Sign in to follow this  
papyrusbeetle

did we just wake up in Nazi Germany? KEVIN SPACEY blacklisted!!!!!

109 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Vautrin said:

Unless you're a paranoid wingnut, it ain't that difficult. :)

OR maybe one of those "men going their own way" types, eh Vautrin?! ;)

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vautrin said:

Unless you're a paranoid wingnut, it ain't that difficult. 

Not too difficult for a poster of worthlessness - like what you specialize in, ay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, sewhite2000 said:

You know the dumba** topic title of this thread makes me angrier every time I still see it on page one. Nazi Germany was a place where if you were a Jew or a Gypsy or a homosexual you were KILLED. What happened to Kevin Spacey was he rose to the top of his profession while, according to the dozens of accusations now lobbied against him, he behaved very badly and inappropriately and probably often illegally at every stage of his career and got away with it, and now after 30-plus years of getting away with it, he's not going to anymore. Probably he'll never work in Hollywood again, but given the statute of limitations, the possibility of criminal prosecution is unlikely. Most of his professional friends have probably broken contact with him, but he still has his millions and millions of dollars and probably some few loyal inner circle friends who will never desert him. So it's hard for me to feel badly for him. To compare what happened to him to Nazi Germany is really infuriating and beyond the pale and shows a disgusting lack of understanding of history and is unworthy of the usual dignity of this forum.

If one looks at all the topic titles created by this user,  they are all 'out-there'  (e.g. the one about Purtro Rico and lyrics from a song in West Side Story),  but yea,  this one took the cake.     A complete misunderstanding of history as well as being very insensitive.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Dargo said:

OR maybe one of those "men going their own way" types, eh Vautrin?! ;)

LOL

Yep. Sorry, father knows best ain't coming back. Neither is the rest

of the 1950s. Bummer man. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On November 11, 2017 at 2:55 PM, darkblue said:

 

Final try.

Members of Elvis' inner circle revealed that he was sometimes abusive to women - violent even.

Are his records still good?

 

What did he do?  Were his actions comparable to rape?  Have any victims of his come forward?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

What did he do? 

Read the book from his bodyguards - Red West, Sonny West and Dave Hebler if you want to know more.

It was written while Presley was still alive, by the way. Published before his death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On November 11, 2017 at 9:54 AM, jamesjazzguitar said:

But to claim that it is immoral for someone to watch a Polanski film is total nonsense.      

I agree.  That's why I would never say that.

 

On November 11, 2017 at 9:54 AM, jamesjazzguitar said:

PS:  Since you favor (demand) a boycott,  just how far should a boycott go?    E.g. is it immoral for TCM to show a Polanski film?    For Amazon to sell a Polanski film?    How about actors that agreed to be in a Polanski film after his guilty plea:   should their films be boycotted as well?   Note these are serious questions as it relates to how far a boycott should go to ensure a perpetrator faces non-legal-system consequences.    

 

I have said nothing about a boycott.  I have criticized the appreciation of a filmmaker's work without regard to their heinous crimes.  I have also expressed the uncomfortable ambivalence of watching that person's work with it.  Roman Polanski is a good example to examine.  As we learn, his is not only guilty of r_aping only one underage girl, which he admitted to.  This is not surprising, as sexual predators are some of the most recidivist of criminals, even with the most strenuous efforts to curb them, let alone showering them with praise and lifetime achievement awards, as Polanski has been.  As I've said before, the record of outrages is usually greater than reported.  What stuns me is that an admitted child rapist could find not only refuge, but support and adulation.  Polanski's entire corpus is tainted.  Not to admit any effect of his actions on his work is only to validate his behavior, and help to perpetuate it in others by sending a tacit message of approval.

Edited by slaytonf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, darkblue said:

Read the book from his bodyguards - Red West, Sonny West and Dave Hebler if you want to know more.

It was written while Presley was still alive, by the way. Published before his death.

If it's too much trouble for you to say, then it's too much trouble for me to discuss it with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were millions of teen girls having sex all over the country back in the free-love 60's - especially in California. This continued well into the 70's.

It wasn't considered the crime of the century by the entire populace for accepting sex with one back then. 

Polanksi, for his part, pled guilty and accepted the plea bargain offered. He did his prison stretch as it was ordered. That should have been the end of the story, but the birth of the snowflake horde was just around the corner.

So he left America and continued his work elsewhere.

