Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

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


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, slaytonf said:

So.  The reason to excise someone from a movie is not for any heinous crime they commit, like rape, or molestation, but the effect on the box office.  Care for any other crimes to be overlooked?  Mayhem?  Torture?  Murder?  If an actor's presence in movies is to be considered without regard to their conduct in their 'personal lives' (as if sexual assault can be classed with political views or their number of marriages), then I suppose snuff films would be acceptable viewing.  I'm sorry, but such an amoral attitude is a dish I am not able to keep down.

Wow,  you're very confused.   Yes,   I don't care what someone (an artist) does in their personal life.  E.g. If Paul McCartney was found to be a child molester,  I would continue to listen to Beatles songs (and purchase them if I didn't already have all of them).      

I don't see that as amoral conduct on my behalf.    

Also your 'snuff films' example is crazy talk.   Nowhere did anyone say they would watch objectionable (amoral) conduct on film (or listen to music with such conduct like sexist rap music).    I.e. there is NO connection between the consumption of material by someone that has done immoral acts and watching actual immoral acts.  

YES,  the bottom line for a business is if 'off-screen' behavior impacts profits (e.g. a boycott is staged),  the business needs to take steps to avoid this.    Note that in most cases the person (actor, athlete, musician),  is NOT convicted of any crimes.   I.e. NO actual crime was committed as proven in a court of law, but the business takes action against the employee anyways.      

PS:  as I stated since most people DO make a judgement and are willing to boycott \ protest,  it should be obvious why a business needs to deal with the employee.  E.g. why no NFL team will hire Colin.    Frankly I want LESS of these type of employer sanctions but it appears most people want MORE.  

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

He can if he displays some awareness of his crime and shows repentance--

 Michael Jackson, OTOH, continued to make songs and music videos about why mean people were picking on him and couldn't just leave him alone with his happy world of kids.

...Which of the two would YOU parole?  Something about Spacey just makes you not want to put him on the first list, but that might just be a prejudice caused by his earlier films.

Normally when someone commits a crime, they tend to get a trial and if found guilty, sent to prison. I've yet to see someone merely  display awareness and repentance and be set free.

Jackson is not a good analogy because at least one of the so called "victims" later admitted he lied about the whole scenario to get money. Who knows if the others did the same thing ?

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GGGGerald said:

Normally when someone commits a crime, they tend to get a trial and if found guilty, sent to prison. I've yet to see someone merely  display awareness and repentance and be set free.

No, they usually get a few years of parole, in which they are watched and scrutinized over a period of several years to see if they've returned to be responsible members of society who don't step off the line again.

A few more Oscar nominations for Polanski since, including the above-mentioned community-service confession, would be considered healthy, productive non-recidivist behavior.

Quote

Jackson is not a good analogy because at least one of the so called "victims" later admitted he lied about the whole scenario to get money. Who knows if the others did the same thing 

Well, probably not the one he settled out of court with, I'm guessing...<_<

Similarly, you have the full half-hour short-film version of Michael Jackson's "Ghosts", made right during/after the first scandal....Hoo-boy.  Do not show this one to a jury.  :blink:

("You're a menace and you're scaring our children!"  "Me, scary?  Is this scary?  (spin)  How 'bout this? (moonwalk)")

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Also your 'snuff films' example is crazy talk.   Nowhere did anyone say they would watch objectionable (amoral) conduct on film (or listen to music with such conduct like sexist rap music).    I.e. there is NO connection between the consumption of material by someone that has done immoral acts and watching actual immoral acts.  

 

If an actor committing murder offscreen does not delegitimize their onscreen work, then there is no justification for rejecting the movie of an actual murder.  In both cases the movie has a murderer, or murderers, as part of the cast.  Wether the murder takes place onscreen or off is immaterial.  

 

Appreciating the work of an actor, or movie maker independent of the heinous acts they commit is amoral.  That is, it is done without regard to the rightness or wrongness of the acts.

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

Appreciating the work of an actor, or movie maker independent of the heinous acts they commit is amoral.  That is, it is done without regard to the rightness or wrongness of the acts.

Whether or not an individual's actions outside of their creative works would make another individual choose to boycott those works (or edit them from his own work, in Ridley Scott's case) is surely, the latter individual's personal decision - there is no right or wrong in that, only a personal decision. The right to make that decision is something to be defended, but there shouldn't be any expectation for others to make the same choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 7:38 PM, slaytonf said:

So.  The reason to excise someone from a movie is not for any heinous crime they commit, like rape, or molestation, but the effect on the box office.  Care for any other crimes to be overlooked?  Mayhem?  Torture?  Murder?  If an actor's presence in movies is to be considered without regard to their conduct in their 'personal lives' (as if sexual assault can be classed with political views or their number of marriages), then I suppose snuff films would be acceptable viewing.  I'm sorry, but such an amoral attitude is a dish I am not able to keep down.

I distinctly remember when Elia Kazan received a Lifetime Oscar, many attendees neither applauded nor stood up to honor him. The camera cut several times to Spacey, who was at the absolute height of his fame and power at that time, and he resolutely made a point of staying seated, arms folded. He certainly passed moral judgment on that night to a guy who was almost a hundred and who had made some of the greatest films ever. 

I assume TCM has already pulled the Jack Lemmon promo narrated by Spacey? It would be a shame, because it's one of the better ones. Chillingly, Spacey mentions his working with Lemmon on Long Day's Journey into Night in the promo, which is when he allegedly attempted to have sex with a fourteen year old.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I can recall,

8 hours ago, GGGGerald said:

Normally when someone commits a crime, they tend to get a trial and if found guilty, sent to prison. I've yet to see someone merely  display awareness and repentance and be set free.

