Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

The jury found for Kevin Spacey in Anthony Rapp's civil sex-abuse suit against him.

I tend to agree with Sabin, Greg - it's up to you to decide. I don't think genius should get a special hall pass and I think it's easier to say there was more good than bad in <insert name> when you weren't actively victimized. But I can't pretend that it doesn't colour my perception the art in question, nor that it's difficult for artists who you admired pre-knowledge.

I think the easy answer would be a question: how much do you try to support those artists who are/have been/more likely to be victimized by these (almost-always) men? Are you more likely to buy a ticket to the next Weinstein production or a Mira Sorvino film? I think actively supporting the voices of the marginalized is going to have a better, long term result.

Sabin wrote:

Precious Doll wrote
My feelings exactly. Despite my disdain for a number of people in the film industry, both in front and behind the camera I will continue to separate 'art' or in some cases 'product' from the people involved.

Certainly, rewatching films made years ago one is always going to have a different experience but I have not and will not ever stop seeing a film from anyone with anyone for their personal lives or what they may have done. If one starts to draw lines, where does one stop?

Let's be real though. It becomes difficult when you can't look away from what you hate about those involved. The idea of looking at James Woods is repulsive to me. I'm thrilled Barbara Stanwyck never had a Twitter account.

I agree it does make it hard. I wish certain people in the industry would find something else to do with their lives but if someone like James Woods being a good example appears in a film directed by Brian de Palma I am going to watch it. However, if he appears in a film by an unknown director that has well largely panned I won't see it.

Precious Doll wrote
My feelings exactly. Despite my disdain for a number of people in the film industry, both in front and behind the camera I will continue to separate 'art' or in some cases 'product' from the people involved.

Certainly, rewatching films made years ago one is always going to have a different experience but I have not and will not ever stop seeing a film from anyone with anyone for their personal lives or what they may have done. If one starts to draw lines, where does one stop?

Let's be real though. It becomes difficult when you can't look away from what you hate about those involved. The idea of looking at James Woods is repulsive to me. I'm thrilled Barbara Stanwyck never had a Twitter account.

Sabin wrote: My answer would be, it's up to you to decide. I won't be giving up Woody Allen. I will be watching Annie Hall, Manhattan, and Hannah and Her Sisters for the rest of my life. I'm not going to pretend like they're not part of me. I'm not going to act like I am superior to them.

My feelings exactly. Despite my disdain for a number of people in the film industry, both in front and behind the camera I will continue to seperate 'art' or in some cases 'product' from the people involved.

Certainly, rewatching films made years ago one is always going to have a different experience but I have not and will not ever stop seeing a film from anyone with anyone for their personal lives or what they may have done. If one starts to draw lines, where does one stop?

I think this issue is more a dilemma for people who fiancee films or show them and I'm not going to even ponder on what I may do because I'll never be in the situation were I would have to make such a decision.

Greg wrote:Barbara Stanwyck was a great actress. She was also a McCarthyite who publicly supported the House Un-American Activities Committee and the blacklist. How do you weigh her artistic contributions against the lost artistic contributions of the careers she helped to destroy?

Stanwyck didn't help destroy anyone's career. Like many in the post-war years in all walks of life, as knuckleheaded as it seemed to some then and most now, she considered Communists in the arts a real threat to the American way of life. She was a staunch conservative Republican at a time when liberals and conservatives could actually be friends - Henry Fonda and James Stewart, John Ford and John Wayne and so on. Fonda with whom she made several films including The Lady Eve had a lifelong crush on her. At the height of the HUAC hearings she amicably made The Two Mrs. Carrolls opposite HUAC protestor Humphrey Bogart and post-McCarthy she starred opposite staunch liberal James Cagney in These Wilder Years. Actors from fellow conservative William Holden in Golden Boy to ultra-liberal Jane Fonda in Walk on the Wild Side praised her generosity in helping them early in their careers.

As my grandmother used to say, "there's good and bad in everyone, more good in some and more bad in others" - I think there was infinitely more good than bad in Stanwyck whose every performance stands the test of time.

Sabin wrote:Read this article: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/201 ... trous-men/

Lord this woman needs to get a bloody life. So much time and energy wasted writing and obsessing over Woody Allen.

Greg wrote
This made me think about how does the artistic contribution of someone weigh against that person's harming the artistic contributions of others. I am thinking about accusations that Miro Sorvino made that Harvey Weinstein tried to end her career after she refused his sexual advances. How do you weigh the contributions he made from producing films to the contributions Sorvino could have made with performances she was denied because of Weinstein?

This, of course, goes beyond sex. For example, Barbara Stanwyck was a great actress. She was also a McCarthyite who publicly supported the House Un-American Activities Committee and the blacklist. How do you weigh her artistic contributions against the lost artistic contributions of the careers she helped to destroy?

Read this article: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/201 ... trous-men/

My ex introduced me to this article when I was asking myself the same question. I think it raises some good questions.

My answer would be, it's up to you to decide. I won't be giving up Woody Allen. I will be watching Annie Hall, Manhattan, and Hannah and Her Sisters for the rest of my life. I'm not going to pretend like they're not part of me. I'm not going to act like I am superior to them.

I have a much harder time judging HUAAC supporters. It was a very different time.

This made me think about how does the artistic contribution of someone weigh against that person's harming the artistic contributions of others. I am thinking about accusations that Miro Sorvino made that Harvey Weinstein tried to end her career after she refused his sexual advances. How do you weigh the contributions he made from producing films to the contributions Sorvino could have made with performances she was denied because of Weinstein?

This, of course, goes beyond sex. For example, Barbara Stanwyck was a great actress. She was also a McCarthyite who publicly supported the House Un-American Activities Committee and the blacklist. How do you weigh her artistic contributions against the lost artistic contributions of the careers she helped to destroy?

ITALIANO wrote: The article is detailed and, yes, graphic, but as the general age on this board is, well, quite older than 18, I don't understand the warning.

The warning comes from personal experience. Some may not understand how difficult it can be to see this information without warning. I wish I didn't understand.

dws1982 wrote:Bryan Singer's Accusers Speak Out

If there's anything good that comes out of the Bohemian Rhapsody Oscar hype, maybe it's that this story could finish Singer in the way that Spacey's and Weinstein's allegations finished them.

Just a warning: The article has some pretty graphic language. In addition to the length, it's too potentially-triggering to just put out (or link to) without warning.

I am never happy when someone - or his career - is "finished", but I guess I am in the minority here, and I am proud to be.

The article is detailed and, yes, graphic, but as the general age on this board is, well, quite older than 18, I don't understand the warning. Such things sadly happens - not only in the much-hated (here) and I think much-envied (here) show-business world but in many other contexts, and often closer to us that we may imagine. It's better to know them than to ignore them. I personally find corruption or violence (and it's not like these things don't happen in America) equally unpleasant and repulsive. But this board seems to be more obsessed with sex.

If even one of the - several, but sometimes contradictory, and not all of the same level of gravity - accusations is proven to be true, especially those to refer to VERY young victims, Singer should obviously pay for his crime. I think he should also be subjected to a serious medical treatment. I don't care at all about his career.

Let me add that while I am completely - should I really repeat this? YES, I'm afraid - on the side of any real victim of sexual harassment, it's not ALWAYS true that the failure of one's life depends on that single, and certainly traumatic, fact.

And now let's wait for the little foxes' reaction...

Thanks for sharing. It is indeed very graphic.

Bryan Singer's Accusers Speak Out

If there's anything good that comes out of the Bohemian Rhapsody Oscar hype, maybe it's that this story could finish Singer in the way that Spacey's and Weinstein's allegations finished them.

Just a warning: The article has some pretty graphic language. In addition to the length, it's too potentially-triggering to just put out (or link to) without warning.

Yeah, I don’t get it

Kevin Spacey to be charged with indecent assault, posts bizarre video

Bizarre is an understatement for what that video was.