Jump to content
rllmuk

Harvey Weinstein and other Hollywood predators


Recommended Posts

It's so difficult, so horrible this stuff. I am near the end of Horace and Pete which, if you didn't know, is a play-like TV drama which, "Louis C.K. finance[d] and distribute[d] entirely on his own as well as directing, writing and producing each episode".

 

It stars Edie Falco, Jessica Lange and Steve Buscemi, along with a bunch of other fantastic actors and comics - notably Alan Alda, playing totally against type. It's sad, honest, nihilistic, hilarious at times, and really moving. You can't watch it and question Louie's insight into humanity - it's startling, quite brutal but also tender and forgiving.

 

And yet, and yet.  I loved Louie but can't bring myself to watch it ever again.  If I hadn't been 3 episodes from the end of H&P, I would have abandoned that as well. I don't know what my point is, other than how damaging these revelations are, and how similar they make you feel to your actual, real life sadnesses and disappointments.  Separating art from artist is just not something I can do anymore.

 

Anyway, i'm rambling and don't think I really have a point to make, other than people being harmful to others ends up hurting everybody, in the long run.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm the same with Horace & Pete, have had about two episodes to go for 6 months. I will probably watch them, but i'm not enthusiastic. Separating art from artist goes on a spectrum, I think. Like fuck am I not listening to Miles Davis and James Brown, but I held off buying even the soundtrack to any film with Klaus Kinski in it. I bought the soundtrack to Aguirre just this week, but not the one with his mug on the cover. I will certainly never watch anything with him in it again. What he did was far, far worse than anything Louis CK did though.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/06/2018 at 15:01, Loik V credern said:

I hadn't heard of that incident. from 2015 ?

 

wtf??

 

If it had been a black waiter at the event instead the reaction from the authorities would have resembled Mr Kinney meeting ED-209.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pondering this on my way to work, it is not really about this thread but it seemed the best place for it. 

 

Isn't it a bit strange that we still have separate acting categories for women and men?  There doesn't seem to be a specific reason why this type of separation exists. It is not like sports where a male athlete may have a natural advantage, it is acting which is completely open to both sexes. 

 

I did wonder if it was a useful way of promoting women who may be under-featured in prominent roles in TV and movies and whilst that thought holds up to a certain extent, it doesn't really explain why you would then not have further sub-categories if it was about featuring a category of persons who would otherwise not be represented (children, over 60's etc.). 

 

It just seemed slightly strange in 2018 that we still have a separate prize for male actors and a separate prize for female actors. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is strange. There's probably a future where it's unnecessary, but I think a lot of people would argue that great roles for women are more scarce, and so best actor in a non-segregated category would just be men men men.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

It is strange. There's probably a future where it's unnecessary, but I think a lot of people would argue that great roles for women are more scarce, and so best actor in a non-segregated category would just be men men men.

 

I do appreciate that point but equally if you go down that route you could argue that good roles for older actors are scarce as well.  Should they have their own category? I also thought, but thought it was too on the nose to post in my previous post, that you could make that identical argument for a category for black actors but no one would propose we segregate on colour so why do we so readily accept segregation on grounds of sex?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Treble said:

I had that reaction too. I'd seen Aguirre before the revelations, but made the mistake of trying to watch Fitzcarraldo after. I couldn't do it, I felt grimy doing it. Turned it off. 

 

Fuck that, no amount of assholery is ever going to stop me enjoying For A Few Dollars More.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Chadruharazzeb said:

 

Fuck that, no amount of assholery is ever going to stop me enjoying For A Few Dollars More.

 

It all comes down to personal decisions, and I wouldn't judge you for yours.  Everyone has to draw the line somewhere. I can't arbitrarily stop watching the things I love because of the 'revelations', it has to be case by case and is a gut thing.  For example, I don't think I'd ever not watch Se7en again, no matter what Morgan Freeman did. But then he's just one component of that film. A Woody Allen film where he's the centre of everything, sleazing over younger women? That's a goner.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you mean. Hell, a few year ago I stopped watching films that had main actors who are Scientologists (I just couldn't take them seriously) until I realised I was missing out on some decent Cruise movies.

 

As for Se7en, give it a minor pass for Morgan but it might have to be ditched for Spacey. Maybe? I bloody love Se7en :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, McCoy said:

I was pondering this on my way to work, it is not really about this thread but it seemed the best place for it. 

 

Isn't it a bit strange that we still have separate acting categories for women and men?  There doesn't seem to be a specific reason why this type of separation exists. It is not like sports where a male athlete may have a natural advantage, it is acting which is completely open to both sexes. 

