1,503 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. |
|
1,970 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. |
|
3,040 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.
|
|
831 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. |
|
848 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 15:44:09 GMT
I think it's honestly a matter of individual wiring and the indivdual crimes/issues at stake. I've heard people say they'll "boycott" Big Fish because of Kelsey Grammar's politics. And while that's fine as a personal choice for me his politics don't cross a personal line of 'won't engage with anything he does' (plus in this example he's not the sole artist behind something and it's not the fault of the others involved he has disagreeable views).
But for others I am now 'put off' their future work. Personally Johnny Depp now falls into the category of 'can't watch him without thinking about other things' that doesn't for me erase how much I was a fan of his previously, but for me he's tainted to the point his presence distracts from the work.
But I also don't judge people, particularly in unproven cases- we all have our own lines in the sand.
|
|
19,788 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 30, 2017 16:37:17 GMT
This is still an unproven case, it’s an allegation and regardless of how believable it might be he hasn’t admitted anything, he hasn’t been charged with anything, he’s not under investigation for anything. So, as much as continually saying “allegedly” is a drag, let’s keep saying it for now if you’re referring directly to Spacey please.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Oct 30, 2017 16:50:02 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? I don't think the statement was aimed at the LGBTQ+ community. I think it was a carefully-planned strategy to distract the media, and to deflect the feeding frenzy away from Anthony Rapp's allegations towards something that would be more easily manageable. And I do think it was carefully planned. I don't think that tweet, or the strategy behind it, was concocted this morning. Rapp told the story, leaving out Spacey's name, in 2001. I don't find it believable that Spacey and his publicist were unaware that the story was out there, and that at some point Spacey's name might become attached to it. I think there was a plan of action in place for if/when the story broke, and that's what we saw this morning. To an extent, it seems to have worked: Spacey is getting ripped to shreds on Twitter, which is less easy to manipulate, but a fair number of headlines, though by no means all of them, have focused on the coming-out part of the story, and buried Rapp and his allegations in the body of the text. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 30, 2017 16:59:47 GMT
My comments were about the issue of whether behaviour taints the art I think a big issue with some of the arts - in some places - is that the behaviour is known about and actually condoned as being part of the 'artist's mythology'. Terry Richardson's work made it abundantly clear what he was doing, and yet celebrities and fashion brands wanted to work with him because they thought it was cool and edgy and transgressive. This, we are constantly told, is just what writers, poets, painters, sculptors etc are like - they are a special breed apart, with harems of used and disposable, often very damaged young women or men. |
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Oct 30, 2017 18:32:15 GMT
Since a couple of years ago the apple card has been truly and utterly upset.
From the vile Jimmy Saville, or the heinous Paul Gad (Gary Glitter), which also took down Max Clifford, David Lee Travis and Rolf Harris along way, to prominent mp's such as the awful and leachious Cyril Smith, Greville Janner and now Edward Heath, to recent Weinstein and Spacey and even a government minister asking his aide to go and buy sex toys from a Soho sleaze shop (that was f***ing strange).
Time has been called on these people, some it was too late to face justice which is very regrettable, so from a children's home to a boss over their employee, to someone auditioning for a job, no one should go to work and be subjected to predatory reprehensible behaviour. I welcome a code of conduct in the theatre industry.
However conversely you have had people alleged and stood trial and cleared, such as Nigel Evans and Neil Fox and in the media Cliff Richard, which is also regrettable.
I welcome justice catching up with anyone guilty of using their power to perform vile sexual acts. As much as it is sad that people have suffered, it is great people have been outed and face justice, as I said the apple cart has been upset and now it's time to leave no apple unturned to catch these animals and cage them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 20:10:49 GMT
In theory I do feel that the behaviour taints the art. In practice I have to be honest and say that polanski’s films are still some of my favourites. However I don't watch Woody Allen films anymore (I used to get excited about each new release). There is always a character in Allen’s films who bears the Allen persona and I can no longer buy into it. Culture is so important to me. It is very painful as a viewer/reader/listener to see favourite artists revealed to be not just flawed but evil (Ican’t think of another word to describe it).
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 30, 2017 20:45:51 GMT
In practice I have to be honest and say that polanski’s films are still some of my favourites. Yes, Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown particularly - and ironically, they're about abused women, and the women are portrayed heartbreakingly well. I still watch them - as a filmmaker he was one of the best, but as a human being horrendous. Luckily I never really liked Woody Allen much because, apart from in a few early films, his onscreen persona was offputting. |
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Oct 30, 2017 21:01:09 GMT
This is a bit tangetal but does/did Broadway not have rules about chaperones etc. to keep young actors safe, like the West End has? The BBC article I've just read says Spacey (allegedly) assaulted Rapp at a party during time when the latter was appearing in a Broadway play. Shouldn't he, aged only 14, have been chaperoned so he wasn't vulnerable to potential sexual predators?
|
|
916 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Oct 30, 2017 21:10:50 GMT
Rapp himself says that things were different for young actors in the 80s. He would make his own way to the theatre across Manhattan which would never happen nowadays, and he was mixing with adults socially from a young age.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Oct 30, 2017 21:16:15 GMT
The rules regarding children in theatre have significantly tightened over the past decades. We now have very specific rules about dressing rooms, toilets and so forth that were never considered necessary when I first started appearing on stage in the early 80s.
If you have children in the same cast as adults, you have to provide toilets for the children to which the adults have no access. In many theatres, there are only single cubicle facilities anyway - so I can't see the issue with a child using a toilet that was used by an adult half an hour before - as there is no opportunity for them to be using the same toilet at the same time! In many older theatres, this can be significant strain on room allocations etc as they were not built with that sort of rule in mind.
Also most of the regulations only apply during performances - the rehearsal period is far less regulated.
I have no idea on how the US system differs and how it has developed over the years. But my feeling is that the UK system has been in response to perceived rather than real problems and so has created a system that isn't really fit for purpose and has created unnecessary burdens that don't add to the protection of minors.
|
|
