Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:07 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 110 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art" 
Author Message
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
Quote:
More on topic, what exactly is Gibson meant to have said? Was he putting down the Israeli peoples or making remarks about Judaism as a religion? Because the latter happens all the time, coming from and aimed at virtually all forms of religious dogma. Is it right to claim that some are more relevant and acceptable than others?


What he said was: "Fucking Jews... the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world."


Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:30 pm
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:45 am
Posts: 72
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
I don't understand how Celebrity A is castigated while Celebrity B is praised, especially when Celebrity B's transgressions are worse than Celebrity A's. I'm thinking of two specific examples.

In 1999, Elia Kazan received a Lifetime Achievement Academy Award. He was met with some applause but a significant number of his colleagues sat silent. In 2003 Roman Polanski received a standing ovation for winning an Oscar for THE PIANIST. Kazan named names. Polanski committed statutory rape.

Mel Gibson was slated to have a cameo in THE HANGOVER PART II. This plan was nixed due to objection from some cast and crew (most notably Zach Galifianikis). But none of them objected to working with Mike Tyson in THE HANGOVER. Gibson spewed forth vitriolic rants, but in the end they are still just words. Mike Tyson was convicted and served time for rape.

Why such hypocrisy and inconsistency?


Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:42 pm
Profile
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
iamed77 wrote:
I don't understand how Celebrity A is castigated while Celebrity B is praised, especially when Celebrity B's transgressions are worse than Celebrity A's. I'm thinking of two specific examples.

In 1999, Elia Kazan received a Lifetime Achievement Academy Award. He was met with some applause but a significant number of his colleagues sat silent. In 2003 Roman Polanski received a standing ovation for winning an Oscar for THE PIANIST. Kazan named names. Polanski committed statutory rape.

Mel Gibson was slated to have a cameo in THE HANGOVER PART II. This plan was nixed due to objection from some cast and crew (most notably Zach Galifianikis). But none of them objected to working with Mike Tyson in THE HANGOVER. Gibson spewed forth vitriolic rants, but in the end they are still just words. Mike Tyson was convicted and served time for rape.

Why such hypocrisy and inconsistency?
I guess the difference was Tyson's crimes were committed a long time ago, so they had less objections to working with him, whereas Gibson's crimes were still fresh on everyone's mind, so I don't blame them for not wanting anything to do with Gibson, not that i'd want to meet Tyson either.


Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:15 pm
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7383
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
iamed77 wrote:
I don't understand how Celebrity A is castigated while Celebrity B is praised, especially when Celebrity B's transgressions are worse than Celebrity A's. I'm thinking of two specific examples.

In 1999, Elia Kazan received a Lifetime Achievement Academy Award. He was met with some applause but a significant number of his colleagues sat silent. In 2003 Roman Polanski received a standing ovation for winning an Oscar for THE PIANIST. Kazan named names. Polanski committed statutory rape.

Mel Gibson was slated to have a cameo in THE HANGOVER PART II. This plan was nixed due to objection from some cast and crew (most notably Zach Galifianikis). But none of them objected to working with Mike Tyson in THE HANGOVER. Gibson spewed forth vitriolic rants, but in the end they are still just words. Mike Tyson was convicted and served time for rape.

Why such hypocrisy and inconsistency?


Well said. It might be, in all honesty, because there are more people who count in Hollywood who are Jewish than who are female.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:31 pm
Profile
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
Also it wasn't Gibson's anti-semitic rants the case were concerned about, it was his threatening messages to his girlfriend Oksana which made people uncomfortable, it's strongly implied that he physically assaulted her and his child, so I don't see how it's at all unreasonable for the cast not to want to work with him.


Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:36 pm
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
I guess I don't have much to add, except that I concur with the people saying that I don't have an issue with the work itself, but I do dislike the idea of financially supporting people who influence the world in ways that I find objectionable.

The work is the work. It seems silly to me to proclaim a movie (or anything else, really) to be retroactively "tainted" by the actions of the people responsible for creating it. Maybe if Mel Gibson were to make a movie that accused Jewish people of torturing and murdering someone held to be the messiah by over 2 billion people...


Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:45 pm
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:45 am
Posts: 72
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
Vexer wrote:
Also it wasn't Gibson's anti-semitic rants the case were concerned about, it was his threatening messages to his girlfriend Oksana which made people uncomfortable, it's strongly implied that he physically assaulted her and his child, so I don't see how it's at all unreasonable for the cast not to want to work with him.


That's a fair point. But Gibson's assault was/is implied (but not proven) while Tyson was convicted in a court of law for actual rape.


Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:54 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:45 am
Posts: 72
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
Vexer wrote:
I guess the difference was Tyson's crimes were committed a long time ago, so they had less objections to working with him, whereas Gibson's crimes were still fresh on everyone's mind, so I don't blame them for not wanting anything to do with Gibson, not that i'd want to meet Tyson either.


I completely support the cast and crew's decision not to work with Gibson. It just leaves me scratching my head since they raised no objections to Tyson. I'm sure Tyson's crime feels fresh on the mind of the woman he raped.


Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:59 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1477
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
Quote:
Fucking Jews... the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world


all said while being arrested for a DUI. its not like he said it in an interview with E!

Quote:
Well said. It might be, in all honesty, because there are more people who count in Hollywood who are Jewish than who are female


and that's a bingo. let's be real here people, no one really cares that Mel screamed at his gold-digging girlfriend(look her up, she's a pro, a kid with Timothy Dalton as well? hmm...) in a supposedly private conversation, this was all about the Jewish stuff. He's been hated by a large portion of Hollywood since The Passion & that portion was just waiting for something they could bury him with.

While what Polanski did didn't cause anyone to bat an eye(the details are pretty disturbing, even if age wasn't a factor, it was not consensual) look how he's made so many films since then, with major stars etc.


Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:22 pm
Profile
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
Okay, people have been punished less for saying far, far worse than that =/

The obvious answer is a popularity contest. The world has forgotten Tyson, not just for that but for being a bad sport and a prick. There was clearly no backlash in the press due to his involvement in the movie/their involvement with him but there would be torrents of shite hitting all the fans if it had been Gibson instead.

As I said, look at how the media works and then look at 'general opinion'. JB mentioned the 'court of public opinion', which the media pretty much helps to maintain on a daily basis.


Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:06 pm
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
thered47 wrote:
Dragonbeard wrote:
I can very much see and agree with JB on this one. However I must ask, who would buy a painting by Adolf Hitler?


Ah google! This is what I came up with.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-23/worl ... s=PM:WORLD

http://www.usmbooks.com/hitler_paintings.html

http://snyderstreasures.com/pages/real_deal.htm

In any case, there is apparently a market.
-Jeremy


Fair enough, and not entirely surprising.

A huge and frequently forgotten aspect of art is the 'historical, social and contextual' background. As we're currently discussing, art gains the currency of controversy if it's creator has touched children/murdered Sharon Tate. Funny how nothing else matters, despite how such an aspect of art can make all the difference to how it's viewed (that is to say, only the negative seems to matter).


Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:12 pm
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 5:49 pm
Posts: 229
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
I think a critic such as JB has to have a different standard on this issue than the rest of us. If he's going to review movies, IMO he has to review them on their own merits or failings, not on the moral or legal failings of their stars, directors, screenwriters, etc. If another Naked Gun movie were ever made (granted, I can't see it happening without Leslie Nielson, but that's not the point), and OJ Simpson returned as Nordberg, a critic shouldn't let his opinion of OJ influence his opinion of the movie, because the critic owes it to his readers to give them his honest opinion of the film itself. If the film is good, the critic should say so, and then those of his readers who don't want to see anything with OJ can decide for themselves not to see it.


Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:10 am
Profile
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
dps wrote:
I think a critic such as JB has to have a different standard on this issue than the rest of us. If he's going to review movies, IMO he has to review them on their own merits or failings, not on the moral or legal failings of their stars, directors, screenwriters, etc. If another Naked Gun movie were ever made (granted, I can't see it happening without Leslie Nielson, but that's not the point), and OJ Simpson returned as Nordberg, a critic shouldn't let his opinion of OJ influence his opinion of the movie, because the critic owes it to his readers to give them his honest opinion of the film itself. If the film is good, the critic should say so, and then those of his readers who don't want to see anything with OJ can decide for themselves not to see it.


Somehow I can't see many 'critics' out there having a sufficient level of objectivity to not let such a massive 'elephant in the room' affect their opinion. People like JB, who have a couple decades experience, would probably be the bigger man about it but what about the 'court of public opinion'? Now every little shit who got a 'puter for Christmas is suddenly a critic with chips about Cruise, Gibson et al.

Not saying their view isn't valid (it isn't though! :P) but when enough people have misinformed opinions (cough3Dcough), such movies don't stand a chance. Sad really!


Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:07 am
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1558
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
Part of the problem is this: We tend to see artists as superhuman when in reality they're all human beings and just as flawed as anyone else. They just managed to get to the level they did because of being extroadinarily talented (although nowadays one doesn't have to be talented to be famous. Just look at Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian).

