|
Shrecknet posted: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? not for movies so much, though the only movies/t.v. I can think of where cops are good guys are blue velvet, twin peaks and robocop. I do that for video games though which is kind of rough. two of the main actions that videogameify are investigative work and shooting dudes and cops largely have a monopoly on both. I probably wouldn't have been able to get through deadly premonition had there been a black person in greenvale
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 10:56 |
|
|
Darko posted: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. that scene and the story behind it are incredibly sad, I have to fast forward past that bit when I watch the movie now
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
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? No this isn’t correct. The stunt person was paralyzed in Transformers 3, and they reused the shot from the island to fill in that beat because of it. https://www.indiewire.com/2011/07/why-did-michael-bay-recycle-the-island-footage-for-transformers-dark-of-the-moon-226764/
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
I don't think I've seen Stanley Kubrick mentioned in this thread. I honestly feel uncomfortable watching The Shining after realizing just how much he terrorized Shelly Duvall. She's not even really acting at a certain point, it's just her having a nervous breakdown because of his treatment of her. Scatman Crothers was forced to do a scene so many times he eventually just broke down into tears. Also, he pretty much harassed Stephen King, day and night, calling him at all hours and asking him bizarre questions while the movie was being produced. All this is even weirder when you read how protective he was over making sure Danny Lloyd wasn't exposed to any of the horror elements of the story. Kubrick is considered one of the great, and a good chunk of his films are classic, but I think you could call him a controversial figure. Do his other movies have as many hosed up stories surrounding it as The Shining does? 3 A.M. Radio fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Feb 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
This gets even more hosed up when you hear how he treated the actor for Danny - he was the sweetest carebear ever and made sure Danny was comfortable and completely removed from all the evil in the films themes. The actor didn't even know it was a horror movie until the premier, so it's obvious Kubrick knew exactly what he was doing to Crothers and Duvall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
3 A.M. Radio posted:I don't think I've seen Stanley Kubrick mentioned in this thread. it's funny, just today this rare interview with duvall was published https://twitter.com/THR/status/1359870542665416705 i watched it last week and i can't believe her performance was that maligned when it came out
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 23:37
|
|
|
Vertical Lime posted:it's funny, just today this rare interview with duvall was published Thank you for sharing this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
3 A.M. Radio posted:I don't think I've seen Stanley Kubrick mentioned in this thread. This is the question of if result justifies the means because her performance is what makes that movie more than anything else, even if Jack obviously stands out more. Thats where the soul searching comes in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 01:08
|
|
|
Vertical Lime posted:it's funny, just today this rare interview with duvall was published She and Kubrick were nominated for Worst Actress and Worst Director at the first Razzies. How anyone involved was shameless enough to hold subsequent Razzies is beyond me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 17:14
|
|
|
Darko posted:This is the question of if result justifies the means because her performance is what makes that movie more than anything else, even if Jack obviously stands out more. Thats where the soul searching comes in. I don't agree with this, because Shelly Duvall is obviously a competent and capable actress. At the end of the day, she was the one who actually did the performance that made the movie. How Kubrick motivated and encouraged that performance is like any other workplace manager—did he motivate her in a way that ensured workplace safety, treated her with professional courtesy and respect, and with a clear sense of boundaries? Or did he did he take the easier, quicker way that exploited her mental health and well-being for his own personal gain? Duvall is not a child or a show-horse, she can be motivated by the full range of human interactions. There are plenty of managers who insist that screaming at and belittling their employees is how they get results, but implying that it's the only way to get results dehumanizes and reduces the workers to objects to be manipulated for the boss's profit. I see no difference in artistic production—screaming at actresses, like all exploitation, is the cheaper way to do things, both financially and in terms of the psychological reward the boss takes by abusing an employee. If anything, it's made more inappropriate because an actress is a fellow creative professional the director is to collaborate with. He really couldn't have had a sit down with her where he explained what his plan was, got her consent to subject her to real-life stress for the shoot, and given her tools to back out? It would have cost time and money, forced Kubrick to find methods other than casually demanding a hundred takes, but those costs aren't new, it's just that they were being paid by a woman's mental health instead of by the studio.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
