Sign in to follow this  
Erkki

I had a random thought about movies

Recommended Posts

Below the line people have less financial safeguard against not taking jobs, less say in projects they get on, less ability to send any kind of message about toxic people by not working with them. I do not think this absolves someone of any moral responsibility (I have quit a minimum wage job when I found out my boss was a sexual predator and his superior said I was making a big deal out of nothing) but I personally don't feel the need to nor see what is gained by shunning the key grip on Wonder Wheel.

 

Most above the line people (producers, actors, directors, screenwriters) have way more power in these situations*. Directors are absolutely in a position to say "find another stunt coordinator" and to convince any studio that it's also not in their interest to hire Joel Kramer either. It's not like he's being accused of making inappropriate jokes or something that can be rationalized away as no big deal. (Also it's not just Eliza Dushku.) My guess though, is that he's been a high-profile stunt coordinator for huge movies for decades and is 61 years old so he'll probably decide that this is a good time to retire.

 

*A possible exception would be screenwriters who, once selling a script to a studio, often have no power in what happens to the project. If I sold a script to Paramount who then decided the perfect director for it would be Roman Polanski I can protest all I want, but it's now their property. The moral question then would be how much I protest the choice in public, how much I speak out about it, how much I'm willing to risk my career by doing so. I don't think there's any one answer to that but I would hope that, if in that position, I would feel a responsibility to wrestle with it and make some sort of stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I'm not saying "boycott anyone who works with predators, boycott anyone who works with anyone who works with predators" and so on. That wouldn't send any kind of clear message. But Kate Winslet used to be an actor I really liked and respected and now she's worked with both Polanski and Allen in the recent past and my opinion of her has greatly diminished. And now I'm less likely to be enticed to see movies because she's in it. I heard great things about The Dressmaker but thought "Eh, I don't know if I'm into Kate Winslet anymore." It's not a conscious choice, but it happens anyway.

 

On the other hand Tiimothee Chalamet is an actor I only discovered this year and liked alright in both Lady Bird and Call Me By Your Name but I have no strong opinion on. I was curiously optimistic to see where his career went, waiting to form any kind of strong opinion. And now he's going to be the lead in the next Woody Allen movie and I'm already way less excited to see where his career goes. If he's ever to become an actor that draws me to the box office, he now has that to overcome.

 

 Hopefully, if that's true for enough people, there will be a natural chilling effect to working with predators without hardline boycotts cutting across half the industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this list on Letterboxd with 715 films "that Harvey Weinstein produced, distributed, or made cuts to". The author of the list explicitly says it's not meant to be a list of films to boycott, and I think keeping track of so many films to NOT WATCH could be difficult indeed. Maybe there should be a service where you could search for a title and it would tell you the reasons not to watch it... :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I crossed it with my watchlist and these came up... I dunno, it lists non-american films and other films which can't have had anything to do with Weinstein originally (as the purpose of the list is to show the extent of his involvement in cinema, not be a grounds for a boycott). I do wish now that there actually was a list for "Weinstein films to boycott"

 

eeff43bde3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really see the point in boycotting D.W. Griffith. That's a bit like refusing to read Mein Kampf. It's like, yes, I don't want to support Hitler, but I don't think he's getting residuals...

 

Also, it's really a testament to how hard it is to stay up on this stuff that, for instance, Tarantino isn't on the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, agree about Griffith. I personally would also have a really hard time boycotting Hitchcock, being a big fan. He is dead while Tippi Hedren is still alive. There's also a question whether such bad conduct, even if dangerous and potentially illegal, at one point in life should invalidate an entire career. I don't think there are any other allegations against him, but then again how can we know if there was something else or not? I think I'm getting more confused... now I also read that David Bowie had sex with a 14 year old...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2018 at 10:11 AM, jennegatron said:

Personally, I refuse to participate in spending my money in a way that supports men (it's almost always men) who are monsters. I refuse to see Polanski's or Woody Allen's movies, I refuse to listen to R. Kelly's music. I refuse to see movies based off of Orson Scott Card's books knowing that he's a bigot who uses his money to fund anti-LGBT campaigns.

Agreed 100%. That's usually the stance I take on stuff like this. I can't separate the art from the artist because I'll just be looking for the bullshit seething out the sides.

 

Erkki, I definitely think it's easy to write off Polanski because he is a director, or auteur, or whatever, and there's not a huge list of movies to watch. I personally try not do give Disney any of my money (so many reasons if I don't have to) but that's easy for me because I don't care about Disney characters, most of their animated output, dislike Star Wards, dislike superheroes, and generally have a bad time with anything they produce. However it's impossible for me to boycott everything Disney because they have stake in so many things you wouldn't even know, plus I have to give into support the Double Fine remasters of the LucasArts games so they've got me by the balls.

 

But I do get when there's a bit of a moral dilemma it's harder to defend why you are still a fan of the said person's media, especially if you liked it before you "know." But on the other hand I personally don't understand why it wouldn't bother you to mess up your enjoyment of the film, but I also don't understand why these famous actors keep working with directors like this. Like all these prodigious actors don't have to star in a Woody Allen movie but they still do and I don't get it.

I think maybe having the Weinstein involvement with getting a film made doesn't mean a ton, because lets say they weren't the producers, it very possible the film in question would have been made with other producers. If anything a movie would have been better for it because by all accounts of those two awful men, directors hate them and they always interfere and seem to almost try to sabotage the movies they produce and create bad blood. At least those are the stories I've heard with the directors I like. I worry more about people like Tarantino (who I am not really a fan of) who was really chummy with him and seemed to have known about Harvey Weinstein's bad behavior and basically covered their ears and did not speak up for victims. Who knows what other prominent famous pals he had like also turned a blind eye? I can't imagine you see this stuff when you are a Weinstein adversary getting funded by the Weinsteins/Miramax, but when you are a pal surely some alarms should go off.


But since the Weinsteins are done (or at least Harvey) any kind of moral dilemma I could have is too late since all of the films I like with their involvement have already been produced and probably taken my money. Although now that I say this, I wonder do producers get royalties on films they produce or is it the initial return on investment that they just take? I imagine it would be different if Miramax still existed because they were the owners under Disney or however the hell that worked, but then do the Weinsteins still see a dime of Miramax movie rights that have been eaten up by other studios?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2018 at 3:30 PM, Erkki said:

So I crossed it with my watchlist and these came up... I dunno, it lists non-american films and other films which can't have had anything to do with Weinstein originally (as the purpose of the list is to show the extent of his involvement in cinema, not be a grounds for a boycott). I do wish now that there actually was a list for "Weinstein films to boycott"

 

I had to look up what the shit Delicatessen was doing on that list, but I can't figure it out. Miramax originally released Amelie, but if a lot of those films are associated with Weinstein because Miramax had the United States publishing rights, I would doubt they are any movies to avoid since almost all of what Miramax did publish internationally has been sold off. Like I know for instance now Sony has US publishing rights to Trainspotting. Also Miramax handled Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke with rewrites by Neil Gaiman if I remember. And on top of that Jeanne Pierre Jeunet appears to deeply hate the Weinsteins even before all the sexual harassment stuff came up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in the past I have somehow forgotten some of these things. Like I remember reading about Polanski's case in the past, but I don't remember that I had that in mind when I was seeing the films such as Rosemary's Baby, Repulsion and The Tenant, and even a new one Venus in Furs. When I saw Chinatown I think I didn't even know the director. But I've now removed The Pianist from my watchlist. I also recently did see some old Woody Allen movies even in the cinema, but I don't remember if I had already read about the accusiations against him. Anyway I have already decided not to see his latest movies, and it bothers me that they get such wide positive treatment, not only from the persons who work with him, but cinemas and industry, and critics.

 

But I'm not a person who keeps up with celebrity and I don't read the criminal news either. Actually there have been periods when I have not read any news at all and I felt like that was a happier time in some ways. Keeping track of all of this seems to almost require following the news cycle and even tabloid-level stuff, which is not something that I think should be considered a requirement for being a good person. I'm actually planning to get off following the news cycle again, as I'm pretty disappointed in the state of the news media anywhere.

 

On the other hand now that I spent a couple of days thinking about this stuff, I should at least not forget any of it, including Hitchcock's abuse of Tippi Hedren. And these things at least do get covered in pretty big news media sites nowadays, not only tabloids. I don't think I will remember the whole list of 50 "directors that can fuck off" and I haven't read that deeply into each case, but I think in the future I'll just consider these things more than before.

 

For now I've removed any Polanski, Allen and Weinstein movies from my watchlist and removed Pulp Fiction from my list of personal favourites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Erkki said:

Anyway I have already decided not to see his latest movies, and it bothers me that they get such wide positive treatment, not only from the persons who work with him, but cinemas and industry, and critics.

Do you think that critics should say that the movie is bad even if they don't think it's bad, because Allen is a child molester, or do you think that they should spend more time mentioning that he's a child molester in their reviews and less time talking about the movie? I'd be fine with the latter, and I'd feel weird about the former, but the latter still sounds to me like "positive treatment" of his movies (albeit combined with negative treatment of the guy) so I'm not sure if that's something you'd be okay with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TychoCelchuuu said:

Do you think that critics should say that the movie is bad even if they don't think it's bad, because Allen is a child molester, or do you think that they should spend more time mentioning that he's a child molester in their reviews and less time talking about the movie? I'd be fine with the latter, and I'd feel weird about the former, but the latter still sounds to me like "positive treatment" of his movies (albeit combined with negative treatment of the guy) so I'm not sure if that's something you'd be okay with.