 

I did wonder if it was a useful way of promoting women who may be under-featured in prominent roles in TV and movies and whilst that thought holds up to a certain extent, it doesn't really explain why you would then not have further sub-categories if it was about featuring a category of persons who would otherwise not be represented (children, over 60's etc.). 

 

It just seemed slightly strange in 2018 that we still have a separate prize for male actors and a separate prize for female actors. 

 

 

Are actresses allowed to be nominated for "Best Actor" in any awards or are they only allowed within their own gender specific category? I'm of the opinion that there should be "Best Actor", "Best Male Actor" and "Best Actress" as at the moment the Best Actor catergory feels like it gets the vast majority of the limelight

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, wev said:

 

 

Are actresses allowed to be nominated for "Best Actor" in any awards or are they only allowed within their own gender specific category? I'm of the opinion that there should be "Best Actor", "Best Male Actor" and "Best Actress" as at the moment the Best Actor catergory feels like it gets the vast majority of the limelight

 

The Emmy's say that they do not police it and that male and female actresses can, in theory, be nominated for any of the gendered categories. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39513543

 

Quote

The Emmys explained that "anyone can submit under either category for any reason. The Academy supports anyone's choice to do that, and the Academy is not going to do any sort of check", Dillon told Variety.

 

Which makes having the segregated categories even stranger if they are not enforced in any way. 

 

If we're worried about representation then you could just have quotas as part of each category, minimum of 50% of the nominations must be female for example.  So, for instance,  if you have 10 nomination spots and at first count 8 of those nominated were men then you just apply the quota and exclude the the lowest voted for men.  In that scenario, the top 5 men go through, the remaining 2 women go through of the initial top ten list and then the next three most highly ranked women then also go to the list. 

 

When you think about it, it really doesn't make sense for gendered acting awards.  You don't have best male director and best female director for instance, even though this is a category even more than best female actor that you could argue needs more representation. You would never expect a writing award to be divided into men or women. 

 

How do things like the Oscars draw up their short lists anyway?  I know the academy voters pick the winner out of the nominations but who chooses the nominations in the first place? 

 

Edit: I answered my own question - http://collider.com/how-are-oscar-nominees-chosen/#images.   Quite interesting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, McCoy said:

If we're worried about representation then you could just have quotas as part of each category, minimum of 50% of the nominations must be female for example.

 

This sadly doesn't always go down well in modern America. You'd just get nutcase Redpillers and  MRA types insisting that it's only quotas getting women in the noms at all.

 

At least this way avoids feeding that vocal minority for a little longer.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind the categories being split as it gives the chance for more performances to be highlighted. As long as one's not given more importance than the other (which it doesn't feel like they are). I think I'm right in saying that the Oscars alternate each year which one is given last.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Bazjam said:

I don't mind the categories being split as it gives the chance for more performances to be highlighted. As long as one's not given more importance than the other (which it doesn't feel like they are). I think I'm right in saying that the Oscars alternate each year which one is given last.

 

Yes, but that reasoning really doesn't make any sense.  You wouldn't be OK if black actors had their own category, even if it meant that more performances were highlighted. 

 

If you want more performances to be highlighted then it makes more sense to split the acting into categories like drama and comedy which is a much more sensible split if you want to have additional splits. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's just heritage at this point. The black actor point is a fine academic one, but doesn't take history and cultural reality into account.

 

I'm sure it will change as you describe, but if no people in a position of disadvantage are calling for it yet it can join the pile with everything else that needs fixing too.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, schmojo said:

I think it's just heritage at this point. The black actor point is a fine academic one, but doesn't take history and cultural reality into account.

 

I'm sure it will change as you describe, but if no people in a position of disadvantage are calling for it yet it can join the pile with everything else that needs fixing too.

 

 

So things should only change if/when the people it may effect choose to be publicly vocal about it?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, grounded_dreams said:

Chris Hardwick accused by an ex-girlfriend of sexual and emotional abuse.

Here is her blog post, not an easy read, but important to be read IMO.

 

Personally, I couldn't watch anything he was involved with, like the Talking Dead show and his ComicCon hosting, just has a weirdness about him.

 



This story, post, whatever this is, serves as both closure for me as I say farewell to my twenties and stumble my way into my thirties, and it serves as a warning for every single one of you, regardless of gender. One of my favorite quotes comes from Bojack Horseman:

“You know, it’s funny; when you look at someone through rose-colored glasses, all the red flags just look like flags.”

Please, please, keep an eye out for those red flags.

 

This is gathering steam and these two statements add credance.