Read the interview, it really seems like the problem wasn't kubrick being personally mean to her: ""No. He was very warm and friendly to me," she says. "He spent a lot of time with Jack and me. He just wanted to sit down and talk for hours while the crew waited. And the crew would say, 'Stanley, we have about 60 people waiting.' But it was very important work."" the difficulty was it being 56 weeks of filming and whole days of shoots of like, jack screaming at her in character. Which seems like a really different type of question.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 17:52
|
|
|
The article is really enlightening. Add on that she literally just broke up with Paul Simon right before leaving for England, so she's starting the shoot in a vulnerable place. Her character is perpetually victimized and she, as a professional actress, had to work herself into this dark, frenzied mental state for much of the time.quote:Where 3 Women took six weeks to shoot from start to finish, The Shining took 56. That was partly because of a fire at EMI Elstree Studios in February 1979 that badly damaged the Overlook Hotel set — at the time the largest ever constructed there — requiring it to be rebuilt. But it was mostly because of Kubrick's famously exacting process. The schedule was grueling, with the director filming six days a week, up to 16 hours a day. For much of that time, Duvall needed to work herself up to a state of absolute hysteria playing the wife of a writer (Nicholson) who goes insane inside a snowed-in resort hotel, eventually trying to hack up his family with an axe. Unlike Nicholson, who rented a home in London that he shared with Anjelica Huston, his girlfriend at the time, Duvall rented a flat by the studio in Hertfordshire, where she lived for the length of the shoot with only a dog and two birds as companions. "Nobody does that," says Huston, 69. "You go back and forth from London, even though you could get stuck in two-hour traffic going in and out. But Shelley did that for a good year and a half. She got herself an apartment and lived there because she was just terribly dedicated and didn't want to shortchange herself or anyone else by not giving over fully to her commitment." So you have her in this precarious position: She's just broken up with a longtime partner, she's living alone in a foreign country, she's taking an absurdly long commute to work 16 hour days, all to play a character whose emotional state is fraught and frenzied and has to do take after take after take to get it right. It was also a clash with her experiences with Altman, who would typically be a one or two takes and move on type of filmmaker. quote:Duvall says, "[Kubrick] doesn't print anything until at least the 35th take. Thirty-five takes, running and crying and carrying a little boy, it gets hard. And full performance from the first rehearsal. That's difficult." Before a scene, she would put on a Sony Walkman and "listen to sad songs. Or you just think about something very sad in your life or how much you miss your family or friends. But after a while, your body rebels. It says: 'Stop doing this to me. I don't want to cry every day.' And sometimes just that thought alone would make me cry. To wake up on a Monday morning, so early, and realize that you had to cry all day because it was scheduled — I would just start crying. I'd be like, 'Oh no, I can't, I can't.' And yet I did it. I don't know how I did it. Jack said that to me, too. He said, 'I don't know how you do it.' " Yeah so you do have some weirdness here. She suggests Kubrick had a cruel streak because of how he was treated in the past and started trailing off. It's a little weird and could suggest a topic she doesn't want to discuss, but then does clarify that Kubrick would be very friendly. I think it's more the demanding nature of him requiring dozens of takes at the bare minimum. quote:But as Huston remembers it, the director — and Nicholson — could be unduly rough on Duvall. "I got the feeling, certainly through what Jack was saying at the time, that Shelley was having a hard time just dealing with the emotional content of the piece," she says. "And they didn't seem to be all that sympathetic. It seemed to be a little bit like the boys were ganging up. That might have been completely my misread on the situation, but I just felt it. And when I saw her during those days, she seemed a generally a bit tortured, shook up. I don't think anyone was being particularly careful of her." Still, Huston admits there is no denying the ferocious power of the final product. "She actually carried the movie on her back if you look at it," Huston says. "Jack wavers between sort of comedic and terrifying, and Kubrick was Kubrick at his most mysterious, interesting and powerful. But it must have been something for her to be in the middle of that mix. And she took it on. She was, I think, incredibly brave." So then we have Anjelica Huston feeling that Kubrick and Nicholson weren't taking into consideration just how much stress she was putting on herself. This is certainly concerning, but it could also speak to more of neglect than intentional cruelty. Or perhaps a deliberate willingness to let her do this to herself in order to elicit the exact kind of haggard response we get in the film. It's certainly questionable, and the fact that Duvall cries