#Greg x Johnny Depp
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
A Thread:
src
Greg Ellis: Amber Heard's greatest achievement may be that she's helped ignite a [hashtag] Men Too Dialogue, not a [hashtag] Me Too Monologue.
src
Greg Ellis, above a quote tweet by Noah Berlatsky: Note the (over) usage of the goto word ‘misogynist’ - such a tiresome lazy ad-hominem trope - simply because I was born male.
Isn’t it interesting that one singular sincere tweet - he calls it a ‘misogynistic pile on’ - causes such “In”credible ire in Noah and his ilk.
Noah Bertlasky's tweet, replying to Greg's first tweet: One thing you might want to discuss in that dialogue is whether massive misogynist pile ons in which people mock credible accounts of domestic abuse is actually helpful for male victims.
#greg ellis#johnny rees#greg x politics#greg x general#anon submission#submission#greg x metoo#Greg x Heard#Greg x Amber Heard#Greg x Johnny Depp#Greg x Depp#mobile post
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
Johnny Depp photographed by Greg Williams
https://song.link/s/1qgfwbnDcKmo4fWVWYJd6z
Credits above
#johnny depp#greg williams#photographer#emotion#masculine#celebs#actors#hollywoodland#x-heesy#music#spotify#now playing#contemporaryart#𝔉𝔲𝔠𝔨 𝔜𝔬𝔲 𝔇𝔲𝔪𝔟𝔩𝔯 ℭ𝔯𝔢𝔴#fav fav fav#music and art#fashion#oh my fucking gosh#5/2020
284 notes
·
View notes
Text
Source: The Irish Sun (X)
The veteran rocker, 64, looked dapper at the Dublin party for Crock of Gold — A Few Rounds with Shane MacGowan, on Thursday night.
The Tipperary singer was spotted chatting to Love/Hate star Robert Sheehan and Hollywood megastar Johnny Depp, both long-term friends of Shane and Victoria Mary Clarke, in Dublin’s Light House Cinema.
The documentary film — produced by close pal Depp — features interviews with a host of famous faces including Bono, Nick Cave, Bobby Gillespie, Elvis Costello, Gerry Adams and Michael D Higgins.
Actor Sheehan recently revealed how he had to call on Shane to get him unbarred from a London pub.
OUT OF ORDER
Rob said to Doireann Garrihy on her podcast The Laughs Of Your Life: “I got barred out of this pub a few years ago in North London... unjustified!
“It was The Boogaloo, which is synonymous with the Irish community over in London.
“Brilliant pub, with loads of Irish sessions going on in there.
“Myself and Greg were involved in a lock-in one night there.
“We got talking to someone and I had a about a third of a pint left.
“It was three o’clock in the morning and they were kind of fixing to kick us out.
“And she nicked my pint and I was like ‘C’mon give us that back’.
PUB ROW
“And just as we start arguing over the pint, the owner walked past and because it was with the barmaid and he was not in a good mood, he went ‘Right, you...out!’
“Then there was some name calling that went on. I’ll put my hands up, right, I was a bit drunk.
“I was like ‘Yeah butter bean, don’t want to be in your s*** pub anyways’.
“I didn’t behave myself very well.
“Then I met Shane MacGowan a year and a half later, we were doing this gig in Dublin Castle about history and songs.
“I was telling him how I got kicked out by the owner and Shane was like ‘Ah we can sort that out, we’ll rectify that’.
“So me and Shane left an answering message on Gerry’s phone and Shane was like ‘Ah he’s a nice kid, let him back in the pub’.
“And sure enough Gerry (O’Boyle) sent back a message going ‘Ah listen Shane, it was just a misunderstanding, he’s welcome back anytime’
“So yeah Shane MacGowan got me unbarred from a pub.”
#shane macgowan#robert sheehan#johnny depp#crock of gold#documentary release party#how Shane saved Robbie a place at the pub
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
To Die For (Norman Reedus X Reader)
read it on the AO3 at https://ift.tt/30U6Uxr
by MiyakoNanashi
Norman couldn't have done better, yet he remembered feeling a little disappointed: Y/N had talked as if that possibility was absolutely out of question, as if the idea of a relationship with him was the last thing she would ever want. But who knew that she was the woman for whom he would even die for.
{possible grammatical errors}
WATTPAD - [STORY START: 2019 ~ FINISHED: JUNE 2020]
Words: 524, Chapters: 1/?, Language: English
Fandoms: Actor RPF, American (US) Actor RPF, The Walking Dead (TV), The Walking Dead & Related Fandoms, The Walking Dead RPF
Rating: Mature
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Categories: F/M, Gen, Multi, Other
Characters: Norman Reedus, You, Reader, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Johnny Depp, Hilarie Burton, Danai Gurira, Mingus Reedus, Andrew Lincoln, Greg Nicotero, Other Character Tags to Be Added, Other(s)
Relationships: Norman Reedus/You, Norman Reedus/Other(s), Norman Reedus/Original Character(s), Hilarie Burton/Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Johnny Depp/You
Additional Tags: Cross-Posted on Wattpad, Actors, RPF, References to Real People, Unplanned Pregnancy, Pregnancy, Kidnapping, Angst, Fluff and Angst, Angst and Hurt/Comfort, Angst and Feels, Angst and Tragedy, Drama & Romance, Angst and Drama, Drama, Denial of Feelings, Heartbreak, Heartbreaking, Affairs, Drug Use, Drug Abuse, References to Drugs, References to Depression, Child Death, Self-Doubt, Self Confidence Issues, Self-Insert, Self-Esteem Issues, Self-Hatred, Implied/Referenced Self-Harm, Car Accidents, Falling In Love, Friendship/Love, Love/Hate, Jealousy, Angst and Romance, Complicated Relationships, Friends to Lovers, Romantic Friendship, Male-Female Friendship, Awards Presentation, Award Nominees, Other Additional Tags to Be Added
read it on the AO3 at https://ift.tt/30U6Uxr
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
onision.co questions part 1
Greg / James is answering questions on one of his sites. I don’t suggest posting any questions or even going there to read his answers because he’ll just deflect and profit off the site traffic due to the excessive ads. I posted kinda relevant questions he answered so you don’t have to visit the site. I’ll post more as the day goes on.
Why are you a pedofile? Just that,love to know considering im an ex fan of yours
Onision Staff replied 2 hours ago
Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent kids. There is nothing attractive about kids.
hey dude how does it feel to have videos about the horrible shit you did show up before your channel does on YouTube search results
Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago
It’s nice to know so many people think I’m relevant.
Why are you like this? Seriously greg wtf is your problem????
Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago
Who is Greg? And I mean, we all have problems. You have to be specific.
What steps are you making to overcome your NPD? I know its fairly rare for sufferers of NPD to seek treatment but I am curious as to whether you’ve ever overcome this hurdle and looked into therapy/counselling. Apologies if this is too personal. Love the content and I know you’re more than just your disorder.
Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago
I’ve only ever been diagnosed with depression. Maybe you’re mistaking me for someone else.
Tweets hey are you trying to bust a nut on twitter right now or something? like bruh wtf.
Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago
Gotta live a little.
replied 2 hours ago
fair enough. got that hentai and incest porn all ready to go?
Onision Staff replied 2 hours ago
Sounds like you do.
replied 2 hours ago
lmao peace out tell your dogs I say hi
Change in your views? First of all, thanks for taking the time to answer questions 🙂I’m a little miffed, it must be said since it seems your principles have changed over the past few years. Previously you said you wouldn’t associate with anyone who sent minors nudes. Why is Kai the exception to that rule? Or have you changed your overall opinion?Hope you’re holding up okay x
Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago
Kai has never had any interest in doing anything like that. If you knew him, you’d know that. What you see online is a massive distortion of the truth. Sending anyone images like that has always been wrong.
sad boi is lainey crying?
Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago
Who is Lainey?
Behavior… Hey James! Another question for you! Can you explain why you were rude as all hell to Sarah up until a month before she turned 18? Could it possibly be that you wanted her to want that validation and niceness from you after years of cruelty? And why the fuck are you shaming a child about her sexual activity to the point that she cries about it? A child, dude.
Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago
I was rude because I only want adult friends.
"Barely Legal"???? Hey James! So I’m curious. You said that you have a preference for women in their 20s/30s, and that the last “barely legal” person you were with was Kai. Did you forget about Sarah and Billie?
Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago
Legal age in Washington state is 16… I have not been with anyone who is 16 in my life. The last time I dated anyone who was even close, was Kai about 7 years ago, who I have been married to about seven years as well.
Ew… Hey James! So, my question was… Why are you so fucking nasty? First the news breaks that you and Kai groomed and bedded Sarah within 4 months of her turning 18 and after being her legal guardians and adults who were supposed to keep herself. You yourself described her as a foster daughter didn’t you? And now we know the real story behind all of those disgusting videos you posted of your poor ex… who you also groomed while still married to your ex wife! Wow, what a busy man.
Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago
It’s funny seeing people believe everything they read online.
replied 2 hours ago
I mean the receipts are there. Your silence on the matter also speaks volumes. You can dismiss it as not wanting ‘drama’. The truth is that you know you don’t have a leg to stand on. The truth is out there and you’re not HONEST enough to admit it.
Onision Staff replied 2 hours ago
Johnny Depp was pretty silent too ~ Some people are just grown ups who don’t want to participate in meaningless wastes of time, that is, internet drama. If you don’t like me, you’re welcome to leave. Go be happy.
replied 2 hours ago
Being accused of grooming children isn’t “internet drama”. Johnny Depp also denied the accusations. The fact that you don’t have any actual defense except “I don’t wanna talk about it” really speaks on the validity of it.
Onision Staff replied 57 mins ago
Johnny Depp and I both denied the accusations because both accusations are ridiculous.
26 notes
·
View notes
Text
Oh my god, can you people stop making things up and distorting facts about the Johnny Depp vs Amber thing just so that you can keep defending her??
(I’m pretty sure this will not reach anyone who actually needs it, but I’m still doing this)
People are so allergic to admitting they’re wrong, or at least giving someone the benefit of the doubt, that y’all making up absolute bs. Calling Depp racist, misoginistic, homo/bi-phobic, and worst of all a p*dophile.
There’s literally zero evidence backing up any of it and if you fell for that, I feel sorry for you. This is all bs made up by Heard stans to make him look bad in front of people who know nothing about him. And for some people literally all it takes is when someone says something and they’re like “really?” “YES, i have no evidence to support this except for my nonsense hate and me being an awful human for making sh*t up, but IT’S TOTALLY TRUE”. and people just believe it. it’s ridiculous.
I’m not saying he’s perfect, but he’s never been any of the aforementioned things. I’m not even going to touch much on the p*dophile thing because that was made up by a Trump stan and JD hates Trump and they’re so pressed about it they have to make disgusting things like that up, and now people who were shocked by his evidence proving they were slandering him for no reason, repeat it just so that they don’t have to admit they were wrong.
No woman, except for Heard and her hoax-assisting friends, have ever said a bad word about Depp. Quite the opposite, everyone’s who met him say he’s a gentleman, kind, caring. Saying things like “there’s no one else like him” and claiming “he doesn’t belong in show business, he belongs somewhere better” - by Sarah Jessica Parker. His first wife is not only still in contact with him, but even spoke against Heard and said Johnny never even raised a voice at her. Vanessa Paradis wrote a hand-written note defending him. So many women spoke in defense of him.
Some people are even lying and saying he has been accused by his previous gf of abuse. HE HAS NOT. No one had ever accused him of that and no one came out during the last three years saying “oh yeah he abused me, too” they DEFENDED HIM. Please, if you someone tried to convince you that he had been accused, do not believe it, do your own research, you’ll see it that it’s not true and people are just making up rumours to support their “Heard is a victim” story.
Or her stans saying he abused her because she’s bisexual is like?? There is literally nothing to back it up. He’s never said a bad word about other sexualities. He made a decision that Jack Sparrow is bisexual. His very own daughter is not straight and have you seen how proud he is of her? He supports her and adores her with every ounce of his being. Stop turning him into something he’s not.
"If there's any message to my work, it is ultimately that it's okay to be different, that it's good to be different, that we should question ourselves before we pass judgement on someone who looks different, behaves different, talks different, is a different color." - Johnny Depp, y’all
But guess who was arrested for abusing her FEMALE partner? Amber Heard.
