all art requires people to play roles and quite often those roles involve you to talk about doing terrible things you didn’t actually do to make a point. Once it became clear CK was actually doing those things I don’t think it’s illogical to be disgusted by those acts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
Martman posted:Saying Louis CK was "always a creep" because he joked about masturbating a lot or something is really stupid and downplays the reality of him actually turning out to have done bad things. I don't know about you, but when George Carlin used to say that people with crutches jumping off the roof of a flaming hospital was what he wanted to see on TV, I knew then and there he was histories greatest monster, because all comedy is meant to be taken seriously and at face value.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:13
|
|
|
When listening to a choir; Do you run off to do meticulous background checks on every single singer until you're able to have an informed opinion? -or- Do you enjoy the music in a quest for personal enlightenment?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
how many of y’all listen to choirs
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
TheOmegaWalrus posted:When listening to a choir; Boy it sure would be embarrassing if someone specifically noted the distinction between a production where some below-the-line talent turned out to be a wife-beater and the top creative decision maker was a monster Shrecknet posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:37
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:Yeah, all art requires people to play roles and quite often those roles involve you to talk about doing terrible things you didn’t actually do to make a point. Once it became clear CK was actually doing those things I don’t think it’s illogical to be disgusted by those acts. The problem with Louie CKs act is that part of his thing was walking right up to the line of acceptability in a way that requires a lot of trust from the audience. The SNL bit about child molesters is a good example because the whole gag is him saying something horrible and then desperately trying to walk it back. The punchline of the joke is the visible relief in making it to the end of the monologue without [in kayfabe] ruining his career. It straight up doesn't work if he actually has ruined his career. I think part of the reason Chris Brown is still around is that in his job he can just shut up and play the music, he's not required to face the audience with just a microphone and his personality. Putting aside the ethics of Supporting Problematic Artists and whether or not Chris Brown should have a career - practically speaking it's a lot easier to separate that kind of performance from the person. massive spider fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Feb 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:Boy it sure would be embarrassing if someone specifically noted the distinction between a production where some below-the-line talent turned out to be a wife-beater and the top creative decision maker was a monster I feel like that describes like 90% of symphonies and operas that exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
Charisma Carpenter, just three hours ago, has released an open letter on her Twitter account revealing more about the workplace abuse she endured from Joss Whedon while working for him on Buffy the Vampire Slayer: https://twitter.com/AllCharisma/status/1359537752853807105?s=20
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
There's one Louis CK bit I remember where he talks about how horrible men are and how insane it is that women trust them. Actually found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRzs7v0do_Q See, this bit comes off as really funny when you assume that CK is taking the perspective of the woman and, arguably, a feminist lens. It seems that he's decrying the actions of violent, abusive men and making dark comedy out of the reality that many women have to take a calculated risk assessment when agreeing to meet a new man for the first time. But when you know that the dude is actually a straight up predator IRL, well suddenly it reads as a confession. He IS the man you shouldn't trust. Like I don't think it's that hard to see why this bit is funny and enlightening if CK is just an ordinary man who respects women, and creepy and prescient when it turns out he does the exact poo poo he jokes about other men doing here. It perhaps even suggests some internal guilt and self-loathing, which is a running theme throughout his work. Also see the bit in Louie where he tries and fails to rape Pamela Adlon and the punchline is "God, you can't even rape right."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:Boy it sure would be embarrassing if someone specifically noted the distinction between a production where some below-the-line talent turned out to be a wife-beater and the top creative decision maker was a monster I would assume the star of the picture commiting vehicular manslaughter would be icing on the cake but that's just me. As for Whedon, the fact that he tried to hide behind the female empowerment trope only to be outed as a misogynist is not only a career killer but he's now pissed off multiple companies in his wake especially Disney. This is going to be scorched earth levels
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
This thread is kind of getting away from its original topic, and there’s already a whole thread to talk about abuse in Hollywood and the culture around it. I’m probably gonna close this one at the end of this week, so if anyone has any parting contributions get them in before then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 22:43
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:To move on from Woody Allen, but to keep within the same discussion in a way, I would highly highly highly recommend everyone listen to Jamie Loftus's mini-series The Lolita Pod. It's 10 episodes, and explores Nabakov's novel Lolita and the character of Dolores Haze and how she is interpreted and misinterpreted throughout literature, film, music, and theater. Thank you for this recommendation, I started listening last night and it is indeed excellent. As far as controversial people in films go, I tend to avoid those films, partly because I have no desire to watch lovely people, and partly because in most cases I've already seen the film (before I was aware of controversy surrounding a particular person) and don't enjoy re-watching things I've already seen. If it's a new film with a lovely person in it, I'll just not see it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 23:24
|
|
|
fr0id posted:This thread is kind of getting away from its original topic, and there’s already a whole thread to talk about abuse in Hollywood and the culture around it. I’m probably gonna close this one at the end of this week, so if anyone has any parting contributions get them in before then. I feel like this thread is entirely on topic? We're largely discussing how lovely people have depicted/hid/managed their lovely behavior through their works and why the two things are interconnected. Is that not the exact point of the OP? - Woody Allen is accused of molesting his daughter and his work belies an unhealthy obsession with young girls. - Louis CK made a career of telling everybody he's a terrible person and how awful men are and lo and behold everything he said wasn't really a joke - Roman Polanski is a misogynist and a child rapist and his films are filled with explorations of traumatized and abused women and frank sexuality - Joss Whedon presented himself as a feminist who sought to empower women but really was an abusive rear end in a top hat, showing the overarching thesis of his body of work (badass women being empowered) was fraudulent - James Cameron is a dick to work with, is that on par with what any of these guys have done? Does that extend into abuse? Do you feel uncomfortable watching his films cause sometimes he screams at his employees? Seems like everything you made the thread to discuss.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 00:01
|
|
|
i feel like there's not much to be said about this topic other than "everybody draws the line somewhere different for which bad people's art they are able to enjoy, and it's not worth being a dick to other people about drawing that line somewhere different than you do"
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:I feel like this thread is entirely on topic? We're largely discussing how lovely people have depicted/hid/managed their lovely behavior through their works and why the two things are interconnected. Is that not the exact point of the OP? I was more interested in peoples’ opinions on viewing the films rather than being a cataloguing of abusers and debate about the the abusers themselves. The latter in particular seems to be causing some folks to get snippy with each other. And I don’t want to just be overlap with the existing abusers in Hollywood thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
Edit: double post, sorry.
