|
Post by Crunchy Col on Jan 4, 2020 20:08:26 GMT
So much of this latest hoo-hah is predictable - from all sides - but I can't help thinking TG has some reason here: Of Weinstein’s alleged victims, he said: “These were ambitious adults … There are many victims in Harvey’s life, and I feel sympathy for them, but then, Hollywood is full of very ambitious people who are adults and they make choices.”www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jan/04/terry-gilliam-metoo-witch-hunt-backlash
|
|
Sneelock
god
there's a difference, you know...
Posts: 8,434
|
Post by Sneelock on Jan 5, 2020 0:22:06 GMT
Weinstein won’t even be “paying his ticket” out of his own pocket and needs not admit any wrongdoing. He is STILL the worst case scenario and aside from making women’s skin crawl wherever he goes I’d say he is getting off pretty damn light.
And yet, his case still motivates guys like Gilliam to emphasize how uncomfortable it has made things for them. Sure, when Uma & Salma told their tales it’s easy to ask “what took you so long?” It’s easy but I think chalking it up to “ambition” is pretty lazy.
How long was that guy jacking off in front of women and making unwanted advances? The way I see it, the Umas & Salmas are being saddled with more responsibility than either Harvey Fucking Weinstein or the people who should have spoken up & didnt.
I love Gilliam but I think this is a very jackass way of looking at it. I think if it took a guy jacking off in potted plants to make guys like me & Gilliam be more cautious and aware of how we treat women that this is ultimately a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Jan 5, 2020 0:47:40 GMT
I'm not sure Gilliam was moaning about how things have become more difficult for him really. Maybe I should read the article again. And honestly, I'm more with you than against you. I'm not under any illusions about Weinstein - he's a monster and he deserves to be locked up for the rest of his life.
And maybe now's not the time for the other side of the story to be told. Maybe there's no need for it EVER to be told. Men who genuinely felt they didn't do wrong need to listen for a change. These women rightly expect justice, they've had terrible things done to them, and it's bad that HW is even talking about rebuilding his career 'after this blows over' - like he'd just run over a dog or something. The whole system needs to change. I think it'll happen, gradually.
BUT....there's a good chance that a minority of these women went along with his advances willingly because they knew it would further their careers. This is what Gilliam's getting at (I don't think he states it directly). There's a long-standing tradition of the 'casting couch' in Hollywood, as you know. Is it worth mentioning this at all? I think so - because otherwise we end up with this ridiculous black/white scenario that doesn't end up doing much good. Everyone gets angry. One side fights with the other and nothing is achieved. Is everyone telling the truth? Wouldn't it help if they did?
I'm aware this sounds like I'm trying to make trouble, or court controversy, but I really just like to get the truth. I can't help thinking that in time we'll look back on some of this as an overreaction.
|
|
Sneelock
god
there's a difference, you know...
Posts: 8,434
|
Post by Sneelock on Jan 5, 2020 0:50:14 GMT
In time? I think that’s how most people look at it now.
|
|
toomanyhatz
god
I've met him/her. He/she's great!!
Posts: 3,219
|
Post by toomanyhatz on Jan 5, 2020 0:51:42 GMT
I'm with Sneelock on this one.
I get the "political correctness has gotten out of hand" argument on some level - I've made it myself (though not about this). But the whole "white men get blamed for everything" argument - no they bloody well don't. And how long were they able to not get blamed for anything?
I also have a friend (not a close one, but somebody I like and respect) that's one of Weinstein's victims, so if Gilliam tried that reasoning in my presence I don't think I'd have much sympathy. In fact I'd probably tell him to fuck off.
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Jan 5, 2020 4:52:32 GMT
BUt.... there's a good chance that a minority of these women went along with his advances willingly because they knew it would further their careers. This is what Gilliam's getting at (I don't think he states it directly). There's a long-standing tradition of the 'casting couch' in Hollywood, as you know. Is it worth mentioning this at all? I think so - because otherwise we end up with this ridiculous black/white scenario that doesn't end up doing much good. Everyone gets angry. One side fights with the other and nothing is achieved. Is everyone telling the truth? Wouldn't it help if they did? I'm aware this sounds like I'm trying to make trouble, or court controversy, but I really just like to get the truth. I can't help thinking that in time we'll look back on some of this as an overreaction. The problem with this is that it puts the women who don’t want to succumb to the casting couch in competition with those who theoretically might be willing to. Even the “small minority” Gilliam surmises are forced to have to navigate that terrain when they shouldn’t have to. The person with the ability to hire has power over the person wanting a job. That completely undercuts the possibility of consent.
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Jan 5, 2020 7:46:47 GMT
I know, I know.
This is a bit like 'the Nazis actually built some GREAT ROADS', isn't it?
