|
Post by inthenose on Mar 28, 2022 20:19:34 GMT
Thankfully the Academy have started taking this seriously. So an investigation is to be launched. I have no idea what sanctions they might impose. But hopefully it will be more than a slap on the wrist. I don't think they should remove his Oscar. But a ban from being nominated for a number of years and a ban from attending any future ceremony should certainly be options. I agree. I am unusual I think in that I am able to separate the person from the work. For example my favourite actor is Kevin Spacey. Brilliant actor. Terrible human being. It doesn't stop me enjoying brilliant films just because he is in them, though. Examples need to be made of people (men AND women, sorry to upset certain people on this forum) who abuse their position and act inappropriately. They should have their status and power taken from them. Same with professional footballers (and all sportspeople) and people of fame, wealth and power who abuse it for their own ends, be they sexual, violent or anything which brings their industry into disrepute. Will Smith earned that award for his professional work, but he should in no way be free from repercussions.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2022 20:21:47 GMT
Long time site stalke/lurker who has felt compelled to join and comment on this.
You can argue the toss about about Smith's actions last night and condem him, I'd probably agree (though interestingly the majority of women in the office today were on his side and expressed that they'd be happy if their husbands did the same though not, all, in the public eye) but you need to check your privileges if you can not see that on some occasions violence is not only justified but necessary.
A regularly battered partner should be condemned for hitting the abuser even if they are not being abused at that moment?
A child should be condemned for following the time old adage of standing up to a bully and hitting them back?
There are plenty of examples of when violence is justifiable and if you've never experienced such circumstances in your life then you should be grateful, not full of condemnation for those who have.
|
|
2,976 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 28, 2022 20:33:05 GMT
The Academy and other similar ceremony organisers should take a long hard look at themselves and ask why the hell they decided to go down the route of personally abusive 'comedy' to frame their industry showcases. You can be funny without being vile: John Lennon's 'rattle your jewellery' comment springs to mind. It was pushed and pushed into ever more personal and nasty remarks and something had to snap and now it has. Good. Now they can clean out the stables and have a long overdue reset.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 28, 2022 20:38:12 GMT
The Academy and other similar ceremony organisers should take a long hard look at themselves and ask why the hell they decided to go down the route of personally abusive 'comedy' to frame their industry showcases. You can be funny without being vile: John Lennon's 'rattle your jewellery' comment springs to mind. It was pushed and pushed into ever more personal and nasty remarks and something had to snap and now it has. Good. Now they can clean out the stables and have a long overdue reset. And who is going to determine what sort of humour is permissable under your new regime? What you are calling for is essentially a form of censorship. I cannot see that as anything but a regressive step.
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Mar 28, 2022 20:45:30 GMT
Long time site stalke/lurker who has felt compelled to join and comment on this. You can argue the toss about about Smith's actions last night and condem him, I'd probably agree (though interestingly the majority of women in the office today were on his side and expressed that they'd be happy if their husbands did the same though not, all, in the public eye) but you need to check your privileges if you can not see that on some occasions violence is not only justified but necessary. A regularly battered partner should be condemned for hitting the abuser even if they are not being abused at that moment? A child should be condemned for following the time old adage of standing up to a bully and hitting them back? There are plenty of examples of when violence is justifiable and if you've never experienced such circumstances in your life then you should be grateful, not full of condemnation for those who have. I personally don't think any of your examples given, where I'd entirely understand resorting to physical self defence, match the scenario that occured last night.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 28, 2022 20:46:58 GMT
Long time site stalke/lurker who has felt compelled to join and comment on this. You can argue the toss about about Smith's actions last night and condem him, I'd probably agree (though interestingly the majority of women in the office today were on his side and expressed that they'd be happy if their husbands did the same though not, all, in the public eye) but you need to check your privileges if you can not see that on some occasions violence is not only justified but necessary. A regularly battered partner should be condemned for hitting the abuser even if they are not being abused at that moment? A child should be condemned for following the time old adage of standing up to a bully and hitting them back? There are plenty of examples of when violence is justifiable and if you've never experienced such circumstances in your life then you should be grateful, not full of condemnation for those who have. Sorry but you cannot equate what happened last night with the examples you cite. The law regarding provocation is very clear and very limited. And quite rightly so. There are circumstances where a violent reaction is legally excused but the assault perpetrated by Smith doesn't come anywhere close to meeting that sort of threshold. And I certainly would never encourage a bullied child to hit back. As a victim of many bullies through childhood and indeed right through my adult life, the situations would never have been improved by resorting to the same behaviour used against me. The idea that violence is an appropriate response in anything but the most extreme of circumstances is a complete anathema to me.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Mar 28, 2022 20:53:15 GMT
What also appears to have passed some people by is that Will Smith laughed at the joke when it was made. He only got up when he realised Jada didn't find it funny. Shows you just how much he actually cared about the joke as opposed to needing to show bravado.
