Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Kirk Douglas rumours: http://gawker.com/5893793/did-robert-do ... rutal-rape

This pretty much sums up how the rumours got started.

Sabin wrote:

Italiano wrote
But there are other cases - single rumors, sometimes even as old as the one about Kirk Douglas, which I had never heard of and which I really don't know how substantial can be. In such cases - and there are many, and many more will happen in the near future, trust me - I prefer to deny myself the morbid joy of moralistic, puritanical suspicion and be certain before condemning someone.

You can take the conversation in whatever direction you feel like, but that wasn't my point, Marco. In fact, my point is something that I think you would probably agree with.

I am saying that there is something disingenuous about the Hollywood Foreign Press unveiling Time's Up (and if you think that they had nothing to do with it, that it was just a happy surprise, you're kidding yourself), the focus of which is to announce a zero tolerance policy towards sexual assault, and then honor James Franco (who had publicly known sexual abuse allegations for three years), Gary Oldman (who beat his wife during a divorce and publicly defended Mel Gibson), and bring out Kirk Douglas to present (who's had a rumor following him for half his life about raping Natalie Wood). It follows the narrative of Hollywood turning a blind eye until other people call their own out and then they turn on them.

I know what you mean, Sabin, and I can even understand your point of view. I was just wondering if at least the story about Kirk Douglas raping Natalie Wood is really so famous (I had never heard of it, but it's true that I am not a Hollywood-based journalist), and I also added - but I hope that YOU agree with me - that if they felt that Franco and Oldman were the best in their categories, disingenious or not they did the right thing in honoring them despite the theme of the show. I personally would have found it worse if they HADN'T voted for them for that reason. I'm afraid that in America, especially in times of hysteria, such distinctions are ignored, but they shouldn't be.

Italiano wrote
But there are other cases - single rumors, sometimes even as old as the one about Kirk Douglas, which I had never heard of and which I really don't know how substantial can be. In such cases - and there are many, and many more will happen in the near future, trust me - I prefer to deny myself the morbid joy of moralistic, puritanical suspicion and be certain before condemning someone.

You can take the conversation in whatever direction you feel like, but that wasn't my point, Marco. In fact, my point is something that I think you would probably agree with.

I am saying that there is something disingenuous about the Hollywood Foreign Press unveiling Time's Up (and if you think that they had nothing to do with it, that it was just a happy surprise, you're kidding yourself), the focus of which is to announce a zero tolerance policy towards sexual assault, and then honor James Franco (who had publicly known sexual abuse allegations for three years), Gary Oldman (who beat his wife during a divorce and publicly defended Mel Gibson), and bring out Kirk Douglas to present (who's had a rumor following him for half his life about raping Natalie Wood). It follows the narrative of Hollywood turning a blind eye until other people call their own out and then they turn on them.

criddic3 wrote:

ITALIANO wrote: Ok, but if it's just a rumor - and I don't even know if a very reliable one, but anyway still a rumor... I don't see what' the problem is, honestly. One can't exclude people from awards or tributes based on rumors. The anti-communist witch-hunt of the 50s was a bit like this, you know.

There's something - how shall I put it - slightly sick about America lately. I can't really exactly explain it in English, but I don't really like it.

You actually make a good point there. Most of us are --rightfully-- saddened to hear stories about harassment, and they should be investigated and prosecuted whenever possible. However, there is this air of "if they said it, it must be true." That worries me as an American citizen, because it has always been the ideal here that you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, which hasn't always been upheld for all people. Yet here we are with every story that comes out, even with some really firm denials, where the media and everyday people automatically shut down anyone who questions the allegations or gives an ounce of a benefit of doubt to the accused. Not only is that unfair to the accused, but to anyone who wants to explore the possibility that that person could be innocent -- or at least not a monster.

Exactly.

Plus - I mean, it's clear that Harvey Weinstein is responsible of things that I obviously find unforgivable. The number of women who accuse him, the details, everything - even before a judge officially declares him guilty, there are no doubts that he did at least part of the things he is accused of, and maybe others. This, still, shouldn't prevent him or his movies to be honored and getting awards if they deserve to. As I said, I probably wouldn't stand up applaufing, or maybe I wouldn't even applaud him at all - but we must separate our judgement of the person from our judgement of his or her talent and creative output.

But there are other cases - single rumors, sometimes even as old as the one about Kirk Douglas, which I had never heard of and which I really don't know how substantial can be. In such cases - and there are many, and many more will happen in the near future, trust me - I prefer to deny myself the morbid joy of moralistic, puritanical suspicion and be certain before condemning someone.

