I dunno. I am 50 and thinking you know this good old boys network shit may works in my pasty white skins favor but the more I actually learn the more I think it is long long long past due for being smashed down.
14 Likes
Fuck Terry Gilliam.
1 Like
Oh?
“The ones who did knew what they were doing. These are adults, we are talking about adults[.] […] that’s the price you pay”[.]
There is an ellipsis. And it’s Gilliam’s, not mine. You may fill it with another meaning than “letting someone immensely powerful rape you for your career is your own choice”, but be aware that the just mentioned meaning is in this ellipsis, too.
Unsaid things are a sure way to ruin all the things you do say, if you aren’t choosing the place and time and context of your ellipsis wisely.
5 Likes
I’m sorry… what? You’re saying that because AFP chose to print only portions of his interview, it’s okay for you to “fill in the blanks” with your own imagined interview soundbite? Is this part of the new provisions under the Fake News Act of 2017?
What he said and meant is pretty clear, even with the ellipses. If you want to create an Evil Gilliam Doppelganger for your own entertainment purposes, that’s your business.
Getting outed by the #MeToo movement. It’s just the price you pay for getting to rape many young hopeful actors.
Hmm, when you put it that way it doesn’t seem quite equitable does it?
1 Like
Excuse me, but the ellipsis seems quite obviously HIS, not AFP’s, nor mine.
And if you aren’t reading the unsaid as I do, you are free to do so. But the reaction to his comment makes it quite clear that I’m not the only one reading it that way.
If you want to paint me as someone who is malevolently misunderstanding Gilliam, you are free to do so. It’s a bit of a strange move, though, given the overall tone of the debate.
2 Likes
Not really such a strange move, since the entire point he’s making, and which is backed by countless episodes in human history, is that mob mentality trumps reason and rational thought. Given that his actual words do not, in any way, promote the idea that it is okay for a man like Weinstein to do what he did, any inference on your (or anyone else’s) part is on you, and most likely (though not definitively) a result of the current political climate. Maybe you have some personal issue with Gilliam, or maybe you have personal issues with this topic instead- I don’t know, but the odds would dictate it’s basic mob mentality at play- hence the “witch hunt” phrase so many people have used. To be clear yet again- since this is such a misunderstood phrase- attacking systematic sexual abuse is not a witch hunt. Saying “me too” is not a witch hunt. Publicly shaming every person that dares have an opinion that diverges even slightly from the only accepted narrative IS a witch hunt. This is not that hard a point to understand, really, and the click-bait headline that adorns the top of this page is a case in point.
2 Likes
Once again, no one asked you to, and just because others make the choice to no longer enjoy his work, you don’t have to do that.
9 Likes
Pro-tip: When you find yourself exaggerating while trying to make your point, you’re probably not making a good point.
12 Likes
His words very explicitly promote the idea that in at least some cases “women trading sexual favors with Weinstein in exchange for career opportunities” constituted a mutually beneficial exchange between consenting adults, or even an example of women “using Weinstein” instead of the other way around. A fair price paid for services rendered rather than an inherently abusive or coercive situation.
Nuts to that.
17 Likes
Huh, my dads wordless threat was always to turn his class ring around. It was Defcon 1 at that moment. I don’t -think- I ever got the ring, but yeah, asshole move. Unsurprised if it came out of his 1950s high school experiences.
“Nuts to that” because you have conclusive evidence to the contrary? Or because you just don’t like the idea that, perhaps, someone went into one of those meetings fully aware of what they were doing and judged the price to be one worth paying? The liberal in me wants to agree with you and shake my fist, but the logical, rational part accepts that someone who has been working in that industry for decades, and has absolutely no love for studio heads in general and Weinstein in particular just might have a better vantage point with first-hand factual data from which to assess the situation than a bunch of people on the internet.
I have no love for Hollywood and would love to see that entire institution torn down for many reasons including the disgusting abuse of power that has gone on for decades. But shooting off my mouth in persecution of every person that has an intelligent opinion just because it differs from mine or offends my sensibility? Nuts to that.
One more time:
It doesn’t matter if the women went into those meetings knowing that sleeping with Harvey was the cost to be paid for advancing their careers, because they never should have been put in a situation where they had to choose between their basic human dignity and their career advancement.
If Gilliam had been told that the price for making The Brothers Grimm in 2005 was to give Weinstein a blowjob do you think he would have considered that a just or equitable arrangement?
24 Likes
You can’t discount that, though. Few, if any, would suggest that Weinstein isn’t a monster. As far as I can see in this particular topic’s replies, anyways.
Yes, it is highly disgusting that he would abuse his position in Hollywood like that. It is far more disgusting to think that this is thought of as a requirement to get ahead. And as disgusting to think that many women did not come forward because they did not think they would be believed, that the police would not act, that they would have no chance in a civil lawsuit due to his wealth and power.
Using your position of power to satisfy your sexual needs, or just to be a giant dickbag, is disgusting.
The nature of that is purely black and white. Most people know that it is wrong.