 

https://nerdist.com/an-official-statement-from-nerdist/

 



We were shocked to read the news this morning. Nerdist prides itself on being an inclusive company made up of a positive, diverse community of people who come together to share, celebrate, and discuss the things we love. That type of behavior is contrary to everything we stand for and believe in, and we absolutely don’t tolerate discrimination, harassment, and other forms of abuse.

There are many ways you can help a friend or loved one who has been affected by abuse. There are resources and support available:

National Sexual Assault Hotline: 1-800-656-HOPE (Free and confidential. 24/7.)
Crisis Text Hotline: Text HOME to 741741 for free, 24/7 crisis support in the US.

RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) offers a National Sexual Assault Online Hotline to chat one-on-one with a trained RAINN support specialist, any time 24/7: online.rainn.org.
National Suicide Prevention Hotline: call 1-800-273-8255, 24/7.

If you are outside the U.S., an inventory of international domestic violence and abuse agencies is available on the Rape Crisis Network Europe: https://www.rcne.com/links/sources-of-help-for-survivors/

Our parent company, Legendary issued this statement:
“Chris Hardwick had no operational involvement with Nerdist for the two years preceding the expiration of his contract in December 2017. He no longer has any affiliation with Legendary Digital Networks. The company has removed all reference to Mr. Hardwick even as the original Founder of Nerdist pending further investigation.”

 

Also

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, McCoy said:

Yes, but that reasoning really doesn't make any sense.  You wouldn't be OK if black actors had their own category, even if it meant that more performances were highlighted. 

 

If you want more performances to be highlighted then it makes more sense to split the acting into categories like drama and comedy which is a much more sensible split if you want to have additional splits. 

I would be OK with that, and in fact I am. I think it is good to highlight under-represented and undervalued groups. The MOBO music awards highlight black music and there are similar Black Movie Awards and black film festivals. There are also gay awards (GLAAD and LGBT UK). I see it much like the proliferation of women in business awards, that aim to highlight all the women involved in business leadership and traditionally male industries. I think all these minority categories shouldn't be necessary, but they very much are at the moment, in terms of showing the groups that don't traditionally fit into the spotlight that is hogged by straight white men.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, geekette said:

I would be OK with that, and in fact I am. I think it is good to highlight under-represented and undervalued groups. The MOBO music awards highlight black music and there are similar Black Movie Awards and black film festivals. There are also gay awards (GLAAD and LGBT UK). I see it much like the proliferation of women in business awards, that aim to highlight all the women involved in business leadership and traditionally male industries. I think all these minority categories shouldn't be necessary, but they very much are at the moment, in terms of showing the groups that don't traditionally fit into the spotlight that is hogged by straight white men.

 

Geekette's Oscars 2019:

Best Male Actor 

Best Female Actor 

Best Black Actor

Best Gay Actor 

Best Bisexual Actor 

Best Transsexual Actor 

 

Yeah, not sure I consider that progress to be fair. Just have one award category and have designated quotas for specific groups if you want to ensure it is representative. I'm not sure it's progress to create more barriers between people. In sport you can make the argument its necessary, not for acting though. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, McCoy said:

Geekette's Oscars 2019:

Best Male Actor 

Best Female Actor 

Best Black Actor

Best Gay Actor 

Best Bisexual Actor 

Best Transsexual Actor 

 

Yeah, not sure I consider that progress to be fair. Just have one award category and have designated quotas for specific groups if you want to ensure it is representative. I'm not sure it's progress to create more barriers between people. In sport you can make the argument its necessary, not for acting though. 

I haven't suggested that whatsoever, but thanks for misrepresenting me.

 

Your alternative will likely have men ranked 1-5 in every category, and women told by social media trolls that they were only in 6-10 for the quota, and no black or gay people at all. Having Oscars for best man and best woman actor allows women's acting to be seen. When there is true equality we won't need a quota, and almost every film would pass not just the Beschdel test, but across all films there would be equal screen time, lines and pay for female actors. The reality is that women get 75% less screen time, and 84% less lines, even though things are significantly better than they were a few years ago. If BME actors are under-represented it is right they have award events to promote their visibility.

 

And you are also doing what I criticised Anne Summers for, and trying to give solutions to other people's problems from a position of privilege, assuming you have a better insight into the situation than people who have lived experience. It isn't a good thing to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so people lucky enough to be in a position of privilege and, quite possibly, in a position to effect change, shouldn't try to provide solutions to other people's problems? Because reasons. I don't assume I have any type of better insight, hence why I asked the question about why the male/female segregation exists to begin with. I was genuinely curious. This would be a very boring 'discussion' forum if we all stuck to your prescribed limits of what we're allowed to talk about and express views on. I think we should be allowed to have informal exchanges of views without worrying about if we're about to break one of your unspoken rules. 

