2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 30, 2017 13:11:16 GMT
I think this is more like the (presumably still overwhelmingly male) ad industry saying "it's OK to objectify women, because look - we now objectify young men too!" I regard it as like the "final girl" trope in horror films, which some people try to claim is empowering but I think is just a get-out by the male film-makers to excuse a lot of often highly sexualised violence and gore by saying, look - the last one standing is female!
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Oct 30, 2017 13:12:10 GMT
What's your solution? Not talking with the person, just shouting in the press? Are you a parody? We are talking about a grown middle aged men here, that needs to have enough personality to talk about something that happened to him as a kid. He was approached and said no and nothing sexual did happen. Yes, Spacey was wrong with the approach, so talk to him and ask him what was going on in his mind. If you care to know that is.... He. Was. 14. A child. Whether he said no or not. He. Was. 14. I'm saying the approach was wrong. And luckily nothing sexual happened. But a 47 year old man should realize that a press conference about this incident as a kid is not helping his personal situation between him and Spacey.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 13:12:37 GMT
What's your solution? Not talking with the person, just shouting in the press? Are you a parody? We are talking about a grown middle aged men here, that needs to have enough personality to talk about something that happened to him as a kid. He was approached and said no and nothing sexual did happen. Yes, Spacey was wrong with the approach, so talk to him and ask him what was going on in his mind. If you care to know that is.... He. Was. 14. A child. Whether he said no or not. He. Was. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. Exactly this. And Rapp certainly didn't look older (for any idiot about to trot out that defence, his picture from the time is in the Buzzfeed article) It doesn't matter if/how drunk Spacey was. It doesn't matter whether it was a boy or a girl or what sexuality Spacey claims then or now. Rapp was a child. I don't need or indeed want to know what was going on in Spacey's mind it was wrong. There's no more to it. Rapp is under no responsibility or obligation to speak with him- if he chooses to for his own sense of closure that's his call. Rapp spoke in the press (he's said as much himself via Twitter) in order to raise awareness of another sexual predator he was aware of. And all respect to him for being able to. ETA: Rapp has no 'personal situation' to resolve with Spacey. He's speaking out to expose the wider issue.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Oct 30, 2017 13:13:29 GMT
I simply cannot believe that in your heart of hearts, you seriously think that 1) the pain of abuse gets easier as you get older and 2) this can all be cleared with "a good conversation with the abuser"!!!!!!!!! This is a parody account, surely?! What's your solution? Not talking with the person, just shouting in the press? Are you a parody? We are talking about a grown middle aged men here, that needs to have enough personality to talk about something that happened to him as a kid. He was approached and said no and nothing sexual did happen. In case you haven't been paying attention, I'd say the best solution is for as many people as possible to become formally aware of these events and the people behind them, not just gossip or "we've all heard stories, haven't we". This is not "shouting in the press" and the fact you dismiss it as such is the biggest part of the problem. People bravely come forward with these horrifying stories of abuse and then people like you go and victim blame. Other victims then see your reaction and instead of coming forward with their own stories, they decide to keep it to themselves for fear of public mocking. You really don't see the problem here and how you're part of it, do you? Their ages now, their personalities and the fact that "nothing sexual did happen" is almost irrelevant and it's worrying, yet again, that you are trying to make some sort of excuse for Spacey's alleged behaviour?! The fact that something sexual is alleged to have happened with a 26 year old man forcing himself on a 14 year old boy showing no signs of stopping until the boy forced his way out is the point. The repercussions this has had for the 14 year old boy is the point. The bravery with which Rapp has taken in speaking out - an act which has taken him 30 years to do - is the point. Publicly speaking out so these alleged sexual predators have nowhere to hide is the point. All these points which you seem to be repeatedly missing, whether it's on purpose or not I'm not sure.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Oct 30, 2017 13:17:31 GMT
For what it's worth, I don't think it really matters even if a few examples like these come up. After all, the fact that a few instances exist doesn't really mean anything when it comes to the wider context of society as a whole. If you look hard enough I'm sure it's possible to find a few examples that lines up with just about any world view.". But it does show what is socially accepted, in commercials etc. And how 1 sided it all is. Nowadays men are objectified more than ever before. And worse, they are not allowed to say anything about it. They are being silenced. A very convenient way to use men exactly how you want them to be and only that. Sure, you can take an advert as an example of the objectification of men, but to talk about what's 'socially accepted' you need to put that case in the wider context. I very much doubt that anyone is suggesting that there are no instances whatsoever where men are objectifed or are the victims of sexism, but to suggest that that's the norm is silly. When it comes to individual posts & stories, the stuff that goes 'viral' is the most extreme & unusual, so pretty much by definition it's the least likely to be the norm.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Oct 30, 2017 13:17:59 GMT
