The Criterion Collection

[peschi]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

Do you really need to respond like a sarcastic prick? Your argument was tenuous, at best, and I already acknowledged that Universal is going to be releasing a new blu-ray in the States, rendering my initial post a moot.

Instead of acting like an ass about it, perhaps you could learn to read, hmm?

no please explain.

[812crew]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

Same.

If we're going to start excluding films, or players from the Hall of Fame (purely as examples) because of some morals clause, we're going to have much smaller pools of movies/players to talk about.

I get it. I was mainly making a comment about American Beauty. It'd be a hard sell right now because the movie is, in large part, about Spacey's sexual infatuation with a minor -- something too close to the truth (It'd be like if Polanski made a movie about an older dude giving a teenager some quaaludes in a hot tub). "American Beauty" would probably not be worth the PR at the moment for a company like Criterion.

And no, I don't think you can wipe horrible behavior off the earth, but I do think each consumer should make a decision on who and what they're comfortable with supporting. As I get older, I do feel certain people should be held accountable for things. If someone's an accused woman-beater, I don't cheer for them as an athlete, and I definitely wouldn't buy their jersey. And if Harvey Weinstein comes back and makes movies, I probably wouldn't pay to go see it, even if it's some Academy-nominated movie. I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting him financially. I'll give people the benefit of the doubt for a while, but if there's overwhelming evidence that they're a complete scumbag criminal, then I'm just not interested in supporting them, regardless if they have worthy teammates or fellow crew members.

[regeyer]

For me, it's much easier to stomach watching a film that's been directed by someone who was later determined to have committed crimes, or acted in ways that are disgraceful, than it is to watch a film starring an actor who was involved in the same activities. That's because the director, while arguably the most important person on the set, is never seen (with the exception of Alfred Hitchcock). But the actor is in our face, and regardless of how well he's acting, he's still there, reminding me of his transgressions each time I look at him. That's the difference. At least it is for me.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by 812crew

Ha. Kevin Spacey playing a creepy perv preying on teens would probably be a hard sell right about now.

While I understand your point, I don't think recent news about Spacey's past transgressions should impact a distributor's plans to release a film, or the movie going public from wanting to buy it, especially a work like American Beauty that came out almost twenty years ago. He's just one guy that worked on the film. Does the whole movie then become somehow "poisoned" by what he did? If so, where, then, do we draw the line? If somebody wrote a book that Orson Welles was a cross-dressing homosexual, would we employ revisionist history, and lower Citizen Kane from the pantheon of greatest American films because he now didn't meet our moral standard? Pandora's Box would irrevocably be opened.

American Beauty's narrative addresses a number of hot topic issues as it is-murder, adultery, homosexuality, quasi-pedophilia (I don't recall if the age of Angela is ever revealed-it's possible she's 18, but more than likely, she is below the legal age of consent). There's also the strained relationship between Ricky Fitts and his father, the hardened Marine Corp Colonel who collects Nazi mementos. I'm sure the Corp loved seeing that portrayal. Why should Spacey's real life sexual transgressions impact this further?

If there's one thing Americans love to do, it's to express their moral outrage. And, quite honestly, it's beyond tiresome. It's not enough, now, that we speak up for causes that affect us directly. We've taken it a step further, emboldening ourselves to pontificate on the behalf of others, as if they were not capable of speaking out for themselves.

[peschi]

I for one cant stand any James Woods film, since his antics on twitter. Wich is really too bad, Videodrome, and for example Contact or few of my favorite movies of all time, and now I just cant stomach them. Just too see his face is enough for me to transport me out of the movie.

[812crew]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

If somebody wrote a book that Orson Welles was a cross-dressing homosexual, would we employ revisionist history, and lower Citizen Kane from the pantheon of greatest American films because he now didn't meet our moral standard?

If there's one thing Americans love to do, it's to express their moral outrage. And, quite honestly, it's beyond tiresome. It's not enough, now, that we speak up for causes that affect us directly. We've taken it a step further, emboldening ourselves to pontificate on the behalf of others, as if they were not capable of speaking out for themselves.

I don't think someone being a "cross-dressing homosexual" would cause much of a stir. My example was of a man being accused of rape and predatory behavior. Those are two completely different things (especially legally speaking). If a company tries to profit off a movie starring a man accused of raping a minor, there will be backlash. That's why I said it's probably not in Criterion's interest at the moment. Ultimately it'd be their choice, but as a company, I doubt they'd wade into those waters. And for good reason. I don't think "it's beyond tiresome". Industries for a long time have protected the predators. And have chosen to not listen to those "capable of speaking out for themselves". We're venturing into a new age where people are looking toward companies to protect certain individuals and to be a little more morally accountable. Personally, I'm glad for that.