But consider this: It is highly likely that more women, than have come forward, have likely had an encounter with Weinstein. Some may still be concerned about safety, or that nothing will come of it, why bother, they may be thinking. Some may have decided to come to terms with the abuse, and forgiven the man and moved on.
And there may be some who decided that they didn’t have a problem accepting what Weinstein was offering, and said yes. Would we see this as abusive? Yes. Would those particular people see it that way? Who knows?
My point is that the argument Terry Gilliam is making is not that Weinstein isn’t a horrible dickbag who needs to go to jail, but that some people did know exactly what they were doing and did not, at that time, see it as problematic.
Because one’s job shouldn’t be predicated on sexual favors. It’s not that hard.
I think you just told us all we need to know about your political positions here.
20 Likes
It’s more concerning to me that the idea that “there’s often a sexual price to be paid for success in the entertainment industry” is being touted as as an ‘intelligent but different opinion,’ and mere verbal criticism is portrayed as “persecution.”
Talk about spinning a scenario to suit one’s own agenda.
It doesn’t make Weinstein’s conscious actions any less wrong, no matter what the victims of his predatory behavior ‘knew’ or how they responded to it. It doesn’t matter if they saw the situation as problematic; Weinstein still abused his power, and he was enabled by countless people for years.
17 Likes
This
And this
Are just the same old old fahioned sexism and double standards that women have dealt with forever.
The idea that some women who might have just given up and dealt with the abuse they were told was part of the job instead of giving up on their dreams and ambitions were somehow gaming the system- never mind that most men were never faced with such a choice, and that most knew what it was like for their female counterparts and ignored it, or worse resented them for it, like Gilliam.
16 Likes
It’s less about double-standards and more about what order of values one holds- this is the eternal issue that runs through human history. The reason people clash across cultures, eras, and gender is that different people at different times hold different values in a different order. I don’t think (at least, not according to his comments here) Gilliam would disagree with anyone here in general terms- that power shouldn’t be abused, that Hollywood has different standards for men than women, etc. Maybe he does think these things, but his comments don’t illustrate that. What his comments reveal is a different point of view, one very common and accepted in his generation and less common and accepted today, that elevates individual will above societal will. Boomers grew up in an era where being part of the collective was deemed incredibly important- this post-WW2 era where Americans felt united and suburban sprawl was thought of as a good thing. When they came of age, the Boomers rebelled against all of that stuff in radical ways that came as a shock to society; it was all about being an individual, thinking for yourself, taking care of your needs above trying to please everyone around you. The pendulum has now swung far away from that point of view for many reasons (including the advent of the internet) and now, people’s actions are judged less as a product of individual will and more as a product of societal forces. I’ve no doubt that in 30-40 years, life will be interpreted yet another totally different way, and our current belief in our righteousness will seem to them as some misguided but naive point of view.
All of which is to say that Gilliam’s personal knowledge of who-knows-how-many Hollywood sex stories we’ll never hear, combined with the value system he holds, gives him a different point of view. He’s been battling Hollywood in his own way for decades; he’s quite literally chosen to be true to his artistic values at times when everything around him was pushing him to sell out, make shit movies, take the money and run- but he did not. Virtually every film he’s ever made has, as a central theme, the individual battling against the tide. It’s not hard to understand how, from his point of view, individuals are more responsible for their actions than social institutions are. “Power takes advantage of Power,” he says, which, to me, makes it clear that he understands the institutional sexism at play in Hollywood just as much as anyone- he just doesn’t think it’s going to change, and he believes the answer is in people individually choosing to make the right decision when they find themselves in that situation. You can call it sexism if you want, but it’s really more “individualism” than anything. It’d be a double-standard only if there were other areas where he was blaming society for people’s actions. His point of view may not be in vogue any more, but that doesn’t mean people need to shit on the guy simply because he happens to hold it.
What you and he are both suggesting, is that the women who had no other choice while Gilliam and other men did, are somehow less viturous and at the same time culpable for working within a system that treated them with no virtue.
That is 100 percent a double standard and sexist sentiment, one that refuses to acknowledge women’s reality. There is nothing noble or romantic in that position.
That’s whole point in the movement that you and he keep dismissing. Women, can now see another way out, because people are talking about it, instead of being revictimized by those like Gilliam when they talk about their experience.
He’s just another bitter old nobody as far as I’m concerned. I haven’t watched his stuff in years, so there is no skin off my nose. He doesn’t deserve kid glove treatment anymore than anyone else with backward views. Tough nuts for him.
12 Likes
You seem pretty dead set on condemning someone who you consider a nobody.
It’s not an either / or situation, like most things. I find myself arguing with conservatives on the opposite end- they think everything boils down to personal responsibility and can’t for the life of them imagine the idea that institutions and societies have any role in the world they create. The fact that the truth can include BOTH these points of view, and that societies are to blame for what societies choose to do just like individuals are to blame for what individuals choose to do seems to elude everyone these days. It’s so much easier to think in binary mode, isn’t it?
3 Likes