He. Was. 14. A child. Whether he said no or not. He. Was. 14. I'm saying the approach was wrong. And luckily nothing sexual happened. But a 47 year old man should realize that a press conference about this incident as a kid is not helping his personal situation between him and Spacey. No, hang on. You really, really, *really* think Rapp is or should be worried about his personal situation with Spacey?!?!?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 13:18:03 GMT
He. Was. 14. A child. Whether he said no or not. He. Was. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. I'm saying the approach was wrong. And luckily nothing sexual happened. But a 47 year old man should realize that a press conference about this incident as a kid is not helping his personal situation between him and Spacey. People deal with situations in different ways. Who knows what he's done privately up to now to deal with it. Let Spacey sue then. Let's see how that pans out and what else comes out of the woodwork. Pardon the pun. I know I love them but it's really unintentional this time.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Oct 30, 2017 13:18:21 GMT
ETA: Rapp has no 'personal situation' to resolve with Spacey. He's speaking out to expose the wider issue. I think he does, when he says he's being angry for over 30 years about approaching him.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Oct 30, 2017 13:21:22 GMT
I'm saying the approach was wrong. And luckily nothing sexual happened. But a 47 year old man should realize that a press conference about this incident as a kid is not helping his personal situation between him and Spacey. No, hang on. You really, really, *really* think Rapp is or should be worried about his personal situation with Spacey?!?!? I think an apology and a good talk a long time ago would have prevented 30 years of witheld yet increasing anger, but feel free to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 13:22:16 GMT
ETA: Rapp has no 'personal situation' to resolve with Spacey. He's speaking out to expose the wider issue. I think he does, when he says he's being angry for over 30 years about approaching him. Ring ring. "Hello?" "Hi Kevin Spacey, this is Anthony Rapp. You might not remember me but you jumped on top of me at a party when I was 14 and I'd like to speak to you about it." I'm not a psychic but I'm guessing that call isn't going to go well. Tsk.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 13:22:39 GMT
ETA: Rapp has no 'personal situation' to resolve with Spacey. He's speaking out to expose the wider issue. I think he does, when he says he's being angry for over 30 years about approaching him. And I don't doubt he does but not in the same way you're implying. Rapp no doubt is angry-rightly so. He's probably had residual trauma from it. He's no doubt dealt with this privately, and/or in therapy (Rapp has written about such things in his book so it's no stretch to assume he has previously, or will be seeking professional support in dealing with this himself) No victim is under obligation to personally resolve something with their attacker. And I'm running out of ways to explain that to you. Rapp isn't undertaking this for fame or fortune (And on that I am pulling out the fact I have SOME personal knowledge of the man himself) he's no doubt sought legal advice in even speaking on it. This is about exposing Spacey, and giving other victims the space to come forward.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 13:24:36 GMT
Ok this is my last word to Dave: how is an apology and a long talk resolving the fundamentally wrong act on Spacey's part? If he had drunkely propositioned a man his own age at the time (26 ish) and taken it no further than a drunken come on, that's an act 'talking about it' resolves. Even if Rapp was his own age, forcing himself on him to the point Rapp had to fight him off is still categorically wrong.
But Rapp was 14. He was a child.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 13:25:35 GMT
No, hang on. You really, really, *really* think Rapp is or should be worried about his personal situation with Spacey?!?!? I think an apology and a good talk a long time ago would have prevented 30 years of witheld yet increasing anger, but feel free to disagree. Why shouldn't he be angry? Spacey should be thankful that this is how he's dealt with it. I think I might have ripped off his testicles with my bare hands and posted them to the New York Times but that's just me.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Oct 30, 2017 13:25:39 GMT
The news that broke today that kevin Spacey is gay, is certainly secondary.
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Oct 30, 2017 13:27:56 GMT
Dave, a question re: choosing whether or not to feel intimidated. What actions do you take in your daily life to avoid being raped? Have often do you personally find yourself in a situation where you are genuinely afraid you might be sexually assaulted? How confident are you in your physical ability to fight off a rapist? How often has your job depended on being sexually attractive, or being nice to people who sexually harass you? How frequently do your colleagues and bosses make sexual comments about your body? How frequently are you catcalled by strangers? How frequently do strangers yell sexually explicit things at you?
That ad is sexist (towards women) and objectifies women. There's no way it wasn't created by men, for the male gaze. A woman cruelly rejects her poor oppressed husband by denying him his right to sex, but one quick shampoo later and women are throwing themselves at him and flashing their boobs while he grins broadly and is visibly overjoyed? It's not a coincidence they chose to cast a "regular Joe" looking guy, and busty model-looking women.