[RCRochester]

It just so happens that I watched a movie with Kevin Spacey this past weekend (Superman Returns). I personally had no problem with him being in that film. However, I know that there will be a large section of the population who will forever be put off by any film that he is in, and that is their right and that cannot be helped.

American Beauty if a different ball of wax, however. The movie has Spacey playing a middle aged man who develops a sexual attraction towards a high school aged person and attempts to act upon it. That particular aspect of the film borders enough on real life that it would simply be in extremely poor taste to release and promote a blu-ray of that film at this moment in time.

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

While I understand your point, I don't think recent news about Spacey's past transgressions should impact a distributor's plans to release a film, or the movie going public from wanting to buy it, especially a work like American Beauty that came out almost twenty years ago. He's just one guy that worked on the film. Does the whole movie then become somehow "poisoned" by what he did? If so, where, then, do we draw the line? If somebody wrote a book that Orson Welles was a cross-dressing homosexual, would we employ revisionist history, and lower Citizen Kane from the pantheon of greatest American films because he now didn't meet our moral standard? Pandora's Box would irrevocably be opened.

What a ridiculous comparison to make. Orson Welles being a cross-dressing homosexual would be in no way comparable to a man who is accused of sexual harassment (or worse) towards others, some of whom are vulnerable or underage, so don't even go there.

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

If there's one thing Americans love to do, it's to express their moral outrage. And, quite honestly, it's beyond tiresome. It's not enough, now, that we speak up for causes that affect us directly. We've taken it a step further, emboldening ourselves to pontificate on the behalf of others, as if they were not capable of speaking out for themselves.

Is this point specific to Kevin Spacey or just in general? Because there are a LOT of people who are victims of sexual abuse who are not capable of speaking out for themselves, at least not without suffering further abuse and harassment. It took Anthony Rapp, what, thirty years to gather up the courage to do so?

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by 812crew

We're venturing into a new age where people are looking toward companies to protect certain individuals and to be a little more morally accountable. Personally, I'm glad for that.

We're also in an age where traducing reputations, trashing careers, and contempt for due process are being morally justified in the name of "protecting" individuals.

[Arawn]

A lot of times when people say pedophilia they really mean ephebophilia.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by regeyer

For me, it's much easier to stomach watching a film that's been directed by someone who was later determined to have committed crimes, or acted in ways that are disgraceful, than it is to watch a film starring an actor who was involved in the same activities. That's because the director, while arguably the most important person on the set, is never seen (with the exception of Alfred Hitchcock). But the actor is in our face, and regardless of how well he's acting, he's still there, reminding me of his transgressions each time I look at him. That's the difference. At least it is for me.

I appreciate and respect your position, but I honestly have to say that watching him doesn't make me uncomfortable in the slightest, any more than I'd be thinking to myself, "wow, that Polanski is a scum bag for raping a teenager" while watching one of his films. When I watch a movie, I do it, in part, to escape reality. These are fictional characters, living in fictionalized worlds (save for when a film is an historical drama). They are conduits being used for artistic purposes. I'm judging the work itself, not thinking about the real people behind what I am seeing on screen.

That being said, when a discussion here comes up about Spacey, then I have no issue, whatsoever, with participating.

A myriad of different thoughts pop into my head:

1. Kevin Spacey might be a predator, and the worst kind, at that: one that felt empowered by his own fame. Thus far, the criminal courts have not litigated his case, so this remains to be seen, and I am cautious about labeling him. We cannot rush to judgment until a jury of his peers have had a chance to review any physical evidence, and hear testimony. No matter what Spacey is accused of doing, he is still entitled to due process.

2. Kevin Spacey is a gifted actor, and I'm greatly disappointed that his apparent criminal behavior is going to prohibit his working in the future. I have always enjoyed his acting, and quite selfishly, I feel cheated in a way. I think that's only human, though acknowledging this makes me feel uneasy in light of what these boys went though.

3. I feel terrible for the persons he is accused of raping/molesting (I'm not even sure how to categorize what he is accused of doing because there are some fifteen to twenty accusers that have stepped forward). I feel sick to my stomach just getting the broad brushstrokes, and worse, still, knowing that these men have not only had their lives destroyed-now they're going to have to recount what happened to them in a courtroom full of people. Their pain is going to become public record, and once those details are fully disseminated, they will become lunch room talk, and e-mail fodder. As one who studied law, I understand the adversarial relationship that exists in the courtroom, but I still shudder when thinking about what a plaintiff must go through in order to obtain justice. Defense attorneys will do everything they can to discredit the accusers.