when watching the clip of the staircase sequence because it was so difficult to to make could potentially suggest some underlying trauma. Though her second comment, about empathy for women who've been abused and assaulted by their partners, is also interesting. Like there's this dual response in which she's both remembering the ordeal of making the movie but also about the mindset of thinking about people who deal with this in real life. So I dunno where I'm going with this. I think it provides a lot more nuance and also clarifies that Duvall was a much more proactive collaborator on the film than some of these tellings make it out to be: Like, so many people who talk about Kubrick's treatment of her make it out to be like Duvall wasn't in control of her own faculties and sort of ignore her own agency, something I think she reasserts here. But that doesn't mean the conditions of the film weren't questionable and you can argue whether Kubrick's approach to filmmaking was in violation of worker's rights, or whether Duvall was any more mistreated than anyone else on set (Scatman Crothers famously broke down crying for the scene mentioned above). Kubrick also would do it again and again for the remainder of his career: He made Tom Cruise open and close a door dozens and dozens of times and seemed to delight in having Nicole Kidman film the fantasy sex sequences with the sailor for several days as a means to further emasculate Cruise. So he was not above mentally manipulating his actors. I would simply say, there's a lot more to what went on behind the scenes on The Shining than what we know and how its been characterized. I'm wary of ignoring Duvall's contributions to the film and her knowing embrace of the material. She also had another two full decades in show business, doing six seasons of Fairy Tale Theater after The Shining, 14 episodes of Bedtime Stories, plus steady film and television roles up until 2002. I do think it's fair to say in the end she was mistreated by Hollywood, and she always had an outsider/gonzo quality to her that is never as appreciated in women as it is in male performers. Her final performances are not of the caliber of her early work, and we know how middle aged women in Hollywood typically fair in finding work. Plus, mental illness has certainly played a role in her life, but I don't know how fair it is to probe that or read into it: the Dr. Phil episode did her a horrible disservice and while she does seem to struggle with it, she also seems to be living a fairly happy, quiet life in retirement while remaining proud of the films she made.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
I did overlook the part in the interview where she brings up having long conversations with Kubrick, and I admit, I was starting to get emotionally caught up and going more at the generalized issue of the "Genius Director Mistreats Actors For His Art," so I do take that back. But overall, as Trix Rabbi's post points out, I'm seeing a lot of the same narrative here we've seen again and again in other Hollywood abuse cases. Duvall saying that Kubrick's behavior was because that's how he was treated... what does that have to do with the question she was asked, about her experiences, other than the usual defense we hear of "Oh, no, it was perfectly normal, he was just doing what was done to him." In the context of Charisma Carpenter's statement that mentions how she continued to justify Joss's behavior and claim she'd work with him again after Buffy, it's a narrative that keeps moving forward in history. Directors aren't just allowed to make sets emotionally unsafe, even traumatic spaces, they're supposed to, because that's what artistic passion looks like. Film sets are workplaces. Actors are employees. The narrative of suffering for your art is just as abusive as telling unpaid interns they have to "pay their dues" before they're allowed to make money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Something interesting that comes up in that profile, btw, just as I'm thinking about it. One of the big things in the Dr. Phil episode was her saying she thought Robin Williams was still alive. She says the same thing about Robert Altman in this piece, but clarifies that she doesn't like to think about how he's dead and prefers to imagine he's still out there, doing his thing. So perhaps that's also what she meant about Robin Williams, that he's still alive in a spiritual sense, or rather that she doesn't want to think about his death but envision him as still alive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
Kubrick could absolutely be manipulative and controlling, particularly after the debacle of Spartacus. There's the famous bit from Dr Strangelove where he goaded George C Scott into performing increasingly zany takes under the guise of "warming up", which he then inserted in the final film, and also the time that he found out Malcolm McDowell had a fear of snakes and decided to give his character, Alex, a pet snake. The impression I got when studying him was that he was a megalomaniacal obsessive with poor social skills, like a less suave/horny version of Alfred Hitchcock. Also, that article is really lovely. The anecdote at the end is so striking: quote:At one point during our time together, Duvall shares a childhood memory of Houston's one and only snow day: "They let school out. Everybody couldn't wait to get home. We all built snowmen in the front yard. The thing is, by the time we built the snowman, everything else was green again. Because we'd used up all the snow."
