Harvey Weinstein and other Hollywood predators

[Chadruharazzeb]

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.

[Treble]

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.

[Chadruharazzeb]

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 

[wev]

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

[McCoy]

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. 

[schmojo]

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.

[Bazjam]

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.

[McCoy]

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. 

[schmojo]

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.

[grounded_dreams]

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.

[wev]

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?

[Unofficial Who]

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

 

 

[Guest]

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.

[McCoy]

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. 

[Guest]

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.

[McCoy]

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?

 

 

[Guest]

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.

[schmojo]

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.

[McCoy]

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. 

[Guest]

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. 

[Unofficial Who]

Chris Hardwick has responded to allegations...I can't find the source (it might be a media release because it isn't on his twitter page) but quoted from here https://deadline.com/2018/06/chris-hardwick-denies-abuse-allegations-chloe-dyskstra-1202411897/

 

“These are very serious allegations and not to be taken lightly which is why I’ve taken the day to consider how to respond,” said Hardwick in a statement Friday night. “I was heartbroken to read Chloe’s post. Our three year relationship was not perfect—we were ultimately not a good match and argued—even shouted at each other—but I loved her, and did my best to uplift and support her as a partner and companion in any way and at no time did I sexually assault her.”

 

“When we were living together, I found out that Chloe had cheated on me, and I ended the relationship,” Hardwick asserts. “For several weeks after we broke up, she asked to get back together with me and even told me she wanted to have kids with me, ‘build a life’ with me and told me that I was ‘the one,’ but I did not want to be with someone who was unfaithful,” he added in the carefully crafted response. “I’m devastated to read that she is now accusing me of conduct that did not occur. l was blindsided by her post and always wanted the best for her. As a husband, a son, and future father, I do not condone any kind of mistreatment of women.”

 

Classy.

 

In any case conseqences. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/arts/television/chris-hardwick-abuse-allegations.html

 

A television show on AMC hosted by the comedian Chris Hardwick will not air as scheduled, the network said on Saturday, following allegations from an ex-girlfriend, Chloe Dykstra, that he had emotionally and sexually abused her.

In an essay posted on Medium on Thursday, Ms. Dykstra, an actress and model, said she had been in a three-year relationship with a man who repeatedly sexually assaulted her and enforced restrictive rules. She did not name Mr. Hardwick specifically. In a statement on Saturday he said, “I’m devastated to read that she is now accusing me of conduct that did not occur.”

AMC said in a statement that Mr. Hardwick’s show, “Talking With Chris Hardwick,” would not go on the air. The second season of the show had been scheduled to debut on Sunday.

“We have had a positive working relationship with Chris Hardwick for many years,” the network said. “We take the troubling allegations that surfaced yesterday very seriously. While we assess the situation, ‘Talking With Chris Hardwick’ will not air on AMC.”

It did not elaborate on what kind of assessment was underway.

 

Also

 

The statement from AMC said that Mr. Hardwick had decided to step down from moderating panels at Comic-Con International in San Diego next month.

Kaaboo, a music and comedy festival in September in Del Mar, Calif., at which Mr. Hardwick had been scheduled to perform, said in a statement on Friday that it “does not condone, and will not tolerate, any type of abusive behavior or harassment,” and that it had decided to pull him from the lineup.

Nerdist Industries, a digital entertainment company founded by Mr. Hardwick, removed his name from its website, said a spokeswoman for Legendary Entertainment, which now owns the company. She added that Mr. Hardwick “had no operational involvement with Nerdist for the two years preceding the expiration of his contract in December 2017.”

 

...

 

Mr. Hardwick also hosted “The Wall,” an NBC game show whose production was scheduled to resume in September. In light of the abuse allegations, NBC said it was “continuing to assess the situation and will take appropriate action based on the outcome.”

[Chadruharazzeb]

I don't know who either of those people are so don't really know who to believe. 

[SpagMasterSwift]

He’s the annoying guy from the talking dead show that you turn off straight after the walking dead show should you still be watching it.