Guess who accused the gay FEMALE cop that arrested her of being misoginistic? Amber Heard.
And guess who accused the same GAY female cop that arrested her of being homophobic? Amber Heard.
And guess who made a racist tweet? AMBER HEARD.
Isn’t it funny how Heard stans are accusing Depp of everything that can be said of and proven Amber Heard is??
Now for the distorting of facts:
I’ve seen a few posts/tweets being like “ya’ll jumped at some UNsourced info” blah blah. IT IS NOT UNSOURCED. They’re legit lawsuit with clerk stamps on them. And Johnny and his lawyer have referenced them!! Johnny literally said “which is why I’m suing...” and there’s been a recent statement reacting to people’s support how he’s determined more than ever to fight for justice and he WANTS his day in court to prove all that he’s saying is true. And his lawyer has been giving statements to the press for almost a year now. All of this is legit info from legit court documents. Just because you’re too lazy to look for the actual link for the whole document, that doesn’t make them false. It’s like you people think a Depp fan wrote two fake 40 page lawsuits, are you really that pathetic to suggest something like that? Waldman, his lawyer, has confirmed what the lawsuit says, it’s not just screenshot from some “unsourced” lawsuit, he repeated what the lawsuit says: 87 surveillance videos, litany of neutral witnesses, including the police, photographic evidence, audio, and sworn testimonies, as well as Heard’s admission.
And furthermore, people saying just because the lawsuit claims she confessed, doesn’t mean it’s true. Well, okay. However, she has not denied the claims. Read through her statements reacting to the lawsuits, she or her lawyer/publicist or whatever, have responded several times. But never with “I deny this”. It’s always something to make Johnny look bad. “that’s mental abuse” “he’s hell-bent on self-destruction” “ms heard won’t be silenced” “frivolous lawsuit” “just read his latest interview to see he’s delusional” blah blah blah.
None of that includes any denial whatsoever. And some people are saying “well, so she was just defending herself!!” yeah? so why hasn’t she said that either?? Instead of accusing Depp of mental abuse, she could just say “I confessed to ‘attacks’ that were pure self-defense.” That’s literally all she’d have to say. She hasn’t. The first “she admitted” claims came out several months ago last year (y’all just noticed only this week for some reason). And in all those months, she has not denied anything. Whereas Johnny has ALWAYS maintained he didn’t abuse her, he’s always denied it. Why hasn’t she?
My second point is people saying he’s still an asshole even if he was a victim, because *references some out of context bs* blah blah, I’ve been over a part of this at the beginning. Yes, he was arrested in the past, for trashing a hotel room (no violence on people) with his then gf Kate Moss, and for chasing away paparazzi after politely asking them to leave him and his family alone. They didn’t, so he PROTECTED his family. Trying to distort that to make him sound abusive is gross. And lastly, stop using the “he punched a guy on a movie set” allegation. First of all, the guy literally ditched court, I wonder why. Secondly, multiple people have come out saying Johnny was neither drunk, nor did he punch the guy. A script supervisor even said they have time-stamped photos to prove he didn’t. However, I would not blame him if he did because HE WAS DEFENDING A HOMELESS AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMAN. That’s right, the accuser was being RACIST. And according to witnesses:
Danoff says they were shooting outside and Brooks (the accuser) berated an African-American homeless woman with "racial and derogatory slurs" because she was in his way. Depp was sitting next to her about 25 feet away when it happened.
"He immediately stood up from our shared seat on the edge of a planter bench and went over to Brooks to stand up for the woman," Danoff says. "Mr. Depp said to Mr. Brooks, 'You can’t talk to her like that. You think she is something less than you? Who do you think you are? How dare you?'"
What an as*hole Depp is, right?
And stop using his addiction struggles to say that proves he’s abusive or that it means he deserved the abuse. Addiction is an illness and it’s disgusting to use it against him, when he’s been so opened and honest about it his entire life /but guess who’s pretending to be perfect even though she’s in fact known to be a drug addict but she pretends she’s not, at least JD’s open about it. He’s always been an honest guy. He is not a liar/. I beg you, watch this video “I was trying to calm the brain. I was trying to feel better.” and tell me, how can you use it against him?? And note, that this was two months before Heard’s accusation, a year into their marriage, look at his appearance. He was being abused.
He was also abused as kid, by the way. If you didn’t know.
And what’s also annoying is “none of that proves his innocence, they were both abusive then” GO AWAY WITH THIS NONSENSE. She’s been openly mocking him for almost three years now.
1) Guess who starred in a pirate film. 2) Guess who played the Mad hatter in Alice in Wonderland? Oh yeah, that would be her former “abusive” husband. 3) And the last photo is literally so disgusting. Johnny changed the tattoo with her nickname that he had on his fingers (and he wears a lot of rings on his fingers) and this human garbage posted a picture of herself with fist punching, fingers full of rings and the caption #NoInkNeeded. She is a garbage, openly mocking her victim.
And she RECENTLY posted several photos of herself that were taken while she was with Depp (x, x - both taken years ago by Johnny’s friend Greg Williams) One on the roof of the building they lived in together where she was allegedly being violently abused. Oh the nostalgia, am I right? Her friend literally commented they miss it. WTF? They miss the place their friend was “abused” in? Oh and guess who demanded the three of their formerly shared condos in that building? Our perfect angel “abuse victim” miss Heard. I’m sure it’s very normal for an abuse victim to want to keep the place in which they were abused. Johnny Depp is the weird one for selling it and wanting no memories of it.
Stop the mental gymnastics to defend Heard and paint Depp as the worst human ever.
59 notes
·
View notes
Text
VIRGINIA MAESTRO..hablando de tu EPILEPSIA [xq ayer en el WILD THING decorado con grupos INGLESES de los 60_90..y cuyo MURO exterior está decorado con ENREDADERAS o NATURALEZA..tenían en su pantalla PESADILLA EN EL STREET con JOHNNY DEPP al q hacías REFERENCIA cuando mencionaste esta película al hacerte en julio una REVISION al RESPECTO y q me recuerda a la EPILEPSIA que le dio a un CULTURISTA a la entrada del concesionario SUZUKI cuando iba a comprar una 125 GSX..q anunciaba un ALEX RINS a tamaño NATURAL con lema HERENCIA LEGENDARIA y el cual se tuvo q tirar de la moto al INCENDIARSE..haciendo mi 1er viaje al monumento al SAGRADO CORAZON O CERRO DE LOS ANGELES aprovechando q iba a ver x LAS FIESTAS VIRGEN DE LOS ANGELES MAYO 2018 a OBK cuyo debut fue cds LLAMALO SUEÑO y MOMENTOS DE FE..x lo q fui x el paseo JOHN LENNON de unos 4 KM hacia GETA_FE=CARADURA_CREENCIA..y volviéndolos a ver 4 AÑOS DESPUES o MAYO 2022 en VILLARREAL tras actuar AMISTADES PELIGROSAS q empezaron CON GENESIS dentro de una discografia muy reveladora y tras verte el día anterior como telonera de ANA CURRA de PARALISIS PERMANENTE cuyo cantante y novio se mató en accidente mientras ella se salvo publicando solo el LP EL ACTO=EL COITO..con éxitos como QUIERO SER SANTA o APRENDIZ DE BRUJA
..y sin olvidar el ATAQUE EPILEPTICO q le dio conduciendo a Julio LLORENTE al q real madrid traspaso al TENERiFE donde lo sufrió para luego ser uno de los VERDUGOS de REAL MADRID en las 2 LIGAS Q PERDIERON EN ULTIMO PARTIDO EN SANTA CRUZ de TENER_i_FE tras ponerse su hermano JOSE LUIS junto a mi en un BAR junto al BERNABEU en derbi más polémico en dic'88 abriendo el marcador JULIO y meses despues arrancandole un ITALIANO su camiseta de REAL MADRID BASKET en un partido en PUERTO REAL donde jugo uno de sus últimos partidos FERNANDO MARTIN xq luego se lesionó como VILLA_LOBOS y se mató cuando iba a buscarlo ..accidente solo explicable xq perdió el conoci_miento antes de chocar en la M30 O AVDA DE LA PAZ con el MARIDO DE MILAGROS q acababa de dar a LUZ]..ha posteado Greg GRISHAM VENTO como le da un VACUNADO un ATAQUE DE EPILEPSIA conduciendo un BUS un TURCO con su bandera ISLAMISTA y q achaca al CAMBIO CLIMATICO..
0 notes
Text
Does Bryan Singer’s Film Bohemian Rhapsody Deserve to Get Awards Love?
The ranks here at FASHION are not filled with men. Shocking, right? But there are one or two (there are actually, literally, two). Naturally, when a question about male/female dynamics arises it’s only fair that one of them stand in for the members of his gender and provide some insight. Our last topic of conversation was about controversial Christmas song “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” and today we’re discussing whether Bryan Singer-directed Bohemian Rhapsody should be snapping up any prizes this awards season. Two of our staffers—from the men’s corner, Greg Hudson, and from the women’s, Pahull Bains—talk it out.
PB: When Bohemian Rhapsody won the Best Picture (Drama) award at the Golden Globes last weekend, in addition to perplexity from critics who had largely panned the film, there was a fair bit of outrage on the internet. Evan Rachel Wood tweeted, “So we just..we are all still supposed to be pretending we don’t know about Bryan Singer? Cause it worked out really well with #Spacey and #Weinstein.” Now, I’m all for men finally getting their comeuppance but I also think it’s unfair that the entire cast and crew of a film be punished for the misdeeds of one person, whose shadiness wasn’t known until the #MeToo Flood of 2017. Or so I thought.
Yes, in 2017 Singer was fired as director of the film partway through shooting for causing “on-set chaos”: showing up late, being unavailable for days at a time, disappearing without the studio’s permission. Just a few days later, it emerged that Singer had been accused of rape by Cesar Sanchez-Guzman, who had been 17 at the time of the assault in 2003. So, I thought to myself, production on this film began before this news came out, so we can’t blame the team for working with him. I’m no fan of the movie, but let them have their moment of glory, thought I, wee innocent one.
As it turns out, allegations against Singer—who has directed films like The Usual Suspects and X-Men: First Class—go way, way back. In December 2017, IndieWire published “The Bryan Singer Timeline: a History of Allegations and Defenses, from Troubled Films to Sexual Assault Claims,” and lets just say it’s not a short list, going as far back as 1994 and ranging from allegations of sexual assault and rape to accusations of filming minor boys naked without their permission.
So, now that we’re caught up on Singer’s problematic history, what does it mean for Bohemian Rhapsody as an awards contender? No one was expecting it to win two big awards at the Globes, which has led understandably to increased scrutiny as we make our way through awards season, with the Critics’ Choice Awards, the SAGs, the BAFTAs, and of course the Oscars ahead of us. Do you think the film’s shot at these shiny statuettes should be diminished because of Singer’s involvement?
FIRST REFORMED, but about Ethan Hawke struggling to find hope in a world where Bohemian Rhapsody is probably gonna be nominated for Best Picture. pic.twitter.com/dI4D7kxfJ7
— david ehrlich (@davidehrlich) January 4, 2019
GH: Before I single-handedly bring down Bryan Singer with my rhetoric and rage, I just want to point a couple of things out that are probably not all that relevant. Why do this? Because I’m a man, and we enjoy talking like experts on subjects we just did some half-assed internet research about.
Point 1: The Golden Globes matter to the Oscar race about as much as the Iowa Caucuses do to the Presidential election. You’ll recall, being the astute political observer that you are, that the Iowa Caucuses happen early in the American election cycle. That’s really the only reason they are covered so closely every four years. Sometimes they are a predictor of who the eventual nominee (and president) will be, but often not. Just ask Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Ted Cruz. And, similarly, the only reason the Golden Globes seem important is that they happen early in award season. But they are judged by such a niche group that their picks can seem downright baffling at times. Remember the 2010 flop The Tourist starring Johnny Depp? That was nominated for best picture at the Golden Globes. Have you ever seen Mozart in the Jungle? No! No one has! And yet, it’s a Golden Globe-winning television show.