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
i'd still dig up Kubrick's old rear end and slap him, rest in piss imo
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
well here's a timely thread! https://twitter.com/clairewillett/status/1360277527135019008 https://twitter.com/clairewillett/status/1360278657072197632 https://twitter.com/clairewillett/status/1360280967240273921
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
You know, she brings up some good points there. Definitely something i will consider
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:18
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted: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 actually ran into this not long ago. I recently finished The Shield- fricken incredible show, possibly the best American drama I've ever seen(not counting the greatest of all-time, Band of Brothers). But, it's about a dirty cop. In real life, I'd want him to be locked away forever, because they HAVE to be the good guys or else the whole poo poo falls apart. But, in the show, I rooted for him, I wanted him to succeed. He'd done so much good, that surely, you can overlook his extra-judicial actions and law breaking. For a bit, I kind of struggled with that, but I came to the conclusion that it's okay for me to enjoy and even greatly love and respect the show, because it isn't real. I can enjoy that story. Especially, if I'm able to separate reality from the world of the show. And now I'm watching Luther. I think someone mentioned it in the action movie thread, but cop shows and movies just lend themselves to easy good/evil stories.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 04:06
|
|
|
Luther is a British cop, which is kind of different. Mackey was a kind of antihero early on, but became a villain by the end. I think he even shifted away from being the main protagonist towards the end into an antagonist. Floyd is no revelation for me, I grew up around inner city cops, and I'm fine watching Die Hard or something because I see that as a fantasy version of a cop just like Indiana is a fantasy version of an archeologist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 14:46
|
|
|
There's nothing inherently evil about the police, as a concept. The problems that exist today with policing are systemic and are issues to the core of our system, but good people want to and do become police officers. And as an ideal, the police should be a force of good. They're trying to fight crime! You're not going to root for the guy who murders grandmothers and steals their belongings. So I don't have a problem with shows like Brooklyn 99, which acknowledges the real issues of actual policing in America and acknowledges that it presents an idealized version, or NYPD Blue, which at least in the early seasons was willing to portray the police as more mixed overall, or Law & Order because Sam Waterston's eyebrows are absolutely hypnotic and I can't turn away from the eyebrows of justice. I find Dirty Harry to be a hard watch because of the message it sends - which the ends justifies the means and violating rights is okay as long as the person is actually guilty. It's basically Nancy Grace, the action movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 14:52
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:I find Dirty Harry to be a hard watch because of the message it sends - which the ends justifies the means and violating rights is okay as long as the person is actually guilty. It's basically Nancy Grace, the action movie. Which funnily enough the first sequel addresses. It makes the argument that even if you say Harry is one of the 'good ones' where his methods aren't conventional but he always gets his man, allowing him to act the way he does and shoot who he wants will inevitably lead to people who abuse that power under the guise of that same rationale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 15:19
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:There's nothing inherently evil about the police, as a concept. there actually is. on a conceptual level, if you need security, you've hosed up somewhere in society, either inequity or society tolerating/advocating a perverse set of values. cops are never the right answer. on a pragmatic level, yes, it's systemic. cops are racist slave catchers and union skull crackers. that is the role of policing under capitalism. that is why police departments were formed, it's what they do. law enforcement being depicted as heroes is pure fiction and there's so much of it because it's advantageous to capital for you to really believe and internalize that fiction The Voice of Labor fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Feb 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
Dirty Harry is weird because he's based off of the guy that ended up never catching the Zodiac Killer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
I've never watched a Dirty Harry movie, I just rememember seeing this cafe shootout scene from the fourth movie Sudden Impact and being absolutely awestruck of the racist conservative power fantasy and that I would never touch them ever. That's why I keep going back to the comments of how much of the problematic artist is in the film. I tend to read most movies politically so I'm horrified by Zahler's violent racism or Allen's weird grooming movies. Eastwood's known conservatism doesn't make him a bad person on the same level, but it does tend to colour my perception and distrust of his art. That's different than early Polanski or Singer where the art feels less thematic to their bad sides and I view as problematic because of their creator's separate actions rather than a problematic creation because it's melded to its creator's problems. I'd feel much more icky watching a gross Zahler film than Rosemary's Baby. It's weird where problematic themes of movies when combined with the artist's known problem just serves as a double whammy. I'm in no way conflating say Eastwood and Polanski (gently caress that guy) as people but how movie themes can make it much harder to stomach or separate art from artist as this original thread showed. Like Allen and Zahler are just inseparable from their art thematically and I don't even get curious. But I've actively avoided Polanski too despite the tug to rewatch The Pianist in a theatre.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 17:21