ITALIANO wrote: Ok, but if it's just a rumor - and I don't even know if a very reliable one, but anyway still a rumor... I don't see what' the problem is, honestly. One can't exclude people from awards or tributes based on rumors. The anti-communist witch-hunt of the 50s was a bit like this, you know.

There's something - how shall I put it - slightly sick about America lately. I can't really exactly explain it in English, but I don't really like it.

You actually make a good point there. Most of us are --rightfully-- saddened to hear stories about harassment, and they should be investigated and prosecuted whenever possible. However, there is this air of "if they said it, it must be true." That worries me as an American citizen, because it has always been the ideal here that you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, which hasn't always been upheld for all people. Yet here we are with every story that comes out, even with some really firm denials, where the media and everyday people automatically shut down anyone who questions the allegations or gives an ounce of a benefit of doubt to the accused. Not only is that unfair to the accused, but to anyone who wants to explore the possibility that that person could be innocent -- or at least not a monster.

Sabin wrote: 1) It's a rumor that's been circling for some time. Which is why I said "alleged."
2) There is something fundamentally disingenuous about a group of journalists circling the theme of a show about intolerance for sexual misconduct while giving selective free passes.

Ok, but if it's just a rumor - and I don't even know if a very reliable one, but anyway still a rumor... I don't see what' the problem is, honestly. One can't exclude people from awards or tributes based on rumors. The anti-communist witch-hunt of the 50s was a bit like this, you know.

There's something - how shall I put it - slightly sick about America lately. I can't really exactly explain it in English, but I don't really like it.

Kirk Douglas isn’t an Oscar winner, only a nominee. (Unless you’re counting honorary statuettes.)

Sabin, I don't really think the Globes intended to make this year's show about #MeToo. I think #MeToo made the Globes about itself, which is a great thing, IMO. Douglas is the oldest living Oscar winner (who will actually show up to events). They could have gotten De Havilland if she would have been willing to travel, which she would not.

Italiano wrote
One moment. Is this a true story or just a Hollywood rumor?

If it's just a rumor, you know what I think. I don't base my opinions of people on gossip. If in America this is acceptable, well, then your country has some problems.

However, if it's true - and proved to be true - he (or James Fraco, or Gary Oldman) should still win awards, if they deserve them and if they have the talent to get them. I just wouldn't stand up applauding them.

That's all. Now some will faint or start shouting, but that's the way it should be.

1) It's a rumor that's been circling for some time. Which is why I said "alleged."
2) There is something fundamentally disingenuous about a group of journalists circling the theme of a show about intolerance for sexual misconduct while giving selective free passes.

Sabin wrote: A 101 year old alleged rapist (https://www.mediaite.com/online/twitter ... good-look/)

One moment. Is this a true story or just a Hollywood rumor?

If it's just a rumor, you know what I think. I don't base my opinions of people on gossip. If in America this is acceptable, well, then your country has some problems.

However, if it's true - and proved to be true - he (or James Fraco, or Gary Oldman) should still win awards, if they deserve them and if they have the talent to get them. I just wouldn't stand up applauding them.

That's all. Now some will faint or start shouting, but that's the way it should be.

I don't know why they had to bring Kirk Douglas out unless it was to set an all-time record for the oldest presenter at any awards show.

flipp525 wrote:The Kirk Douglas adoration was especially vile. I mean, could not one person have remained seated in protest or do they just not know anything about that?

Oh, but they do know about Mr Douglas just as they all knew about Mr Weinstein but the "show" has to go on.

I feel like it was just inevitable that the sexual misconduct of someone in this year's race would surface. Have folks already begun making the joke about wondering if it's too late to recast Christopher Plummer in The Disaster Artist?

The Kirk Douglas adoration was especially vile. I mean, could not one person have remained seated in protest or do they just not know anything about that?

Oh well. When he finally dies, Natalie Wood’s sister Lana has promised to reveal who her rapist was.

But weren't they primetime TV? Oprah is/was/always will be the queen of daytime TV. Yes, she's had a strong career in feature film production (she's been nominated once for acting) and has championed some important stories, so it's not undeserved. But that's not why she won. She won because she's Oprah. And because this is a show honoring primetime TV and feature films, that's kind of weird.

But hat's off to the Hollywood Foreign Press! In a night meant to announce "Time's Up" to the world, they honored...
A sexual predator (which is a very accurate title for the creepy shit that James Franco does): http://beta.latimes.com/business/hollyw ... story.html
A 101 year old alleged rapist (https://www.mediaite.com/online/twitter ... good-look/)
A guy who beat his wife during a divorce and defended Mel Gibson because, heck, this IS a town full of Jews after all (https://www.thedailybeast.com/gary-oldm ... -dark-past)

The Hollywood Foreign Press, everybody! Changing the world without doing a shred of journalism.