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Mar 28, 2022 20:57:44 GMT
What also appears to have passed some people by is that Will Smith laughed at the joke when it was made. He only got up when he realised Jada didn't find it funny. Shows you just how much he actually cared about the joke as opposed to needing to show bravado. It was macho posturing. The difference is, he entered the stage in what should have been the biggest and best night of his career and assaulted the host over a poor joke. Once again, for those who missed it. I don't like violence or mudslinging. But this again shows this wasn't a "one a billion" flipping of his lid. And, again, I understand Smith's action in the above video. I don't understand assaulting the host in the bloody Oscars!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2022 21:08:53 GMT
Long time site stalke/lurker who has felt compelled to join and comment on this. You can argue the toss about about Smith's actions last night and condem him, I'd probably agree (though interestingly the majority of women in the office today were on his side and expressed that they'd be happy if their husbands did the same though not, all, in the public eye) but you need to check your privileges if you can not see that on some occasions violence is not only justified but necessary. A regularly battered partner should be condemned for hitting the abuser even if they are not being abused at that moment? A child should be condemned for following the time old adage of standing up to a bully and hitting them back? There are plenty of examples of when violence is justifiable and if you've never experienced such circumstances in your life then you should be grateful, not full of condemnation for those who have. Sorry but you cannot equate what happened last night with the examples you cite. The law regarding provocation is very clear and very limited. And quite rightly so. There are circumstances where a violent reaction is legally excused but the assault perpetrated by Smith doesn't come anywhere close to meeting that sort of threshold. And I certainly would never encourage a bullied child to hit back. As a victim of many bullies through childhood and indeed right through my adult life, the situations would never have been improved by resorting to the same behaviour used against me. The idea that violence is an appropriate response in anything but the most extreme of circumstances is a complete anathema to me. I wasn't comparing last night to any of them but arguing against what I thought was incredibly pontificating argument that violence is always wrong. I was also a victim of bullying at school and the moment I battered the bully in front of the whole school it stopped... Strange. My parents went and told the headmaster that I did the right thing and the parents of the former bully also did the same as they were disgusted by him. It's not as black and white as those with such presumably halcyon, privalaged lives have made out.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 28, 2022 21:10:34 GMT
Who are you to assign privilege to people about whom you know absolutely nothing?
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 28, 2022 21:11:54 GMT
The one privilege of which I shall avail myself is that of the block function given to us all.
|
|
2,976 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 28, 2022 21:40:42 GMT
The Academy and other similar ceremony organisers should take a long hard look at themselves and ask why the hell they decided to go down the route of personally abusive 'comedy' to frame their industry showcases. You can be funny without being vile: John Lennon's 'rattle your jewellery' comment springs to mind. It was pushed and pushed into ever more personal and nasty remarks and something had to snap and now it has. Good. Now they can clean out the stables and have a long overdue reset. And who is going to determine what sort of humour is permissable under your new regime? What you are calling for is essentially a form of censorship. I cannot see that as anything but a regressive step. No I'm not. I'm hoping that the Oscars will stop spiralling downward in its style of presenting. It does not sit well with an organisation and an industry that elsewhere is trying to signal that is it progressive and caring and has cleaned up its act after decades of behind the scenes misogyny and abuse and discrimination being revealed during #MeToo and elsewhere. If you want to see this style of comedy, you can choose to watch a comedy show, go to a comedy club, but don't subject people to personal abuse when they are there in a hall because of the films they made or the films their partners are in. So many pious comments being made about the kind of signal Smith is sending to young men with his slap - what kind of signal does it send to people, especially to young women, trying to enter that industry when they see remarks like that, that they're expected to sit there and suck up with a fixed grin, coming from the stage at the most prestigious event in their industry calendar?