When Edge Of Darkness came out I remarked on going to see it and finding it average. My stepmother responded: "I don't know how you could stand to see that. I refuse to see anything else Mel Gibson has ever done. Not gonna put another cent in that asshole's pocket". I remarked that while Mel Gibson may be a truly despicable human being, if he makes a movie that looks interesting I will still see it. I might Netlfix it or go to the dollar theater. But I'll still see it. Roman Polanski is also a fairly deplorable human being. But he's also a talented director and if he makes a movie that looks good I will see it.

Moving out of the realm of film, let's examine another famous individual who was accused albeit never convicted: Michael Jackson. Although Jackson was never found guilty in a court of law, the court of public opinion was ready to take him out and shoot him the minute the accusations were first uttered. And the minute that happened, it became almost criminal to be a fan of Michael Jackson. With his death, the court of public opinion softened somewhat, yet there's still a segment of the public that feels he should have been crucified.

If Jackson had been convicted in criminal court I would have been sickened and saddened. But I would not have thrown my copies of Off The Wall, Thriller and The Essential Michael Jackson into a bonfire.

I separate the art form the artist. No I do not think very highly of Mel Gibson as a person. But that doesn't mean my opinion of Braveheart or the Lethal Weapon movies has changed. However, if Gibson wrote and directed a film that portrayed Adolf Hitler as a hero, I would not patronize it at all. I love Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby. But if Polanski made a film that argued that rape victims got what they deserved, I would not spend a penny to see it. Art from artist.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:34 am
Profile
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
calvero wrote:
Quote:
Well said. It might be, in all honesty, because there are more people who count in Hollywood who are Jewish than who are female


and that's a bingo. let's be real here people, no one really cares that Mel screamed at his gold-digging girlfriend(look her up, she's a pro, a kid with Timothy Dalton as well? hmm...) in a supposedly private conversation, this was all about the Jewish stuff. He's been hated by a large portion of Hollywood since The Passion & that portion was just waiting for something they could bury him with.

While what Polanski did didn't cause anyone to bat an eye(the details are pretty disturbing, even if age wasn't a factor, it was not consensual) look how he's made so many films since then, with major stars etc.


Agreed with this. If we go through and take things on a case-by-case basis, we're likely to find hypocrisy in these sorts of situations a little too frequently than we'd like to admit. Most people want to see justice served, but the reality is, humans are imperfect. They have agendas outside of justice being served for the sake of justice being served.

Gibson gets crushed for saying things about Jews because those in power (mostly Jews in HOllywood) already don't like him and want to see him knocked down a peg or twelve. Polanski gets what amounts to a free pass for, well, whatever you want to classify what he did as. And so it goes.


Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:56 pm
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 404
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
The question I have is how do you define a monster and how big do your crimes have to be to be classified one.The ideal person that would fit the title of the article would be Richard Wagner.Here is someone that wrote amazing music but was a consistently horrible individual and raving anti Semitic who wrote essays on the issues.The question has always been can you seperate the man from the music.In Isreal it is no because his music is banned from being performed as he was Adolf Hitler's favorite composer.Yet his music festival in Bayreuth is consistently sold out every year with long waiting lists so a lot of people can either the divorce or ignore the facts of Wagner's life and beliefs to listen to his amazing music.

Hollywood economics seems to work on two levels.The audience has to like you and want to come see your work and the power structure in the industry has to want and approve of you to get projects done.Tom Cruise is not a monster for having beliefs that are strange and out of sync with the mainstream and while not believing in psychiatry is odd but no odder than certian denominations that don't believe in transfusions and rely on faith healing.Tom Cruise importantly has not lost his employers faith and goodwill with his eccentric beliefs and with MI4's success it seems he can bring the audience back also.

With Gibson he is a obnoxious jerk to be sure but he doesn't have the ton of apologists like convicted rapists Mike Tyson and Roman Polanski do inside his industry.My favorite quote about Polanski was from Whoopi Goldberg who wrote Polanski's crime wasn't really rape rape.Okay.Mike Tyson's best quote was "I didn't rape that woman but I should have" His fellow actors in Hangover must have joked about that with him during set breaks.The difference here is mostly office politics.Gibson is a big conservative who made a blockbuster conservative religious movie that ruffled a lot of feathers with the liberal Hollywood establishment and film critics with it's success.They were more or less waiting for the smoking gun to throw him under the bus.While Polanski and Tyson have the right left wing street cred for the film community and they get a pass.Though Gibson has acknowleged his crime and done far more community service than ordered by the judge while Polanski still hides in France and fought his lawful extradiction with help of the French govt.Handy when bad men have friend in high places.