So, do I think Bryan Singer’s creepiness will effect Bohemian Rhapsody’s Oscar chances? No. I think the fact that it’s a paint-by-numbers musical biopic will hurt its chances. (Seriously, the movie could have been called Walk Hard 2: This Time the Rockstar is Gay). I mean, Rami Malek and his mouthguard might still get a nod, but if you want a good Oscar predictor, the TIFF People’s Choice selection has a better track record. (So, get ready for a lot of Green Book hot takes!)
Point 2: Though she has already addressed and expressed regret about it—and she did so even before #MeToo made it a thing—Evan Rachel Wood starred in a Woody Allen movie in 2009. As with Singer, the allegations against Allen were pretty well-known even back then, but she still worked with him.
I’m not saying Wood is a hypocrite, or that her outrage is disingenuous. Not at all. I bring it up only to say that Wood clearly understands that sometimes actors work with gross directors, even if they should—or at least realistically could—know better. So maybe cut the cast a break when they celebrate what was clearly a huge surprise.
But 2009 was a very different time. And that’s good! If Bryan Singer never works again, that’s awesome. (Even if he happens to be innocent of all the many, many, many allegations–no one should be able to make the garbage Superman Returns and escape with their career). The real problem that’s complicating how we view Bohemian Rhapsody is that Singer is trying to get attention from it. If he didn’t rear his Botoxed head to claim credit for the Golden Globe, we might all be cool with forgetting he was a part of the film at all. Even if he kept the directing credit.
My question that rises from all of this is: why haven’t there been the public apologies and disavowals from actors who have worked with him in the past, the way there were for Woody Allen? So many of Allen’s former collaborators spoke out about how much they regret working with him, and how they’d never do it again. Actors who didn’t, or who expressed ambivalence toward Allen earned their own blowback. But no one is reaching out to Oscar Isaac or Jennifer Lawrence or, I don’t know, Stephen Baldwin, and asking them how they feel about having worked with an accused sex offender.
My theory: it’s because he, and his alleged victims, are gay. After all, it’s easier to ignore crimes in marginalized communities. Maybe there’s some discomfort because straight folks think they don’t understand gay sexuality in the first place—isn’t that normal for the gays—which, yes, is totally a homophobic holdover from when homosexuality was unfairly associated with pedophilia. And while I tend to think the retroactive shaming of actors is mostly performative, it’s still fucked up that we let Singer be Singer for so long.
PB: Hmm, I don’t know. Kevin Spacey’s accused of similar crimes and he’s been getting plenty of heat. I mean, he’s basically radioactive to anyone in the industry now. (Just for the record, though, Singer is married to a woman with whom he has a child, and has said publicly in interviews that he’s bisexual.)
I think maybe the reason Hollywood was slow to cool on Singer is because some of the allegations against him were dropped. As TIME notes, “he has faced two civil suits alleging sexual assault, one of which was dropped and one of which was dismissed.” In the wake of those lawsuits though, a bunch of stories began coming out about sordid “sex parties” Singer either threw or was present at but nothing was ever conclusively substantiated. A Buzzfeed story from 2014 details how Singer was brought “into regular orbit with 18- to 20-year-olds at parties sustained by large amounts of alcohol and drugs — edging precariously close to the line between legality and illegality,” but most of the sources quoted in the piece are unnamed and Singer wasn’t directly accused of misconduct. I think that sort of gave people the license to pull the whole “but nothing was ever proven” card.
Thanks to this latest lawsuit from 2017, though, which is ongoing, people are being denied an easy out. There is now a young man on the record claiming that he was raped by Singer, so there isn’t really any room for equivocating. Also, like you said, the climate has changed a lot in the past couple of years and stories that have been circulating on the whisper network for decades aren’t quite as easy to ignore anymore.
I know you brought up how Globe results aren’t a good indication of what’s coming down the pike—mainly because there’s no overlap between HFPA voters and Academy voters—but the film is still getting a lot of recognition from prestigious awards bodies. BAFTA noms came out yesterday and Bohemian Rhapsody features prominently on the list. So I’m just wondering—what’s an organization to do? I don’t think the film’s going to snag any more big prizes going forward; the backlash from the Globes has been substantial and other awards bodies probably don’t want to be tainted by a similar response on their big night. (By the way, did you see how poor 15-year-old Elsie Fisher, star of Eighth Grade, was dragged on Twitter for congratulating the team on their win?)
Why is everyone being so mean about this? I’m genuinely sorry if I did something wrong :(
— Elsie Fisher (@ElsieKFisher) January 7, 2019
Anyhow, I think what’s going to end up happening is: Malek’s going to continue getting recognition and maybe even some awards for his work, and the rest of the film is going to be shut out from any major wins. It’s the easiest way for them to award the film without really awarding the film, you know? And I don’t think anyone’s going to begrudge Malek a win. He’s got a ton of goodwill in the industry as well as critical praise for his portrayal of Freddie Mercury.
What I do hope for though—especially because we still have many, many awards shows and appearances ahead of us—is for everyone involved to get together and figure out how they want to address the elephant in the room. At the press conference after their Globes wins, the team flat-out refused to answer journalists’ questions about Singer. “That’s not something we should talk about tonight,” said producer Graham King, while Queen member Brian May quipped, “Good question though.” Malek then stepped up, saying, “I will take this one. There’s only one thing we needed to do, and that was to celebrate Freddie Mercury. Nothing was going to compromise us and giving him the love and celebration he deserves.”
They’re going to have to do a bit better than that. Don’t you think?
GH: It always baffles me when public figures don’t have thoughtful, satisfying answers to obvious questions. What are their publicists doing? Actors might not be the best at answering thorny ethical question on the spot (who is?), but they are pretty great at memorizing a script. Someone write that cast some talking points!
Having said that, I don’t really know what the satisfying answer would be. Because I realized, too, after you challenged my interpretation of the case, another reason why there hasn’t been the same retroactive hand-wringing from actors about having worked with Bryan Singer as there was about Woody Allen: It’s because it’s Bryan Singer. Woody Allen is an auteur—being in one of his films was an honour, a sign that you had arrived, or were at least arriving. Bryan Singer made some crowd-pleasing pictures, but no one is calling him an auteur.
I can’t decide whether that makes crafting an appropriate response easier or more difficult. On the one hand, because “working with Woody Allen” was such a cliche Hollywood status symbol, it was easy to understand when actors worked with him, despite credible allegations. Singer doesn’t have the same reputation. No actress has gushed about being granted the opportunity to be in an X-Men reboot. In that light, working with Singer seems less understandable.
But, that also could make it easier. And this seems to be where the cast is headed: you lean in on the Freddie Mercury Tribute and imply that, in the shadow of such an amazing performer, the director is practically immaterial. Bryan Singer? Who’s Bryan Singer? This was basically directed by the spirit of Freddie Mercury!
Also, lingering in the back of my mind, there’s that nagging concern that being fired or denied work because of an unproven allegation is a little dangerous as a precedent. After all, some of the rumours around Singer aren’t about illegal activity so much as being gross in a decadent, predatory, Hollywood way. Of course, the “nothing has been proven in court” defence is the least satisfying argument.
So maybe honesty would be best. Something that says they understand why people might feel ambivalent about the film, because of the director. That that is something, as a cast, they are dealing with, too. But, while we don’t want to shut down the conversation about how we should feel about problematic artists, the opportunity to celebrate Freddie Mercury is an unalloyed good. Then go on to talk about all the things Mercury did for human rights and the LGBTQ community.
And then just ignore the fact that the movie changes so much of Mercury’s story that it’s questionable whether it celebrates the real Freddie Mercury, or some postmodern, nostalgic construct we call Freddie Mercury.
But hating on Elsie Fisher? Let’s get some perspective people. The Oscars have a way of bringing out the darkness in people. That can be good (holding Casey Affleck to account for bad behaviour) and some can be not so good (rage-tweeting a teenager you don’t know). What should award bodies do to mitigate this? Should they vet nominees? And if so, what behaviour is disqualifying? What’s the statute of limitations? Or do problematic award winners just need to give better answers?
PB: Award bodies haven’t had to deal with a lot of scrutiny until fairly recently, so they’ve been able to skirt some of these issues without really shouldering any blame. Now though, their feet are being held to the fire and it’s not going to be as easy to just sit by and say nothing. It’s tricky; there’s certainly no one-size-fits-all solution but in my opinion, nor should there be. We’re dealing with complex issues here and I think everything needs to be addressed on a case by case basis. I really appreciate the diversity requirements the BAFTAs put in place last year: for the two awards categories specifically for British films (Outstanding British Film and Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer), they’re only accepting films that meet two of the British Film Institute’s quartet of core diversity standards.
But of course, different award bodies have different nomination processes. The Academy, for instance, has over 8000 people who submit their nominees for various categories, which then cycle through some complicated process before the final nominees are selected. Because there are so many people involved, it’s easy to play the avoidance game. Who do you hold accountable? But if the final list of five or ten nominees includes some problematic faves that have been in the news for x or y reason, I think it’s the award body’s duty to call for a meeting of their board to figure out the steps forward. Interestingly, I just Googled “Who is BAFTA president” and it turns out it’s Prince William, since 2010! Obviously he can’t weigh in on this stuff but there are other people who can, namely the VPs for film, television and games (?). The Academy, meanwhile, has a Board of Governors that includes Whoopi Goldberg, Laura Dern and Steven Spielberg.
Whatever these governing bodies decide, it’s something they should be able to defend when asked about it. Because they will be asked about it. Sorry guys, changing the subject isn’t an option anymore.
0 notes
Text
Does Bryan Singer’s Film Bohemian Rhapsody Deserve to Get Awards Love?
The ranks here at FASHION are not filled with men. Shocking, right? But there are one or two (there are actually, literally, two). Naturally, when a question about male/female dynamics arises it’s only fair that one of them stand in for the members of his gender and provide some insight. Our last topic of conversation was about controversial Christmas song “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” and today we’re discussing whether Bryan Singer-directed Bohemian Rhapsody should be snapping up any prizes this awards season. Two of our staffers—from the men’s corner, Greg Hudson, and from the women’s, Pahull Bains—talk it out.
PB: When Bohemian Rhapsody won the Best Picture (Drama) award at the Golden Globes last weekend, in addition to perplexity from critics who had largely panned the film, there was a fair bit of outrage on the internet. Evan Rachel Wood tweeted, “So we just..we are all still supposed to be pretending we don’t know about Bryan Singer? Cause it worked out really well with #Spacey and #Weinstein.” Now, I’m all for men finally getting their comeuppance but I also think it’s unfair that the entire cast and crew of a film be punished for the misdeeds of one person, whose shadiness wasn’t known until the #MeToo Flood of 2017. Or so I thought.
Yes, in 2017 Singer was fired as director of the film partway through shooting for causing “on-set chaos”: showing up late, being unavailable for days at a time, disappearing without the studio’s permission. Just a few days later, it emerged that Singer had been accused of rape by Cesar Sanchez-Guzman, who had been 17 at the time of the assault in 2003. So, I thought to myself, production on this film began before this news came out, so we can’t blame the team for working with him. I’m no fan of the movie, but let them have their moment of glory, thought I, wee innocent one.
As it turns out, allegations against Singer—who has directed films like The Usual Suspects and X-Men: First Class—go way, way back. In December 2017, IndieWire published “The Bryan Singer Timeline: a History of Allegations and Defenses, from Troubled Films to Sexual Assault Claims,” and lets just say it’s not a short list, going as far back as 1994 and ranging from allegations of sexual assault and rape to accusations of filming minor boys naked without their permission.
So, now that we’re caught up on Singer’s problematic history, what does it mean for Bohemian Rhapsody as an awards contender? No one was expecting it to win two big awards at the Globes, which has led understandably to increased scrutiny as we make our way through awards season, with the Critics’ Choice Awards, the SAGs, the BAFTAs, and of course the Oscars ahead of us. Do you think the film’s shot at these shiny statuettes should be diminished because of Singer’s involvement?
