Joss Whedeon, getting more canceled by the day

[Lord Varys]

Complaining about twitter or other online stuff in this context is just silly.

Nobody faces problems because people say stuff online - they face problems if the people in the industry find it more convenient to do something about the mentioned things than ignoring it.

And for the most time those things just are ignored.

And to be perfectly clear - you are all free to found big companies and produce films and stuff and hire offenders and other problematic people. That's not forbidden by law. The problem it may not be done is because people do not want celebrities to be assholes - and if they are, they are no longer popular.

It is part of being a celebrity that you are held to different standards. But you don't have to be a public person. You can pursue other careers. Nobody forces you to make a lot of money that way. But if you do, you cannot complain.

And people who complain on behalf of rich assholes who definitely don't need the help of internet folks 'to defend themselves' should really double-check their priorities.

[Heartofice]

59 minutes ago, DMC said:

I almost mentioned Shelley Duvall and Kubrick/Shining at the beginning of this thread but thought it was an extreme example.  With the Trachtenberg statement perhaps it wasn't extreme enough.  Anyway, point is Stanley Kubrick did not need to do what he did to Duvall to be one of the greatest directors ever.  This excusing or even glorification of "genius" being somehow linked to acting like an asshole or even a horrible monster needs to finally end.

My point is that if you are talking about directors being monstrous to actors, then using Kubricks treatment of Duvall as an example is complicated by the fact that it was his treatment of her that directly influenced her performance on screen, producing the effect that Kubrick wanted. 

You could say he didn't need to do that to be a great director, but would Duvall has given anywhere close to the same level of intensity had Kubrick not being such a monster to her? Probably not. 

That isn't glorification of his behaviour, it just makes that example a bit more complex.

[Liffguard]

10 hours ago, karaddin said:

Bolded - all else aside its always bothered me that he chose to make his plucky underdogs brown coats. Of all the colours of the spectrum why would you pick the one that results in a phrase very easily confused with nazis in 1920s/30s Germany.

Not to mention the extremely unsubtle parallels to the confederacy. Or rather, to the various myths that too many people still believe about the confederacy e.g. The Lost Cause, war of Northern aggression etc.

[Week]

Wow. Men really are the victims now that we've constructed these narratives - "Joss Whedon was maybe an incel in high school!", "She was probably drunk when she posted it", and "trial by twitter is so unfair!".

It's pretty unfair to be sexually, verbally, and professionally abused - have people know about it for years and have your abuser have great success. Once again, the MRA-think comes out of the woodwork and again cannot name a single instance of one of these 'trial by twitter' to be either unfairly impacting a career or solely one single person with an accusation in 140 characters. 

See the forest from the tree folks. It ain't a good look.

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, Week said:

Wow. Men really are the victims now that we've constructed these narratives - "Joss Whedon was maybe an incel in high school!", "She was probably drunk when she posted it", and "trial by twitter is so unfair!".

It's pretty unfair to be sexually, verbally, and professionally abused - have people know about it for years and have your abuser have great success. Once again, the MRA-think comes out of the woodwork and again cannot name a single instance of one of these 'trial by twitter' to be either unfairly impacting a career or solely one single person with an accusation in 140 characters. 

See the forest from the tree folks. It ain't a good look.

Wow. Again.

[BigFatCoward]

8 minutes ago, Week said:

Wow. Men really are the victims now that we've constructed these narratives - "Joss Whedon was maybe an incel in high school!", "She was probably drunk when she posted it", and "trial by twitter is so unfair!".

 

That's totally what was said and you haven't twisted it for your own ends at all.  

[sifth]

10 minutes ago, Week said:

Wow. Men really are the victims now that we've constructed these narratives - "Joss Whedon was maybe an incel in high school!", "She was probably drunk when she posted it", and "trial by twitter is so unfair!".

It's pretty unfair to be sexually, verbally, and professionally abused - have people know about it for years and have your abuser have great success. Once again, the MRA-think comes out of the woodwork and again cannot name a single instance of one of these 'trial by twitter' to be either unfairly impacting a career or solely one single person with an accusation in 140 characters. 

See the forest from the tree folks. It ain't a good look.

Actually a few of these "trial by twitters" (such a stupid name) have been fake. Are you aware of what happened to Chris Hardwick?

[IlyaP]

17 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

My point is that if you are talking about directors being monstrous to actors, then using Kubricks treatment of Duvall as an example is complicated by the fact that it was his treatment of her that directly influenced her performance on screen, producing the effect that Kubrick wanted. 

Or, in the words of Laurence Olivier, he could have just asked her to act. Abusing staff to get the best out of them is gross. I wouldn't want that done to me, nor to anyone else.

[Heartofice]

Just now, IlyaP said:

Or, in the words of Laurence Olivier, he could have just asked her to act. Abusing staff to get the best out of them is gross. I wouldn't want that done to me, nor to anyone else.

Do you believe Duvall could have given that performance ordinarily?

[IlyaP]

Just now, Heartofice said:

Do you believe Duvall could have given that performance ordinarily?

I'm not Duvall circa 41 years ago, so that's not a question I could or can answer.  

