Jump to content

Harvey Weinstein and other Hollywood predators


Recommended Posts

I want Louis CK back. He's funny as shit, and so far as being a creepy weirdo goes, he's the thin end of the wedge. What he did was by no means ok, but at the same time I don't think it should be a career killer.

 

I'd be happy for him to give out a few mea culpas, promise to cut the gross shit out, and get back to making with the funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mansizerooster said:

I want Louis CK back. He's funny as shit, and so far as being a creepy weirdo goes, he's the thin end of the wedge. What he did was by no means ok, but at the same time I don't think it should be a career killer.

 

I'd be happy for him to give out a few mea culpas, promise to cut the gross shit out, and get back to making with the funny.

 

He's an unfunny irritating cunt. I hope he never shows his smug git face again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hanzo the Razor said:

 

He's an unfunny irritating cunt. I hope he never shows his smug git face again.

 

His stand-up is the least interesting part of him, and I doubt he'll ever return to it. As a writer and director, he's a genius. His series Louie was a masterpiece.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mansizerooster said:

I want Louis CK back. He's funny as shit, and so far as being a creepy weirdo goes, he's the thin end of the wedge. What he did was by no means ok, but at the same time I don't think it should be a career killer.

 

I'd be happy for him to give out a few mea culpas, promise to cut the gross shit out, and get back to making with the funny.

His whole 'act' is based on being a creepy weirdo, only we now know it's not an act. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone wants to see the most cringeworthy example of a damage control, woe-is-me, blame my mental illness (for which I've been seeking help!), non-apology "apology" so far... well, you're in luck:

  

 

 

Here's a summary:

 

1. "Remember all the good times we had? I remember those fun times, do you?"

2. "I'm still great, I can still make great artwork, and isn't it a shame that this unfortunate business has robbed the world of one more chance for me to prove it?"

 

image.png.6aff596558c0dbb03c97ef4a9d96eeb5.png

 

3. 

image.png.645904da0f6c50f03a7b50cfe53f964d.png

 

 

Robyn Byrd's response thread:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/05/2018 at 21:32, mansizerooster said:

I want Louis CK back. He's funny as shit, and so far as being a creepy weirdo goes, he's the thin end of the wedge. What he did was by no means ok, but at the same time I don't think it should be a career killer.

 

I'd be happy for him to give out a few mea culpas, promise to cut the gross shit out, and get back to making with the funny.

 

I was never a fan, but he had some funny bits.

 

 

 

Not sure how I feel about it all. But he should own his mistakes and earn his redemption,

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/05/2018 at 18:21, Stanley said:

His whole 'act' is based on being a creepy weirdo, only we now know it's not an act. 

 

I saw this clip a few months ago from i think the bacon theater set in 2011 and it seems pretty clear he's being as confessional as ever but in a way that is charismatic and likeable and worded well with no sinister vibe to it. It's so absurd people can't take him seriously sure, but he's clearly drawn to certain subjects over and over, one being the male penis and jerking off. You can see how his mind works. It all becomes irrelevant if he gets a laugh, and since he turned inward with his material and gained success he kept pushing it. 

 

 

I hadn't seen that set, but for anyone who had i can't believe they were shocked by his layest admission. So all his close friends who have seen every comedy set he has done and known him for decades, to profess surprise..ok. 

 

I don't care personally, and i think audiences won't either. His 2017 set has some of the finest material of anyone ever (imo) and people put their enjoyment over being moralistic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that clip above is brilliant and encapsulates why we shouldn't condemn people to an Old Testament non-redemptive black hole when they fuck up. Of course Louis CKs behaviour should be condemned, he should be forced to seek help, and he should stay out of the public sphere until he has done so. But he shouldn't be forced to stop doing what he is good at for ever. I don't want a world where the only people telling jokes are impeccable human beings. I don't think they exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely you can tell the difference between not being 'impeccable' and sexual assault. 

 

Part of redeeming oneself means taking responsibility for what you did and having the decency to respect the lives and careers of those you hurt. Carrying on making a living out of that same kind of exploratory, therapeutic material seems inappropriate and disrespectful to me. 