He's a very good director. I like his work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

If it's too much trouble for you to say, then it's too much trouble for me to discuss it with you.

Discussion from you isn't worth ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

I agree.  That's why I would never say that.

 

I have said nothing about a boycott.  I have criticized the appreciation of a filmmaker's work without regard to their heinous crimes.  I have also expressed the uncomfortable ambivalence of watching that person's work with it.  Roman Polanski is a good example to examine.  As we learn, his is not only guilty of r_aping only one underage girl, which he admitted to.  This is not surprising, as sexual predators are some of the most recidivist of criminals, even with the most strenuous efforts to curb them, let alone showering them with praise and lifetime achievement awards, as Polanski has been.  As I've said before, the record of outrages is usually greater than reported.  What stuns me is that an admitted child rapist could find not only refuge, but support and adulation.  Polanski's entire corpus is tainted.  Not to admit any effect of his actions on his work is only to validate his behavior, and help to perpetuate it in others by sending a tacit message of approval.

Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding related to a boycott,  but we disagree more then I previously believed.

Like I said,  I can understand a boycott as it relates to a living performer, as to NOT provide them any financial gain.     But to criticize someone and label them immoral for not feeling uncomfortable watching that person's work is total nonsense to me.    

Note that you're the one that raised the point about there being consequences:  A boycott provides economic consequences and therefore sends a message to the perpetrator.    (as well as other like minded individuals).

But demanding that others don't watch that person,  provides NO consequences (since the work is already 'owned' by the viewer and no one other then the person watching would know they were watching).    

In no way does viewing their work (or listening to it),   validate the behavior.   

Also,  is TCM immoral for showing a Polanski film?    Isn't that validating his behavior by allowing immoral people like me to view his work?     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, darkblue said:

Polanksi, for his part, pled guilty and accepted the plea bargain offered. He did his prison stretch as it was ordered. That should have been the end of the story, but the birth of the snowflake horde was just around the corner.

Polanski did not serve his time.  He skipped out and prosecutors have been trying to get him extradited, but France and Switzerland have not cooperated.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

Polanski did not serve his time. 

Holy crap - are you ever ignorant!

No wonder you're incapable of understanding a question even when given three opportunities to do so.

Polanski served 42 days in prison. After he was released he was supposed to serve a period of probation, but left America when he heard that the "judge" was going to reneg on the plea agreement.

from wikipedia: He was released from prison after serving 42 days, and as part of an apparent plea bargain, was to be put on probation. When he learned that the judge had changed his mind and planned to reject the plea bargain, he fled to Paris before sentencing.

If I were him, I'd have done exactly the same thing. A deal's a deal.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding related to a boycott,  but we disagree more then I previously believed.

Like I said,  I can understand a boycott as it relates to a living performer, as to NOT provide them any financial gain.     But to criticize someone and label them immoral for not feeling uncomfortable watching that person's work is total nonsense to me.    

Note that you're the one that raised the point about there being consequences:  A boycott provides economic consequences and therefore sends a message to the perpetrator.    (as well as other like minded individuals).

But demanding that others don't watch that person,  provides NO consequences (since the work is already 'owned' by the viewer and no one other then the person watching would know they were watching).    

In no way does viewing their work (or listening to it),   validate the behavior.   

Also,  is TCM immoral for showing a Polanski film?    Isn't that validating his behavior by allowing immoral people like me to view his work?     

If people don't take the trouble to read my posts, I don't usually waste my time on them repeating myself.  But you often have well considered opinions, so I'll take some trouble.  I haven't made any demands of anyone.  I have said people who don't want to undergo the uncomfortable effort of changing their way of thinking, who have a world view convenient to them will either minimize the enormity of the crimes committed--blaming the victim (as we have seen in this thread), or divorce the personal behavior of the offender from their professional work.  They don't want to lose their unalloyed enjoyment of the movies they like.  For me, there are filmmakers whose political views I strongly disagree with, yet I can enjoy their work with little qualm.  For people like Elia Kazan, or Robert Taylor, whose actions are reprehensible, yet not criminal, I am more ambivalent.  But when the actions rise to the level of predation on the vulnerable and powerless to service a perverted appetite, it is impossible for me to ever watch their work without a conscious acknowledgement of their crimes.  And I probably won't watch something by Polanski again. 

I haven't said anyone's, including your, behavior is immoral.  I have said your position is amoral.  That is, you could watch a movie starring, or directed by someone without regard the the rightness or wrongness of their behavior.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, darkblue said:

Holy crap - are you ever ignorant!