4. Lastly, I can't help but wonder how many more of these cases are out there, just waiting to be made public? There will be more.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by 812crew

I don't think someone being a "cross-dressing homosexual" would cause much of a stir. My example was of a man being accused of rape and predatory behavior. Those are two completely different things (especially legally speaking). If a company tries to profit off a movie starring a man accused of raping a minor, there will be backlash. That's why I said it's probably not in Criterion's interest at the moment. Ultimately it'd be their choice, but as a company, I doubt they'd wade into those waters. And for good reason. I don't think "it's beyond tiresome". Industries for a long time have protected the predators. And have chosen to not listen to those "capable of speaking out for themselves". We're venturing into a new age where people are looking toward companies to protect certain individuals and to be a little more morally accountable. Personally, I'm glad for that.

Oh, absolutely, those two examples are certainly far apart on the "tolerance" scale. And I hope you're right, that there wouldn't be a cacophonous uproar about Welles. I would like to think that we've evolved in our thinking as human beings.

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

I appreciate and respect your position, but I honestly have to say that watching him doesn't make me uncomfortable in the slightest, any more than I'd be thinking to myself, "wow, that Polanski is a scum bag for raping a teenager" while watching one of his films. When I watch a movie, I do it, in part, to escape reality. These are fictional characters, living in fictionalized worlds (save for when a film is an historical drama). They are conduits being used for artistic purposes. I'm judging the work itself, not thinking about the real people behind what I am seeing on screen.

I understand your position, and I wish I was able to stomach certain things. But, for me, I have a hard time separating the actor from the character. I've not watched a Sylvester Stallone film since the accusations about him came out. I know he denies them, but the accuser's story seems credible. I'm not sure what to believe. But each time I go to watch one of his movies, like Rocky, I decide not to. I'll probably end up watching Rocky around Thanksgiving, since this is one of my favorite Thanksgiving films (remember the turkey scene). But it's been an issue for me.

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by regeyer

I've not watched a Sylvester Stallone film since the accusations about him came out. I know he denies them, but the accuser's story seems credible. I'm not sure what to believe.

With the deepest respect, until such time that charges are filed, and accusations proven, why can't you give him the benefit of the doubt? As you might a relative or close friend.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

What a ridiculous comparison to make. Orson Welles being a cross-dressing homosexual would be in no way comparable to a man who is accused of sexual harassment (or worse) towards others, some of whom are vulnerable or underage, so don't even go there.

I wasn't drawing a comparison between Spacey's malfeasance and a hypothetical about Welles' having his reputation sullied decades after the fact, and I am certainly not equating one with the other. The point was, where do we draw the line as a society? What is deemed socially palpable, and what is not? Where does something become offensive to the point where we will no longer watch, study or discuss a work of art? I purposely employed two examples that were far apart.

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Is this point specific to Kevin Spacey or just in general? Because there are a LOT of people who are victims of sexual abuse who are not capable of speaking out for themselves, at least not without suffering further abuse and harassment. It took Anthony Rapp, what, thirty years to gather up the courage to do so?

It was a generalized statement.

I completely agree, there are a lot of people (men and women both) who are victims of sexual abuse, and for one reason or another, they're too embarrassed, afraid, or feel pressured not to come forward. A shocking number of rapes are never reported to the police, and of those reported, the conviction rate is absurdly low. Many women feel shame, or that they somehow encouraged the attack, that they might be somehow responsible for what happened. Others don't want to relive the trauma in front of complete strangers, to have their ordeal rehashed for weeks on end. I'm empathetic to their plight. My last girlfriend was sexually abused by her first husband. There was nothing worse than sleeping next to her, and having her wake up screaming and crying in the middle of the night because she was having a nightmare, reliving what happened. Nothing I could say or do was ever going to make that go away. I felt helpless.

My comment was directed at those people who feel the need to insert themselves into a discussion where it is not warranted. The social media warriors who feel they are experts on everything. They are not being proactive. They are not trying to help the victim(s). They are spouting off, half-cocked, without any facts at their disposal, making assumptions, and, in point of fact, making things worse. Those that have suffered abuse, in any form, should be supported by their loved ones, friends and family. And I do feel that some movements are constructive in encouraging women, especially, to come forward, and face their accusers. We're seeing a shift in Hollywood right now, and I say more power to these women. The Harvey Weinsteins of the world (keeping in mind that, as of yet, he has not been convicted of anything) are everywhere, and they need to be brought to justice. But there are those on social media who exist only to stir the pot. These kinds of people draw my ire.

[812crew]

Originally Posted by regeyer

I understand your position, and I wish I was able to stomach certain things. But, for me, I have a hard time separating the actor from the character. I've not watched a Sylvester Stallone film since the accusations about him came out. I know he denies them, but the accuser's story seems credible. I'm not sure what to believe. But each time I go to watch one of his movies, like Rocky, I decide not to. I'll probably end up watching Rocky around Thanksgiving, since this is one of my favorite Thanksgiving films (remember the turkey scene). But it's been an issue for me.

