#@heartsandparts @694699 @onlyastoryteller @estellaestella @silvyysthings

[talkingwoman]

Call me Cassandra….*

Having a history of offending members of the Charmie fanhood, many of whom will not even see this post since they blocked me, I will nonetheless state my bona fifes openly. I love Armie Hammer and I love Timothée Chalamet. Being older, more educated, and a practicing professional provides me with apparently annoyingly inconvenient insights when discussing the two men I love and the years since CMBYN changed so many lives. The upset in the fandom occasioned by Timmy’s liaison with the Jenner person compels me to express the following. Believe me, my goal is to soothe rather than irritate.

First and foremost, I have said before and repeat here that one of the worst failings we have made in viewing the Charmie myth is that we tend to conflate Armie and Timmy IRL with their characters in CMBYN, Oliver and Elio. Neither man is much like their movie role at all. Briefly, Elio is sensitive, highly educated and intelligent, as well as emotionally vulnerable. Timmy is, based upon his interviews, observed public behaviors, etc., probably none of these. He is, as he says, an engaging goofball. Often he misuses and/or mispronounces words and creates word salad answers to interviewer questions. He’s a player more than a mensch, and his ambition knows no bounds. Armie is more like Oliver than Timmy like Elio, but without the redeeming affection the movie version of Oliver brought to the mutual seduction. The Oliver of the book was far less open and affectionate than movie Oliver, but both men were emotionally insincere, dishonest, and manipulative. Oliver was having a summer fling before finishing his degree, marrying, and getting on with life in both book and movie. Even more publicly than Timmy, Armie is a player who admits to manipulating and using people as personal convenience items. It’s questionable whether he remembers anything 😉, let alone everything.

Similarly, we are willfully blind to the realities of the profession that introduced us to Armie and Timmy in the first place. Show biz is a relentlessly demanding and often cruel bit of work. Timmy was born into a theatrical family and groomed through auditions and training from an early age. Small wonder that virtually all of the directors he has worked with mention his drive and ambition to succeed. That desire rules Timmy’s life and he is not likely to squander his opportunities as Armie tragically and so unnecessarily did. There is a new article out that captures this essential characteristic, titled the making of a global superstar. Timmy is surrounded by a team that calculates every move the young man makes, scrupulously. For instance, while Armie has loudly proclaimed his heterosexuality, Timmy’s team has assiduously cultivated an aura of androgyny, assuring that both the gay and straight communities can identify with and thereby claim Timmy as one of their own. The revision of Lee in Bones and All from jock to bisexual predatory adventurer is a classic example. So, in short, almost anything in the public eye should be viewed through the lens of this effort to promote Timmy to the highest artistic and popular levels of his profession. Most of you will hate this, but Timmy’s utter and complete failure to utter one supportive word about Armie, once his role model and mentor, throughout the shitstorm that Armie’s professional and personal life became. Many no doubt wish and fervently hope that there is still a viable bond between these men, but if there is, it requires a very steep price from one of them.

Before I go, one little observation that I hope will bring some solace regarding the PDAs seen at the Beyoncé concert. Kissing is an expression of intimacy that is usually accompanied by intense mutual gaze. Both participants in these lip locks looked directly toward the camera the second the kiss ended, not at each other. Telling…,

*Cassandra was a figure in Greek mythology who was reviled and tortured for telling true, but unwanted truths.

[talkingwoman]

Why, I wonder?

The article on Armie Hammer published late on Friday night is apparently functioning as a Rorschach, TAT, or some other psychological projective test. Readers appears to find whatever they want to see or believe about this former celebrity and his behavior toward women during his marriage and after his separation from his estranged wife, Elizabeth. Following two years of consistent denials from his legal team and his characterization of his expartners’ complaints as “bullshit”, it’s disorienting to read a more or less complete concession to the accuracy of all of the charges women leveled against him. Note I did not say confession because Armie continues to argue that any and all activities were consensual. The notion of consent, his only legal and personal defense, it appears, hinges not on the decency, honesty, or ethics of his behavior toward any of women, but instead on the narrow legal definition of sexual abuse. Like Congressman Santos, he’s done lots of ugly stuff, but he never did anything illegal. Well, all righty then.

What is the point of this piece, we might ask? From the moment I saw the photo header on the article, the propaganda tone of the article was apparent. Few men are as photogenic as our Armie and the effort to make him look like a man who has suffered great travail was painfully obvious. Questions abound. Why now? Why this author and especially this outlet? Was money exchanged for the interview? What promises were made by the author or publisher about the content and editorial slant of the piece? There are any number of credible entertainment journalists and publications who scrupulously vet their content and would no doubt have wanted this interview. So, what up? The easy answer is that nothing Armie said was challenged. The pedophile youth pastor of his family’s church? No follow-up questions?? An adult godparent knew of the abuse and did…nothing?? This happened a scant twenty odd years ago. Is this person possibly still abusing kids? Is there a responsible person anywhere near this article?

So many troubling things emerged in this recounting. Why were the psychologists who evaluated Armie neither identified nor questioned for the interview but copious quotes from some documents written by someone were provided without context?

Why was the assertion that Armie has never slept with a man included here?

Anyone with any experience at all with addicts, their treatment, and recovery could only be astonished to read that Armie, barely a year out of rehab is moving in with a recovering addict as a sobriety coach. That is simply not done in any treatment program. No sponsor would permit that, and though Armie refers vaguely to a 12 step program, his comments in this article suggest he’s not completed his work on the steps at all. Again, why say this stuff?

Where are the supporters, apart from fans on Twitter, Tumblr, etc, from Armie’s professional world? The Luca comment was not original in this piece. Was no one who directed, co-starred, or produced his movies invited to say anything, positive or negative? Why no mention of this deafening silence?

It will be interesting to see what, if any, industry reaction emerges in the coming days. As noted earlier, fans will find whatever they look for in this article. Armie as victim vs Armie as abuser? One can only wonder if either of these or any other take will prevail.

[talkingwoman]

Acting vs impersonating

Is it just me or is there a trend toward rewarding actors who portray actual persons as opposed to fictional creations. Daniel Day Lewis as Lincoln, Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury, Eddie Redmayne as Stephen Hawking, Gary Oldham as Churchill, and this year Austin Butler as Elvis Presley. I find myself wondering if doing a spot on imitation of someone the public has seen and heard on countless movies or videos is the same thing as creating a character no one knew before in a credible, compellingly believable performance. Looks like Butler has the inside track to carry home yet another award for a wonderful impression of Elvis, which he apparently has a hard time leaving behind when he begins to speak.

Speaking just for myself, I feel that providing a faithful imitation is less about art than taking a character that lived only on a page into a living reality for an audience. What do you think?

[talkingwoman]

Brian S.’s unexpected outburst about Timmy no longer having to audition for directors or major film roles finds context in today’s Best Actor nominations. For the first time, there is an actor whose talent and range are a genuine threat to Timmy’s spot as “most sought after young male actor” and, not surprisingly, it is Paul Mescal who recently snagged the starring role in Ridley Scott’s sequel to Gladiator. Mescal’s performance in Aftersun is extraordinary in every way imaginable (knew nothing about this guy before). Playing the role of a deeply troubled father of an 11 year old daughter so convincingly that you forget he’s just 26.

Was Brian overreacting? Probably. Still, it’s hard to imagine that Scott would not at least question Timmy’s team about his interest and/or availability for the project. Whatever the case, Mescal has “all the colors” as my drama teacher was wont to say.

[talkingwoman]

Queerbaiting and other misunderstandings

It is not popular on the Charmie network to express doubts or reservations about the actions of people considered essential to the Charmie canon.  Luca is one such person, Elizabeth is most assuredly not.  The interview referenced in the title to this post and available widely online should be required reading for members of the fandom.  It is extremely revealing of Luca’s persona as a director, auteur, and interview subject.  He is dismissive, uncooperative, and perfectly willing to say “I won’t talk about that” when he feels like doing so, which is fine and certainly his privilege, but it flies in the face of devoted Charmies who insist that he has never abandoned Armie Hammer or used the cannibalism scandals to promote his latest movie.  Charmies argue Luca had no such intentions when announcing production of B&A the week cannibalism allegations were launched against Armie, and after years of silence on the topic, had no choice but to answer interviewer questions about Armie’s situation, which this interview, in its entirety clearly documents as untrue.  He shrugs, deflects, or outright refuses to answer several questions.  He is similarly  disingenuous about the decision to reshape the character of Lee from a jock to a bisexual, pretending to not know what queerbaiting means.  For an openly  gay man to pretend ignorance of the term and deny the conscious decision made in his own movie is kinda unbelievable.  What is wrong with owning a decision to try and expand the audience for a movie and/or  further the is-he/isn’t-he mystique about his young protege, Timothee?  Movies are supposed to be money-making enterprises after all.  Finally, using the iconic and much beloved CMBYN as an advertising strategy for a horror and gore movie feels to me like a violation, somehow.  Linking a lyrical first love classic to a sexy, bloody murder spree carried on by two serial predators?  Wish he hadn’t.  From strictly a clinical perspective, a cannibal is most probably incapable of experiencing empathy at all, let alone the emotion of love.  But, hey, as one blogger here wrote to me, it’s fiction; just a movie.  Yep.  And in HW, fellow bloggers, it is always, repeat ALWAYS about the Benjamins.

[talkingwoman]

Serial killers coming of age is appealing to…??

Over adult beverages a group of people casually debated the moral and artistic implications of films that celebrate violence, cruelty, or human depravity in service of entertainment and financial gains. Intense. The central focus of the discussion was not B&A so much as the currently popular Dahmer series, although Guadanigno’s film and the remake of Interview with the Vampire were mentioned tangentially, and negatively. The core issue emerging early on was that serial killers are unworthy of attention for multiple reasons. Romanticizing violence and humanizing merciless murderers makes sense…how? To whom? No matter how much you like a film star or a director, do you really want to support a movie that depicts asocial, inhumane behavior in any way other than repulsive and reprehensible? That was the question we struggled with. Consensus was elusive but the majority, including serious cinephiles, admitted having queasy, serious misgivings about films presenting human evil and depravity sympathetically. My posts are usually ignored by Charmies, but thought I would share this experience in hopes that it might shed more light than create heat. I’d love to hear what you think

[talkingwoman]

Recommended, if painful, watching for Armie Hammer fans...

I recently viewed a YouTube product called Law and Crime Sidebar, hosted by A. Levy with a featured guest, entertainment lawyer Jonathan Handel.  For any of the fandom who want to see a reasoned, legally sound analysis of the Armie Hammer case in advance of the mockumentary soon to be inflicted on the public, you would find this brief (under 20 minutes) discussion very illuminating and dispassionate.  One of the great strengths of the interview comes from Handel’s lucid explanation of why Armie has virtually no legal recourse against his accusers.  Many in the fandom naively keep pleading for defamation lawsuits, etc., which are legally and public-image-wise non-starters.  Handel’s comments are quite useful, even if you find it hard to check your biases against Armie’s accusers at the door.  Give it a look; if nothing else, it may inoculate you against the coming shitstorm of publicity in September.