If you feel oppressed by an ad portraying men as being desperate for sex, blame toxic masculinity (which hurts men as well as women). It's not a double standard, it's the exact same old patriarchal objectifying BS.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Oct 30, 2017 13:30:20 GMT
Dave25, I appreciate that you are trying to tell the truth as you see it and you may feel you are a lone voice here (though there are a lot of Men's Rights groups elsewhere which would certainly share your views.) Although you indicate you feel misunderstood and silenced, I would say that you show a remarkable lack of empathy for anyone else. You express sympathy for your friend who lost his job and yourself (and I suppose the man in the obviously tongue-in-cheek foreign ad, which is obviously aimed at making women with grey hair feel better about themselves. The statistical odds are that it was both written and directed by a man - and the women are presented in a sexualised way.) You have interrogated others' stories and dismissed them, so your friend's story might warrant similar investigation: why would he be fired because he walked in the MD and an ensemble member - wouldn't he be more likely to tell others (as he did you) if he was fired? Why did the MD wield such influence that he could both fire and promote people - from my experience that would usually be the director and producers? Why would he be told he was being fired for 'artistic differences' but then claim that the woman understudy wanted him fired? (Again, from my experience, understudies really don't wield that sort of power.) Did he tell his agent and Equity what happened? Did he pick up the phone and make that call as you suggested Rapp should have done to clear the air? I am not sure, but I think your point was that this ambitious female ensemble member had sex with the MD to further her career and then got your friend fired because...her ambitions were observed? Is that it?
That aside - most women aren't only interested in sex and money. I'm sure if we conducted a straw poll of women on this forum whose boyfriends/lovers/husbands have been less than flush with money, the numbers would be high (mine had about £500 in his bank account when we married. Our wedding cost £200.) Perhaps you have been very unlucky. Or perhaps women sense that you don't like them. I don't know, of course.
Finally - you use the words 'erased' and 'intimidated' a lot - and not always in a way that I understand.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Oct 30, 2017 13:34:39 GMT
I All these points which you seem to be repeatedly missing, whether it's on purpose or not I'm not sure. I don't miss anything. In fact, I have been in the same kind of situations, like i described. I guess I just have a different way of handling things. "Being intimidated" is something that lasts no longer than a second to me, then I'm out of the victim role and solve the situation immediately or see the bigger picture. Maybe it's because I learned to handle my own things from a young age that made our views so different. But building up anger for over 30 years towards someone that tried to make a mistake is really not necessary.
|
|
1,908 posts
|
Post by sf on Oct 30, 2017 13:37:41 GMT
I'm saying the approach was wrong. And luckily nothing sexual happened. But a 47 year old man should realize that a press conference about this incident as a kid is not helping his personal situation between him and Spacey. Bloody hell.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 30, 2017 13:39:54 GMT
The news that broke today that kevin Spacey is gay, is certainly secondary. Not really news at all to be honest is it. On a related topic some of those sounding off about Weinstein (Emma Thompson being only one) are the same people who wrote a letter pleading for Roman Polanski to be freed after he was detained (in Switzerland I think) in relation to his conviction in USA of the rape of a 13 year old girl. Despite their excuses now that was actually inexcusable.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 30, 2017 14:35:04 GMT
Despite their excuses now that was actually inexcusable. I think this is the huge problem in the arts, and a reason why it is lagging so far behind other, more 'everyday' fields when it comes to addressing and tackling harassment and abuse. Behaviour that in any other walk of life would have you condemned, ostracised, imprisoned is regarded as gloriously transgressive and boundary-pushing in the arts, and those - often bearing the brunt of it - portrayed as small-minded, uncool and small-c-conservative for not going along with it. Thus the undoubtedly talented Polanski is excused, given a free pass for his creative genius, and his films regularly screened on TV, whilst the more low-brow TOTP repeats have been purged of sex offenders. Last week, Terry Richardson's PR people, in response to the allegations, were using the "artist" word to try to defend his behaviour. If Gary Glitter had been a novelist, he'd even now be feted - only today I've seen someone tweeting that William Burroughs, who murdered a woman, fled to Tangiers and abused kids, is really cool. You even get it with animal abuse - the BBFC passing OldBoy, despite cruelty to animals, because it's regarded as a good film.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 14:43:00 GMT
I don't know what Kevin Spacey thought he was going to achieve with this statement, did he think the LGBTQ+ community would feel so honoured that he'd admitted to being one of their own that they'd shield him from all of the backlash of him sexually assaulting a child?
What was even more chilling is that (as I think someone said upthread) without explicitly saying it he almost hinted that there may be more allegations in the future. It's actually beyond disgusting.
I'd imagine that Netflix will be quietly dropping that sixth season of House of Cards that they'd ordered now. It's a shame because Kevin has done a lot of good stuff in his career, Usual Suspects, American Beauty, HoC, but that's all been tainted.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Oct 30, 2017 14:49:05 GMT
I am not sure I agree with martello on that final point.