For me, I think that's totally understandable. It's a judgment call for each consumer. We're all going to bring our own experiences / politics / sensitivities to the subject. Without a trial, you're not asking for Stallone to be sent to prison or blackballed from the industry. You're not calling on others to label him a molester or a rapist. You're doing your best to make your own judgment call, and choosing whether or not you want to support this person. And it might differ from actor to actor. For you, it might be Stallone. For someone else, it might be Woody Allen.

I understand the commenters who are saying we shouldn't pass judgment without a trial. But we're all adult enough to know bad shit happens. A lot. People do horrible things. Others cover up for them. Especially in industries like Hollywood, where so much money is at stake. And if a consumer wants to opt out of a celebrity's career because they're suspicious of them, so be it. Let's not all fool ourselves that a court of law is going to prove the true moral character of a human. Even if a lot of these cases were investigated or taken to court, that doesn't mean justice would ultimately be served. Woody Allen may be in a much different place right now if he had different investigators and judges, or lived in a different time. Maybe not...but it is possible.

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by 812crew

Even if a lot of these cases were investigated or taken to court, that doesn't mean justice would ultimately be served. Woody Allen may be in a much different place right now if he had different investigators and judges, or lived in a different time. Maybe not...but it is possible.

It is also possible that Woody Allen is entirely innocent. And yet he is not afforded that presumption by certain sections of the court of public opinion that want him to be guilty because it supports their agenda.

[812crew]

Originally Posted by Reddington

It is also possible that Woody Allen is entirely innocent. And yet he is not afforded that presumption by certain sections of the court of public opinion that want him to be guilty because it supports their agenda.

I never said he was or wasn't innocent. It's possible he is...and it's possible he isn't. And some investigation or trial might not help answer that question. There have been plenty of people who have committed crimes who were not brought to trial due to shoddy investigating, or who were brought to trial and were eventually acquitted even though they were 100% guilty. All I said was that if, after reading the accusations, a consumer doesn't feel comfortable supporting him and watching one of his movies, I think that's totally understandable.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by regeyer

I understand your position, and I wish I was able to stomach certain things. But, for me, I have a hard time separating the actor from the character. I've not watched a Sylvester Stallone film since the accusations about him came out. I know he denies them, but the accuser's story seems credible. I'm not sure what to believe. But each time I go to watch one of his movies, like Rocky, I decide not to. I'll probably end up watching Rocky around Thanksgiving, since this is one of my favorite Thanksgiving films (remember the turkey scene). But it's been an issue for me.

You're human. I think it's only natural to feel conflicted about things like this, and, quite honestly, if we didn't, then I'd worry. I had to make a decision on how I was going to approach this. Could I watch a film, or listen to a piece of music, knowing that somebody involved did something unspeakable? Can I listen to The Beatles Let It Be album knowing the album's producer, Phil Spector, murdered Lana Clarkson? He wasn't one of the Fab Four, but he shaped the album's sound. His imprint is unmistakable. This is the kind of gray area I was trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to allude to. If an actor commits a heinous crime, does that preclude one from watching a great film he worked in? Macro-societal behavior is infinitely fascinating, to me, and I think relevant here when discussing the silver screen.

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by Reddington

With the deepest respect, until such time that charges are filed, and accusations proven, why can't you give him the benefit of the doubt? As you might a relative or close friend.

I understand where you are coming from, and I'm not saying that your position is unreasonable. I'm talking only about myself, and my own comfort level. I'm not asking anyone to boycott Stallone.

As for waiting to see if he's guilty, well, that's never going to happen. The statute of limitations has already run for any criminal prosecution. So we'll never know the truth.

And I agree that the reporting of these accusations, especially if they are lies, is unfair to the accused. If there is no possibility of prosecution, the police shouldn't even begin an investigation. And, let's face it, it's hard for those who are falsely accused to successfully sue their accuser(s).

Yes, it's a difficult situation all the way around.

As for Criterion, they obviously, as a business, need to take many things into consideration, not least of which would be bad publicity and loss of profit. I think it's a lot easier to release a film that was directed by someone who has been accused, as opposed to a film starring someone who has been accused.

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by 812crew

I never said he was or wasn't innocent. It's possible he is...and it's possible he isn't. And some investigation or trial might not help answer that question. There have been plenty of people who have committed crimes who were not brought to trial due to shoddy investigating, or who were brought to trial and were eventually acquitted even though they were 100% guilty. All I said was that if, after reading the accusations, a consumer doesn't feel comfortable supporting him and watching one of his movies, I think that's totally understandable.

My point is that the legal system is all we have - for better or worse. Allen has a right to the presumption of innocence. And yet many say otherwise, which is a dangerous precedent.

In the UK recently, renowned singer and entertainer Sir Cliff Richard was cleared of all accusations of sexual misconduct (made as it turned out by a known liar and fantasist). But as he said, there will always be people out there who think he "must" have done something wrong, otherwise the accusation would never have been made in the first place.

We are at the point where an accusation is all the proof many people need, which is very troubling.