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 28, 2022 22:01:45 GMT
By trying to legislate for what forms of humour are to be permitted at a given event, you are calling for the regulation of comedy which I contend is a form of censorship.
Every professional comic tailors their content to the audience and their expectations. The jokes told at the Royal Variety Show are not the same used at a regular gig but they carry some of the authentic flavour of the comedian.
This is true of the Oscars. Chris Rock live in a club is nothing like the content he used last night.
Taking the freedom away from comedians to judge their audience/event and to tailor their material accordingly and allowing others to decide what is to be permitted pretty much the same as the days of the Lord Chamberlain and the ability of his office to decide what was to be permitted on the stage.
What Chris Rock said last night was not abusive. It may have not been in the best possible taste. But it was not delivered aggressively. To my mind, it certainly was not offensive enough to justify the sort of changes you believe to be necessary.
|
|
6,372 posts
|
Post by Jon on Mar 28, 2022 22:29:36 GMT
Thankfully the Academy have started taking this seriously. So an investigation is to be launched. I have no idea what sanctions they might impose. But hopefully it will be more than a slap on the wrist. I don't think they should remove his Oscar. But a ban from being nominated for a number of years and a ban from attending any future ceremony should certainly be options. Realistically, they're unlikely to ban him from being nominated for any length of time, I imagine he'll probably not be able to go to the ceremony next year.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2022 22:32:23 GMT
By trying to legislate for what forms of humour are to be permitted at a given event, you are calling for the regulation of comedy which I contend is a form of censorship. Is it censorship though? Surely just some sort of formalising of the standard ‘tailor it to the audience’s expectations’ (as I appreciate you quoted) would work? eg ‘At the Oscars, we don’t expect comics to make nasty personal remarks about people’ doesn’t feel like censorship to me. Sure, some comics might not then turn up and the show might be more anodyne, but a rule like that could hardly be compared to trying to produce satire in Soviet Russia…?
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 28, 2022 22:37:43 GMT
It is predicated on someone making a call as to whether a given joke is nasty or not. That is a form of censorship.
It might not be the most egregious or extreme form of censorship but it would still be an organisation seeking to have a veto over what jokes are to be used
I do not believe that is necessary or desirable.
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Mar 28, 2022 22:48:33 GMT
There's an added challenge in trying to restrict material, because some of the celebs talk about things themselves. They sell their stories to magazines, or use their private life to boost followers on social media and keep themselves in the public eye beyond what they do for work. There are some celebs who clearly do draw a line between their public and private lives, but some just want to have their cake and eat it. At least Leonardo di Caprio has the sense to laugh at the frequent jokes about him having much younger girlfriends.
IMO, if there's a problem with Hollywood, it's that it promotes a totally unhealthy idea of what is attractive. A movie star is expected to appear perfect, in crazily expensive outfits, with the women especially routinely spending hours with a team of people doing hair and make-up before every big event. That's going to take a bigger toll on their long-term mental health than the awards shows themselves not being sycophantic enough.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Mar 28, 2022 23:12:23 GMT
By trying to legislate for what forms of humour are to be permitted at a given event, you are calling for the regulation of comedy which I contend is a form of censorship. Is it censorship though? Surely just some sort of formalising of the standard ‘tailor it to the audience’s expectations’ (as I appreciate you quoted) would work? eg ‘At the Oscars, we don’t expect comics to make nasty personal remarks about people’ doesn’t feel like censorship to me. Sure, some comics might not then turn up and the show might be more anodyne, but a rule like that could hardly be compared to trying to produce satire in Soviet Russia…? That's pretty difficult when offence is taken not given. Also, a gentle ribbing is what award ceremonies are about. A group of uber privileged, multi millionaires get the piss taken out of them by a comic. By their status, that means the comic is punching up rather than down. Any person has the right to take offense to that material, but the comic has an equal right to say it.
