5,060 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 28, 2022 17:15:54 GMT
Physical violence isn’t the answer, however saying that Will Smith wife looked a G.I. Is terrible insult in itself, especially as she is suffering from the medical condition alopecia. This can be very tough for a lady.
Verbal assault can be as/or more so damaging than physical violence and should be called out as reprehensible.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Mar 28, 2022 17:29:13 GMT
The way he swaggered up, took his swing, swaggered back down. This wasn't about rage, it was about ego. It was about going up and puffing out his chest and acting the "big man" on "behalf" of his wife. The Oscars just completely normalised an act of violence in front of the entire world. Is that going to be ok now to some people? Getting up on stage and decking a comedian whenever they make a bad joke at a gig?
Then he excuses it as an act of love? No one should have given that award a standing ovation.
|
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Mar 28, 2022 17:31:35 GMT
In hindsight if Will had shouted something like "Say that again" or "Say it to my face" it would have done him a lot less damage. But then he risks Chris Rock coming back with a sharp one liner. Also if they walk out CR may well have made a parting remark after them. Also CR pitched the joke wrong as Willow Smith also has very short/Army haircut. If he'd say hey Will are Jada and Willow both up for GI Jane role then it widens the joke. The joke about her hair loss is a fine line, effects of chemo causing it I'd say no go, baldness there have been jokes before but would a toupee or wig be called out publically? From what I can gather, the hair loss is not due to any particular illness, as she had various checks, but likely due to physical damage from too much tension to the roots in certain hair styles. Stress may also be a factor, or at the very least stress is a consequence. She also shaved her hair off in an Instagram post, which doesn't mean she's cool with it, or that it gives everyone a green light to say what they like, but does mean she chose to make it a public talking point. But this is where it gets complicated. Just because you are prepared to make a joke about your own 'imperfections' doesn't mean you are OK with someone else doing the same. So I maintain she is entitled to be upset by it getting a mention as part of a joke. Equally, I can totally see why Chris Rock wouldn't realise she would be upset by it. I rather suspect that there's a lot more to it than the joke itself. I've tried to avoid it as best I can, because what I have seen is cringe, but I know Jada herself has instigated a lot of talk about them and their open marriage, or whatever it is. Not that it excuses violence either, but Smith has always come across as a good guy, or at least someone skilled at managing his public image. The more I think about it, the more I think his reaction was about way more than a bad joke. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2022 17:57:56 GMT
Good points JoJo we don't know what the past history is between Chris, Will and Jada. I'd always thought stress or trauma can cause alopecia. Matt Lucas puts his down to being hit by a car. Olumpic Gold Medalist Duncan Goodhew's was down to him falling out of a tree I seem to remember. Gail Porter's was due to stress/issues in her life/her marriage breaking down.
I once worked with a chap in the mid 1990's who was then in his mid 50's and still had a good head of hair. But he told me and showed me photos of when he'd suffered from it in the 1960's and was totally bald.
As JoJo said also there must be more too it, Will who has always had pretty good PR and has been at the top for over 30 years on the crowning night of his career to do this. There is something deeper. Some actors are well known for having a temper and you could imagine them doing it but Will would be way down any list if you said who'd put one on somebody at an awards show.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Mar 28, 2022 18:15:03 GMT
There is a big difference between going to a comedy gig or watching a recorded 'special', where you know the nature of the performer's jokes, you are prepared for some to be in bad taste or offensive, and you know that sitting in the front row may make you the butt of an off-colour joke, and this. The Oscars is an industry awards ceremony about films, not a stand up comedy show. If you are in the industry and up for an award, or the family of someone who is, it is expected that you have to attend. If you are interested in film and a fan of those who are up for awards, or even just like frocks, you'll be watching it. So why subject that audience to a known-to-be 'controversial' and 'edgy' stand up comedian as host? The audience aren't given any choice here. It's not about censorship. It's about what's appropriate for this type of show. Everyone going to the Oscars knows they are in for a potential roasting from the hosts or presenters, it has happened for years, including when Rock himself presented a few years ago. It's nice to agree with you for a change, shows there's no malice in how often we seem to disagree about everything! 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Mar 28, 2022 18:23:00 GMT
Let's be honest, with the whole 'comedy roast' culture that's purposely offensive, someone was gonna get a slap eventually. Just a shame it wasn't Gervais Ricky is a genius and one of the funniest people I've ever worked with. There is not a malicious bone in the man's body and he does an awful lot behind the scenes that people don't see. I know you might not believe me, but I've worked on some of Ricky's shows and he is one of the classiest and most giving stars I've dealt with. A few of the most famous "nice guy" comedian celebrities (one southern, one very northern) have abhorrent views they actually believe, rather than jokes they tell on a stage for shock/laughs. It's funny how the world works. Specifically on your point, Ricky Gervais clearly loathes the rich, white, male dominated Hollywood scene and frankly he talks more sense than most. He is an outsider to it all - by choice. That's why his perfect laser incision was so lauded, he isn't "one of them". |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Mar 28, 2022 18:34:52 GMT
Good points JoJo we don't know what the past history is between Chris, Will and Jada. I'd always thought stress or trauma can cause alopecia. Matt Lucas puts his down to being hit by a car. Olumpic Gold Medalist Duncan Goodhew's was down to him falling out of a tree I seem to remember. Gail Porter's was due to stress/issues in her life/her marriage breaking down. I once worked with a chap in the mid 1990's who was then in his mid 50's and still had a good head of hair. But he told me and showed me photos of when he'd suffered from it in the 1960's and was totally bald. As JoJo said also there must be more too it, Will who has always had pretty good PR and has been at the top for over 30 years on the crowning night of his career to do this. There is something deeper. Some actors are well known for having a temper and you could imagine them doing it but Will would be way down any list if you said who'd put one on somebody at an awards show. Well, there was this (where I think Will Smith was perfectly entitled to react the way he did, actually) but it was a bit of a slip of the mask. (If mod could embed I'd be grateful) |
|
1,759 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by marob on Mar 28, 2022 18:51:31 GMT
I find it interesting reading so many comments about how likeable and nice Will Smith is, as I’ve always thought there’s something about him and his family that comes across as incredibly conceited.
The TV producers or Academy or whoever runs the show should have chucked him out. The fact they didn’t and then gave him an award is more shocking than the actual slap. Spineless sycophants.
|
|
5,838 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 28, 2022 18:55:26 GMT
The standing ovation when he collected his award is also hard to forgive. Shows how entitled that group is in reality.
|
|
5,838 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 28, 2022 19:46:35 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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
3,040 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.
|
|
5,838 posts
Member is Online
|
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. |
|
5,838 posts
Member is Online
|
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. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted 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. |
|
5,838 posts
Member is Online
|
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?
|
|
5,838 posts
Member is Online
|
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.
|
|
3,040 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? |
|
5,838 posts
Member is Online
|
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.
|
|
7,183 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…? |
|