I think it is possible to separate the art from the artist. Or at least it is possible for me.
Just as Wagner's music was inspired by and arguably celebrates some pretty unpleasant ideologies, it doesn't stop it being glorious music that can be enjoyed as music.
I think it is possible to view an actor as a repulsive piece of humanity whilst also acknowledging that they have delivered some incredible performances which can still be enjoyed as performances.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 15:08:12 GMT
There's a huge difference between enjoying the existing art that was created while allegations were no more than back stage whispers or private conversations and commissioning further art from someone who is now publicly accused though. I think you understand that, considering your use of the past tense in your last sentence. And the arts is a collection of fiercely competitive industries with more aspirants than there are roles. It's not like he's a renowned puppy murderer but the only person who can cure cancer so putting up with his bad behaviour is a necessary evil for the greater good. Being a working actor is a privilege, not a right, and just because individual audience members pride themselves on being able to separate the performance from the person doesn't mean the producers will want to taint themselves by giving work to actors who will only bring terrible PR when there are more than enough other actors out there who have the talent but without the stigma.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 30, 2017 15:08:32 GMT
I am not sure I agree with martello on that final point. I think it is possible to separate the art from the artist. Or at least it is possible for me. Just as Wagner's music was inspired by and arguably celebrates some pretty unpleasant ideologies, it doesn't stop it being glorious music that can be enjoyed as music. I think it is possible to view an actor as a repulsive piece of humanity whilst also acknowledging that they have delivered some incredible performances which can still be enjoyed as performances. Agree, you have to separate the art from the artist, "Chinatown" is a great film despite its director being a rapist, "2001" is a great film despite its author being a paedophile - there are many similar examples. In another field Bill Clinton is still feted as a politician despite his many personal transgressions and accusers.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 15:12:35 GMT
You don't have to separate the art from the artist if you don't want to. Life's too short to go see Woody Allen films when there are so many other films out there that are just as good but without the stigma. You *may* separate the art from the artist, if you wish to, but that's an individual choice, not a requirement.
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Oct 30, 2017 15:16:07 GMT
Totally agree with the last two statements from oxfordsimon and mortello. Spacey should pay for what he did (and I do not mean money) but his career and future projects should not be destroyed because of that. He is a brilliant actor and being a jerk or whatever doesn't change the fact.
I feel sorry for Rapp and think he is brave to do that. Even though to prevent any other such ancidents and raise a flag Spacey's behaviour the best choice probably was to speak up 30 years ago... But I am in no way judging a victim.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 30, 2017 15:17:23 GMT
You don't have to separate the art from the artist if you don't want to. Life's too short to go see Woody Allen films when there are so many other films out there that are just as good but without the stigma. You *may* separate the art from the artist, if you wish to, but that's an individual choice, not a requirement. In many cases you don't have a choice, you can't avoid seeing Eric Gill's (paedophilia, incest, bestiality) sculpture on the front of Broadcasting House or his typeface used in BBC corporate branding.
|
|
806 posts
|
Post by duncan on Oct 30, 2017 15:30:40 GMT
You don't have to separate the art from the artist if you don't want to. Life's too short to go see Woody Allen films when there are so many other films out there that are just as good but without the stigma. You *may* separate the art from the artist, if you wish to, but that's an individual choice, not a requirement.
Woody, like Kevin and indeed like Harvey has never been convicted of any of the allegations made against him (them).
At this point its just allegations and we probably should all remember that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 15:33:11 GMT
"2001" is a great film despite its author being a paedophile
It seems reckless to claim this, given Clarke was cleared by the police, and that the Sunday Mirror who raised the allegations later apologised, and were criticised by Interpol for failing to provide the recorded evidence they alleged they had.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Oct 30, 2017 15:38:59 GMT
There's a huge difference between enjoying the existing art that was created while allegations were no more than back stage whispers or private conversations and commissioning further art from someone who is now publicly accused though. I think you understand that, considering your use of the past tense in your last sentence. And the arts is a collection of fiercely competitive industries with more aspirants than there are roles. It's not like he's a renowned puppy murderer but the only person who can cure cancer so putting up with his bad behaviour is a necessary evil for the greater good. Being a working actor is a privilege, not a right, and just because individual audience members pride themselves on being able to separate the performance from the person doesn't mean the producers will want to taint themselves by giving work to actors who will only bring terrible PR when there are more than enough other actors out there who have the talent but without the stigma. My comments were about the issue of whether behaviour taints the art - I made no comment about future performance opportunities. Also, it is not a matter of pride to say that I can separate art from the artist - it is merely a statement of fact. It doesn't make me a better person - it is a statement of how I view things.
|
|