|
|
2,976 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 28, 2022 23:14:45 GMT
What Chris Rock said last night was not abusive. It may have not been in the best possible taste. But it was not delivered aggressively. You were not the butt of the remark. Only one person on earth was the butt of that remark, made to humiliate her in front of millions, and she was visibly upset. And the fact that that remark was delivered so casually in such a glitzy setting makes it worse. It means that it has been normalised. It's not normal, it's nasty and cruel.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 28, 2022 23:37:02 GMT
In your opinion. You are making assumptions based on a few frames of video footage.
It is not worth engaging any further on this. You believe that comedy should be externally regulated and that physical violence was an acceptable response under the given circumstances. I do not.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 28, 2022 23:51:42 GMT
You have made many posts of how appalling the physical violence was, which mostly everyone on here agrees with. But you say nothing on how bad the verbal insult was. It was a nasty reprehensible comment, that wasn’t funny.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 29, 2022 0:11:05 GMT
I have repeatedly said it was in poor taste. I just don't share your categorisation of it in the way that you do.
I started this thread because a high profile individual resorted to violence. I still contend that his choice to use violence was in no way justified by what was said.
Being offended is not justification for violence.
Being offensive does not give someone the right to hit you.
As for whether it was funny or not is not something I feel strongly about either way. But it is worth noting that those present in the auditorium laughed. Including the man who moments later decided to assault the presenter.
|
|
|
Post by sph on Mar 29, 2022 0:29:04 GMT
He should certainly be banned from ever attending again, at the very least. Unfortunately, it's a business where his name means money, so will the Academy have the guts to properly do it?
|
|
|
Post by sph on Mar 29, 2022 0:36:19 GMT
What Chris Rock said last night was not abusive. It may have not been in the best possible taste. But it was not delivered aggressively. You were not the butt of the remark. Only one person on earth was the butt of that remark, made to humiliate her in front of millions, and she was visibly upset. And the fact that that remark was delivered so casually in such a glitzy setting makes it worse. It means that it has been normalised. It's not normal, it's nasty and cruel. Not deserving of physical assault though. Or at least that's what the law says. But I suppose you know best, as usual.
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Mar 29, 2022 0:39:35 GMT
By trying to legislate for what forms of humour are to be permitted at a given event, you are calling for the regulation of comedy which I contend is a form of censorship. Is it censorship though? Surely just some sort of formalising of the standard ‘tailor it to the audience’s expectations’ (as I appreciate you quoted) would work? eg ‘At the Oscars, we don’t expect comics to make nasty personal remarks about people’ doesn’t feel like censorship to me. Sure, some comics might not then turn up and the show might be more anodyne, but a rule like that could hardly be compared to trying to produce satire in Soviet Russia…? What is the line of what is acceptable to whom? Moreover, where is the line where I'm entitled to get up and hit somebody?
|
|
1,298 posts
|
Post by mkb on Mar 29, 2022 5:25:40 GMT
These things generally have a way of working themselves out satisfactorily. If the protagonist is widely liked by their peers, it will be nought but a small blip in the path of their career; if despised, this will be the excuse to stick the knife in.*
Jimmy Carr has not suffered seriously despite the run-in with HMRC and despite gypsy-gate, and the word is that's because he's "really nice and generous" outside the public eye.
One thing's for sure: if you get awarded an Oscar in a category for which a competitor is banned but whose performance is lauded, you can never be sure you weren't second best in the eyes of your peers.