|
|
|
The Dead Pool is worth it just to see Jim Carrey lip-synching "Welcome to the Jungle", and seeing Liam Neeson with a lovely ponytail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
The Voice of Labor posted:there actually is. on a conceptual level, if you need security, you've hosed up somewhere in society, either inequity or society tolerating/advocating a perverse set of values. cops are never the right answer. It's so funny because the whole genre of Wild West tales and westerns are so often explicitly about how novel the idea of "policing" is yet now it's treated as though society would literally not exist without it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
Dirty Harry it's not about how the ends justify the means, or how better the police would be if they could just kill bad guys, but that the police as an institution does not care for justice at all, merely upholding bureaucracy. It's not the liberals or pc culture stopping Callahan from enacting righteous justice, it's the Law. And the law sucks rear end, truth and justice are far more important, because this was written by an actual nazi man, John Milius, whose ideal world is Conan the Barbarian. Dirty Harry may open with shots of names of cops killed in action, but at the end Callahan rejects the institution, denying any hero cop catharsis. If this makes the movie good or bad is besides the point. Probably the best critique of Dirty Harry and police films in general are the 4 Dirty harry sequels, in which the SF police department decides to keep an extremely violent psychopath who quit the job employed for some reason. He doesn't even bring results, like he routinely gets his partners killed or maimed and bungles every single case!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
The Dead Pool also features Dirty Harry being pursued in a car chase by a remote control toy car.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
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. One of my absolute favorite movies growing up was The Adventures of Milo and Otis. It’s is probably not something that I would watch regularly if it was just a regular movie but it’s very likely that animals were mistreated in the making of that movie (the worst allegations involve tabby cats falling off of cliffs and Pugs facing down a bear, although no one has ever actually confirmed these allegations). But my good memories of it from childhood still exist in my head as well. poo poo, I had an orange outdoor cat who was around for many years, long after I had last watched the movie, who I called Milo. It’s obviously not quite Cannibal Holocaust but it’s an example of the complicated feelings that can come up when we process art. edit: What in the absolute gently caress https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfXo7EgOxtc DC Murderverse fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Feb 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 03:40
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:One of my absolute favorite movies growing up was The Adventures of Milo and Otis. It’s is probably not something that I would watch regularly if it was just a regular movie but it’s very likely that animals were mistreated in the making of that movie (the worst allegations involve tabby cats falling off of cliffs and Pugs facing down a bear, although no one has ever actually confirmed these allegations). But my good memories of it from childhood still exist in my head as well. poo poo, I had an orange outdoor cat who was around for many years, long after I had last watched the movie, who I called Milo. It’s obviously not quite Cannibal Holocaust but it’s an example of the complicated feelings that can come up when we process art. If it makes you feel better, no one can actually find a source for any of this, so it's possible it's just an internet rumor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 07:36
|
|
|
Really interesting thread, OP, and one that makes me honestly think. Hard to be funny in it though. Yikesfr0id posted: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. I guess for me the answer is...it kind of depends? Which is the lamest of cop outs, I admit, but is the only honest way I can answer without thinking about it more. For whatever various reasons, there are several that I've forgiven and still enjoy but countless others I've written off and no consistency as to why. fr0id posted: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.” Like, for Woody Allen, I was never all that wild about his films to begin with aside from a few. Same with Polanski. So not watching them isn't really a huge personal sacrifice for me since I've already seen any of the stuff they made that I care about watching and there's tons of poo poo out there competing for my time. Not movie related, but I'm reminded of Michael Vick who wound up playing for my favorite team after he was released from prison. Seemed to me he did his time and genuinely changed into a better and different person but I remember catching poo poo from really hardcore animal lovers who were mad at me for not changing my football team. And I understood their issue to be honest. Mike Tyson is an athlete I put in a similar category. I used to really enjoy watching him fight and saw him as a generational talent at his peak. The more I learn about him, the more I can see him as someone who's trying but lacks the support and upbringing to put it into place. It's easy to view him as a victim in some ways but then you witness some of his behavior and are like, drat. Still, he served his punishment. Michael Jackson is another one. I like some of his music but was always partial to Prince. None of the allegations against MJ were proven but, still, there's