IlyaP Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 35 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said: Does that read to anyone else like someone had to consume significant alcohol to have the bravery to share? That's not really germane to what she's expressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 15 minutes ago, IlyaP said: That's not really germane to what she's expressing. I disagree, I think the fact that to me it looks like she has been extremely distressed by the whole situation, which she has probably been worried about for years. And it took her significant courage to post this. So she needed to either have a lot of drink and/or other drugs to build up her courage, makes it more, rather than less believable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlyaP Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 41 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said: I disagree, I think the fact that to me it looks like she has been extremely distressed by the whole situation, which she has probably been worried about for years. And it took her significant courage to post this. So she needed to either have a lot of drink and/or other drugs to build up her courage, makes it more, rather than less believable. So, the issue I take with the argument you've used is that it's something called a "fallacy of an irrelevant conclusion". You've assumed she's drunk, and that can influence the way one responds to her statement and distracts from it. For all we know she could be a bad typist, or could be in a bumpy cab, or who knows what else. The message is what's important, not what state we think (but cannot prove) she's in. Now, I want to high-five you for stating "makes it more, rather than less believable". But, by introducing a premise, you're swaying reader interpretation and distracting from the message. For some people, being drunk is a negative and casts the comments in a negative light. Again, I high-five you thoroughly for being empathetic towards her (empathy = good!), but by suggesting that it's drunkness, rather than any number of other possible and completely reasonable things, it undermines and distracts from the message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlyaP Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 And I don't know what's up with the formatting there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 Just get the sense that Whedon was the bullied unpopular kid at school who never got laid, and once he got famous and got some power he went mad with it, and wanted to ‘own’ everything. This all reminds me of a story I saw the other day about Olivia Wilde ditching Shia LaBeouf from her movie for being a general arsehole. She said she once got some terrible advice that as a director she should try and have 3 arguments a day when starting a movie to establish that she is in charge and doesn’t take any shit. Now whether that is bad advice or in fact good advice I don’t know. But it does show that there is a culture and mentality around what it means to be a director / producer / person in charge in the entertainment industry. Clearly if you have one person that is the centre of everything then that is too much power, and power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely etc. Maybe we are less likely to see some of these things happening in the future as movies and tv shows become more corporate and more about boardroom decisions. The more you have one person being a tyrant with too much control the more likely it is that they abuse that power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlyaP Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 21 minutes ago, Heartofice said: The more you have one person being a tyrant with too much control the more likely it is that they abuse that power. See also: Shelly Duval and Kubrick. He was a raging arsehole to her on the set of The Shining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dog-days Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 Re: trial by Twitter I can't say I like it much either - at the same time, it kind of feels as if no other method is likely to work. I suppose if you're an actor or actress with an appalling/exploitative/bullying/predatory boss, you can confide in close friends. But the tendency of management to close ranks, plus the powerful need of people early in their careers to establish their professional reputation, seems likely to close down most conventional routes to fair treatment and justice. Unionize is one answer - I've no idea what the situation is like over in the States in the entertainment industry. In the UK, some unions are chocolate teapots, and people in careers like acting might still be reluctant to go to their union for help, in case, as usual, the news got round on the grape-vine, and the job offers would stop A couple of years ago I watched a broadcast of Measure for Measure from the RSC, one of my favourite plays. Got to the bit where Isabella threatens to out Angelo, and he just says Quote Who will believe thee, Isabel? And reminds her who has the connections and the good reputation. I felt glad we have things like Twitter at that point. Last week my mother told me about an OFSTED inspector visiting her school back in the nineties. He claimed he'd found money missing in the budget, and leaned over her desk being very threatening and unpleasant, while she had to go through the workings out and show him that, no, it was all correct. She reckoned it would be harder to get away with that kind of behaviour now. I assume she didn't think it was because people in authority have suddenly become nicer and less prone to abusing their power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 3 minutes ago, IlyaP said: See also: Shelly Duval and Kubrick. He was a raging arsehole to her on the set of The Shining. Yeah funnily enough this one occurred to me as well. The problem here is that he got a great performance out of a pretty limited actress and got her to act in a way that worked for the movie he was trying to create. You could almost say his monstrous behaviour was justified given the end product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlyaP Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 Just now, Heartofice said: You could almost say his monstrous behaviour was justified given the end product. No art is worth abusing a human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derfel Cadarn Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 1 hour ago, IlyaP said: And I don't know what's up with the formatting there. Drink or drugs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 26 minutes ago, IlyaP said: No art is worth abusing a human. Depends on the art and level of abuse for me. If Michelangelo had to shout at his assistant 3 or 4 times for the sistine chapel I'm down with that. It's an interesting discussion. How many great bits of art, music, literature were created by fucking monsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 1 hour ago, IlyaP said: Now, I want to high-five you for stating "makes it more, rather than less believable". But, by introducing a premise, you're swaying reader interpretation and distracting from the message. For some people, being drunk is a negative and casts the comments in a negative light. Again, I high-five you thoroughly for being empathetic towards her (empathy = good!), but by suggesting that it's drunkness, rather than any number of other possible and completely reasonable things, it undermines and distracts from the message. Who are these fools. I agree that there may be numerous reasons why her post was so poorly written. But for me, in the circumstances, booze/drugs was most likely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 38 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Yeah funnily enough this one occurred to me as well. The problem here is that he got a great performance out of a pretty limited actress and got her to act in a way that worked for the movie he was trying to create. You could almost say his monstrous behaviour was justified given the end product. Have you seen what's happened to Duvall since? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 50 minutes ago, IlyaP said: See also: Shelly Duval and Kubrick. He was a raging arsehole to her on the set of The Shining. 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. Also, in the meantime, I read this piece on Duvall. Pretty good read, she seems like a fascinating woman. 45 minutes ago, Heartofice said: You could almost say his monstrous behaviour was justified given the end product. No, you could not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raja Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 11 minutes ago, DMC said: This excusing or even glorification of "genius" being somehow linked to acting like an asshole or even a horrible monster needs to finally end. No, you could not. Most decent people already know this, but this thread is a reminder that stuff like this is so easy for many people to brush under the carpet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 1 minute ago, Raja said: Most decent people already know this Yeah that's the other reason I didn't bring it up earlier - thought it was a pretty obvious point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlyaP Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 30 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said: Who are these fools. Honestly, an astonishing number of people. I've met a considerable number of Americans and Canadians in my time who are *very* judgemental about one's drinking preferences. I can't claim to know where you live (I can barely find my socks most days, so please forgive me for not knowing where you live), but in the time I lived in North America, I encountered the sort of behaviour I described a considerable number of times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlyaP Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 35 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said: It's an interesting discussion. How many great bits of art, music, literature were created by fucking monsters. My general attitude on this (and I don't expect agreement, just stating my attitude/position): no good art is worth human abuse. I don't care what art I might have missed out on if it came at the expense of someone's mental/emotional/physical well-being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlyaP Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 37 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said: Drink or drugs? Neither! I was drinking water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 Just now, IlyaP said: in the time I lived in North America, I encountered the sort of behaviour I described a considerable number of times. To be fair it's not all of us. I've never been outside of North America my entire life, and I've been drunk most of that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.