[Mindwalker]

10 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

Or, in the words of Laurence Olivier, he could have just asked her to act. Abusing staff to get the best out of them is gross. I wouldn't want that done to me, nor to anyone else.

Or, you know, you could just hire an actress who can give you the performance you need.

But ok, the Muse forced him to act that way, greater cause... I get it. The things they do for Art!

[DaveSumm]

A slightly cleaner cut example would be Spielberg not telling the first victim of the shark in Jaws that he had told the diver to pull her under. He did a few takes and it didn’t come off as convincing so he lied. Less abusive, more directly obvious that the performance was affected, not sure where we draw the line.

[IlyaP]

Just now, Heartofice said:

If you are going to avoid answering questions then I'll do what I want.

You're seeking an answer I am unable to provide, in part because (i) I've not seen the movie and I have no desire to do so as I don't watch horror movies; (ii) I can't answer a question about someone else's circumstances because I am not them and not able to address or discuss their level of potential because I'm not them. And (iii) I don't engage in discourses that beg the question, as you're doing at the moment. 

So I'm sorry, you're not going to get an answer out of me, because I literally cannot answer it. Nor would any answer be sufficient, I suspect, except the one you're seeking. Thus my third point. 

[IlyaP]

3 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Less abusive, more directly obvious that the performance was affected, not sure where we draw the line.

At least in this case the actress would not be as surprised? And it wasn't a sustained level of torture, a la Duvall in The Shining. Do we know the name of the actress and have any interviews where she's talked about it post-Jaws?

[IlyaP]

8 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Or, you know, you could just hire an actress who can give you the performance you need.

Better this than psychologically and socially tormenting a human. 

[DMC]

26 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

My point is that if you are talking about directors being monstrous to actors, then using Kubricks treatment of Duvall as an example is complicated by the fact that it was his treatment of her that directly influenced her performance on screen, producing the effect that Kubrick wanted. 

You could say he didn't need to do that to be a great director, but would Duvall has given anywhere close to the same level of intensity had Kubrick not being such a monster to her? Probably not. 

That isn't glorification of his behaviour, it just makes that example a bit more complex.

First of all, to be clear, terrorizing and emotionally abusing a performer to the point that their hair falls out is never, ever justified.  You may not be glorifying such behavior, but this post is a perfect example of at least excusing it in the interest of Kubrick's "genius."

Second, and much more importantly, this is insanely offensive and dismissive to Shelley Duvall.  Robert Altman - a pretty great and avant-garde director in his own right - was able to get plenty of great performances out of Duvall without isolating and psychologically torturing her. 

So, to sum up - yes, Kubrick could have gotten that performance out of Duvall without being monstrous; and no, the example is not "a bit more complex."

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

You're seeking an answer I am unable to provide, in part because (i) I've not seen the movie and I have no desire to do so as I don't watch horror movies; (ii) I can't answer a question about someone else's circumstances because I am not them and not able to address or discuss their level of potential because I'm not them. And (iii) I don't engage in discourses that beg the question, as you're doing at the moment. 

So I'm sorry, you're not going to get an answer out of me, because I literally cannot answer it. Nor would any answer be sufficient, I suspect, except the one you're seeking. Thus my third point. 

...You haven't even seen the Shining?!

 

9 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Or, you know, you could just hire an actress who can give you the performance you need.

But ok, the Muse forced him to act that way, greater cause... I get it. The things they do for Art!

Yeah maybe, though you have to say that Duvall is one of the reasons the movie works, she gives a very unusual performance that is in some ways stilted and robotic and then flips into manic terror. It's really powerful, and it works. She also has a very unusual look which added to that movie. A bit like Sissy Spacek in Carrie.

[DaveSumm]

1 minute ago, IlyaP said:

At least in this case the actress would not be as surprised? And it wasn't a sustained level of torture, a la Duvall in The Shining. Do we know the name of the actress and have any interviews where she's talked about it post-Jaws?

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/whatever-happened-to-jaws-first-victim-132653371.html
 

No quotes on how she feels, but she still trades on the fame of it so I assume she’s good. But it’s a hard one to know what’s justified; in this case, if she’s OK and they shot one of the most iconic scenes in cinema, it seems justified. But it’s a slippery slope.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

First of all, to be clear, terrorizing and emotionally abusing a performer to the point that their hair falls out is never, ever justified.  You may not be glorifying such behavior, but this post is a perfect example of at least excusing it in the interest of Kubrick's "genius."

Second, and much more importantly, this is insanely offensive and dismissive to Shelley Duvall.  Robert Altman - a pretty great and avant-garde director in his own right - was able to get plenty of great performances out of Duvall without isolating and psychologically torturing her. 

So, to sum up - yes, Kubrick could have gotten that performance out of Duvall without being monstrous; and no, the example is not "a bit more complex."

We'll just have to disagree. I've seen Duvall in other movies, Altman movies, Annie Hall.. and she isn't a world class actress. She does what she does and it can be effective. I don't see her doing what she did in the Shining without Kubrick's intervention.

The question is whether the trade off is worth it, probably most people would say no. But that is a reason why this is a more complex example, without the abuse the movie would be different, probably wouldn't work as well. 

[IlyaP]

5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

...You haven't even seen the Shining?!

I can't do horror movies.