* - Edited to add: on further thought, there are exceptions to this rule. Kevin Spacey was widely liked, and despite few of his acting peers lining up to condemn him, and despite not having been found guilty of anything in a court of law (yet), his career has stalled. I've even heard people whisper their unhappiness at how he has been treated, but no-one will say that publicly of course.
|
|
1,298 posts
|
Post by mkb on Mar 29, 2022 5:48:24 GMT
Another thought: having been on the receiving end of both physical assault and vicious online abuse, I found the mental scars from the latter took longer to heal than the bruises and cuts from the former.
Clearly if I'd been beaten harder, that equation would change, but my point is that there is a different standard used to sanction physical attacks compared to something hurtful said publicly, and I don't think that's always appropriate.
I've lost count of the times I've seen two people -- sometimes two blokes, often two women -- on a night out and the worst for wear. They're clearly good mates, then they have an altercation, punches are thrown, it's over in less than a minute, they're shocked at what they've just done, and, within minutes, they're best pals again. Drink (and sometimes cocaine) does that to people. No way do I think the criminal law should be brought to bear in these cases. The courts would be swamped many times over what they already are.
Unless there is a pattern of behaviour, or serious injury, let people sort these things out among themselves. Outside of rarefied society, that's always how the world has worked anyway.
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Mar 29, 2022 7:01:50 GMT
Everything you say, beautifully written and however much I agree, it doesn't change the fact that Will Smith jumped up onto the stage and assaulted someone.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2022 7:39:07 GMT
Another thought: having been on the receiving end of both physical assault and vicious online abuse, I found the mental scars from the latter took longer to heal than the bruises and cuts from the former. Clearly if I'd been beaten harder, that equation would change, but my point is that there is a different standard used to sanction physical attacks compared to something hurtful said publicly, and I don't think that's always appropriate. I've lost count of the times I've seen two people -- sometimes two blokes, often two women -- on a night out and the worst for wear. They're clearly good mates, then they have an altercation, punches are thrown, it's over in less than a minute, they're shocked at what they've just done, and, within minutes, they're best pals again. Drink (and sometimes cocaine) does that to people. No way do I think the criminal law should be brought to bear in these cases. The courts would be swamped many times over what they already are. Unless there is a pattern of behaviour, or serious injury, let people sort these things out among themselves. Outside of rarefied society, that's always how the world has worked anyway. In some communities, most famously the Traveller, there is encouragement to settle disputes via a quick 'punch up'. That's a very prevalent thought process in many working class and other communities too. As I said, not a black and white argument at any point and too much moralising from some who are keen to normally express how much they embrace diversity except, when it seems, when that diversity doesn't suit them.
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Mar 29, 2022 7:41:51 GMT
Another thought: having been on the receiving end of both physical assault and vicious online abuse, I found the mental scars from the latter took longer to heal than the bruises and cuts from the former. Clearly if I'd been beaten harder, that equation would change, but my point is that there is a different standard used to sanction physical attacks compared to something hurtful said publicly, and I don't think that's always appropriate. I've lost count of the times I've seen two people -- sometimes two blokes, often two women -- on a night out and the worst for wear. They're clearly good mates, then they have an altercation, punches are thrown, it's over in less than a minute, they're shocked at what they've just done, and, within minutes, they're best pals again. Drink (and sometimes cocaine) does that to people. No way do I think the criminal law should be brought to bear in these cases. The courts would be swamped many times over what they already are. Unless there is a pattern of behaviour, or serious injury, let people sort these things out among themselves. Outside of rarefied society, that's always how the world has worked anyway. In some communities, most famously the Traveller, there is encouragement to settle disputes via a quick 'punch up'. That's a very prevalent thought process in many working class and other communities too. As I said, not a black and white argument at any point and too much moralising from some who are keen to normally express how much they embrace diversity except, when it seems, when that diversity doesn't suit them. Are you a troll account? Are you genuinely trying to justify common assault on the basis that Will Smith may (or not) be a traveller? This is starting to get surreal.
|
|