In the end the question JB is asking is do we photoshop culture like Stalin removing Trotsky from all pictures and books so he doesn't exist.Maybe. Then again after 50 years like Errol Flynn no one will remember or care about what happened back then and will just watch his movies for the art.I think the same fate will await Gibson,Allen and Cruise where in the future no one will remember or care but art is forever.


Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:12 pm
Profile
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
I used to be a pretty big wrestling fan. At the time Chris Benoit was considered one the best wrestlers, if not the best, to ever live. He could do no wrong and the joke was that he was basically the second coming of Jesus. A few years later he murdered his wife and son before commiting suicide. I hadn't watched wrestling in a few years but I was curious to see the reactions and went to some of the old boards I used to frequent. It was surreal. There was anger, sure, but the main emotion was basically confusion. How can someone so good at his craft do something like that, and, more to the point, how are we supposed to view him now? Most claimed they wouldn't be able to view his matches ever again. Others tried to say they never cared for him much and he was always overrated. I know the WWE (I typed WWF, which shows how out of the loop I am) has pretty much wiped him off the face of the map. If I still watched wrestling I'm not sure if I'd ever watch any of his matches again. Yes, he was tremendous at his craft. Yes, I loved to watch him perform. However, could I really see him and not think "there's the guy who strangled his family"? And if I couldn't, how could I enjoy anything that he was in?

In perspective, I usually can watch a movie regardless of how I feel personally about the makers. If they're good at what they do then I will be submerged in the movie and forget about real life, quite frankly. I hate that people try to defend Roman Polanski, I think that Woody Allen's situation is at the very least creepy, and I don't think you can blame booze in Gibson's case(s). Still, I watched their movies because I don't see an anti-Semite when I watch Braveheart, I see William Wallace. An artist will always be part of his art, but how much is subjective. If someone feels differently they're not being petty, they're just being honest. I don't hate someone who can watch a Chris Benoit match and enjoy for what it is; I don't think someone who skips over his stuff now to be immature either. Sometimes real life is too strong to be ignored.

Also, on a side note, I think it's ridiculous that Tom Cruise is always lumped into these conversations. I'm not directing this at James, because I know many people hate Cruise and refuse to watch his stuff, but a little perspective would be nice. One guy hates Jews and wants to kill his ex. Another raped a teenage girl. One weirdo went on a talk show and jumped on a couch like a doofus. Someone married his stepdaughter. Which of these isn't like the rest? Tom Cruise probably thinks his opinions matter more than others. If we rounded up all the pretentious actors we'd be left with Adam Sandler. I can't handle too many more Jack and Jills.


Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:23 pm
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
There's actually quite a few people who believe that Chris Benoit did not in fact murder his family, they believe someone else someone else murdered them and staged Chris' death to look like a suicide, there's some interesting facts about the case, i'm not sure what to say about that, but it does sound plausible


Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:37 pm
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
Vexer wrote:
There's actually quite a few people who believe that Chris Benoit did not in fact murder his family, they believe someone else someone else murdered them and staged Chris' death to look like a suicide, there's some interesting facts about the case, i'm not sure what to say about that, but it does sound plausible


Probably from the same people who think that Courtney Love had a hand in the death of Kurt Cobain :roll:


As for the topic at hand, I can separate art from artist. Going on a wildly different direction, a few months ago I had a discussion with a friend of mine about Chris Brown beating Rihanna. She was all like denouncing Chris Brown forever and ever regardless of his output. I was like, that fact that he beat Rihanna shouldn't effect the quality of his music. IT should be the fact that the quality of his music has been utter crap should effect the quality of his music. And so forth, if something's good it shouldn't matter who did it.

Also, I think a willingness to change and atone helps a bit. Tyson has been forgiven for his sins and you know why? He's self-aware of his hellraising days and there's a real desire for him to change. Or at the very least, knows that he screwed up his life. Hence, we've got sympathy for him and hence we put Tyson in the Hangover and kick Gibson to the curb.


Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:07 am
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 5:49 pm
Posts: 229
Post Re: January 11, 2012: "When a Monster Makes Art"
oakenshield32 wrote:
The question I have is how do you define a monster and how big do your crimes have to be to be classified one.The ideal person that would fit the title of the article would be Richard Wagner.Here is someone that wrote amazing music but was a consistently horrible individual and raving anti Semitic who wrote essays on the issues.The question has always been can you seperate the man from the music.In Isreal it is no because his music is banned from being performed as he was Adolf Hitler's favorite composer.Yet his music festival in Bayreuth is consistently sold out every year with long waiting lists so a lot of people can either the divorce or ignore the facts of Wagner's life and beliefs to listen to his amazing music.


I realize that this isn't really the point of your post, but Wagner's works are not banned in Isreal.


Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:17 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 110 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr