Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 14:25:41 GMT -5
continued derail/ Here's another fun one on the male side of the "beauty" equation -- the actor who is in "Poldark." Okay, I and a whole heap of other women simply droooooooool over him. But I read an article saying that some on the production side of the program originally balked at casting him because they didn't think he was handsome enough -- they wanted a swoon-worthy hero, and didn't think Aidan Turner was it (he's otherwise known for playing a dwarf in Lord of the Rings-- although IMO he was a pretty hot dwarf). Luckily, others felt strongly that he was perfect for the role, and they carried the day. Brad Pitt he is not, perfect he is not, but swoon-worthy many of us absolutely find him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 17:46:29 GMT -5
A peace offering for Rob (it just came up in my twitter feed--I follow a historical photo account that's featured a lot of Natalie Wood pics lately):
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 12, 2018 8:54:29 GMT -5
It is interesting that you think it entirely reasonable for people to continue to be fascinated by her murder, for filmmakers to continue to sensationalize and depict her fifty years after her death -- and yet not reasonable for her sister to continue to grieve. Nah. Her sister can do as she pleases. What I don't think is reasonable--per the thread title--is calling this particular film tasteless, unless one feels the same way about every film involving historical events and tragic deaths with still-living relatives. Barring that, people who want to avoid these sorts of films--because of personal connections or the like--certainly should avoid them. I mentioned the Bundy movie upthread. That came out in 1986. Bundy was caught in 1975. And the movie portrayed actual events-- quite accurately according to people close to the actual cases--even if it did change some names. Harmon got a Golden Globe nomination for the film. It was very well received, as I recall. And again, other films about Bundy have been made since, as well, depicting his various murders. I don't see why Tate's story--which is a part of Manson's--is somehow special, insofar as depicting it in film crosses some line that other depictions do not cross. Well, filmakers have been profiting off of tragic stories for a long fucking time. And if they meet their legal obligations when dealing with real events, that's all we can ask, right? And maybe I'm wrong, but what I think Tate's sister owns are the rights to her image, i.e. to photos of her and the use of those photos. One can't own the rights to the depiction of a person in a historical context, can one? So again, I don't see the point in her bringing it up. I don't think it's relevant, at all. Sure, it's explanatory: her looks and occupation are a good part of what makes the story worth telling (which is exactly what I already said). But that's about it. Her looks are inconsequential with regard to whether or not the film is "tasteless," imo. The same is true of Bundy's story, btw: good looking guy goes after young women.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 13:37:39 GMT -5
We're never going to come to anything like an agreement on this, and I've given my answer to all of your points. But to sum it up:
I think there is a difference between doing a story about a notorious serial killer and/or his murderous acts (Bundy, Manson) versus a fictionalized film about the life of one of his victims.
I think there is a difference between doing a story about some major tragic/horrible/notable event (the sinking of the Titanic, 9/11) and a fictionalized film about the life of one of the victims.
I think there is a difference between doing a story about a person whose life was very notable and interesting in its own right (e.g., Natalie Wood, JFK), and a fictionalized film about the life of a person who would be obscure if she'd died by slipping in a bathtub.
I think there is a difference between doing a story about a long-ago death when new evidence has arisen (e.g., Natalie Wood) versus a long-ago death that has no new details at all, and is merely a rehash.
I think there is a difference between doing a story about the life of a victim of a crime when that person was the only victim of that crime, rather than singling out one of several victims who died on that same night in the same way by the same killers.
I think there is a difference between doing a fictionalized account of someone who has no living loved ones versus a fictionalized account of someone who does.
I think there is difference between doing a story about the life of a person after consulting with his/her living family members versus letting those living family members read about it in a newspaper.
I think there is a difference between doing an actual, factual documentary about such a person, versus embroidering on it with fanciful invented details.
I think it's tasteless to keep glorifying the Manson murders at every conceivable excuse to make a quick buck, especially given all of the distinctions between this movie -- and, say, Titanic or a Bundy documentary or a story about JFK or a story where they consulted the family -- that I've listed above.
I think there is a difference between trying to censor production of a film and simply saying it is tasteless.
Here, as I have noted, we have a fictionalized story done about a young woman whose accomplishments would not have made her notable 50 years later (come on, really, Valley of the Dolls?) were it not for her murder, who has living close family who were not so much as notified about the project, who was one of several victims murdered the same night in the same way, when no new details whatsoever have surfaced, done solely to make a quick buck by exploiting the victim's blonde prettiness and the public's endless appetite for the gory murder of blonde pretty people.
Which I think is tasteless.
ETA:
The fact that many people might be interested in viewing such a story is irrelevant to whether it is tasteless.
Lots of people will buy Trumpy Bear. It is still tasteless. Lots of people laughed at the fake videos of a golf ball knocking out Hillary Clinton. It was still tasteless. Many would laugh at jokes at Barron Trump's expense -- still tasteless. The Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy is horrifically tasteless. It's made billions for its author.
Alas, more people seem to be interested in tasteless stuff than stuff that is substantive, informative, important, well-executed, etc.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 12, 2018 14:05:18 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 15:20:59 GMT -5
Which...is kinda my point. Again and again, they pull poor Sharon in particular out of her grave. Where is the biopic about Rosemary LaBianca, Steven Parent, or Abigail Folger? What new things have happened to make Sharon newly relevant? Why is she constantly singled out over the other victims, besides the fact she was young, blonde, and gorgeous? And again, the fact that there is a market for such things doesn't make them "tasteful." Again, stories about the murderers, or loosely based on the murders (all of 'em as a group), are not, IMO, the same as a biopic singling out a single victim. See my previous post. ETA: And if you're gonna bring up the Golden Globe nomination as reason to find her especially fascinating after fifty years, I'll just point out (again) that Valley of the Dolls and her performance were mostly panned (ETA: I've added cites below). It is no classic film. Despite her role in it, Sharon was able to go incognito at a Big Sur inn without the other regulars realizing she was even an actress, or anything other than a very pretty woman. If Leno LaBianca, a middle-aged, plump guy, had received a Golden Globe nomination in a campy, forgettable film as a character actor, do you think we'd still be fascinated by him in particular today? Abigail and Steven were both as young and younger than Sharon. Jay Sebring and Abigail were arguably as notable at the time, in their different ways. But no -- always Sharon. Because she is blonde and pretty. This ain't class. This is cynical exploitation of a dead young woman and the public's fascination of gore and pretty blondes. Which, IMO, is none too tasteful. ETA: Valley of the Dolls, her biggest role, got a 31% rating on Rotten Tomatoes: www.rottentomatoes.com/m/valley_of_the_dollsQuote from Roger Ebert's review of the film on Tate's performance: Poor Sharon. To be fair, from all accounts of the film, there wasn't much opportunity for her to show any tremendous acting talent. And she was, by all accounts, a really sweet, kind person. But my point is that it was not her amazing career and talent that makes her get continually singled out to be hauled out of her grave 50 years later. Natalie Wood (of whom I share your admiration, by the way) she was not. ETA: But all that said -- this trailer makes me totally want to rent the movie. Looks like good campy deliciously tasteless fun, fit for MST3K!
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 12, 2018 16:58:32 GMT -5
And again, the fact that there is a market for such things doesn't make them "tasteful." The fact that there is a market for them doesn't make them "tasteless," either. FYI Cass, this was your initial argument: You're a ways from that, now. But okay, you feel the way you feel. And also FYI, I mentioned the Golden Globe nomination just as bit of a counter point to your comments minimizing her fame (I don't think she was uber-famous, to be sure, but neither was she almost a nobody), not as a reason to find her "especially fascinating." You're playing fast and loose with a lot of my comments, from this one, to the idea I didn't think Tate's death was "all that tragic," to assumptions about what I consider to be beautiful, simply because I'm not gah-gah over Tate. And you know, the whole beauty angle--which really wound you up--was a consequence of this one line from me: Question: would you still have lost it if I had put the "that" in italics, because that was the intended sense of the comment (as it was followed by a "Now, Natalie Wood...")? It's like I committed some sort of unforgivable sin in not allowing that Tate was the most beautiful creature to have ever lived. Regardless, I also noted her relationship with Polanski, which is something to consider, as well. Sure, no one knew back then that he'd turn out to be a douche, but everyone knows it now, and it's yet another box to tic off in the "would this subject matter be good for a film."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 17:42:41 GMT -5
I didn't "lose it." I disagreed with you and supported it. What is this, the hysterical female thing? Come on, really, you're going to go there? (For that matter, I was ready to drop the argument and agree to disagree, which is why I posted the Natalie Wood photo with the "peace offering" joke. One of us couldn't drop it...) And I am not, at all, "aways" from the paragraph you quote. It is the same point I've been making all the way through the thread, although of course the thread has evolved and I've elaborated on various reasons Sharon's story isn't like all the other examples you bring up (Bundy, Titanic, etc. etc.). You didn't commit an "unforgivable sin" in not finding "Tate the most beautiful creature to have ever lived," but your comment about how she wasn't all that beautiful was, IMO, silly, petty, unnecessary, and irrelevant, because (as I've said a zillion times) the point isn't your individual opinion or mine, but that most people think and thought that she was stunning -- which is why they still give a damn. (I happen to agree with that general opinion.) (Seriously, what even WAS your point in asserting that you didn't think she was particularly beautiful? Or that her death wasn't "the most tragic thing ever?" Fine, they're your opinion, but what do they have to do with your argument? My point about Sharon's beauty was directly relevant to MY argument. I mean, unless your argument is that she wasn't beautiful enough or her death tragic enough to render the film "tasteless." But I assume that's not the case. Or is it just part of the famed Robeiae "Nothing is ever That Good or That Bad or That Special or That Unusual or That Extraordinary and Pfft, It Happens All the Time and There is Always Blame on Both Sides and The Truth Is Always in the Middle TM" theory of life?)* I don't think the Sharon fascination has much to do with Polanski, frankly, and pretty much none at all with his being a douche. When I see articles about Polanski and his douchehood, they rarely mention Sharon or Manson. Lots of Sharon/Manson murder articles only mention Polanski in passing, if at all. In digging up those Tate pictures and cites, I found myself looking at a lot of Tate-centric and Manson-centric blogs and articles. Polanski is often not mentioned, and when he is, he's generally a footnote not even on a level with poor Rosemary LaBianca. They seem to be seizing on the 50th anniversary of the murders as the excuse for rehashing it, not the #MeToo movement and Polanski's douchehood. *ETA: MASSIVE DERAIL: Heh. This (along with some similar exchanges where I waxed rhapsodic on something and Rob issued a pffft on my enthusiasm) is reminding me somehow of my first trip to Spain, which I took with a couple of friends. I fell in love with Spain immediately -- everything about it: the food, the culture, the architecture, the scenery. (I'm still in love with it, half a dozen trips later.) And I'm an enthusiastic "drink every moment to the dregs" traveler to begin with. (Although I've never traveled with our own maxinquaye , this would probably not surprise him at all, since he's heard me go on and on about things I loved in Sweden.) To add to that, it was the first vacation I'd had in two years, and I was positively giddy to be out of the office. I was, I admit, constantly oohing and aahing and pointing to things I loved and raving about how fabulous things were. I thought everything about Spain was just wonderful. My friends (who worked with me) were of a less enthusiastic temperament generally. I knew this, but never really knew it until that trip. They were also, it turns out, way less enthusiastic about culture, history, and architecture, both were picky eaters, one was vegetarian and annoyed at how many things contained jamon and didn't want me to order roast suckling pig because she didn't want to look at it (pfffffft on that), and both had way less energy than I do. Their theory was "it's my vacation so I want naps and to hang out in the quiet hotel bar and maybe go see a movie". My theory was "it's my vacation so I want to hunt down the out-of-the-way tapas bar, see a flamenco guitar performance, take a side trip to that wonderful castle, and pfft, naps, who the hell wants a nap when there's so much to see and do? I can sleep when I'm dead." They kept saying "Spain is dingy." "why is there ham in everything?" "it's not half as good as France." "I've seen better castles, mountains, food etc. etc." The more I praised things, the more they felt they had to find things to diss. And so it went and worsened, all the way through Madrid, Grenada, Sevilla, etc. (This wasn't a matter, by the way, of their being better traveled than I was and hence more jaded. I'd been to about twice as many places as they had. It was a matter of taste and temperament.) By day four, I found them to be a drag and they found me annoying. (it was never said, but it was clear.) The final straw was that they decided together that we would all spend the last few days of our trip relaxing at a beach resort on the Costa del Sol. I was like "pfft on that" (my theory is that beach resorts are all pretty much alike, and I was there to see Spain). So I ditched them and went north to Segovia and some other places, where I ooohed and aaahhed and went into ecstasies all by myself. And was very, very happy indeed. The funny thing was, they were genuinely upset when I told them I planned to go my own way. Their thought was we came together, we stay together. My thought was, you guys have each other, enjoy the beach, no hard feelings, I have stuff I wanna see and only so much time in life to see it. Anyway. I have a feeling something similar would happen if Rob and I traveled together. Though I suspect we'd have fun over drinks. (I also suspect we'd drive everyone at all the nearby tables insane.)
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 13, 2018 8:36:37 GMT -5
I didn't "lose it." I disagreed with you and supported it. You can disagree with me, but you can't really "support" your disagreement, when we're talking about something as a subjective as beauty. I said this: And in that same post, I still allowed that many people did consider her beautiful, which I also allowed was part of why there was a story here. You say "she's beautiful and that's why people care about the story." I respond with "I don't find her that beautiful, but sure many people do and that's part of the picture." I wasn't being petty. And my differing opinion on her looks--it's not like I said she was unattractive, I said she was very pretty--is every bit as valid as your opinion on her looks, every bit as relevant as your opinion on her looks. You thinks her looks are why people care about the story; I don't disagree, fully, but I do disagree that this matters at all when it comes to the issue of whether or not the film is "tasteless." My point on the first was exactly as it lays out in the thread: I noted it as a prelude to mention Natalie Wood--who is in the news again--because Wood's story has gotten the film treatment. I mentioned the second because many, many stories of real life tragic deaths have been retold in film; as I said, such tragedies happen all the time. The implication is clear (I thought): we can't put the kibosh on portrayals of historical events simply because they're tragic (which I'm not saying you said; I'm just making my own point). Disagree. It's not a question of Polanski being mentioned, it's about their relationship and how that leads to increased attention. But it's not something that can be proven, one way or the other. Regardless, my position on all of this is that this upcoming movie--and others--are not tasteless as a matter of course, simply because of the subject matter or simply because Tate's sister is unhappy. I don't think those are workable or reasonable standards at all. Now, it may very well be the case that I might find aspects of the movie--or even the movie in it's entirety--tasteless, but I'm afraid I'd need to see it (or some of it, at the very least) to pass judgement. You mentioned FSOG upthread. You know, I've never read the book or seen the movie (and probably will never do either). But people whose opinions I respect--that includes you--have come down on it pretty hard. So I'll defer to them on the issue. Maybe they'll tell me what they think of this movie--once it comes out--as well...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 10:27:53 GMT -5
Oh, for pity's sake.
Fine. The eleventy-millionth re-hash looking to pull in a quick buck by (again) singling out the brutal slaughter of the pretty blonde chick from among her fellow victims for a fanciful re-enactment, done without so much as giving a heads-up to her living sister who has, as a result of said slaughter, dedicated her life to being a victim's advocate, is
TOTES TASTEFUL!
Because while whether someone is beautiful is totes subjective, the "tastelessness" or lack thereof of this project is not a matter of opinion.
Hope you're content now. I have work to do.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Feb 13, 2018 12:44:54 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 14:04:57 GMT -5
That cow in the lead role is most certainly not a "he" and most certainly not pissing.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 13, 2018 14:11:51 GMT -5
Why are Mommy and Daddy fighting?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 14:22:15 GMT -5
Why are Mommy and Daddy fighting? We're trying to set an example -- show you kids how it's done. *whacks Rob over head with cast-iron frying pan* *nails him into a barrel (6-inch nails facing inward)* *pushes barrel off cliff* Who's tasteful now, huh?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 13, 2018 17:27:37 GMT -5
|
|