 

I'm not saying he should forever be condemned to a life of misery, or lock himself in a dark room never to be seen again, but I do think he should seek another job/career out of respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be disrespectful if he just carried on with the same kind of confessional material and made no reference to what he has done. He'd need to do what he's done with every other issues and bring them out in his comedy. I can imagine you now thinking that's the most crass thing ever, but I really think if he is talking about himself, and what drove him to such despicable behaviour, and his battles with his own impulses, he could articulate something respectful to the women he assaulted while also being scouringly honest about himself, and from that, funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So therapy through stand up, making money from being a sexual abuser. No, what he needs to do is get help and focus his attention on getting better. That could take years, decades. 

 

Besides which no promoter or network would touch him. The world will move on and Louis CK will forever be remembered as the sexual abuser with a sideline in comedy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/luc-besson-accused-rape-report-1113429

 

Luc Besson is being accused of rape by a 27-year-old French actress who wishes to remain anonymous. They've known each other for years. I think it allegedly happened Thursday night/Friday morning at a hotel in Paris and she went to the police later Friday morning. She claims to have been drugged and lost consciousness. She woke at some point and he was touching and penetrating her, then left, leaving a wad of cash behind.

 

Besson denies the claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always been amazed that Besson got Leon financed. It’s one of my favourite films of all time - but the directors cut categorically makes Leon a pedo (and basically ruins the film for me).

 

i mean wtf? How on earth did he pitch that one to the suits in Hollywood...  always made me wonder..

 

https://medium.com/@nerdypoc/should-director-luc-bessons-pedophilia-really-be-forgotten-5471a2c7c9d5

 

 

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That Leon stuff is :blink: but where is the evidence of the claim that he is a pedophile? The article is terrible click-bait, it calls him a statutory rapist but then goes on to say that "Oh, but the age of consent is 15 so there's actually no crime committed!" However wrong/unacceptable/inappropriate the author may think that relationship was, it was neither illegal and, even if it was, still wouldn't make him a pedophile. (I assuming he was in France when that relationship was going on, of course.)

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

What is different in the directors cut?

 

the ads on this site are NSFW

https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=1342

 

but IMDB has

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110413/alternateversions

 

Quote

... the the International Cut include:

Mathilda asking Leon to have sex with her and Leon refusing;

Leon explaining why he had to leave Italy and go to New York when he was 19 years old;

Mathilda and Leon sleeping together in a bed;

Mathilda threatening to shoot herself playing Russian roulette.

Leon and Mathilda hitting the home of a tattooed drug dealer, and setting fire to his supply of drugs;

New training missions where Mathilda learns the ropes of becoming an assassin.

Leon and Matilda going to a restaurant to celebrate her first hit

 

I guess?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Camel said:

Does that categorically make him a paedo?  Perhaps it's more obvious when you watch it.

 

"allusions to", seems to be the general consensus. However, a first draft of the script alledgedly had a sex scene...

 

who knows?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Camel said:

Does that categorically make him a paedo?  Perhaps it's more obvious when you watch it.

 

Obviously not, no. I can understand objections to his dating and impregnating a fifteen year old, but as has been said he didn’t break the law. As to the film Leon, I never got the sense that it was some kind of pedo manifesto. Mathilda’s mother was a prostitute, so she’s grown up around that, and probably thinks that’s how best to show gratitude/keep Leon from abandoning her as he’s all she’s got now. Leon never encourages her advances, but he’s too socially awkward to talk to her about it. There’s no doubt they both feel affection for each other, and maybe even love at the end, but for Leon it was more of a father/daughter thing, despite Mathilda’s efforts. 

 

If all anyone gets from watching that film is man+girl+sexualised overtones=pedo then there’s a pretty good chance they’re being disingenuous. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was asking the question about Leon, not Besson.  I don't think I've seen the director's cut and probably won't if what rubberduckers says is true.  Doesn't seem that clear cut though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leon is about a Hitman training a 12 year old how to kill so I think it's supposed to make you feel awkward and question their relationship. It's a pretty fucked up story but I don't think it 'sexualises' Mathilda's character. 

 

Obviously it's easy to take what was going on in Besson' s private life and transfer that onto Leon, but in the end nothing happened between them. It makes you face awkward questions but it's not as though he's pro pedo or anything. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Camel said:

I was asking the question about Leon, not Besson.  I don't think I've seen the director's cut and probably won't if what rubberduckers says is true.  Doesn't seem that clear cut though.

I wouldn’t bother, Camel.

For me the additional scenes didn’t really add anything worthwhile and made the film drag on unnecessarily.

The theatrical cut is much better.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.