Jackson is not a good analogy because at least one of the so called "victims" later admitted he lied about the whole scenario to get money. Who knows if the others did the same thing ?

 

both Jackson and OJ had  trials and they were considered to be innocent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, limey said:

Whether or not an individual's actions outside of their creative works would make another individual choose to boycott those works (or edit them from his own work, in Ridley Scott's case) is surely, the latter individual's personal decision - there is no right or wrong in that, only a personal decision. The right to make that decision is something to be defended, but there shouldn't be any expectation for others to make the same choice.

The question I ask myself, does ignoring a person's monstrous actions outside of their profession condone them?  If a person suffers no consequences, as a lot of the posters here seem to advocate, then doesn't it contribute to to perpetuation of the violations?  In cases of sexual assault, rape that is, and other crimes (which is the subject outrage of this thread) the prejudice of this culture is to blame the victim.  You can clearly see that bent in a lot of the posts.  The prejudice is to discount the validity of the claim.  After all, the implication, or even the outright charge is, it's easy to make a claim.  A disgruntled employee, job-seeker, or romance seeker can easily make a claim of rape to get back at the object of their resentment.  The fact is, sexual crimes are greatly underreported, the victims feeling generally ashamed and unsupported.  This is why we see many reports of victims now coming out years after suffering.  This is especially the case if they were young at the time, feeling and especially being powerless.

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

The question I ask myself, does ignoring a person's monstrous actions outside of their profession condone them?

Maybe. Perhaps, not overtly, but I could understand why it could be seen that way. I'm not convinced that viewing a creative work automatically equates to condoning the actions of the creator of that work, outside of that work. Especially so, when the only convictions made, exist solely in the court of public opinion.

I'd respect an individual's right to choose to make their choices based on their perceptions of an artist's actions outside their work, but I'd also respect the right for someone to choose to view that artist's works, regardless of my own opinions. To do otherwise, risks the modern day equivalent of public book-burnings.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, slaytonf said:

The question I ask myself, does ignoring a person's monstrous actions outside of their profession condone them?  If a person suffers no consequences, as a lot of the posters here seem to advocate, then doesn't it contribute to to perpetuation of the violations?  In cases of sexual assault, rape that is, and other crimes (which is the subject outrage of this thread) the prejudice of this culture is to blame the victim.  You can clearly see that bent in a lot of the posts.  The prejudice is to discount the validity of the claim.  After all, the implication, or even the outright charge is, it's easy to make a claim.  A disgruntled employee, job-seeker, or romance seeker can easily make a claim of rape to get back at the object of their resentment.  The fact is, sexual crimes are greatly underreported, the victims feeling generally ashamed and unsupported.  This is why we see many reports of victims now coming out years after suffering.  This is especially the case if they were young at the time, feeling and especially being powerless.

The legal system is the process used to punish crimes.   I.e. the legal system is the main way society ensures a person suffers consequences.   In addition employers\businesses can also punish people by not hiring them and \ or other sanctions,  and often do even when the legal system decides to NOT press charges (e.g. Elliott where the DA decided to NOT press charges but the NFL suspended him for 6 games).

But to claim that it is immoral for someone to watch a Polanski film is total nonsense.     I can understand someone wishing to NOT purchase items where a perpetrator would get a financial gain,  but like limey said that is an individual choice and one isn't wrong when they make a choice you don't agree with.        

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.    

 

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

If you woke up in Nazi Germany and the worst thing that happened to

you was that you were blacklisted, you'd consider yourself very lucky. 

That is so unbelievably profound and true I just had to quote it again.

Vautrin really knows how to tell it like it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 9:31 PM, Princess of Tap said:

The movie stars are paid an inordinate amount of money to act in movies. They're not paid this money because they are the best actors or actresses in the world or because they're the best looking people in the world or because they have the best character in the world.

The only reason they're paid this money is because millions of people all over the world will buy tickets at the movie box offices to see them in the movies.

 The movie audiences in the world decide who it is they want to see and who it is they're willing to give up their hard-earned dollars, euros,  £'s etc to support.

That's the way business works and that's the way the movies have always come down to.

 

Ingrid Bergman was thrown out of Hollywood because she left her husband and child and ran off with another man who she became pregnant by. She was ostracized from Hollywood because of her behavior. Ed Sullivan wouldn't allow her to appear  on his TV program. Furthermore, she was denounced by a senator on the floor of the US Senate.

 That was 1950 and she continued to make films in Europe until she was welcomed back by Hollywood and America in 1956 with an Oscar for Anastasia.

The public decides who is a movie star and for how long-- it's just that simple.

Ingrid Bergman's story for me is one of sexism and the double standard, pure and simple.  She openly made a personal choice about her life that was in defiance of the world's norms, and her career in the U.S. suffered for it.   How many male actors left their wives for another woman but experienced no negative impact on their lives or careers?  How many producers and directors in "classic Hollywood" did the same thing that Harvey Weinstein did -- for years, and experienced no consequences for their actions?  In fact, they used sexual harassment as instruments of their power, and it was known for years.  Was Harry Cohn ever sued or required to go to court?  Did the name "casting couch" come out of nowhere?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

That is so unbelievably profound and true I just had to quote it again.

Vautrin really knows how to tell it like it is.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I know this is going to sound a little "insensitive" or at least more than a little "self-serving" here folks, but ya know what I'LL miss about never seein' Spacey on a talk show again?

It's that he was one of THE best damn celebrity impressionists to come down the pike since Frank Gorshin and Rich Little.  A now lost art if ever there was.

(...and so Kevin, you dummy you...you JUST couldn't keep it in your pants, and so WHO is going to keep that lost art form alive for me NOW, I ask?!)

;)

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
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...