No wonder you're incapable of understanding a question even when given three opportunities to do so.

Polanski served 42 days in prison. After he was released he was supposed to serve a period of probation, but left America when he heard that the "judge" was going to reneg on the plea agreement.

from wikipedia: He was released from prison after serving 42 days, and as part of an apparent plea bargain, was to be put on probation. When he learned that the judge had changed his mind and planned to reject the plea bargain, he fled to Paris before sentencing.

If I were him, I'd have done exactly the same thing. A deal's a deal.

 

I am not going to let this degenerate into a sources dispute.  I will only post a quote and a link to an article on theguardian.com:

The director, who admitted **** Geimer, spent 42 days in pre-trial custody. He then fled the United States, fearing a plea bargain with prosecutors would be overruled and that he would get a lengthy prison term.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/aug/19/roman-polanski-judge-rejects-request-from-victim-to-dismiss-case

 

The case was never resolved. There was no plea deal.  He remains a fugitive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

There was no plea deal.

The Hollywood Reporter interviewed Polanski:

 

”Most of the facts of the case are undisputed. On March 11, 1977, Polanski, at the time the toast of Hollywood as the director of Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown, was arrested and charged with drugging and **** then-13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer). As part of a plea bargain, Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, underwent psychiatric evaluation and spent 42 days in jail.

But in 1978, when he heard that a judge was going to disregard the plea bargain and make an example of him, reportedly by giving him up to 50 years in prison, Polanski fled to Paris. He has remained a fugitive ever since, despite repeated attempts, including several pleas by the victim, to have the case dismissed. Last month, California judge Scott Gordon rejected Geimer's latest request, saying the Polanski case would go forward.” (www.hollywoodreporter.com)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

I am not going to let this degenerate into a sources dispute.

Good thing for you. You've already embarrassed yourself numerous times in just this one thread.

There was a plea deal. That's why Polanski agreed to plead guilty rather than not guilty. The State did that because it was unsure of its ability to get a conviction.

The judge wanted to reneg on the plea bargain because he became aware that there were snowflakes who were howling about it.

Polanski did the absolute right thing in removing himself from the State that had tricked him out of his not guilty plea. Godspeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

Look how ready people are to defend a child r-apist.

You are absolutely out of line slaytonf.

The importance that I place on a topic is factual and accurate information.  It is beyond me how you arrive at your conclusion that posters are defending “a child r-apist”, other than to conclude that you do not like an adversarial position, particularly when you are wrong.

I do find your statement somewhat ironic in that I worked in Law before retirement but not once in the defence of paedophile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slaytonf said:

Look how ready people are to defend a child r-apist.

No one defended Polanski. The judge said he was going to go back on his word. You can be opposed to that while still disliking what Polanski did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, slaytonf said:

If people don't take the trouble to read my posts, I don't usually waste my time on them repeating myself.  But you often have well considered opinions, so I'll take some trouble.  I haven't made any demands of anyone.  I have said people who don't want to undergo the uncomfortable effort of changing their way of thinking, who have a world view convenient to them will either minimize the enormity of the crimes committed--blaming the victim (as we have seen in this thread), or divorce the personal behavior of the offender from their professional work.  They don't want to lose their unalloyed enjoyment of the movies they like.  For me, there are filmmakers whose political views I strongly disagree with, yet I can enjoy their work with little qualm.  For people like Elia Kazan, or Robert Taylor, whose actions are reprehensible, yet not criminal, I am more ambivalent.  But when the actions rise to the level of predation on the vulnerable and powerless to service a perverted appetite, it is impossible for me to ever watch their work without a conscious acknowledgement of their crimes.  And I probably won't watch something by Polanski again. 

I haven't said anyone's, including your, behavior is immoral.  I have said your position is amoral.  That is, you could watch a movie starring, or directed by someone without regard the the rightness or wrongness of their behavior.

 

Ok,  maybe we are not that far apart in our thinking here;    I acknowledge the crimes (or even the creepy actions as in the case of Woody Allen or Michael Jackson).     I know about them and they are always 'in my mind',   but I just don't let this knowledge impact my viewing of their work.    I separate the viewing of their work from this acknowledge of their crimes.       This is the point DB has been trying to make;  that the work doesn't change with this knowledge.    The work is the work.    