[Harsin]

I see he's going for the 'bitch be crazy, yo' gambit that the guy from NeoGAF tried.

[Unofficial Who]

5 hours ago, Harsin said:

I see he's going for the 'bitch be crazy, yo' gambit that the guy from NeoGAF tried.

 

As well as "I really tried to uplift her." (What is she, a Krogon?) "Oh and she cheated on me."

 

"As a husband, a son, and future father, I do not condone any kind of mistreatment of women."

 

That feels like a really roundabout way of saying "Hey you, you know these allegations are also going to harm my wife, my parents and possibly my children? Ya might want to think about them first."

 

Just gross.

[Guest]

Ugh. He's trying the table flip (I tried to love and uplift her, but she cheated on me so I ended it, and now she wants revenge for being spurned so don't trust a word she says).

 

I'm inclined to believe her account, as that is my default position for plausible disclosures, and his response doesn't paint him in a good light. However I don't like trials by media, and always try to bear in mind that when it comes to one person's word against another it is hard to reach the objective truth.

 

However, there is a grain of possible truth in it that is quite uncomfortable to express or consider, and that is that some abusive partners who are not overtly violent might not know they are being abusive. There can be a kind of Dunning-Kruger effect that combines with people's experiences and norms to make them blind to it. They might be so egocentric that they haven't really grasped the other person's perspective to understand that the stuff that makes them feel better makes the other person feel worse. They might not be aware if the other person is dissociating during sex, or lying there like a starfish rather than being an active participant, if that is their expectation of women or they view them like a piece of meat or a sex toy. Or they might have normalised really dysfunctional relationships (eg if in their childhood one parent was abusive to the other, or there was reciprocal physical and/or emotional harm). People can experience the same events very differently. Lots can go on in your head, and victims of abuse can learn to play the role expected of them, including providing encouragement or reassurance to their abuser. Changes can also be slow and insidious, and therefore hard to recognise for what they are, let alone to recognise your own part in causing them. Some combinations of people can be toxic, even if one or both individuals could have much healthier relationships with other people, so they can feel that the fault must like with the other party. None of that is an excuse for being abusive. It is just worth noticing that systemic norms and childhood experiences impact on personal relationships, because whilst it is easy to react to individual cases and punish individual perpetrators, the way to prevent future cases also involves making systemic changes* including improving services to deal with parenting and domestic abuse.

 

Of course in this particular case it seems like the abuse was so overt and sustained that it would be impossible for any person to miss. So it is way more likely that he was aware and is simply trying to do some reputation management in an attempt to salvage his career. If she was anxious, threatened, cried during sex and became physically unhealthy and emotionally withdrawn it would be really difficult to not notice that. And even if he was oblivious to the impact of his behaviour he is still responsible for treating her in a shitty way.

 

*which is why people like me think there is still a long way to go when it comes to feminism

[Stevie]

 

 

[The Hierophant]

On 14/06/2018 at 12:45, Don Rosco said:

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.

 

 

 

Oh shit, what’s Miles done wrong?

[Don Rosco]

Wife beater, by his own admission.

 

Quote

I loved Frances so much that for the first time in my life I found myself jealous. I remember I hit her once when she came home and told me some shit about Quincy Jones being handsome. Before I realized what had happened, I had knocked her down… I told her not to ever mention Quincy Jones’ name to me again, and she never did… Every time I hit her, I felt bad because a lot of it really wasn’t her fault but had to do with me being temperamental and jealous. I mean, I never thought I was jealous until I was with Frances. Before, I didn’t care what a woman did; it didn’t matter to me because I was so into my music. Now it did and it was something that was new for me, hard for me to understand.
( Miles: The autobiography, by Miles Davis in collaboration with Quincy Troupe, 1990, p. 228)

 

Quote from here: https://cryingoutforjustice.com/2015/11/23/how-miles-davis-misrepresented-his-assault-of-his-wife-frances-a-case-study-in-the-language-of-abusers/

[Chadruharazzeb]

21 hours ago, Stevie said:

 

 

 

Cool story, bro.