I don't know, I think I would rather even see cinemas refusing to show his movies and critics not reviewing them.

 

[edit] But then again... I think an individual can base their decisions without concerning the presumption of innocence. But a business like a cinema could need more than an accusation that was not proved in court, depending on the shareholders etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a commentary on how their lives are stuck in destructive circles. This is the thesis of the movie, John Wayne even says it at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a great cut in Duel where the truck is driving by the main character's car window and Spielberg cuts in the middle to a different angle and the way he messes with time adds an extra 5 to 10 feet to the truck's perceived length. And if you ever watch any Scorsese movies, especially later ones, they're a veritable bonanza of poor continuity. Basically no two shots in the opening of The Departed cut together cleanly. Continuity errors are wonderful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2018 at 8:17 AM, Patrick R said:

And if you ever watch any Scorsese movies, especially later ones, they're a veritable bonanza of poor continuity.

 

I keep going back and forth on whether it's intentional. Like, it just so happens that there's a lot of them when the main character would be dissociated from reality, but am I just not noticing other ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know as a rule that most editors hold continuity at a very low priority, so it might just be a natural result of him allowing actors to try lots of different things on set, perhaps to maintain that kind of energy in the performances? Making sure you take a sip of your drink or hold your arm in the same place every take can be stifling and I know a movie like Wolf of Wall Street had a fair amount of improvisation. But maybe it's intentional too. He's certainly aware of it, at any rate.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a term for when a director/writer inserts a monologue or dialog that has a distinct feeling of the director/writer just wanting to spout some of their personal philosophy at the audience? Might not be the best example but Tarantino seems very guilty of this, the feet conversation in Pulp Fiction and the tipping conversation in Reservoir Dogs come to mind. (Its possible I am just misinterpreting ham handed character building)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Cordeos said:

Is there a term for when a director/writer inserts a monologue or dialog that has a distinct feeling of the director/writer just wanting to spout some of their personal philosophy at the audience? Might not be the best example but Tarantino seems very guilty of this, the feet conversation in Pulp Fiction and the tipping conversation in Reservoir Dogs come to mind. (Its possible I am just misinterpreting ham handed character building)

 

I don't know the term, but I think nowadays I would look down on this. Definitely did not care for it in Reservoir Dogs when I saw it recently. Pulp Fiction was my favourite movie for a while, I wonder if now I would find it rather dumb in some regards. I don't even know why it appealed to my teenage self and so many others - what's so cool about different names for Big Macs or what the main character thinks about how much mayo people in a different country use? It does absolutely nothing for the story, and I'm not sure if it helps build the character at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Self-insert can be a term for the character that's supposed to represent the artist (like main character of most Woody Allen movies), didactic preaching when a character is just saying the thing the writer believes (like a lot of Spike Lee movies) but there's probably not a term for it because it's a presumption on the viewer's part, not a fact like a dissolve or voice-over or something. Also it's probably more common than we think, it's just that people like Spike Lee, Woody Allen and Quentin Tarantino are also celebrities in addition to being screenwriters with unusually distinct voices so it's way more obvious when they do it.

 

Though I'll say I never took Mr. Pink's views on tipping to be Tarantino's. The other characters who do tip make good points about why one should. It's about setting up Mr. Pink as a caustic asshole who isn't afraid to butt heads with the other characters. Could be wrong though, never heard about Tarantino's views on tipping either way.

 

I think Pulp Fiction really holds up. The conversation (which is very long and only briefly about fast food) is about building tension for the upcoming hit (Tarantino's chief trick), setting up characters, setting up Vincent's drug use, building tension for the upcoming date with Mia, establishing minor tensions in Vincent and Jules' relationship to explode later and, most importantly, about establishing the tone, pace and atmosphere of the world. It's about introducing the characters via something innocuous like a story about a vacation before slowly layering in more menace and implications of upcoming violence. "Royale with Cheese" sort of just became the annoying over-quoted bit. Same thing with the Madonna conversation in Reservoir Dogs, except that one's more grating. 

 

It's maybe less interesting now that it's been imitated a billion times but I'd wager no imitator's really come close to the kind of world-building Tarantino's done, to say nothing of the performances he gets out of actors in that movie. With a script that over-written (and REALLY over-quoted) it's a miracle the film still feels so spontaneous. To me it does, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this