 

So far you seem to be in a minority of one in thinking the Oscars should introduce a category for black actors. Since I've never heard a black actor state that they think awards should be segregated by race I think you might be guilty of what you're accusing other people of: trying to give solutions to other people's problems. 

 

As for you claiming I'm misrepresenting your view, you made a point of saying you would be OK for an award for best black actor. I was simply pointing out the possible conclusion of a thought process that argued the merits of segregating people into specific categories. The same arguments for having an award for black actors could be made more many minorities. Where do you draw the line?

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, McCoy said:

So far you seem to be in a minority of one in thinking the Oscars should introduce a category for black actors. Since I've never heard a black actor state that they think awards should be segregated by race I think you might be guilty of what you're accusing other people of: trying to give solutions to other people's problems. 

I haven't said this. You keep saying I have. But I haven't.

 

34 minutes ago, McCoy said:

Right, so people lucky enough to be in a position of privilege and, quite possibly, in a position to effect change, shouldn't try to provide solutions to other people's problems? Because reasons. I don't assume I have any type of better insight, hence why I asked the question about why the male/female segregation exists to begin with. I was genuinely curious. This would be a very boring 'discussion' forum if we all stuck to your prescribed limits of what we're allowed to talk about and express views on. I think we should be allowed to have informal exchanges of views without worrying about if we're about to break one of your unspoken rules.

Oh you poor hard done by man, being oppressed by my prescribed limits and unspoken rules that dominate the forum, and to add insult to injury me not being impressed by your problem solving on behalf of other groups whose issues you don't understand. Look at you claiming victim status, and suggesting I have stolen your power and used to oppress - fantastic table flip, JBP would be impressed. I didn't say you couldn't discuss it, I just think we all need to defer to the insights of people with lived experiences, as we can easily miss really important variables because they are not in our frame of reference.

 

35 minutes ago, McCoy said:

As for you claiming I'm misrepresenting your view, you made a point of saying you would be OK for an award for best black actor. I was simply pointing out the possible conclusion of a thought process that argued the merits of segregating people into specific categories. The same arguments for having an award for black actors could be made more many minorities. Where do you draw the line?

No, I said that awards for minority groups serve a useful purpose. I did not say there should be black oscars, no matter how many times you repeat this. I referred to several external award systems to highlight examples within minority groups (which is one way of doing things, strong critical commentaries about omissions and under-representations are another, lobbying is another, actors in majority groups highlighting omitted peers when receiving awards is another, etc etc). And you didn't therefore follow this to a "logical conclusion" (by contrast, presumably, to my poor female emotional conclusion). I think all under-represented minority groups deserve opportunities to highlight their work and become role models for wider populations to aspire to, rather than people growing up like Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie as a black African who thought all book characters had to be white, because that was all she had been exposed to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, McCoy said:

Right, so people lucky enough to be in a position of privilege and, quite possibly, in a position to effect change, shouldn't try to provide solutions to other people's problems? Because reasons.  

 

I don't think you understand any of the progress the world is making, and are turning into a weird academic exercise.

 

There is zero goodwill, and even less empathy, in your approach.

 

Not to mention wild naivety of you think the Oscars (and film industry) will willingly cut so much of their content, and platform to promote more people.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why you should never post whilst slightly drunk! Fair play to all, and specifically Geekette, I do see I was making an issue out of something which isn't really an issue and can now better see the valid points you were making. 

 

I do think it is strange, on the principle that acting itself should not lend itself to  an innate advantage to men or women (unlike sports for instance), of splitting acting awards into gendered categories but can see that the problem it is solving is more important than my purely acedemic principle, particularly whilst we're still in an era of under representation of women on screen. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, McCoy said:

This is why you should never post whilst slightly drunk! Fair play to all, and specifically Geekette, I do see I was making an issue out of something which isn't really an issue and can now better see the valid points you were making. 

 

I do think it is strange, on the principle that acting itself should not lend itself to  an innate advantage to men or women (unlike sports for instance), of splitting acting awards into gendered categories but can see that the problem it is solving is more important than my purely acedemic principle, particularly whilst we're still in an era of under representation of women on screen. 

Thanks. I thought it was out of character for you to merit my sarcasm. But I still don’t think you quite get it. There are numerous places where women *should* be on an equal footing to men (lets pick senior management in large companies as an example, or video game design, or academic tenure) but the reality is that through structural inequality they aren’t. Men in power are selecting to their own template and there are fewer applicants as there is a perception by women this isn’t for me and few role models. That’s why feminism is still needed even though the perception is the battle has already been won and women should stop moaning. It is strange. It is obvious. But we are all habituated to it so we don’t see it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.