Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In Film/TV
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
I don't know about the ass slapping. Maybe if they were role playing, which is also a common, non-threatening way for girls to start making out.
http://smalltomatoespress.blogspot.com/2…
What are your opinions of going to see Ender's Game? And if Kechiche had a documented habit of abusing female actors, would you still argue for Blue? What if another director raped an underage girl but later created one of the greatest films of all time? And what then if that director used his fame to escape from justice?
I think you need a little more nuanced argument than "people disagree with me and now they are going to miss out on something".
I'm going to go turn on some of that wife beating miles davis music. It always makes me think of how immoral I am for enjoying art that came from a troubled place.
1) Is this clear in their work? It seems it is, with Orson Scott Card. I've only read Ender's Game (where his homophobia is not present), but apparently it's glaring in a lot of his other books. That's generally repulsive enough on its own for me to not *want* to read them. Or Jack Kerouac talking unreflectively about being a rapist in his books. Gross shit.
2) If it's not, do you want to support them financially? Roman Polanski is a total scumbag. His movies are amazing, though, good enough for me to forget who made them for an hour and a half to two hours. But he's still alive, and I don't like giving child rapists money. But you can buy his movies on DVD used, or check them out from the library, and that's totally worth it. I'll probably buy a lot of them on DVD once he kicks the bucket.
If their repulsive views/actions aren't present in their work and they're dead, then that does sound like some Soviet Russia stuff, yeah.
Haven't followed the Blue controversy so no comment on that.
Orson Scott Card was on the board of NOM? Give him money anyways, because his movie doesn't support that.
Abdellatif Kechiche overworked his employees, flagrantly bent and/or violated employment laws, and paid minimum wage? Give him money anyways because I kind of liked his movie.
Microsoft and Sony are having their new devices made in China and Brazil with companies that have had strikes against them overturned by the government and have been subject to all sorts of worker-based horror? Buy their console anyways because we need the new shiny, and it totally doesn't affect me.
Is this the new mode? To not care about people's actions because everybody sucks? God, it feels like Gen X nihilism all over again.
Elsewhere on the interwebs, the battle cry seems to be "ignore all that and focus on the beauty that came out of struggle" -- and then they fall down the rabbit hole that exquisite art only comes from suffering/struggling/tortured artists. I just want to beat my head against the wall. It comes across as "it's not abuse if twoo art came from it!"
Uhm, yeah it is.
Maybe I'm wrong on that, and that was just a certain segment of the commentariat.
Regardless of whether or not the lead actresses were being exploited, I think the sex was completely justified on aesthetic grounds. I mean, it’s tonally consistent with the rest of the movie. The pore-revealing close ups, the grotesque open-mouthed eating, the unflattering pose while sleeping (mouth agape), and the almost endless snot emanating from Adele’s nose all serve the same purpose as the sex scene: a defense of our anatomical selves. The fact that an act as natural as having sex can still be seen as a violation of some puritanical view of intimacy says it all.
The director was delving into the ‘vulgar arts,’ as Emma puts it in the film.
Regardless of whether or not the lead actresses were being exploited, I think the sex was completely justified on aesthetic grounds. I mean, it’s tonally consistent with the rest of the movie. The pore-revealing close ups, the grotesque open-mouthed eating, the unflattering pose while sleeping (mouth agape), and the almost endless snot emanating from Adele’s nose all serve the same purpose as the sex scene: a defense of our anatomical selves. The fact that an act as natural as having sex can still be seen as a violation of some puritanical view of intimacy says it all.
The director was delving into the ‘vulgar arts,’ as Emma puts it in the film.
On the other hand, the relationship side of the film had a lot of credibility. POSSIBLE SPOILERS: The two lead characters were found each other irresistible, but once that faded out they discovered that they didn't have a whole lot in common other than lust for each other, and the relationship foundered. Meeting some years after they split, they still felt the physical attraction, but they had developed the maturity to recognize that it still wouldn't work out. Still, it was clear that they regretted the fact that it wouldn't work out. END SPOILERS.
Sometimes straight relationships are the same way.
I think the film could have been shorter, possibly by reducing some of the drool scenes. But I still thought it was pretty good.
Also lesbian friend laughed at the sex scenes, but still thought the women looked pretty attractive, particularly the one with the blue hair. She also admired the relationship story, to the point that she didn't mind the length or the drool.
Also, should one enjoy art by someone one finds repulsive? In this case, I find the stars' criticism of the director inconclusive. Clearly they found the film experience unpleasant, to the point that they didn't want to work with him again. But they thought he was amazing as an artist. So is he a monster? Should one boycott his films because they didn't want to work with him again? I don't think so. As I see it, the message should be seen as a warning to other actresses: be prepared for an ordeal if you work with this guy, but look at the results we achieved by putting up with him!
What about other repulsive artists? In the specific case of _Ender's Game_, Card got a fixed-price deal on the film, so a few more or less tickets sold don't benefit him. However, if the film makes buckets of money, producers are more likely to pay Card more money to adapt another book. What do you do if you really want to see the film? Buy a ticket to something else playing in the same theater, and see the film. (I've read lukewarm reviews, however, so maybe one can boycott it without missing much.)