FIRST REFORMED, but about Ethan Hawke struggling to find hope in a world where Bohemian Rhapsody is probably gonna be nominated for Best Picture. pic.twitter.com/dI4D7kxfJ7
— david ehrlich (@davidehrlich) January 4, 2019
GH: Before I single-handedly bring down Bryan Singer with my rhetoric and rage, I just want to point a couple of things out that are probably not all that relevant. Why do this? Because I’m a man, and we enjoy talking like experts on subjects we just did some half-assed internet research about.
Point 1: The Golden Globes matter to the Oscar race about as much as the Iowa Caucuses do to the Presidential election. You’ll recall, being the astute political observer that you are, that the Iowa Caucuses happen early in the American election cycle. That’s really the only reason they are covered so closely every four years. Sometimes they are a predictor of who the eventual nominee (and president) will be, but often not. Just ask Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Ted Cruz. And, similarly, the only reason the Golden Globes seem important is that they happen early in award season. But they are judged by such a niche group that their picks can seem downright baffling at times. Remember the 2010 flop The Tourist starring Johnny Depp? That was nominated for best picture at the Golden Globes. Have you ever seen Mozart in the Jungle? No! No one has! And yet, it’s a Golden Globe-winning television show.
So, do I think Bryan Singer’s creepiness will effect Bohemian Rhapsody’s Oscar chances? No. I think the fact that it’s a paint-by-numbers musical biopic will hurt its chances. (Seriously, the movie could have been called Walk Hard 2: This Time the Rockstar is Gay). I mean, Rami Malek and his mouthguard might still get a nod, but if you want a good Oscar predictor, the TIFF People’s Choice selection has a better track record. (So, get ready for a lot of Green Book hot takes!)
Point 2: Though she has already addressed and expressed regret about it—and she did so even before #MeToo made it a thing—Evan Rachel Wood starred in a Woody Allen movie in 2009. As with Singer, the allegations against Allen were pretty well-known even back then, but she still worked with him.
I’m not saying Wood is a hypocrite, or that her outrage is disingenuous. Not at all. I bring it up only to say that Wood clearly understands that sometimes actors work with gross directors, even if they should—or at least realistically could—know better. So maybe cut the cast a break when they celebrate what was clearly a huge surprise.
But 2009 was a very different time. And that’s good! If Bryan Singer never works again, that’s awesome. (Even if he happens to be innocent of all the many, many, many allegations–no one should be able to make the garbage Superman Returns and escape with their career). The real problem that’s complicating how we view Bohemian Rhapsody is that Singer is trying to get attention from it. If he didn’t rear his Botoxed head to claim credit for the Golden Globe, we might all be cool with forgetting he was a part of the film at all. Even if he kept the directing credit.
My question that rises from all of this is: why haven’t there been the public apologies and disavowals from actors who have worked with him in the past, the way there were for Woody Allen? So many of Allen’s former collaborators spoke out about how much they regret working with him, and how they’d never do it again. Actors who didn’t, or who expressed ambivalence toward Allen earned their own blowback. But no one is reaching out to Oscar Isaac or Jennifer Lawrence or, I don’t know, Stephen Baldwin, and asking them how they feel about having worked with an accused sex offender.
My theory: it’s because he, and his alleged victims, are gay. After all, it’s easier to ignore crimes in marginalized communities. Maybe there’s some discomfort because straight folks think they don’t understand gay sexuality in the first place—isn’t that normal for the gays—which, yes, is totally a homophobic holdover from when homosexuality was unfairly associated with pedophilia. And while I tend to think the retroactive shaming of actors is mostly performative, it’s still fucked up that we let Singer be Singer for so long.
PB: Hmm, I don’t know. Kevin Spacey’s accused of similar crimes and he’s been getting plenty of heat. I mean, he’s basically radioactive to anyone in the industry now. (Just for the record, though, Singer is married to a woman with whom he has a child, and has said publicly in interviews that he’s bisexual.)
I think maybe the reason Hollywood was slow to cool on Singer is because some of the allegations against him were dropped. As TIME notes, “he has faced two civil suits alleging sexual assault, one of which was dropped and one of which was dismissed.” In the wake of those lawsuits though, a bunch of stories began coming out about sordid “sex parties” Singer either threw or was present at but nothing was ever conclusively substantiated. A Buzzfeed story from 2014 details how Singer was brought “into regular orbit with 18- to 20-year-olds at parties sustained by large amounts of alcohol and drugs — edging precariously close to the line between legality and illegality,” but most of the sources quoted in the piece are unnamed and Singer wasn’t directly accused of misconduct. I think that sort of gave people the license to pull the whole “but nothing was ever proven” card.
Thanks to this latest lawsuit from 2017, though, which is ongoing, people are being denied an easy out. There is now a young man on the record claiming that he was raped by Singer, so there isn’t really any room for equivocating. Also, like you said, the climate has changed a lot in the past couple of years and stories that have been circulating on the whisper network for decades aren’t quite as easy to ignore anymore.
I know you brought up how Globe results aren’t a good indication of what’s coming down the pike—mainly because there’s no overlap between HFPA voters and Academy voters—but the film is still getting a lot of recognition from prestigious awards bodies. BAFTA noms came out yesterday and Bohemian Rhapsody features prominently on the list. So I’m just wondering—what’s an organization to do? I don’t think the film’s going to snag any more big prizes going forward; the backlash from the Globes has been substantial and other awards bodies probably don’t want to be tainted by a similar response on their big night. (By the way, did you see how poor 15-year-old Elsie Fisher, star of Eighth Grade, was dragged on Twitter for congratulating the team on their win?)
Why is everyone being so mean about this? I’m genuinely sorry if I did something wrong :(
— Elsie Fisher (@ElsieKFisher) January 7, 2019
Anyhow, I think what’s going to end up happening is: Malek’s going to continue getting recognition and maybe even some awards for his work, and the rest of the film is going to be shut out from any major wins. It’s the easiest way for them to award the film without really awarding the film, you know? And I don’t think anyone’s going to begrudge Malek a win. He’s got a ton of goodwill in the industry as well as critical praise for his portrayal of Freddie Mercury.
What I do hope for though—especially because we still have many, many awards shows and appearances ahead of us—is for everyone involved to get together and figure out how they want to address the elephant in the room. At the press conference after their Globes wins, the team flat-out refused to answer journalists’ questions about Singer. “That’s not something we should talk about tonight,” said producer Graham King, while Queen member Brian May quipped, “Good question though.” Malek then stepped up, saying, “I will take this one. There’s only one thing we needed to do, and that was to celebrate Freddie Mercury. Nothing was going to compromise us and giving him the love and celebration he deserves.”
They’re going to have to do a bit better than that. Don’t you think?
GH: It always baffles me when public figures don’t have thoughtful, satisfying answers to obvious questions. What are their publicists doing? Actors might not be the best at answering thorny ethical question on the spot (who is?), but they are pretty great at memorizing a script. Someone write that cast some talking points!
Having said that, I don’t really know what the satisfying answer would be. Because I realized, too, after you challenged my interpretation of the case, another reason why there hasn’t been the same retroactive hand-wringing from actors about having worked with Bryan Singer as there was about Woody Allen: It’s because it’s Bryan Singer. Woody Allen is an auteur—being in one of his films was an honour, a sign that you had arrived, or were at least arriving. Bryan Singer made some crowd-pleasing pictures, but no one is calling him an auteur.
I can’t decide whether that makes crafting an appropriate response easier or more difficult. On the one hand, because “working with Woody Allen” was such a cliche Hollywood status symbol, it was easy to understand when actors worked with him, despite credible allegations. Singer doesn’t have the same reputation. No actress has gushed about being granted the opportunity to be in an X-Men reboot. In that light, working with Singer seems less understandable.
But, that also could make it easier. And this seems to be where the cast is headed: you lean in on the Freddie Mercury Tribute and imply that, in the shadow of such an amazing performer, the director is practically immaterial. Bryan Singer? Who’s Bryan Singer? This was basically directed by the spirit of Freddie Mercury!
Also, lingering in the back of my mind, there’s that nagging concern that being fired or denied work because of an unproven allegation is a little dangerous as a precedent. After all, some of the rumours around Singer aren’t about illegal activity so much as being gross in a decadent, predatory, Hollywood way. Of course, the “nothing has been proven in court” defence is the least satisfying argument.
So maybe honesty would be best. Something that says they understand why people might feel ambivalent about the film, because of the director. That that is something, as a cast, they are dealing with, too. But, while we don’t want to shut down the conversation about how we should feel about problematic artists, the opportunity to celebrate Freddie Mercury is an unalloyed good. Then go on to talk about all the things Mercury did for human rights and the LGBTQ community.
And then just ignore the fact that the movie changes so much of Mercury’s story that it’s questionable whether it celebrates the real Freddie Mercury, or some postmodern, nostalgic construct we call Freddie Mercury.
But hating on Elsie Fisher? Let’s get some perspective people. The Oscars have a way of bringing out the darkness in people. That can be good (holding Casey Affleck to account for bad behaviour) and some can be not so good (rage-tweeting a teenager you don’t know). What should award bodies do to mitigate this? Should they vet nominees? And if so, what behaviour is disqualifying? What’s the statute of limitations? Or do problematic award winners just need to give better answers?
PB: Award bodies haven’t had to deal with a lot of scrutiny until fairly recently, so they’ve been able to skirt some of these issues without really shouldering any blame. Now though, their feet are being held to the fire and it’s not going to be as easy to just sit by and say nothing. It’s tricky; there’s certainly no one-size-fits-all solution but in my opinion, nor should there be. We’re dealing with complex issues here and I think everything needs to be addressed on a case by case basis. I really appreciate the diversity requirements the BAFTAs put in place last year: for the two awards categories specifically for British films (Outstanding British Film and Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer), they’re only accepting films that meet two of the British Film Institute’s quartet of core diversity standards.
But of course, different award bodies have different nomination processes. The Academy, for instance, has over 8000 people who submit their nominees for various categories, which then cycle through some complicated process before the final nominees are selected. Because there are so many people involved, it’s easy to play the avoidance game. Who do you hold accountable? But if the final list of five or ten nominees includes some problematic faves that have been in the news for x or y reason, I think it’s the award body’s duty to call for a meeting of their board to figure out the steps forward. Interestingly, I just Googled “Who is BAFTA president” and it turns out it’s Prince William, since 2010! Obviously he can’t weigh in on this stuff but there are other people who can, namely the VPs for film, television and games (?). The Academy, meanwhile, has a Board of Governors that includes Whoopi Goldberg, Laura Dern and Steven Spielberg.
Whatever these governing bodies decide, it’s something they should be able to defend when asked about it. Because they will be asked about it. Sorry guys, changing the subject isn’t an option anymore.
The post Does Bryan Singer’s Film <em> Bohemian Rhapsody</em> Deserve to Get Awards Love? appeared first on FASHION Magazine.
Does Bryan Singer’s Film Bohemian Rhapsody Deserve to Get Awards Love? published first on https://borboletabags.tumblr.com/
0 notes
Photo
src
Image Description under Read More
Greg Ellis: Rocket fuel from the fan base.
*Quote Tweet*: You are one of the few standing with Johnny Depp. It means maybe not much to you but I salute you with the utmost respect for your integrity, loyalty, and your courage to stand up for what’s right! Thank you Sir! The world needs more people like you!
User Reply 1: Also... What fanbase?!?! You weren’t even a memorable character in the Pirates franchise. I literally had to google what role it was you played because you’re THAT forgettable. Stop using someone else’s struggles as a way to advance yourself. It’s SAD.
User Reply 2: Sad?! Greg is one of the FEW public figures supporting a Domestic Abuse survivor Johnny Depp, where many BIG names who have seen with their own eyes the truth, are staying silent. Because Johnny Depp is a male survivor, and norm is for females to be supported as victims. Greg is brave.
Greg Ellis: As are you a kind person. Thanks. What’s truly pitiful is that sad and lonely bigots like this are the very thing they purport to hate.
User Reply 2: Thank you so much! And please remember to BLOCK those negative people right away! Let’s not waste time on them... and focus on what’s important only.
User Reply 3: You’re not special for defending Johnny Depp “before it was cool.” and you’re not his best friend just because you had a bit role in a film series he starred in. Men’s rights are important, but you can’t defend men by throwing women under the bus.
#tw domestic abuse#cw domestic abuse#Greg Ellis#Johnny Rees#Greg x Fandom#Greg x General#Greg x Johnny Depp#Greg x DV#Greg x Domestic Violence#Greg x MRA
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
ABC recommendations
It’s been a while since I written a review. I still want to do my Solondz series along with other series. I’m going to do a spontaneous abc review of my recommendations just to get to juices going. I have not seen all these movies, but I’ve seen shots and bits from other recommendations.
A is for Akira
I have not finished seeing this film, and I remember I only had an hour left of it. I really appreciated the cool futuristic style in Akira, and I’m not a fan of anime or the mangas but this movie looks really cool and it’s special to a lot of people.
B is for Bully directed by Larry Clark
I recently saw this film last week. At first, I didn’t know what to think about this film, but I think I like it. It’s based off a true story about a group of teens who conspire to kill a mutual friend, who’s a bully and an asshole to his friends. Larry Clark is one of my favorite film makers and photographers. This film is a real trip and I love the way it’s shot. Some of the scenes are very disorienting but in a cool way.
C is for Cannibal Holocaust
Due to technical difficulties, I can never finish watching this film on my Shudder App. I’ve only seen it up to halfway, but I’ve always been fascinated to how this film got made. Apparently, the filmmaker was arrested and was asked if those kills were real. The only creatures who were unfortunately harmed were animals like a turtle, a squirrel monkey, a pig, and more. The filmmaker was a dick for doing that, but if you don’t wanna see that you can look for an animal cruelty-free version. This film also sparked the found footage genre in horror, which makes the film look gritty and realistic.
D is for The Doom Generation directed by Greg Arraki
I’ve seen this film a couple of times, and it’s one of those movies that I’d like to own on DVD. I’d like to own The Doom Generation so I can appreciate it from time to time. It’s a queer horror exploitation film with Rose Mcgowan and James Duvall. This movie is a weird trip, weird in a cool way. This movie’s so cool, and it holds a special place in my heart.
E is for Ed Wood directed by Tim Burton
This film is about Ed Wood, the notoriously bad filmmaker, mostly known for Plan 9 from Outer Space. In this film, Johnny Depp plays Ed Wood, and it’s about the making of Plan 9 from Outer Space. Overall this is a very enjoyable little movie. In my opinion, it’s one of Tim Burtons under rated movies. I love how it’s shot in black and white. It’s a film about film making, and those films are always interesting.
F is for Funny Games directed by Michael Haneke
If you’re like me, you have to distinguish which version of Funny Games you prefer. I like the original Austria version a lot more. The U.S. remake is directed by the same one from the original. His plan was to make a U.S. version first but I guess his plans fell through. I honestly feel like the remake was unnecessary. Thank goodness I can read subtitles. Funny Games is a home invasion film that works as a satire on how we perceive violence. I love the main villain in this film and how he breaks the fourth wall from time to time, and there are moments in the film when he knows he’s in a film. I love it so much, it’s bonkers and it works.
G is for Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai directed by Jim Jarmusch
Forrest Whitaker plays a character named Ghost Dog, who embodies the philosophy of a samurai. I love this film, I’ve shown it to my friends and they grew to love it as much as I do. There’s a lot of elements of Ghost Dog that I want to talk about, but it’s mainly known for its beautiful cinematography and classic Jarmusch storytelling.
H is for Happiness directed by Todd Solondz
The film follows three sisters and the people around them, and everyone is miserable or unhappy in their own way. This is a dark comedy, with amazing raw cringing performances. It’s listed as one of the most disturbing films ever made, and in my opinion, it can certainly be dangerously disturbing.
I is for Idiocracy directed by Mike Judge
To be honest, I recently saw this movie and I’m surprised how well it holds up for 2017. I’m a huge fan of Office Space, Extract, and King of the Hill so I’m upset that I just saw this movie now. It’s 2005 and the film follows Private Joe, who is selected to take part in a military experiment to put him in hibernation for a year. He is put in with another person, Rita, and they are forgotten for about 500 years til there was this garbage avalanche and their pods were open. Joe and Rita are separated and they start to realize the decline of human intelligence and because of this Joe is declared the smartest person on earth with an average IQ. A lot of the language is problematic because there are lawyers and doctors who use words like fag and retard. As bad as it sounds, it works for the plot and it makes this a funny satire.
J is for Julien Donkey Boy directed by Harmony Korine
The story focuses on the schizophrenic Julien and his dysfunctional family. I love how Korine breaks some rules from Dogma 95, and he does so in a creative perspective. I wasn’t so sure about this film at first, but this film grew on me over time and this is very different from your usual conventional storytelling. This film is not for everyone, it’s very disturbing and dark.
Ken Park directed by Larry Clark
I have not seen Ken Park yet. This was also written by Harmony Korine. From what I know it’s about the lives of several teenagers with dysfunctional family problems. I also heard this movie was messed up so I gotta prepare myself for that.
L is for Lost Highway directed by David Lynch
I’m not too familiar with Lost Highway, but this is definitely on my bucket list.
M is for May directed by Lucky McKee
This film follows May, a lonely young woman with a traumatizing childhood, and the attempts to get closer to people. This is a fun little horror movie, with hammy acting and a great storyline. I love the shots and the meaning behind this film. I really sympathize with May, and I take pleasure in her reaching her sick goals. This movie is really special, very close to my heart, and James Duvall is in this film. Just for one scene but still. If you’re into weird films like Donnie Darko then I dare you to watch May.
N is for Night on Earth directed by Jim Jarmusch
Night on Earth follows five taxi drivers in five separate cities around the world. The first story follows a tomboy taxi driver, Corky, played by Winona Ryder, and she gives one of my favorite performances. Corky is such an adorable foul mouthed tomboy, she’s a taxi driver and an aspiring mechanic. I don’t know if I want to be her, or if I want to be with her, and that’s how cute and awesome Corky is. The characters are what I love most about this film. That’s just one story, and the rest are just as ridiculous and emotionally investing.
O is for Old Boy Directed by Chan Wook Park
Oldboy follows a man who was mysteriously kidnapped and locked in a room for 15 years. After he’s released he has to figure out who locked him up and why. Oldboy is such a cool South Korean revenge film, with beautiful cinematography, poetic realism, and music.
P is for Paris, Texas directed by Wim Wenders
The film follows a disheveled man, Travis, played y Harry Dean Stanton, who is found wandering the desert. When a stranger contacts his brother, Walt, he is forced to find his brother and bring him back home to his eight-year-old son. We don’t know why Travis disappeared for four years, and how silent he is throughout the film. I legit thought he was a mute, but no you learn that he hasn’t talked in years because of a heartbreak. This film is wonderfully shot, and it’s just a beautiful looking film. Paris, Texas is emotionally heartbreaking and it stays with you when it’s done. Harry Dean Stanton, you’re the fucking man!
Q is for
I don’t know any movies that I could recommend that start with the letter Q. Pass.
R is for The Room directed by Tommy Wiseau
It’s known as the Citizen Kane of bad movies. The story isn’t much, it’s about a banker, Johnny, who’s engaged with Lisa, his future wife, who has an affair with Mark, Johnny’s best friend. That’s the story, but this film has to be seen to believed. The Room is perfect to watch with a group of friends, and it’s wonderful seeing someone else’s reaction to seeing The Room for the first time. This film is flat out bonkers, and I love it. There are a lot of things wrong with it, and there are subplots that come and go and are never mentioned again.
S is for Samurai Cop
I don’t know a lot about this film, only that it’s a Lethal Weapon rip off and it’s known as one of the best worst movies ever made. I heard it was discovered in a film vault, at a film company. I can imagine this is another one of those bad movies you can watch with a group of friends and have a good time.
T is for Tetsuo: The Iron Man
I haven’t seen the first Tetsuo or any of them, but the first one is a body horror film about a man who transforms into a cyborg man with metal parts and wires. It looks so cool. It’s still on my watch list.
U is for
V is for Visitor Q directed by Takashi Miike
I haven’t seen Visitor Q or a lot of Miike films besides Audition and The Happiness of the Katakuris. I heard this is one of Miike’s most prolific films, so gotta check this out sometime.
W is for Welcome to the Dollhouse directed by Todd Solondz
I’ve already reviewed this film because it’s one of my favorite films. This film follows Dawn Weiner, an 8th grader who gets bullied a lot and neglected at home. I love how heartbreaking this film is from the point of view of an 8th grader. It’s raw and brave for displaying a brutally honest depiction of middle school.
X
Y
Z
0 notes
Link
http://ift.tt/2t0gzzD
Celebrities are always under the microscope. For many, it’s like living in a fishbowl. Everyone gets to watch as you live your life. Of course, people are going to screw up when the cameras are rolling 24/7. If you spend long enough in the public eye, some sort of scandal will eventually rise and threaten your career. Some are more personal and forgivable problems (like drug abuse), but others completely change the way the public views a celebrity. Some celebrities never escape the scandals in which they’re caught-up. They continue to fall until they’re all but forgotten by their fans. Other celebrities are able to revitalize their career after a scandal. They continue to work and hope the public forget about their colored past. Even in some of the most reprehensible cases, the public has found the ability to forgive some celebrities. The world of sports (the NFL in particular) is often criticized for only caring about on-field production rather than off-field behavior. This is the reason Ray Rice (who stinks) was virtually kicked out of the league and players like Greg Hardy were still able to find work. The same thing happens in entertainment, though. If they’re good enough, we’ll forgive almost anything.
#1 Paul Reubens You may not know the name Paul Reubens, but you certainly know the character he played in Pee-wee Herman. Pee-wee Herman became a cult success when it was first introduced to the world in 1982, and became the focal point of Reubens’ career. Reubens committed completely to the role, giving all of his public appearances in character as Pee-wee Herman. Reubens’ scandal came in 1991, when he was arrested for mast*rbating in an adult theater. He became the butt of the joke at this point, and withdrew from the public eye and his Pee-wee character. Toy stores took the Pee-wee toys off of the shelves, and it seemed it would be the last we heard from the character. Eventually, Reubens made his comeback by playing supporting characters in multiple movies and TV shows. He found his greatest success in the film Blow, starring Johnny Depp. Now, Reubens is back to doing his Pee-wee Herman character full-time with his new show, and hardly anyone remembers the embarrassing scandal surrounding him in the ’90s.
#2 Rob Lowe Rob Lowe has come far enough away from his scandal, that virtually no one remembers he was in the middle of one to begin with. For those who don’t know, the Parks and Rec and The West Wing star was embroiled in a possibly career-ending scandal in the late 1990’s. Lowe became a famous actor at a young age, and he enjoyed the spoils of being a Hollywood heartthrob. In the 1980’s, he met two girls at a club who agreed to be videotaped while having s*x with him. Of course, the video was leaked to the public, and it turned out that one of the girls was underage. Lowe settled the lawsuit out of court, but it wasn’t the last time he would be defending himself in such a manner. Lowe sued two of his employees in 2008 for defamation (among other charges) for saying that the actor made s*xual advances on them. It wasn’t anything on the caliber of his s*x tape, but it certainly wasn’t a good look for him. Despite his controversies, Lowe was able to land roles on two hit television shows. It appears that his acting ability outweighed his questionable decision-making in the past.
#3 Mel Gibson Mel Gibson has been involved in some of the more high-profile scandals in Hollywood. He’s offended pretty much everyone who isn’t a white Christian, dating back to some homophobic remarks he made in a 1991 interview. The most damning controversy Gibson has been a part of took place in 2010, when his voice mails to Oksana Grigorieva were released to the public. In these tapes, Gibson can be heard saying the ‘N’ word among other reprehensible phrases. He’s been accused of antisemitism both in his public life and in his film The Passion of the Christ. For a while, Gibson was blackballed by the entertainment industry. He found it hard to find work, and even harder to find critical acclaim. Eventually, Hollywood softened on Gibson, even nominating his 2016 film, Hacksaw Ridge, for an Academy Award.
#4 Woody Allen Woody Allen is thought by many to be one of the greats in the comedy realm. He is strange and eccentric, but many of his films are used as examples in film classes around the world. There has been some controversy surrounding Allen, and if it’s true, it certainly taints his legacy to a massive degree. During Allen’s divorce to Mia Farrow, Farrow alleged that Allen molested her daughter. Dylan Farrow, Mia’s daughter, corroborated those claims and said that she was molested during a visit with Allen after the two had split up. The judge did not convict Allen of any crime, but barred him from visiting her after the divorce. While some of the children who were raised in the Allen-Farrow household disputed their sister’s claims, Dylan Farrow doubled-down on her allegations in 2014. The truth of the matter may never be known, but this scandal is virtually forgotten today.
#5 Caitlyn Jenner Not many people know this, but before Bruce Jenner transitioned to Caitlyn Jenner, there was an even bigger story that got overshadowed by her transition. Jenner, who had yet to come out publicly as a transgender, was the cause of a multi-car crash in Los Angeles that cost the life of Kim Howe. Jenner faced multiple lawsuits after the crash which, by all accounts, was due to her own negligence. It was determined that she may face a manslaughter charge, but any criminal charges were ruled out soon after the accident. Jenner has tried to pass the buck multiple times since the crash. She’s tried to blame the paparazzi to get out of her multiple lawsuits, and some even theorize that part of the reason she came out as transgender was to avoid criminal prosecution (though I’m not sure how that would be effective). It’s been largely overshadowed by her transition, but the fact remains, her negligence behind the wheel cost someone their life.
#6 Tiger Woods Tiger Woods can’t seem to get out of his own way. Just last weekend, he was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of prescription drugs. It’s probably the final nail in the coffin for Tiger, but it won’t stop fans from saying he’ll come back to form someday. Tiger Woods’ s*x scandal was one of the most embarrassing and career-wrecking controversies in recent memory. His private s*xual endeavors were broadcast to the world (including peeing on girls) and his image was compromised. Still, in the years following the scandal, Tiger Woods’ fans stuck by him. Despite the fact that Woods’ body seemed to be breaking down and he continued to withdraw from tournaments, fans continued to say that Tiger would be back to the level that he attained earlier in his career. Woods may not be in the clear as far as public image, but it’s become apparent that his fans will disregard everything he does off of the golf course.
#7 Bill Cosby Before you say, “But wait, he’s basically dead to the world right now,” here me out. These Bill Cosby r*pe allegations were nothing new. They came to light again when Hannibal Buress made a joke about them during his set, but they were available for public consumption long before they reemerged. If this wasn’t the case, Hannibal wouldn’t have had the nerve to make a joke about it. These allegations took place long before the internet was around, so he flew under the radar to some degree. The other part of the reason he got away with it was because he was comedy at that time. He was the face of family-friendly material, and no one wanted to believe he could be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. There have been over 50 allegations against Cosby. That number is too high to be false. If even 10% of the allegations is true, then, we’re still looking at a serial rapist. He may have lost the adoration of the country in his old age, but Cosby survived the scandal for far too long.
#8 Drew Barrymore Drew Barrymore suffered from drug addiction and depression during the early part of her career, which many people attribute to the fact that she was a child star. She got her first role when she was only a baby, and her career continued to grow from there. Many child stars go on to have rough lives after their stint in the spotlight is over, but Barrymore was able to resurrect her career after what seemed to be the end. Barrymore was addicted to drugs and alcohol at a young age, and had to spend time in rehab to combat her drug problem. After her second trip to rehab, Barrymore even attempted suicide in her apartment. Thankfully, Barrymore was able to turn her life around and establish a career for herself in Hollywood. Now, she can be seen starring in movies alongside famous co-stars.
#9 Hugh Grant Hugh Grant almost lost his career before it really got going when he was arrested in June of 1995 for receiving oral s*x in a public place from a prostitute. Grant was just beginning his career as every American woman’s perfect British man, and almost had it fall flat on its face. The act itself isn’t the worst thing on this list. The timing may have been. Grant was just about to start a press tour for the move Nine Months, his first major studio film. Grant appeared on shows such as The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and Larry King Live, where he was grilled about the incident. Many people respected his response to the scandal, as he seemed to take responsibility for his actions and laugh at himself. Thankfully, Hugh Grant was talented at damage control, or else, some of the better chick-flicks of the late ’90s to early 2000’s wouldn’t have been made.
#10 Peyton Manning It may come as a surprise to you that Peyton Manning has been mixed up in some scandals, as not many people have even heard of some of the things he’s done. The media loves Peyton Manning, and the Manning family mafia has been effective at shutting most of these stories down before they get legs. There is the recent steroids scandal, where Peyton Manning was revealed to have been using HGH to recover from his neck injury. The media acted like this was no big deal, and focused on Tom Brady’s deflated footballs instead. This, though, isn’t the scandal to which I’m referring. Manning, while at the University of Tennessee (for brevity’s sake), tea-bagged a female trainer during an examination. According to the court documents, Manning “forcefully maneuvered his naked t*sticles and r*ctum directly on her face with his p*nis on top of her head.” What followed was a cover-up of epic proportions. It looks like this “squeaky-clean” quarterback has more than a few skeletons in his past.
#11 Mike Tyson Mike Tyson offered one of the more surprising comebacks on this list. He was considered by many to be a complete psychopath. His out-of-ring behavior was notably unsavory, and his legacy of being one of the best boxers of all time is somewhat overshadowed by the infamous ear-biting situation against Evander Holyfield. Tyson’s most polarizing and detrimental public scandal came in the form of his 1991 r*pe conviction. Tyson spent three years in jail for this offense, and returned to boxing with mixed reviews. Tyson maintains his innocence in the matter, but his career continued in the wake of this conviction. Tyson’s later career was equally controversial, and many fans considered him to be legitimately insane. Despite this fact, Tyson has made a name for himself in the entertainment industry after his boxing career. He’s had a successful one-man show in Vegas, released books, and appeared in movies such as The Hangover. People seem to have forgotten the previous image of Mike Tyson, which works to his advantage for his current fame.
#12 Michael Vick In 2007, Michael Vick pleaded guilty to the charge of financing a dog fighting operation. There are a lot of divisive issues in this country, but when it comes to a man forcing dogs to fight to their death, virtually, everyone is on the same side. Vick was sentenced to 23 months in jail for his involvement in the dog fighting ring, and was suspended without pay from the NFL. Vick remains one of the most athletic individuals to ever play the quarterback position, and was able to find work after he got out of jail. He was the backup to Donovan McNabb on the Philadelphia Eagles in 2007, and eventually went on to start once McNabb was traded to the Redskins. He continued to play in the NFL after his stint in Philadelphia ended, playing for the Jets and the Steelers, respectively. Even though Vick was able to revitalize his career to some extent, most people remember the sickening scandal he was a part of. Many can separate on-field productivity with off-field behavior, but Vick never fully escaped the shadow of his past actions.
#13 Donald Trump U.S. President Donald Trump is one of the most bulletproof individuals ever to grace the public eye. No matter what you think of his policies or his individual contribution to this country, you have to, at least, appreciate his ability to roll with the punches. Donald Trump has, and continues to, put his foot in his mouth at nearly every turn. He’s been alleged to have done pretty much everything, but nothing seems to stick to him. Many people thought it would be the end of Trump when the Access Hollywood tape revealed his classic “Grab em by the pu**y” comment, but he went on to win the election. That tape cost Billy Bush his career, but Donald Trump kept chugging along in Bush’s wake. Now that he’s president, the allegations against Trump have become more serious, but he continues to prosper. It’s as if Trump creates his own reality, and in that reality, no one cares what he says or does.
#14 Robert Downey Jr. The way Robert Downey Jr. turned his life and career around after his drug scandal is the mark of a true Hollywood success story. Downey Jr. was one of Hollywood’s top actors in the early part of his career, landing roles in some blockbuster films and making him a household name. Unfortunately, his career took a turn for the worse when he was arrested multiple times for drug possession. He later admitted that he had been addicted to drugs since he was a child, and his addicted father was the first one to introduce him to such substances. In 1996, Downey Jr .was arrested for possession of cocaine and a handgun. While on parole for these charges, he broke into a neighbor’s home under the influence and passed out on their bed. He was sentenced to three years on probation for this, but missed a drug test and was forced to spend six months in jail. Downey Jr. eventually got his act together, and through friendships and his talent, he got his acting career back on track. Now, he’s one of the highest paid actors in Hollywood and has the role of a lifetime in Iron Man.
#15 Chris Brown Chris Brown‘s comeback has to be one of the most impressive turnarounds in entertainment history. Brown was one of the hottest stars on the planet. His music was a commercial success and his acting career was just getting going, but it all crashed down on him one night in 2009. As everyone probably knows, Chris Brown was arrested for the assault of his girlfriend and fellow singer, Rihanna. To make matters worse, the pictures of Rihanna’s face after the attack were sickening. Brown’s music was pulled from many radio stations and he was effectively shunned by many of his fans. Chris Brown persevered after his domestic violence scandal…almost to an alarming degree. Brown released F.A.M.E in 2011, and it was as if he had never been in the middle of such a scandal. Most people remember what happened, but Brown’s abuse has been largely swept under the rug by the entertainment industry.
Source: TheRichest
0 notes
Photo
src
Image Description
Greg Ellis: Plan your flag, buy a Tee. Come join the fight against DV. Instill TheCode. Hashtag Justice for Johnny Depp, hashtag MenToo. *link to his website where he’s selling loosely themed MRA4 POTC merchandise*
Greg Ellis: The badge of honor - up close and personal. For too long, men have been easy targets of false claims of DV. Their liberties removed, their children kidnapped, their families murdered. Let’s galvanize this movement with the most loyal fandom an actor could ever wish for.
#cw domestic violence#tw domestic violence#Greg Ellis#Johnny Rees#tw men's rights activism#tw mra#cw mra#cw men's rights activism#Greg x Johnny Depp#Greg x POTC#Greg x MRA#Greg x DV#Greg x Men Too
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Does Bryan Singer’s Film Bohemian Rhapsody Deserve to Get Awards Love?
The ranks here at FASHION are not filled with men. Shocking, right? But there are one or two (there are actually, literally, two). Naturally, when a question about male/female dynamics arises it’s only fair that one of them stand in for the members of his gender and provide some insight. Our last topic of conversation was about controversial Christmas song “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” and today we’re discussing whether Bryan Singer-directed Bohemian Rhapsody should be snapping up any prizes this awards season. Two of our staffers—from the men’s corner, Greg Hudson, and from the women’s, Pahull Bains—talk it out.
PB: When Bohemian Rhapsody won the Best Picture (Drama) award at the Golden Globes last weekend, in addition to perplexity from critics who had largely panned the film, there was a fair bit of outrage on the internet. Evan Rachel Wood tweeted, “So we just..we are all still supposed to be pretending we don’t know about Bryan Singer? Cause it worked out really well with #Spacey and #Weinstein.” Now, I’m all for men finally getting their comeuppance but I also think it’s unfair that the entire cast and crew of a film be punished for the misdeeds of one person, whose shadiness wasn’t known until the #MeToo Flood of 2017. Or so I thought.
Yes, in 2017 Singer was fired as director of the film partway through shooting for causing “on-set chaos”: showing up late, being unavailable for days at a time, disappearing without the studio’s permission. Just a few days later, it emerged that Singer had been accused of rape by Cesar Sanchez-Guzman, who had been 17 at the time of the assault in 2003. So, I thought to myself, production on this film began before this news came out, so we can’t blame the team for working with him. I’m no fan of the movie, but let them have their moment of glory, thought I, wee innocent one.
As it turns out, allegations against Singer—who has directed films like The Usual Suspects and X-Men: First Class—go way, way back. In December 2017, IndieWire published “The Bryan Singer Timeline: a History of Allegations and Defenses, from Troubled Films to Sexual Assault Claims,” and lets just say it’s not a short list, going as far back as 1994 and ranging from allegations of sexual assault and rape to accusations of filming minor boys naked without their permission.
So, now that we’re caught up on Singer’s problematic history, what does it mean for Bohemian Rhapsody as an awards contender? No one was expecting it to win two big awards at the Globes, which has led understandably to increased scrutiny as we make our way through awards season, with the Critics’ Choice Awards, the SAGs, the BAFTAs, and of course the Oscars ahead of us. Do you think the film’s shot at these shiny statuettes should be diminished because of Singer’s involvement?
FIRST REFORMED, but about Ethan Hawke struggling to find hope in a world where Bohemian Rhapsody is probably gonna be nominated for Best Picture. pic.twitter.com/dI4D7kxfJ7
— david ehrlich (@davidehrlich) January 4, 2019
GH: Before I single-handedly bring down Bryan Singer with my rhetoric and rage, I just want to point a couple of things out that are probably not all that relevant. Why do this? Because I’m a man, and we enjoy talking like experts on subjects we just did some half-assed internet research about.
Point 1: The Golden Globes matter to the Oscar race about as much as the Iowa Caucuses do to the Presidential election. You’ll recall, being the astute political observer that you are, that the Iowa Caucuses happen early in the American election cycle. That’s really the only reason they are covered so closely every four years. Sometimes they are a predictor of who the eventual nominee (and president) will be, but often not. Just ask Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Ted Cruz. And, similarly, the only reason the Golden Globes seem important is that they happen early in award season. But they are judged by such a niche group that their picks can seem downright baffling at times. Remember the 2010 flop The Tourist starring Johnny Depp? That was nominated for best picture at the Golden Globes. Have you ever seen Mozart in the Jungle? No! No one has! And yet, it’s a Golden Globe-winning television show.
So, do I think Bryan Singer’s creepiness will effect Bohemian Rhapsody’s Oscar chances? No. I think the fact that it’s a paint-by-numbers musical biopic will hurt its chances. (Seriously, the movie could have been called Walk Hard 2: This Time the Rockstar is Gay). I mean, Rami Malek and his mouthguard might still get a nod, but if you want a good Oscar predictor, the TIFF People’s Choice selection has a better track record. (So, get ready for a lot of Green Book hot takes!)
Point 2: Though she has already addressed and expressed regret about it—and she did so even before #MeToo made it a thing—Evan Rachel Wood starred in a Woody Allen movie in 2009. As with Singer, the allegations against Allen were pretty well-known even back then, but she still worked with him.
I’m not saying Wood is a hypocrite, or that her outrage is disingenuous. Not at all. I bring it up only to say that Wood clearly understands that sometimes actors work with gross directors, even if they should—or at least realistically could—know better. So maybe cut the cast a break when they celebrate what was clearly a huge surprise.
But 2009 was a very different time. And that’s good! If Bryan Singer never works again, that’s awesome. (Even if he happens to be innocent of all the many, many, many allegations–no one should be able to make the garbage Superman Returns and escape with their career). The real problem that’s complicating how we view Bohemian Rhapsody is that Singer is trying to get attention from it. If he didn’t rear his Botoxed head to claim credit for the Golden Globe, we might all be cool with forgetting he was a part of the film at all. Even if he kept the directing credit.
My question that rises from all of this is: why haven’t there been the public apologies and disavowals from actors who have worked with him in the past, the way there were for Woody Allen? So many of Allen’s former collaborators spoke out about how much they regret working with him, and how they’d never do it again. Actors who didn’t, or who expressed ambivalence toward Allen earned their own blowback. But no one is reaching out to Oscar Isaac or Jennifer Lawrence or, I don’t know, Stephen Baldwin, and asking them how they feel about having worked with an accused sex offender.
My theory: it’s because he, and his alleged victims, are gay. After all, it’s easier to ignore crimes in marginalized communities. Maybe there’s some discomfort because straight folks think they don’t understand gay sexuality in the first place—isn’t that normal for the gays—which, yes, is totally a homophobic holdover from when homosexuality was unfairly associated with pedophilia. And while I tend to think the retroactive shaming of actors is mostly performative, it’s still fucked up that we let Singer be Singer for so long.
PB: Hmm, I don’t know. Kevin Spacey’s accused of similar crimes and he’s been getting plenty of heat. I mean, he’s basically radioactive to anyone in the industry now. (Just for the record, though, Singer is married to a woman with whom he has a child, and has said publicly in interviews that he’s bisexual.)
I think maybe the reason Hollywood was slow to cool on Singer is because some of the allegations against him were dropped. As TIME notes, “he has faced two civil suits alleging sexual assault, one of which was dropped and one of which was dismissed.” In the wake of those lawsuits though, a bunch of stories began coming out about sordid “sex parties” Singer either threw or was present at but nothing was ever conclusively substantiated. A Buzzfeed story from 2014 details how Singer was brought “into regular orbit with 18- to 20-year-olds at parties sustained by large amounts of alcohol and drugs — edging precariously close to the line between legality and illegality,” but most of the sources quoted in the piece are unnamed and Singer wasn’t directly accused of misconduct. I think that sort of gave people the license to pull the whole “but nothing was ever proven” card.
Thanks to this latest lawsuit from 2017, though, which is ongoing, people are being denied an easy out. There is now a young man on the record claiming that he was raped by Singer, so there isn’t really any room for equivocating. Also, like you said, the climate has changed a lot in the past couple of years and stories that have been circulating on the whisper network for decades aren’t quite as easy to ignore anymore.
I know you brought up how Globe results aren’t a good indication of what’s coming down the pike—mainly because there’s no overlap between HFPA voters and Academy voters—but the film is still getting a lot of recognition from prestigious awards bodies. BAFTA noms came out yesterday and Bohemian Rhapsody features prominently on the list. So I’m just wondering—what’s an organization to do? I don’t think the film’s going to snag any more big prizes going forward; the backlash from the Globes has been substantial and other awards bodies probably don’t want to be tainted by a similar response on their big night. (By the way, did you see how poor 15-year-old Elsie Fisher, star of Eighth Grade, was dragged on Twitter for congratulating the team on their win?)
Why is everyone being so mean about this? I’m genuinely sorry if I did something wrong :(
— Elsie Fisher (@ElsieKFisher) January 7, 2019
Anyhow, I think what’s going to end up happening is: Malek’s going to continue getting recognition and maybe even some awards for his work, and the rest of the film is going to be shut out from any major wins. It’s the easiest way for them to award the film without really awarding the film, you know? And I don’t think anyone’s going to begrudge Malek a win. He’s got a ton of goodwill in the industry as well as critical praise for his portrayal of Freddie Mercury.
What I do hope for though—especially because we still have many, many awards shows and appearances ahead of us—is for everyone involved to get together and figure out how they want to address the elephant in the room. At the press conference after their Globes wins, the team flat-out refused to answer journalists’ questions about Singer. “That’s not something we should talk about tonight,” said producer Graham King, while Queen member Brian May quipped, “Good question though.” Malek then stepped up, saying, “I will take this one. There’s only one thing we needed to do, and that was to celebrate Freddie Mercury. Nothing was going to compromise us and giving him the love and celebration he deserves.”
They’re going to have to do a bit better than that. Don’t you think?
GH: It always baffles me when public figures don’t have thoughtful, satisfying answers to obvious questions. What are their publicists doing? Actors might not be the best at answering thorny ethical question on the spot (who is?), but they are pretty great at memorizing a script. Someone write that cast some talking points!
Having said that, I don’t really know what the satisfying answer would be. Because I realized, too, after you challenged my interpretation of the case, another reason why there hasn’t been the same retroactive hand-wringing from actors about having worked with Bryan Singer as there was about Woody Allen: It’s because it’s Bryan Singer. Woody Allen is an auteur—being in one of his films was an honour, a sign that you had arrived, or were at least arriving. Bryan Singer made some crowd-pleasing pictures, but no one is calling him an auteur.
I can’t decide whether that makes crafting an appropriate response easier or more difficult. On the one hand, because “working with Woody Allen” was such a cliche Hollywood status symbol, it was easy to understand when actors worked with him, despite credible allegations. Singer doesn’t have the same reputation. No actress has gushed about being granted the opportunity to be in an X-Men reboot. In that light, working with Singer seems less understandable.
But, that also could make it easier. And this seems to be where the cast is headed: you lean in on the Freddie Mercury Tribute and imply that, in the shadow of such an amazing performer, the director is practically immaterial. Bryan Singer? Who’s Bryan Singer? This was basically directed by the spirit of Freddie Mercury!
Also, lingering in the back of my mind, there’s that nagging concern that being fired or denied work because of an unproven allegation is a little dangerous as a precedent. After all, some of the rumours around Singer aren’t about illegal activity so much as being gross in a decadent, predatory, Hollywood way. Of course, the “nothing has been proven in court” defence is the least satisfying argument.
So maybe honesty would be best. Something that says they understand why people might feel ambivalent about the film, because of the director. That that is something, as a cast, they are dealing with, too. But, while we don’t want to shut down the conversation about how we should feel about problematic artists, the opportunity to celebrate Freddie Mercury is an unalloyed good. Then go on to talk about all the things Mercury did for human rights and the LGBTQ community.
And then just ignore the fact that the movie changes so much of Mercury’s story that it’s questionable whether it celebrates the real Freddie Mercury, or some postmodern, nostalgic construct we call Freddie Mercury.
But hating on Elsie Fisher? Let’s get some perspective people. The Oscars have a way of bringing out the darkness in people. That can be good (holding Casey Affleck to account for bad behaviour) and some can be not so good (rage-tweeting a teenager you don’t know). What should award bodies do to mitigate this? Should they vet nominees? And if so, what behaviour is disqualifying? What’s the statute of limitations? Or do problematic award winners just need to give better answers?
PB: Award bodies haven’t had to deal with a lot of scrutiny until fairly recently, so they’ve been able to skirt some of these issues without really shouldering any blame. Now though, their feet are being held to the fire and it’s not going to be as easy to just sit by and say nothing. It’s tricky; there’s certainly no one-size-fits-all solution but in my opinion, nor should there be. We’re dealing with complex issues here and I think everything needs to be addressed on a case by case basis. I really appreciate the diversity requirements the BAFTAs put in place last year: for the two awards categories specifically for British films (Outstanding British Film and Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer), they’re only accepting films that meet two of the British Film Institute’s quartet of core diversity standards.
But of course, different award bodies have different nomination processes. The Academy, for instance, has over 8000 people who submit their nominees for various categories, which then cycle through some complicated process before the final nominees are selected. Because there are so many people involved, it’s easy to play the avoidance game. Who do you hold accountable? But if the final list of five or ten nominees includes some problematic faves that have been in the news for x or y reason, I think it’s the award body’s duty to call for a meeting of their board to figure out the steps forward. Interestingly, I just Googled “Who is BAFTA president” and it turns out it’s Prince William, since 2010! Obviously he can’t weigh in on this stuff but there are other people who can, namely the VPs for film, television and games (?). The Academy, meanwhile, has a Board of Governors that includes Whoopi Goldberg, Laura Dern and Steven Spielberg.
Whatever these governing bodies decide, it’s something they should be able to defend when asked about it. Because they will be asked about it. Sorry guys, changing the subject isn’t an option anymore.
The post Does Bryan Singer’s Film <em> Bohemian Rhapsody</em> Deserve to Get Awards Love? appeared first on FASHION Magazine.
Does Bryan Singer’s Film Bohemian Rhapsody Deserve to Get Awards Love? published first on https://borboletabags.tumblr.com/
0 notes
Text
Does Bryan Singer’s Film Bohemian Rhapsody Deserve to Get Awards Love?
The ranks here at FASHION are not filled with men. Shocking, right? But there are one or two (there are actually, literally, two). Naturally, when a question about male/female dynamics arises it’s only fair that one of them stand in for the members of his gender and provide some insight. Our last topic of conversation was about controversial Christmas song “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” and today we’re discussing whether Bryan Singer-directed Bohemian Rhapsody should be snapping up any prizes this awards season. Two of our staffers—from the men’s corner, Greg Hudson, and from the women’s, Pahull Bains—talk it out.
PB: When Bohemian Rhapsody won the Best Picture (Drama) award at the Golden Globes last weekend, in addition to perplexity from critics who had largely panned the film, there was a fair bit of outrage on the internet. Evan Rachel Wood tweeted, “So we just..we are all still supposed to be pretending we don’t know about Bryan Singer? Cause it worked out really well with #Spacey and #Weinstein.” Now, I’m all for men finally getting their comeuppance but I also think it’s unfair that the entire cast and crew of a film be punished for the misdeeds of one person, whose shadiness wasn’t known until the #MeToo Flood of 2017. Or so I thought.
Yes, in 2017 Singer was fired as director of the film partway through shooting for causing “on-set chaos”: showing up late, being unavailable for days at a time, disappearing without the studio’s permission. Just a few days later, it emerged that Singer had been accused of rape by Cesar Sanchez-Guzman, who had been 17 at the time of the assault in 2003. So, I thought to myself, production on this film began before this news came out, so we can’t blame the team for working with him. I’m no fan of the movie, but let them have their moment of glory, thought I, wee innocent one.
As it turns out, allegations against Singer—who has directed films like The Usual Suspects and X-Men: First Class—go way, way back. In December 2017, IndieWire published “The Bryan Singer Timeline: a History of Allegations and Defenses, from Troubled Films to Sexual Assault Claims,” and lets just say it’s not a short list, going as far back as 1994 and ranging from allegations of sexual assault and rape to accusations of filming minor boys naked without their permission.
So, now that we’re caught up on Singer’s problematic history, what does it mean for Bohemian Rhapsody as an awards contender? No one was expecting it to win two big awards at the Globes, which has led understandably to increased scrutiny as we make our way through awards season, with the Critics’ Choice Awards, the SAGs, the BAFTAs, and of course the Oscars ahead of us. Do you think the film’s shot at these shiny statuettes should be diminished because of Singer’s involvement?
FIRST REFORMED, but about Ethan Hawke struggling to find hope in a world where Bohemian Rhapsody is probably gonna be nominated for Best Picture. pic.twitter.com/dI4D7kxfJ7
— david ehrlich (@davidehrlich) January 4, 2019
GH: Before I single-handedly bring down Bryan Singer with my rhetoric and rage, I just want to point a couple of things out that are probably not all that relevant. Why do this? Because I’m a man, and we enjoy talking like experts on subjects we just did some half-assed internet research about.
Point 1: The Golden Globes matter to the Oscar race about as much as the Iowa Caucuses do to the Presidential election. You’ll recall, being the astute political observer that you are, that the Iowa Caucuses happen early in the American election cycle. That’s really the only reason they are covered so closely every four years. Sometimes they are a predictor of who the eventual nominee (and president) will be, but often not. Just ask Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Ted Cruz. And, similarly, the only reason the Golden Globes seem important is that they happen early in award season. But they are judged by such a niche group that their picks can seem downright baffling at times. Remember the 2010 flop The Tourist starring Johnny Depp? That was nominated for best picture at the Golden Globes. Have you ever seen Mozart in the Jungle? No! No one has! And yet, it’s a Golden Globe-winning television show.
So, do I think Bryan Singer’s creepiness will effect Bohemian Rhapsody’s Oscar chances? No. I think the fact that it’s a paint-by-numbers musical biopic will hurt its chances. (Seriously, the movie could have been called Walk Hard 2: This Time the Rockstar is Gay). I mean, Rami Malek and his mouthguard might still get a nod, but if you want a good Oscar predictor, the TIFF People’s Choice selection has a better track record. (So, get ready for a lot of Green Book hot takes!)
Point 2: Though she has already addressed and expressed regret about it—and she did so even before #MeToo made it a thing—Evan Rachel Wood starred in a Woody Allen movie in 2009. As with Singer, the allegations against Allen were pretty well-known even back then, but she still worked with him.
I’m not saying Wood is a hypocrite, or that her outrage is disingenuous. Not at all. I bring it up only to say that Wood clearly understands that sometimes actors work with gross directors, even if they should—or at least realistically could—know better. So maybe cut the cast a break when they celebrate what was clearly a huge surprise.
But 2009 was a very different time. And that’s good! If Bryan Singer never works again, that’s awesome. (Even if he happens to be innocent of all the many, many, many allegations–no one should be able to make the garbage Superman Returns and escape with their career). The real problem that’s complicating how we view Bohemian Rhapsody is that Singer is trying to get attention from it. If he didn’t rear his Botoxed head to claim credit for the Golden Globe, we might all be cool with forgetting he was a part of the film at all. Even if he kept the directing credit.
My question that rises from all of this is: why haven’t there been the public apologies and disavowals from actors who have worked with him in the past, the way there were for Woody Allen? So many of Allen’s former collaborators spoke out about how much they regret working with him, and how they’d never do it again. Actors who didn’t, or who expressed ambivalence toward Allen earned their own blowback. But no one is reaching out to Oscar Isaac or Jennifer Lawrence or, I don’t know, Stephen Baldwin, and asking them how they feel about having worked with an accused sex offender.
My theory: it’s because he, and his alleged victims, are gay. After all, it’s easier to ignore crimes in marginalized communities. Maybe there’s some discomfort because straight folks think they don’t understand gay sexuality in the first place—isn’t that normal for the gays—which, yes, is totally a homophobic holdover from when homosexuality was unfairly associated with pedophilia. And while I tend to think the retroactive shaming of actors is mostly performative, it’s still fucked up that we let Singer be Singer for so long.
PB: Hmm, I don’t know. Kevin Spacey’s accused of similar crimes and he’s been getting plenty of heat. I mean, he’s basically radioactive to anyone in the industry now. (Just for the record, though, Singer is married to a woman with whom he has a child, and has said publicly in interviews that he’s bisexual.)
I think maybe the reason Hollywood was slow to cool on Singer is because some of the allegations against him were dropped. As TIME notes, “he has faced two civil suits alleging sexual assault, one of which was dropped and one of which was dismissed.” In the wake of those lawsuits though, a bunch of stories began coming out about sordid “sex parties” Singer either threw or was present at but nothing was ever conclusively substantiated. A Buzzfeed story from 2014 details how Singer was brought “into regular orbit with 18- to 20-year-olds at parties sustained by large amounts of alcohol and drugs — edging precariously close to the line between legality and illegality,” but most of the sources quoted in the piece are unnamed and Singer wasn’t directly accused of misconduct. I think that sort of gave people the license to pull the whole “but nothing was ever proven” card.
Thanks to this latest lawsuit from 2017, though, which is ongoing, people are being denied an easy out. There is now a young man on the record claiming that he was raped by Singer, so there isn’t really any room for equivocating. Also, like you said, the climate has changed a lot in the past couple of years and stories that have been circulating on the whisper network for decades aren’t quite as easy to ignore anymore.
I know you brought up how Globe results aren’t a good indication of what’s coming down the pike—mainly because there’s no overlap between HFPA voters and Academy voters—but the film is still getting a lot of recognition from prestigious awards bodies. BAFTA noms came out yesterday and Bohemian Rhapsody features prominently on the list. So I’m just wondering—what’s an organization to do? I don’t think the film’s going to snag any more big prizes going forward; the backlash from the Globes has been substantial and other awards bodies probably don’t want to be tainted by a similar response on their big night. (By the way, did you see how poor 15-year-old Elsie Fisher, star of Eighth Grade, was dragged on Twitter for congratulating the team on their win?)
Why is everyone being so mean about this? I’m genuinely sorry if I did something wrong :(
— Elsie Fisher (@ElsieKFisher) January 7, 2019
Anyhow, I think what’s going to end up happening is: Malek’s going to continue getting recognition and maybe even some awards for his work, and the rest of the film is going to be shut out from any major wins. It’s the easiest way for them to award the film without really awarding the film, you know? And I don’t think anyone’s going to begrudge Malek a win. He’s got a ton of goodwill in the industry as well as critical praise for his portrayal of Freddie Mercury.
What I do hope for though—especially because we still have many, many awards shows and appearances ahead of us—is for everyone involved to get together and figure out how they want to address the elephant in the room. At the press conference after their Globes wins, the team flat-out refused to answer journalists’ questions about Singer. “That’s not something we should talk about tonight,” said producer Graham King, while Queen member Brian May quipped, “Good question though.” Malek then stepped up, saying, “I will take this one. There’s only one thing we needed to do, and that was to celebrate Freddie Mercury. Nothing was going to compromise us and giving him the love and celebration he deserves.”
They’re going to have to do a bit better than that. Don’t you think?
GH: It always baffles me when public figures don’t have thoughtful, satisfying answers to obvious questions. What are their publicists doing? Actors might not be the best at answering thorny ethical question on the spot (who is?), but they are pretty great at memorizing a script. Someone write that cast some talking points!
Having said that, I don’t really know what the satisfying answer would be. Because I realized, too, after you challenged my interpretation of the case, another reason why there hasn’t been the same retroactive hand-wringing from actors about having worked with Bryan Singer as there was about Woody Allen: It’s because it’s Bryan Singer. Woody Allen is an auteur—being in one of his films was an honour, a sign that you had arrived, or were at least arriving. Bryan Singer made some crowd-pleasing pictures, but no one is calling him an auteur.
I can’t decide whether that makes crafting an appropriate response easier or more difficult. On the one hand, because “working with Woody Allen” was such a cliche Hollywood status symbol, it was easy to understand when actors worked with him, despite credible allegations. Singer doesn’t have the same reputation. No actress has gushed about being granted the opportunity to be in an X-Men reboot. In that light, working with Singer seems less understandable.
But, that also could make it easier. And this seems to be where the cast is headed: you lean in on the Freddie Mercury Tribute and imply that, in the shadow of such an amazing performer, the director is practically immaterial. Bryan Singer? Who’s Bryan Singer? This was basically directed by the spirit of Freddie Mercury!
Also, lingering in the back of my mind, there’s that nagging concern that being fired or denied work because of an unproven allegation is a little dangerous as a precedent. After all, some of the rumours around Singer aren’t about illegal activity so much as being gross in a decadent, predatory, Hollywood way. Of course, the “nothing has been proven in court” defence is the least satisfying argument.
So maybe honesty would be best. Something that says they understand why people might feel ambivalent about the film, because of the director. That that is something, as a cast, they are dealing with, too. But, while we don’t want to shut down the conversation about how we should feel about problematic artists, the opportunity to celebrate Freddie Mercury is an unalloyed good. Then go on to talk about all the things Mercury did for human rights and the LGBTQ community.
And then just ignore the fact that the movie changes so much of Mercury’s story that it’s questionable whether it celebrates the real Freddie Mercury, or some postmodern, nostalgic construct we call Freddie Mercury.
But hating on Elsie Fisher? Let’s get some perspective people. The Oscars have a way of bringing out the darkness in people. That can be good (holding Casey Affleck to account for bad behaviour) and some can be not so good (rage-tweeting a teenager you don’t know). What should award bodies do to mitigate this? Should they vet nominees? And if so, what behaviour is disqualifying? What’s the statute of limitations? Or do problematic award winners just need to give better answers?
PB: Award bodies haven’t had to deal with a lot of scrutiny until fairly recently, so they’ve been able to skirt some of these issues without really shouldering any blame. Now though, their feet are being held to the fire and it’s not going to be as easy to just sit by and say nothing. It’s tricky; there’s certainly no one-size-fits-all solution but in my opinion, nor should there be. We’re dealing with complex issues here and I think everything needs to be addressed on a case by case basis. I really appreciate the diversity requirements the BAFTAs put in place last year: for the two awards categories specifically for British films (Outstanding British Film and Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer), they’re only accepting films that meet two of the British Film Institute’s quartet of core diversity standards.
But of course, different award bodies have different nomination processes. The Academy, for instance, has over 8000 people who submit their nominees for various categories, which then cycle through some complicated process before the final nominees are selected. Because there are so many people involved, it’s easy to play the avoidance game. Who do you hold accountable? But if the final list of five or ten nominees includes some problematic faves that have been in the news for x or y reason, I think it’s the award body’s duty to call for a meeting of their board to figure out the steps forward. Interestingly, I just Googled “Who is BAFTA president” and it turns out it’s Prince William, since 2010! Obviously he can’t weigh in on this stuff but there are other people who can, namely the VPs for film, television and games (?). The Academy, meanwhile, has a Board of Governors that includes Whoopi Goldberg, Laura Dern and Steven Spielberg.
Whatever these governing bodies decide, it’s something they should be able to defend when asked about it. Because they will be asked about it. Sorry guys, changing the subject isn’t an option anymore.
The post Does Bryan Singer’s Film <em> Bohemian Rhapsody</em> Deserve to Get Awards Love? appeared first on FASHION Magazine.
Does Bryan Singer’s Film Bohemian Rhapsody Deserve to Get Awards Love? published first on https://borboletabags.tumblr.com/
0 notes