fr0id fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Feb 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:I feel like this thread is entirely on topic? We're largely discussing how lovely people have depicted/hid/managed their lovely behavior through their works and why the two things are interconnected. Is that not the exact point of the OP? It sort of feels like the thread has shaken into a "naming and shaming" cycle, rather than a slightly esoteric discussion about the merits of art made by deviants. I'm going to make one more effort post here and then push this thread into the sea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:i feel like there's not much to be said about this topic other than "everybody draws the line somewhere different for which bad people's art they are able to enjoy, and it's not worth being a dick to other people about drawing that line somewhere different than you do" Yeah, this is where I fall on the whole thing. I don't want to watch Woody Allen films, and I do not like Woody Allen. I do not like Roman Polanski, I believe his victims and know he is a rapist, but I will watch Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown, Repulsion, The Tenant, and a few of his other earlier movies. No one needs to tell me how terrible Polanski is, but I do think that there is some merit to exploring his work. I tend to just not recommend problematic people anymore. I know I can watch early Polanski, despite all of the issues, but I'm not going to recommend his films. Animal abuse is the weird line I have. It's hosed up that Herzog's Nosferatu involved spray painting and setting fire to rodents, and it makes me uneasy watching it, but I can watch it, I guess. But I can't watch Cannibal Holocaust. There's never a need to actually kill an animal for a film, but there's a lot of films from the 60's and 70's that I really like or respect that include it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 16:51
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:It's hosed up that Herzog's Nosferatu involved spray painting and setting fire to rodents, and it makes me uneasy watching it, but I can watch it, I guess. But I can't watch Cannibal Holocaust. There's never a need to actually kill an animal for a film, but there's a lot of films from the 60's and 70's that I really like or respect that include it. 
Shrecknet fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Feb 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
My stance is that it's not inherently unethical to watch something. People act as if it is a moral failing to passively watch a film that was made by bad people -- it's not. However, you understand that by doing this and discussing them you also keep their names alive in the culture and present them as continuously relevant. That can cross a moral line in some regards. I don't know. My former roommate was obsessed with this issue to the point that we had the same loving discussion hundreds and hundreds of times because he could just never square it away. Do what feels right for you. There's no perfect answer. If you feel uncomfortable and weird then maybe you should just cut your losses and watch something else. If you want to take a stand against rape culture or abusers or racism then Not Watching something is not even the bare minimum you could or should be doing to affect change -- it's beneath the minimum because it is an act so passive as to be irrelevant to the grander scheme of societal ills. But I'll say this definitely: You cannot always separate the art from the artist. To Schrecknet's point, someone like whatshisname in Ferris Bueller is a minor player in the film with little creative input beyond his few scenes. But someone like Woody Allen is the chief creative voice behind his works and his films are all manifestations of his beliefs and ideas. Likewise, you cannot watch Triumph of the Will and divorce its cinematography from the service to the Third Reich -- those who try to are kidding themselves. If you do watch these movies, those are things you should think about if you're at all an active viewer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:Serious question: How do you feel about The Island or Deadpool 2 which have stuntmen that died as part of their creation, and in the case of Bay, the shot they die in is in the movie, and was re-used in future films? I believe the situation was that the stuntman died during the production of Dark of the Moon, and so The Island’s shot was reused in its place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:I believe the situation was that the stuntman died during the production of Dark of the Moon, and so The Island’s shot was reused in its place. I'm glad you remembered that right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 17:21
|
|
|
If I died for my art, I'd want people to use it. How much worse would it be to die for nothing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
There is a film where a stunt man hit a bridge and died and that shot is in the film, but cuts before impact. I don't remember what film though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
Here's a topic to shift away from the #metoo name-and-shame handwringing: who here automatically dismisses as a potential thing to watch any media where cops are the good guys (especially cops-on-the-edge a la Dirty Harry) in the wake of Ferguson, Trayvon Martin, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Emmitt Till, etc etc etc? I'm kind of over any cop-centric media since I know that cops are a racist, evil institution. Like I love Kristen Stewart but oh no baby what is you doing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:There is a film where a stunt man hit a bridge and died and that shot is in the film, but cuts before impact. I don't remember what film though. XxX. Though it also happened in Comes A Horseman, during a scene where a horse was supposed to drag a man to death the horse actually dragged the stuntman to death. Footage was used.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 15:07 |
|
|
Franchescanado posted:Animal abuse is the weird line I have. It's hosed up that Herzog's Nosferatu involved spray painting and setting fire to rodents, and it makes me uneasy watching it, but I can watch it, I guess. But I can't watch Cannibal Holocaust. There's never a need to actually kill an animal for a film, but there's a lot of films from the 60's and 70's that I really like or respect that include it. As an example, I just refuse to watch that scene in Friday the 13th; it leaves such a bad taste in my mouth (having a pet snake makes it worse, too), and I've probably seen the first one the least of all of them possibly for this reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:18
|
|