Ho hum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 11:14:13 GMT
I agree with John.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 11:17:56 GMT
BUt.... there's a good chance that a minority of these women went along with his advances willingly because they knew it would further their careers. This is what Gilliam's getting at (I don't think he states it directly). There's a long-standing tradition of the 'casting couch' in Hollywood, as you know. Is it worth mentioning this at all? I think so - because otherwise we end up with this ridiculous black/white scenario that doesn't end up doing much good. Everyone gets angry. One side fights with the other and nothing is achieved. Is everyone telling the truth? Wouldn't it help if they did? I'm aware this sounds like I'm trying to make trouble, or court controversy, but I really just like to get the truth. I can't help thinking that in time we'll look back on some of this as an overreaction. The problem with this is that it puts the women who don’t want to succumb to the casting couch in competition with those who theoretically might be willing to. Even the “small minority” Gilliam surmises are forced to have to navigate that terrain when they shouldn’t have to. The person with the ability to hire has power over the person wanting a job. That completely undercuts the possibility of consent. In a legal sense?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 11:31:14 GMT
BUT....there's a good chance that a minority of these women went along with his advances willingly because they knew it would further their careers. This is what Gilliam's getting at (I don't think he states it directly). There's a long-standing tradition of the 'casting couch' in Hollywood, as you know. Is it worth mentioning this at all? I think so - because otherwise we end up with this ridiculous black/white scenario that doesn't end up doing much good. Everyone gets angry. One side fights with the other and nothing is achieved. Is everyone telling the truth? Wouldn't it help if they did? I'm aware this sounds like I'm trying to make trouble, or court controversy, but I really just like to get the truth. I can't help thinking that in time we'll look back on some of this as an overreaction. 1 - you calling his bulldozing and threats "advances"? Really? 2 - you think if they went along with it then that's OK? It's kinda partially on them? OK then ... Unwanted sex has a role in getting on with life - noted. Just wondering, what's your take on women being raped going along with it just because they don't want to be hit? They have to take some of the blame, surely? 3 - Over-reaction? Yeah, all this women being made to feel uncomfortable .. you're right, they shouldn't be wearing make up or short skirts or .. or even just eye contact. Fuck 'em, if they will go on looking or behaving like that then they shouldn't complain about the repercussions. Acting ambitions, indeed! I don't have an opinion one way or another on TG, and I'm sure it was a side remark in an interview about something else entirely. And while I do think there are some situations where the reaction seems to be disproportionate on the face of it (the weight of the post-Savile enquiries given how fucking much the coppers let him get away with) ... "Hollywood is full of very ambitious people who are adults and they make choices"Fuck him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 11:32:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Jan 5, 2020 11:37:30 GMT
None of us were there.
The overwhelming evidence is that Weinstein was a predator, he abused and raped women.
But yeah - I'd bet there were 'advances' too. Haven't some women come out and said that's what he did to them? and they turned him down? He didn't necessarily attack every single one of them, right?
I don't really see how much further I can go with this. We all agree on the big picture - his actions are indefensible, it's clear he's ruined careers, he's an awful individual and probably a criminal. I certainly have no sympathy for him - don't think for a moment that I do. But has it not even occurred to you that some of these women might have gone along with what he wanted? And if it has, do you think it is worth bringing up? (genuine question).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 11:43:39 GMT
BUT....there's a good chance that a minority of these women went along with his advances willingly because they knew it would further their careers. This is what Gilliam's getting at (I don't think he states it directly). There's a long-standing tradition of the 'casting couch' in Hollywood, as you know. Is it worth mentioning this at all? I think so - because otherwise we end up with this ridiculous black/white scenario that doesn't end up doing much good. Everyone gets angry. One side fights with the other and nothing is achieved. Is everyone telling the truth? Wouldn't it help if they did? I'm aware this sounds like I'm trying to make trouble, or court controversy, but I really just like to get the truth. I can't help thinking that in time we'll look back on some of this as an overreaction. 1 - you calling his bulldozing and threats "advances"? Really? 2 - you think if they went along with it then that's OK? It's kinda partially on them? OK then ... Unwanted sex has a role in getting on with life - noted. Just wondering, what's your take on women being raped going along with it just because they don't want to be hit? They have to take some of the blame, surely? 3 - Over-reaction? Yeah, all this women being made to feel uncomfortable .. you're right, they shouldn't be wearing make up or short skirts or .. or even just eye contact. Fuck 'em, if they will go on looking or behaving like that then they shouldn't complain about the repercussions. Acting ambitions, indeed! I don't have an opinion one way or another on TG, and I'm sure it was a side remark in an interview about something else entirely. And while I do think there are some situations where the reaction seems to be disproportionate on the face of it (the weight of the post-Savile enquiries given how fucking much the coppers let him get away with) ... "Hollywood is full of very ambitious people who are adults and they make choices"Fuck him. This is why I didn't post because it's too much of an emotive issue to have a balanced discussion on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 11:51:31 GMT
None of us were there. The overwhelming evidence is that Weinstein was a predator, he abused and raped women. But yeah - I'd bet there were 'advances' too. Haven't some women come out and said that's what he did to them? and they turned him down? He didn't necessarily attack every single one of them, right? I don't really see how much further I can go with this. We all agree on the big picture - his actions are indefensible, it's clear he's ruined careers, he's an awful individual and probably a criminal. I certainly have no sympathy for him - don't think for a moment that I do. But has it not even occurred to you that some of these women might have gone along with what he wanted? And if it has, do you think it is worth bringing up? (genuine question). For me there are far wider issues here than the ( undeniably reprehensible) behaviour of one man. For example the role of the legal system in actively ennabling ongoing abuses of power. Look at the role non-disclosure contracts has played in this and in the Epstein case. Women have said they were scared to go public, not simply because they were scared of Weinstein, but because they feared they'd have the whole might of the legal system against them. This is about exploitation and power in the US ultimately.
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Jan 5, 2020 12:02:36 GMT
It is. And I don't see it changing soon because it's always going to be about people wanting careers in one of the most glamorous industries in the world (at least that's how it's seen), which is run by the very rich and the very powerful.
|
|