But I sort of think that entertainment shouldn't NEED redemption.
@20 Just to muddy up one of your points. There was only one news article claiming that Orson Scott Card didn't get profits from the film. That was from an asshatty site called The Wrap. They used unnamed sources, and didn't verify this with any of the parties. It was an "exclusive" report of no accountability in a factually erroneous error. The Wrap, in that article, went on to erroneously claim authors didn't get back end until Harry Potter. But, in 1994, there was a movie called Forrest Gump from Paramount. Well, Paramount was sued because the author wasn't getting his contractually promised back end.
Later this bit of factual error would be disseminated throughout the news websites, TV shows, and even made it here as fact (through The Dissolve), with absolutely nobody bothering to fact check it. So, no, I don't believe Card got a fixed up front contract.
I met and interviewed Card 20 years back, after he wrote Lost Boys. At that time he was certainly more of a humanist bent -- Pastwatch makes that pretty clear, and even though Ender's Game has some problematic aspects, the homophobia isn't really present.
The Orson Scott Card of today is a very different person, IMO. So what now? Do you not see Ender's game because it might get him money because of his more recent statements, which are plainly crazy? Or do you enjoy the book because that's who he was when he wrote it?
(FYI, most writers don't get back-end, even now, I don't know the details of Card's contract. But getting back-end is still a rarity, and even then it isn't a lot unless your movie hits blockbuster territory-- and not even bankable movie stars can always demand it, so it's better-than-even odds that Card got his payment up front, but if anyone has the details I'd love to hear them).
I can't think of a single artist anywhere at any time with no skeletons in the closet. And I can point to any artist and any work and find something objectionable. It's pretty easy to do.
So to me the whole argument about whether you are supporting an artist who you hate starts to fall apart pretty fast when it hits reality, which doesn't lend itself well to that dichotomy. I mean, look, it's possible to say "Roman Polanski should have gone to jail and done his time" and "Knife in the Water is a great film." The two aren't mutually exclusive. Miles Davis is a domestic abuser, you know? Gil-Scott Heron was a complete mess (and made life tough for his family). At least one of the actors in The Lord of the Rings (Rhys-Davies) is politically conservative, and JRR Tolkein (via his estate) was an orthodox Catholic with some... interesting views on race that crept into his work, even though he himself denounced racism. So how do you even begin to draw such lines?
@24 That's hilarious that you mention OSC 20 years back. Because he wrote in support for retaining laws against homosexuality 23 years ago, in 1990. It wasn't as big of news back then, but by 1999 it was huge. So maybe he presented himself as a humanist to you after 1992 (Lost Boys), but he was an ugly ugly man before that interview.
But, where do I draw the line? Well, one of my lines is certainly "if you're going to spend my money against me or my friends, then I'm not going to give you any money."
P.S. Major bestselling authors certainly do have back end deals. And Card was a major author by 2000. He had multiple best selling series going at that point. You need to check your facts before you go spreading rumor and conjecture. Nobody has the details because no studio wants to confirm what his contract was.
But, we'll ignore the regular workers...as usual.
We're talking about holding a director accountable and not giving money to abusive and amoral people. It has nothing to do with the quality of their work and everything to do with making terrible people successful.
You can't take the moral high ground in this situation without being hypocritical.
1. If you know that exploitation was used to create a thing. Or if you know that the person responsible for creating a thing is morally bankrupt.
2. Then you should NOT support the creation.
I know that there are things I enjoyed right up until the point that I found out that they were plagarised, created by a rapist, etc and so forth. Once I know these things, the whole effect is ruined for me completely. But I still strive to find them out because I don't want to support reprehensible individuals.
Yes, I won't always know when I'm enjoying something created by an immoral jerk, but when I do know, I have an obligation to STOP using it, STOP paying for it. If you can plead genuine, not contrived ignorance that's one thing entirely different than continuing to support an artist that is otherwise making the world a shitty place. One great piece of art doesn't override their status as an asshole.
But an artist isn’t a moralist, he isn’t a theologian or a philanthropist. His ONLY job is to create good art. Blue Is the Warmest Color is good art and is worth experiencing, therefore someone would have to be payed – unless you wouldn’t mind stealing it. I see good art as transcending its founding circumstances. I wouldn't refuse to visit the Sistine Chapel because it was built off a sale of indulgences.
I think the main reason one necessarily needs to separate art from the artist is because one can’t actually know the artist. One can't even sure that the rumors and accusations are completely true. The union, which have previously worked with him under similar conditions, could just be seeking better financial compensation after the film turned out to be a huge hit in France. I'm not saying that's the case (they could even be downplaying the accusations for fear of it damaging their careers) i'm just saying that we shouldn't take every accusation at face-value, that's not the way justice works.
But when some director sexually abuses his actresses and I say "no way am I going to support that" people jump in and tell me I'm wrong because I'm being punitive towards art.....
No, I'm treating art like EVERYTHING else. It's getting a fair shake, not the advantage it's accustomed to. Let me find my tiny violin...