a lot of smoke there and without his vast fortune, I wonder what the legal outcomes might have been. Or if he'd been targeted or put in that situation in the first place. It's no huge loss to my life to never hear "Billie Jean" or "Rock With You" again but I don't turn it off or make a scene when I hear it either. Like Tyson, when you learn more about his upbringing and support network, one can easily start to view him a sympathetic light and consider him a victim of sorts. I dunno. To tie it into Hollywood, I don't recall seeing Eddie Murphy brought up. He said some really abhorrent things about gay people in his wildly successful stand up acts that I honestly think are directly responsible for a lot of mainstream attitudes and hate against homosexuals during the 80's. As a bi man myself, a lot of it was difficult for me. rodbeard posted: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 put him and people like James Woods in similar categories. They're both good actors who have said some really dumb poo poo but near as I can tell haven't DONE anything to anyone and mostly just talk poo poo so I can separate art from artist easier. Then you get into something like Quentin Tarantino's obsession with bare feet. It's become impossible over time not to acknowledge that he's intentionally writing scenes into his films so he can perv out on Uma Thurman, Selma Hayek, Margot Robbie and Bridget Fonda but, then again, near as I can tell it's all consensual. More troubling there is his closeness with Weinstein and in both cases there's the obvious issue of power balance. Matthew Broderick loving killed 2 people in a car accident and you never hear much about how he managed to walk. Mark Wahlberg brutally beat up a Korean gay man a long time ago for being Korean and gay. Keifer Sutherland has 4 DUI's. Elvis surrounded himself with 15 year old girls. John Wayne was a white supremacist. Dice Clay did a lot of really hosed up stand up material but I've never heard of an account where he DID anything to a gay person or a woman, who were the main targets in his act. TL/DR: Again, my mileage varies and if I'm being honest I can't always explain why. It's interesting to think about. Christ, if this thread were just about musicians...poo poo...we could be here all day (Jagger, Bowie, Jimmy Page, R. Kelly, Manson, MJ, Chuck Berry, Vince Neil)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
I saw Magnum Force as a midnight screening once and honestly, the way that movie opens -- with a gun pointed straight at the audience as Harry recites the "Do you feel lucky, punk?" monologue in voice over -- is kind of brilliant. When talking about conservative art, it puts the audience in the position of the victim and forces you to think about what happens when you're at the other end of the barrel. Rather than identifying with Harry, Harry is the one threatening you, and it does beg the question "don't you wish you had a gun right now?" Fascinating film. I don't agree with its politics at all but it's that rare right-wing work that actually forces you to question and consider the reactionary mindset, whereas most films of that type are too angry and confused to form coherent statements. BiggerBoat posted:It's interesting to think about. Christ, if this thread were just about musicians...poo poo...we could be here all day (Jagger, Bowie, Jimmy Page, R. Kelly, Manson, MJ, Chuck Berry, Vince Neil) Took me a second to realize you meant Marilyn Manson because I was gonna say, I know Charlie cut a record but he's kinda more known for the race war death cult lmao TrixRabbi fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Feb 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
Rambo 2 is probably my favorite example of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:
I meant Shirley Manson. The poo poo that woman got up to deserves its own thread, my god. I meant Marilyn This came up in another thread but you can really assemble an all star cast of shithead actors with horrible political opinions alone and I wondered what that movie might look like. Here it is https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=1&threadid=3512233&pagenumber=2952&perpage=40#post512466229 Now I'm wondering how good a movie you could make with the known creeps and criminals we're talking about and it would probably be pretty awesome Also, I haven't seen Danny Trejo's name come up yet. He did some very questionable poo poo a long time ago but seems to fall into the category of atonement and having paid the price. I care less about the drug dealing than the multiple armed robberies but also admit I don't know his whole story. Jared Leto's either. He is sometimes a good actor but the lines he seemed to cross on the set of Suicide Squad are pretty hard to hand wave with a method acting brush. Now that I'm thinking about it, what about Alfred Hitchcock who, from all accounts, was a real rucking creep? BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Feb 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
Chuck Manson's album was pretty decent though. Too bad about all the rest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:This came up in another thread but you can really assemble an all star cast of shithead actors with horrible political opinions alone and I wondered what that movie might look like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKTOj7HnLbo getting this feeling it's gonna do to woody allen what leaving neverland did to michael jackson
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 20:14
|
|
Vertical Lime posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKTOj7HnLbo I was genuinely surprised how many people were holding onto the idea that MJ is innocent before that doc came out.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 10:56 |
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I was genuinely surprised how many people were holding onto the idea that MJ is innocent before that doc came out. It surprises me how many still do after, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 02:25
|
|