So of course I would watch a Polanski movie since 'the work is the work' and he directed many fine films.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as boycotting goes, I'll watch a Woody Allen film on TCM, but I wont pay to see one in a theater because he profits from that. I can separate the work from the artist, but I dont want the artist to profit from my paying to see the work..................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to "Nazi Germany" (if that offends people!), what I am referring to is how QUICK this has happened.

..................Let's start looking around at what is REALLY going on. 
Hollywood films have (for the past decades) humiliated and trashed women of every age and type.

Disgusting scenes appear in TV series, as well. I have, as a woman, gritted my teeth and tried to get used to this, to simply enjoy MUCH of the entertainment value of films and television shows.

But the women "protesting" are not talking about film and television content.

Shouldn't someone start looking at this issue? Until they do, it's hard to feel sympathetic (or, certainly, angry enough to boycott films or destroy artists' careers) because of "incidents" in hotel rooms.

Why should these "victims" get all the attention, when the viewing public has been victimized for years, having to view media insulting women from every possible angle.?

For example, the interesting, but horrifying "breakthrough" film ANATOMY OF A MURDER. (1959). (Shown this A.M. on the Movies Channel)

Every aspect of the "woman" is accused, humiliated, threatened, and made a joke of, climaxing in George C. Scott nearly spitting his accusations into the face of rape-victim Lee Remick on the witness stand. Gee, the fun of trashing women without messy old nudity getting the censors upset. How much fun this is!

Of course, George C. Scott,  IRL, was a known woman-beater, often leaving his lover Ava Gardner black and blue.

 

MV5BNjQ3MDQzNzctZTUyZi00OThhLWE1MzItNWMzOWMxMjJiMTE2XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzM5ODEzMDY@__V1_.thumb.jpg.7167a664c6e03d05a03bd564f4fbc119.jpgSo no one really is upset over all this, for the last 60 years.

But they want to CONTROL what we see all of a sudden, by replacing an excellent actor with a lousy one.

The OTHER thing about NAZI GERMANY is that people simply did not look around at reality. They said, wow, I don't have to THINK any more!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, papyrusbeetle said:

As to "Nazi Germany" (if that offends people!), what I am referring to is how QUICK this has happened.

..................Let's start looking around at what is REALLY going on. 
Hollywood films have (for the past decades) humiliated and trashed women of every age and type.

Disgusting scenes appear in TV series, as well. I have, as a woman, gritted my teeth and tried to get used to this, to simply enjoy MUCH of the entertainment value of films and television shows.

But the women "protesting" are not talking about film and television content.

Shouldn't someone start looking at this issue? Until they do, it's hard to feel sympathetic (or, certainly, angry enough to boycott films or destroy artists' careers) because of "incidents" in hotel rooms.

Why should these "victims" get all the attention, when the viewing public has been victimized for years, having to view media insulting women from every possible angle.?

For example, the interesting, but horrifying "breakthrough" film ANATOMY OF A MURDER. (1959). (Shown this A.M. on the Movies Channel)

Every aspect of the "woman" is accused, humiliated, threatened, and made a joke of, climaxing in George C. Scott nearly spitting his accusations into the face of rape-victim Lee Remick on the witness stand. Gee, the fun of trashing women without messy old nudity getting the censors upset. How much fun this is!

Of course, George C. Scott,  IRL, was a known woman-beater, often leaving his lover Ava Gardner black and blue.

 

MV5BNjQ3MDQzNzctZTUyZi00OThhLWE1MzItNWMzOWMxMjJiMTE2XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzM5ODEzMDY@__V1_.thumb.jpg.7167a664c6e03d05a03bd564f4fbc119.jpgSo no one really is upset over all this, for the last 60 years.

But they want to CONTROL what we see all of a sudden, by replacing an excellent actor with a lousy one.

The OTHER thing about NAZI GERMANY is that people simply did not look around at reality. They said, wow, I don't have to THINK any more!

 

 

You keep using 'they';   who are 'they'?       It can't be 'the women protesting' because these women have little to no power to change how women are portrayed in film.   

In addition what do 'the women protesting' have to do with Kevin Spacey?    Spacey is accused of sexual harassment of males that were minors.    It is my understanding he has admitted he has 'issues'. 

As for Anatomy of a Murder;  That is a MOVIE!!!!    The prosecutor's treatment of the alleged victim is showing the REALITY of the times.  I.e. how women who make sexual assault claims are treated.     To view that as 'horrifying' is clueless nonsense.  

     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us